| Literature DB >> 34885769 |
Roshina Rabail1, Muhammad Asim Shabbir1, Amna Sahar1,2, Antoni Miecznikowski3, Marek Kieliszek4, Rana Muhammad Aadil1.
Abstract
Vegetable oils (VOs), being our major dietary fat source, play a vital role in nourishment. Different VOs have highly contrasting fatty acid (FA) profiles and hence possess varying levels of health protectiveness. Consumption of a single VO cannot meet the recommended allowances of various FA either from saturated FA (SFA), monounsaturated FA (MUFA), polyunsaturated FA (PUFA), Ω-3 PUFAs, and medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs). Coconut oil (CO), flaxseed oil (FO), olive oil (OO), and sunflower oil (SFO) are among the top listed contrast VOs that are highly appreciated based on their rich contents of SFAs, Ω-3 PUFAs, MUFAs, and Ω-6 PUFA, respectively. Besides being protective against various disease biomarkers, these contrasting VOs are still inappropriate when consumed alone in 100% of daily fat recommendations. This review compiles the available data on blending of such contrasting VOs into single tailored blended oil (BO) with suitable FA composition to meet the recommended levels of SFA, MUFA, PUFA, MCTs, and Ω-3 to Ω-6 PUFA ratios which could ultimately serve as a cost-effective dietary intervention towards the health protectiveness and improvement of the whole population in general. The blending of any two or more VOs from CO, FO, OO, and SFO in the form of binary, ternary, or another type of blending was found to be very conclusive towards balancing FA composition; enhancing physiochemical and stability properties; and promising the therapeutic protectiveness of the resultant BOs.Entities:
Keywords: blending vegetable oil; coconut oil blends; flaxseed oil blends; olive oil blends; sunflower oil blends
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34885769 PMCID: PMC8659046 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26237187
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Selected vegetable oils with contrasting fatty acid profiles.
Nutritional and physiochemical profile of selected oils (coconut oil, flaxseed oil, olive oil, sunflower oil) (a: [21]; b: [30]; c: [31]; d: [32]; e: [24]; f: [20]; g: [33]; h: [34]; i: [35]; j: [36]; k: [37]; l: [38]; m: [39]; n: [40]; o: [41]).
| Oil | FA Profile | Bioactive Components | Oxidative Stability | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFA | MUFA | PUFA | Acid Value | Peroxide Value | TBA Value | FFA | |||||
| FA | % | FA | % | FA | % | ||||||
|
| C8:0 (Caprylic) | 5.85 a, 10.4 b, 2.76 c, 7.39 k | C16:1 (Palmitoleic) | - | C18:2n6c (Linoleic) | 2.54 a, 2.9 b, 1.90 c, 1.16 k | Phenolic compounds = 132.15 mg/g; | 0.40 a, 0.24 i, 0.48 j, 0.24 j | 0.61 a, 8.8 j | - | - |
| C10:0 (Capric) | 4.86 a, 5.7 b, 5.18 c, 6.02 k | C18:1n9c (Oleic) | 8.11 a, 6.5 b, 7.24 c, 5.54 k | ||||||||
| C12:0 (Lauric) | 47.97 a. 46.b, 49.57 c, 49.61 k | ||||||||||
| C14:0 (Myristic) | 19.35 a, 18.9 b,21.12 c, 18.44 k | C20:1n9 (Eicosenoic) | - | C18:3n3c (Linolenic) | - | ||||||
| C16:0 (Palmitic) | 8.80 a, 8.6 b, 9.26 c, 8.44 k | ||||||||||
| C18:0 (Stearic) | 2.97 a, 2.9 bk | C22:1n9 (Eruic) | - | ||||||||
| C20:0 (Arachidic) | - | ||||||||||
| C22:0 (Behenic) | - | C24:1 | - | C20:2 | - | ||||||
| C24:0 (Lignoceric) | - | ||||||||||
| TSFA | 90.84 a, 93.30 k | TMUFA | 7.24 a, 5.54 k | TPUFA | 1.90 a, 1.16 k | ||||||
| SFA: | 35.1:3.1:1 a | ||||||||||
| Ω-6/Ω-3 | - | ||||||||||
|
| C8:0 (Caprylic) | - | C16:1 (Palmitoleic) | 0.03 a, | C18:2n6c (Linoleic) | 13.36 a, 14 b, 14.31 d, 12.90 f, 16.60 k | α-Tocopherol = 29 mg/100 g moil g, | 1.07 a, 0.80 j, 0.40 j | 1.40 a, 8.5 meq/kg j | - | - |
| C10:0 (Capric) | - | C18:1n9c (Oleic) | 19.29 a, 25 b, 17.30 d, 20.3 f, 18.20 k | ||||||||
| C12:0 (Lauric) | 2.13 a | ||||||||||
| C14:0 (Myristic) | 0.99 a, 0.03 b | C20:1n9 (Eicosenoic) | 0.12 k | ||||||||
| C16:0 (Palmitic) | 5.79 a, 6.5 b, 6.7 f, 4.54 k | ||||||||||
| C18:0 (Stearic) | 4.69 a, 6.2 b, 2.5 f, 3.32 k | C22:1n9 (Eruic) | - | C18:3n3c (Linolenic) | 51.95 a, 46.5 b, 57.26 d, 57.1 f, 56.66 k | ||||||
| C20:0 (Arachidic) | 0.21 a, 0.2 f, 0.12 k | ||||||||||
| C22:0 (Behenic) | 1.56 a, 0.11 k | C24:1 | - | C20:2 | - | ||||||
| C24:0 (Lignoceric) | - | ||||||||||
| TSFA | 15.37 a, 10.24 d, 9.43 f, 8.23 k | TMUFA | 19.29 a, 20.3 f, 18.32 k | TPUFA | 65.31 a, 70 f, 73.45 k | ||||||
| SFA: | 1:1.2:4.3 a | ||||||||||
| Ω-6/Ω-3 | 0.30 k | ||||||||||
|
| C8:0 (Caprylic) | C16:1 (Palmitoleic) | 1.11 a, 0.1 b, 3 f, 0.12 g, 0.87 k | C18:2n6c (Linoleic) | 9.59 a, 4.8 b, 7.12 d, 11.4 f, 15.26 g, 7.79 k | Vitamin E = 4.40 mg l, | 0.49 a | 0.81 a, 17.9 m | - | 0.42 g, 0.3% m | |
| C10:0 (Capric) | - | C18:1n9c (Oleic) | 71.15 a, 75.7 b, 72.06 c, 69.1 f, 56.74 g, 75.31 k | ||||||||
| C12:0 (Lauric) | - | ||||||||||
| C14:0 (Myristic) | 0.10 g | C20:1n9 (Eicosenoic) | 0.21 gk | ||||||||
| C16:0 (Palmitic) | 14.06 a, 11 b, 13.2 f, 17.74 g, 11.55 k | ||||||||||
| C18:0 (Stearic) | 3.02 a, 4.3 b, 4 f, 2.71 g, 2.98 k | C22:1n9 (Eruic) | - | C18:3n3c (Linolenic) | 0.99 a, 0.3 b, 0.59 d, 1.2 f, 0.77 g, 0.72 k | ||||||
| C20:0 (Arachidic) | 0.6 f, 0.44 g, 0.37 k | ||||||||||
| C22:0 (Behenic) | 0.11 g, 0.10 k | C24:1 | - | C20:2 | - | ||||||
| C24:0 (Lignoceric) | 0.5 f, 0.12 g | ||||||||||
| TSFA | 17.08 a, 15.53 d, 18.9 f, 21.33 g, 15.05 k | TMUFA | 72.26 a, 72.03 f, 62.64 g, 76.44 k | TPUFA | 10.58 a, 12.6 f, 16.03 g, 8.51 k | ||||||
| SFA: | 1.6:6.8:1 a | ||||||||||
| Ω-6/Ω-3 | 19.81 g, 10.95 k | ||||||||||
|
| C8:0 (Caprylic) | - | C16:1 (Palmitoleic) | 0.09 e, 0.14 g, | C18:2n6c (Linoleic) | 62.67 a, 64.1 b, 54.17 c, 62.58 d, 64.95 e, 65.76 g, 62.97 k | α-Tocopherol = 47 mg/100 gmoil g, | 1.06 a, 0 h, 0.51 i, 0.48 j, 0.24 j | 1.02 a, 0.0823 h, 8 meq/kg j | 0.0573 h | 1.70 g |
| C10:0 (Capric) | - | C18:1n9c (Oleic) | 26.21 ab, 24.77 c, 24.61 d, 23.41 e, 19.93 g, 26.28 k | C18:3n3c (Linolenic) | 0.29 a, 0.79 b, 5.16 c, 0.09 d, 0.10 e, 0.11 g, 0.38 k | ||||||
| C12:0 (Lauric) | - | ||||||||||
| C14:0 (Myristic) | 0.12 g, 0.07 e | C20:1n9 (Eicosenoic) | 0.10 e, 0.36 g, 0.15 k | C20:2 | - | ||||||
| C16:0 (Palmitic) | 6.97 a, 5.5 b, 6.43 c, 6.16 e, 9.43 g, 5.83 k | C22:1n9 (Eruic) | - | ||||||||
| C18:0 (Stearic) | 3.28 a, 4.2 b, 3.69 c, 4.29 e, 4.68 g, 3.24 k | C24:1 | - | ||||||||
| C20:0 (Arachidic) | 0.57 a, 0.32 c, 0.27 e, 0.28 g, 0.21 k | ||||||||||
| C22:0 (Behenic) | 0.51 e, 0.79 g, 0.59 k | ||||||||||
| C24:0 (Lignoceric) | 0.21 g, 0.19 k | ||||||||||
| TSFA | 10.82 a, 15.90 b, 11.34 d, 12.93 g, 10.16 k | TMUFA | 26.21 a, 24.77 b, 21.20 g, 26.50 k | TPUFA | 62.96 a, 59.33 b, 65.87 g, 63.34 k | ||||||
| SFA: MUFA: PUFA | 1.6:6.8:1 a | ||||||||||
| Ω-6/Ω-3 | 939 g, 594.71 k | ||||||||||
Nutritional and physiochemical profile of various blends of selected oils (coconut oil, flaxseed oil, olive oil, sunflower oil).
| Oil Source | Blending Type | Blending Ratios | Methodology | Results | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SFO, FO | Binary | 10:90, 20:80, 30:70, 40:60, 50:50, 60:40, 70:30, 80:20, 90:10 | FA composition, tocopherols, carotenoids, functional composition | FO blending in SFO resulted in increased ALA and carotenoids, and balanced resultant oil composition | [ |
| POL-DAG, VCO | Binary | 10:90, 20:80, 30:70, 40:60, 50:50, 60:40, 70:30, 80:20, 90:10 | FA, AG composition, functional groups, TS, solid fat content, IV | Blending of POL-DAG with VCO enhanced all of the techno-functional properties of the oil | [ |
| RBO, PAO, FO | Ternary | 50:40:10, 55:40:5, 60:30:10, 65:30:5, 70:20:10, 75:20:5 | FA composition, tocopherols, peroxide value, Acid value | Enhanced OS | [ |
| SFO, PSO | Binary | 90:10, 85:15, 80:20 | Total phenolics, total carotenoids, tocopherols, FA composition, and storage | Increased OS in BO as compared to only SFO | [ |
| LO, SBO, MO, CO, OO, SFO | Binary | 20:80, 30:70, 40:60, 50:50, 60:40, 70:30 and 80:20 ( | FA composition, Chemical properties, and OS of blends | FA ratios (SFA:MUFA:PUFA) of 1.5:1:3.1 for LO and CO (80:20), 1:1.4:4.6 for LO and SBO (20:80), and 1:1.9:3.4 for LO and OO (80:20) were found healthier. Poor storage quality observed due to high PUFA in (LO:SBO, LO:SFO & LO:MO) | [ |
| FO and POL | Binary | Three different percentages of FO (20, 10 and 5 | FA composition, Chemical properties, the 9-month storage stability of blends | Blending improved Ω-6:Ω-3 ratio and OS and TS on nine-month storage | [ |
| CAO, OO, SSO | Binary | CAO–OO and CAO–SSO (90:10, 70:30, and 50:50) | Rheology, viscosity, Shear-thinning fluids, before and after cooking | Blending did not affect the shear thinning and viscosity of oils | [ |
| VCO, POL | Binary | 10:90, 20:80, 30:70, 40:60, 50:50 | Rheological attributes and storage period | Resultant blends were trans-free, sheer thinning and had high melting points | [ |
| CO, PNO, PAO, GNO | Binary | 50:50 % mixed for 1 h in a blender to form uniform blends | Color, FFA, SA, PV, SV, IV & product development | CO, along with its blends, was found best, yielding favorable effects with minimal increases in PV, FFA, IV, and SV | [ |
| SFO, LO, MO, PKO, WGO, MTO | Ternary | Blend A: MO, PKO, MTO; Blend B: SFO, LO, MTO; Blend C: SFO, WGO, MTO | Modeling the blend composition by “brute force” method as the objective function (Ω-6 to Ω-3 as 5:1) | The blending of edible oil is justified for formulating the oils with desired FA composition and Ω-6 to Ω-3 ratios | [ |
| PAO, CO, RBO | Not Reported Yet | Mixture 1 and mixture 2 of PAO, CO, RBO | Effect of deep frying for 12 min at 150 °C and 170 °C in two cycles | The blending of VOs results in lower acrylamide content in deep-fried food | [ |
| SFO, CO | Binary | 50:50, 70:30 (%) | FA composition, AV, FFA, OSI | Blends revealed increased OS and antioxidant potential by DPPH tests due to raised phenolic compounds | [ |
| OO, SFO, CRO | Ternary/Ω-6/Ω-3 ratios | Oil mixtures with 2, 3, 4, and 5 Ω-6/Ω-3 ratios | OS and thermal stability, FA composition, tocopherol, physicochemical properties | Blends resulted in high OS, high antioxidant content, optimal Ω-6/Ω-3 ratios, with good functional characteristics and health benefits | [ |
| SFO, LO, GSO, CO | Binary | Blends of SFO with LO, GSO, and CO with ratios ( | The lovage leaves were added in oils and oil blends by extraction of chlorophyll and other phytochemicals directly in oils to increase stability | The extracted phytochemicals reduced the AV and PV. The findings support oil blending, particularly for reducing acidity, as well as fresh herbal addition for reducing autoxidation processes, both of which improve the quality of edible VOs | [ |
| LO, CTO, CO | Binary & Ternary | LO:CTO 1:1; LO:CO 1:1; LO:CTO:CO 2:1:1 | Accelerated storage test at 60 °C for 20 days; FA composition; phenolic compounds; antioxidant activity | Decreased formation of degradation compounds (especially in LA), predomination of PUFA and ALA, less reduction of phytosterols and tocopherols during storage (especially LC with 95.1% of phytosterols, and LA, with 90.81% of tocopherols). Blending with CTO and CO increased LO stability, which, in turn, raised the levels of CO bioactive compounds | [ |
| OO, SSO, LO | Ternary | Three ratios of OO:SSO:LO, 65:30:5; 60:30:10 55:30:15 | Chemical, nutritional, rheological properties, AV, PV, rancimat test, FA composition | Blending could balance Ω-6:Ω-3 ratio; OS and nutritional properties. Rheological data showed that these oil blends followed Newtonian behavior at 4 °C and 25 °C | [ |
| SFO, SBO, FO, MO, EVOO & others | Binary | B1 (55 SFO; 45 WO); B2 (75 SFO; 25 FO); B3 (60 SFO:40 Camelina) | FA composition, OS at 20 ± 2 °C with free exposure to light and air, Ω-6/Ω-3 optimal ratio | Healthy Ω-3:Ω-6 ratios of B1 = 1:10; B2 = 1:3.5; B3 = 1:3.3 were obtained. SFO and FO blend was found with the least OS | [ |
| BCO, SFO | Binary | Blends (5%, 10% and 20%, | - | Increased TS at high temperatures; raised α-tocopherol and thymoquinone in blends; 80:20 SFO:BCO blend showed the highest OS among oil blends | [ |
| OO, LO, SAO | Ternary/Ω-6/Ω-3 ratio | 3 blends (A, B, C) of different proportions of oils, EFA and Ω-6/Ω-3 ratio | FA composition, OS, tocopherols, phytosterols, and sensory acceptance | Blend C (85% OO, 3% LO, 12% SAO) presented 44% higher EFA, Ω-6/Ω-3 ratio twice lowered, raised levels of sterols & tocopherols, good OS and sensorial acceptation | [ |
| OO, SSO, FO | Ternary | Three ratios of OO:SSO:LO, 65:30:5; 60:30:10, 55:30:15 | Chemical, nutritional, rheological properties, AV, PV, rancimat test, FA composition | The addition of FO revealed improved ratios of EFA, greatest phenolic concentration, which decreased during storage. The PV of all samples increased significantly after storage | [ |
Figure 2Binary and ternary oil blends.
Therapeutic potential of blends of selected oils (coconut oil, flaxseed oil, olive oil, sunflower oil).
| Oil Source | Nutraceutical Prominence | Methodology | Results | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FO, POL | THP-1 cell line, FA uptake and inflammatory markers | THP-1 (human monocytic leukemia cell line), cultured in RPMI 1640 medium containing 10% FBS, incubated at 37 °C in a humidified incubator containing 5% CO2, seeded in 24 W ELISA plate. | FA profiles of the cells treated with these blends showed uptake of Ω-3 FA ALA. These blends lowered inflammatory TNF-α level without affecting cell survival. | [ |
| CO, CNO blends with linoleic acid (LA) levels of very low, low, moderate, High | Obesity, body fat deposition and other metabolic biomarkers | 8-week efficacy trial on rats to investigate body fat deposition and selected metabolic biomarkers | The extremely low-LA, high- MCFA diet resulted in less body weight increase than the high-LA diet. The high-LA diet significantly increased body fat deposition compared to the very low-LA and low-LA diets. | [ |
| RBO, FO, SSO | Lipid and cardiac biomarkers | Randomised controlled study on 143 borderline hypercholesterolemic volunteers aged 50 to 70 with BMI ≤ 27.5. | Significant reductions in TC, LDL, TAG, apoB, TC to HDL and apoB to apoA1 ratios, systolic & diastolic BP, and serum glucose, as well as a small significant increase in body weight. | [ |
| Mixed plant oils (MPO): 10% CO, 15% CNO, 15% LO, 15% PNO, 20% PAO, and 25% SBO | Performance, antioxidant capacity, serum immunity, and intestinal morphology | 28 days efficacy trial on 108 piglets with soybean oil as control and MPO as a study group. | MPO increased average daily weight gain and feed efficiency, improved serum peroxide dismutase (SOD), higher serum IgG, glutathione peroxidase contents, villus height in duodenum and jejunum, and apparent total tract digestibility of ether extract. | [ |
| (VCO and OO with Vitamin E | DM and oxidative damage to beta cells after alloxan injection. | Hyperglycemic Rattus norvegicus administered mixture of VCO + Vit E, and OO + Vit E for 4 weeks, and its effects on the liver. 0.1 mL/BW of each VCO + Vit E and OO + Vit E was injected. | VCO and OO are both capable of lowering blood glucose levels without altering the shape of hepatocyte cells or the hepatosomatic index. | [ |
| SFO, CO | 50:50, 70:30 (%) Blends for antioxidant activity test | Free radical DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) was performed on samples at concentrations of 10–1000 µg/mL. | The combination of CO and SFO boosted antioxidant capacity, as shown by DPPH tests. | [ |
| OO, SFO, CAO, CNO, PNO, LRO | Effect of high oleic acid (50.93%) and ALA (5.41%) on HTN, CVDs, and body weight | 12 weeks trial on 90 male Wistar rats divided into 3 main groups (blend, LRO, PNO) and 3 subgroups (low, middle and high fat) | Blend oil with a low Ω-6/Ω-3 PUFA ratio of 6:1 prevented and controlled cardiovascular disease, weight gain, body fat deposition and inflammatory biomarkers. | [ |
| OO, CNO, FO | Hepatoprotictive effects of OO, FO and their blend | One month study on 60 rats, injected with CCl4 in paraffin oil for 2 weeks to develop chronic hepatitis in the liver. | Reduction of total cholesterol, improvements in liver, significant amelioration in CCl4 induced necrosis and infiltration of lymphocytes. | [ |
| CO, OO, SFO, LO | Growth and feed efficacy | 9–12 week trial on Nile tilapia growth at two temperatures: optimal (28 °C) or suboptimal (22 °C) | Plant oil mixes had same effect on growth and feed efficiency of Nile tilapia at either 28 °C or 22 °C rearing temperatures | [ |
| SBO, LO (1:1) | Serum lipid metabolic responses associated with metabolic disorders in mammals | 70-day trial on 270 large yellow croaker fish (Larimichthys crocea) | VO blend strongly affected serum lipid profiles, especially ratio of triglyceride:phosphatidylcholine (TAG:PC) | [ |
| LO with curcumin | Increased formation of DHA from ALA by activating the enzymes FADS2 and elongase 2 | 60 days efficacy study on rats. | Curcumin and LO in phospholipid-based nanoemulsions dramatically increased DHA levels in serum, liver, heart, and brain lipids in rats. | [ |
Figure 3Effect of binary or ternary (CO, FO, OO, SFO) blending on therapeutical potential.