Content uploaded by Ian Mitchelle S de Vera
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ian Mitchelle S de Vera on Sep 15, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Philippine Journal of Science
136 (2): 119-129, December 2007
ISSN 0031 - 7683
Fabian M. Dayrit*, Olivia Erin M. Buenafe, Edward T. Chainani,
Ian Mitchelle S. de Vera, Ian Ken D. Dimzon, Estrella G. Gonzales
and Jaclyn Elizabeth R. Santos
Key Words: refined, bleached and deodorized coconut oil (RBD CNO), virgin coconut oil (VCO),
copra oil, % fatty acid composition, iodine value, % moisture by Karl Fischer titration,
% volatile matter at 120 ºC, peroxide value, principal components analysis (PCA).
*Corresponding author: fdayrit@ateneo.edu
National Chemistry Instrumentation Center
Department of Chemistry, Ateneo de Manila University
Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines
119
Standards for Essential Composition and Quality
Factors of Commercial Virgin Coconut Oil
and its Differentiation from RBD
Coconut Oil and Copra Oil
INTRODUCTION
Coconut oil is a vegetable oil derived from the kernel
of Cocos nucifera Linn. The international standards
for coconut oil are set mainly by 2 organizations: the
Codex Alimentarius, and the Asian and Pacific Coconut
Community (APCC). The current Codex standard for
coconut oil, which is based on commercial refined,
bleached and deodorized coconut oil (RBD CNO),
states that edible vegetable oils may be refined by alkali
extraction and washing, bleaching and deodorization to
remove undesirable constituents and to prolong shelf life
(Codex Alimentarius 2006).
Commercial samples of virgin coconut oil (VCO), refined, bleached and deodorized
coconut oil (RBD CNO), and copra oil were analyzed using standard chemical parameters:
gas chromatography (GC) of the fatty acid methyl esters (FAME), % moisture by Karl Fischer
titration, % volatile matter at 120° C, % free fatty acid, iodine value, peroxide value, and
microbial contamination. Principal components analysis (PCA) of the GC-FAME results
indicates that the various samples cannot be differentiated by their fatty acid composition,
indicating that the fatty acid profile is not affected by the processing method. No trans-fatty
acid was detected in all samples down to 0.01% (w/w) detection limit. VCO can be differentiated
from RBD CNO and copra oil using the following tests: % moisture by Karl Fischer, % volatile
matter volatile at 120° C, and peroxide value.
Codex gives a general definition for “virgin oils”,
which states that such oils should be suitable for human
consumption in its natural state and may be purified by
“washing with water, settling, filtering, and centrifuging
only”. However, no specific standard for virgin coconut
oil (VCO) has been made.
In response to the specific needs of coconut producers,
the APCC (2006) promulgated an interim standard for
VCO. It should be noted that while APCC gives a similar
definition as Codex, it has an added condition that VCO
may be produced by “natural means” as long as this does
not alter the oil.
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
120
A number of papers have been written on the fatty acid
composition, minor components, and physico-chemical
characteristics of coconut oil. Banzon and Resurreccion
(1979) reported that the manner of processing does not
affect the fatty acid profile. Padolina, Lucas, and Torres
(1987) wrote a comprehensive review of chemical and
physical properties of coconut oil. This review included
a discussion of the major and minor chemical constituents
of coconut oil and various physical properties. Laureles
and co-workers (2002) observed varietal differences in
fatty acid composition, particularly in the C8 and C10
components. Dia and co-workers (2005) conducted a
comparative physico-chemical study on VCO and RBD
CNO to determine whether these could be differentiated.
They prepared VCO using 3 methods and 3 types of
coconut meat. Among the VCO samples, they found that
although differences in chemical and quality properties
were noted, these were not significant enough to affect
their overall quality. For all samples, their properties were
within the Codex standards for coconut oil.
In 2004, an intergovernmental technical panel drafted
the interim Philippine National Standard for Virgin
Coconut Oil (PNS/BAFPS 22:2004) in response to the
need to specify quality standards for VCO products. PNS/
BAFPS 22:2004 was based largely on Codex and APCC
(Table 1). However, there remained the imperative for a
standard that would differentiate VCO from RBD CNO.
In 2006, a new labeling requirement was introduced
by the US Food and Drug Administration regarding the
trans-fatty acid content in vegetable oils (US FDA 2007).
The major source of trans-fats is partial hydrogenation and
high temperature processing of polyunsaturated vegetable
oils, such as corn and soya oils.
There are 2 methods used for the determination of
trans-fatty acids: infrared (IR) spectroscopy and gas
chromatography (GC). IR spectroscopy is simpler but it
is not accurate below 5% and is subject to interferences.
GC analysis of fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) is
more accurate, but prior silver-ion TLC separation is
recommended for oils with high levels of polyunsaturated
fatty acids (LFI 2006). Because coconut oil contains less
than 10% total unsaturated fats (oleic acid and linoleic
acid), direct GC analysis after methylation is adequate.
In this work, commercial VCO, RBD CNO, and
copra oil were analyzed to determine whether these can
be differentiated using standard chemical methods of
analysis. The standard methods from Codex Alimentarius
were reassessed using appropriate reference compounds
and internal standards. Response factors, spikes, and
% recoveries were performed. The following standard
methods were applied: % fatty acid profile by GC
including analysis of trans-fatty acids, % moisture by Karl
Fischer method, % matter volatile at 120° C by gravimetric
Table 1. Quality parameters from existing standards: Codex Alimentarius for coconut oil, APCC for virgin coconut oil, and
interim Philippine National Standard for VCO (PNS / BAFPS 22:2004)
Parameter Codex Alimentarius APCC PNS / BAFPS 22:2004
% Fatty acid composition
C6:0 ND- 0.7 0.4 - 0.6 ND -0.7
C8:0 4.6- 10.0 5.0 - 10.0 4.6 - 10
C10:0 5.0- 8.0 4.5 - 8.0 5.0 - 8.0
C12:0 45.1 53.2 43.0 - 53.0 45.1 -53.2
C14:0 16.8- 21.0 16.0 - 21.0 16.8 -21
C16:0 7.5- 10.2 7.5 - 10.0 7.5 -10.2
C18:0 2.0- 4.0 2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0
C18:1 5.0- 10.0 5.0 - 10.0 5.0 - 10.0
C18:2 1.0- 2.5 1.0 - 2.5 1.0 - 2.5
C18:3 ND- 0.2
<0.5
ND -0.2
C20:0 ND- 0.2 ---
C20:1 ND- 0.2 ---
C20:2 – C24:1 ND ND
Iodine value 6.3 – 10.6 4.1 – 11.00 ---
% Free fatty acid None ≤0.5% 0.20%
% Moisture, max --- 0.1 – 0.5 0.2%
% Volatile matter at 105°C, m/m 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
Peroxide value, meq/kg oil <15 < 3 3.0
Microbiological contamination, cfu/mL --- <10
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
121
method, iodine value, peroxide value, % free fatty acid
(as lauric acid), and microbial contamination by colony
forming units (cfu).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Coconut oil samples
Commercial samples of VCO were provided by members
of the Virgin Coconut Oil Producers and Marketers
Association, Inc. (VCO Association) and were purchased
commercially. Samples of RBD CNO were purchased
from supermarkets and were provided by Spring Oil
Co. (Malabon). Copra oil samples were provided by the
Philippine Coconut Authority.
Thirty-three coconut oil samples were analyzed:
commercial VCO (n=20), RBD CNO (n=10), and copra
oil (n=3). Information on the samples is provided in
Table 2.
Determination of % fatty acid composition and
trans-fatty acids in coconut oil by GC
This procedure is based on AOAC Official Method
969.33/963.22 (AOAC 1995). The fatty acid (FA) and
FAME standards used in this analysis were obtained
from Sigma-Aldrich: octanoic acid (C8, 99+%), methyl
octanoate (C8ME, 99%), undecanoic acid (C11, 99%),
methyl undecanoate (C11ME, 99%), lauric acid (C12,
98%), methyl laurate (C12ME, 99.5%), stearic acid
(C18, 99%), methyl stearate (C18ME, 99%), oleic
acid (C18:1c9, 99%), and linoleic acid (C18:2c9,c12,
99+%). Standards used for trans-fatty acids were:
trans-9-octadecenoic acid (C18:1t9, 99%) and trans-13-
octadecenoic acid (C18:1t13, 99%).
The % fatty acid composition was determined
by hydrolysis and methylation of coconut oil sample
together with the C11 internal standard using the boron
trifluoride method to produce the FAMEs, followed by GC
analysis. One µL of FAME extract was then injected into
a Shimadzu GC-14B gas chromatograph equipped with
flame ionization detector. Separation was done on a DB-1
capillary column (J&W Scientific, polydimethylsiloxane,
60m x 0.25mm i.d. x 0.25 µm film thickness) with the
following oven temperature program: initial temperature
at 60º C, hold for 6 min; increase to 180º C at 5º C/
min, hold for 2 min; increase to 210º C at 5º C/min, and
increased to 230º C at 1º C/min, hold for 5 min. The
injector and detector temperatures were set at 210º C and
230º C, respectively.
The relative GC response factors were obtained for
C8ME, C12ME, C18:0ME, C18:1c9ME, C18:2c9,c12ME,
C18:1t9ME and C18:1t13ME versus the C11ME internal
standard (IS) by taking the average response factor from
the methylation of 5 solutions of the respective fatty acids
prepared within the expected concentration range for
each fatty acid. The R2 values of the calibration lines for
the FAME standards were better than 0.99. The response
factors for the other saturated FAMEs were obtained
by extrapolation from the plot of carbon number versus
response factor. The %FAME composition for each sample
was converted to %FA composition (w/w) by molecular
weight correction. Eight replicate analyses of a VCO sample
gave a 1% relative standard deviation (RSD) for C12 and
C14 FA and <5% RSD for the other fatty acids. GC analysis
of coconut oil samples was done in duplicate.
Table 2. List of coconut oil samples used in this study. Total number of samples = 33
Classification
(number of samples) Description (number of samples) Code
Virgin coconut oil (n=20) The sources of nuts of the VCO samples were Batangas,
Laguna, Quezon and Davao.
Centrifuge (n=5) Cen1 ~ Cen5
Expeller (n = 5) Exp1 ~ Exp5
Enzymatic (n=2) Enz1, Enz2
Fermentation with heat (n=3) FWH1 ~ FWH3
Fermentation without heat (n=4) FNH1 ~ FNH4
Settling (n=1) Set1
RBD CNO (n=10) Commercial brands used: Baguio, Cook Best, Magic Fry,
Minola, Nutri Oil and Spring Oil RBD1 ~ RBD10
Copra oil (n=3) The copra oil samples were obtained from Lucena, Davao,
and Zamboanga. Cop1 ~ Cop3
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
122
Moisture content by Karl Fischer titration. This
procedure is based on AOAC Official Method 984.20
(AOAC 1995). The moisture content was determined using
a Metrohm 785 DMP Titrino Karl Fischer titrator. This
method gave a recovery of 99-102% and a detection limit
of 0.01%. Analysis of samples was done in duplicate.
Volatile matter content by gravimetric analysis.
Codex (2006) stipulates a gravimetric procedure using
oven heating of the oil sample at 105° C and repeated
until constant weight is obtained. However, comparison
of preliminary results from Karl Fischer determination
indicated that a higher temperature is needed for
reproducible results, and a larger amount of sample is
needed to obtain a comparable detection limit for the
gravimetric method. Additional determinations were
carried out at 103, 114, 120, and 133° C using 5 g and
20 g sample amounts. A temperature of 120° C using 20
g oil sample was found to give the best results and was
used for this study.
Heating at 120° C gave a 75% average higher loss
of volatile matter compared with 105°C. Eight replicate
analyses at 120° C gave a repeatability standard deviation
of 0.02%. Coconut oil samples spiked with known
amounts of water gave an average recovery of 106 - 111%
at 120° C with a detection limit of 0.01%. Analysis of
samples was done in duplicate.
% Free fatty acids as lauric acid.
This procedure is based on AOAC Official Method 940.28
(AOAC 1995). Recovery of the method was 83%, which
corresponds to the difference of 1 drop of titrant. Analysis
of samples was done in duplicate.
Iodine value
This procedure is based on AOAC Official Method
920.158 (AOAC 1995). The % recovery of the method
was determined to be 92% and 85% for oleic acid and
linoleic acid, respectively. Analysis of samples was done
in duplicate.
Peroxide Value
This procedure is based on AOAC Official Method 965.33
(AOAC 1995). The minimum detectable amount was 0.1
meq/kg. Analysis was done in duplicate.
Microbial contamination
The determination of microbial contamination was carried
out by the Microbiological Services Laboratory, Natural
Sciences Research Institute, University of the Philippines
in Diliman. The colonies appearing per plate were counted
and the number of colony-forming units (cfu) per mL.
Principal Components Analysis
Principal components analysis (PCA) was performed using
The Unscrambler (CAMO Process AS, Oslo, Norway).
The data were first normalized and standardized before
PCA was carried out.
RESULTS
Coconut oil samples
The VCO samples were submitted by the VCO Association
as coded samples and were commercial products of the
VCO producers. Six types of commercial VCO production
methods were included in this study: centrifuge, expeller,
enzymatic, fermentation with heat, fermentation without
heat, and settling (Table 2). The number of samples
analyzed roughly reflects the number of producers who
use the particular method. Production conditions, such
as variety and age of coconut, manner of handling,
temperature, and time of processing were not controlled.
RBD CNO samples were purchased from retail outlets
and obtained from Spring Oil. Copra oil samples were
provided by the Philippine Coconut Authority.
% Fatty acid composition
The % fatty acid composition is the most important
parameter used to differentiate the various vegetable
oils. The GC response factor for each FAME standard
was obtained versus the IS at the expected composition
level. For example, the response factor for methyl laurate
was determined by averaging the response factors of 5
solutions within the range 40 to 60% versus a constant IS
concentration of 5%, while the response factor for methyl
stearate was determined within the range 0 to 5% against
the same IS concentration of 5%. The linearity of the
individual plots was better than 0.99. The response factors
for the homologous saturated FAME compounds versus
the IS were plotted against carbon number (Figure 1).
From the plot, the response factors for the other saturated
FAMEs were obtained. It should be noted that the response
factors for the various saturated FAMEs vary and are
applicable only to the specific GC conditions used.
The % FAME profile for each sample was determined
against the IS, and the % FA composition was calculated
by molecular weight correction. The % FA composition
of the coconut samples generally fell within the Codex
and APCC standards, except for some minor variances
for C6, C8, and C10 (Table 3).
The results obtained in this study involved the use
of a IS with individual response factors and molecular
weight correction from % FAME to % FA composition. In
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
123
Table 3. Comparison of % FA profile with Codex Alimentarius and APCC. The results of the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the fatty
acid profiles are plotted in Figure 2. The analysis for trans-fatty acids by GC using C18:1t9 and C18:1t13 as reference compounds gave a negative
result down to a detection level of 0.01% for all coconut oil samples analyzed
Standard Fatty acid, %
C6:0 C8:0 C10:0 C12:0 C14:0 C16:0 C18:0 C18:1c9 C18:2c9,c12
Codex Alimentarius ND ~ 0.7 4.6 ~10.0 5.0 ~ 8.0 45.1 ~ 53.2 16.8 ~ 21.0 7.5 ~ 10.2 2.0 ~ 4.0 5.0 ~ 10.0 1.0 ~ 2.5
APCC 0.4 ~ 0.6 5.0 ~10.0 4.5 ~ 8.0 43.0 ~ 53.0 16.0 ~ 21.0 7.5 ~ 10.0 2.0 ~ 4.0 5.0 ~ 10.0 1.0 ~ 2.5
Samples
All CNO samples
Average 0.40 7.06 5.11 48.62 17.82 8.57 3.42 7.28 1.71
Range 0.23 ~ 0.59 4.15 ~ 9.23 4.17 ~ 6.08 46.0 ~ 52.6 15.5 ~ 19.7 7.65 ~ 10.1 2.73 ~ 4.63 5.93 ~ 8.54 1.00 ~ 2.36
VCO samples
Average 0.40 7.23 5.21 48.66 17.82 8.51 3.50 7.16 1.52
Range 0.24 ~ 0.56 4.15 ~ 9.23 4.27 ~ 6.08 46.0 ~ 52.6 16.0 ~ 19.7 7.65 ~ 10.1 2.73 ~ 4.63 5.93 ~ 8.53 1.00 ~ 2.03
RBD CNO samples
Average 0.41 6.61 5.00 48.14 17.88 8.88 3.26 7.63 2.19
Range 0.32 ~ 0.59 5.32 ~ 8.83 4.56 ~ 6.03 46.7 ~ 49.4 16.2 ~ 19.6 7.80 ~ 9.73 2.94 ~ 3.69 7.24 ~ 8.04 1.82 ~ 2.36
Copra oil samples
Average 0.34 6.74 4.61 49.16 17.77 8.50 3.23 7.49 2.16
Range 0.23 ~ 0.40 5.48 ~ 7.39 4.17 ~ 5.07 48.33 ~ 49.82 17.18 ~ 18.09 7.80 ~ 9.48 3.04 ~ 3.43 6.71 ~ 8.54 2.08 ~ 2.31
comparison, GC results from simple area integration and
normalization gives only relative % FAME composition
and results in a different profile. For example, % C12ME
is up to 2% higher, while lower values are obtained for
shorter and longer chain FAMEs.
Trans-fatty acids
In this study, C18:1t9 and C18:1t13 were selected as the
trans-fatty acid reference compounds. Calibration solutions
of the trans-fatty acids and IS were prepared down to the
0.01% level. Analysis of the coconut oil samples by GC-MS
Figure 1. Plot of relative response factor of homologous saturated FAMEs versus C11ME internal standard
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
124
did not detect the presence of C18:1t9 and C18:1t13 or any
other mono-unsaturated C18 fatty acid, apart from C18:1c9
(oleic acid), down to the 0.01% detection limit.
Moisture content by Karl Fischer titration
Moisture is an important factor that determines the product
quality of VCO. High moisture increases hydrolysis,
which leads to a higher free fatty acid content and
hydrolytic rancidity.
The Karl Fischer titration method is a voltammetric
method that is widely used for the direct determination of
water in oils (Hahn 2006). The volumetric Karl Fischer
method used in this study has a detection limit of about 0.01%
water (Aquastar 2007). By Karl Fischer, the moisture content
of the VCO samples averaged 0.08%, with a range of 0.05
to 0.12% (Table 4). The data suggest that most commercial
VCO manufacturers are able to produce VCO with moisture
content below 0.1%. On the other hand, RBD CNO samples
had lower average moisture content of 0.05%, with a range
from 0.01 to 0.10% moisture. Copra oil gave a higher average
moisture of 0.11%, with a range of 0.08 to 0.14%.
Although the respective average moisture contents of
VCO, RBD CNO, and copra oil differ, there is a significant
overlap in the values of individual samples.
Volatile matter
Codex and APCC specify the gravimetric method for
the determination of moisture content and stipulates a
maximum loss of 0.2% at 105° C. However, because this
weight loss corresponds to the loss of both water and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), this is not an accurate
determination of moisture content.
We sought to improve the precision and detection limit
of this method and found that better results can be obtained
at 120°C using a 20 g sample size, with an experimental
detection limit of 0.02%.
VCO samples gave an average mass loss of 0.13%,
with a range of 0.07 to 0.18%. In comparison, RBD CNO
samples gave an average mass loss of 0.03% with a range
of ND to 0.08%.
On the other hand, copra oil gave high average mass
losses of at least 1.91% (Table 4). Some copra oil samples
continued to lose weight even after 3 days of heating.
For these samples, the minimum mass loss was reported.
Because the mass loses were so high, this does not affect
the conclusions of the analysis.
The difference between the % volatile matter and %
moisture by Karl Fischer titration can be assigned to VOCs
(Table 4). The VCO samples had an average % VOC of
0.04%, with a range of 0.00 to 0.08%. All of the RBD CNO
samples analyzed, on the other hand, had a % VOC content
of 0.00%. This means that all of the volatile matter of RBD
CNO, is water, and RBD CNO contains no detectable VOC.
In contrast, copra oil gave a high VOC level of 1.77%.
Taken together, the % volatile matter and % moisture
by Karl Fischer can be used to differentiate VCO from
both RBD CNO and copra oil. RBD CNO samples have
negligible VOCs, while copra oil samples give much
higher VOC levels. Therefore, VCO can be differentiated
from RBD CNO and copra oil by the VOC content.
It should be noted, however, that some VCO
production processes tend to give very low VOC content,
particularly the centrifuge method.
% Free fatty acids as lauric acid
Free fatty acids (FFAs) are naturally present at low
amounts in all vegetable oils. During extraction and
storage, additional FFAs may be formed by reaction
with residual water in the oil. Hydrolysis can occur by
chemical or enzymatic mechanisms. Enzymatic hydrolysis
(e.g., with lipases) may occur through indigenous plant
enzymes or microbial contaminants. High levels of FFA
are undesirable because of their unpleasant taste.
The APCC standard for free fatty acids is 0.5% as
lauric acid. In this study, the VCO samples gave an average
value of 0.131%, with a range of 0.037 to 0.337%. For
RBD CNO samples, the FFAs were lower as expected,
with an average of 0.021% and a range of 0.008 to
0.076%, while copra oil samples gave a relatively higher
FFA average of 1.410% with a range of 0.660 to 2.502%
(Table 4). There is some overlap in the individual values
of FFA in VCO and RBD CNO.
We can conclude that the VCO and RBD CNO
samples met the APCC standard for FFA of 0.5%, but
copra oil did not. However, based on studies conducted
by the Philippine Coconut Authority, a 0.2% FFA limit is
recommended (Gonzales 2004).
Iodine value
The iodine value refers to the percentage by weight
of molecular iodine, I2, absorbed by an oil or fat and
is a standard procedure for determining the amount of
unsaturation in an oil sample. This test involves the
addition of iodine to double bonds, although small
quantities of substitution products may be formed.
Vegetable oils can be differentiated by the amount of I2
that is absorbed (Kolthoff and Stenger 1942). For coconut
oil, the Codex range for iodine value is 6.3 to 10.6, while
for APCC it is 4.1 to 11.0.
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
125
Table 4. Results of analyses of VCO, RBD CNO and copra oil, and comparison with Codex and APCC standards. (“NA”: not analyzed)
Standard % Moisture,
Karl Fischer
% Volatile matter,
(w/w)1% VOCs
(w/w)2
% FFA, as
Lauric acid
Iodine
value
Peroxide value,
(meq/kg oil)3Microbial contamination,
(cfu/mL)4
Codex Alimentarius - 0.2 - - 6.3 – 10.6 15 -
APCC - 0.2 - <0.5% 4.1 – 11.0 ≤3 ≤10
Sample
VCO
Cen1 0.05 NA NA 0.057 7.64 0.89 <10
Cen2 0.05 NA NA 0.337 5.83 0.88 <10
Cen3 0.09 0.16 0.06 0.178 5.87 0.67 <10
Cen4 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.047 7.94 0.00 <10
Cen5 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.180 6.59 0.50 <10
Enz1 0.07 NA NA 0.079 6.79 0.56 <10
Enz2 0.10 0.12 0.02 0.086 7.76 0.95 <250
Exp1 0.05 NA NA 0.042 5.64 0.10 <250
Exp2 0.11 NA NA 0.184 5.89 0.10 <250
Exp3 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.038 6.29 0.00 <10
Exp4 0.12 0.15 0.02 0.124 6.88 0.47 <10
Exp5 0.07 0.09 0.02 0.085 NA 0.09 NA
FNH1 0.05 NA NA 0.207 7.56 0.48 <10
FNH2 0.10 0.18 0.08 0.180 7.47 0.73 <10
FNH3 0.08 0.14 0.06 0.129 8.07 0.00 <250
FNH4 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.037 8.09 0.86 <10
FWH1 0.09 0.13 0.04 0.093 10.34 0.00 <10
FWH2 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.164 7.99 0.67 <10
FWH3 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.211 7.30 1.86 <10
Set1 0.05 NA NA 0.167 8.30 1.43 <10
RBD CNO
RBD01 0.09 NA NA 0.018 8.32 0.80 <10
RBD02 0.10 NA NA 0.076 8.91 0.30 <10
RBD03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.012 7.62 0.83 <10
RBD04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.011 6.81 1.19 <10
RBD05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.011 8.34 1.65 <10
RBD06 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.021 NA 0.35 NA
RBD07 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.030 NA 0.51 NA
RBD08 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.015 NA 0.27 NA
RBD09 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.008 NA 0.49 NA
RBD10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.011 NA 3.39 NA
Copra
Cop1 0.08 NA NA 0.660 7.31 2.77 <250
Cop2 0.14 >1.91 >1.77 2.502 6.61 0.94 <250
Cop3 0.12 NA NA 1.067 6.91 0.72 28
Average values
All CNO samples 0.07 0.17 0.10 0.214 7.37 0.77
VCO samples 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.131 7.28 0.56
RBD CNO samples 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.021 8.00 0.98
Copra oil 0.11 >1.91 >1.77 1.410 6.94 1.48
1 % Volatile matter: Conditions specified by Codex Alimentarius and APCC: 5 g and 105° C. Conditions used in this study: 20 g and 120° C. Detection limit: 0.01%.
2 %VOCs were obtained by subtracting the individual values of the % Moisture (Karl Fischer) from the % Volatile matter.
3 Peroxide value: Detection limit: 0.1 meq/kg.
4 Count of number of samples with microbial contamination levels of <10 and <250 cfu/mL.
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
126
The iodine values obtained for the VCO samples in
this study gave an average value of 7.28 and a range of
5.64 to 10.34 (Table 4). VCO samples that include the
testa in its preparation gave the highest iodine value of
10.34. The iodine value of the RBD CNO samples, on the
other hand, gave an average of 8.00, with a range of 6.81
to 8.91, while copra oil gave an average of 6.94, and a
range of 6.61 to 7.31. There is no differentiation among
the different types of coconut oil samples as far as iodine
value is concerned.
All of the samples comply with APCC but some
do not comply with Codex. Thus, for coconut oil, the
APCC standard for iodine value is more appropriate than
Codex.
The results of the iodine value can be cross-checked
against the % FA acid profile obtained by GC analysis.
Since the iodine value is a measure of total double bonds in
an oil sample, the iodine value should be comparable with
the GC results in the absence of other olefinic compounds.
However, it should be noted that the % recovery for the
iodine value method was determined to be 92% and 85%
for oleic acid and linoleic acid, respectively. This means
that the addition of iodine is incomplete and that the iodine
value tends to underestimate the number of double bonds
in the fatty acids present.
The number of milliequivalents of double bonds from
unsaturated fatty acids per gram of oil can be calculated
from the amount of C18:1 and C18:2 present in the
sample (Table 5, columns 1 and 2, respectively); the sum
gives the total milliequivalent double bonds per gram of
sample arising from unsaturated fatty acids by GC analysis
(column 3). The calculated iodine values from the GC data
can be obtained by multiplying the meq double bond with
twice the atomic weight of iodine (column 4).
Column 5 of Table 5 shows the experimental iodine
values. The calculated total milliequivalent double bonds
per gram of oil sample can be obtained by dividing this
value by twice the atomic weight of iodine (column 6).
A comparison of columns 3 and 6 shows that while
there is general comparability between GC analysis and
the iodine value method, the iodine values are lower by
an average of 15%. This discrepancy may arise from the
incomplete reaction of I2 with double bonds. On the other
hand, the presence of other compounds with unsaturation
will increase the iodine value relative to the GC value.
Consistent with this, higher iodine values were obtained
for Minola oil, which is enriched with Vitamin A, and a
VCO sample that included the testa.
Peroxide value
Olefinic bonds in unsaturated fatty acids are oxidized over
time or during high temperature processing resulting in
the formation of hydroperoxides which leads to rancidity
(Gunstone 1996). The peroxide value is based on the
reaction of hydroperoxides with potassium iodide. This
reaction yields molecular iodine (I2), which is then
titrated using standard solution of sodium thiosulfate.
The peroxide value is expressed in meq active oxygen
(peroxide) per kilogram of oil sample.
Table 5. Number of (milliequivalent double bond / gram of coconut oil) from GC and iodine value
Sample
Unsaturated FA from Gas Chromatography Iodine value
meq double bond/g (4)
Iodine value
(theoretical from
column 3)
(5)
Iodine value
(exptl.)
(6)
meq double bond/g
(calc. from column 5)
(1)
C18:1
(2)
C18:2
(3)
Total meq double
bond/g (exptl.)
All CNO samples
Average 0.22 0.10 0.33 8.34 7.30 0.29
Range 0.18 ~ 0.28 0.06 ~ 0.15 0.25 ~ 0.44 6.26 ~ 11.05 5.28 ~ 10.34 0.21 ~ 0.41
VCO samples
Average 0.22 0.09 0.31 7.99 7.28 0.29
Range 0.18 ~ 0.27 0.06 ~ 0.12 0.25 ~ 0.38 6.26 ~ 9.76 5.64 ~ 10.34 0.22 ~ 0.41
RBD CNO samples
Average 0.23 0.14 0.37 9.38 8.00 0.32
Range 0.22 ~ 0.25 0.11 ~ 0.15 0.33 ~ 0.40 8.48 ~ 10.25 6.81 ~ 8.91 0.27 ~ 0.35
Copra oil samples
Average 0.24 0.14 0.38 9.54 6.94 0.27
Range 0.21 ~ 0.28 0.13 ~ 0.15 0.34 ~ 0.44 8.62 ~ 11.05 6.61 ~ 7.31 0.26 ~ 0.29
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
127
Codex gives a peroxide value limit of 15 meq/kg for
virgin oils in general, while APCC specifies 3 meq /kg oil
for VCO. The VCO samples in this study gave an average
value of 0.56 and a range of ND to 1.86 (Table 4). The
low average peroxide value indicates that commercial
VCO samples do not undergo significant peroxidation
during processing. The VCO sample that gave the highest
peroxide value of 1.86 was processed using heat (FWH3).
However, the temperature used for processing was not
provided.
RBD CNO samples, on the other hand, gave an average
peroxide value of 0.98 and a range of 0.27 to 3.39. The
higher peroxide values are consistent with high processing
temperatures. Copra oil gave the highest average peroxide
value of 1.48 with a range of 0.72 to 2.77.
The peroxide values for all coconut oil samples,
except for 1 RBD CNO sample that gave a relatively high
peroxide value of 3.39, were well below the APCC limit
of 3 meq/kg oil. These peroxide values are much lower
than those allowed for polyunsaturated vegetable oils
(Codex 2006). Coconut oil is the most oxidatively stable
vegetable oil; oxidative rancidity is not a significant cause
of degradation.
Microbial contamination
The APCC standard is <10 colony forming units/mL.
Failure to meet this standard indicates that the product is of
poor quality and is a potential health hazard (BFAD 2004).
Fifteen out of 19 VCO samples analyzed for microbial
contamination gave a result of <10 cfu/mL, and 4 samples
gave a result of <250 cfu/mL. The samples that gave high
cfu/mL values were roughly distributed randomly among
the various VCO processes. This suggests that microbial
contamination in VCO products is due to the quality of
production, and not the type of process. The 5 RBD CNO
samples tested gave a result of <10 cfu/mL, while all 3
copra oil samples were <250 cfu/mL (Table 4).
Principal components analysis
PCA was applied to the % FA composition data to
determine whether there is a correlation between % FA
composition and type of sample. The PCA scores plot
(Figure 2) indicates that there is no correlation between
% FA composition and type of sample. That is, % FA
composition cannot be used to differentiate among the
various types of coconut oil, whether VCO, RBD CNO,
or copra oil. This result is consistent with the conclusions
of Banzon and Resurreccion (1979).
PCA was then performed using selected chemical
parameters to determine which combination of parameters
gives the maximum separation of the 3 groups of samples.
The PCA results indicate that the use of % moisture, %
VOC and % FFA is best able to distinguish the 3 types of
CNO (Figure 3). That is, these 3 parameters are the most
useful for differentiating VCO from RBD CNO and copra
oil. However, the spread of VCO samples in Figure 3 also
suggests that the commercial VCO samples, regardless of
the preparation method, vary in the characteristics of %
moisture, % VOC, and % FFA.
Figure 2. PCA analysis (scores plot) of VCO, RBD CNO and copra oil samples based on % fatty acid composition. (See
Table 2 for sample codes.)
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
128
Stated differently, to attain uniformity in VCO product
quality, these three parameters should be monitored. It
should be noted, however, that % VOC is the difference
between % volatile matter and % moisture. Adequate and
reproducible amounts of volatile matter can be obtained
by avoiding high heat and high vacuum; these methods
should not be used to remove moisture from the oil as
they also remove VOCs.
DISCUSSION
This paper sought to address the question of whether
VCO products can be differentiated from RBD CNO
and copra oil. To do this, the following standard analyses
were conducted: % FA profile, % moisture by Karl
Fischer titration, % volatile matter at 120° C, % FFA as
lauric acid, iodine value, peroxide value, and microbial
contamination.
Absolute % FA composition was obtained using response
factors for each FAME versus an IS, followed by conversion
of % FAME to % FA composition. While the % FA
composition of all the coconut oil samples analyzed generally
fell within the Codex and APCC standards, some minor
differences were noted in the lower limits of the following
FAs: C6, C8, C10, and C14. The % C12 compositions for all
samples were within the Codex and APCC ranges.
However, it should be anticipated that if coconut
varieties with higher lauric acid content are developed,
an adjustment of the fatty acid profile may be necessary.
The % FA composition cannot differentiate VCO from
RBD CNO and copra oil.
The analysis for trans-fatty acids by GC using C18:1t9
and C18:1t13 as reference compounds gave a result of
ND down to a detection level of 0.01% for all coconut oil
samples analyzed.
The results of the iodine value test were within the
Codex and APCC standards. However, this test cannot
differentiate among VCO, RBD CNO and copra oil. It
should be noted that because the iodine value result can
be increased by additives, such as vitamin A reinforcement
and the use of testa, it cannot be used as a reliable measure
for unsaturated fatty acids.
The iodine value test can be replaced by a quantitative
measurement of the unsaturated fatty acids by GC. The
determination of total double bonds from GC analysis
was generally comparable with the results from the iodine
value method. But results from the iodine value tend to be
lower by an average of 15% due to incomplete reaction.
The measurement of % moisture should be made more
specific by the use of Karl Fischer titration. The volumetric
method is of sufficient reliability and sensitivity. The
results show that VCO samples can readily meet the
standard for moisture of ≤0.10%.
Figure 3. PCA analysis (scores plot) of VCO, RBD CNO and copra oil samples using % moisture by Karl Fischer, %VOC,
%FFA give the maximum separation of the three groups of samples. RBD10 and Cen5 are outliers in their respective
groups. (See Table 2 for sample codes.)
Dayrit et al.: Standards for Essential Composition and
Quality Factors of Commercial VCO
Philippine Journal of Science
Vol. 136 No. 2, December 2007
129
The measurement % volatile matter can be improved
by determination at 120°C instead of 105°C, and using
a 20 g sample. Based on the VCO samples analyzed, a
standard of 0.12 to 0.20% volatile matter is suggested.
Subtraction of % moisture from % volatile matter
gives the volatile organic compounds. The VCO samples
analyzed generally gave VOC content from ND to 0.08%.
The VCO samples with low VOC content may have been
processed using heat and/or vacuum. In comparison,
RBD CNO samples gave negligible values, while copra
oil had a higher value. Therefore, estimate of the VOC
content from the % volatile matter and % moisture is the
simplest strategy for differentiating VCO from both RBD
CNO and copra oil.
PCA showed that proper control of the VCO
manufacturing process is needed to maintain correct and
reproducible levels of moisture, VOC, and FFA.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Philippine Council for Advanced Science and
Technology Research and Development, Department of
Science and Technology funded this project. The valuable
cooperation of the Philippine Coconut Authority and the
VCO Association is gratefully acknowledged. We also
thank Unilever (Philippines), Inc., for allowing us the use
of their Karl Fischer apparatus.
REFERENCES
AQUASTAR 2007. “Karl Fischer Titration Basics.” http://
www.emdchemicals.com/. Accessed May 30, 2007.
ASIAN AND PACIFIC COCONUT COMMUNITY
2006. http://www.apccsec.org/standards.htm accessed
Nov. 2, 2006.
[AOAC] Official Methods of Analysis. 1995. 15th ed.
AOAC International, Arlington, VA.
BANZON J and RESURRECCION A. 1979. “Fatty acid
distribution in coconut oil obtained by four processing
methods and secured from four Philippine types of
coconuts,” Philipp J Coco Stud IV, 1-8.
[BFAD] BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS. 2004. The
BFAD requirement for microbial contamination states:
“The total aerobic microbial count does not exceed
100 cfu per mL, the total combined molds and yeasts
count does not exceed 10 cfu per mL, and it meets the
requirements of the tests for absence of Salmonella
species and Escherichia coli.”
CODEX ALIMENTARIUS. 2006. http://www.
codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp accessed
November 2, 2006; and Codex Standard for Named
Vegetable Oils: CODEX-STAN 210 (Amended 2003,
2005).
DIA VP, GARCIA VV, MABESA RC and MENDOZA
EMT. 2005. “Comparative Physicochemical
Characteristics of Virgin Coconut Oil Produced
by Different Methods” Philipp Agric Scientist 88:
462–475.
GONZALES LA. 2004. “Assessment and development of
quality standards for virgin coconut oil produced from
different processes,” internal study July 2003 to May
2004. Philippine Coconut Authority.
GUNSTONE F. 1996. Fatty Acid and Lipid Chemistry.
United Kingdom: Blackie Academic & Professional,
Glasgow, Scotland. p. 103-4.
HAHN M. 2006. Karl-Fischer-Titration in solids, pastuous
substances and oils, http://www.ech.de/english/pdf/
KF_appli_e.pdf. Accessed Nov. 8, 2006.
[IFST] INSTITUTE OF FOOD SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY. 2005. “Information Statement: Trans
Fatty Acids,” http://www.ifst.org/, visited January 28,
2007.
KOLTHOFF I M and STENGER VA. 1942. Volumetric
Analysis, 2nd edition. New York: Interscience
Publishers Inc. 228p.
LAURELES LR, RODRIGUEZ FM, REAÑO CE,
SANTOS GA, LAURENA AC and MENDOZA EMT.
2002. “Variability in Fatty Acid and Triacylglycerol
Composition of the Oil of Coconut (Cocos nucifera
L.) Hybrids and Their Parentals,” J Agric Food Chem
50: 1581-1586.
[LFI] Leatherhead Food International. 2007. http://www.
leatherheadfood.com/. Accessed February 20, 2007.
PADOLINA WG, LUCAS LZ and TORRES LG. 1987.
Chemical and Physical Properties of Coconut oil.
Philipp J Coco Stud XII: 4-17.
[US FDA] UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION. 2007. FDA Acts to Provide
Better Information to Consumers on Trans Fats. http://
www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/transfat/, visited January
29, 2007
