COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF UNREFINED CHIA OILS OF DIFFERENT BRANDS

VWPBTO

Abstract

Chia seed oil (Salvia hispanica L.) remains a novelty for the Russian market, it is sold mainly through the Internet sales system and is often not accompanied by quality documents. The aim of the study was a comparative assessment of the quality and nutritional value of unrefined chia oils of the trademarks "Ufeelgood" (sample 1) and "Siberian Fiber" (sample 2). The organoleptic properties of the oil samples were identified as characteristic of this type of product. The actual levels of PN and AN, moisture and volatile substances did not exceed the regulated norms of TR CU 024/11 and Codex Alimentarius. Codex Stan 210-1999. The levels of fatty acids were included in the characteristic numerical intervals, the main fatty acids were ranked in the sequence: α-linolenic > linoleic > palmitic ∼ oleic > stearic acid, the ratio ω-6:ω-3 PUFA was 1:3, which in aggregate was characteristic of the lipid profile of chia oil. In sample 1, a more diverse composition of PUFAs of the ω-3 and ω-6 families was revealed due to the additional content of eicosadienoic, eicosatrienoic, arachidonic and docosahexaenoic acids. At the same time, the level of trans-fatty acids was 15.8% higher, but did not exceed the allowable limit according to TR CU 024/2011.Sample 2 had an advantage in the amount of polyphenols (by 9.3 times), the cost of goods (the price was 3.4 times lower), but was inferior in terms of AOA (by 21.2%) to the competitor sample. The presence of erucic acid (0.040 ± 0.001%) in sample 1 and the high level of ά-tocopherol (343.96 ± 9.03 mg/kg) in sample 2 require additional testing to exclude the possibility of falsification. It was established that both samples of non-traditional oil did not comply with the requirements of TR CU 024/2011 in terms of the completeness of consumer labeling, which is unacceptable and allows them to be withdrawn from trade.