Stability of avocado oil during heating: comparative study to

olive oil””

Izaskun Berasategi1, Blanca Barriuso1, Diana Ansorena1*, Iciar Astiasarán1

1
Department of Nutrition, Food Science, Physiology and Toxicology, Faculty of

Pharmacy, University of Navarra, Irunlarrea s/n, 31008-Pamplona, Spain.

*
Corresponding author: Tel.: +34 948 42 56 00 (ext. 6263); Fax: +34 948 42 56 49.

E-mail address: dansorena@unav.es

1
1. INTRODUCTION

Cold-pressed avocado oil is relatively new in culinary circles, and its production volume

is relatively small compared with other oils, with approximately 2000 tonnes /year. New

Zealand, Mexico, Chile, United States and South Africa are among the main avocado

oil producers. Its significant production, commercialization and marketing are only

occurring in the twenty-first century and limited published information still exists on

this product (Woolf et al., 2008).

Avocado oil has the advantage, as it occurs with olive oil, which can be obtained from

the fruit by means of a cold extraction method, which is an easy, low cost technology

that allows maintaining in the oil significant amounts of the bioactive phytochemicals

present in the fruit. It should be also mentioned that, when obtained by non cold-press

extraction procedures, the extraction methods applied for obtaining avocado oil can

modify the physical and chemical characteristics of the final product (Ortiz-Moreno,

Dorantes, Galindez & Guzman, 2003).

As it has been also pointed out for other types of oils, avocado oil could be used as an

ingredient in functional foods because of its high concentration of oleic

monounsaturated fatty acid, and substantial amounts of health beneficial compounds,

such as antioxidant vitamins and phytosterols (Requejo, Ortega, Robles, Navia, Faci &

Aparicio, 2003). In vitro and in vivo studies indicate that avocado fruit can be

considered as part of a cancer prevention diet because of their high content of

phytochemicals (Ding, Chin, Kinghorn, D’’Ambrosio & Steven, 2007), being

particularly significant in this sense the lipid-soluble bioactive substances (Lu, Arteaga,

Zhang, Huerta, Go & Heber, 2005).

Compared to other fruits, avocado contains a high amount of sterols which are extracted

together with some other unsaponifiable components with the oil. Woolf et al. (2008)

2
pointed out that the concentration of sterols in avocado oil is around 3.3 mg/g oil with

up to 4.5 in some cases (being the main compound ȕ-sitosterol) being significantly

higher than that in olive oil.

Plant sterols, or phytosterols, are triterpene compounds, similar in structure to

cholesterol, that are found in plants. They can be divided into three main classes: 4-

desmethylsterols, 4-methylsterols, and 4,4ƍ-dimethylsterols (triterpene alcohols). Many

studies that demonstrated that 4-desmethylsterols have healthy benefits, such as the

decrease in the LDL cholesterol. Also, they possess anticancer, anti-inflammatory,

antiatherogenic, and antioxidative activities (Berger, Jones & Abumweis, 2004). Some

studies have shown that phytosterols may have a protective effect in oils heated to

frying temperatures (White & Armstrong, 1986). Regarding 4,4ƍ-dimethylsterols,

although some healthy properties have been described for some of them , they have

been mainly used to oil identification purposes (Azadmard-Damirchi, Savage & Dutta,

2005). They have shown antimicrobial, cytotoxic, antitumoral, antiviral, anti-

inflammatory, hepatoprotective, antifeedant and insecticidal activities (Alvarenga &

Esteban, 2005).

Vegetable oils are usually used raw in salads, but also they are used to cook, using for

different culinary processes. In these cases, oils are heated to high temperatures. These

temperatures could produce degradation and oxidation of compounds of oils, resulting

in damaging substances for health (Soupas, Juntunen, Saynajoki, Lampi & Piironen,

2004). These reactions depend on the conditions of the culinary process (temperature

and time), the type of oil used and the type of fried product (Lampi, Juntunen, Toivo &

Piironen, 2002; Rudzinska, Korczak & Wasowicz, 2005; Kmiecik, Korczak, Rudzinska,

3
Gramza-Michalowska & Hes, 2009). Moreover, vegetable oils are rich in unsaturated

fatty acids, which are less stable to oxidation than saturated fatty acids (Choe & Min,

2007). Olive oil has been established more stable than other vegetal oils to thermal

degradation due to its high amount of MUFA (Koski et al., 2002) and to the content of

phenolic compounds (Teissedre & Waterhouse, 2000).

As avocado oil has not been considered as an important source of oil, few studies have

been developed about its properties for culinary application.

The objective of this work was to study the stability of the saponifiable and

unsaponifiable fractions of avocado oil under a drastic heating treatment and to compare

it to that of olive oil.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Materials

The oils used in this study were Extra Virgin Olive Oil (Koipe, Sos Corporación

Alimentaria, S.A., Madrid, Spain) and Avocado Oil (Denova Products cc, Louis

Trichardt, South Africa), which is derived from the first pressing of the mature fruit

using the cold-pressed method and blended with refined oil. 5Į-cholestane, 2-

thiobarbituric acid, Į-tocopherol acetate 98 %, Į-tocopherol 97 %, tetraethoxypropane

and fatty acid methyl esters were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical (Steinheim,

Germany). Tri-sil reagent was obtained from Thermo Scientific (Bellefont, PA, USA).

Boron trifluoride/methanol and BHT were obtained from Merck (Whitehouse Station,

NJ, USA). KOH, hexane, cyclohexanone, methanol, hydrochoric acid, trichloroacetic

acid and ammonium sulphate were from Panreac (Barcelona, Spain). Ethanol was

purchased from Oppac (Navarra, Spain) and HPLC grade methanol from Scharlab

(Barcelona, Spain).

4
2.2. Heating study

For the heating study, sets of 5 g of both oils were placed into test tubes (PYREX“

Culture Tubes 16x100 SVL SCRE) and subjected to an intensive heat treatment. The

test tubes were placed in the thermo block (Temblock, Selecta“, Spain) previously

stabilized at 180 ºC. Test tubes were left open and removed from the thermo block at

different heating times up to 9 hours. Then, the samples were cooled in an ice bath for

20 minutes. Finally, the tubes were covered and stored in the freezer (-20 ºC) until

analysis.

2.3. Oil analysis

2.3.1. Fatty acid profile

Fatty acids were determined in the oils by gas chromatography FID detection, previous

preparation of the fatty acid methyl esters derivatives. Boron trifluoride/methanol was

used for the preparation of fatty acid methyl esters (AOAC, 2002). A Perkin-Elmer

Clarus 500 gas chromatograph, equipped with a split-splitless injector, automatic

autosampler, and coupled to a computerized system for data adquisition (TotalChrom,

version 6.2.1) was used. It was fitted with a capillary column SPTM-2560 (100 m×0.25

mm×0.2 ȝm). The temperature of both the injection port was 250 ºC and detector was

260 °C, the oven temperature was programmed to increase from 170 to 200 °C at a rate

of 10.0 °C/min and then at rate of 4.0 ºC/min to 220 ºC. The carrier gas was hydrogen,

30.0 psi. The sample size was 0.5 ȝl and the split ratio was 120. The quantification of

individual fatty acids used heptadecanoic acid methyl ester as internal standard. The

identification of the fatty acids was done by comparison of their retention times with

5
those of pure fatty acid methyl esters. The sampling times for this parameter were 0, 3

and 9 hours.

2.3.2. Determination of Sterols

Three grams (± 0.02 g) of oil sample and 1mL of internal standard (5Į-Cholestane: 2

mg/mL chloroform) were subjected to saponification and further extraction of the

unsaponifiable fraction. Ethanol (20 mL) and KOH (50%) (5 mL) were added to the

sample and subjected to a warm agitation for 1h (<50 ºC). 13 mL of distillated water

were added and six extractions with 20-25 mL of hexane were done, collecting the

organic phase of each extraction, which were all merged. Solvent was rotavaporated and

the sample was further dried under nitrogen flow. This unsaponifiable fraction was

derivatized with 400 ȝL of Tri-Sil in a hot water bath (60 º C for 45 minutes) to form

the trimethyl silyl ether (TMS) derivatives. The excess of Tri-Sil was evaporated under

nitrogen flow and the sample was diluted in 10 mL of hexane. The TMS derivatives of

sterols were analyzed in an HP 6890 GC system (Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, USA)

coupled to a 5973 Mass Selective Detector (Hewlett-Packard). 1 ȝL was injected into

GC, equipped with a capillary column (30 m x 250 ȝm x 0.25 ȝm nominal HP-5MS).

The carrier gas was He (1 mL/min), and the chromatographic conditions were as

follows: initial oven temperature was maintained during 0.5 min at 85 ºC and

subsequently programmed from 85 to 290 ºC at a rate of 50 ºC/min and at a rate of 0.5

ºC/min from 290 to 298 ºC. The injector and the detector temperatures were set at 280

ºC and 300 ºC, respectively. Acquisition mass range was established between 50.00 and

550.00 uma. Electron impact at 70 eV. Identification of the peaks was based on

comparison of their mass spectra with the spectra of the Wiley library (HPCHEM,

Wiley, 275, 6th ed.) and also with those obtained from the literature. In some cases, a

6
comparison of their retention time and MS fragments with those of TMS ether

derivatives prepared from standard pure compounds was also done.

The amounts of the different sterols during the analytical procedure in oils were

calculated on basis on the amount of a specific ion for each peak (Table 2), and taking

into account the relative proportion in which this ion is present in each compound:

mg sterol/100 g oil = 100*(PAs* F)(mis)/(PAis)(m)

PAs = sterol peak area on ion basis

F = proportion in which the ion is present in the peak

PAis = internal standard peak area

mis = weight (mg) of the internal standard

m = weight (g) of oil taken for analysis

The sampling times for this parameter were 0, 3 and 9 hours.

2.3.3. TBARs value

TBARS values were determined on oil basis according to the method described by

Maqsood & Benjakul (2010) with slight modifications. Briefly, the TBARS reagent was

prepared by mixing 15 % w/v trichloroacetic acid, 0.0375 % w/v 2-thiobarbituric acid in

0.25 N hydrochloric acid. The oil (0.5 g), distillate water (0.5 mL), 20 µL of BHT (1%)

and the TBARS reagent (2 mL) were vortexed in a centrifuge tube immediately after

combining, for 30 sec, placed in a boiling water bath for exactly 15 min and then cooled

in an ice bath to room temperature. Cyclohexanone (4 mL) and ammonium sulphate (1

mL, 4M) were added to the mixture and were vortexed for 30 sec. The mixture was

centrifuged at room temperature at 4000 rpm for 10 minutes. The supernatant was

collected and the absorbance was measured at 532 nm. A calibration curve with TEP

(tetraethoxypropane) was done for quantification purposes, using the same procedure as

7
with the sample. Results were expressed in mg of malondialdehyde (MDA) equivalents/

kg product. The sampling times for this parameter were 0, 0.5, 2, 3, 6 and 9 hours.

2.3.4. Tocopherol analysis

The determination of the tocopherol content in the oils was done by HPLC-UV analysis.

0.1 g of oil and 0.1 mL of internal standard (Į-tocopherol acetate 10 mg/mL solved in

methanol) were filled up to 10 mL with previously warmed (30 ºC) supergradient HPLC

grade methanol. Dilution was vortexed for 30 sec and filtered with 0.20 ȝm filter

(Syringe-driven Filter Unit, Millex®).

UV spectra were recorded on a Perkin Elmer UV-Vis Lambda 200 Series equipped with

a photodiode array detector Series 200 PDA, using a Supercosil LC18 column (25 mm x

4.6 mm, 5 ȝm particle size; Perkin Elmer Brownlee columns, Massachusetts, USA). A

total of 1 ȝL of the sample was injected into HPLC and isocratic elution with

Methanol/Water (97:3) at 1.5 ml/min flow. The UV acquisition was recorded at 292 nm

for 12 min run. Identification of Į-Tocopherol was done using the retention time of the

pure standard compound (RT = 4.5 min) (Vitamin E 97 %) and its characteristic UV

spectra. The quantification was performed using a calibration curve previously plotted

with Tocopherol acetate (RT = 7.5 min) (Vitamin E acetate 98 %). The sampling times

for this parameter were 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 hours.

2.4. Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using t student test for the evaluation of the results obtained in two

oils in the same time of heating process. A one way Anova test and the Tukey b post

hoc test were used to determine significant differences among the different times of

heating process for the same oil. Correlation between TBARs and vitamin E content

8
was evaluated by Pearson’’s correlation test. SPSS version 15.0 was used (SPSS inc.

Chicago, Illinois, USA). Significance level of p”0.05 was used for all evaluations.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Avocado oil vs. olive oil

As in the case of olive oil, the beneficial health properties of avocado oil could be

attributed to its composition, a high MUFA content and a significant amount of minor

components with interesting physiological activities (antioxidant and

hipocholesterolemic effects). The fatty acid profiles of two the oils were presented in

table 1.

MUFA amount of avocado oil sample was high (68.4 %), reaching oleic acid 54.4 % of

total FA. These data are in agreement with those of Ortiz Moreno et al. (2003) who

found oleic acid amounts in the range of 52-60 % depending on the oil extracting

methods used. Wang, Hwang, Yoon & Choe (2001) reported higher mean values for

Hass avocado oil from different countries (61.7-77.8 %). Other MUFA present in

significant amount were palmitoleic (7.9 %) and vaccenic (5.9 %) acids. Plaza,

Sanchez-Moreno, de Pascual-Teresa, de Ancos & Cano (2009) found 57 % of oleic acid

of the total fatty acids and lower (6 %) and higher (9 %) amounts for palmitoleic and

vaccenic acids (both MUFA), respectively. Compared to olive oil, the MUFA content

was significantly lower, especially due to the higher amount of oleic acid shown by

olive oil, which, at the same time, showed lower amounts for palmitoleic and vaccenic

acids. The lower MUFA content showed by avocado oil was partially compensated by

its higher PUFA content, containing interesting amounts of both omega-6 and omega-3

fatty acids. Avocado oil contained more than 2-fold the amount of linoleic acid present

in olive oil, being this acid quantitatively the third fatty acid in both types of oils. Also

9
Į-linolenic was slightly, but significantly higher in avocado oil compared to olive oil.

Trans fatty acids amount was 0.52 % in avocado oil, slightly higher than the amount

detected in olive oil (0.33 %). Ortiz Moreno et al. (2003) found values for total trans

fatty acids in avocado oil between 0.33 to 0.87 % depending on the method of

extraction used. In that work the use of microwave and squeezing resulted in the lowest

trans fatty acids content, whereas the use of acetone increased the trans content up to

0.87 %.

These differences detected in the fatty acids profile gave rise to some significant

differences in the ratios with interest from the nutritional point of view. The ratio

PUFA/SFA was higher in avocado oil than in olive oil, whereas PUFA+MUFA/SFA

was lower. Moreover, Ȧ-6/Ȧ-3 ratio was higher in avocado oil (14.05) than in olive oil

(8.41), due to the high amount of linoleic acid (Ȧ-6). Regarding these two last data,

avocado oil did not show from the nutritional standpoint, an advantage compared to

olive oil.

The unsaponifiable fraction of avocado oil showed also some significant differences

compared to olive oil. The differences between the two oils were illustrated in figure 1

and table 2, where two TIC GC-MS chromatograms are shown, one for each type of oil.

As it can be observed, some coleutions were noticed, and the different ions used for the

monitorization and quantification of the compounds by SIM mode (single ion

monitoring) analysis are shown. The most abundant compound in both oils was

sitosterol, as it will be discussed below, that corresponded to peak G. The peak that

followed sitosterol contained mainly ǻ5-avenasterol, accompanied by sitostanol at the

leading edge and by Į-amyrine at the tailing edge. Similarly, a coleution is observed for

peaks compressed within RR between 1.07 and 1.08, which were identified as ǻ7-

sitostanol, cycloartenol, cycloeucalenol and ǻ7- avenasterol, according to literature MS

10
data. Five of the quantified compounds in this work were not identified or found in the

literature. These compounds accounted for a 4.4 and 11.5 % in olive oil and avocado

oil, respectively. Further studies are needed to understand better these compounds, both

in their characterization, as well as in their potential effects on health.

As it was expected, the amount of sterols in the avocado oil was much higher than that

of olive oil, 339.64 and 228.27 mg/100g oil, respectively (Table 3). Phytosterols content

in vegetables are known to vary by different factors as variety, season, extraction and

other technological procedures (Li, Beveridge & Drover, 2007; Cercaci, Passalacqua,

Poerio, Rodriguez-Estrada & Lercker, 2007). American ginseng seed oil, which is

considered as a potential functional ingredient by its high phytosterol content shows

amounts around 798-973 mg/100 g oil (Beveridge, Li & Drover, 2002).

The most abundant sterols in avocado oil were the 4-desmethyl-sterols, reaching the 80

% of the total fraction. Sitosterol was the most abundant sterol in this fraction and also

considering the total sterols content, showing more than twice the amount detected in

olive oil (251 vs. 93 mg/100 g oil). Tabee, Azadmard-Damirchi, Jagerstad & Dutta

(2008) found levels of sitosterol from 46.1 to 406 mg/100 g in different types of oils,

including palm oil (with the lowest content) and rapeseed oil (with the highest content).

Also other 4-desmethylsterols are present in avocado oil in significant amounts as

campesterol (18 mg/100 g), ǻ5-avenasterol (9.4 mg/100 g), ǻ7-sitosterol (2.8 mg/100

g), sitostanol (2.2 mg/100 g) and stigmasterol (1.1 mg/100 g). The other two fractions,

4-monomethyl and 4,4’’-dimethylsterols, were 2.7 % and 5.5 % from the total sterols

with citrostadienol and cycloartenol, as the main compounds from each one.

The analysis of the olive oil sterol profile was significantly different. It showed

percentages of 48.4 %, 3.2 % and 44.0 % for 4-desmethyl, 4-monomethyl and 4,4’’-

11
dimethylsterols, respectively, being these results similar to those found by D´Evoli et al.

(2006) and by Azadmard-Damirchi, Nemati, Hesari, Ansarin & Fathi-Achachlouei

(2010) in virgin olive oil. Sakouhi, Absalon, Flamini, Cioni, Kallel & Boukhchina

(2010) found a similar profile for 4-desmethylsterols in Sayoli olive oil. However, these

authors found differences among vegetable oils for 4,4-dimethylsterols. In fact, the

detection of trace levels of certain 4,4-dimethylsterols has been proposed as possible

markers to detect virgin olive oil adulteration with hazelnut oil (Azadmard-Damirchi et

al., 2010b).

The analysis of vitamin E showed much higher amounts of vit E in olive oil than in

avocado oil (35.5 and 24.5 mg vit E/100 g oil, respectively). Results obtained for olive

oil agree with those obtained by Pellegrini, Visioli, Buratti & Brighenti (2001). Lozano,

Dhuique, Bannon & Gaydou (1993) analyzed the vit E content in avocado oil depending

on the degree of fruit maturation, finding that oil from mature fruits had lower amount

of vit E than oil from immature fruits (5.7-10.3 mg/100 g oil - 20.1-45.6 mg/100 g,

respectively). Salgado, Danieli, Bismara Regitano-D'Arce, Frias, & Mansi (2008)

analyzed avocado oil and they found 6.04 mg/100 g oil, much lower amount than that

obtained in this work.

3.2. Effects of heating treatment

Oil behaviour during heating was evaluated by the evolution of TBARs (Figure 1) and

also through the analysis of the modifications suffered both by the saponifiable (fatty

acids, Table 1) and the unsaponifiable fractions, including the analysis of vitamin E

along the heating treatment (Figure 2).

TBARs measure the formation of products derived from fatty acids oxidation.

Comparing the fatty acid profile at 0 and 3 h of heating it can be observed that SFA

12
increased in 0.46 g and 0.18 g in avocado and olive oils, whereas the unsaturated

fraction (MUFA+PUFA) decreased in 0.52 g and 0.23 g in avocado and olive oils,

respectively. These results corresponded to the increment for TBARs found during the

first hours of heating (1, 2, 3 and 6 hours). TBARs was slightly higher in avocado than

in olive oil before heating, and during the first 2 hours of treatment, it showed a similar

increment in both oils (+0.35 and +0.49). After that, the magnitude in the increment was

higher in olive oil than in avocado oil (+2.03 and +1.04, respectively) reaching the

maximum values at 6 h. It has to be remembered that unsaturated fatty acids are more

prone to oxidation than SFA. There were no data available for fatty acids at 6 hours of

heating but analyzing the evolution from 3 to 9 hours it can be observed that SFA

increased in 0.31 g in olive oil and decreased in 0.46 g in avocado oil. On the contrary,

the unsaturated fraction decreased in 0.33 g in olive oil and increase in 0.62 g in

avocado oil. Allouche, Jimenez, Gaforio, Uceda & Beltran (2007) found that, after 6 h

treatment (180ºC) of olive oil, palmitoleic, linoleic and linoleic acid decreased, whereas

oleic acid was not modified. Plaza et al. (2009) found a significant decrease in avocado

fatty acids content during 13 days of cold storage. In the case of TBARs, although a

similar decrease was observed for both oils during the last 3 hours, data showed

significantly higher TBARs in olive than in avocado oil. These data pointed out to a

higher stability of the saponificable fraction of avocado oil during heating.

The oils stability against oxidation depends not only on the degree of unsaturation, but

also on the amount of antioxidants present in the unsaponifiable fraction. Tabee et al.

(2008) analyzing the stability of oils with similar MUFA content during heating,

showed different results depending on the amounts of Į-tocopherol and phytosterols

present in the oils.

13
The contribution of total tocopherols to extra virgin olive oil stability has been

established to be around 9 % (Aparicio, Roda, Albi & Gutierrez, 1999). D´Evoli et al.

(2006) found a different sterol degradation rate on extra virgin olive oil with and

without the addition of rosemary, with known antioxidant properties. These authors

observed a significant reduction of the sterol content after 6h heating at 180ºC,

remaining only a 67 % of the initial amount present in olive oil. The experimental

conditions used in that work (1 g sample heated) differed from our work (5 g sample

heated), and could have definitively influenced the obtained results. As it can be seen in

table 3, during the heating treatment, avocado oil maintained a higher amount of

phytosterols than olive oil. However, the percentage of loss was different depending on

the oil.

Only the compounds that appeared in low amounts disappeared with heating process,

but most of the sterols, although significantly reduced, did not totally disappear.

Regarding olive oil, after 3 h heating, a 93 % of the initial sitosterol content remained,

whereas after 9 h, a 90 % remained. Regarding avocado oil, a 76 % and 86 % of the

initial sitosterol content remained after heating 3 and 9 h, respectively. According to

what occurred with fatty acids of avocado oil at 9 h of heating, total phytosterols

increased significantly. Winkler, Warner & Glynn (2007) in an interesting paper over

the effect of deep-fat frying on phytosterol content in different oils (olive and avocado

oils not included) concluded that their loss appear to be unrelated either to fatty acid

composition or to the extent of oil degradation.

Vitamin E is sensitive to heat treatment. It disappeared after 4 and 5 h of treatment in

avocado and olive oil, respectively. The decrease was quicker in avocado oil, reaching

at 2-3 h a 57 % of loss, in contrast with the 26 % of loss in the case of olive oil. The

decrease of vitamin E amounts showed a high correlation with the increase of TBARs

14
during the first 6 h (R Pearson was -0.908 and -0.912 for olive and avocado oils,

respectively; p<0.001).

In conclusion, avocado oil showed higher PUFA/SFA ratio and higher omega-6/omega-

3 ratio than olive oil. The amount of the main sterol, sitosterol, was more than 2-fold

abundant in avocado oil compared to olive oil. Whereas 4-desmethylsterols were

predominant in avocado oil, 4-desmethylsterols and 4,4-dimethylsterols were similarly

distributed in olive oil. According to TBARs results and the lipid profile, the stability of

avocado oil during heating at 180 º C was similar to that of olive oil.

4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the ““Programa Consolider-Ingenio 2010 CARNISENUSA CSD2007-00016””,

the ““Proyecto AGL2008-01099/ALI”” (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación), and ““Plan

Investigador de la Universidad de Navarra”” (PIUNA) for their contribution to the

financial support of this work. I. Berasategi is grateful to Gobierno de Navarra

(Departamento de Innovación, Empresa y Empleo) and to ““Asociación de Amigos de la

Universidad de Navarra”” for the grants received. We are also grateful to Denova

Products for the supply of Avocado oil.

15
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allouche, Y., Jimenez, A., Gaforio, J. J., Uceda, M., & Beltran, G. (2007). How heating

affects extra virgin olive oil quality indexes and chemical composition. Journal of

Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 55, 9646-9654.

Alvarenga, N., & Ferro, E. A. (2005). Bioactive triterpenes and related compounds from

celastraceae. Bioactive Natural Products (Part K), 30, 635-702.

AOAC. (2000). Methyl esters of fatty acids in oils and fats. 969.33. Official methods of

analysis. 17th Edition (Chapter 41, pp. 19-20). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of

Official Analytical Chemists.

Aparicio, R., Roda, L., Albi, M. A., & Gutierrez, F. (1999). Effect of various

compounds on virgin olive oil stability measured by rancimat. Journal of Agricultural

and Food Chemistry, 47(10), 4150-4155.

Azadmard-Damirchi S, Savage GP, & Dutta PC (2005). Sterol fractions in hazelnut and

virgin olive oils and 4,4'-dimethylsterols as possible markers for detection of

adulteration of virgin olive oil. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 82(10),

82 (10) 717-725.

Azadmard-Damirchi, S., Nemati, M., Hesari, J., Ansarin, M., & Fathi-Achachlouei, B.

(2010). Rapid separating and enrichment of 4,4'-dimethylsterols of vegetable oils by

solid-phase extraction. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 87(10), 1155-

1159.

Berger, A., Jones, P., & Abumweis, S. (2004). Plant sterols: factors affecting their

efficacy and safety as functional food ingredients. Lipids in Health and Disease, 3(1), 5.

16
Beveridge, T. H. J., Li, T. S. C., & Drover, J. C. G. (2002). Phytosterol content in

American ginseng seed oil. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50(4), 744-

750.

Cercaci, L., Passalacqua, G., Poerio, A., Rodriguez-Estrada, M. T., & Lercker, G.

(2007). Composition of total sterols (4-desmethyl-sterols) in extravirgin olive oils

obtained with different extraction technologies and their influence on the oil oxidative

stability. Food Chemistry, 102(1), 66-76.

Choe, E., & Min, D. B. (2007). Chemistry of deep-fat frying oils. Journal of Food

Science, 72(5), R77-R86.

D'Evoli, L., Huikko, L., Lampi, A. M., Lucarini, M., Lombardi-Boccia, G., Nicoli, S., &

Piironen, V. (2006). Influence of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis, L.) on plant sterol

oxidation in extra virgin olive oil. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 50(9), 818-

823.

Ding, H., Chin, Y., Kinghorn, A. D., & D’’Ambrosio, S. M. (2007). Chemopreventive

characteristics of avocado fruit. Seminars in cancer biology, 17(5), 386-394.

Kmiecik, D., Korczak, J., Rudzinska, M., Gramza-Michalowska, A., & Hes, M. (2009).

Stabilization of phytosterols in rapeseed oil by natural antioxidants during heating.

European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology, 111(11), 1124-1132.

Koski, A., Psomiadou, E., Tsimidou, M., Hopia, A., Kefalas, P., Wahala, K., &

Heinonen, M. (2002). Oxidative stability and minor constituents of virgin olive oil and

cold-pressed rapeseed oil. European Food Research and Technology, 214(4), 294-298.

17
Lampi, A. M., Juntunen, L., Toivo, J., & Piironen, V. (2002). Determination of thermo-

oxidation products of plant sterols. Journal of Chromatography B-Analytical

Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences, 777(1-2), 83-92.

Li, T. S. C., Beveridge, T. H. J., & Drover, J. C. G. (2007). Phytosterol content of sea

buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) seed oil: Extraction and identification. Food

Chemistry, 101(4), 1633-1639.

Lozano, Y.F., Dhuique Mayer, C., Bannon, C., & Gaydou, E.M. (1993). Unsaponifiable

matter, total sterol and tocopherol contents of avocado oil varieties. Journal of the

American Oil Chemists’’ Society, 70(6), 561-565.

Lu, Q., Arteaga, J. R., Zhang, Q., Huerta, S., Go, V. L. W., & Heber, D. (2005).

Inhibition of prostate cancer cell growth by an avocado extract: role of lipid-soluble

bioactive substances. The Journal of nutritional biochemistry, 16(1), 23-30.

Maqsood, S., & Benjakul, S. (2010). Comparative studies of four different phenolic

compounds on in vitro antioxidative activity and the preventive effect on lipid oxidation

of fish oil emulsion and fish mince. Food Chemistry, 119(1), 123-132.

Ortiz-Moreno, A., Dorantes, L., Galindez, J., & Guzman, R. (2003). Effect of different

extraction methods on fatty acids, volatile compounds, and physical and chemical

properties of avocado (Persea americana Mill.) oil. Journal of Agricultural and Food

Chemistry, 51(8), 2216-2221.

Pellegrini, N., Visioli, F., Buratti, S., & Brighenti, F. (2001). Direct analysis of total

antioxidant activity of olive oil and studies on the influence of heating. Journal of

Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 49(5), 2532-2538.

18
Plaza, L., Sanchez-Moreno, C., de Pascual-Teresa, S., de Ancos, B., & Cano, M. P.

(2009). Fatty acids, sterols, and antioxidant activity in minimally processed avocados

during refrigerated storage. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 57(8), 3204-

3209.

Requejo, A. M., Ortega, R. M., Robles, F., Navia, B., Faci, M., & Aparicio, A. (2003).

Influence of nutrition on cognitive function in a group of elderly, independently living

people. European journal of clinical nutrition, 57, S54-S57.

Rudzinska, M., Korczak, J., & Wasowicz, E. (2005). Changes in phytosterols and their

oxidation products during frying of French fries in rapeseed oil. Polish Journal of Food

and Nutrition Sciences, 14(4), 381-387.

Sakouhi, F., Absalon, C., Flamini, G., Cioni, P. L., Kallel, H., & Boukhchina, S. (2010).

Lipid components of olive oil from Tunisian Cv. Sayali: Characterization and

authenticity. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 333(9), 642-648.

Salgado, J. M., Danieli, F., Bismara Regitano-D'Arce, M. A., Frias, A., & Mansi, D. N.

(2008). The avocado oil (Persea americana Mill) as a raw material for the food industry.

Ciencia E Tecnologia De Alimentos, 28, 20-26.

Soupas, L., Juntunen, L., Saynajoki, S., Lampi, A., & Piironen, V. (2004). GC-MS

method for characterization and quantification of sitostanol oxidation products. Journal

of the American Oil Chemists' Society, 81(2), 135-141.

Tabee, E., Azadmard-Damirchi, S., Jagerstad, M., & Dutta, P. C. (2008). Effects of

alpha-tocopherol on oxidative stability and phytosterol oxidation during heating in some

19
regular and high-oleic vegetable oils. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society,

85(9), 857-867.

Teissedre, P. L., & Waterhouse, A. L. (2000). Inhibition of oxidation of human low-

density lipoproteins by phenolic substances in different essential oils varieties. Journal

of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48(9), 3801-3805.

Wang, S., Hwang, H., Yoon, S., & Choe, E. (2010). Temperature dependence of

autoxidation of Perilla oil and tocopherol degradation. Journal of Food Science, 75(6),

C498-C505.

White, P. J., & Armstrong, L. S. (1986). Effect of selected oat sterols on the

deterioration of heated soybean oil. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society,

63(4), 525-529.

Winkler, J. K., Warner, K., & Glynn, M. T. (2007). Effect of deep-fat frying on

phytosterol content in oils with differing fatty acid composition. Journal of the

American Oil Chemists Society, 84, 1023-1030.

Woolf, A., Wong, M., Eyres, L., McGhie, T., Lund, C., Olsson, S., Wang, Y., Bulley,

C., Wang, M., Friel, E., & Requejo-Jackman, C. (2008). Avocado oil. In R.A. Moreau,

& A. Kamal-Eldin (Eds.), Gourmet and health-promoting specialty oils (pp. 73-125).

Urbana: AOCS Monograph Series on Oilseeds.

20
Table 1. Fatty acid composition of the two types of oils in three times of heating process (g/100 g fatty acids mean r standard deviation).
CONTROL 3 HOURS 9 HOURS
1 1 2 1 1 2 1
OLIVE AVOCADO LS OLIVE AVOCADO LS OLIVE AVOCADO1 LS2
Myristic C14:0 0.02 r 0.00 0.06 r 0.00a *** 0.03 r 0.00 0.06 r 0.00ab *** 0.03 r 0.00 0.06 r 0.00b ***
b c c
Palmitic C16:0 10.24 r 0.02ª 18.74 r 0.06ª *** 10.34 r 0.01 19.18 r 0.02 *** 10.56 r 0.00 18.91 r 0.04b ***
t-Palmitoleic C16:1t 0.11 r 0.00a 0.10 r 0.00 *** 0.12 r 0.00b 0.10 r 0.00 *** 0.11 r 0.00ab 0.10 r 0.00 ***
Palmitoleic C16:1 0.60 r 0.01ª 7.88 r 0.01ab *** 0.62 r 0.00c 7.85 r 0.05ª *** 0.62 r 0.00b 7.94 r 0.05b ***
Stearic C18:0 3.12 r 0.01ª 0.51 r 0.00a *** 3.21 r 0.01b 0.53 r 0.01b *** 3.29 r 0.01c 0.55 r 0.01c ***
Elaidic C18:1t 0.14 r 0.01 0.29 r 0.02 *** 0.15 r 0.02 0.34 r 0.02 *** 0.17 r 0.02 0.33 r 0.01 ***
Oleic C18:1 (Ȧ-9) 77.64 r 0.03c 54.40 r 0.10ª *** 77.35 r 0.02ª 54.69 r 0.11b *** 77.48 r 0.02b 54.46 r 0.09ª ***
Vaccenic C18:1 (Ȧ-7) 2.16 r 0.02b 5.87 r 0.03b *** 2.00 r 0.01ª 5.88 r 0.06b *** 2.15 r 0.02b 5.61 r 0.01ª ***
c b a a
t-Linoleic C18:2t 0.03 r 0.00 0.02 r 0.00 ** 0.01 r 0.00 0.02 r 0.00 *** 0.01 r 0.00b 0.03 r 0.00c ***
c-t linoleic C18:1c.1t 0.00 r 0.00a 0.03 r 0.00a *** 0.04 r 0.00b 0.05 r 0.00c *** 0.06 r 0.00c 0.04 r 0.00b ***
a a ab b b
t-c linoleic C18:1t.1c 0.05 r 0.00 0.06 r 0.00 ** 0.05 r 0.00 0.07 r 0.00 ** 0.06 r 0.00 0.06 r 0.00a **
Linoleic C18:2 (Ȧ-6) 4.21 r 0.01b 10.87 r 0.01b *** 4.20 r 0.00b 10.24 r 0.03ª *** 3.79 r 0.01ª 10.94 r 0.04c ***
Arachidic C20:0 0.31 r 0.05 nd 0.31 r 0.00 nd 0.32 r 0.00 nd
a c
J-linolenic C18:3 (Ȧ-6) 0.01 r 0.00 0.01 r 0.00 ns 0.01 r 0.00 0.02 r 0.00 ns 0.01 r 0.00 0.01 r 0.00b **
a b b
Eicosenoic C20:1 (Ȧ-9) 0.13 r 0.00 0.12 r 0.00 ns 0.15 r 0.00 0.09 r 0.01 *** 0.15 r 0.00 0.11 r 0.00 ***
Į-linolenic C18:3 (Ȧ-3) 0.53 r 0.00b 0.61 r 0.00b *** 0.53 r 0.01b 0.51 r 0.01ª ** 0.42 r 0.01ª 0.63 r 0.00c ***
Eicosatrienoic C20:3 (Ȧ-3) nd 0.01 r 0.00b nd 0.01 r 0.00c nd nd
Arachidonic C20:4 (Ȧ-6) 0.63 r 0.02b 0.01 r 0.00a *** 0.61 r 0.01b 0.01 r 0.00a *** 0.50 r 0.01ª 0.03 r 0.00b ***
b c c
SFA 13.71 r 0.02ª 19.31 r 0.06ª *** 13.89 r 0.01 19.77 r 0.03 *** 14.20 r 0.01 19.52 r 0.04b ***
MUFA 80.53 r 0.03c 68.40 r 0.09b *** 80.13 r 0.02ª 68.55 r 0.02c *** 80.42 r 0.02b 68.15 r 0.05ª ***
PUFA 5.43 r 0.03b 11.75 r 0.02b *** 5.60 r 0.01c 11.08 r 0.06ª *** 4.98 r 0.03ª 11.74 r 0.06b ***
c c b b
Ȧ-3 0.58 r 0.01ª 0.78 r 0.01 *** 0.70 r 0.00 0.71 r 0.01 ns 0.60 r 0.01 0.67 r 0.02ª **
Ȧ-6 4.85 r 0.03b 10.97 r 0.01b *** 4.91 r 0.01c 10.36 r 0.07ª *** 4.38 r 0.02ª 11.06 r 0.04c ***
Ȧ-6/Ȧ3 8.41 r 0.08c 14.05 r 0.15ª *** 7.02 r 0.04ª 14.60 r 0.22b *** 7.30 r 0.12b 16.44 r 0.41c ***
b c c a a
PUFA/SFA 0.40 r 0.00 0.61 r 0.00 *** 0.40 r 0.00 0.56 r 0.00 *** 0.35 r 0.00 0.60 r 0.00b ***
PUFA+MUFA/SFA 6.27 r 0.01c 4.15 r 0.02c *** 6.17 r 0.01b 4.03 r 0.01ª *** 6.02 r 0.00a 4.09 r 0.01b ***
trans 0.33 r 0.01a 0.52 r 0.02a *** 0.38 r 0.02b 0.58 r 0.03b *** 0.40 r 0.02b 0.56 r 0.01ab ***
1 2
Within each type of oil, different letters in the same raw denote significant differences among times of analysis (p<0.05). LS (level of significance of the t-student test
that compares the two oils for each time of analysis): ns (not significant); p • 0.05; **p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
nd: not detected
SFA: saturated fatty acids; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acids

21
Table 2. Retention times, relative retention times and fragmentation ions used in the identification of the trimethyl silyl ether derivatives of the
sterols of olive and avocado oils.

PEAK
COMPOUND OIL RT RR TYPE MAIN FRAGMENTATION IONS REFERENCES
(Figure 2)
Campesterol A O&A 11.46 0.91 4-DESM 472; 457; 382; 367; 343; 129 Standard
Campestanol B O&A 11.50 0.91 4-DESM 459; 382; 354; 241 Standard
Stigmasterol C O&A 11.83 0.93 4-DESM 484; 469; 394; 379; 355; 255; 145 Standard
Unknown 1 D O&A 11.95 0.94 - 495; 131
Unknown 2 E O&A 12.27 0.97 - 414; 303; 223
Lanosterol F O&A 12.57 0.99 4-DIMS 498; 483; 393; 189 2
Sitosterol G O&A 12.66 1.00 4-DESM 486; 471; 396; 381; 357 Standard
Sitostanol H O&A 12.79 1.01 4-DESM 488; 473; 215 Standard
ǻ5-Avenasterol I O&A 12.83 1.01 4-DESM 386; 296 1;3
Į-amyrin J O&A 12.91 1.02 4-DIMS 241; 218 1;3
Lupeol + gramisterol K O&A 13.44 1.06 4-DIMS 443; 400; 357; 269 2
ǻ7-Sitosterol L O&A 13.51 1.07 4-DESM 471; 281; 255 1;3
Cycloartenol M O&A 13.54 1.07 4-DIMS 498; 483; 408; 365 2;3
Cycloeucalenol N O&A 13.61 1.08 4-MS 353; 283 1
ǻ7-Avenasterol O O&A 13.72 1.08 4-DESM 469; 343 2
Unknown 3 P A 13.98 1.10 - 500; 462
Unknown 4 Q A 14.30 1.13 - 440; 412; 370
24-Methylenecycloartanol R O&A 14.57 1.15 4-DIMS 497; 422; 407; 379; 353 1;3
Unknown 5 S A 14.71 1.16 - 444; 357; 317
Citrostadienol T O&A 15.28 1.21 4-MS 400; 357; 267 1;3

22
 Table 3. Phytosterol composition of the two types of oils in three times of heating process (mg/100 g oil mean r standard deviation).
mg sterol/100g oil CONTROL 3 HOURS 9 HOURS
OLIVE1 AVOCADO1 LS 2
OLIVE 1
AVOCADO1 LS 2
OLIVE 1
AVOCADO1 LS2
Campesterol 3.93 r 0.27 18.36 r 1.44b ** 3.30 r 0.22 14.47 r 1.23a ** 3.61 r 0.35 14.85 r 0.99a ***
Campestanol 0.04 r 0.03 0.43 r 0.03c *** 0.02 r 0.01 0.28 r 0.02b *** 0.04 r 0.00 0.04 r 0.02a ns
Stigmasterol 0.76 r 0.09a 1.11 r 0.12b * 1.23 r 0.13b 1.04 r 0.21b ns 0.89 r 0.04a 0.31 r 0.01a **
Unknown 1 1.59 r 0.17 3.62 r 0.08b *** 1.09 r 0.08 1.19 r 0.83a ns 1.46 r 0.32 1.82 r 0.17a ns
Unknown 2 2.16 r 0.22a 30.39 r 0.34c *** 1.66 r 0.88a 1.04 r 0.41b ns 5.52 r 0.22b 0.00 r 0.00a ***
Lanosterol 0.45 r 0.06 0.59 r 0.07b ns 0.39 r 0.02 0.40 r 0.07a ns 0.43 r 0.03 0.41 r 0.07a ns
b
Sitosterol 93.56 r 0.26 251.07 r 20.71b ** 86.83 r 0.99 a
192.19 r 18.78a ** 84.96 r 0.34 a
216.63 r 13.44ab **
Sitostanol 0.61 r 0.02 2.19 r 0.22b ** 0.53 r 0.06 1.52 r 0.15a *** 0.55 r 0.08 1.38 r 0.08a ***
ǻ5 Avenasterol 10.68 r 0.85 9.42 r 1.69 ns 9.19 r 0.74 7.38 r 0.91 ns 10.11 r 0.93 7.93 r 0.69 *
a
Į-amyrin 1.56 r 0.14 0.13 r 0.02b ** 1.42 r 0.12 a
0.00 r 0.00a ** 1.31 r 0.10 a
0.00 r 0.00a ***
Lupeol+gramisterol 0.40 r 0.05 1.78 r 0.24b ** 0.32 r 0.01 0.89 r 0.23a * 0.36 r 0.04 1.38 r 0.17b **
ǻ7 sitosterol 3.78 r 0.19b 2.82 r 0.39c * 3.28 r 0.15a 1.26 r 0.47b ** 3.75 r 0.25b 0.07 r 0.06a ***
Cycloartenol 43.69 r 3.29 16.08 r 5.55 *** 39.71 r 2.99 14.18 r 2.24 *** 41.02 r 0.58 16.60 r 1.50 ***
Cycloeucalenol 1.37 r 0.16 0.30 r 0.02b ** 1.27 r 0.05 0.00 r 0.00a *** 1.27 r 0.04 0.00 r 0.00a ***
ǻ7 avenasterol 0.48 r 0.03b 0.30 r 0.04c ** 0.36 r 0.03a 0.16 r 0.04b ** 0.43 r 0.06ab 0.08 r 0.00a *
Unknown 4 nd 0.08 r 0.00c nd 0.02 r 0.01b nd nda
Unknown 5 nd 6.55 r 0.10c nd 0.74 r 0.30b nd nda
24-Methylenecycloartanol 56.98 r 3.77 1.13 r 0.01 *** 51.98 r 4.13 1.01 r 0.29 ** 50.75 r 0.43 0.75 r 0.11 **
Unknown 6 nd 0.30 r 0.07b nd nda nd nda
Citrostadienol 5.61 r 0.54b 9.03 r 1.83b * 4.53 r 0.06a 3.36 r 0.60a ns 5.24 r 0.25ab 8.31 r 0.67b **
Total Phytosterols 228.27 r 2.18b 339.64 r 4.88c *** 206.83 r 2.44a 240.96 r 25.38a * 210.30 r 1.11a 270.44 r 17.70b *

23
Figure 1. GC-MS chromatogram of the total ion count of TMS derivatives of phytosterols
of olive and avocado oils. Peaks are identified as in Table 2.

Abundance Olive oil

C: SIN-2A(100).D\ data.ms

5500000

5000000

5Į-cholestane
Abundance

Abundance
Ion 255.00 (254.70 to 255.70): SIN-1A(100).D\ data.ms
Ion 498.00 (497.70 to 498.70): SIN-1A(100).D\ data.ms
Ion 408.00 (407.70 to 408.70): SIN-1A(100).D\ data.ms
Ion 473.00 (472.70 to 473.70): SIN-1A(100).D\ data.ms Ion 353.00 (352.70 to 353.70): SIN-1A(100).D\ data.ms
30000 5500

4500000
Ion 386.00 (385.70 to 386.70): SIN-1A(100).D\ data.ms Ion 343.00 (342.70 to 343.70): SIN-1A(100).D\ data.ms
28000 Ion 218.00 (217.70 to 218.70): SIN-1A(100).D\ data.ms
5000
26000
24000
22000
20000
I 4500

4000
M
18000
3500

4000000
16000
14000 3000

12000
10000
J 2500
O
8000
6000
4000 H
2000

1500
L N
3500000 2000
0
1000

12.75 12.80 12.85 12.90 12.95 13.00

Time--> 500

0
13.30 13.35 13.40 13.45 13.50 13.55 13.60 13.65 13.70 13.75 13.80 13.85
Time-->

3000000 G

2500000

2000000

R
1500000

1000000

500000
A T
B C D K
E F
0
8.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00
Time-->

Abundance Avocado oil

RUEBA_AGUACATE1.D\ data.ms

5500000

Abundance

Ion 473.00 (472.70 to 473.70): PRUEBA_AGUACATE1.D\ data.ms

G
I
5000 Ion 386.00 (385.70 to 386.70): PRUEBA_AGUACATE1.D\ data.ms
Ion 218.00 (217.70 to 218.70): PRUEBA_AGUACATE1.D\ data.ms

5000000 4500
Abundance
Abundance
4000

Ion 255.00 (254.70 to 255.70): PRUEBA_AGUACATE1.D\ data.ms Ion 353.00 (352.70 to 353.70): PRUEBA_AGUACATE1.D\ data.ms

H O
3500 Ion 408.00 (407.70 to 408.70): PRUEBA_AGUACATE1.D\ data.ms Ion 343.00 (342.70 to 343.70): PRUEBA_AGUACATE1.D\ data.ms
1800 Ion 500.00 (499.70 to 500.70): PRUEBA_AGUACATE1.D\ data.ms
1600
3000
1600
4500000 2500
1400

P
1400
2000
1200
1200
1500 1000
1000

4000000
1000

J
800 800
Q
L
500
600 600

Time-->
0
12.82 12.84 12.86 12.88 12.90 12.92 12.94 12.96
400

200
N 400
O
200

0
13.42 13.44 13.46 13.48 13.50 13.52 13.54 13.56 13.58 0

3500000 Time-->
Time-->
13.65 13.70 13.75 13.80 13.85 13.90 13.95 14.00 14.05 14.10 14.15

5Į-cholestane
3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

A
500000 U
T
B C D EF K R S TS
R
8.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00
Time-->

24
Figure 2. TBARs evolution during the heating process of the two types of oil (mg
malondialdehyde/Kg oil).

3.5
*

3
**
ns
2.5
**
TBA (mg MDA/kg oil)

***
2
* Olive oil
1.5 Avocado oil

0.5

0
0 3 6 9

Time (h)

Level of significance for the Student t test that compares the two oils after different times of heating: ns
(not significant); * p < 0.05; **p<0.01; *** p < 0.001.

25
Figure 3. Content of Vitamin E in olive and avocado oil during heat process (mg vit
E/100 g oil).

40
A
35
(mg vitamin E/100 g oil)

B
30
** C
a
*** C
25
a ***
20

15 ***
b D
10
b
5
***
0
c c Avocado oil
0
1
2 E Olive oil
3
4
5
Time (h)

Different capital letters denote significant differences among olive oil after different times of heating and
different lowercase letters denote significant differences among avocado oil after different times of
heating (p<0.05).
Level of significance for the Student t test that compares the two oils after different times of heating:
**p<0.01; *** p < 0.001.

26
27