| Literature DB >> 30764555 |
Francesca Blasi1, Luna Pollini, Lina Cossignani.
Abstract
In recent years, there is an increasing interest in high-quality extra virgin olive oils (EVOOs) produced from local cultivars. They have particular chemical/organoleptic characteristics and are frequently subjected to fraud, whereby the control of quality requires a powerful varietal check. In the present research, triacylglycerols (TAGs) and volatiles have been studied as chemical markers for the authentication of EVOO samples from four Italian varieties of Olea europea (Dolce Agogia, Frantoio, Leccino, and Moraiolo). The monocultivar EVOO samples have been subjected to a chemical⁻enzymatic chromatographic method in order to perform a stereospecific analysis, an important procedure for the characterization of TAG of food products. The results, combined with chemometric analysis (linear discriminant analysis, LDA), were elaborated in order to classify Italian EVOO monocultivar samples. In accordance with the total and intrapositional fatty acid (FA) composition of TAG fraction, the results were allowed to carry out a varietal discrimination. In addition, volatile compounds were also determined by solid-phase micro-extraction gas chromatography⁻mass spectrometry analysis. All EVOO samples were correctly classified when TAG stereospecific data and volatile results were elaborated by the LDA procedure, even if volatile compounds showed a higher discriminant power.Entities:
Keywords: authenticity; chemometrics; cultivars; olive oil; quality; triacylglycerols; volatiles
Year: 2019 PMID: 30764555 PMCID: PMC6406773 DOI: 10.3390/foods8020058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Total fatty acid (FA) percent composition of triacylglycerol (TAG) fraction of monovarietal extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) samples (% mol, mean values ± SD, n = 3).
| FA | TAG | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dolce Agogia | Frantoio | Leccino | Moraiolo | |
| C16:0 | 12.3 ± 0.6 | 12.4 ± 0.8 | 13.2 ± 0.2 | 13.1 ± 0.8 |
| C16:1 ( | 0.9 ± 0.0 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.0 |
| C18:0 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 1.9 ± 0.5 | 1.8 ± 0.2 |
| C18:1 ( | 78.0 ± 1.9 | 77.2 ± 2.0 | 76.2 ± 2.2 | 76.5 ± 2.0 |
| C18:2 | 6.0 ± 0.7 | 7.1 ± 0.9 | 7.0 ± 0.8 | 6.9 ± 1.1 |
| C18:3 | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.2 |
Intrapositional FA percent composition of TAG fraction of monovarietal EVOO samples (% mol, mean values ± SD, n = 3).
| FA | Dolce Agogia | Frantoio | Leccino | Moraiolo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C16:0 | 15.4 ± 1.9 | 18.6 ± 1.7 | 17.5 ± 1.2 | 17.6 ± 1.6 |
| C16:1 ( | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.2 |
| C18:0 | 3.2 ± 0.5 | 2.8 ± 0.6 | 3.3 ± 0.7 | 3.0 ± 0.6 |
| C18:1 ( | 73.1 ± 2.9 | 69.2 ± 2.9 | 69.4 ± 2.9 | 70.0 ± 2.4 |
| C18:2 | 6.7 ± 0.6 | 7.7 ± 0.7 | 8.0 ± 0.5 | 7.8 ± 0.7 |
| C18:3 | 0.5 ± 0.0 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 0.6 ± 0.1 |
| C16:0 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 |
| C16:1 ( | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.1 |
| C18:0 | - | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | - |
| C18:1 ( | 89.1 ± 2.3 | 87.2 ± 2.1 | 86.8 ± 2.4 | 87.8 ± 1.9 |
| C18:2 | 8.9 ± 1.5 | 10.5 ± 1.8 | 10.8 ± 2.0 | 10.0 ± 1.6 |
| C18:3 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.0 | 0.9 ± 0.1 |
| C16:0 | 21.2 ± 2.6 | 17.9 ± 3.0 | 21.7 ± 1.1 | 20.7 ± 2.5 |
| C16:1 ( | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 0.9 ± 0.2 |
| C18:0 | 3.1 ± 0.8 | 2.9 ± 1.3 | 2.8 ± 1.8 | 3.0 ± 0.7 |
| C18:1 ( | 71.8 ± 3.1 | 74.9 ± 4.8 | 71.9 ± 2.4 | 71.5 ± 2.7 |
| C18:2 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 3.2 ± 0.7 | 2.3 ± 1.0 | 3.0 ± 1.0 |
| C18:3 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.5 |
-, not detected.
Figure 1High-resolution gas chromatography mass-spectrometry (HRGC-MS) profile of volatile fraction of a monovarietal EVOO (Dolce Agogia) sample. Peak numbers correspond to the compounds listed in Table 3.
Volatile composition of monovarietal EVOO samples (% areas, mean values ± SD, n = 3).
| Number | Compound | Dolce Agogia | Frantoio | Leccino | Moraiolo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ethanol | 0.43 ± 0.03 | 0.61 ± 0.04 | 0.98 ± 0.28 | 4.35 ± 0.45 |
| 2 | pentanal | 0.90 ± 0.14 | 0.68 ± 0.05 | 0.85 ± 0.14 | 2.75 ± 0.45 |
| 3 | 0.81 ± 0.06 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | - | 0.98 ± 0.11 | |
| 4 | 3-ethyl-1,5-octadiene | 0.81 ± 0.07 | 2.17 ± 0.21 | 4.02 ± 0.45 | 1.92 ± 0.28 |
| 5 | 1-penten-3-one | 2.18 ± 0.15 | 5.33 ± 0.27 | 4.01 ± 0.45 | 2.74 ± 0.45 |
| 6 | decadiene | 0.53 ± 0.03 | 1.09 ± 0.15 | 0.92 ± 0.16 | 1.07 ± 0.12 |
| 7 | hexanal | 3.01 ± 0.04 | 4.82 ± 0.30 | 3.74 ± 0.12 | 4.55 ± 0.37 |
| 8 | 0.30 ± 0.03 | 0.37 ± 0.04 | 0.31 ± 0.03 | 0.57 ± 0.09 | |
| 9 | 0.71 ± 0.02 | 0.68 ± 0.11 | 0.80 ± 0.07 | 0.78 ± 0.12 | |
| 10 | 74.45 ± 1.31 | 79.47 ± 1.52 | 75.74 ± 1.35 | 66.07 ± 1.48 | |
| 11 | 0.40 ± 0.03 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | - | 0.10 ± 0.05 | |
| 12 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.34 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 1.10 ± 0.02 | |
| 13 | 1.02 ± 0.03 | 1.84 ± 0.04 | 1.07 ± 0.06 | 1.19 ± 0.08 | |
| 14 | 2-heptenal | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.20 ± 0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.25 ± 0.03 |
| 15 | 1-hexanol | 3.69 ± 0.07 | 0.86 ± 0.05 | 2.45 ± 0.32 | 4.58 ± 0.22 |
| 16 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 0.23 ± 0.00 | |
| 17 | 0.79 ± 0.02 | 0.98 ± 0.05 | 1.32 ± 0.72 | 1.54 ± 0.43 | |
| 18 | 9.05 ± 0.01 | 1.48 ± 0.16 | 3.69 ± 0.68 | 11.98 ± 0.87 | |
| 19 | 2,4-hexadienal | 1.89 ± 0.09 | 0.34 ± 0.50 | 1.68 ± 0.97 | 0.35 ± 0.49 |
-, not detected.
Fisher’s linear discriminant functions and functions at group centroids obtained from LDA analysis using FA or volatiles percent compositions of monovarietal EVOO samples.
| Function | FA | Volatiles | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Eigenvalue | 13.773 | 9.214 | 2.120 | 22302.442 | 435.448 | 59.557 |
| % of variance | 54.8 | 36.7 | 8.4 | 97.8 | 1.9 | 0.3 |
| Cumulative (%) | 54.8 | 91.5 | 100 | 97.8 | 99.7 | 100.0 |
| Canonical correlation | 0.965 | 0.950 | 0.824 | 1.000 | 0.999 | 0.992 |
| Test of function | 1–3 | 2–3 | 3 | 1–3 | 2–3 | 3 |
| Wilk’s lambda | 0.002 | 0.031 | 0.0320 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.017 |
| Chi-square | 46.159 | 25.963 | 8.535 | 80.779 | 40.729 | 16.414 |
| df | 33 | 20 | 9 | 18 | 10 | 4 |
| Signif. | 0.064 | 0.167 | 0.481 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients obtained from LDA analysis using total and positional TAG acidic compositions of monovarietal EVOO samples.
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| |
| C16:0t | 7.80845 | 2.462617339 | 1.78735183 |
| C16:1t | −5.0273175 | 2.482626305 | 1.12018377 |
| C18:0t | 2.9099661 | 1.892928834 | 0.80540848 |
| C18:1t | 16.271798 | 8.045815225 | 4.48269249 |
| C18:2t | 13.561999 | 12.83014703 | 9.61389748 |
| C18:3t | −0.4295152 | 0.498737036 | 1.051572 |
| C16:1 | 2.2615419 | −0.769331234 | −1.38994605 |
| C18:2 | −1.4760586 | -1.070614593 | −1.77232348 |
| C18:3 | −0.1162137 | −2.22366257 | 0.19232926 |
| C18:1 | 0.1016169 | 9.43991337 | 5.33667001 |
| C18:3 | 0.2085916 | −1.495984501 | 0.82082452 |
|
|
|
|
|
| ethanol | 23.335 | −1.046 | −0.192 |
| pentanal | −1.182 | 1.107 | 0.918 |
| 0.741 | 1.864 | 0.847 | |
| 3-ethyl-1,5-octadien | −18.622 | −0.787 | −1.674 |
| 1-penten-3-one | 10.969 | −0.711 | 1.736 |
| 0.404 | 1.228 | −1.263 | |
t, total FA% content in TAG fraction; sn-1, FA percent content in sn-1 position of TAG fraction; sn-2, FA percent content in sn-2 position of TAG fraction.
Figure 2Discriminant function plot of the first two functions obtained using total and intrapositional FA percent composition of monovarietal EVOO samples (DA, Dolce Agogia; FR, Frantoio; LE, Leccino; MO, Moraiolo).
Figure 3Discriminant function plot of the first two functions obtained using volatile percent composition of monovarietal EVOO samples (DA, Dolce Agogia; FR, Frantoio; LE, Leccino; MO, Moraiolo).