GRASAS Y ACEITES 69 (2)

April–June 2018, e256

ISSN-L: 0017-3495
https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

Chemical characterization of commercial and single-variety

avocado oils

G.D. Fernandesa,*, R.B. Gómez-Cocab, M.C. Pérez-Caminob, W. Moredab and D. Barrera-Arellanoa

a
Fats and Oils Laboratory, Department of Food Technology, University of Campinas, Bertrand Russell, 13081-970,
Campinas, Brazil.
b
Department of Characterization and Quality of Lipids, Instituto de la Grasa-CSIC, Campus of University Pablo de Olavide,
Building 46, E-41013-Seville, Spain.
*
Corresponding author: gabrieldfcac@hotmail.com

Submitted: 19 January 2018; Accepted: 08 March 2018

SUMMARY: This work aimed to determine the major and minor compounds of avocado oils. Mono-varietal
oils from the Bacon, Fuerte, Hass, and Pinkerton cultivars were obtained by means of an Abencor® system,
while commercial oils from Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and New Zealand were purchased locally. The content of tria-
cylglycerols, fatty acids, aliphatic and terpenic alcohols, desmethyl- methyl- and dimethyl-sterols, squalene and
tocopherols were determined. The main triacylglycerols were those with ECN48. In addition, the oleic, palmitic
and linoleic acids prevailed. Desmethyl-sterols were the principal minor compounds. Low amounts of aliphatic
and terpenic alcohols were also found. Squalene concentrations were higher in Bacon, Fuerte and Pinkerton
oils than in the other oils. The most abundant tocopherol was α-tocopherol. Partial least squares discriminant
analysis made it possible to express the differences among the samples. To summarize, this work brings a differ-
ent approach to the complete characterization of avocado oil.
KEYWORDS: Avocado oils; Chemical characterization; Commercial oils; Mono-varietal oils; Persea americana Mill.

RESUMEN: Caracterización química de aceites monovarietales y comerciales de aguacate. El objetivo de este

trabajo ha sido la determinación los componentes mayoritarios y minoritarios del aceite de aguacate. Los
aceites monovarietales de las variedades Bacon, Fuerte, Hass y Pinkerton se obtuvieron mediante un sistema
Abencor®, mientras que los aceites comerciales de Brasil, Chile, Ecuador y Nueva Zelanda se compraron en
la localidad. Se determinó el contenido de triacilgliceroles, ácidos grasos, alcoholes alifáticos y terpénicos, des-
metilmetil, metil y dimetil esteroles, escualeno y tocoferoles. Los principales triacilgliceroles fueron aquellos
con ECN48. Además, prevalecieron los ácidos grasos oleico, palmítico y linoleico. Los desmetil esteroles fueron
los compuestos minoritarios principales. También se encontraron bajas cantidades de alcoholes alifáticos y
terpénicos. Las concentraciones de escualeno fueron más altas en los aceites de las variedades Bacon, Fuerte y
Pinkerton que en las otras variedades. El tocoferol más abundante fue el α-tocoferol. El análisis discriminante
de mínimos cuadrados permitió expresar las diferencias entre las muestras. En resumen, este trabajo aporta un
enfoque diferente a la caracterización completa del aceite de aguacate.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Aceite de aguacate; Aceites comerciales; Aceites monovarietales; Caracterización química; Persea
americana Mill.

ORCID ID: Fernandes GD https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6099-3225, Gómez-Coca RB https://orcid.org/0000-0002-

6925-8232, Pérez-Camino MC https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7652-9582, Moreda W https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8906-
6548, Barrera-Arellano D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8217-8392

Citation/Cómo citar este artículo: Fernandes GD, Gómez-Coca RB, Pérez-Camino MC, Moreda W, Barrera-Arellano
D. 2018. Chemical characterization of commercial and single-variety avocado oils. Grasas Aceites 69 (2), e256. https://
doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

Copyright: ©2018 CSIC. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
2 • G.D. Fernandes, R.B. Gómez-Coca, M.C. Pérez-Camino, W. Moreda and D. Barrera-Arellano

1. INTRODUCTION The fatty acid composition of avocado oil has

been reported in several studies, describing oleic
Avocado oil is extracted from the pulp of Persea acid (C18:1ω9) as the main one. This fact has been
americana fruits. In the fruit, the oil is stored as a used as support for studies that aim to prove the
single oil droplet in the idioblast cells, which are dis- beneficial health effects of this oil, such as a reduc-
persed in the mesocarp (pulp). The idioblast wall tion in effects from diabetes, oxidative stress on
structure is very complex, and it is basically com- the mitochondrial membrane and cardiovascular
posed of two cellulose layers separated by a suberin disease markers (Ortiz-Avila et al., 2013; Carvajal-
layer (Platt and Thomson, 1992). This morphology Zarrabal et al., 2014).
hampers oil extraction. Studies regarding nutri- In order to achieve the standardization of avo-
tional effects of avocado oil consumption have been cado oil, Woolf et al., (2009) proposed a clas-
focused on its healthy characteristics, which are sification according to processing and quality
mainly related to its high content in monounsatu- parameters: ‘extra virgin’, with high quality and low
rated fatty acids such as oleic acid (Lerman-Gaber sensory defects; ‘virgin’, with low quality features
et al., 1994). and some sensory defects; ‘pure’, a kind of refined
According to FAO, Mexico is the world’s largest avocado oil; and ‘blend’, when the oil is mixed with
producer of avocados. In 2014, this country pro- other vegetable oils. These authors suggested a typi-
duced 1.52 million tons of avocado fruits, around cal fatty acid (FA) profile composed of palmitic
30% of the world stock (FAOSTAT, 2014). However, (C16:0) 10-25%, palmitoleic (C16:1) 2-8%, stearic
the avocado oil industry grows slowly because it is (C18:0) 0.1-1,5%, oleic (C18:1) 60-80%, linoleic
only a side-industry of the fresh-fruit business. (C18:2) 7-20%, and linolenic (C18:3) 0.2-1% acids.
Taxonomically, the P. americana specie is sepa- In addition, the tocopherol content was established
rated into three distinct races, commonly known as to be between 70-190 mg·kg–1. However, in our
Mexican, Guatemalan and West Indian (Mohameed bibliographical search we found other ranges for
et al., 1997). Over many years of cultivation, the these identity parameters: palmitic at 10.0-35.2%;
crossing of the three races has resulted in the devel- palmitoleic at 2.8-16.1%; stearic at 0.2-1.5%; oleic
opment of a large variety of avocado cultivars; how- at 36.9-74%; linoleic at 6.1-21.2%; and linolenic
ever, due to differences in their oil contents, only a at 0.3-2.1%, together with tocopherols at 130-250
few of them are used as industrial oil sources (Tango mg·kg–1 (Tango et al., 1972; Werman and Neeman,
et al., 2004). The Hass (from the Guatemalan race) 1987; Martínez-Nieto et al., 1992; Moreno et al.,
and Fuerte (from the crossing between Guatemalan 2003; Tango et al., 2004; Salgado et al., 2008; Rueda
and Mexican races) varieties are commonly utilized et al, 2014; Rueda et al, 2016). Other features have
for oil extraction, with oil contents of around 30%. also been cited such as the sterol composition and
Among other cultivars with potential application content, with β-sitosterol as the main sterol (71.8–
in the oil industry, we can cite the Pinkerton and 93.05%) with low amounts of clerosterol, aven-
Bacon varieties, both coming from Guatemalan asterol, campesterol and sitostanol, along with a
and Mexican race crossing (Mohameed et al., 1997; triacylglycerol (TAG) profile where OOP, OOO and
Ashworth and Cleeg, 2003). OOL (O, oleic acid; P, palmitic acid; L, linoleic acid)
Although several methods have been proposed were the most abundant species (Hierro et al., 1992;
for obtaining avocado oil, including enzyme, sol- Martínez-Nieto et al., 1992; Salgado et al., 2008).
vent and supercritical fluid extraction (Freitas et al., Nevertheless, a comprehensive study involving the
1998; Moreno et al., 2003; Botha and McCrindle, composition of the major and minor compounds of
2003; Ortiz et al., 2004), the market trend toward avocado oil has not been carried out.
more ‘natural’ oils has forced them aside. At pres- Therefore, the aim of this work was to charac-
ent, cold pressed ‘virgin’ oil is preferred by consum- terize mono-varietal avocado oils from the Bacon,
ers. In this way, the industrial extraction of avocado Fuerte, Hass and Pinkerton cultivars as well as com-
oil has become quite similar to that of olive oil, with mercial avocado oils from Brazil, Chile, Ecuador
the main differences related to skin removal, stoning and New Zealand. This approach greatly contrib-
and malaxation. In the case of avocado oil extrac- utes to the knowledge about the chemical compo-
tion, this last step is conducted at higher temperature sition of such oil, supporting the establishment of
(45 ºC) and during longer periods of time (> 60 min) legislative standards.
than for olive oil extraction. These changes are nec-
essary due to the obvious differences between avo- 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
cados and olive fruits. The structure of the idioblast
cells also makes oil extraction more difficult than in 2.1. Chemicals
the case of the olive mesocarp. Finally, the ultimate
pulp-water-oil separation is done through two cen- Acetone, diethyl ether, hexane, propionitrile,
trifugation steps by means of decanting and polish and tetrahydrofuran (THF) were supplied by
centrifuges (Wong et al., 2010). VWR International (West Chester, PA). Potassium

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

 Chemical characterization of commercial and single-variety avocado oils • 3

hydroxide was from Panreac (Montcada I Reixac, (GC), according to the IUPAC Standard Methods
Barcelona, Spain). Silica-solid phase extrac- 2.301 and 2.302 (IUPAC, 1987). Transesterification
tion (Si-SPE) cartridges were from Varian (EA of the oils was carried out with a 2 N methanolic
Middelburg, The Netherlands). Standards of fatty KOH solution. The chromatographic analysis was
acid methyl esters (FAME, Supelco 37 component done using an Agilent 5890 GC system (Palo Alto,
mix), 5-α-cholestan-3β-ol, squalane and n-eicosa- CA) equipped with split injector (1:50 split ratio),
nol were from Sigma-Adrich Co. (St. Louis, MO). automated sampler (1 μL injections), polar capil-
Hexamethyl disilazane, pyridine, trimethyl chloroxi- lary column SPTM-2380 (poly (90% biscyanopro-
lane and standards of tocopherols were from Merck pyl−10% cyanopropyl-phenyl) siloxane, 60 m × 0.25
(Merck Group, Darmstadt, Germany). All chemical mm internal diameter (i.d.) × 0.20μm film thickness,
reagents were at least analytical grade. SUPELCO, Bellefonte, PA), and flame ionization
detector (FID). Hydrogen was used as carrier gas
2.2. Samples at a flow rate of 1.0mL·min−1. The detector and
injector temperatures were 225 and 250 °C, respec-
Mature fruit samples of the Bacon, Fuerte, Hass tively. The initial oven temperature was 180 °C, and
and Pinkerton cultivars were provided by Instituto the temperature gradient was from 180 to 220 °C at
de Hortofruticultura Subtropical y Mediterránea 3 °C·min−1. Data were described as the fatty acid
La Mayora (IHSM-CSIC, Málaga-Spain). The avo- profile by peak area normalization, and expressed
cado fruits arrived at the laboratory the day after as percentage of the total area of the identified fatty
the harvest under perfect phytosanitary conditions. acids. Peak identification was made by comparing
The oil content was extracted two days after the their retention times with those of the correspond-
fruits arrived at the laboratory at the Instituto de la ing FAME mixture of standards, as well as with the
Grasa (Sevilla-ES), by means of an Abencor® sys- standard chromatogram provided by the method.
tem, described in Section 2.4. Throughout the stor- Triacylglycerol composition. This determina-
age time, the fruits were kept at room temperature tion was made according to Moreda et al. (2003).
and no changes were noted. Commercial avocado oil Oil samples were purified using a Si-SPE cartridge.
samples from the Hass variety were obtained from The cartridge was washed under gravity with 6 mL
common and commercial brands in a local grocery hexane. After that, a solution of the oil (0.12g) in
store from Brazil, Chile (named ‘Chile A’ and ‘Chile 0.5 mL hexane was added. The solution was pulled
B’), Ecuador, and New Zealand. Four bottles with through the cartridge and then eluted with 10 mL
500 mL of each sample were purchased from the of a hexane-diethyl ether (87:13 v/v) solution. The
same lot. They were taken to the laboratory, at the eluted solvents were evaporated to dryness under
Instituto de la Grasa (Sevilla-ES), by air mail, and reduced pressure at room temperature. The residue
properly stored at 4 °C until analysis. For ethical rea- was dissolved in 2 mL acetone. For TAG analysis
sons no commercial brand will be cited in this paper. this solution (10 μL) was injected directly using the
auto-sampler (508 system) in a RP-HPLC system.
2.3. Extraction of mono-varietal avocado oils The separations were done on a Merck Li-Chrospher
100 RP-18 column (250 mm × 4 mm i.d. × 4 μm
For each extraction, 500 g mature avocados, particle size) thermostated at 20 °C. The liquid chro-
without seeds, were milled in a knife mill and the matograph (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA) was
paste was taken for extraction by means of an equipped with a pumping unit (118 solvent module)
Abencor® system malaxer, and centrifuge (MC2 and propionitrile was used as the mobile phase at
Ingenierıa Sistemas, Seville, Spain) followed by an a flow rate of 0.6 mL·min−1. Detection was done
additional centrifugation step. Malaxation was car- with a PerkinElmer 200 RI detector (PerkinElmer,
ried out below 40 °C for 40 min, with talc addition Waltham, MA). TAG peak assignment was carried
(~10g·100g–1 paste). Distilled water, (20 mL·100g–1 out by means of comparison with the elution time
paste) was added after 10 min of starting the malax- and the standard chromatograms described by the
ation process. The first centrifugation was carried authors. Data were processed by peak area normal-
out in the Abencor® system centrifuge at 3000 rpm ization and expressed as TAG percentages. TAG
during 60 s. The paste was then spilt out and the were grouped according to their equivalent carbon
liquid phase was further centrifuged in a bench cen- number (ECN), with ECN being the number of
trifuge (5000 rpm, 10 min). The oil obtained was fil- carbons from the fatty acids of the TAG molecule
tered and stored at 4 °C until analysis. minus two times the number of double bonds.
Sterol composition and aliphatic alcohols. Sterols
2.4. Chemical Characterization and aliphatic alcohols are minor components of the
oil unsaponifiable fraction. Therefore, it is advis-
Fatty acid composition. The fatty acid (FA) able to remove the saponifiable compounds previ-
composition was determined as the composition ously in order to get better analytical results. In this
of fatty acid methyl esters by gas chromatography line, we followed the methodology proposed by the

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

4 • G.D. Fernandes, R.B. Gómez-Coca, M.C. Pérez-Camino, W. Moreda and D. Barrera-Arellano

International Olive Council (IOC, 2013; IOC, 2015). The acquisition of data was done with the Agilent
In short, samples of 5g of oil were saponified under Chem Station for the GC System program. The
reflux with 50 mL of a 2 N ethanolic KOH solution conditions for the GC assays were: DB5-HT col-
for 1h. The unsaponifiable compounds were then umn (5% diphenyl- 95% dimethylpolysiloxane; 30 m
extracted with diethyl ether (3 × 80 mL) and the × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.10 μm film; Agilent Technologies),
organic phase was neutralized by means of washing 1.0 μL injection volume, with hydrogen carrier gas at
it with distilled water. The residue (unsaponifiable 0.8mL·min–1 and 20:1 split injection. The oven was
matter) was fractionated by silica TLC using plates set at 250 ºC for 10 minutes. The injector and detec-
impregnated with potassium hydroxide. The plate tor temperatures were 300 ºC and 345 ºC, respec-
was developed twice with a mixture of hexane:diethyl tively. The quantitative evaluation of squalene was
ether (65:35, v/v). Three fractions were obtained: carried out using squalane as internal standard, and
desmethyl-sterols, methyl-sterols together with ali- the data expressed in mg·kg–1. Peaks were identi-
phatic alcohols, and dimethyl-sterols. Each of them fied according to relative retention times together
was scratched off and extracted with hot chloro- with comparison with the standard chromatogram
form and diethyl ether. The solution was evapo- described in the method.
rated until dryness, derivatized with 500 μL of the Tocopherols. Tocopherols were determined
1:3:9 (v/v/v) trimethyl chloroxilane:hexamethyl according to the IUPAC Standard Method 2.432
disilazane:pyridine admixture, and analyzed by GC. (IUPAC, 1987). Oil samples were diluted in hex-
The gas chromatograph (Agilent 6890N, Agilent, ane (10 mg·mL–1) and directly injected into a liquid
Santa Clara, CA) was equipped with a fused silica chromatograph fitted with a Si-column (250 mm ×
low-polarity capillary column (DB5-HT, poly (5% 4 mm i.d. × 4 μm particle size). The elution solvent
diphenyl− 95% dimethyl) siloxane, 30 m × 0.25 mm was a hexane:2-propanol (99:1, v/v) mixture at a
i.d. × 0.2 μm film thickness, Agilent Technologies), flow rate of 1mL·min–1. Detection was done by fluo-
and FID. The oven program for the determination rescence (RF-10AXL Shimadzu fluorescence detec-
of the desmethyl-sterols (first fraction) was set iso- tor, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan), setting excitation and
thermally at 260 °C, with a 1:50 split ratio. Hydrogen emission at λ = 290 and λ = 330 nm, respectively.
was used as carrier gas at a flow rate of 1 mL·min–1. For quantitative determinations, a calibration curve
For the second and the third fractions, a tempera- was performed by mean of injections of tocopherol
ture gradient was applied starting at 220 °C (2 min) standards at concentrations between 4−6 μg·mL–1
until 295 °C at 2 °C·min–1. The temperature of the in hexane and the data corresponding to each
injector and detector was 300 °C. The quantitative tocopherol compound was expressed in mg·kg–1.
determination was done using α-cholestanol as The retention time of the standards was used for the
the internal standard for desmethyl-sterols and qualitative analysis.
n-­eicosanol for aliphatic alcohols, methyl- and Stigmastadienes. Stigmastadienes were deter-
dimethyl-sterols. Data were always expressed in mined only in the commercial samples in order to
mg·kg-1 as the total of each compound class, and the check the presence of refined oils. An IOC method
profile of each class was described as the percentage was used for this determination (IOC, 2001).
of each compound within the class, according to the Thus, 20 g oil and 1 mL internal standard solution
method recommendation. Peak identification was (3,5-cholestadien, 20 µg·m–1) were saponified under
performed by relative retention time calculations reflux with 75 mL alcoholic KOH (10 g·100g–1) for 30
and comparison with the chromatogram described min. The unsaponifiable matter was then extracted
in each method. with hexane (2 × 100 mL), and the organic extract
Squalene. The procedure was derived from that was washed with an ethanol-water (1:1) solution
published previously (Lanzón et al., 1995; Gómez- until neutral pH. The solvent was then evaporated
Coca et al., 2015): 0.04 g oil and 40 μL internal stan- to dryness in a rotary evaporator at 30 °C. After this
dard (5 mg·mL–1 squalane) were dissolved in 1mL preparation, the residue (unsaponifiable matter) was
hexane and saponified at room temperature with fractionated on a silica column using hexane as the
200 μL 2 N methanolic KOH. Two phases appeared, mobile phase. The first eluate (30mL) was discarded
the upper phase (hexane) was transferred to a new and the following one (40 mL) collected, dried and
vial and washed with an ethanol:water 1:1, v/v, solu- injected into the chromatograph. The GC system
tion. In other words, 400 μL of this solution were used was an Agilent 6890N Gas Chromatograph
added to the hexane phase, mixed by pipetting, and equipped with an Agilent 7683B Automatic Liquid
again two phases appeared. The upper phase was Sampler and FID. The parameters for the GC
transferred to a new vial, and the washing procedure assays were: DB5-HT column (5% diphenyl- 95%
was carried out two more times. After that, 1μL of dimethylpolysiloxane; 30 m × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.10
the supernatant was analyzed by GC. GC analy- μm film; Agilent Technologies), 1.0 μL injection vol-
ses of squalene were carried out with an Agilent ume, hydrogen carrier gas at 1 mL·min-1 and 15:1
6890N Gas Chromatograph equipped with an split injection. The oven temperature program was:
Agilent 7683B Automatic Liquid Sampler and FID. 235 °C for 6 minutes, then raised at 2 °C·min-1 up

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

 Chemical characterization of commercial and single-variety avocado oils • 5

to 285 °C. The injector and detector temperatures palmitoleic acid were also detected. However, the
were 300 ºC and 320 ºC, respectively. The quantita- ω7 isomer was always above 91% of the sum of the
tive evaluation of 3,5-stigmastadien was carried out three of them. Another important characteristic is
using 3,5-cholestadiene as internal standard. Data the C18:1ω9/C18:1ω7 ratio, which was always above
acquisition was done with the Agilent Chem Station 5. The presence of C18:1 and C16:1 isomers (ω7, ω9
for the GC System program. Data were expressed and ω11) in avocado oil is described in this work for
in mg·kg–1. Peak identification was conducted by the first time. Very low amounts (< 0,05%) of trans-
retention time calculation based on the internal fatty acids were detected, and they were considered
standard. irrelevant for the characterization of this vegetable
oil.
2.5. Statistical analysis All results obtained in the FA composition are
within the ranges already described for avocado oil
A multivariate statistical analysis was performed and cited in the Introduction. Nonetheless, look-
with the complete information from the chemical ing at the quality standards proposed by Woolf
characterization. The tables of data were saved as et al. (2009) some results do not match with those
.csv files and uploaded onto the Metaboanalyst 3.0 described in this work. The Brazilian sample stands
web-based tool (Xia et al., 2012). A partial least out due to three parameters (oleic, palmitoleic, and
square discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was per- stearic acid contents); while Chile A and B are dif-
formed in order to express graphically and in a mul- ferent as far as linolenic and stearic acids are con-
tivariate way the relationships among the samples. cerned. On the other hand, Ecuador, Fuerte and
A range scaling (mean-centered and divided by the Pinkerton samples differed from the published data
value range of each variable) was used to make the due to their stearic acid contents. Therefore, since
features more comparable. the samples are in accordance with other studies
In order to select the most important features for and some of the parameters measured for some of
sample grouping, we used the variable importance the mono-varietal samples are even out of the estab-
in projection (VIP-score) calculation for the compo- lished ranges, it is possible to consider the need for
nent 1. We plotted the VIP score for the ten most more comprehensive studies and probably to mod-
important features to distinguish the sample. ify the standard table.
It is important to clarify that we used the PLS-DA Another important observation is that the fatty
as a multivariate statistic tool to represent the rela- acid profiles obtained for these avocado oil sam-
tionships among the full chemical compositions ples were quite similar to those described for other
of the samples. We did not use this tool to create vegetable oils, such as olive oils and nut oils (IOC,
a mathematical model to classify samples, since we 2015b; Fernandes et al., 2017). Especially, regard-
believe that more studies must be done on different ing the comparison with olive oil, the FA profile is
crops, growing places, ripening stages and shelf life very ­similar, including the minor FA; actually, the
to create a valid model. only meaningful difference can be noticed in the
palmitoleic acid content in the Chile A sample.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Technologically, the high amount of monounsatu-
rated FA is closely related to the high oxidative
3.1. Major compounds, fatty acids and stability of oils, since oils with high amounts of poly-
triacylglycerol profiles unsaturated FA are more susceptible to an oxidation
process due to the number of double bonds avail-
The FA profile is the most common parameter for able to react with oxygen. Nutritionally, the con-
oil characterization. It is widely described in many sumption of oleic acid has been reported as healthy,
books and in the legislation. Table 1 shows the FA supported by the positive effects of the consump-
profile of all avocado oil samples. As expected, the tion of avocado oil, as already cited in the introduc-
main FA was oleic acid (C18:1ω9), which reached tion (Lerman-Gaber et al., 1994, Ortiz-Avila et al.,
the highest concentration in the Fuerte cultivar 2013; Carvajal-Zarrabal et al., 2014).
(64.62±0.20%). In contrast, the lowest oleic acid The FA distribution in the TAG is another
presence was found in the Brazilian commercial important identity parameter related to the saponi-
avocado oil (45.18±0.10%). The ω7 oleic acid iso- fiable fraction of lipids. The experimental TAG
mer was also observed (7.87±0.55% - 10.08±0.32%). profiles are described in Table 2. For all samples,
Palmitic acid was the second most abundant FA, the ECN48 and ECN46 TAG groups were the
with a range between 11.64±0.13% (Chile A) and most abundant ones. The Brazil sample had the
21.05±0.06% (Brazil). Linoleic acid (C18:2) fluc- most different profile due to the high amount of
tuated between 8.25±0.02% in Pinkerton and palmitic and palmitoleic acids. The TAG profile
16.50±0.04% in Chile B; while palmitoleic acid of the Brazil sample was very particular, with the
(C16:1ω7) varied from 3.99±0.05% in Chile B to peak corresponding to POO+SOL as the biggest
11.41±0.02% in Brazil. The ω9 and ω11 isomers of one (21.14±0.98%), followed by OOO+PLP+PoPP

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

 Table 1. Fatty acid compositions of avocado oil samples. Average (bold) ± standard deviation of three replicates

Monovarietal Avocado Oil Commercial Avocado Oil

Sample Bacon Fuerte Hass Pinkerton Brazil Chile A Chile B Equator New Zealand
Fatty Acid Profile % area
Miristic - 14:0 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00
Pentadecanoic - 15:0 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.00 ND
Palmitic - 16:0 12.16 ± 0.04 12.37 ± 0.01 18.17 ± 0.02 16.93 ± 0.03 21.05 ± 0.06 11.64 ± 0.13 12.65 ± 0.10 16.17 ± 0.18 13.39 ± 0.17
Palmitoleic - 16:1ω9 0.09 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.00 0.09 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.16 ± 0.05 0.13 ± 0.01 0.09 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00
Palmitoleic - 16:1ω7 6.57 ± 0.01 4.03 ± 0.01 7.58 ± 0.00 7.33 ± 0.05 11.41 ± 0.02 3.13 ± 0.09 3.99 ± 0.05 6.54 ± 0.09 4.83 ± 0.06
Palmitoleic - 16:1ω11 0.10 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.12 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.22 ± 0.01 0.14 ± 0.08 0.13 ± 0.02 0.13 ± 0.02 0.08 ± 0.00
Margaric - 17:0 0.02 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.07 0.03 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.03 0.02 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.02
Margaroleic - 17:1 0.10 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.01
Margaroleic 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.00 ND ND
Isomer- 17:1
Stearic - 18:0 0.38 ± 0.01 0.51 ± 0.01 0.37 ± 0.00 0.43 ± 0.01 0.51 ± 0.00 0.79 ± 0.04 0.50 ± 0.03 0.56 ± 0.01 0.37 ± 0.03
Oleic - 18:1ω9 61.72 ± 0.30 64.62 ± 0.20 51.76 ± 0.04 57.39 ± 0.18 45.18 ± 0.10 61.86 ± 0.22 55.98 ± 0.09 57.14 ± 0.29 61.54 ± 0.45
Oleic - 18:1ω7 9.83 ± 0.22 8.95 ± 0.17 9.8 ± 0.06 8.53 ± 0.17 7.89 ± 0.02 7.87 ± 0.55 8.44 ± 0.12 8.68 ± 0.13 10.08 ± 0.32
Oleic - 18:1ω11 ND ND ND ND 0.17 ± 0.02 ND ND ND ND
Linoleic trans - 18:2t ND ND ND ND 0.01 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.02 ND ND ND
Linoleic - 18:2ω6 8.30 ± 0.02 8.46 ± 0.02 11.12 ± 0.01 8.25 ± 0.02 12.3 ± 0.05 12.73 ± 0.10 16.5 ± 0.04 9.78 ± 0.03 8.80 ± 0.07
Linolenic - 18:2ω3 0.44 ± 0.00 0.47 ± 0.00 0.59 ± 0.00 0.56 ± 0.00 0.62 ± 0.00 1.03 ± 0.01 1.15 ± 0.00 0.54 ± 0.00 0.49 ± 0.01
Arachidic - 20:0 0.04 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.07 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01
Gondoic - 20:1 0.19 ± 0.00 0.18 ± 0.00 0.18 ± 0.00 0.16 ± 0.00 0.20 ± 0.00 0.22 ± 0.00 0.20 ± 0.03 0.17 ± 0.02 0.12 ± 0.05
Behenic - 22:0 0.01 ± 0.00 ND ND ND 0.03 ± 0.00 0.06 ± 0.02 0.03 ± 0.01 ND ND
6 • G.D. Fernandes, R.B. Gómez-Coca, M.C. Pérez-Camino, W. Moreda and D. Barrera-Arellano

Lignoceric - 24:0 ND ND ND ND 0.05 ± 0.00 ND ND ND ND

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

Saturated Fatty Acids 12.65 13.00 18.64 17.53 21.78 12.72 13.37 16.86 13.86
(SFA)
Monounsaturated Fatty 78.61 78.07 69.64 73.66 65.29 73.48 68.97 72.82 76.84
Acids (MUFA)
Polyunsaturated Fatty 8.74 8.93 11.71 8.81 12.93 13.80 17.66 10.32 9.29
Acids (PUFA)
SFA/UFA 0.14 0.15 0.23 0.21 0.28 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.16
ND – Non-detected Value
 Table 2. Triacylglycerol compositions of avocado oil samples. Average (bold) ± standard deviation of three replicates

Sample Monovarietal Avocado Oil Commercial Avocado Oil

Bacon Fuerte Hass Pinkerton Brazil Chile A Chile B Equator New Zealand
TAG Profile % area
ECN 42 Unknown I 0.04 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.01 ND ND 0.11 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.02
LLL 0.32 ± 0.08 0.28 ± 0.00 0.40 ± 0.00 0.24 ± 0.01 0.66 ± 0.04 0.84 ± 0.03 1.09 ± 0.04 0.41 ± 0.03 0.37 ± 0.07
OLLn 0.40 ± 0.09 0.20 ± 0.01 0.50 ± 0.01 0.34 ± 0.00 1.00 ± 0.08 0.58 ± 0.00 1.17 ± 0.11 0.36 ± 0.03 0.33 ± 0.02
PoLL 0.08 ± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.00 0.12 ± 0.02 0.12 ± 0.00 0.28 ± 0.00 0.15 ± 0.01 0.25 ± 0.07 0.10 ± 0.02 0.07 ± 0.03
PLLn 0.03 ± 0.03 ND 0.06 ± 0.01 0.09 ± 0.03 0.09 ± 0.01 0.13 ± 0.01 0.24 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.01 ND
ECN 44 OLL 1.36 ± 0.10 1.58 ± 0.08 1.47 ± 0.01 0.83 ± 0.00 1.67 ± 0.04 3.24 ± 0.09 5.60 ± 0.03 1.74 ± 0.05 1.68 ± 0.08
OOLn+PoOL 3.30 ± 0.00 2.45 ± 0.17 3.40 ± 0.10 2.04 ± 0.56 4.41 ± 0.18 2.45 ± 0.04 3.88 ± 0.10 3.15 ± 0.01 2.77 ± 0.14
PLL+PoPoO 1.48 ± 0.18 0.70 ± 0.04 1.71 ± 0.05 1.47 ± 0.10 3.45 ± 0.16 1.48 ± 0.03 2.45 ± 0.02 1.70 ± 0.11 1.40 ± 0.29
POLn+PPoPo+PPoL 1.89 ± 0.57 0.91 ± 0.01 2.46 ± 0.00 2.42 ± 0.05 3.51 ± 0.07 1.08 ± 0.09 1.21 ± 0.03 1.47 ± 0.04 1.18 ± 0.28
ECN 46 Unknown II ND ND ND 0.73 ± 0.10 0.99 ± 0.02 ND ND ND ND
OOL+LnPP 11.67 ± 0.24 12.76 ± 0.32 11.32 ± 0.11 8.72 ± 0.10 8.34 ± 0.26 12.53 ± 0.22 16.98 ± 0.25 10.83 ± 0.13 11.4 ± 0.77
PoOO 8.88 ± 1.17 5.80 ± 0.01 7.63 ± 0.08 7.55 ± 0.05 9.31 ± 0.22 4.40 ± 0.19 5.19 ± 0.32 8.07 ± 0.00 7.69 ± 0.20
SLL+PLO 7.86 ± 2.18 6.02 ± 0.02 9.81 ± 0.23 6.70 ± 0.08 10.44 ± 0.33 7.66 ± 0.19 8.57 ± 0.51 7.84 ± 0.09 7.16 ± 0.50
PoOP+SPoL+POLn+SPoPo 5.57 ± 0.88 3.16 ± 0.04 6.39 ± 0.06 6.47 ± 0.12 10.48 ± 0.31 2.35 ± 0.12 2.14 ± 0.13 5.37 ± 0.19 4.23 ± 0.92
ECN 48 PLP+OOO+PoPP 32.78 ± 5.37 40.67 ± 0.4 27.61 ± 0.20 34.78 ± 0.10 18.47 ± 0.94 32.72 ± 0.07 29.89 ± 0.16 28.66 ± 0.27 32.84 ± 3.48
SOL+POO 21.09 ± 1.34 21.82 ± 0.32 22.57 ± 0.14 21.9 ± 0.18 21.14 ± 0.98 24.98 ± 0.35 17.72 ± 0.31 24.72 ± 0.22 24.14 ± 1.09
ECN 50 POP 3.22 ± 1.34 2.97 ± 0.24 4.54 ± 0.02 5.01 ± 0.06 5.73 ± 0.48 3.95 ± 0.44 2.89 ± 0.03 4.51 ± 0.05 4.01 ± 0.52
SOO ND 0.61 ± 0.01 ND 0.6 ± 0.01 ND 1.13 ± 0.12 0.75 ± 0.02 0.94 ± 0.16 0.68 ± 0.14
ECN 52 POS+SSL ND ND ND ND ND 0.32 ± 0.07 ND ND ND

P – Palmitic acid; Po – Palmitoleic acid; S – Stearic acid; O – Oleic acid; L – Linoleic acid; Ln – Linolenic acid
ND – Non-detected Value

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

Chemical characterization of commercial and single-variety avocado oils • 7
8 • G.D. Fernandes, R.B. Gómez-Coca, M.C. Pérez-Camino, W. Moreda and D. Barrera-Arellano

(18.47±0.94%) and in almost equal amounts of were present at values from 39.68±1.56 mg·kg–1 in
PoOP+SPoL+POLn+SPoPo (10.48±0.31%) and Chile B to 545.33±25.84 mg·kg–1 in Pinkerton.
SLL+PLO (10.44±0.33%). For the other samples, Bacon was the only sample in which 24-methylen
the highest peak matches OOO+PLP+PoPP and cycloartenol was relevant (74.47±0.58%) since in
ranged from 27.61±0.20% in Hass to 40.67±0.40% the other cases, cycloartenol was always the main
in Fuerte. Other important TAG were POO+SOL, compound oscillating between 50.77±0.62% in
which varied between 17.72±0.31% in Chile B and Pinkerton and 70.43±3.24% in Chile B.
24.98±0.35% in Chile A, and OLL+LnPP which The health effects of squalene have already
ranged from 8.72±0.10% to 16.98±0.25%. Although been described and they come mainly from olive
the Brazil sample was the most different one, its oil consumption (Newmark, 1997). In the sam-
TAG profile was closer than those to those given ples under study, squalene concentrations were
by Hierro et al. (1992). Finally, the TAG profiles of between 190.52±5.40 mg·kg–1 (New Zealand) and
samples other than those from the Brazil cultivar 1366.64±6.52 mg·kg–1 (Fuerte). From the data
were very close to the olive oil TAG profile described in Table 4, it can be deduced that the amount of
by Moreda et al. (2003); as explained above, the squalene in avocado oil is comparable to corn
­
presence of monounsaturated fatty acid in the main and olive oil. Therefore, the high amount of squa-
TAG molecules is responsible for the high oxidative lene in avocado oil possibly has an important
stability of avocado oil. contribution to its healthy effects (Gómez-Coca
­
et al., 2015).
3.2. Minor compounds, unsaponifiable components Phytol and geranylgeraniol are primary alkenols
with terpenic skeletons. Total concentrations were
Minor compounds are widely related to fat and below 100 mg·kg–1 for all samples. Chile B oil was
oil identity and they are normally found in the the sample with the highest amount, 92.36±16.46
unsaponifiable matter (Gómez-Coca et al., 2015). mg·kg–1, and the New Zealand oil sample contained
Sterols are one of the most representative class of the lowest, at 41.68±2.04 mg·kg–1. Geranylgeraniol
unsaponifiable components and among them, des- was normally the compound in the highest
methyl-sterols are the most commonly analyzed. proportion among all of them (54.97±3.14%-
However, in this work methyl- and dimethyl-sterols 79.44±2.47%), except for the case of Chile A oil, in
were also determined (Table 3). The total amount which the p ­ roportion of the two compounds were
of desmethyl-sterols in avocado oil was very high, almost the same.
ranging from 3828.78±11.67 mg·kg–1 in Chile A The aliphatic alcohol profile is dominated by
to 7611.88 ±0.91 mg·kg–1 in Hass. When the pro- molecules with even carbon numbers, such as
file of desmethyl-sterols was evaluated, β-sitosterol C22-OH, C24-OH, C26-OH, and C28-OH. In the
was the most abundant one with concentrations Bacon, Brazil, Fuerte, Hass, New Zealand and
between 80.56 ±0.08% (Fuerte) and 86.03 ±0.03% Pinkerton cultivars the main alcohol was C22-OH
(New Zealand). The second-most important sterol (31.59±0.09%-43.75±6.35%;, whereas in Chile
was ∆5-avenasterol (4.36±0.03-9.26±0.03%), fol- A and B samples, C26-OH was the main one
lowed by campesterol (3.71±0.01-6.09±0.03%). (21.34±4.18% and 31.59 ±1.36%, respectively). Only
The amount of the major sterols was very close to in the Ecuador sample, C28-OH stood out among
that cited for avocado oil. However, the detailed the others (27.28 ±6.79%).
composition shown in Tables 3 and 4 has not been The presence and the concentration of tocopher-
reported before (Salgado et al., 2008; Gómez-Coca ols are closely related to both identity and quality
et al., 2015; Woolf et al., 2009). The amount of des- since these molecules have antioxidant activity and
methylsterols (phytosterols) in the case of vegetable may indicate the resistance of oil to oxidation as well
oils was very high even when compared to olive oil as the fact of having been exposed to oxidation con-
(around 1500 mg·kg–1). The consumption of phy- ditions. The total amount of tocopherols (Table 4) in
tosterols is related to the reduction in the absorption commercial samples was very low when compared to
of cholesterol and, consequently, to the prevention mono-varietal oils. In the case of the Ecuador sam-
of cardiovascular diseases, contributing in this way ple, tocopherols were not possible to quantify and
to the beneficial effects of avocado oil intake (Ortiz- in other commercial samples the concentration was
Avila et al., 2013; Carvajal-Zarrabal et al., 2014). below 50 mg·kg–1. However, in the mono-­varietal
Regarding methyl-sterols, Pinkerton was the sam- samples, the tocopherol concentration ranged from
ple with the highest concentration (1091.66±2.84 107.39±0.71 mg·kg–1 to 141.50±4.15 mg·kg–1. This
mg·kg–1); whereas Chile A had the lowest one (287.98 fact can be related to a long storage period or to
±7.32 mg·kg–1) among all the analyzed oils. Within bad storage conditions in the grocery, taking into
this class, citrostadienol was the predominant com- account that tocopherols are natural antioxidants of
pound ranging from 71.21±0.21% (Ecuador) to vegetable oils and that they are the first molecules
83.04±0.23% (Bacon). Dimethyl-sterols, the most to be consumed during the oxidation process, which
variable class of compounds within the sterol group, suggests a certain degree of oxidation in this sample.

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

 Table 3. Sterol fractions from the minor compounds of avocado oil samples: desmethyl-, methyl- and dimethyl-sterols. Average (bold) ± standard deviation of three replicates

Monovarietal Avocado Oil Commercial Avocado Oil

Sample Bacon Fuerte Hass Pinkerton Brazil Chile A Chile B Equator New Zealand
Desmethylsterols % area
Cholesterol 0.19 ± 0.00 0.34 ± 0.10 0.17 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.00 0.15 ± 0.00 0.19 ± 0.00 0.20 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.01
Brasicasterol 0.03 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.00 ND ND ND ND
24-methylene-cholesterol 0.30 ± 0.00 1.94 ± 0.00 0.95 ± 0.01 0.56 ± 0.00 0.54 ± 0.00 0.68 ± 0.00 1.59 ± 0.03 1.59 ± 0.01 0.61 ± 0.00
Campesterol 3.71 ± 0.01 4.62 ± 0.02 5.88 ± 0.01 6.00 ± 0.01 5.99 ± 0.03 5.30 ± 0.01 6.09 ± 0.03 5.04 ± 0.02 4.70 ± 0.00
Campestanol 0.05 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.07 ± 0.01 0.07 ± 0.00 0.06 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.01
Stigmasterol 0.40 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.00 0.13 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.00 0.27 ± 0.01 0.47 ± 0.01 0.33 ± 0.02 0.18 ± 0.01 0.19 ± 0.00
∆7-campesterol 0.16 ± 0.00 0.19 ± 0.01 0.19 ± 0.01 0.14 ± 0.00 0.42 ± 0.27 0.10 ± 0.01 0.18 ± 0.01 0.87 ± 0.68 0.25 ± 0.00
∆5,23-stigmastadienol 1.97 ± 0.02 2.04 ± 0.05 2.08 ± 0.01 2.01 ± 0.01 1.89 ± 0.02 1.80 ± 0.00 1.80 ± 0.02 1.72 ± 0.13 1.72 ± 0.01
+Clerosterol
a-Sitosterol 82.6 ± 0.03 80.56 ± 0.08 82.95 ± 0.06 84.08 ± 0.08 84.77 ± 0.21 84.93 ± 0.04 83.8 ± 0.09 82.36 ± 0.33 86.03 ± 0.03
Sitostanol 0.58 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.04 0.46 ± 0.01 0.41 ± 0.03 0.58 ± 0.02 0.8.0 ± 0.02 0.81 ± 0.08 0.56 ± 0.03 0.54 ± 0.01
∆5-avenasterol 9.16 ± 0.03 8.81 ± 0.03 6.63 ± 0.07 5.86 ± 0.01 4.85 ± 0.01 4.36 ± 0.03 4.65 ± 0.00 7.04 ± 0.12 5.37 ± 0.01
∆5,24-stigmastadienol 0.34 ± 0.00 0.30 ± 0.04 0.25 ± 0.00 0.22 ± 0.01 0.21 ± 0.00 0.75 ± 0.01 0.27 ± 0.00 0.21 ± 0.05 0.07 ± 0.00
∆7-Stigamastenol 0.17 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.13 ± 0.01 0.09 ± 0.02 0.36 ± 0.03 0.06 ± 0.00 0.07 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.01
∆7-avenasterol 0.34 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.00 0.16 ± 0.00 0.24 ± 0.00 0.13 ± 0.00 0.19 ± 0.01 0.15 ± 0.00 0.16 ± 0.00 0.14 ± 0.01
Total mg·kg–1 5376.33 ± 47.86 6798.42 ± 3.88 7611.88 ± 0.91 6723.05 ± 62.06 4889.06 ± 41.72 3828.78 ± 11.67 5490.61 ± 56.9 5545.14 ± 10.6 4656.95 ± 9.94
Methylsterols % area
Obtusifoliol 5.48 ± 0.01 7.29 ± 0.03 7.56 ± 0.07 7.60 ± 0.03 8.02 ± 0.02 10.98 ± 0.54 9.14 ± 0.46 9.59 ± 0.04 10.04 ± 0.03
Gramisterol 11.48 ± 0.02 20.24 ± 0.14 18.46 ± 0.05 20.05 ± 0.02 18.16 ± 0.07 12.69 ± 0.31 14.99 ± 0.00 19.39 ± 0.05 15.84 ± 0.01
Citrostadienol 83.04 ± 0.23 72.46 ± 0.15 73.98 ± 0.05 72.34 ± 0.08 73.82 ± 0.19 76.33 ± 0.5 75.87 ± 0.02 71.02 ± 0.21 74.13 ± 0.64
Total mg·kg–1 769.39 ± 6.55 854.2 ± 14.9 657.3 ± 8.66 1091.66 ± 2.84 388.35 ± 9.13 287.98 ± 7.32 344.16 ± 12.52 502.78 ± 18.66 388.06 ± 14.67
Dymethylsterols % area
Butyrospermol 0.95 ± 0.19 6.63 ± 0.59 0.95 ± 0.04 0.90 ± 0.06 0.97 ± 0.07 2.30 ± 0.30 ND 0.52 ± 0.04 1.02 ± 0.07
Cicloartenol 24.57 ± 0.39 59.02 ± 0.43 67.41 ± 0.24 50.77 ± 0.62 70.22 ± 0.17 68.12 ± 5.71 70.43 ± 3.24 53.7 ± 3.72 57.91 ± 1.69
24-methylencycloartenol 74.47 ± 0.58 34.35 ± 1.01 31.64 ± 0.21 48.34 ± 0.68 28.82 ± 0.24 29.58 ± 3.41 29.57 ± 3.24 45.78 ± 3.76 41.07 ± 1.62
Total mg·kg–1 340.62 ± 6.96 538.58 ± 8.3 392.38 ± 20.71 545.33 ± 25.84 247.65 ± 4.78 192.32 ± 15.61 39.68 ± 1.56 200.98 ± 28.61 272.72 ± 11.63

ND – Non-detected Value

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

Chemical characterization of commercial and single-variety avocado oils • 9
 Table 4. Minor compounds in avocado oil samples: squalene, terpenic alkenols, aliphatic alcohols, and tocopherols. Average (bold) ± standard deviation of three repilcates

Monovarietal Avocado Oil Commercial Avocado Oil

Sample Bacon Fuerte Hass Pinkerton Brazil Chile A Chile B Equator New Zealand
–1
Squalene mg·kg
Squalene mg·kg–1 1327.33 ± 0.00 1366.64 ± 6.52 778.76 ± 7.12 1314.73 ± 12.05 359.93 ± 0.54 924.82 ± 39.80 350.86 ± 0.76 670.05 ± 9.34 190.52 ± 5.40
Terpenic Alkenols %
Phytol 27.02 ± 3.44 36.72 ± 1.53 38.30 ± 3.35 20.56 ± 2.47 25.85 ± 4.02 50.72 ± 2.35 35.62 ± 5.71 24.43 ± 1.47 45.03 ± 3.14
Geranylgeraniol 72.98 ± 3.44 63.28 ± 1.53 61.70 ± 3.35 79.44 ± 2.47 74.15 ± 4.02 49.28 ± 2.35 64.38 ± 5.71 75.57 ± 1.47 54.97 ± 3.14
Total mg·kg–1 67.56 ± 6.17 87.34 ± 0.34 74.21 ± 3.02 84.22 ± 0.29 69.96 ± 1.14 45.61 ± 1.01 92.36 ± 16.46 51.27 ± 1.12 41.68 ± 2.04
Aliphatic Alcohol % area
C22-OH 43.75 ± 6.35 41.8 ± 0.23 41.79 ± 2.97 38.57 ± 0.70 31.59 ± 0.09 18.61 ± 7.51 24.51 ± 5.80 23.32 ± 1.23 36.43 ± 1.01
C23-OH ND ND ND ND ND 3.60 ± 0.07 ND 2.43 ± 0.22 ND
C24-OH 17.06 ± 2.76 18.71 ± 1.17 ND 21.16 ± 0.51 20.24 ± 0.06 28.31 ± 0.20 19.72 ± 1.19 18.94 ± 1.29 18.22 ± 2.25
C25-OH 9.62 ± 6.27 4.33 ± 0.23 4.82 ± 0.20 8.18 ± 0.10 2.88 ± 0.12 4.78 ± 0.26 7.24 ± 0.48 3.58 ± 0.46 5.53 ± 0.54
C26-OH 16.69 ± 0.80 18.84 ± 0.45 31.24 ± 0.73 20.72 ± 1.65 21.34 ± 4.18 31.59 ± 1.36 28.79 ± 2.35 24.46 ± 4.94 14.40 ± 0.96
C28-OH 12.87 ± 3.65 16.31 ± 1.62 22.15 ± 2.04 11.36 ± 0.53 23.95 ± 4.02 6.77 ± 1.53 19.74 ± 4.16 27.28 ± 6.79 25.42 ± 4.75
Total mg·kg–1 5.65 ± 1.21 6.55 ± 0.45 4.91 ± 0.70 5.99 ± 0.31 3.13 ± 0.56 14.41 ± 1.09 5.47 ± 2.21 3.45 ± 0.12 2.77 ± 0.30
–1
Tocopherols mg·kg
α-Tocopherol 51.90 ± 0.04 103.11 ± 6.87 86.75 ± 0.62 45.62 ± 0.19 0.31 ± 0.01 7.40 ± 0.05 39.14 ± 3.46 0.15 ± 0.01
β-Tocopherol ND 1.13 ± 0.18 3.37 ± 0.93 3.95 ± 0.10 0.90 ± 0.01 8.07 ± 0.06 1.65 ± 0.05 0.79 ± 0.01
10 • G.D. Fernandes, R.B. Gómez-Coca, M.C. Pérez-Camino, W. Moreda and D. Barrera-Arellano

γ-Tocopherol 71.61 ± 0.57 20.35 ± 1.22 9.02 ± 0.09 13.71 ± 0.56 6.08 ± 0.06 12.30 ± 0.24 4.15 ± 0.02 ND 2.42 ± 0.04

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

δ-Tocopherol 14.98 ± 0.13 16.9 ± 1.32 26.84 ± 0.81 44.10 ± 0.13 2.00 ± 0.02 3.37 ± 0.07 ND 1.63 ± 0.04
Total mg·kg–1 138.5 ± 0.73 141.5 ± 4.15 125.98 ± 0.41 107.39 ± 0.71 9.30 ± 0.10 31.14 ± 0.07 44.94 ± 3.52 4.99 ± 0.10

ND – Non-detected Value
 Chemical characterization of commercial and single-variety avocado oils • 11

2 Stigmasterol
Chile B
Sterols Total

δ-Tocopherol
1 High
Chile A
Hass Campestanol
Component 2 (16.5 %)

Equator
α-Tocopherol
0 Pinkerton
Campestanol
Brazil New 24-Methylene
Fuerte
Zealand Cycloartenol
-1
Tocopherols Low
Total
C24-OH
-2
Total
Methyl sterols

Bacon
Brazil
Chile A
New Zealand
Equator
Chile B
Fuerte
Hass
Pinkerton
Bacon
-3 1.4 2.0 2.6
VIP scores
-2 -1 0 1

Component 1 (20.4 %) Figure 2. Scores of variable importance in the projection of

Component 1
Figure 1. Partial least square discriminant analysis plot for
all analyzed samples with 95% confidence region, C1 × C2
they match the features selected in the VIP scores.
More specifically, we can see that minor compounds
Generally, α-tocopherol was the main species had a great importance on the establishment of
found, except in Bacon, where γ-tocopherol was the the distinguish plot (Figure 1). Sterol composition
most abundant one. Tocotrienols were not found in was the most representative feature. Stigmasterol
these samples. was very important for the commercial samples.
To the best of our knowledge, these approaches However, campestanol and the total amount of
to avocado oil characterization (detailed character- sterols were significant for the mono-varietal oils.
ization of major and minor compounds from the The same importance was noticed for tocopherols
same sample) have never been published, which in the mono-varietal oils; their presence was key to
makes both the election of relevant characterization this characterization. Other minor compounds such
parameters and the subsequent discussions difficult. as methyl-sterols and aliphatic alcohols are repre-
In this line, we performed a PLS-DA test in order to sented in the VIP score plot.
find relationships among samples and to determine It is essential to note that Figures 1 and 2 are
which parameters were more important to establish graphical means and summarized representation of
these relationships. all the information described in Tables 1-4. In other
After the statistical analysis described in the words, we can see that the full characterization has
Material and Methods section, the distribution great potential for the differentiation of oil samples
graphic based on components 1 and 2 was chosen, from different varieties, as well as commercial sam-
and explained more than 35% of the data variance. ples. With this, we encourage future studies in order
As Figure 1 shows, the sum of components 1 and 2 to examine oils from different crops, growing places,
clearly separates all the samples with a 95% confi- ripening stage and shelf life to create a mathemati-
dence region. Among the commercial oil samples, cal model to support the establishment of universal
they are clearly located between Component 2 (C2) standards for avocado oil.
-1;2 and Component 1 (C1) -2;0. The mono-varietal
oils from Hass, Pinkerton and Bacon are located 4. CONCLUSIONS
between C2 -1;2 and C1 0;1, thus C1 separates com-
mercial oil samples from the mono-varietal Hass, Avocado oil can be considered mainly a mono-
Pinkerton and Fuerte oils. On the other hand, Bacon unsaturated oil, with oleic acid as the main FA. The
is the only mono-varietal oil sample in the negative TAG composition is also dominated by oleic acid.
zone of C1 and the only sample in the C2 <-1 zone. The presence of ω7, ω9 and ω11 isomers of oleic
The VIP scores in Figure 2 show the ten most sig- and palmitoleic acids in avocado oil were described
nificant features for grouping the samples, as well for the first time.
as the weight of each variable on the plotted distri- Desmethyl-sterols were determined, with
bution of the samples. Looking at the characteris- β-sitosterol as the main molecule we found. The
tics already described in the chemical composition, squalene concentrations were higher in Bacon,

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

12 • G.D. Fernandes, R.B. Gómez-Coca, M.C. Pérez-Camino, W. Moreda and D. Barrera-Arellano

Fuerte and Pinkerton oils, than in Hass and IOC. 2015. Determination of aliphatic alcohols content by cap-
commercial oils; those oils may be suggested as illary gas chromatography. COI/ T.20/ Doc. no. 26.
IOC. 2015b. Trade standard applying to olive oils and olive-
potential squalene sources. Tocopherols (but not pomace oils. COI/ T.15/ NC No 3/Rev. 8.
tocotrienols) were also found, and were mainly α- IUPAC. 1987. Standard Method 2.301. Standard methods for
and γ-tocopherol. the analysis of oils, fats and derivatives. Preparation of
fatty acid methylester. Blackwell Scientific: Oxford, Great
Minor compounds like methyl- and dimethyl-­ Britain.
sterols, terpenic alkenols, and aliphatic alcohols IUPAC. 1987. Standard Method 2.302. Standard methods for
were described for the first time in this work. the analysis of oils, fats and derivatives. Determination
of FAMES by capillary GC Blackwell Scientific: Oxford,
From the global data, it was also possible to dis- Great Britain.
tinguish which features were more important for IUPAC. 1987. Standard Method 2.432. Standard methods for
sample differentiation. PLS-DA and its VIP scores the analysis of oils, fats and derivatives. Determination of
revealed statistical differences among the samples, tocopherol and tocotrienols in vegetable oils and fats by
HPLC. Blackwell Scientific: Oxford, Great Britain.
mainly related to commercial oils. Such differences Lanzón A, Guinda A, Albi T, De La Osa C. 1995. Método
should be taken into account for establishing future rápido para la determinación de escualeno en aceites veg-
regulatory laws. etales. Grasas Aceites 46, 276–278. https://doi.org/10.3989/
gya.1995.v46.i4-5.937
Lerman-Garber I, Ichazo-Cerro S, Zamora-Gonzáles J. 1994.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Effect of a high monounsaturated fat diet enriched with
avocado in NIDDM patients. Diabetes Care 17, 311–315.
https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.17.4.311
We thank the Instituto de Hortofruticultura Martínez-Nieto L, Barranco-Barranco R, Moreno-Romero
Subtropical y Mediterránea La Mayora (IHSM- MV. 1992. Extracción de aceite de aguacate: un experi-
CSIC, Málaga-Spain) for providing the avocado mento industrial. Grasas Aceites 43, 11–15. https://doi.
org/10.3989/gya.1992.v43.i1.1190
samples, the Coordination for the Improvement Mohameed S, Sharon D, Kaufman D, Lahav E, Hillel J, Degani
of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES, Brazil) C, Lavi U. 1997. Genetic relationships within avocado
and the National Council for Scientific and (Persea americana Mill) cultivars and between Persea
Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil) for the species. Theor. Appl. Genet. 94, 279–286. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s001220050411
scholarship and financial assistance. Moreda W, Pérez-Camino MC, Cert A. 2003. Improved method
for the determination of triacylglycerols in olive oils by
high performance liquid chromatography. Grasas Aceites
REFERENCES 54, 175–179. https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.2003.v54.i2.262
Moreno AO, Dorantes L, Galíndez J, Guzmán RI. 2003. Effect
Ashworth VETM, Clegg MT. 2003. Microsatellite markers in of different extraction methods on fatty acids, volatile
avocado (Persea americana Mill.): genealogical relation- compounds, and physical and chemical properties of avo-
ships cultivated avocado genotypes. J. Hered. 94, 407–415. cado (Persea americana Mill.) oil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51,
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esg076 2216–1121. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0207934
Botha BM, McCrindle RI. 2003 Supercritical fluid extraction Newmark HL. 1997. Squalene, olive oil, and cancer risk: a
of avocado oil. South African Avocado Growers Association review and hypothesis. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.
Yearbook 26, 27–36. 6, 1101–1103.
Carvajal-Zarrabal O, Nolasco-Hipolito C, Aguilar-Uscanga Ortiz MA, Dorantes AL, Galíndez MJ, Cárdenas E. 2004. Effect
MG, Melo-Santiesteban G, Hayward-Jones PM, Barradas- of a novel oil extraction method on avocado (Persea ameri-
Dermitz DM. 2014. Avocado Oil Supplementation cana Mill) pulp microstructure. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 58,
Modifies Cardiovascular Risk Profile Markers in a Rat 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-004-0032-3
Model of Sucrose-Induced Metabolic Changes. Dis. Ortiz-Avila O, Sámano-García CA, Calderón-Cortés E, Pérez-
Markers 2014, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/386425 Hernández IH, Mejía-Zepeda R, Rodríguez-Orozco
FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of United AR, Saavedra-Molina A, Cortés-Rojo C. 2013. Dietary
Nations, Statistic Division). Production/Crops/Avocado avocado oil supplementation attenuates the alterations
2014. URL http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed 31.08.17. induced by type I diabetes and oxidative stress in e­ lectron
Fernandes GD, Gómez-Coca RB, Pérez-Camino, MC, Moreda transfer at the complex II-complex III segment of the
W, Barrera-Arellano D. 2017. Chemical characteriza- electron transport chain in rat kidney m ­ itochondria.
tion of major and minor compounds of nut oils: almond, J. Bioenerg. Biomembr. 45, 271–287. https://doi.org/10.​
hazelnut, and pecan nut. Journal of Chemistry 2017, 1–11. 1007/​s10863-013-9502-3
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2609549 Platt KA, Thomson WW. 1992. Idioblast oil cells of avocado:
Freitas SP, Yahya QR, Lago RCA. 1998. Economics analysis Distribution, isolation, ultrastructure, histochemistry, and
of enzymatic extraction of avocado oil. Riv. Ital. Sostanze biochemistry. Int. J. Plant Sci. 153, 301–310. https://doi.
Grasse 75, 15–19. org/10.1086/297033
Gómez-Coca RB, Pérez-Camino MC, Moreda W. 2015. Analysis Rueda A, Seiquer I, Olalla M, Giménez R, Lara L, Cabrera-
of Neutral Lipids: Unsaponifiable. in Nollet L, Toldrá F, Vique C. 2014. Characterization of fatty acid profile of
(Eds) Handbook of Food Analysis, 3rd ed. CRC Press: Boca argan oil and other edible vegetable oils by gas chroma-
Raton, 459–491. tography and discriminant analysis. J. Chem. 2014, 1–8.
Hierro MT, Tomás MC, Fernández-Martín F, Santa-María G. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/843908
1992. Determination of the triclyceride compositon of Rueda A, Samaniego-Sánchez C, Olalla M, Giménez R,
avocado oil by high-peerformance liquid chromatography Cabrera-Vique C, Seiquer I, Lara L. 2016. Combination
using a light-scattering detector. J. Chromatogr. 607, 329– of analytical and chemometric methods as a useful tool
338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9673(92)87092-M for the characterization of extra virgin argan oil and other
IOC. 2001. Determination of stigmastadienes in vegetable oils. edible virgin oils. Role of polyphenols and tocopherols.
COI/ T.20/ Doc. no. 11. J. AOAC Int. 99, 489–494.
IOC. 2013. Determination of the composition and content of Salgado JM, Danieli F, Regitano-D’arce MAB, Frias A, Mansi
sterols and triterpene dialcohols by capillary column gas DN. 2008. O óleo de abacate (Persea americana Mill)
chromatography. COI/ T.20/ Doc. no. 30. como matéria-prima para a indústria alimentícia. Ciênc.

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181

 Chemical characterization of commercial and single-variety avocado oils • 13

Tecnol. Aliment. 28 (Supl.), 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1590/ Wong M, Requejo-Jackman C, Woolf A. 2010. What is unrefined,
S0101-20612008000500004 extra virgin cold-pressed avocado oil? URL http://www.
Tango JS, Carvalho CRL, Soares NB. 2004. Physical and chemi- aocs.org/Membership/FreeCover.cfm?ItemNumber=1099
cal characterization of avocado fruits aiming its potential Accessed 06/03/15.
for oil extraction. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 26, 17–23. https://doi. Woolf A, Wong M, Eyres L, McGhie T, Lund C, Olsson S, Wang
org/10.1590/S0100-29452004000100007 Y, Bulley C, Wang M, Friel E, Requejo-Jackman C. 2009.
Tango JS, Costa SI, Antunes AJ, Figueiredo IB. 1972 Avocado oil. From cosmetic to culinary oil. in Moreau
Composition du fruit et de l’huile de différentes varié- R, Kamal-Eldin A (Eds.) Gourmet and Health-Promoting
tés d’avocats cultivés dans l’Etat de São Paulo. Fruits 27, Specialty Oils, 1st ed. AOCS: Urbana, 73–125.
143–146. Xia J, Mandal R, Sinelnikov I, Broadhurst D, Wishart DS. 2012.
Werman MJ, Neeman I. 1987. Avocado oil production and MetaboAnalyst 2.0 - a comprehensive server for metabo-
chemical characteristics. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 64, 229– lomic data analysis. Nucl. Acids Res. 40, W127-W133.
232. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02542007 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks374

Grasas Aceites 69 (2), April–June 2018, e256. ISSN-L: 0017–3495 https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0110181