Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry

, Volume 408, Issue 28, pp 7955–7970 | Cite as

Olive oil authenticity studies by target and nontarget LC–QTOF-MS combined with advanced chemometric techniques

  • Natasa P. Kalogiouri
  • Nikiforos A. Alygizakis
  • Reza Aalizadeh
  • Nikolaos S. Thomaidis
Research Paper

Abstract

Food analysis is continuously requiring the development of more robust, efficient, and cost-effective food authentication analytical methods to guarantee the safety, quality, and traceability of food commodities with respect to legislation and consumer demands. Hence, a novel reversed-phase ultra high performance liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization quadrupole time of flight tandem mass spectrometry analytical method was developed that uses target, suspect, and nontarget screening strategies coupled with advanced chemometric tools for the investigation of the authenticity of extra virgin olive oil. The proposed method was successfully applied in real olive oil samples for the identification of markers responsible for the sensory profile. The proposed target analytical method includes the determination of 14 phenolic compounds and demonstrated low limits of detection ranging from 0.015 μg mL-1 (apigenin) to 0.039 μg mL-1 (vanillin) and adequate recoveries (96–107 %). A suspect list of 60 relevant compounds was compiled, and suspect screening was then applied to all the samples. Semiquantitation of the suspect compounds was performed with the calibration curves of target compounds having similar structures. Then, a nontarget screening workflow was applied with the aim to identify additional compounds so as to differentiate extra virgin olive oils from defective olive oils. Robust classification-based models were built with the use of supervised discrimination techniques, partial least squares–discriminant analysis and counterpropagation artificial neural networks, for the classification of olive oils into extra virgin olive oils or defective olive oils. Variable importance in projection scores were calculated to select the most significant features that affect the discrimination. Overall, 51 compounds were identified and suggested as markers, among which 14, 26, and 11 compounds were identified by target, suspect, and nontarget screening respectively. Retrospective analysis was also performed and identified 19 free fatty acids.

Graphical Abstract

Development of a novel RP-LC-ESI-QTOFMS analytical method employing target, suspect and non-target screening strategies coupled to advanced chemometric tools for the investigation of markers responsible for the sensory profile of extra virgin olive oil and guarantee authenticity

Keywords

Authenticity Olive oil Nontarget analysis Chemometrics Markers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Greek agricultural organization ELGO-DIMITRA I.O.S.V on Lesvos, and Aggeliki-Efstratia Kouzoumi, Director of the Laboratory of Olive Oil Control, for the sensory evaluation and Michalis Pentogennis (chemist) for the collection of samples and the sensory evaluation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This work does not contain any studied with human participants or animals.

Supplementary material

216_2016_9891_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.4 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 2.37 mb)

References

  1. 1.
    Romdhane K. Food authenticity and fraud. In: Picó Y, editor. Chemical analysis of food: techniques and applications. 1st ed. Waltham: Academic; 2012. p. 499–517.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dennis J. Recent developments in food authentication. Analyst. 1998;123:151–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aparicio R, Conte LS, Fiebig HJ. Olive oil authentication. In: Aparicio R, Harwood J, editors. Handbook of olive oil: analysis and properties. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 589–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bajoub A, Hurtado-Fernandez E, El Ajal A, Ouazzani N, Fernandez-Gutiérrez A, Carrasco-Pancorbo A. A comprehensive 3-years study of the phenolic profile of Moroccan monovarietal virgin olive oils from Meknès region. J Agric Food Chem. 2015;63:4376–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sánchez de Medina V, Priego-Capote F, de Castro MDL. Characterization of monovarietal virgin olive oils by phenols profiling. Talanta. 2015;132:424–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ballus CA, Quirantes-Piné R, Bakhouche A, de Oliveira da Silva LF, Coutinho EF, da Croce DM, et al. Profile of phenolic compounds of Brazilian virgin olive oils by rapid resolution liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry (RRLC-ESI-TOF-MS). Food Chem. 2015;170:366–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Olive Council. Sensory analysis of olive oil. Method for the organoleptic assessment of virgin olive oil. COI/T.20/Doc. No 15/Rev. 8. Madrid: International Olive Council; 2015.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    International Olive Oil Council. Sensory analysis of olive oil standard guide for the selection, training and monitoring of skilled virgin olive oil tasters. COI/T.20/Doc. No 14 Rev. 4. Madrid: International Olive Oil Council; 2013.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tena N, Wang SC, Aparicio-Ruiz R, Garcia-Gonzalez DL, Aparicio R. An in-depth assessment of analytical methods for olive oil purity, safety and quality characterization. J Agric Food Chem. 2015;63(18):4509–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dierkes G, Krieger S, Duck R, Bongartz A, Schmitz OJ, Hayen H. High-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry profiling of phenolic compounds for evaluation of olive oil bitterness and pungency. J Agric Food Chem. 2012;60:7597–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    García-González DL, Aparicio R. Research in olive oil: challenges for the near future. J Agric Food Chem. 2010;58:12569–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Escuderos ME. Olive oil aroma evaluation by gas chromatographic method: a critical review. Crit Rev Anal Chem. 2011;41(1):70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Montedoro G, Bertuccioli M, Anichini F. Aroma analysis of virgin olive oil by head space volatiles extraction techniques. In: Charalampous G, Inglet G, editors. Flavor of foods and beverages. 1st ed. New York: Academic; 1978. p. 247–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cifuentes A. Food analysis: present, future, and foodomics. ISRN Anal Chem. 2012;2012:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ibañez C, Simó C, García-Cañas V, Acunha T, Cifuentes A. The role of direct high-resolution mass spectrometry in foodomics. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2015;407:6275–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bakhouche A, Lozano-Sánchez J, Beltrán-Debón R, Joven J, Segura-Carretero A, Fernández-Gutiérrez A. Phenolic characterization and geographical classification of commercial Arbequina extra-virgin olive oils produced in southern Catalonia. Food Res Int. 2013;50:401–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Capriotti AL, Cavaliere C, Crescenzi C, Foglia P, Nescatelli R, Samperi R, et al. Comparison of extraction methods for the identification and quantification of polyphenols in virgin olive oil by ultra-HPLC-QToF mass spectrometry. Food Chem. 2014;158:392–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    García-Villalba R, Carrasco-Pancorbo A, Oliveras-Ferraros C, Vazquez-Martín A, Menéndez JA, Segura-Carretero A, et al. Characterization and quantification of phenolic compounds of extra-virgin olive oils with anticancer properties by a rapid and resolutive LC-ESI-TOF MS method. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2010;51:416–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lozano-Sánchez J, Segura-Carretero A, Menendez JA, Oliveras-Ferraros C, Cerretani L, Fernández-Gutiérrez A. Prediction of extra virgin olive oil varieties through their phenolic profile. potential cytotoxic activity against human breast cancer cells. J Agric Food Chem. 2010;58:9942–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ouni Y, Taamalli A, Gómez-Caravaca AM, Segura-Carretero A, Fernández-Gutiérrez A, Zarrouk M. Characterisation and quantification of phenolic compounds of extra-virgin olive oils according to their geographical origin by a rapid and resolutive LC-ESI-TOF MS method. Food Chem. 2011;127:1263–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vichi S, Cortés-Francisco N, Caixach J. Insight into virgin olive oil secoiridoids characterization by high-resolution mass spectrometry and accurate mass measurements. J Chromatogr A. 2013;1301:48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taamalli A, Arráez Román D, Zarrouk M, Segura-Carretero A, Fernández-Gutiérrez A. Classification of 'Chemlali' accessions according to the geographical area using chemometric methods of phenolic profiles analysed by HPLC-ESI-TOF-MS. Food Chem. 2012;132:561–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Favati F, Condelli N, Galgano F, Caruso MC. Extra virgin olive oil bitterness evaluation by sensory and chemical analyses. Food Chem. 2013;139:949–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bendini A, Cerretani L, Carrasco-Pancorbo A, Gómez-Caravaca AM, Segura-Carretero A, Fernández-Gutiérrez A, et al. Phenolic molecules in virgin olive oils: a survey of their sensory properties, health effects, antioxidant activity and analytical methods. an overview of the last decade. Molecules. 2007;12:1679–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gutiérrez-Rosales F, Ríos JJ, Gómez-Rey ML. Main polyphenols in the bitter taste of virgin olive oil. structural confirmation by on-line high-performance liquid chromatography electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem. 2003;51:6021–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mateos R, Cert A, Carmen Pérez-Camino M, García JM. Evaluation of virgin olive oil bitterness by quantification of secoiridoid derivatives. J Am Oil Chem Soc. 2004;81:71–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Siliani S, Mattei A, Benevieri Innocenti L, Zanoni B. Bitter taste and phenolic compounds in extra virgin olive oil: an empirical relationship. J Food Qual. 2006;29:431–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andrewes P, Busch JL, de Joode T, Groenewegen A, Alexandre H. Sensory properties of virgin olive oil polyphenols: identification of deacetoxy-ligstroside aglycon as a key contributor to pungency. J Agric Food Chem. 2003;51:1415–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    García-Cañas V, Simó C, Herrero M, Ibáñez E, Cifuentes A. Present and future challenges in food analysis: foodomics. Anal Chem. 2012;84:10150–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cuadros Rodríguez L, Ruiz-Samblás C, Valverde-Som L, Pérez-Castaño E, González-Casado A. Chromatographic fingerprinting: an innovative approach for food 'identitation' and food authentication - a tutorial. Anal Chim Acta. 2016;909:9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gómez-Caravaca AM, Maggio RM, Cerretani L. Chemometric applications to assess quality and critical parameters of virgin and extra-virgin olive oil. A review. Anal Chim Acta. 2016;913:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    European Commission. Commission implementing Regulation (EU) No 1348/2013 of 16 December 2013 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis. Off J Eur Union L. 338:31. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2013.338.01.0031.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2013:338:FULL. Accessed 18 Jan 2016.
  33. 33.
    Piscopo A, Poiana M. Packaging and storage of olive oil. In: Muzzalupo I, editor. Olive germplasm - the olive cultivation, table olive and olive oil industry in Italy. Rijeka: InTech; 2012. doi: 10.5772/51827.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stefanoudaki E, Williams M, Harwood J. Changes in virgin olive oil characteristics during different storage conditions. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol. 2010;112:906–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Becerra-Herrera M, Sánchez-Astudillo M, Beltrán R, Sayago A. Determination of phenolic compounds in olive oil: new method based on liquid–liquid micro extraction and ultra high performance liquid chromatography-triple–quadrupole mass spectrometry. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2014;57:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Want EJ, Wilson ID, Gika H, Theodoridis G, Plumb RS, Shockcor J, et al. Global metabolic profiling procedures for urine using UPLC–MS. Nat Protoc. 2010;5:1005–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Krauss M, Singer H, Hollender J. LC–high resolution MS in environmental analysis: from target screening to the identification of unknowns. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2010;397:943–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gago-Ferrero P, Schymanski EL, Bletsou AA, Aalizadeh R, Hollender J, Thomaidis NS. Extended suspect and non-target strategies to characterize emerging polar organic contaminants in raw wastewater with LC-HRMS/MS. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(20):12333–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wolf S, Schmidt S, Muller-Hannemann M, Neumann S. In silico fragmentation for computer assisted identification of metabolite mass spectra. BMC Bioinf. 2010;11:148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Horai H, Arita M, Kanaya S, Nihei Y, Ikeda T, Suwa K, et al. MassBank: a public repository for sharing mass spectral data for life sciences. J Mass Spectrom. 2010;45:703–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Aalizadeh R, Thomaidis NS, Bletsou A, Gago-Ferrero P. Quantitative structure-retention relationships models to support non-target high resolution mass spectrometric screening of emerging contaminants in environmental samples. J Chem Inf Model. 2016;56(7):1384–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schymanski EL, Singer HP, Longree P, Loos M, Ruff M, Stravs MA, et al. Strategies to characterize polar organic contamination in wastewater: exploring the capability of high resolution mass spectrometry. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:1811–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hernández F, Sancho JV, Ibáñez M, Abad E, Portolés T, Mattioli L. Current use of high-resolution mass spectrometry in the environmental sciences. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2012;403:1251–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schymanski EL, Jeon J, Gulde R, Fenner K, Ruff M, Singer HP, et al. Identifying small molecules via high resolution mass spectrometry: communicating confidence. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48:2097–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chambers MC, Maclean B, Burke R, Amodei D, Ruderman DL, Neumann S, et al. A cross-platform toolkit for mass spectrometry and proteomics. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30:918–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tautenhahn R, Böttcher C, Neumann S. Highly sensitive feature detection for high resolution LC/MS. BMC Bioinf. 2008;9:504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smith CA, Want EJ, O'Maille G, Abagyan R, Siuzdak G. XCMS: processing mass spectrometry data for metabolite profiling using nonlinear peak alignment, matching, and identification. Anal Chem. 2006;78(3):779–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kuhl C, Tautenhahn R, Böttcher C, Larson TR, Neumann S. CAMERA: an integrated strategy for compound spectra extraction and annotation of liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry data sets. Anal Chem. 2012;84:283–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Libiseller G, Dvorzak M, Kleb U, Gander E, Eisenberg T, Madeo F, et al. IPO: a tool for automated optimization of XCMS parameters. BMC Bioinf. 2015;16:118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ballabio D, Consonni V. Classification tools in chemistry. Part 1: linear models. PLS-DA. Anal Methods. 2013;5:3790–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ballabio D, Consonni V, Todeschini R. The Kohonen and CP-ANN toolbox: a collection of MATLAB modules for self organizing maps and counterpropagation artificial neural networks. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2009;98(2):115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mehmood T, Liland KH, Snipen L, Sæbø S. A review of variable selection methods in partial least squares regression. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2012;118:62–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chong I-G, Jun C-H. Performance of some variable selection methods when multicollinearity is present. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2005;78:103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gosselin R, Rodrigue D, Duchesne C. A bootstrap-VIP approach for selecting wavelength intervals in spectral imaging applications. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2010;100:12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Michel T, Khlif I, Kanakis P, Termentzi A, Allouche N, Halabalaki M, et al. UHPLC-DAD-FLD and UHPLC-HRMS/MS based metabolic profiling and characterization of different Olea europaea organs of Koroneiki and Chetoui varieties. Phytochem Lett. 2015;11:424–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kanakis P, Termentzi A, Michel T, Gikas E, Halabalaki M, Skaltsounis A-L. From olive drupes to olive oil. An HPLC-Orbitrap-based Qualitative and quantitative exploration of olive key metabolites. Planta Med. 2013;79:1576–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Olivieri AC. Practical guidelines for reporting results in single- and multi-component analytical calibration: a tutorial. Anal Chim Acta. 2015;868:10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Matuszewski BK, Constanzer ML, Chavez-Eng CM. Strategies for the assessment of matrix effect in quantitative bioanalytical methods based on HPLC-MS/MS. Anal Chem. 2003;75:3019–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    International Olive Council. Determination of biophenols in olive oils by HPLC. COI/T.20/Doc No 29. Madrid: International Olive Council; 2009.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cicerale S, Lucas L, Keast R. Biological activities of phenolic compounds present in virgin olive oil. Int J Mol Sci. 2010;11(2):458–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Antonini E, Farina A, Leone A, Mazzara E, Urbani S, Selvaggini R, et al. Phenolic compounds and quality parameters of family farming versus protected designation of origin (PDO) extra-virgin olive oils. J Food Compos Anal. 2015;43:75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natasa P. Kalogiouri
    • 1
  • Nikiforos A. Alygizakis
    • 1
  • Reza Aalizadeh
    • 1
  • Nikolaos S. Thomaidis
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry, Department of ChemistryNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations