jagomart
digital resources
picture1_Extraction Methods Pdf 88277 | Jaoac0487


 153x       Filetype PDF       File size 0.70 MB       Source: academic.oup.com


File: Extraction Methods Pdf 88277 | Jaoac0487
lee et al journal of aoac international vol 79 no 2 1996 487 food composition and additives a simple and rapid solvent extraction method for determining total lipids in fish ...

icon picture PDF Filetype PDF | Posted on 15 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Partial capture of text on file.
                                                                           LEE ET AL.: JOURNAL OF AOAC INTERNATIONAL VOL. 79, No. 2, 1996 487 
                FOOD COMPOSITION AND ADDITIVES 
                A Simple and Rapid Solvent Extraction Method for Determining 
                Total Lipids in Fish Tissue 
                CHONG M. LEE, BELZAHET TREVINO, and MAYUREE CHAIYAWAT 
                University of Rhode Island, Department of Food Science and Nutrition, 530 Liberty Ln, West Kingston, RI 02892 
                                                                                   (3) used 2:1 chloroform-methanol at a 20:1 ratio of solvent to          Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaoac/article/79/2/487/5684567 by guest on 14 September 2022
                Solvent systems that have been developed for lipid                 tissue (by weight) for simplicity and rapidity. 
                extraction include chloroform-methanol, n-hexane-                     Hara and Radin (4) used 3:2 hexane-isopropyl alcohol. They 
                isopropyl alcohol, and methylene chloride-metha-                   blended 1 g tissue with 18 mL solvent and removed the nonlipid 
                nol. The extraction methods are labor intensive,                   fraction with 12 mL 6.25% sodium sulfate. However, extraction 
                lack precision, or require a large volume of solvent.              of proteolipid protein and gangliosides was incomplete. 
                Correct computation of lipid content calls for full re-
                covery of solvent after extraction, but recovery al-                  Swaczyna and Montag (5) used methylene chloride-metha-
                ways is incomplete because of unaccounted sol-                     nol. Methylene chloride poses a problem because of its low 
                vent residue that remains in jar, filter paper, and ho-            boiling point (39.7°C). The low boiling point may result in sol-
                mogenized tissue. A rapid and simple extraction                    vent losses due to rapid evaporation during blending and filter-
                method coupled with correct computation was de-                    ing, leading to erroneously higher yield. 
                veloped for determining total lipids in fish tissue.                  Recently, Erickson (6) used catfish tissue to compare 9 sol-
                The method uses chloroform-methanol and an                         vent systems for lipid extraction with a screw-cap test tube (16 
                Eberbach blending jar. Variables examined were                     x 125 mm) and a Vortex mixer. The size of the test tube limits 
                chloroform-methanol ratio, solvent-to-sample ra-                   sample sizes to 0.5-1 g, based on solvent-to-tissue ratios of 7-
                tio, and phase separation time. Precision was                      30. Chloroform-methanol was preferred over other solvent 
                within 0.5%. Conventional computation of lipid con-                systems (hexane-isopropyl alcohol and chloroform-isopropyl 
                tent depends on the volume of chloroform meas-                     alcohol), which required longer evaporation times. Exposure of 
                ured after filtration. This volume does not include                tissue to methanol prior to chloroform is necessary for this sol-
                unaccounted solvent residue. Thus, a time-consum-                  vent extraction system. Although the method uses a low vol-
                ing second extraction is required for complete re-                 ume of solvent and is simple and rapid, it has some drawbacks. 
                covery. The mass balance of each extraction and fil-               One disadvantage is limited sample size (not more than 1 g), 
                tration step confirmed that the correct volume of                  thus requiring an extremely uniform sample to minimize vari-
                chloroform (measured plus unaccounted) was                         ability. Potential safety hazards from pressure buildup inside 
                close to the theoretical volume. The procedure                     the tube from a 2 min agitation on a Vortex mixer are another 
                eliminates problems associated with laborious fil-                 disadvantage. Also, use of a Vortex mixer may result in inade-
                tration and variation in chloroform volume read-                   quate disintegration of tissue, compared with mixing in a blade-
                ings and does not require an exact reading of chlo-                equipped blender. Inadequate breakup of tissue may prevent 
                roform volume. Instead it allows use of a theoreti-                complete extraction of lipid from tissue. 
                cal volume, which depends on solvent volume and                       Earlier methods are labor intensive and have other draw-
                ratio used.                                                        backs, including lack of precision and use of a large volume of 
                                                                                   solvent. A rapid and simple extraction method for lipid analysis 
                                                                                   offish tissue based on the chloroform-methanol solvent system 
                      olvent extraction systems that have been available for       was developed. 
                Sfish lipid extraction include chloroform-methanol. 
                      Folch et al. (1) used 2:1 chloroform-methanol to extract     Experimental 
                40 g tissue in 2 steps: first with 760 mL and then with 400 mL        Apparatus 
                solvent. Bligh and Dyer (2) used 1:1 chloroform-methanol in 
                a 2-step extraction. Tissue (100 g) was blended first with            The blending unit consisted of an Eberbach blending jar 
                200 mL methanol and 100 mL chloroform and then with                (250 mL, Ref. No. 8580; Eberbach Corp., Ann Arbor, MI), 
                100 mL chloroform. The residue was blended with 100 mL             Waring blender base (Model 33BL79; Waring Products, New 
                chloroform and rinsed with 50 mL chloroform. Hubbard et al.        Hartford, CT), and variable autotransformer (Model 3PN1010; 
                                                                                   Staco Energy Products, Dayton, OH). Unlike other typical 
                   Received April 11, 1995. Accepted by JL August 2, 1995.         blending jars, the Eberbach jar is tapered such that added sol-
                  488 LEE ET AL. : JOURNAL OF AOAC INTERNATIONAL VOL. 79, No. 2199,  6 
                  vent remains in the narrow lower part (60 mL holding capac-                          To separate the filtrate into 2 phases (methanol-water and 
                  ity), and no spillage and evaporation losses occur during vigor-                 chloroform), 20 mL 0.5% NaCl was added. The mixture was 
                   ous blending with sample.                                                       gently shaken by tilting the graduated cylinder 4 times and then 
                                                                                                   allowed to stand for 30 min or until a clear separation was vis-
                      Reagents                                                                     ible. The NaCl solution was added to prevent formation of a 
                      The following reagents were used: chloroform (Fisher, Ref.                   stable emulsion and to remove proteinaceous matter from the 
                  No. C298-4), methanol (Fisher, Ref. No. A452-4), and sodium                      chloroform fraction, as reported by Palmer (7). At this point, the 
                  chloride (crystal; Fisher, Ref. No. S271-500).                                   volume of the chloroform layer should be equal to the theoreti-
                                                                                                   cal value minus losses that occurred during blending and filtra-
                      Sample Preparation                                                           tion. The theoretical volume of chloroform in 2:1 chloroform-
                                                                                                   methanol is 50 x 2/3 = 33 mL. 
                      Cod (Gadus morhua) and mackerel {Scomber scombrus)                               To determine the amount of lipid extracted, a 5 mL chloro-                        Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaoac/article/79/2/487/5684567 by guest on 14 September 2022
                   were chosen as representatives of lean and fatty species, respec-               form layer was removed with a 10 mL pipet, transferred to a 
                  tively. Fish was filleted, cut into small pieces, and homogenized                preweighed (to 1 mg) 10 mL beaker, and evaporated for ca 
                   in a kitchen Waring blender. The resulting paste free of bones,                 30 min on a Corning hot plate (PC-35) set between low and 2 
                   skins, and scales was used as sample for solvent extraction.                    to avoid excessive heating and drying. 
                      Method Development                                                               Calculation 
                      A single extraction with chloroform-methanol was used                            The lipid content was calculated with the following formula: 
                   throughout the study. The following variables were examined                                   Lipid content, %         lipid extracted(g) 
                   to determine optimum extraction conditions: solvent-to-sample                                                          sample weight (g) 
                   ratio, chloroform-methanol ratio, and phase separation time. 
                   The ratio of solvent volume to sample weight was varied from                          [chloroform volume (read + unaccounted)] (mL) 
                   2 to 14. The chloroform-methanol ratio was varied from 0.9 to                                                   5 mL                               xlOO 
                   18. Phase separation time was varied from 30 min to 6 h. 
                                                                                                       Statistical Analysis 
                      Lipid Extraction Procedure                                                       A 3 x 5 factorial analysis of variance (n = 3) was used to 
                      Paste weighing 5 ± 0.1 g was placed into a 250 mL Eber-                      determine the significance of variations due to solvent ratio and 
                   bach homogenizer with a narrow stem and a wide upper body                       sample size. Method precision was determined from the vari-
                   and opening. Such geometry allows efficient blending with a                     ability (coefficient of variation) from the mean. 
                   small amount of solvent and a large headspace that prevents 
                   solvent spillage. Various amounts of solvent were added to alter                Results and Discussion 
                   solvent-to-sample ratios. The mixture was blended for 1.5 min 
                   at moderate speed; a variable transformer was used to maintain                      Tables 1 and 2 presents the effects of solvent ratio and sam-
                   a constant speed. High speed resulted in solvent vaporization                   ple size on extraction of lipids from lean (cod) and fatty (mack-
                   and a rise in temperature. The homogenate was filtered through                  erel) fish, respectively. For lean fish, the more polar solvent 
                   a coarse, fast-speed filter paper (12.5 mm id, Fisher P8) and                   system (1:2 chloroform-methanol) was more effective than the 
                   funneled into a 100 mL glass-stoppered graduated cylinder.                      less polar solvent system (2:1 chloroform-methanol), espe-
                   The wet cake was pressed with the round tip of a spatula to                     cially as the sample size increased. Compared with that of lean 
                   squeeze the remaining solvent. The final volume of filtrate var-                fish, extractability of lipids from fatty fish responded sharply to 
                   ied with the batch of sample and species. Solvent losses from                   changes in solvent ratio and sample size. As solvent polarity 
                   residue left in the homogenizer after blending and pouring and                  increased with increased sample size, efficiency of lipid extrac-
                   absorbed on the filter paper after filtration were taken into ac-               tion dropped drastically. With 2:1 chloroform-methanol, lipid 
                   count in yield determination.                                                   extracted from mackerel ranged from 11.1 to 9.96%. With 1:2 
                   Table 1. Effects of solvent ratio and sample size on lipid extracted from cod tissue (lean fish) 
                                                      Lipid extracted (%) at indicated sample size (g) and solvent-to-sample ratio3 
                   Chloroform-methanol ratio            1(50)            3(16.7)           5(10)             7(7.1)           9 (5.5)              4,30 
                                                             £                DC                 c                c                 c 
                   1:2                                   1.20             1.12 '            1.05              1.04             1.03               4.23            0.01 
                                                                               c                 c                c                 c 
                   1:1                                   1.12*            0.94              0.93             0.93              0.90             32.79             0.001 
                                                                              c                  d                e                 e 
                   2:1                                   1.34*            1.04              0.86             0.74              0.72             36.43             0.001 
                   a Solvent-to-sample ratios are indiated in parentheses. For all sample sizes, 50 mL solvent was used. Effect of sample size (F             ) = 51.28 (P« 
                     0.001). Effect of solvent ratio (F   ) = 30.12 (P < 0.001). Interaction (F     ) = 10.94 (P< 0.001).                                  430
                                                       230                                       830
                   b,c,d,e |\/|     (  _ 3) j                vvith different superscripts are significantly different (P< 0.05). 
                               eans  n      n tne same row
                                                                                                                             LEE ET AL.: JOURNAL OF AOAC INTERNATIONAL VOL. 79, No. 2,1996 489 
                          Table 2. Effects of solvent ratio and sample size on lipid extracted from mackerel tissue (fatty fish) 
                                                                                                                                                                                             3 
                                                                            Lipid extracted (%) at indicated sample size (g) and solvent-to-sample ratio
                          Chloroform-methanol ratio                             1(50)                  3(16.7)                   5(10)                   7(7.1)                  9 (5.5) 
                                                                                       C                                                                         c                       e 
                          1:2                                                    10.6                    10.1°                     4.42                    2.53                   1.90                      901                    0.001 
                                                                                                               C                        c                        c                       e 
                          1:1                                                    10.8*                   10.2                     10.1                     6.59                   5.65                      432                    0.001 
                                                                                                               C                        c                      C                         c 
                          2:1                                                    11.1*                   10.3                     10.1                   10.0                     9.96                        12.8                 0.001 
                          a
                            Solvent-to-sample ratios are indicated in parentheses. For all sample, sizes 50 mL solvent was used. Effect of sample size (F                                                                      ) = 827 (P< 
                             0.001). Effect of solvent ratio (F                   ) = 1021 (P< 0.001). Interaction (F                      ) = 284 (P< 0.001).                                                              430
                                                                              230                                                      830
                          b.c.d.e M                (  _ 3) jt  different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (P< 0.05). 
                                            eans n            w n
                          chloroform-methanol, it dropped from 10.6 to 1.90%. This re-                                                          Chloroform-methanol (2:1) was selected as the optimum                                                             Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaoac/article/79/2/487/5684567 by guest on 14 September 2022
                          sult reflected greater F values for effects of solvent ratio, sam-                                               solvent for fatty fish, such as mackerel, with lipid contents 
                          ple size, and their interaction for fatty fish than for lean fish.                                              higher than 6% and composed largely of triacylglycerols. This 
                               Better extraction of lean fish with a polar solvent (1:2 chlo-                                             system used the least amount of chloroform among solvent ra-
                          roform-methanol) is due to the preponderance of membrane-                                                       tios that gave maximum extraction. Chloroform-methanol 
                          bound phospholipids (88.1%) in lean fish (8). By contrast, fatty                                                (1:2) was selected for lean fish, such as cod, with lipid contents 
                          fish is composed mostly of triacylglycerols (86.8%) (9).                                                        less than 2% and composed mostly of phospholipids. A solvent-
                               Maximum lipid extraction of mackerel (about 45% lipid on                                                   to-sample ratio of 10:1 (50 mL solvent to 5 g sample) was op-
                          a solid weight basis, equivalent to 15% lipid on a wet weight                                                   timum for both lean and fatty fish. Incomplete extraction is pos-
                          basis and 34% solid) was achieved with chloroform-methanol                                                       sible at this ratio when the lipid content is very high (>20%), 
                          at ratios ranging from 2:1 to 5:1 (Figure 1) and a solvent-to-                                                  unless the solvent-to-sample ratio is increased to >10, regard-
                          sample ratio >10 (Figure 2). Extraction efficiency decreased as                                                 less of the composition of the chloroform-methanol system. 
                          the solvent mixture approached a biphasic state at solvent ratios                                                     Method precision is supported by low variability with re-
                          higher than 5:1. Bligh and Dyer (2) reported that the monopha-                                                   spect to volume of chloroform read and lipid extracted (Ta-
                          sic state is necessary for efficient lipid extraction, because it                                               ble 3). The mass balance of solvent during the whole procedure 
                          provides more contact areas for extraction and thus helps the                                                    (Table 4) proves there was no apparent loss other than the re-
                          solvent dissolve the lipids. No significant increase in lipid ex-                                               maining solvent residue. By using the mass balance given in 
                          traction was noted at solvent-to-sample ratios ranging from                                                     Table 4, the actual measured and unaccounted volumes of chlo-
                                                                                                                                          roform were computed (Table 5). The combined volume was 
                          10:1 to 14:1, but at 50:1 (50 mL solvent to 1 g sample), a sig-                                                 close to the theoretical volume: 33, 25, and 16.7 mL for 2:1, 
                          nificant increase in lipid extraction (Tables 1 and 2) was ob-                                                   1:1, and 1:2 chloroform-methanol, respectively. Therefore, if 
                          served at most solvent ratios. However, use of such a small                                                      all steps are carefully controlled, the theoretical volume can be 
                          sample may reduce precision, unless sample homogeneity is                                                        used on a routine basis without measuring the precise volume 
                          ensured.                                                                                                        of chloroform by hand squeezing or vacuum filtering every 
                                                                                                                                          drop out of the wet homogenate. Theoretical and unaccounted 
                                                                                                                                          volumes were 33.0 and 3.2; 33.3 and 3.2; and 16.8 and 1.8 mL 
                                                                                                                                           LU O 
                                                                                                                                           |_ CO 
                            If                                                                                                             x 5 
                                                                                                                                           UJ V) 
                                                                                                                                           Q Ol 
                                                                                                                                           E2 
                                                                                                                                               -' 0.1 -
                          Figure 1. Effect of solvent composition on lipid                                                                                                    SOLVENT to SAMPLE RATIO 
                          extraction of mackerel tissue. Extraction was done at a 
                          10:1 ratio of solvent to wet sample and 5% water. The 5%                                                         Figure 2. Effect of solvent-to-sample ratio on lipid 
                          water (2.5 mL out of 50 mL solvent mixture) was                                                                  extraction of mackerel tissue. Extraction was done with 
                          estimated from a minimum contribution of 2.5 mL from                                                             5 g wet sample and various volumes of at 75:20:5 
                          5 g sample.                                                                                                      chloroform-methanol-water. 
                490 LEE ET AL.: JOURNAL OF AOAC INTERNATIONAL VOL. 79, No. 2,1996 
                Table 3. Method precision determined with a single mackerel sample' 
                                                                              read, mL         Lipid extracted, mg            Lipid content, % 
                Sample weight, g                              Chloroform layer
                5.01                                                     29                          141.68                        18.66 
                5.01                                                     29                          141.32                        18.67 
                5.02                                                     29                          142.56                        18.74 
                5.00                                                     28.8                        141.57                        18.57 
                   Mean ± standard deviation                         28.95 ±0.1                   141.78 ±0.54                 18.66 ±0.069 
                   Coefficient of variation (variability), %           ±0.34                         ±0.38                         ±0.37 
                  50 mL 2:1 chloroform-methanol was used to extract 5 g tissue. 
                for 10 and 20% lipid-containing mackerel and 1% lipid-con-              To determine method accuracy, the method was compared                 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jaoac/article/79/2/487/5684567 by guest on 14 September 2022
                taining cod, respectively.                                           with the Bligh-Dyer method (Table 7). The proposed method 
                   Table 6 shows how time necessary for phase separation after       consistently showed a higher yield. When calculation was 
                addition of 0.5% NaCl affected the amount of fat measured. As        based on the measured volume of the chloroform layer, no sig-
                indicated by low variability and statistical insignificance, the     nificant difference in cod lipid contents was observed between 
                amount of lipid measured remained constant regardless of the         the 2 methods. By contrast, significant differences in mackerel 
                time of sampling, as long as a visible separation had occurred.      lipid contents were observed. Mackerel samples required a sol-
                This finding indicates that there is no increase in lipid extrac-    vent that is more nonpolar than that used in the Bligh-Dyer 
                tion with extended standing time for clear separation. Although      method. The discrepancy may be due to differences in solvent-
                opacity was due to an emulsion, which contained some protei-         to-sample ratio and solvent makeup. This observation reaffirms 
                naceous substances, the proteinaceous matter had no effect on        that solvent polarity and sol vent-to-sample ratio are the most 
                the amount of lipid measured. This conclusion is supported by        critical factors for lipid extraction of fish tissues. Solvent polar-
                a study of Erickson (6), which showed that less than 0.006%          ity can be increased by adding water, as in the Bligh-Dyer 
                proteinaceous matter is found in the chloroform fraction.            method for cod lipid extraction, which favors a polar solvent. 
                Therefore, to save time, the sample should be taken out as soon      However, addition of water becomes unnecessary when the 
                as a visible separation occurs. Phase separation was delayed         methanol fraction is increased, as in the proposed method. 
                when the amount of 0.5% NaCl added was increased. A volume           Therefore, moisture adjustment is not necessary, as long as sol-
                of 20 mL was the minimum amount that allows phase separa-            vent polarity is correctly selected and the tissue is wet and eas-
                tion for both 2:1 and 1:2 chloroform-methanol and that accom-        ily breakable for lipid release upon solvent extraction. 
                modates most water-soluble fractions. The minimum amounts               In the proposed method, extraction of 5 g tissue with 50 mL 
                of water needed for phase separation of 50 mL 2:1 and 1:2 chlo-      solvent is done in a single step and requires no more than 2 h 
                roform-methanol are 10 and 20 mL, respectively, according to         for the whole procedure, including sample preparation and 
                a chloroform-methanol-water ternary diagram (2).                     lipid measurement. Extractions with the Folch and the Bligh-
                Table 4. Mass balance of solvent during extraction and filtration 
                Sample                                            Measured weights of solvent and solubles in tissue 
                                                                        a
                Mackerel                 61.1 g (50 mL2:1 CHCl3-MeOH)  + solubles from 5 g tissue = 65.15 g (10% oil + 71% moisture = 4.05 g) 
                Cod                       50.9 g (50 mL 1:2 CHCl3-MeOH)b + solubles from 5 g tissue = 55.05 g (1% oil + 82% moisture = 4.15 g) 
                Mackerel                             Measured weights of solvent + solubles remaining in jar and filter paper = 6.22 g 
                                                     Solvent + solubles remaining in jar (0.7 g in jar + 0.3 g in residual tissue) = 1.0 g 
                                                        Solvent + solubles remaining in filter paper + tissue homogenate = 5.22 g 
                Cod                                  Measured weights of solvent + solubles remaining in jar and filter paper = 5.91 g 
                                                     Solvent + solubles remaining in jar (0.7 g in jar + 0.2 g in residual tissue) = 0.9 g 
                                                        Solvent + solubles remaining in filter paper + tissue homogenate = 5.01 g 
                Mackerel                                    Estimated weight of filtrate to be recovered: 65.15 - 6.22 = 58.93 
                                                                 Actual weight of filtrate measured: 58.6 ± 0.28 (n = 3) 
                Cod                                         Estimated weight of filtrate to be recovered: 55.05 - 5.91 =49.14 
                                                                  Actual weight of filtrate measured: 49 ± 0.21 (n = 3) 
                Mackerel                                      Difference of estimated value from measured value = 0.56% 
                Cod                                           Difference of estimated value from measured value = 0.28% 
                  Theoretical weight based on density = 62.76 g. 
                  Theoretical weight based on density = 51.42 g. 
The words contained in this file might help you see if this file matches what you are looking for:

...Lee et al journal of aoac international vol no food composition and additives a simple rapid solvent extraction method for determining total lipids in fish tissue chong m belzahet trevino mayuree chaiyawat university rhode island department science nutrition liberty ln west kingston ri used chloroform methanol at ratio to downloaded from https academic oup com jaoac article by guest on september systems that have been developed lipid weight simplicity rapidity include n hexane hara radin isopropyl alcohol they methylene chloride metha blended g with ml removed the nonlipid nol methods are labor intensive fraction sodium sulfate however lack precision or require large volume proteolipid protein gangliosides was incomplete correct computation content calls full re covery after but recovery swaczyna montag ways is because unaccounted sol poses problem its low vent residue remains jar filter paper ho boiling point c may result mogenized losses due evaporation during blending coupled de ing...

no reviews yet
Please Login to review.