Besides their best-known uses in the food and fermentation industry, yeasts have also found application as microcapsules. In the encapsulation process, exogenous and most typically hydrophobic compounds diffuse and end up being passively entrapped in the cell body, and can be released upon application of appropriate stimuli. Yeast cells can be employed either living or dead, intact, permeabilized, or even emptied of all their original cytoplasmic contents. The main selling points of this set of encapsulation technologies, which to date has predominantly targeted food and—to a lesser extent—pharmaceutical applications, are the low cost, biodegradability and biocompatibility of the capsules, coupled to their sustainable origin (e.g., spent yeast from brewing). This review aims to provide a broad overview of the different kinds of yeast-based microcapsules and of the main physico-chemical characteristics that control the encapsulation process and its efficiency.

Most hydrophobes easily diffuse into yeast cells, where they experience reduced evaporation and protection from oxidation, thus allowing inherently biocompatible encapsulation processes. Despite a long-standing industrial interest, the effect of parameters such as how is yeast pre-treated (extraction with ethanol, plasmolysis with hypertonic NaCl, depletion to cell walls), the polarity of the hydrophobes and the process conditions are still not fully understood. Here, we have developed thorough analytical protocols to assess how the effects of the above on S. cerevisiae’s morphology, permeability, and encapsulation efficiency, using three differently polar hydrophobes (linalool, 1,6-dihydrocarvone, limonene) and three separate processes (hydrophobes as pure ‘oils’, water dispersions, or acetone solutions). The harsher the pre-treatment (depleted > plasmolyzed/extracted > untreated cells), the easier the diffusion into yeast became, and the lower both encapsulation efficiency and protection from evaporation, possibly due to denaturation/removal of lipid-associated (membrane) proteins. More hydrophobic terpenes performed worst in encapsulation as pure ‘oils’ or in water dispersion, but much less of a difference existed in acetone. This indicates the specific advantage of solvents/dispersants for ‘difficult’ compounds, which was confirmed by principal component analysis; furthering this concept, we have used combinations of hydrophobes (e.g., linalool and α-tocopherol), with one acting as solvent/enhancer for the other. Our results thus indicate advantages in using untreated yeast and—if necessary—processes based on solvents/secondary hydrophobes.