## 3 Results
### Characterization of Microcapsules
#### 3.2.2 Encapsulation Efficiency  
Encapsulation efficiency is the main parameter to evaluate the best combination of the three factors to encapsulate TC, namely acidity, emulsifier type, and drying method. The percentage of EE is presented in Table 3. As shown, the SD powders possessed a good encapsulation efficiency of over 94%. This efficiency was slightly higher for lecithin than for pea protein, which could be attributed to the smaller size of lecithin-stabilized emulsions compared to that of emulsions stabilized using pea protein. The SD powders had higher EE% than FD powders. This result could be explained by the good re-dispersibility of particles during spray-drying. In addition, this technique is a quick process and water evaporation happens instantly, which allows for better encapsulation efficiency. There were no significant differences between the EE of SD powders, whatever the used emul \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **D[4,3] (\(\upmu\)m)** & **Dx (10) (\(\upmu\)m)** & **Dx (50) (\(\upmu\)m)** & **Dx (90) (\(\upmu\)m)** & **Span** & **EE\%** & **Water** \\  & & & & & & & **Content \%** \\ \hline L3S & \(8.87\pm 0.94\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(3.14\pm 0.17\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(7.42\pm 0.16\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(16.04\pm 0.73\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(1.73\pm 0.06\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(95.46\pm 0.02\)\({}^{\text{ab}}\) & \(5.02\pm 0.16\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ L7S & \(8.29\pm 0.04\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(3.30\pm 0.01\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(7.31\pm 0.05\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(14.8\pm 0.10\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(1.56\pm 0.004\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(97.28\pm 0.60\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(4.85\pm 0.07\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ P3S & \(8.27\pm 0.03\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(3.11\pm 0.08\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(7.19\pm 0.01\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(15.06\pm 0.008\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(1.66\pm 0.009\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(95.84\pm 1.84\)\({}^{\text{ab}}\) & \(4.84\pm 0.06\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ P7S & \(8.00\pm 0.4\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(3.28\pm 0.01\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(6.98\pm 0.05\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(14.24\pm 0.05\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(1.56\pm 0.004\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(94.16\pm 1.19\)\({}^{\text{ab}}\) & \(4.18\pm 0.09\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ L3L & \(148.21\pm 14.82\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(30.58\pm 2.38\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(106.84\pm 5.51\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(337\pm 4502\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(2.85\pm 0.28\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(51.91\pm 6.85\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(2.29\pm 0.17\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ L7L & \(140.82\pm 11.18\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(252.66\pm 1.69\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(102\pm 4.51\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(321.21\pm 33.07\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(2.89\pm 0.18\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(64.09\pm 6.93\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(2.03\pm 0.01\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ P3L & \(141.12\pm 2.49\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(28.16\pm 0.78\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(111.2\pm 2.49\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(248.25\pm 6.05\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(1.97\pm 0.01\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(84.07\pm 9.12\)\({}^{\text{ab}}\) & \(3.47\pm 0.06\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ P7L & \(147.83\pm 14.07\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(22.80\pm 0.93\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(99.62\pm 3.49\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(354.8\pm 47.74\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(3.32\pm 0.37\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(83.78\pm 13.19\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(3.54\pm 0.31\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Particle size, size distribution, encapsulation efficiency, and water content of microcapsules. For results with the same letter, the difference between the means is not statistically significant. sifier. However, the EEs of FD pea protein emulsions (84.07 and 83.78% at pH 3 and 7, respectively) were higher (\(p<0.05\)) than those of the lecithin-emulsified FD powders (51.91 and 64.09% at pH 3 and 7, respectively). This result indicates that the type of emulsifier did not have significant effect on the EE% of SD powders, while pea protein allowed a better EE% than lecithin for FD powders. These results are in agreement with the research study conducted by [PERSON] et al.