| Literature DB >> 26891323 |
David Castejón1, Pascal Fricke2, María Isabel Cambero3, Antonio Herrera4.
Abstract
In this work, we introduce an NMR-based screening method for the fatty acid composition analysis of edible oils. We describe the evaluation and optimization needed for the automated analysis of vegetable oils by low-field NMR to obtain the fatty acid composition (FAC). To achieve this, two scripts, which automatically analyze and interpret the spectral data, were developed. The objective of this work was to drive forward the automated analysis of the FAC by NMR. Due to the fact that this protocol can be carried out at low field and that the complete process from sample preparation to printing the report only takes about 3 min, this approach is promising to become a fundamental technique for high-throughput screening. To demonstrate the applicability of this method, the fatty acid composition of extra virgin olive oils from various Spanish olive varieties (arbequina, cornicabra, hojiblanca, manzanilla, and picual) was determined by ¹H-NMR spectroscopy according to this protocol.Entities:
Keywords: MestreNova; NMR spectroscopy; TopSpin; automatic analysis; edible oil; fatty acid composition; iodine value
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26891323 PMCID: PMC4772056 DOI: 10.3390/nu8020093
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 2Temperature series of 300 MHz 1H-NMR spectra of soy oil in CDCl3 referenced to internal TMS. The spectra were acquired at 4 different temperatures and the results were overlaid to illustrate the dependence of the water signal chemical shift on the sample temperature.
Figure 11H-NMR spectrum of olive oil with corresponding assignment of the signals of the glycerol unit and the fatty acid chains. The region from 1.03 to 0.82 ppm is shown in an expansion. The figure also shows the structure and nomenclature used for the glycerol moiety and the different fatty acids protons.
Figure 3Result window shown in MestReNova after completing the automatic analysis.
Figure 4Scheme illustrating the general workflow for the automatic edible oil analysis: (1) Performing the (quantitative) NMR experiment itself and recording the FID; (2) Transforming the FID with FT to a spectrum and applying all associated processing steps (apodization, phasing, baseline correction, etc.); (3) Using the processing script to extract the information from the spectra; (4,5) Using the information provided by the processing script for plotting or further analysis, such as statistics; (6) Export the reported values of FAC, IV and F/H ratio to other programs.
Mean values and standard deviations of the fatty acid compositions (%) of the different Spanish extra virgin olive oils (EVOO).
| - | MUFA (%) | PUFA (%) | SFA (%) | IV | F/H | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Sample 1 | 77.58 ± 0.05 | 8.19 ± 0.02 | 14.23 ± 0.03 | 91.91 ± 0.03 | 1.48 ± 0.00 |
| Sample 2 | 77.52 ± 0.10 | 8.25 ± 0.07 | 14.23 ± 0.03 | 92.03 ± 0.02 | 1.48 ± 0.00 | |
| Sample 3 | 77.63 ± 0.05 | 8.26 ± 0.03 | 14.11 ± 0.04 | 92.15 ± 0.08 | 1.47 ± 0.00 | |
| Mean value | 77.58 ± 0.09 | 8.23 ± 0.04 | 14.19 ± 0.06 | 92.03 ± 0.10 | 1.47 ± 0.00 | |
|
| Sample 1 | 85.16 ± 0.21 | 4.05 ± 0.15 | 10.78 ± 0.06 | 89.70 ± 0.06 | 1.47 ± 0.00 |
| Sample 2 | 85.03 ± 0.13 | 4.12 ± 0.10 | 10.86 ± 0.04 | 89.80 ± 0.11 | 1.47 ± 0.00 | |
| Sample 3 | 85.53 ± 0.20 | 3.84 ± 0.15 | 10.63 ± 0.05 | 89.63 ± 0.04 | 1.47 ± 0.00 | |
| Mean value | 85.24 ± 0.27 | 4.00 ± 0.18 | 10.76 ± 0.09 | 89.71 ± 0.10 | 1.47 ± 0.00 | |
|
| Sample 1 | 84.30 ± 0.08 | 6.76 ± 0.03 | 8.94 ± 0.05 | 93.35 ± 0.02 | 1.48 ± 0.00 |
| Sample 2 | 84.06 ± 0.08 | 6.92 ± 0.10 | 9.02 ± 0.05 | 93.20 ± 0.01 | 1.48 ± 0.00 | |
| Sample 3 | 84.25 ± 0.10 | 6.90 ± 0.07 | 8.85 ± 0.04 | 93.16 ± 0.03 | 1.47 ± 0.00 | |
| Mean value | 84.20 ± 0.10 | 6.86 ± 0.08 | 8.94 ± 0.05 | 93.24 ± 0.08 | 1.48 ± 0.00 | |
|
| Sample 1 | 82.76 ± 0.08 | 3.13 ± 0.03 | 14.11 ± 0.06 | 85.88 ± 0.08 | 1.47 ± 0.00 |
| Sample 2 | 82.28 ± 0.13 | 3.39 ± 0.12 | 14.33 ± 0.06 | 86.16 ± 0.10 | 1.47 ± 0.00 | |
| Sample 3 | 82.55 ± 0.09 | 3.22 ± 0.08 | 14.23 ± 0.01 | 86.05 ± 0.02 | 1.47 ± 0.00 | |
| Mean value | 82.53 ± 0.11 | 3.25 ± 0.09 | 14.22 ± 0.06 | 86.03 ± 0.12 | 1.47 ± 0.00 | |
|
| Sample 1 | 85.13 ± 0.13 | 2.45 ± 0.10 | 12.42 ± 0.04 | 89.42 ± 0.05 | 1.48 ± 0.00 |
| Sample 2 | 85.07 ± 0.04 | 2.50 ± 0.05 | 12.43 ± 0.01 | 89.37 ± 0.04 | 1.48 ± 0.00 | |
| Sample 3 | 85.04 ± 0.06 | 2.52 ± 0.05 | 12.43 ± 0.00 | 89.51 ± 0.04 | 1.48 ± 0.00 | |
| Mean value | 85.08 ± 0.08 | 2.49 ± 0.07 | 12.43 ± 0.02 | 89.43 ± 0.07 | 1.48 ± 0.00 | |
MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acids; SFA: saturated fatty acids; IV: iodine value; F/H: signal F/signal H ratio.