Oxidative stability of UV irradiated and X-rayed soybean oil incorporated with rose oil

M.T. Golmakania,*, S. Barania, N. Alavia and Z. Tahsiria

aDepartment of Food Science and Technology, School of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

*Corresponding author: golmakani@shirazu.ac.ir

 

SUMMARY

The effects of UV radiation and X-ray on the oxidative stability of soybean oil were investigated. Also, rose oil was incorporated into soybean oil and its antioxidant activity was compared with that of α-tocopherol during accelerated storage. Treating the samples with radiation (UV and X-ray) stimulated the oxidation process in soybean oil in comparison with samples that did not receive radiation. X-rayed samples had significantly higher amounts of oxidation products than UV irradiated samples. The X-ray caused more oxidation in the samples due to its higher energy content. Also, the antioxidant activity of rose oil was comparable with that of α-tocopherol.

 

RESUMEN

Estabilidad oxidativa del aceite de soja conteniendo aceite de rosa e irradiado con UV y rayos X. Se investigaron los efectos de la radiación UV y los rayos X sobre la estabilidad oxidativa del aceite de soja. Además, el aceite de rosa se incorporó al aceite de soja y su actividad antioxidante se comparó con la del α-tocoferol durante el almacenamiento acelerado. El tratamiento de las muestras con radiación (UV y rayos X) fomentó el proceso de oxidación del aceite de soja en comparación con las muestras que no recibieron radiación. Las muestras con rayos X tenían cantidades significativamente más altas de productos de oxidación que las muestras irradiadas con UV. Los rayos X causaron más oxidación en las muestras debido a su mayor contenido de energía. Además, la actividad antioxidante del aceite de rosa fue comparable con la del α-tocoferol.

 

Submitted: 23 March 2018; Accepted: 10 July 2018

ORCID ID: Golmakani MT https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5173-1178, Barani S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5349-2182, Alavi N https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8786-5028, Tahsiri Z https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5534-8448

KEYWORDS: Oxidation; Radiation; Rose oil; Soybean oil; UV; X-ray

PALABRAS CLAVE: Aceite de rosa; Aceite de soja; Oxidación; Radiación; Rayos-X; UV

Citation/Cómo citar este artículo: Golmakani MT, Barani S, Alavi N, Tahsiri Z. 2019. Oxidative stability of UV irradiated and X-rayed soybean oil incorporated with rose oil. Grasas Aceites 70 (1), e286. https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0349181

Copyright: ©2019 CSIC. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.


 

CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTIONTOP

Irradiation involves the process of exposing raw and processed foods to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. X-rays, gamma rays and electron beams are ionizing types of radiation, whereas UV, visible light, infrared, and microwave are non-ionizing types (Alothman et al., 2009). Radiation can affect foods that are susceptible to lipid oxidation. It can also induce excitation and ionization, as well as the production of free radicals (Richards, 2005). Lalas et al., (2007) evaluated the effects of gamma rays on olive, sunflower and soybean oils (SBO). They reported that gamma rays can shorten the induction period (IP). Hashemi et al., (2011) evaluated UV radiation on rapeseed oil. Their results showed that the oxidation process intensified when the irradiated rapeseed oil was considered.

According to FAOSTAT, the worldwide production of SBO was 45.70 million tons in 2014. SBO is used in various foods including margarine, cooking and salad oils, mayonnaise and salad dressings. SBO is known for its low stability due to its high unsaturation content (Hammond et al., 2005; O’Brien, 2008). Also, the stability of SBO depends on different factors including handling, processing and its composition (Hammond et al., 2005).

Rosa damascena Mill. (Damask rose) is from the Rosaceae family and has been cultivated since ancient times in Iran, India, Turkey and Bulgaria. This fragrant rose is a member of a few rose species produced commercially for oil, hips, concrete, absolute, and rose water (Mahboubi, 2016). The available literature has revealed that rose oil shows antioxidant (Yassa et al., 2009), antibacterial (Ulusoy et al., 2009), antifungal (Mahboubi et al., 2011) and anticancer (Zu et al., 2010) activities. The components of rose oil vary in different parts of the world. In Iran, the main components of rose oil have been reported to be citronellol (14.5-48.2%), nonadecane (10.5-40.5%), geraniol (5.5-18%), and heneicosane (5-14%) (Mahboubi, 2016). In this context, Wei and Shibamoto (2007) investigated the antioxidant capacity of rose oil. Their results showed that citronellol was the main component of rose oil with high antioxidant capacity. In addition, they reported that rose oil could inhibit hexanal oxidation in the aldehyde/carboxylic acid assay. It could also inhibit the formation of malonaldehyde from squalene when treated with UV radiation.

To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports on the effects of UV radiation and X-ray on the oxidative stability of SBO incorporated with rose oil. Given the varied impacts of ionizing and non-ionizing types of radiation on the process of oxidation in oils, the objective of the present study was to evaluate the oxidative stability of SBO by applying UV radiation and X-rays to the oil samples. Also, the antioxidant capacity of rose oil was compared with that of α-tocopherol.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODSTOP

2.1. Materials and methodsTOP

All experimental chemicals were of analytical grade and were purchased from Merck Company (Darmstadt, Germany) and Sigma-Aldrich Company (St. Louis, MO). The SBO was refined, bleached and deodorized, while it did not contain any added antioxidants. The SBO was provided by Narges Shiraz Oil Company and the rose oil was provided by the Manely Company.

2.2. Rose oilTOP

2.2.1. Chemical compositionTOP

A gas chromatography (GC) (7890A, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) was equipped with a HP-5MS capillary column (5% Phenyl Poly silphenylene-siloxane; 30 m length × 0.25 mm internal diameter; 0.25 μm film thickness) and was used accordingly. A mass spectrometer detector (5975C, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) was operated at 70 eV electron ionization energy, in the electronic ionization mode, 0.5 s/scan, and a mass range of 50–480 atomic mass units. One μL of rose oil was injected into the GC/MS. Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The injector was in split mode (at a ratio of 1:50) and its temperature was 280 °C. The oven temperature was programmed to increase from 60 °C to 210 °C at a rate of 3 °C/min. The temperature was finally increased to 240 °C at the rate of 20 °C/min and held at this temperature for 8.5 min. The total running time was 60 min. The interface line temperature was 280 °C. The MSD ChemStation Software (G1701EA, E.02.01.1177, Agilent Technologies, and Santa Clara, CA) was applied to analyze mass spectra and chromatograms. The compounds were identified by comparing their mass spectral fragmentation patterns with those in the data bank (Wiley/NBS). A quantitative analysis of EO compounds was made under the same chromatographic conditions using a GC coupled with a flame ionization detector (FID). The relative data in percentages were compiled from the electronic integration of the chromatogram peak areas.

2.2.2. Radical scavenging activityTOP

DPPHº (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical) scavenging activity of rose oil was evaluated according to the method described by Eblaghi et al., (2016) with some modifications. Accordingly, three mL of methanolic solution consisting of different concentrations of rose oil were mixed with one mL DPPHº solution.

The IC50 value was calculated as a rose oil concentration that could provide 50% inhibition of the DPPHº activity. This is obtained from the graph plotting of the inhibition percentage against the concentration of rose oil.

2.3. Initial chemical properties of SBOTOP

The peroxide value (PV) and the anisidine value (AnV) were calculated according to the AOCS (American Oil Chemists’ Society) Official Methods Cd 8-53 and Cd 18-90, respectively (AOCS, 2000). The Totox value (TV= 2PV+AnV) is determined as the total amount of oxidation, including primary and secondary oxidation products (Shahidi and Zhong, 2005). Specific extinction coefficients at 232 nm (K232) and 268 nm (K268) were determined according to the AOCS Official Method Ch 5-91 (AOCS, 2000).

To determine the fatty acid composition, fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) of SBO were prepared according to the method described by Golmakani et al., (2012). For this purpose, a GC system (SP-3420A, Beijing, China) was equipped with an FID and a BPX-70 fused silica capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm internal diameter, 0.25 µm film thickness) and was used accordingly. Nitrogen was the carrier gas. The temperatures of injector and detector were 250 and 300 °C, respectively. The injector was in the split mode (a split ratio of 1:10) and 1 µL of FAMEs was injected. The oven temperature was programmed as follows: the initial temperature was held at 140 °C for 5 min. Thereafter, the temperature was increased to 180 °C at a rate of 20 °C/min and held for 9 min. Finally, the temperature was increased to 200 °C at a rate of 20 °C/min and held for 3 min. The result was expressed as percentages of the relative peak areas. Each fatty acid was identified based on its retention time in comparison with the standard.

2.4. Accelerated storage of SBO samplesTOP

SBO was divided into 3 groups of samples prepared separately: the control, rose oil (1000 mg/kg), and α-tocopherol (100 mg/kg). Each sample was divided into three equal portions, i.e. (a) non-irradiated samples, (b) X-rayed samples (exposed to 1 KGy and 140 kVp, radiography X-ray machine, radiography system, Gilardoni, Italy), and (c) UV irradiated samples (exposed to 31.40 KGy UVC, energy content of 8 eV, TUV30W G30T8, Philips lightening, Amsterdam, Netherland). Samples were then stored in an oven with a temperature that remained at 65 ± 1 °C under dark conditions for 21 days. The indicators of lipid oxidation were namely PV, AnV, and TV. These indicators were measured weekly. The K232 and K268 of SBO samples were determined at the end of storage.

The effectiveness of all the tested antioxidants was expressed as the Fvalue according to eq. (1):

where IPs is the induction period (IP) of the SBO containing antioxidants (rose oil and α-tocopherol) and IPc is the IP of the control, i.e. the SBO without any antioxidants. A PV higher than 20 indicates the poor flavor of SBO (O’Brien, 2008). Therefore, IP was calculated as the number of days required for a sample to reach a PV of 20 meq O2/kg Oil.

Antioxidant activity (AA) is a function of an antioxidant’s concentration and was calculated according to the following equation:

where [AH] is the antioxidant concentration in proper units (Antolovich et al., 2002).

2.5. Statistical analysisTOP

All tests were carried out in triplicate and mean values were calculated. SAS (Statistical Analysis Software, version 9.1; SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC) was used for statistical analysis and significant differences were calculated using Duncan’s multiple range test (P < 0.05). Standard deviation values were presented in the tables and the standard deviation bars were provided in the figures.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONTOP

3.1. Rose oilTOP

3.1.1. Chemical compositionTOP

Table 1 shows the chemical composition of rose oil. Citronellol (oxygenated monoterpene; 36.68%), n-nonadecane (Alkane; 19.30%), n-heneicosane (Alkane; 9.39%), 1-nonadecene (Alkene; 7.13%), and geraniol (oxygenated monoterpene, 4.48%) were the most abundant chemical components identified in the rose oil. Sadraei et al. (2013) identified the chemical components of rose oil and reported that β-citronellol (23%), nonadecane (16%), geraniol (16%) and heneicosane (5%) were its main components.

Table 1. Chemical composition of rose oil
No. Chemical compound Retention index Relative peak area (%)
1 Citronellol 1226 36.68 ± 4.67*
2 n-Nonadecane 1905 19.30 ± 1.36
3 n-Heneicosane 2103 9.39 ± 0.40
4 1-Nonadecene 1872 7.19 ± 0.81
5 Geraniol 1255 4.52 ± 0.13
6 n-Heptadecane 1700 3.84 ± 0.49
7 n-Eicosane 2005 2.41 ± 0.03
8 Phenyl ethyl alcohol 1108 2.28 ± 0.13
9 Methyl eugenol 1405 2.26 ± 0.19
10 n-Tricosane 2301 1.73 ± 0.24
11 Eugenol 1358 1.54 ± 0.20
12 n-Pentadecane 1497 0.69 ± 0.05
13 Germacrene D 1478 0.60 ± 0.03
14 n-Octadecane 1797 0.49 ± 0.06
15 trans-Rose oxide 1125 0.46 ± 0.01
16 Citronellyl acetate 1353 0.45 ± 0.06
17 n-Pentacosane 2502 0.43 ± 0.03
18 Linalool 1098 0.42 ± 0.02
19 10-Heneicosene 2091 0.37 ± 0.03
20 1-Eicosene 1973 0.36 ± 0.05
21 1-Tricosene 2289 0.31 ± 0.04
22 Geranyl acetate 1382 0.30 ± 0.02
23 n-Docosane 2199 0.27 ± 0.01
24 α-Guaiene 1436 0.26 ± 0.03
25 Limonene 1026 0.26 ± 0.01
26 (E)-Caryophyllene 1416 0.25 ± 0.03
27 (Z,Z)-Farnesol 1719 0.23 ± 0.00
28 Phenyl ethyl octanoate 1847 0.23 ± 0.01
29 α-Humulene 1451 0.22 ± 0.02
30 α-Bulnesene 1503 0.29 ± 0.04
31 n-Hexadecane 1597 0.21 ± 0.03
32 Terpinen-4-ol 1174 0.19 ± 0.01
33 Heptanal 901 0.19 ± 0.01
34 Neryl acetate 1364 0.18 ± 0.02
35 n-Tetracosane 2401 0.15 ± 0.00
36 (E)-7-Octadecene 1772 0.15 ± 0.02
37 Methyl geranate 1323 0.14 ± 0.00
38 α-Pinene 931 0.14 ± 0.01
39 Benzyl benzoate 1760 0.13 ± 0.01
40 α-Terpineol 1188 0.12 ± 0.02
41 β-Elemene 1390 0.10 ± 0.01
42 Nerol oxide 1151 0.10 ± 0.01
43 n-Nonanal 1102 0.10 ± 0.00
*Mean ± standard deviation; Number of replicates: 2; Statistical test: ANOVA and multiple comparison of means using Duncan’s test; Degree of significance: P < 0.05.

3.1.2. Radical scavenging activityTOP

The IC50 value of rose oil was 4.10 ± 0.70 mg/mL. Accordingly, rose oil can scavenge free radicals. The antioxidant properties of rose oil can be attributed to its chemical components such as citronellol, which present high antioxidant capacity (Wei and Shibamoto, 2007).

3.2. Initial chemical properties of SBOTOP

The PV was 1.99 meq O2/kg (Table 2). The GC/FID results indicated that linoleic acid (52.53%) was the major fatty acid in SBO. Considering the unsaturation degree as an indicator, it was observed that polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) comprised most of the fatty acids in SBO.

Table 2. Initial characteristics of soybean oil
Characteristic Amount
Peroxide value (meq O2/kg) 1.99±0.22*
Anisidine value (mg/kg) 2.17±0.13
Totox value 6.15±0.17
K232 0.10±0.00
K268 0.16±0.00
Fatty acid composition (%)
 Palmitic acid; C16:0 11.05
 Stearic acid, C18:0 4.99
 Oleic acid; C18:1 (ω-9) 24.53
 Linoleic acid; C18:2 (ω-6) 52.53
 α-Linolenic acid; C18:3 (ω-3) 6.43
 Σ Saturated fatty acids 16.04
 Σ Monounsaturated fatty acids 24.53
 ΣPolyunsaturated fatty acids 58.96
*Mean ± standard deviation; Number of replicates for each analysis: 3; Statistical test: ANOVA and multiple comparison ofmeans using Duncan’s test; Degree of significance: P < 0.05.

3.3. Accelerated storage of SBO samplesTOP

3.3.1. Peroxide ValuesTOP

Figure 1 shows the PVs of non-irradiated, UV irradiated and X-rayed SBO samples. X-rayed samples had the highest PVs (Figure 1c), while UV irradiated samples exhibited significantly high PVs (Figure 1b) compared to non-irradiated samples (Figure 1a). Radiation intensified the oxidation process in SBO compared to the condition of non-radiation. Similarly, Zhang et al., (2006) evaluated the effects of UV radiation on the amount of β-sitosterol oxides induced in soybean, sunflower, olive and rapeseed oils. Their results showed that UV radiation can significantly induce the oxidation process.

Figure 1. Lipid oxidation in raw () and cooked () Cinta Senese burgers as affected by the omega-3 enrichment type (control, micro-capsules, fish oil).
a Different letters (a,b) within the same treatment (raw or cooked) indicate significant effect (p < 0.05) of omega-3 enrichment type; different letters (x,y) within the same addition indicate significant effect (p < 0.05) of treatment (raw or cooked).

 

Figure 1. Changes in peroxide values of (a) non-irradiated, (b) UV irradiated, and (c) X-rayed soybean oil samples during accelerated storage (Mean ± standard deviation; Number of replicates for each analysis: 3; Statistical test: ANOVA and multiple comparison of means using Duncan’s test; Degree of significance: P < 0.05).

 

Except for X-rayed samples, the PVs of all other SBO samples were significantly increased during storage. Although the PVs of X-rayed samples showed an increasing trend until day 14 of storage, they decreased thereafter until the end of storage. The higher energy content of X-ray (Fan, 2012) caused instability and therefore promoted the decomposition of hydro-peroxides into secondary oxidation products (Figure 1c).

Rose oil and α-tocopherol had significantly lower PVs than the control. However, there were no significant differences between the PVs of rose oil and α-tocopherol.

3.3.2. Induction period, Fvalue, and antioxidant activityTOP

Table 3 shows the IP, Fvalue, and AA of the SBO samples. Irradiated samples had lower IPs than non-irradiated samples. Accordingly, there is a possible interaction between the rays and SBO which can explain the negative effects of X-ray and UV on SBO stability. Similar to our findings, Gromadzka et al., (2010) studied the effect of UV radiation on the IP of sunflower and rapeseed oils. They found that the IP of UV irradiated samples was lower. According to Table 3, the UV irradiated samples had significantly higher IPs than X-rayed samples. Because of the strong effect of oxidation, rose oil and α-tocopherol were not significantly different.

Table 3. Effects of UV radiation and X-ray on induction period (IP), Fvalue, and antioxidant activity (AA) of soybean oil
Sample IP (day) Fvalue AA K232 K268
Non-radiation
 Control 4.76 ± 0.11b* 1.00 ± 0.00b 0.00 ± 0.00b 13.91 ± 1.60b 1.76 ± 0.29b
 Rose oil 6.48 ± 0.20a 1.36 ± 0.04a 3.62 ± 0.42b 14.61 ± 0.98b 1.54 ± 0.20b
 α-Tocopherol 5.96 ± 0.30a 1.26 ± 0.06a 25.11 ± 6.34a 14.40 ± 1.79b 1.45 ± 0.25b
UV radiation
 Control 2.71 ± 0.47d 1.00 ± 0.00d 0.00 ± 0.00b 13.08 ± 0.01b 1.07 ± 0.68b
 Rose oil 3.73 ± 0.63c 1.38 ± 0.23c 3.75 ± 2.33b 17.74 ± 0.08b 2.21 ± 0.13b
 α-Tocopherol 3.47 ± 0.25c 1.28 ± 0.10c 28.05 ± 9.40a 17.96 ± 0.10b 2.25 ± 0.15b
X-ray
 Control 0.97 ± 0.38e 1.00 ± 0.00f 0.00 ± 0.00d 20.91 ± 2.69a 6.27 ± 0.38a
 Rose oil 1.10 ± 0.07e 1.14 ± 0.08e 1.34 ± 0.74d 19.48 ± 0.40a 5.62 ± 0.00a
 α-Tocopherol 1.06 ± 0.06e 1.09 ± 0.06e 8.76 ± 6.56c 18.76 ± 0.68a 6.15 ± 0.08a
*Mean ± standard deviation; Number of replicates for each analysis: 3; Statistical test: ANOVA and multiple comparison of means using Duncan’s test; In each column, means with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).

The Fvalues of irradiated samples were lower than those of non-irradiated samples. The Fvalue of rose oil was significantly higher than that of the control. Therefore, rose oil can be regarded as an effective antioxidant in this context because of its ability to improve the oxidative stability of SBO. In this respect, significant differences were not observed between the Fvalues of rose oil and α-tocopherol.

X-rayed samples had lower AAs compared to non-irradiated samples. Although there were no significant differences between the AAs of rose oil and the control, α-tocopherol caused a significantly higher AA. Since AA depends on the concentration of antioxidants, the AA of α-tocopherol was used at a lower concentration and therefore became significantly higher than rose oil.

3.3.3. Anisidine valuesTOP

The AnVs of the SBO samples during accelerated storage are illustrated in Figure 2. The X-rayed samples had significantly higher AnVs (Figure 2c) than the UV irradiated samples (Figure 2b). Non-irradiated samples represented the lowest AnVs (Figure 2a). The higher energy content of X-rays caused the creation of a significantly higher amount of secondary oxidation products. An increase in the AnVs of the X-rayed samples was observed after 14 days. This can be attributed to the decomposition of primary oxidation products into secondary ones (with reference to the negative slope in Figure 1c).

Figure 2. Changes in anisidine values of (a) non-irradiated, (b) UV irradiated, and (c) X-rayed soybean oil samples during accelerated storage (Mean ± standard deviation; Number of replicates for each analysis: 3; Statistical test: ANOVA and multiple comparison of means using Duncan’s test; Degree of significance: P < 0.05).

 

The AnVs of the samples increased significantly with a longer storage time. Although there were no significant differences between the AnVs of rose oil and α-tocopherol, the AnVs of both rose oil and α-tocopherol were significantly lower than that of the control. Keramat et al., (2016) evaluated the effects of Bunium persicum and Rosmarinus officinalis essential oils on the oxidative stability of virgin olive oil. They reported that the AnVs of essential oils were significantly lower than that of the control.

3.3.4. Totox valueTOP

Figure 3 shows the TVs of the SBO samples during accelerated storage. The X-rayed samples had the highest TVs (Figure 3c). The non-irradiated samples had significantly lower TVs (Figure 3a) than the irradiated samples (Figures 3b and 3c). The TVs of the samples were significantly increased by longer durations of storage. The TVs of the SBO samples treated with rose oil and α-tocopherol were similar while being significantly lower than that of the control. As a result, rose oil can be used as a natural antioxidant for reducing primary and secondary oxidation products.

Figure 3. Changes in Totox values of (a) non-irradiated, (b) UV irradiated, and (c) X-rayed soybean oil samples during accelerated storage (Mean ± standard deviation; Number of replicates for each analysis: 3; Statistical test: ANOVA and multiple comparison of means using Duncan’s test; Degree of significance: P < 0.05).

 

3.3.5. K232 and K268TOP

Table 3 shows the K232 and K268 values of the SBO samples at the end of the storage period. X-rayed samples had the highest K232 values. In this regard, Braunrath et al., (2010) previously used gamma rays to evaluate the PV, AnV, and conjugated dienes of the triacylglycerols in rapeseed oil. They reported that gamma rays produced primary and secondary oxidation products. In the current study, the K232 values of non-irradiated and UV irradiated samples were not significantly different. Furthermore, significant differences were not detected among the K232 values of the control compared with those of the samples treated with either rose oil or α-tocopherol.

The K268 values of the X-rayed samples were significantly higher than those found in non-irradiated and UV irradiated samples. The K268 values of the control, rose oil, and α-tocopherol were not significantly different.

4. CONCLUSIONSTOP

Effects of UV radiation and X-ray were evaluated on the oxidative stability of SBO incorporated with rose oil. Radiation induced higher levels of oxidation processes in the SBO samples. Furthermore, the exposure of samples to X-ray caused significantly higher amounts of oxidation products compared to samples exposed to UV irradiation. The higher intensity of oxidation that occurred in the X-rayed samples can be attributed to the higher energy content of X-rays. Generally, the antioxidant capacity of rose oil was comparable with that of α-tocopherol. Therefore, rose oil can enhance the oxidative stability of irradiated SBO.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSTOP

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Research Affairs Office at Shiraz University. We would like to thank Narges Shiraz Oil Company for providing the SBO. The authors would like to thank Dr. Mehdi Zehtabian. In addition, we thank the language editor Mohsen Hamedpour-Darabi for editing the paper.

 

REFERENCESTOP


Alothman M, Bhat R, Karim AA. 2009. Effects of radiation processing on phytochemicals and antioxidants in plant produce. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 20, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.02.003
Antolovich M, Prenzler PD, Patsalides E, McDonald S, Robards K. 2002. Methods for testing antioxidant activity. Analyst 127, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1039/b009171p
AOCS. 2000. Official Methods and Recommended Practices of the American Oil Chemists’ Society; AOCS Press: Champaign, Illinois.
Braunrath R, Isnardy B, Solar S, ElmadfaI. 2010. Impact of α-, γ-, and δ-tocopherol on the radiation induced oxidation of rapeseed oil triacylglycerols. Radiat. Phys. Chem.79, 764–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2010.02.004
Eblaghi M, Khajehie N, Golmakani MT, Eskandari MH. 2016. Investigating the effects of microwave-assisted hydrodistillation on antioxidant and antifungal activities of Tanacetumpolycephalum and Artemisiachamaemelifolia essential oils. J. Essent. Oil Res. 28, 528–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/10412905.2016.1175977
Fan X. 2012. Radiation chemistry of food components, in Fan, X., Sommers CH. (Eds.). Food Irradiation Research and Technology. Chapter 6. Page 75–97.
FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QD/visualize
Golmakani MT, Rezaei K, Mazidi S, Razavi SH. 2012. Effect of alternative C2 carbon sources on the growth, lipid, and γ-linolenic acid production of spirulina (Arthrospiraplatensis). Food Sci. Biotechnol. 21, 355–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-012-0047-8
Gromadzka J, Wardencki W, Pawłowicz R, Muszyński G. 2010. Photoinduced and thermal oxidation of rapeseed and sunflower oils. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 112, 1229–1235. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejlt.201000057
Hammond EG, Johnson LA, Su C, Wang T, White PJ. 2005. Soybean oil, in Shahidi F (Ed.) Bailey’s industrial oil and fat products. Edible Oil and Fat Products: Edible Oils. 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/047167849X.bio041
Hashemi MB, Niakousari M, Saharkhiz MJ. 2011. Antioxidant activity of Satureja bachtiarica Bunge essential oil in rapeseed oil irradiated with UV rays. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 113, 1132–1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejlt.201000547
Keramat M, Golmakani MT, Aminlari M, Shekarforoush SS. 2016. Comparative effect of Bunium persicum and Rosmarinus officinalis essential oils and their synergy with citric acid on the oxidation of virgin olive oil. Int. J. Food Prop. 19, 2666–2681. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2015.1126722
Lalas S, Gortzi O, Tsaknis J, Sflomos K. 2007. Irradiation effect on oxidative condition and tocopherol content of vegetable oils. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 8, 533–540. https://doi.org/10.3390/i8060533
Mahboubi M, Kazempour N, Khamechian T, Fallah MH, Memar Kermani M, 2011. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of Rosa damascena Mill essential oil. J. Biol. Act. Prod. Nat. 1, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/22311866.2011.10719069
Mahboubi M. 2016. Rosa damascena as holy ancient herb with novel applications. Journal of Traditional and Complementary Medicine. 6, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcme.2015.09.005
O’Brien RD. 2008. Fats and oils: formulating and processing for applications. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420061673
Richards MP. 2005. Lipid Chemistry and Biochemistry, in Hui YH (Ed.). Handbook of Food Science, Technology and Engineering 1(8), 8–16.
Sadraei H, Asghari G, Emami S. 2013. Inhibitory effect of Rosa damascena Mill flower essential oil, geraniol and citronellol on rat ileum contraction. Res. Pharm. Sci. 8, 17–23.
Shahidi F, Zhong Y. 2005. Lipid oxidation: measurement methods, in Shahidi, F. (Ed.) Bailey’s industrial oil and fat products. Edible Oil and Fat Products: Chemistry, Properties, and Health Effects 1, 369. https://doi.org/10.1002/047167849x.bio050
Ulusoy S, Boşgelmez-Tınaz G, Seçilmiş-Canbay H. 2009. Tocopherol, carotene, phenolic contents and antibacterial properties of rose essential oil, hydrosol and absolute. Curr. Microbiol. 59, 554–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-009-9475-y
Wei A, Shibamoto T. 2007. Antioxidant activities and volatile constituents of various essential oils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 55, 1737–1742. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf062959x
Yassa N, Masoomi F, Rouhani Rankouhi S, Hadjiakhoondi A. 2009. Chemical composition and antioxidant activity of the extract and essential oil of Rosa damascena from Iran, population of Guilan. Daru J. Pharmac. Sci. 17, 175–180.
Zhang X, Julien-David D, Miesch M, Raul F, Geoffroy P, Aoude-Werner D, Ennahar S, Marchioni E. 2006. Quantitative analysis of β-sitosterol oxides induced in vegetable oils by natural sunlight, artificially generated light, and irradiation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54, 5410–5415. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf053224f
Zu Y, Yu H, Liang L, Fu Y, Efferth T, Liu X, Wu N. 2010. Activities of ten essential oils towards Propionibacterium acnes and PC-3, A-549 and MCF-7 cancer cells. Molecules 15, 3200–3210. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules15053200



Copyright (c) 2019 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Contact us grasasyaceites@ig.csic.es

Technical support soporte.tecnico.revistas@csic.es