Comprehensive comparison of fatty acid methyl ester profile in different food matrices using microwave-assisted extraction and derivatization methods and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled with flame ionization detection

Abstract

Analyzing fatty acids provides key insights into fat composition for industrial applications and their implications for nutrition and health. Typically, fatty acid analysis involves extracting lipids from the matrix and converting them into fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) through a derivatization process before gas chromatography (GC) analysis. Either one-step or two-step procedures can be found in the literature and as official methods. In this work, different methods exploiting microwave-assisted processes were compared with two official methods from the American Oil Chemical Society (AOCS). Especially, two types of microwave-assisted extractions were employed: solvent extraction and extraction with hydrolysis. The extracts were derivatized using either BF₃ or a microwave-assisted methanolic hydrogen chloride solution. These combinations of extraction and derivatization methods were compared also with one-step microwave-assisted extraction and derivatization, and two AOCS reference methods, resulting in seven different methods applied to six different food matrices. The performance of the different procedures was compared based on the FAME profile obtained from the comprehensive two-dimensional GC (GC × GC)-FID analysis.

Microwave-assisted processes were shown to be effective, yielding results comparable to the official methods in both the one-step and two-step methods. Moreover, it was shown that the BF₃ derivatization could be safely replaced with microwave-assisted derivatization with methanolic hydrogen chloride, providing equivalent performances while enhancing operator safety and environmental friendliness. Some discrepancies in the FAMEs profile were highlighted for the sample of oats, the only explicitly requiring acidic hydrolysis for lipid extraction. Further studies are required to understand the reasons behind these differences and develop a suitable modified method. In conclusion, all the methods were evaluated for greenness and blueness with two specific tools: AGREEprep and BAGI.