Development of walnut oil and almond oil blends for improvements in nutritional and oxidative stability

F. Pana, X. Wanga, B. Wena, C. Wangb, Y. Xua, W. Danga and M. Zhanga,*

aLaboratory of Nutrition and Functional Food, College of Food Science and Engineering, Jilin University, Changchun 130062, PR China

bJilin Baili Biotechnology Co.LTD; Changchun 130062, PR China

*Corresponding author: Zhangmd@jlu.edu.cn

 

SUMMARY

For the increase in oxidative stability and phytonutrient contents of walnut oil (WO), 5, 10, 20 and 30% blends with almond oil (AO) were prepared. The fatty acid compositions and the micronutrients of the oil samples such as tocopherol, phytosterol and squalene were measured by GC-MS and HPLC. It was found that the proportions of PUFAs/SFAs in blended oils with high AO contents were lowered, and the blends contained higher levels of tocopherols, phytosterols and squalene than those of pure WO. The 60 °C oven accelerated oxidation test was used to determine the oxidative stability of the blended oil. The fatty acid composition, micronutrients and oxidation products were determined. The results showed that the oxidation stability of the blended oil increased with an increasing proportion of AO. In addition, a significant negative correlation between micronutrient and oxidation products was observed as the number of days of oxidation increased.

 

RESUMEN

Desarrollo de mezclas de aceites de nuez y almendra para mejorar la estabilidad nutricional y oxidativa. Para el aumento de la estabilidad oxidativa y los contenidos de fitonutrientes del aceite de nuez (WO) se prepararon mezclas al 5, 10, 20 y 30% con aceite de almendras (AO). La composición de ácidos grasos y los micronutrientes de las muestras de aceite como tocoferoles, fitosteroles y escualeno se midieron por GC-MS y HPLC. Se descubrió que la relación de PUFA / SFA en un aceite mezclado con un alto contenido de AO se redujo, y la mezcla contenía niveles más altos de tocoferoles, fitosteroles y escualeno que los de WO puro. La prueba de oxidación acelerada en horno de 60 °C se usó para determinar la estabilidad oxidativa del aceite mezclado. Se determinaron la composición de ácidos grasos, micronutrientes y productos de oxidación. Los resultados mostraron que la estabilidad a la oxidación del aceite mezclado aumentó con una proporción creciente de AO. Además, se observó una correlación negativa significativa entre los micronutrientes y los productos de oxidación a medida que aumentaba el número de días de oxidación.

 

Submitted: 20 September 2019; Accepted: 08 November 2019; Published online: 27 October 2020

ORCID ID: Pan F https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3315-4244, Wang X https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4047-1929, Wen B https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2201-4951, Wang C https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2771-9635, Xu Y https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6047-0483, Dang W https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9236-2134, Zhang M https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7628-4060

KEYWORDS: Almond oil; Blended oil; Fatty acid composition; Micronutrients and oxidative stability; Walnut oil

PALABRAS CLAVE: Aceite de almendra; Aceite de nuez; Composición de ácidos grasos; Estabilidad oxidativa; Mezcla de aceites; Micronutrientes

Citation/Cómo citar este artículo: Pan F, Wang X, Wen B, Wang C, Xu Y, Dang W, Zhang M. 2020. Development of walnut oil and almond oil blends for nutritional and oxidative stability improvements. Grasas Aceites 71 (4), e381. https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0920192

Copyright: ©2020 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

Edible oil is one of the three major nutritional components of the human diet. Edible oil plays an important role in the dietary pyramid and is extremely necessary for maintaining the normal physiological functions of the human body (Hart et al., 2018). In recent years, people have paid more attention to the quality and nutrition of edible oil due to increased health awareness and improved living standards. The most important factors of oils in the food industry are their quality, stability and nutritional characteristics. It is interesting to note that pure oils do not have both suitable functional and nutritional properties and proper oxidative stability (Hashempour-Baltork et al., 2016). For example, perilla oil, linseed oil and sea buckthorn seed oil are rich in α-linolenic acid but easily oxidized, which limits their application. One of the simplest ways to create new products with ideal nutritional and oxidation properties is to mix different types of oils (Hashempour-Baltork et al., 2016).

WO comes from walnuts and is a nutrient-dense food due to its lipid characteristics (Zhou et al., 2017). It contains fatty acids and has excellent minor component contents (Gao et al., 2019). The main fatty acid in WO is linoleic acid (52.5–60.2%) and it also contains a large amount of linolenic acid (8.1–15.2%) (Emre, 2018). Epidemiological and clinical trials have shown that higher PUFA intake can lower blood pressure, total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol levels (Emre, 2018). However, the polyunsaturated fatty acids present in WO are easily oxidized. In the presence of heat, light and reactive oxygen species, active free radicals can be formed. These free radicals can be converted into hydroperoxides and secondary oxidation products such as aldehydes, ketones and high-molecular weight polymers (Mohanan et al., 2018). These oxidation products are toxic and are closely related to the biological damage of tissues and cardiovascular disease (Nagao et al., 2008).

AO is a high-value product that contains bioactive compounds that promote healthy functions (Rabadán et al., 2018). Its monounsaturated fatty acid content is rich, accounting for more than 50% of the fatty acid content, and has excellent oxidative stability (Matthäus et al., 2018). In addition, AO is rich in micronutrients such as tocopherols, sterols and squalene at levels of 450 μg/g, 2, 200 μg/g and 95 μg/g, respectively. These ingredients are considered traditional antioxidants and contribute to the diversity of the physiological, biological and biochemical functions of AO, including anti-inflammatory, immunity-enhancing and anti-hepatotoxicity properties. When they are present in food, they can inhibit the absorption of cholesterol and thus lower the density of low density lipoprotein (Givianrad et al., 2013).

Blended oil is an edible oil product that is prepared from two or more refined vegetable oils in a specific proportion according to the nutritional needs of the population. On the one hand, the proportion of fatty acids in blended oil products is likely produced to meet the needs of the human body in terms of the composition of fatty acids. Long-term consumption of blended oil will not result in an excessive or insufficient intake of certain fatty acids. Therefore, blended oil not only improves human health and achieves the goal of balanced nutrition but also reduces the incidence of certain chronic diseases (Jiang et al., 2011). Blended oils can also contain an increased content of bioactive lipids and natural antioxidants to provide better quality oils, including better physical and chemical properties, higher nutritional values and improved affordability (Ramadan and Wahdan, 2012). On the other hand, the oxidative stability of blended oils during and after processing is one of the most important features of edible oils (Tavakoli et al., 2018). A high oxidation stability of edible oil is also an added value in the market.

No previous research has been conducted on the blending of WO and AO. The purpose of this paper is to study the nutritional characteristics and oxidative stability of their blended oils. Through the changes of various parameters and the relationship between the parameters, the oxidation law of blended oil is comprehensively understood to predict the oxidation process of blended oil. Whether it is to reveal the relationship between the “intrinsic influence factor” and “oxidation degree” of blended oil or to predict the oxidation process of blended oil, understanding that oxidation has important theoretical and practical significance.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODSTOP

2.1. Samples and reagentsTOP

WO and AO were purchased from local markets.

Methanol, n-hexane and isooctane (HPLC grade) were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Water was purified using a Milli-Q water purification system (Millipore, Bedford, USA). A 37-component fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) mix, standards of α-, γ-, and δ-tocopherol and standards of squalene were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Bellefonte, PA). A plant sterol mixture (β-sitosterol 53%, stigmasterol 7%, campesterol 26%, brassicasterol 13%) was purchased from Matreya LLC Co. (Sweden). All chemical reagents, including solvents, were of analytical grade and were obtained from local suppliers.

2.2. Blending of vegetable oilsTOP

The blends were prepared by mixing WO with AO in the following respective proportions: 95:5, 90:10, 80:20, and 70:30 (m/m). The mixtures were uniformly stirred for 20 min according to the methodology described by Choudhary et al., (2015).

2.3. Accelerated oxidationTOP

All of the oil samples were placed in 50 mL colorless glass bottles. Under limited air and dark conditions, oxidation was carried out in a 60 °C oven for 24 days. During this period, the sample position in the oven was changed every 12 h. A batch of samples was collected every 4 days, and their related index was measured (Cao et al., 2015).

2.4. Fatty acid composition analysisTOP

The fatty acid composition of the oil samples was determined by GC-MS (GC-MS-2010, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) and reported as relative area percentage. Prior to GC-MS analysis, the fatty acids were methylated according to the method of Li et al., (2013).

One microliter of the sample was injected into a fused silica capillary column (0.25 μm, 30 m × 0.25 mm, Shimadzu, Japan) for separation. High purity helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 2 mL/min with a split injection ratio of 40:1. The column oven temperature was set to 160 °C, and the injection temperature was 250 °C. The following temperature ramp procedure was used: 160 °C for 5 min, followed by an increase of 2 °C/min to 220 °C, held for 10 min, with an increase of 2 °C/min to 230 °C, which was maintained for 5 min. The ion source and interface temperatures were 200 and 250 °C, respectively. GC-MS was performed using 70 eV EI in scan acquisition mode and quantified by TIC. Fatty acids were identified by the NIST Mass Spectrometry Library (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA). All mass spectra were obtained in the range of m/z 30–500 (Nogueira et al., 2018).

2.5. Tocopherol determinationTOP

The tocopherol content was determined based on the method of Gliszczyńska-Świgło and Sikorska (2004). A sample of oil (100 mg) was dissolved in 2 mL of isopropanol. All HPLC analyses of tocopherols were performed at room temperature on a Shimadzu LC-2010 high-performance liquid chromatograph (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) equipped with a C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm, Agilent, CA, USA). The detection was carried out on a fluorescence detector (detection wavelength 330 nm, excitation wavelength 290 nm). A mobile phase consisting of 50% acetonitrile (solvent A) and 50% methanol (solvent B) was used at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The injection volume was 20 μL.

2.6. Phytosterol determinationTOP

Sterols were analyzed following the methods reported by Changmo et al., (2011), with minor modifications. 200 mg oil samples were mixed with 3 mL of a 2 M potassium hydroxide ethanol solution and 0.15 mL of an internal standard (0.5 mg/mL 5α-cholestanol) at 90 °C for 1 h. After cooling the mixture to room temperature, 1 mL of water and 2 mL of n-hexane were added, vortexed for 5 min, and centrifuged for 10 min (3980 rpm), and the supernatant was taken and dried under nitrogen. Next, 100 μL of a silanization reagent was added, the sterols were derivatized in an oven at 60 °C for 45 min, and then dried under nitrogen. Finally, 1.5 mL of n-hexane was added, and 1 μL of product was analyzed by GC-MS.

Sterol samples were detected by a QP 2010 GC-MS (Shimadzu Corp, Kyoto, Japan) with an Rxi-5MS capillary column (0.25 μm, 30 m × 0.25 mm, Shimadzu, Japan). The carrier gas was helium at a flow rate of 1.82 mL/min, and the split ratio was 20:1. The analysis was carried out under the following temperature program: the initial temperature was set at 150 °C and raised to 300 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min for 12 min. The ion source temperature was 230 °C, the transfer line temperature was 280 °C, and the solvent delay was 14.5 min. The mass range was 50–500 m/z. The phytosterols in the oil samples were characterized according to the mass spectrum of the corresponding standards.

2.7. Squalene determinationTOP

The pretreatment of squalene in edible oils was similar to that of phytosterols. Briefly, 200 mg of oil sample was mixed with 2 mL of a 2 M potassium hydroxide methanol solution at 80 °C for 30 min. The mixture was cooled to room temperature and mixed with 2 mL of n-hexane. The supernatant (1 μL) was analyzed by GC-MS.

2.8. Physicochemical propertiesTOP

Measurement of the PV, CD, p-AnV and TBARS ­values. To determine the PV and p-AnV, the method was performed by using the formula given in a previous report (Vaisali et al., 2016). The TBARS value was measured by implementing the National Standard GB/T 5009.181–2003 of China. To measure the CD value, the method proposed by Farahmandfar et al., (2018) was used.

2.9. Statistical analysisTOP

Each variable was studied in duplicate or triplicate, and the results were expressed as the average of the two or three independent measurements of a sample. Statistical analyses were carried out using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and Origin 8.0 (Originlab, Northampton, MA, USA). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was made using one-way followed by Tukey’s significant difference test (p < 0.05). A correlation analysis was carried out by Pearson’s test.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONTOP

3.1. Changes in fatty acid contents during oxidationTOP

The fatty acids of the WO, AO and their blended oils are presented in Table 1a. There was no significant difference in the fatty acid composition of the six oils. WO was characterized by a high percentage of linoleic acid (C18:2, 59.45 ± 0.04%), followed by oleic acid (C18:1, 19.71 ± 0.03%) and linolenic acid (C18:3, 10.37 ± 0.01%). These results are consistent with the fatty acid composition of the WO reported by Emra et al., (2018). The AO contained more monounsaturated fatty acids than WO, increasing its oxidation stability. A study by Rabadán et al., (2018) showed that oleic acid accounted for more than 65% of the fatty acid composition of AO. Vegetable oils with high proportions of unsaturated fatty acids are generally not as stable as vegetable oils with high proportions of saturated fatty acids (Micić et al., 2015). The reported rates of oxidation of C18:1 and C18:2 are in the order of 1:12 (Ramadan and Wahdan, 2012). The results showed that all four blended oils were in compliance with the WHO regulations of n-6/n-3=1:5−10. As the proportion of AO increased in the blended oil, the proportion of MUFAs also gradually increased, and the PUFAs/SFAs gradually decreased. Bhatnagar et al., (2009) found that lowering the ratio of PUFAs/SFAs in the diet increased the level of postprandial HDL-C. In addition, the PUFAs/SFAs ratio is generally considered to be an indicator of oxidative stability. A decrease in the PUFAs/SFAs ratio indicates that the stability of blended oil has been improved (Tilakavati and Kalyana, 2013).

Table 1a. Fatty acid composition of WO, AO and blended oils (5, 10, 20, 30% of AO), %
  WO 5% 10% 20% 30% AO
C14:0 0.04 ± 0.00a 0.04 ± 0.01a 0.04 ± 0.00a 0.04 ± 0.01a 0.03 ± 0.00b 0.02 ± 0.00c
C16:0 7.15 ± 0.01a 7.04 ± 0.02b 6.90 ± 0.01c 6.65 ± 0.04d 6.40 ± 0.02e 4.62 ± 0.01f
C16:1 0.13 ± 0.01f 0.16 ± 0.01e 0.18 ± 0.00d 0.21 ± 0.01c 0.25 ± 0.01b 0.51 ± 0.01a
C17:0 0.05 ± 0.01a 0.05 ± 0.00a 0.05 ± 0.00a 0.05 ± 0.00a 0.05 ± 0.01b 0.04 ± 0.01b
C17:1 0.03 ± 0.01e 0.03 ± 0.01d 0.03 ± 0.00c 0.05 ± 0.00b 0.04 ± 0.01b 0.10 ± 0.00a
C18:0 2.57 ± 0.01a 2.52 ± 0.01b 2.47 ± 0.01c 2.30 ± 0.02d 2.20 ± 0.01e 1.08 ± 0.01f
C18:1 19.71 ± 0.03e 21.88 ± 0.01e 23.96 ± 0.02d 28.14 ± 0.04c 32.27 ± 0.05b 60.36 ± 0.02a
C18:2 59.45 ± 0.04a 57.90 ± 0.01b 56.46 ± 0.07c 53.57 ± 0.01d 50.69 ± 0.04e 30.96 ± 0.02f
C18:3 10.37 ± 0.01a 9.91 ± 0.00b 9.46 ± 0.02c 8.58 ± 0.01d 7.74 ± 0.01e 2.01 ± 0.01f
C20:0 0.09 ± 0.00a 0.09 ± 0.00a 0.07 ± 0.01b 0.09 ± 0.00a 0.09 ± 0.00a 0.09 ± 0.01a
C20:1 0.26 ± 0.04a 0.23 ± 0.01a 0.24 ± 0.02a 0.23 ± 0.01ab 0.20 ± 0.02b 0.18 ± 0.01b
C20:2 0.04 ± 0.01ab 0.03 ± 0.01ab 0.03 ± 0.01b 0.25 ± 0.01b 0.07 ± 0.04a n.d.
C22:0 0.08 ± 0.02b 0.11 ± 0.00a 0.01 ± 0.02ab 0.06 ± 0.01b 0.08 ± 0.00b 0.04 ± 0.02c
SFA 9.99 ± 0.02a 9.85 ± 0.02b 9.63 ± 0.01c 9.19 ± 0.03d 8.79 ± 0.02e 5.87 ± 0.01f
MUFA 20.14 ± 0.07f 22.31 ± 0.02e 24.42 ± 0.04d 28.63 ± 0.04c 32.77 ± 0.03b 61.16 ± 0.02a
PUFA 69.87 ± 0.05a 67.84 ± 0.01b 65.95 ± 0.05c 62.17 ± 0.02d 58.43 ± 0.04e 32.97 ± 0.02f
PUFA/SFA 7.00 ± 0.01a 6.89 ± 0.02b 6.85 ± 0.01c 6.76 ± 0.01d 6.64 ± 0.02e 5.62 ± 0.01f
N-6/N-3 5.73 ± 0.00f 5.84 ± 0.00e 5.97 ± 0.02d 6.24 ± 0.00c 6.55 ± 0.01b 15.40 ± 0.08a
n.d.= not detected; Each value in the table represents the mean ± SD (n = 3). SFA: Saturated fatty acids, MUFA: Monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA: Polyunsaturated fatty acids, WO: Walnut oil, AO: Almond oil. Significant differences are indicated by different lower case letters on the same line. Differences were significant at the level of 0.05 as compared by ANOVA (Tukey-Kramer HSD test).

The results of the accelerated oxidation of the oils at 60 °C are shown in Table 1b. As the storage time increased, the six oils showed a similar trend: the content of PUFAs decreased, while the content of MUFAs and SFAs increased. The results indicated that the PUFAs were destroyed during the accelerated oxidation process, which may be related to the destruction of C=C bonds by oxidation and polymerization (Tilakavati and Kalyana, 2013). Overall, there were few differences in the fatty acid contents of the six oils at the beginning and on the 24th day of the accelerated storage experiment, and the content of unsaturated fatty acid was still high.

Table 1b. Changes in fatty acid composition characteristics during oven test for original WO, AO and blended oils (5, 10, 20, 30 of AO), %
  Days 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
WO SFA 9.99 ± 0.02Ad 10.08 ± 0.02Ac 10.02 ± 0.09Acd 10.07 ± 0.02Ac 10.06 ± 0.03Ac 10.17 ± 0.02Ab 10.24 ± 0.04Aa
MUFA 20.14 ± 0.07Fd 20.18 ± 0.03Fd 20.35 ± 0.03Fc 20.35 ± 0.01Fc 20.36 ± 0.03Fc 20.47 ± 0.02Fb 20.64 ± 0.04Fa
PUFA 69.87 ± 0.05Aa 69.73 ± 0.05Ab 69.63 ± 0.10Ac 69.57 ± 0.02Ac 69.57 ± 0.01Ac 69.37 ± 0.04Ad 69.12 ± 0.08Ae
PUFA/SFA 7.00 ± 0.01Aa 6.92 ± 0.02Ab 6.95 ± 0.07Aab 6.91 ± 0.02Ab 6.92 ± 0.02Ab 6.82 ± 0.02Ac 6.75 ± 0.03Ad
n-6/n-3 5.73 ± 0.00Fe 5.78 ± 0.01Fd 5.79 ± 0.01Fd 5.80 ± 0.00Fcd 5.81 ± 0.00Fc 5.83 ± 0.00Db 5.90 ± 0.01Ea
5% SFA 9.85 ± 0.02Bb 9.83 ± 0.02Bb 9.74 ± 0.02Bd 9.79 ± 0.01Bc 9.76 ± 0.03Bcd 9.84 ± 0.02Bb 10.02 ± 0.01Ba
MUFA 22.31 ± 0.02Ed 22.30 ± 0.01Ed 22.45 ± 0.04Ec 22.51 ± 0.03Ec 22.49 ± 0.04Ec 22.67 ± 0.06Eb 22.75 ± 0.02Ea
PUFA 67.84 ± 0.01Ba 67.88 ± 0.02Ba 67.81 ± 0.05Bab 67.70 ± 0.03Bb 67.75 ± 0.07Bb 67.49 ± 0.08Bc 67.23 ± 0.03Bd
PUFA/SFA 6.89 ± 0.02Bbc 6.91 ± 0.01ABb 6.96 ± 0.02Aa 6.91 ± 0.00Ab 6.94 ± 0.03Aab 6.86 ± 0.02Ac 6.71 ± 0.01Bd
n-6/n-3 5.84 ± 0.00Ee 5.90 ± 0.01Ed 5.89 ± 0.01Ed 5.92 ± 0.00Ec 5.91 ± 0.00Ecd 5.95 ± 0.04Db 6.00 ± 0.00DEa
10% SFA 9.63 ± 0.01Cb 9.60 ± 0.01Cb 9.64 ± 0.13Bab 9.59 ± 0.08Cb 9.53 ± 0.04Cb 9.73 ± 0.03Cab 9.75 ± 0.02Ca
MUFA 24.42 ± 0.04De 24.49 ± 0.01Dde 24.50 ± 0.00Dd 24.58 ± 0.03Dc 24.61 ± 0.04Dc 24.73 ± 0.05Db 25.20 ± 0.09Da
PUFA 65.95 ± 0.05Ca 65.90 ± 0.01Cab 65.86 ± 0.13Cab 65.83 ± 0.05Cb 65.85 ± 0.01Cab 65.54 ± 0.08Cc 65.05 ± 0.08Cd
PUFA/SFA 6.85 ± 0.01Ca 6.86 ± 0.00Ba 6.83 ± 0.11Ba 6.87 ± 0.06Aa 6.91 ± 0.03Aa 6.74 ± 0.03Bb 6.67 ± 0.01BCb
n-6/n-3 5.97 ± 0.02De 6.02 ± 0.01Dc 5.99 ± 0.02Dd 6.01 ± 0.01Dcd 6.04 ± 0.00Db 6.05 ± 0.01Db 6.14 ± 0.00Da
20% SFA 9.19 ± 0.03Dbc 9.15 ± 0.02Dc 9.11 ± 0.10Cc 9.21 ± 0.02Db 9.13 ± 0.01Dc 9.31 ± 0.01Da 9.35 ± 0.04Da
MUFA 28.63 ± 0.04Cd 28.72 ± 0.02Cc 28.76 ± 0.05Cc 28.82 ± 0.01Cbc 28.88 ± 0.01Cb 29.08 ± 0.04Ca 28.53 ± 0.08Ce
PUFA 62.17 ± 0.02Da 62.13 ± 0.01Da 62.13 ± 0.04Da 61.97 ± 0.02Db 61.99 ± 0.20Db 61.60 ± 0.05Dc 62.13 ± 0.05Da
PUFA/SFA 6.76 ± 0.01Db 6.79 ± 0.02Cab 6.82 ± 0.05Ba 6.73 ± 0.01Bb 6.79 ± 0.01Bab 6.61 ± 0.01Cc 6.64 ± 0.02Cc
n-6/n-3 6.24 ± 0.00Cd 6.27 ± 0.00Ccd 6.25 ± 0.01Cd 6.28 ± 0.00Cc 6.30 ± 0.00Cb 6.34 ± 0.00Ca 6.33 ± 0.03Ca
30% SFA 8.79 ± 0.02Eab 8.74 ± 0.07Eb 8.66 ± 0.07Dc 8.74 ± 0.02Eb 8.75 ± 0.02Eb 8.84 ± 0.02Ea 8.85 ± 0.03Ea
MUFA 32.77 ± 0.03Bd 32.94 ± 0.05Bc 32.94 ± 0.06Bbc 32.94 ± 0.07Bb 32.94 ± 0.08Bb 32.94 ± 0.09Ba 32.94 ± 0.10Ba
PUFA 58.43 ± 0.04Ea 58.31 ± 0.11Eab 58.31 ± 0.10Eab 58.19 ± 0.05Eb 58.20 ± 0.01Eb 57.91 ± 0.03Ec 57.89 ± 0.12Ec
PUFA/SFA 6.64 ± 0.02Eb 6.67 ± 0.06Dab 6.73 ± 0.06Ba 6.66 ± 0.02Cb 6.65 ± 0.01Cb 6.55 ± 0.02Dc 6.54 ± 0.03Dc
n-6/n-3 6.55 ± 0.01Be 6.58 ± 0.01Bd 6.59 ± 0.01Bd 6.60 ± 0.00Bc 6.60 ± 0.01Bc 6.66 ± 0.01Bb 6.72 ± 0.01Ba
AO SFA 5.87 ± 0.01Fb 5.86 ± 0.01Fb 5.87 ± 0.05Eb 5.74 ± 0.06Fc 5.82 ± 0.03Fb 5.88 ± 0.04Fb 5.95 ± 0.01Fa
MUFA 61.16 ± 0.02Af 61.49 ± 0.02Ae 61.62 ± 0.04Ad 61.81 ± 0.08Abc 61.78 ± 0.03Ac 61.87 ± 0.08Ab 62.05 ± 0.02Aa
PUFA 32.97 ± 0.02Fa 32.65 ± 0.02Fb 32.51 ± 0.04Fc 32.44 ± 0.02Fd 32.40 ± 0.01Fd 32.25 ± 0.05Fe 32.01 ± 0.02Ff
PUFA/SFA 5.62 ± 0.01Fab 5.57 ± 0.01Eb 5.54 ± 0.05Cbc 5.65 ± 0.06Da 5.57 ± 0.03Db 5.49 ± 0.03Ec 5.38 ± 0.01Ed
n-6/n-3 15.40 ± 0.08Ac 15.80 ± 0.10Ab 15.67 ± 0.02Ab 15.81 ± 0.08Ab 15.87 ± 0.09Ab 16.12 ± 0.20Aa 15.88 ± 0.23Ab
Each value in the table represents the mean ± SD (n = 3). SFA: Saturated fatty acids, MUFA: Monounsaturated fatty acids, PUFA: Polyunsaturated fatty acids, WO: Walnut oil, AO: Almond oil. The different small and capital superscripts in the same row indicate significant differences between the means within the same oil sample and storage time. Differences were significant at the level of 0.05 as compared by ANOVA (Tukey-Kramer HSD test).

3.2. Changes in tocopherol content during oxidationTOP

Table 2 reveals the content of tocopherols of WO, AO and WO/AO blends at different storage times. A lower tocopherol content was found for WO than that for AO, which was in agreement with the results of another work (Rabadán et al., 2018). The α- and γ-tocopherols were the main isomers in WO. The α-, γ-, and δ-tocopherol contents in WO were 45.42 ± 0.85, 74.08 ± 0.23 and 6.73 ± 0.03 mg/kg, respectively. Emre et al., (2018) showed that the total tocopherol content of WO was 469.41 ± 1.55 mg/kg, and the highest content of γ-tocopherol was 409.15 ± 1.98 mg/kg. Gao et al., (2018) studied the tocopherol content of WO in different walnut varieties, and the total tocopherol content ranged from 394 to 495 mg/kg. Our results were lower than the above results, probably because the oil refinement process reduced the tocopherol content. We found that the tocopherol composition of AO was similar to that of WO, and its total tocopherol content was 236.86 ± 3.16 mg/kg, which was approximately twice that of WO. The values are within the ranges reported by Zhou et al., (2019). In the four blended oils, the total tocopherol content increased with the increase in the proportion of AO, and there were consistent differences among the oil blends. Tocopherol is a naturally occurring component in vegetable oils and is a major lipid-soluble antioxidant (Tavakoli et al., 2018).

Table 2. Changes in tocopherol composition characteristics during oven test for original WO, AO and blended oils (5, 10, 20, 30% of AO), mg/kg
  Days 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
WO α-Tocopherol 45.42 ± 0.85Ea 11.75 ± 1.21Bb 1.62 ± 0.33Ec      
γ-Tocopherol 74.08 ± 0.23Fa 68.47 ± 0.30Ea 54.00 ± 5.36Cb 41.28 ± 8.61Bc 31.51 ± 9.90Bd 10.83 ± 1.16Ce 3.20 ± 1.17Be
δ-Tocopherol 6.73 ± 0.03Aa 6.67 ± 0.64Aa 6.57 ± 0.02Aa 5.80 ± 0.06Ab 5.28 ± 0.15Abc 4.77 ± 0.31Ac 3.91 ± 0.82Ad
Total-Tocopherol 126.23 ± 0.60Fa 88.02 ± 1.54Db 62.19 ± 5.03Cc 47.09 ± 8.55Bd 36.79 ± 9.75Be 15.61 ± 0.85Cf 7.11 ± 3.99Bf
5% α-Tocopherol 48.21 ± 1.14Ea 12.88 ± 1.20Bb 2.14 ± 0.20Dc          
γ-Tocopherol 77.85 ± 0.40Ea 74.95 ± 2.89Da 57.27 ± 2.40Cb 43.10 ± 1.94Bc 32.04 ± 6.71Bd 14.11 ± 7.98BCe 3.50 ± 1.17Bf
δ-Tocopherol 6.91 ± 0.20Aa 6.75 ± 0.13Aa 6.02 ± 0.01Bb 5.67 ± 0.43Abc 5.25 ± 0.33Ac 4.52 ± 0.26Ad 3.85 ± 0.15Ae
Total-Tocopherol 132.96 ± 1.25Ea 102.07 ± 4.86Cb 65.44 ± 2.58Cc 48.77 ± 5.37Bd 37.30 ± 6.38Be 18.63 ± 8.24BCf 7.35 ± 1.31Bg
10% α-Tocopherol 52.16 ± 0.94Da 13.71 ± 3.80Bb 2.48 ± 0.15CDc      
γ-Tocopherol 81.93 ± 0.37Da 78.21 ± 0.86Ca 61.48 ± 8.64BCb 49.08 ± 4.36ABc 33.51 ± 3.85Bd 19.28 ± 2.41Be 3.79 ± 0.56Bf
δ-Tocopherol 6.64 ± 0.11Aa 6.37 ± 0.77ABab 5.87 ± 0.07Bb 5.36 ± 0.55ABbc 5.27 ± 0.24Abc 4.67 ± 0.33Ac 3.40 ± 0.17Ad
Total-Tocopherol 141.08 ± 0.95Da 96.33 ± 1.31Cb 69.83 ± 8.85BCc 54.44 ± 4.21ABd 38.78 ± 4.09Be 23.95 ± 2.73Bf 7.19 ± 0.39Bg
20% α-Tocopherol 56.53 ± 2.27Ca 13.81 ± 1.15Bb 2.73 ± 0.10Cc      
γ-Tocopherol 89.56 ± 0.73Ca 79.77 ± 0.23Cb 67.05 ± 3.69BCc 53.10 ± 1.91ABd 37.52 ± 1.79Be 19.39 ± 3.78Bf 5.03 ± 1.72Bg
δ-Tocopherol 5.88 ± 0.05Ba 5.56 ± 0.40Bab 5.25 ± 0.56Cb 5.03 ± 0.45ABbc 5.06 ± 0.12Ab 4.46 ± 0.21Ac 4.00 ± 0.24Ac
Total-Tocopherol 151.97 ± 2.51Ca 99.15 ± 0.84Cb 75.03 ± 9.09BCc 58.13 ± 2.36ABd 42.57 ± 1.71ABe 23.85 ± 3.98Bf 9.03 ± 1.96Bg
30% α-Tocopherol 63.06 ± 1.36Ba 14.44 ± 0.81Bb 3.53 ± 0.39Bc      
γ-Tocopherol 95.71 ± 0.32Ba 89.69 ± 1.54Ba 71.27 ± 6.19Bb 58.80 ± 5.71ABc 43.94 ± 3.73ABd 22.95 ± 2.34ABe 11.65 ± 1.57Af
δ-Tocopherol 6.03 ± 0.24Ba 5.43 ± 0.04Bb 5.01 ± 0.37Cbc 4.79 ± 0.31Bc 4.64 ± 0.05Bc 3.91 ± 0.35Bd 3.32 ± 0.13Ae
Total-Tocopherol 164.80 ± 1.44Ba 116.10 ± 6.76Bb 79.80 ± 6.88Bc 63.59 ± 5.82ABd 48.58 ± 3.71Ae 26.87± 2.69ABf 14.96 ± 1.70Ag
AO α-Tocopherol 87.52 ± 2.30Aa 20.98 ± 5.32Ab 4.61 ± 0.17Ac      
γ-Tocopherol 145.70 ± 0.71Aa 125.69 ± 0.32Ab 89.72 ± 0.26Ac 68.06 ± 7.13Ad 48.34 ± 2.05Ae 29.72 ± 2.66Af 12.40 ± 0.25Ag
δ-Tocopherol 3.64 ± 0.29Ca 3.53 ± 0.41Ca 3.07 ± 0.25Dab 2.44 ± 0.82Cb 2.29 ± 0.16Cb 1.79 ± 0.44Cb 1.04 ± 0.11Bc
Total-Tocopherol 236.86 ± 3.16Aa 143.66 ± 1.52Ab 97.40 ± 0.33Ac 70.50 ± 6.31Ad 50.63 ± 1.97Ae 31.50 ± 2.22Af 13.44 ± 0.36Ag
Each value in the table represents the mean ± SD (n = 3). WO: Walnut oil, AO: Almond oil. The different small and capital superscripts in the same row indicate significant differences between the means within the same oil sample and storage time. Differences were significant at the level of 0.05 as compared by ANOVA (Tukey-Kramer HSD test).

As the number of days of oxidation increased, the tocopherol contents tended to decrease. Moreover, the degrees of tocopherol loss were different for each isomer, especially for α-tocopherol, which decreased very rapidly and was below the detection limit by day 12. This phenomenon is consistent with previous studies, in which α-tocopherol is generally considered to provide hydrogen atoms to reduce peroxyl radicals at a greater rate than the γ- and δ-homologues. Consequently, having α-tocopherol preferentially oxidized, compared to other tocopherol isoforms, would also result in a greater formation of α-tocopheroxyl radicals. (María Ayelén and Baltanás, 2010, Elisia et al., 2013). γ-tocopherol has a weak hydrogen supply capacity and high oxidative stability, indicating that its antioxidant effect is better than that of α-tocopherol. The antioxidant activity in food systems is reduced in the following order: γ > δ > β > α isomers (Rudzińska et al., 2016). Our results indicated that AO has the highest γ-tocopherol content. On the 24th day, the tocopherol content of WO was the lowest; the tocopherol content of AO was the highest; and the tocopherol content of the blended oil with high AO content was high. Therefore, the presence of AO may increase the antioxidant properties of the blended oil.

3.3. Changes in plant sterol content during oxidationTOP

We found four phytosterols in WO and AO, namely, brassicasterol, campesterol, stigmasterol and β-sitosterol. As shown in Table 3, the content of each plant sterol in AO was higher than that of WO, and the total sterol content was 3121.04 ± 148.35 mg/kg. The total sterol content of WO was 1795.27 ± 56.27 mg/kg. There were significant differences in the plant sterol contents between different varieties of WO. The results of Gao et al., (2019) indicated that the total sterol content in WO was between 644.60 mg/kg and 1211.40 mg/kg, and sitosterol was the major sterol, which is consistent with our results. Amaral et al., (2003) studied different varieties of WO with a sterol content between 1201 mg/kg and 2026 mg/kg.

Table 3. Changes in phytosterol composition characteristics during oven test for original WO, AO and blended oils (5, 10, 20, 30% of AO), mg/kg
    0 4 8 12 16 20 24
WO Brassicasterol 324.57 ± 14.05aE 266.76 ± 26.96bD 197.04 ± 8.75cE 193.38 ± 6.97cF 193.43 ± 14.04cB 155.79 ± 13.81dB 134.64 ± 13.22dC
Campesterol 225.77 ± 14.88aC 210.48 ± 10.17abC 208.29 ± 4.29abC 201.35 ± 10.32bC 196.67 ± 7.25bC 197.63 ± 7.25bB 189.58 ± 15.77bAB
Stigmasterol 23.54 ± 1.69aD 21.40 ± 1.50aB 18.29 ± 0.86bB 15.11 ± 2.17cC 11.86 ± 1.39dD 10.28 ± 1.32dC 10.02 ± 2.38dB
β-Sitosterol 1221.39 ± 54.21aC 1199.83 ± 103.90aC 1190.39 ± 80.50aC 1147.78 ± 47.60aC 1148.53 ± 31.60aC 1146.91 ± 27.94aC 1069.39 ± 29.61bC
Total 1795.27 ± 56.27aE 1698.47 ± 127.88abE 1614.01 ± 69.52bD 1557.62 ± 28.98bC 1550.48 ± 13.05bC 1510.62 ± 33.62bcC 1403.63 ± 7.00cD
5% Brassicasterol 497.51 ± 59.40aD 433.28 ± 8.87bC 268.85 ± 11.34cD 252.08 ± 8.96cE 198.58 ± 17.46dB 163.25 ± 17.71deB 133.34 ± 6.80eC
Campesterol 234.47 ± 9.99aC 228.53 ± 8.91aC 207.92 ± 10.02bC 199.60 ± 1.13bcC 199.48 ± 7.62bcC 195.41 ± 4.46bcB 185.33 ± 12.05cB
Stigmasterol 22.95 ± 1.59aD 22.53 ± 1.59aB 19.13 ± 0.87bB 15.65 ± 1.93cBC 11.70 ± 1.36dD 12.06 ± 2.22dC 10.41 ± 1.06dB
β-Sitosterol 1217.91 ± 92.92aC 1183.08 ± 29.65aC 1192.83 ± 66.45aC 1150.94 ± 72.56aC 1165.19 ± 21.35aC 1127.59 ± 46.29aC 1096.77 ± 21.39bC
Total 1972.85 ± 44.42aD 1867.42 ± 14.09bD 1688.73 ± 68.48cD 1618.28 ± 66.80cdD 1574.93 ± 15.55dC 1498.32 ± 63.58deC 1425.85 ± 11.76eCD
10% Brassicasterol 659.46 ± 44.94aC 516.16 ± 38.67bB 326.83 ± 9.73cC 300.17 ± 8.16cC 250.16 ± 11.58dA 225.86 ± 5.20dA 159.06 ± 9.89eB
Campesterol 244.47 ± 1.78aC 226.74 ± 10.31bC 211.95 ± 8.21bcC 213.78 ± 9.19bcBC 215.04 ± 9.07bcBC 200.02 ± 3.65cB 184.25 ± 13.28dB
Stigmasterol 31.41 ± 1.52aB 22.37 ± 0.54bB 19.28 ± 1.36cB 18.79 ± 0.77cB 17.54 ± 0.82cdC 15.87 ± 0.80dB 11.99 ± 1.76eB
β-Sitosterol 1290.40 ± 21.83aC 1284.43 ± 6.48aB 1273.33 ± 12.97aBC 1268.22 ± 34.01aB 1252.70 ± 41.65aB 1180.89 ± 17.80bBC 1129.66 ± 23.78cBC
Total 2225.74 ± 66.46aC 2049.71 ± 35.04bC 1831.38 ± 32.20cC 1800.96 ± 50.52cdC 1735.44 ± 21.95dB 1622.64 ± 11.55eB 1484.96 ± 18.85fBC
20% Brassicasterol 714.04 ± 51.47aBC 549.15 ± 13.30bB 289.23 ± 15.00cCD 281.02 ± 6.28cD 266.42 ± 10.53cA 210.62 ± 12.98dA 180.31 ± 9.80dA
Campesterol 283.82 ± 8.44aB 236.00 ± 6.24bBC 225.49 ± 14.75bcBC 218.72 ± 10.24bcB 222.80 ± 14.44bcB 213.71 ± 4.36cB 197.04 ± 11.25cAB
Stigmasterol 28.51 ± 1.33aC 23.34 ± 2.10bB 20.15 ± 1.16bcB 18.85 ± 3.22cB 17.88 ± 1.98cdAC 16.72 ± 1.58cdAB 14.79 ± 1.33dA
β-Sitosterol 1319.66 ± 34.35aC 1294.79 ± 11.31abB 1280.01 ± 34.89abB 1237.89 ± 67.22bBC 1231.49 ± 59.56bBC 1137.79 ± 63.37cC 1126.29 ± 21.89cBC
Total 2346.04 ± 34.89aC 2103.28 ± 27.93bBC 1814.88 ± 36.25cC 1756.49 ± 66.46cC 1738.58 ± 86.44cB 1578.84 ± 75.79dBC 1518.43 ± 40.87dB
30% Brassicasterol 755.24 ± 8.66aB 557.90 ± 23.64bB 375.78 ± 13.25cB 379.37 ± 7.53cB 264.24 ± 20.26dA 170.91 ± 15.46eB 98.69 ± 8.70fD
Campesterol 299.76 ± 14.17aAB 253.39 ± 9.47bB 235.24 ± 5.71bcB 226.08 ± 5.68cB 228.46 ± 20.35cB 199.57 ± 21.37dB 195.22 ± 5.67dAB
Stigmasterol 32.83 ± 0.70aB 26.98 ± 1.54bA 23.24 ± 1.89cA 22.52 ± 1.10cA 18.64 ± 1.28dAC 17.07 ± 1.79deAB 14.67 ± 1.20eAB
β-Sitosterol 1453.51 ± 18.24aB 1368.48 ± 34.26bB 1333.90 ± 38.15bB 1317.17 ± 32.00bB 1245.10 ± 59.76cB 1212.40 ± 30.27cdB 1150.22 ± 35.96dB
Total 2541.34 ± 40.95aB 2206.75 ± 40.78bB 1968.17 ± 54.84cB 1945.14 ± 23.01cB 1756.43 ± 52.53dB 1599.95 ± 64.76eBC 1458.79 ± 29.88fC
AO Brassicasterol 929.91 ± 52.03aA 711.94 ± 45.87bA 629.97 ± 46.50cA 445.36 ± 5.33dA 272.37 ± 9.68eA 221.87 ± 5.83efA 178.31 ± 10.88fA
Campesterol 310.27 ± 13.10aA 298.07 ± 13.24abA 296.45 ± 4.77abA 290.54 ± 11.11bA 291.08 ± 12.22bA 251.52 ± 10.36cA 206.87 ± 4.56dA
Stigmasterol 45.84 ± 2.42aA 28.43 ± 1.17bA 24.35 ± 1.64cA 23.40 ± 0.39cA 20.22 ± 1.29dA 19.24 ± 1.77dA 16.55 ± 0.90eA
β-Sitosterol 1835 ± 112.60aA 1762.29 ± 23.84abA 1740.52 ± 12.38bA 1684.90 ± 28.16bA 1650.32 ± 39.69bA 1395.04 ± 39.56cA 1227.90 ± 36.25dA
Total 3121.04 ± 148.35aA 2800.74 ± 83.45bA 2691.29 ± 28.47bA 2444.20 ± 44.49cA 2233.99 ± 43.12dA 1887.66 ± 54.10eA 1629.63 ± 29.90fA
Each value in the table represents the mean ± SD (n = 3). WO: Walnut oil, AO: Almond oil. The different small and capital superscripts in the same row indicate significant differences between the means within the same oil sample and storage time. Differences were significant at the level of 0.05 as compared by ANOVA (Tukey-Kramer HSD test).

As the proportion of AO increased, the total sterol content in the blended oil also increased and was significantly higher than that of WO. In recent years, interest in the consumption of phytosterols has increased (Torri et al., 2019). Studies have shown that a human diet rich in natural phytosterols helps lower plasma cholesterol levels and coronary artery mortality (Cusack et al., 2013). Torri et al., (2019) formulated rapeseed oil with rice bran oil or black cumin oil in the ratios of 95:5, 90:10 and 80:20. They found that the blending of rapeseed oil and rice bran oil had a positive effect on the total amount of sterols, and the blending of rapeseed oil and cumin oil improved the composition of its sterols.

During the accelerated oxidation process, the sterol content of the different oils showed a decreasing trend, but the overall decrease was slow. On day 24, the sterol contents of WO and AO were 1403 ± 7.00 mg/kg and 1629.63 mg/kg, respectively. There was a distinct difference in the total sterol content between different blended oils, and the blended oil with a high proportion of AO had a high phytosterol content during the accelerated oxidation process. After adding phytosterols to margarine-type spreads and biscuits, Nieminen et al., (2016) found that the plant sterol content remained stable for a long period of time at room temperature and could be stored for at least 74 weeks. In addition, Yang et al., (2018) found that after adding 1% phytosterols to soybean oil, phytosterols acted as antioxidants, which improved the oxidative stability of the oil, while the results of Winkler and Warner (2008) showed that the addition of phytosterols had no effect on the oxidative stability of soybean oil.

3.4. Changes in squalene content during oxidationTOP

Table 4 shows that the content of squalene in AO was the highest; the content of squalene in WO was the lowest; and the content of squalene in the blended oils increased with the increasing proportions of AO. After 24 days of storage, each oil showed a slight decrease in squalene content but did not change much. Alberdi-Cedeño et al., (2019) ventilated corn oil in an oven at 70 °C for 3, 6, 9 and 12 days and found that its squalene content decreased very slowly in the first 9 days, which is consistent with our findings. Rastrelli et al., (2002) suggested that α-tocopherol protects squalene by preventing or delaying its degradation under storage conditions, which may be an explanation for our results. This may also be due to the oxidative stability of squalene itself. It has been suggested that squalene contributes to the oxidative stability of olive oil at ambient or slightly elevated temperatures (Hrncirik and Fritsche, 2005).

Table 4. Changes in squalene composition characteristics during oven test for original WO, AO and blended oils (5, 10, 20, 30% of AO), mg/kg
Days 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
WO 10.84 ± 0.18Ca 8.72 ± 0.42Db 9.04 ± 0.09Ea 9.51 ± 0.49Ca 9.02 ± 1.83Ba 10.42 ± 1.22Da 8.82 ± 0.20Ca
5% 12.27 ± 0.15Ca 11.29 ± 0.02Cab 10.67 ± 1.17Db 10.70 ± 0.05BCb 10.59 ± 0.81Bb 11.63 ± 0.40CDab 10.79 ± 0.39BCb
10% 13.80 ± 0.49BCa 12..44 ± 0.40Cb 11.00 ± 0.09CDc 11.77 ± 0.53BCbc 10.37 ± 0.41Bc 11.89 ± 0.28CDbc 10.98 ± 0.63BCc
20% 14.08 ± 0.29BCa 13.41 ± 0.18BCab 12.20 ± 0.16Cb 13.15 ± 0.51Bab 10.85 ± 1.51Bb 12.85 ± 0.52Cab 10.74 ± 0.66BCb
30% 15.69 ± 0.21Ba 14.96 ± 0.04Ba 14.39 ± 0.15Bab 13.09 ± 0.28Bab 13.34 ± 2.67Bab 14.87 ± 0.26Ba 12.09 ± 1.53Bb
AO 25.56 ± 1.99Aa 24.53 ± 1.68Aa 21.37 ± 0.12Aab 21.14 ± 2.84Aab 22.41 ± 3.35Aab 24.19 ± 0.58Aa 17.88 ± 1.64Ab
Each value in the table represents the mean ± SD (n = 3). WO: Walnut oil, AO: Almond oil. The different small and capital superscripts in the same row indicate significant differences between the means within the same oil sample and storage time. Differences were significant at the level of 0.05 as compared by ANOVA (Tukey-Kramer HSD test).

Squalene is associated with a decrease in the serum levels of triglycerides and cholesterol and has protective effects against various cancers. Therefore, the addition of AO to WO had increased the squalene content, which also played a role in the prevention of a variety of cancers and oxidation stability (Smith, 2000).

3.5. Primary oxidation productsTOP

Peroxide value (POV). Hydroperoxide is the primary oxidation product of lipids. The peroxide value can be used to evaluate the early oxidation stage of lipids (Mohdaly et al., 2010). The results of the accelerated oxidation of WO, AO and the blended oils at 60 °C are shown in Figure 1a. Initially, the WO and AO had values of 4.24 ± 0.26 and 3.94 ± 0.31 meq O2/kg, respectively. Rabadán et al., (2018) studied the oxidative stability of different nut oils under refrigeration and room temperature storage. The peroxide values of the WO and AO were 1.3 ± 0.5 and 2.6 ± 0.7 meq O2/kg, respectively, which were slightly lower than our results. The POVs of the blended oils were higher than those of the two oils, most likely due to the formation of peroxides during the blending process. After 24 days, the peroxide values of the oils increased. With the extension of storage time, the peroxide value of WO was higher than that of AO. The increase in the peroxide values of the blended oils was slower, indicating that the addition of AO inhibited the oxidation of WO, probably due to the large amount of tocopherol in AO.

Figure 1. Changes in POV (a) and CD (b) of WO, AO and blended oils (5, 10, 20, 30% of AO) at different times during 24 days of storage at 60 °C. Each value in the table represents the mean ± SD (n = 2). WO: Walnut oil, AO: Almond oil, POV: Peroxide value, CD: Conjugated diene value.

 

Conjugated dienes (CD). The side chains of unsaturated fatty acids are accompanied by the formation of conjugated diene hydroperoxides during their oxidation. Conjugated diene is a primary oxidation product produced by the oxidation of an unsaturated fatty acid double bond (Weber et al., 2008). Conjugated dienes have a unique absorption peak at approximately 232 nm (Ramadan and Wahdan, 2012). The higher the level of conjugated dienes in the edible oil, the worse the oxidative stability (Mohdaly et al., 2010).

During storage, the maximum increase in CD was found in WO, which increased from 0.55 to 2.55, and the minimum increase was in AO, which increased from 0.28 to 1.35, as shown in Figure 1b. As the number of storage days increased, the content of conjugated diene continued to increase, and all samples showed a linear growth trend; all final CD values were significantly higher than the initial values. The CD values of the blended oils were between the WO and AO, and the blended oil with a high proportion of AO exhibited a slow increase in the CD value. Rabadán et al., (2018) showed that after storage for 16 months at room temperature, the CD value of WO was 2.94 ± 0.10, and the CD value of AO was 3.25 ± 0.09. After mixing corn oil with black cumin (Nigella sativa) or coriander (Coriandrum sativum) seed oils, Ramadan et al., (2012) found that the CD value was significantly lower than that of the corn oil itself during 15 days of accelerated storage.

3.6. Secondary oxidation productsTOP

p-Anisidine Value (p-AnV). The secondary oxidation products of lipid oxidation are aldehydes and ketones. The p-AnV reflects how many secondary oxidation products are present (Ismail et al., 2016). The p-AnV of WO, AO and blended oils are shown in Figure 2a under storage conditions of 60 °C. During the whole storage process, the p-AnV showed an increasing trend. On the 24th day, the p-AnV of the AO and blended oils were lower than that of WO, probably due to the good oxidative stability of the AO. The results of Emre et al., (2018) showed that the anisidine value of WO increased to 46.83 after 20 days of accelerated storage, similar to our findings. Homan and Fereidoon (2008) studied the oxidative stability of different tree nut oils. After 12 days of accelerated oxidation, the p-AnV of WO was significantly higher than that of AO.

Figure 2. Changes in p-AnV (a) and TBARS (b) of WO, AO and blended oils (5, 10, 20, 30% of AO) at different times during 24 days of storage at 60 °C. Each value in the table represents the mean ± SD (n = 2). WO: Walnut oil, AO: Almond oil, p-AnV: p-Anisidine value, TBARS: Thiobarbituric acid value.

 

Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). To more comprehensively evaluate the degree of oxidation of the edible oils, the TBARS value during the oxidation process was measured. The final oxidation product of edible oils, malondialdehyde, reacts with TBA to form a colored compound with a maximum absorption at 530 nm (Zhang et al., 2017). The results of TBARS values are shown in Figure 2b. During the 24-day accelerated oxidation process, the TBARS value of the six oils increased slowly as the number of days of storage increased. Similarly, the values of the blended oils were between those of WO and AO. In general, the TBARS value showed an increasing trend with the increase in storage time for all samples, but no regular pattern of increase could be observed. Kenaston et al., (1955) reported that the TBA method is very sensitive in determining the oxidation products of linoleic acid and linolenic acid and is less sensitive in determining the oxidation products of oleic acid.

3.7. The relationship between the antioxidants and oxidation productsTOP

Tocopherols, phenols and sterol compounds are essential compounds and are present in trace amounts in edible oils (Ramadan and Wahdan, 2012). Oxidative stability is a key factor in the evaluation of the sensory and nutritional properties of oils, and the sensitivity of oils to oxidative degradation is affected by trace components (Anderson et al., 2001). It can be seen from Table 5 that there was a different degree of negative correlation between the active ingredients in the edible oil and the oxidation products. This indicated that in the accelerated oxidation process, bioactive substances such as tocopherol, phytosterol and squalene decreased, and the oxidation products increased. The primary oxidation products of edible oils are characterized by POV and CD, and p-AnV and TBARS values indicate their secondary oxidation products (Baştürk et al., 2018). In addition to δ-tocopherol, the other tocopherols and total tocopherols had a strong negative correlation with the oxidation products, and these tocopherols were more strongly correlated with primary oxidation products. In the oxidation process of oil, tocopherol is a good free radical scavenger, providing a hydrogen atom for free radicals to form a stable quinine or dimer, thereby terminating the chain reaction in the auto-oxidation process and ensuring the stability of the oil (Xu and Hanna, 2010). Phytosterols had similar correlations with the primary oxidation products and the secondary oxidation products. The correlation between squalene and the oxidation products was the weakest, showing a moderate correlation. Our results are agreement with Gao et al., (2019), who showed that the oxidation stability index in WO was significantly correlated with tocopherols, squalene and stigmasterol.

Table 5. Correlations between micronutrients and oxidation products
  α-Tocopherol γ-Tocopherol δ-Tocopherol Total-Tocopherol Brassicasterol Campesterol Stigmasterol β-Sitosterol Total squalene
POV −0.684 −0.909 −0.472 −0.847 −0.781 −0.586 −0.815 −0.525 −0.713 −0.302
CD −0.621 −0.874 −0.299 −0.842 −0.766 −0.74 −0.829 −0.616 −0.753 −0.448
p-AnV −0.586 −0.879 −0.306 −0.796 −0.766 −0.599 −0.778 −0.608 −0.745 −0.404
TBARS −0.51 −0.843 −0.249 −0.774 −0.729 −0.741 −0.755 −0.638 −0.744 −0.48
POV: Peroxide value, CD: Conjugated diene value, p-AnV: p-Anisidine value, TBARS: Thiobarbituric acid value. Fully correlated, |r| =1; highly correlated or strongly correlated, 0.7≤ |r| < 1; moderately correlated, 0.4≤ |r| < 0.7; weak correlation, |r| < 0.4; zero correlation, r = 0. And r represents the correlation coefficient. Negative values represent a negative correlation.

4. CONCLUSIONSTOP

The WO and AO blends have achieved the desired goals in improving nutrition and functionality compared to those of WO. With the increase in the proportion of AO, the oleic acid content in the blended oil increased, and the fatty acid composition was more balanced. The contents of tocopherol, phytosterol and squalene in the blended oil increased due to the high content of trace nutrients in the AO. After 24 days of accelerated oxidation, the trace components of the six oils gradually decreased, while the POV, CD, p-AnV, and TBARS value increased, indicating that the oil sample quality gradually deteriorated, but the blended oils produced lower concentrations of primary and secondary oxidation products, indicating a significant increase in oxidative stability. In addition, we compared the correlation between micronutrients and oxidation products and found that they had different degrees of negative correlation. This has important theoretical and practical significance for predicting the oxidation process of blended oils.

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSTOP

The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by Changchun Science and Technology Bureau (NO. 18SS030), the Program for JLU Science and Technology Innovative Research Team (NO. 2017TD-29), and Jilin Province Science and Technology Development project (NO.20190301058NY).

 

REFERENCESTOP


Alberdi-Cedeño J, Ibargoitia ML, Guillén MD. 2019. Monitoring of minor compounds in corn oil oxidation by Direct Immersion-Solid Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. New oil oxidation markers. Food Chem. 290, 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.04.001
Amaral JS, Susana C, Pereira JA, Seabra RM, Oliveira BPP. 2003. Determination of sterol and fatty acid compositions, ­oxidative stability, and nutritional value of six walnut (Juglans regia L.) cultivars grown in Portugal. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 51, 698–702. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf030451d
Baştürk A, Ceylan MM, Çavuş M, Boran G, Javidipour I. 2018. Effects of some herbal extracts on oxidative stability of corn oil under accelerated oxidation conditions in comparison with some commonly used antioxidants. LWT 89, 358–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.11.005
Bhatnagar AS, Kumar PKP, Hemavathy J, Krishna AGG. 2009. Fatty Acid Composition, Oxidative Stability, and Radical Scavenging Activity of Vegetable Oil Blends with Coconut Oil. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 86, 991–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-009-1435-y
Cao J, Li H, Xia X, Zou XG, Li J, Zhu XM, Deng ZY. 2015. Effect of Fatty Acid and Tocopherol on Oxidative Stability of Vegetable Oils with Limited Air. Int. J. Food Prop. 18, 808–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2013.864674
Changmo L, Yunping Y, Guozhong Z, Wen C, Huilin L, Chunyang L, Zhen S, Yao C, Shuo W. 2011. Comparison and analysis of fatty acids, sterols, and tocopherols in eight vegetable oils. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 59, 12493–12498. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf203760k
Choudhary M, Grover K, Kaur G. 2015. Development of rice bran oil blends for quality improvement. Food Chem. 173, 770–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.051
Cusack LK, Fernandez ML, Volek JS. 2013. The food matrix and sterol characteristics affect the plasma cholesterol lowering of phytosterol/phytostanol. Adv. Nutr. 4, 633–643. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.113.004507
Elisia I, Young JW, Yuan YV, Kitts DD. 2013. Association between tocopherol isoform composition and lipid oxidation in selected multiple edible oils. Food Res. Int. 52, 508–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.02.013
Emre B. 2018. Oxidative stability of enriched walnut oil with phenolic extracts from walnut press-cake under accelerated oxidation conditions and the effect of ultrasound treatment. J. Food Meas. Charact. 13, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-018-9917-y
Farahmandfar R, Asnaashari M, Pourshayegan M, Maghsoudi S, Moniri H. 2018. Evaluation of antioxidant properties of lemon verbena (Lippia citriodora) essential oil and its capacity in sunflower oil stabilization during storage time. Food Sci. Nutr. 6, 983–990. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.637
Gao P, Liu R, Jin Q, Wang X. 2019. Comparative study of chemical compositions and antioxidant capacities of oils obtained from two species of walnut: Juglans regia and Juglans sigillata. Food Chem. 279, 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.12.016
Givianrad MH, Saber-Tehrani M, Mohammadi SJ. 2013. Chemical composition of oils from wild almond (Prunus scoparia) and wild pistachio (Pistacia atlantica). Grasas Aceites 64, 77–84. https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.070312
Gliszczyńska-Świgło A, Sikorska E. 2004. Simple reversed-phase liquid chromatography method for determination of tocopherols in edible plant oils. J. Chromatog. A 1048, 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2004.07.051
Hart S, Marnane C, Mcmaster C, Thomas A. 2018. Development of the “Recovery from Eating Disorders for Life” Food Guide (REAL Food Guide) - a food pyramid for adults with an eating disorder. J. Eat. Disorder 6, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-018-0192-4
Hashempour-Baltork F, Torbati M, Azadmard-Damirchi S, Savage GP. 2016. Vegetable Oil Blending: A Review of Physicochemical, Nutritional and Health Effects. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 57, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.09.007
Hrncirik K, Fritsche S. 2005. Relation between the endogenous antioxidant system and the quality of extra virgin olive oil under accelerated storage conditions. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 53, 2103–2110. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf048363w
Jiang Q, Rao X, Kim CY, Freiser H, Zhang Q, Jiang Z, Li G. 2011. Gamma-tocotrienol induces apoptosis and autophagy in prostate cancer cells by increasing intracellular dihydrosphingosine and dihydroceramide. Int. J. Cancer 130, 685–693. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.26054
Kenaston CB, Wilbur KM, Ottolenghi A, Bernheim F. 1955. Comparison of methods for determining fatty acid oxidation produced by ultraviolet irradiation. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 32, 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02636476
Li Y, Zhang Y, Wang M, Jiang L, Sui X. 2013. Simplex-Centroid Mixture Design Applied to the Aqueous Enzymatic Extraction of Fatty Acid-Balanced Oil from Mixed Seeds. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 90, 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-012-2180-1
Matthäus B, Juhaimi FA, Adiamo OQ, Alsawmahi ON, Ghafoor K, Babiker EE. 2018. Effect of the Harvest Time on Oil Yield, Fatty Acid, Tocopherol and Sterol Contents of Developing Almond and Walnut Kernels. J. Oleo Sci. 67, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.5650/jos.ess17162
Micić DM, Ostojić SB, Simonović MB, Krstić G, Pezo LL, Simonović BR. 2015. Kinetics of blackberry and raspberry seed oils oxidation by DSC. Thermochim. Acta 601, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2014.12.018
Mohanan A, Nickerson MT, Ghosh S. 2018. Oxidative Stability of Flaxseed Oil: Effect of Hydrophilic, Hydrophobic and Intermediate Polarity Antioxidants. Food Chem. 266, 524–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.05.117
Mohdaly AA, Sarhan MA, Mahmoud A, Ramadan MF, Smetanska I. 2010. Antioxidant efficacy of potato peels and sugar beet pulp extracts in vegetable oils protection. Food Chem. 123, 1019–1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.05.054
Nagao T, Munkhjargal B, Miho Y, Yuko O. 2008. Chemical properties and cytotoxicity of thermally oxidized oil. J. Oleo Sci. 57, 153–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.05.054
Nieminen V, Laakso P, Kuusisto P, Niemelä J, Laitinen K. 2016. Plant stanol content remains stable during storage of cholesterol-lowering functional foods. Food Chem. 196, 1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.10.059
Nogueira MS, Scolaro B, Milne GL, Castro IA. 2018. Oxidation products from omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids during a simulated shelf life of edible oils. LWT 101, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.11.044
Pagani María Ayelén, Baltanás MA. 2010. Production of natural antioxidants from vegetable oil deodorizer distillates: effect of catalytic hydrogenation. Bioresource Technology 101, 1369–1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.068
Rabadán A, Álvarez-Ortí M, Pardo JE, Alvarruiz A. 2018. Storage stability and composition changes of three cold-pressed nut oils under refrigeration and room temperature conditions. Food Chem. 259, 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.03.098
Ramadan MF, Wahdan KMM. 2012. Blending of corn oil with black cumin (Nigella sativa) and coriander (Coriandrum sativum) seed oils: Impact on functionality, stability and radical scavenging activity. Food Chem. 132, 873–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.11.054
Rastrelli L, Passi S, Ippolito F, Vacca G, De SF. 2002. Rate of degradation of alpha-tocopherol, squalene, phenolics, and polyunsaturated fatty acids in olive oil during different storage conditions. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 50, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf011063j
Rudzińska M, Hassanein MMM, Abdel–Razek AG, Ratusz K, Siger A. 2016. Blends of rapeseed oil with black cumin and rice bran oils for increasing the oxidative stability. J. Food Sc. Tech. 53, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-2140-5
Smith TJ. 2000. Squalene: potential chemopreventive agent. Expert Opin. Inv. Drug 9, 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1517/13543784.9.8.1841
Tavakoli J, Emadi T, Hashemi SMB, Khaneghah AM, Munekata PES, Lorenzo JM, Brnčić M, Barba FJ. 2018. Chemical properties and oxidative stability of Arjan (Amygdalu sreuteri) kernel oil as emerging edible oil. Food Res. Int. 107, 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.002
Tilakavati K, Kalyana S. 2013. Modulation of human postprandial lipemia by changing ratios of polyunsaturated to saturated (P/S) fatty acid content of blended dietary fats: a cross-over design with repeated measures. Nutrition Journal 12, 122–122. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-12-122
Torri L, Bondioli P, Folegatti L, Rovellini P, Piochi M, Morini G. 2019. Development of Perilla seed oil and extra virgin olive oil blends for nutritional, oxidative stability and consumer acceptance improvements. Food Chem. 286, 584–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.02.063
Vaisali C, Belur PD, Regupathi I. 2016. Comparison of antioxidant properties of phenolic compounds and their effectiveness in imparting oxidative stability to Sardine oil during storage. LWT 69, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.01.041
Winkler JK, Warner K, 2008. The effect of phytosterol concentration on oxidative stability and thermal polymerization of heated oils. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Tech. 110, 455–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejlt.200700265
Yang F, Oyeyinka SA, Xu W, Ying M, Zhou S. 2018. In vitro bioaccessibility and physicochemical properties of phytosterol linoleic ester synthesized from soybean sterol and linoleic acid. LWT 92, 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.02.031
Zhou D, Pan Y, Ye J, Jia J, Ma J, Ge F. 2017. Preparation of walnut oil microcapsules employing soybean protein isolate and maltodextrin with enhanced oxidation stability of walnut oil. LWT 83, 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.05.029