Professional Documents
Culture Documents
So sánh các phương pháp trích ly khác nhau để xác định phenolic trong dầu olive
So sánh các phương pháp trích ly khác nhau để xác định phenolic trong dầu olive
0
.
6
9
1
8
.
4
5
0
.
8
2
1
9
.
4
2
0
.
6
2
9
.
6
8
0
.
5
0
1
8
.
1
7
0
.
9
4
1
9
.
4
7
0
.
2
3
2
0
.
3
0
1
.
3
2
2
9
.
2
3
1
.
0
6
3
3
.
2
9
0
.
1
9
1
7
.
5
9
1
.
6
5
3
0
.
8
3
1
.
1
2
3
2
.
6
7
0
.
3
4
T
y
r
o
s
o
l
7
.
2
4
0
.
5
5
6
.
6
2
0
.
4
1
6
.
6
3
0
.
2
3
6
.
0
8
0
.
1
4
6
.
5
3
0
.
7
3
6
.
6
3
0
.
5
8
1
3
.
2
2
0
.
5
8
1
4
.
8
2
0
.
5
8
1
5
.
9
9
0
.
6
6
1
3
.
7
3
0
.
5
0
1
4
.
7
4
0
.
2
1
1
5
.
1
0
0
.
0
9
H
y
d
r
o
x
y
t
y
r
o
s
o
l
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
e
4
.
7
5
0
.
3
4
7
.
4
0
0
.
1
4
7
.
7
9
0
.
2
1
5
.
2
3
0
.
2
8
7
.
3
7
0
.
0
4
7
.
9
2
0
.
1
3
3
.
9
8
0
.
2
0
3
.
8
8
0
.
0
3
4
.
8
7
0
.
1
9
3
.
0
4
0
.
1
4
3
.
6
2
0
.
0
3
3
.
9
8
0
.
0
8
P
h
e
n
y
l
e
t
h
y
l
a
l
c
o
h
o
l
s
2
2
.
3
1
3
2
.
4
8
3
3
.
8
4
2
0
.
9
9
3
2
.
0
7
3
4
.
0
2
3
7
.
5
0
4
7
.
9
3
5
4
.
1
5
3
4
.
3
6
4
9
.
1
9
5
1
.
7
4
G
a
l
l
i
c
a
c
i
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
V
a
n
i
l
l
i
c
a
c
i
d
0
.
4
3
0
.
0
4
0
.
4
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
4
6
0
.
0
1
0
.
4
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
4
4
0
.
0
2
0
.
4
6
0
.
0
3
0
.
4
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
4
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
5
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
4
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
4
6
0
.
0
1
0
.
5
1
0
.
0
3
B
e
n
z
o
i
c
a
c
i
d
s
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
e
s
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
3
0
.
4
4
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
5
0
.
5
2
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
6
0
.
5
1
C
a
f
f
e
i
c
a
c
i
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
p
-
C
o
u
m
a
r
i
c
a
c
i
d
0
.
1
8
0
.
0
2
0
.
2
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
1
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
9
0
.
0
2
0
.
2
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
3
9
0
.
0
1
0
.
4
6
0
.
0
1
0
.
4
9
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
3
9
0
.
0
1
o
-
C
o
u
m
a
r
i
c
a
c
i
d
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
6
S
i
n
a
p
i
c
a
c
i
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
C
i
n
a
m
i
c
a
c
i
d
s
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
e
s
0
.
2
7
0
.
3
1
0
.
3
4
0
.
2
4
0
.
2
7
0
.
2
9
0
.
4
2
0
.
5
0
0
.
5
5
0
.
3
4
0
.
3
8
0
.
4
2
V
a
n
i
l
l
i
n
(
p
h
e
n
y
l
e
t
h
y
l
a
l
d
e
h
y
d
e
)
0
.
3
5
0
.
0
3
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
4
0
.
0
2
0
.
3
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
4
0
.
0
2
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
5
0
.
0
1
O
l
e
u
r
o
p
e
i
n
(
s
e
c
o
i
r
i
d
o
i
d
s
)
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
R
u
t
i
n
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
n
d
L
u
t
e
o
l
i
n
2
.
2
3
0
.
2
7
3
.
1
2
0
.
0
6
3
.
3
6
0
.
1
2
1
.
6
1
0
.
1
2
3
.
2
8
0
.
0
7
3
.
5
2
0
.
2
1
1
.
9
9
0
.
2
3
3
.
6
0
0
.
0
6
4
.
1
1
0
.
2
0
2
.
1
3
0
.
1
3
3
.
3
8
0
.
0
6
3
.
9
5
0
.
0
1
A
p
i
g
e
n
i
n
0
.
8
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
9
8
0
.
0
1
1
.
0
8
0
.
0
3
0
.
7
9
0
.
0
7
0
.
9
7
0
.
0
4
1
.
0
3
0
.
0
6
0
.
7
7
0
.
0
5
1
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
1
.
1
3
0
.
0
4
0
.
8
4
0
.
0
6
0
.
9
1
0
.
0
1
1
.
0
3
0
.
0
0
A
p
i
g
e
n
i
n
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
e
0
.
4
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
6
7
0
.
0
1
0
.
7
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
5
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
6
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
4
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
9
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
3
9
0
.
0
1
0
.
3
8
0
.
0
0
F
l
a
v
o
n
o
i
d
s
3
.
4
9
4
.
7
7
5
.
1
6
2
.
9
0
4
.
9
1
5
.
1
8
3
.
1
0
5
.
0
2
5
.
6
3
3
.
2
8
4
.
6
8
5
.
3
6
Food Anal. Methods
Therefore, and also in order to avoid the high generation of
wastes from LLE method, this method was excluded for the
following experience of determining individual phenols
compounds, and a new method based on solid-phase extrac-
tion was applied.
Concerning the precision of individual phenols ex-
traction methods, the recoveries and the coefficients of
variation (%RSD) for repeatability and reproducibility of
the individual compounds are displayed in Table 2. In
relation to SPE method, the repeatability shows values
ranging from 4.7 to 7.7 % of RSD while reproducibility
presents higher values, being greater than 10 % for
gallic acid, o-coumaric acid, and rutin, the lowest RSD
were obtained for oleuropein (6.3 %). With regard to
the repeatability of LLME extraction the RSD values
were lower than 4.7 % for all phenolic compounds.
Likewise reproducibility values show relative standard
deviations (%RSD) ranging from 1.2 to 4.8 %. Repeat-
ability of USE method showed RSD values around
1.5 % for gallic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid,
luteolin, and apigenin being in the 24 % range for
the rest of the compounds except to oleuropein (7 %)
and rutin (8 %). However reproducibility, displays val-
ues lower than 6.6 % for all the phenols studied.
Taking into consideration the 13 phenolic compounds
studied, LLME was the best method in terms of precision
and hence the method providing highest repeatability and
reproducibility (Table 2).
To determine recoveries, an average value of the consec-
utive extractions performed on each method was applied to
the spiked oil. For each phenolic compound, the recovery
rate was calculated by the ratio (C1/C2)100, where C1 is
the means of measured concentrations in sample, and C2 is
the amount of the analyte added to prepared oil. When the
SPE extraction procedure was applied, recoveries ranging
from 40 to 96 % (73.9 % in average) were obtained. The
lowest recoveries (<60 %) were obtained for rutin, oleuro-
pein, and gallic acid whereas the highest ones (>90 %)
corresponded to tyrosol, vanillic acid, and o-coumaric acid.
Recoveries of gallic acid, flavonoids (luteolin, apigenin, and
rutin), and secoroids (oleuropein) obtained with SPE meth-
od showed smaller values than the other extraction method.
With regards to the LLME method, recoveries varying from
72 % (apigenin) to 85 % (oleuropein) were obtained with an
averaged recovery of 80.7 %. When USE method was
applied, the best recoveries were found, achieving values
between 82 % (gallic acid, apigenin, and rutin) and 95 %
(vanillin acid, p-coumaric acid, and o-coumaric acid)
Fig. 4 Cluster analysis obtained from the extraction methods for individual phenols. (A: Arbequina samples; P: Picual samples)
Food Anal. Methods
(89.6 % in average). The existence or not of significant
differences in the levels of phenols detected, as function of
the extraction method was evaluated by the analysis of
variance (ANOVA). The result obtained when the values
of all the phenols were considered, showed that there were
statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between the
methods applied. When the univariate results were ana-
lyzed, the existence of significant differences for individual
phenols extracted was obtained except for tyrosol, vanillin,
vanillic acid, and o-coumaric acid.
When LSD test was applied, similar behavior was ob-
served for phenols belonging to the group of acids and
phenylethyl alcohols, in which USE and LLME showed
no significant differences, and the percentage of extraction
was higher than for the SPE method, while phenols belong-
ing to the group of flavonoids presented significant differ-
ences between the three methods being the USE method
which offers higher rates of extraction.
Analysis of Real Samples
The phenolic profile of four commercial extra virgin olive
oils of two different varieties (Arbequina and Picual) was
assessed by applying the three extraction methods. The
values obtained have been summarized in Table 3.
Analyzing the information provided by the three extrac-
tion methods for individual phenols, it was found that for
Arbequina samples the predominant phenolic compounds
were phenylethyl alcohols, representing 84 % of total phe-
nolic compounds analyzed, followed by flavonoid com-
pounds representing 12 %, benzoic acids 1.3 %, phenolic
aldehydes 1 %, and the last one were cinamic acids, 0.8 % of
total phenolic analyzed. A similar profile was obtained for
Picual samples with 88, 8.7, 0.9, 0.8, and 0.6 % for phenyl-
ethyl alcohols, flavonoids, benzoic acids, cinamic acids, and
phenolic aldehydes, respectively, of total phenolic com-
pounds analyzed. When ANOVA was applied, significant
differences (p00.037) were observed as a function of vari-
ety. The univariate results showed that there were significant
differences (p<0.05) in levels of phenylethyl alcohols, ben-
zoic acids, o-coumaric acid, luteolin, and apigenin derivate.
The data set obtained from the three extraction methods
for individual phenols was employed to perform a cluster
analysis, applying city-block Manhattan distance algorithm
and Ward's method as linkage rule. The results were
reported as a dendrogram, shown in Fig. 4. On the basis of
the connecting distances, two main clusters were defined,
one for each of the varieties of olive oil. Each of the clusters
is subdivided into two groups, one including the samples
taken with a solid-phase extraction method (SPE) and the
Fig. 5 Principal component analysis from the extraction methods for individual phenols. (A: Arbequina samples; P: Picual samples)
Food Anal. Methods
other, those extracted by liquidliquid methods (LLME and
USE). This confirms the results obtained for the spiked oil.
Similar results were obtained when principal component
analysis (PCA) was applied to the matrix of data. Three PCs
with eigenvalues higher than 1.0 were extracted (Kaiser's
criterion), which accounted for 95.6 % of the total variance.
Figure 5 shows the PC1/PC2 score plot, in which the first
two principal components summarize more variation in the
data than any other principal components, accounting for
84.73 % of the data variance. PC1 (52.95 % explained
variance) allowed the distinction between varieties of olive
oil. Hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol, and vanillic acid with positive
loading values and o-coumaric acid with negative loading
values were the variables corresponding to PC1. PC2
(31.78 % explained variance) led to differentiate the liq-
uidliquid extraction method from the solid-phase extrac-
tion method. Luteolin, apigenin, and derivates of apigenin
and hydroxytyrosol with negative loading values, were the
variables correlated with PC2.
Conclusions
It was noticed that the method leading to higher mean values
for total phenols was USE. However, the existence of no
significant differences between this and LLME, added to the
latter has better values for repeatability and reproducibility,
and its inherent advantages such as lower solvent and time
consuming, makes LLME method of choice for total phenol
extraction from olive oil. When LLME and USE methods
were compared with SPE method for the extraction of
individual phenols, again it was proved that liquidliquid
extraction methods were the most suitable for this purpose.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge Daniel
Sanchez Rodas (University of Huelva) for their helpful assis-
tance. We also thank industrial olive oil mills from Beas, San
Bartolom, Trigueros, and Gibralen (Huelva, Spain) for provid-
ing us with the samples for this work. This investigation has
been supported by RISE (0042_RISE_5_E) grant.
References
Andreoni N, Fiorentini R (1995) Riv Ital Sost Grasse 72:163164
Andrewes P, Busch JLHC, De Joode T, Groenewegen A, Alexandre H,
Agric J (2003) Food Chem 51:14151420
Angerosa F, Mostallino R, Basti C, Vito R(2000) Food Chem68:283287
Brenes M, Garca A, Garca P, Ros JJ, Garrido A, Agric J (1999) Food
Chem 47:35353540
Brenes M, Garca A, Garca P, Garrido A, Agric J (2000) Food Chem
48:51785183
Carrasco-Pancorbo A, Cerretani L, Bendini A, Segura-Carretero A,
Gallina-Toschi T, Fernndez-Gutirrez A, Sep J (2005) Sci
28:837858
Cortesi N, Fedell E (1983) Riv Ital Sostanze Grasse 60:341351
Cortesi N, Azzolini M, Rovellini P, Fedell E (1995) Riv Ital Sostanze
Grasse 72:241251
Favati F, Carporale G, Bertuccioli M (1994) Grasas Aceites
45:6870
Favati F, Carporale G, Monteleone E, Bertuccioli M (1995) Food
flavors: generation, analysis and process influence. Charalamous
G (ed), Elsevier, Amsterdam 429-438
Garca-Gonzlez D, Aparicio R, Agric J (2010) Food Chem 58:12569
12577
Gutfinger T, Am J (1981) Oil Chem Soc 58:966968
Gutierrez F, Jimnez B, Albi MA, Agric J (1999) Food Chem 47:121
127
Gutirrez-Rosales F, Ros JJ, Gmez-Rey ML, Agric J (2003) Food
Chem 51:60216025
Harborne JB, Dey PM (1989) Methods in plant biochemistry. Harborne
JB (ed), Academic Press, London
Hernanz D, Gallo V, Recamales AF, Melndez-Martnez A, Heredia F
(2008) Talanta 76:929935
Kalua CM, Allen MS, Bedgood DR, Bishop AG, Prenzler PD, Agric J
(2005) Food Chem 53:80548062
Kiritsakis AK, Christie WW (2000) Handbook of olive oil anal-
ysis and properties: analysis of edible oils. In: Harwood J,
Aparicio R (eds), Aspen Publishers Inc., Gaithersburg, MA
129158
Mateos R, Espartero JL, Trujillo M, Ros JJ, Len-Camacho M, Alcudia
F, Cert A, Agric J (2001) Food Chem 49:21852192
Mndez AI, Falqu E (2007) Food Control 18:521529
Morell JR, Motilva MJ, Tovar MJ, Romero MP (2004) Food Chem
85:357364
Murkovic M, Lechner S, Pietzka A, Bratacos M, Katzogiannos E
(2004) J Biochem Biophys Methods 61:155160
Ninfali P, Aluigi G, Bacchiocca M, Magnani M, Am J (2001) Oil
Chem Soc 78:243247
Owen RW, Mier W, Giacosa A, Hull WE, Spiegelhalder B, Bartsh H
(2000a) Food Chem Toxicol 38:647659
Owen RW, Mier W, Giacosa A, Hull WE, Spiegelhalder B, Bartsh H
(2000b) Clin Chem 46:976988
Pirisi M, Cabras P, Falqui C, Migliorini M, Muggelli M, Agric J (2000)
Food Chem 48:11911196
Rodrigues S, Pinto G (2007) J Food Eng 80:869872
Servili M, Montedoro GF (2002) Eur J Lipid Sci Technol
104:602613
Servili M, Baldioli M, Miniati E, Montedoro GF (1996) J Am Oil
Chem Soc 73:1589
Servili M, Baldioli M, Selvaggini R, Miniati E, Machioni A,
Montedoro G, Alm J (1999) Oil Chem Soc 76:873882
Toschi TG, Cerretani L, Bendini A, Bonoli-Carbognin M, Lercker G,
Sep J (2005) Sci 28:859870
Tovar MJ, Motilva MJ, Romero MP, Agric J (2001) Food Chem
49:55025508
Tsimidou M, Papadopoulos G, Boskou D (1992) Food Chem 45:141
144
Tura D, Gigliotti C, Pedo S, Failla O, Bassi D, Serraiocco A (2007)
Scientia Horticulturae 112:108119
Vzquez Roncero A (1978) Rev Fr Corps Gras 25:2126
Vzquez Roncero A, Janer Del Valle C, Janer Del Valle ML (1973)
Grasas y Aceites 24:350357
Vinha AF, Ferreres F, Silva BM, Valentao P, Gonalves A, Pereira JA
(2005) Food Chem 89:561568
Food Anal. Methods