QTRAP LC/MS/MS of Garlic Nanoparticles and Improving Sunflower Oil Stabilization during Accelerated Shelf Life Storage

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to assess and utilize the bioactive compounds of garlic nanoparticles (Ga-NPs) as a natural antioxidant in sunflower oil (SFO) stored at 65 ± 1 °C for 24 days. The garlic nanoparticles (Ga-NPs) from the Balady cultivar were prepared, characterized, and added to SFO at three concentrations: 200, 600, and 1000 ppm (w/v), and they were compared with 600 ppm garlic lyophilized powder extract (Ga-LPE), 200 ppm BHT, 200 ppm α-tocopherol, and SFO without Ga-NPs (control). The QTRAP LC/MS/MS profile of Ga-NPs revealed the presence of four organosulfur compounds. Ga-NPs exhibited the highest capacity for phenolic, flavonoid, and antioxidant compounds. In Ga-NP SFO samples, the values of peroxide, p-anisidine, totox, conjugated dienes, and conjugated trienes were significantly lower than the control. The antioxidant indices of SFO samples containing Ga-NPs were higher than the control. The Ga-NPs enhanced the sensory acceptability of SFO treatments up to day 24 of storage. The shelf life of SFO treated with Ga-NPs was substantially increased (presuming a Q₁₀ amount). The results show that Ga-NPs are a powerful antioxidant that improves SFO stability and extends the shelf life (~384 days at 25 °C).

1. Introduction

Sunflower oil (SFO) is a popular vegetable oil that is commonly consumed all over the world [1]. SFO contains a high concentration of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), particularly linoleic acid (C18:2, 68–72%) [2]. SFO is more sensitive to oxidative degradation, resulting in rancid odors, off flavors, and discoloration [3]. To improve oil stability, artificial antioxidants such as BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) and TBHQ (tertiary butylhydroquinone) have been used as additives [4]. However, at high doses (>200 ppm), these compounds cause numerous health risks, including cancer [5]. Recently, the uses of natural antioxidants extracted from plants have received a lot of attention [6], such as essential oil [7] and sesame peel [8]. Natural antioxidants have numerous advantages, including being generally recognized as safe (GRAS), healthy, thermally stable, and readily available, as well as there being a consumer preference for ‘greener’ labels that state “no synthetic food additives”. Garlic (Allium sativum L.) is a large economic vegetable and medicinal plant in Egypt [9]. Garlic, from the Liliaceae family, is well-known for its high content of sulfur compounds such as γ-glutamyl peptides: γ-L-glutamyl-S-allyl-L-cysteine (GSAC), γ-L-glutamyl-S-methyl-L-cysteine (GSMC), γ-L-glutamyl-S-(trans-1-propenyl)-L-cysteine (GSPC), and γ-glutamylphenylalanine (cGPA) [10]. It is a reliable source of antioxidants, including phenolic, flavonoid, and allicin compounds [11], as well as antimicrobial [12] and anticancer properties [13]. Therefore, garlic is used as a food additive to prevent rancidity in meat [14] and for oil protection [15]. Garlic’s chemical structure is influenced by a number of factors, such as agronomic conditions, environmental conditions, and cultivars [16]. Nanotechnology is a relatively recent approach with significant potential in the food industry [17], which includes: (i) enhancing food biosafety [18], (ii) increasing shelf life [19], and (iii) active packaging [20]. One study by Morsy, Elbarbary and Saad [6] found that spirulina nanoparticles slowed lipid oxidation in olive oil during storage. Another investigation by Shehzad, et al. [21] found that nano-encapsulation-based curcumin has antioxidant activity in fish oil. Previous research attempted to improve the storage stability of sunflower oil by using natural antioxidants such as potato peels [22], grape seed [23], rosemary extract [24], and thyme extract [25]. However, no research has been conducted on the use of garlic nanoparticles (Ga-NPs) as a recent antioxidant for improving the stability of edible oil. Thus, the primary objective of the study was to assess (i) the antioxidant potential of various garlic cultivars and nanoparticles (Ga-NPs) and (ii) the effect of Ga-NPs on the storage of sunflower oil under expedited oxidation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Raw Materials and Reagents

Sunflower oil (SFO) was supplied from Arma Food Industries Company (Cairo, Egypt). A total of five fresh cultivars of garlic (Allium sativum L.), i.e., Egyptian garlic (Balady), Italian Red, Sids-40, Chinese, and Brazilian Hozan, that were in season (2021–2022) were obtained from the Horticulture Research Institute (Cairo, Egypt). Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), 2,2′-azinobis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline)-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), α-tocopherol, gallic acid, and rutin were procured from Sigma-Aldrich Co. (Germany). All chemicals were of HPLC-grade and obtained by Merck (Germany).

2.2. Preparation of Garlic Nanoparticles (Ga-NPs) and Garlic Extracts

Fresh garlic (Allium sativum L.), Balady cultivar, was cleaned, manually peeled, and frozen at (~−40 ± 1 °C), then dried in a lyophilizer (Labconco 74200, Kansas, KS, USA) on 0.120 mbar, at 19 ± 1 °C and a condenser at −85 ± 1 °C. The garlic was ground and transferred to nanoparticles, as stated by Khataee, et al. [26]. The garlic was crushed with a grinder (Moulinex-Grinder; MC300, France) to fine garlic lyophilized powder (Ga-LP). Then, the particles were crushed by planetary ball mill (PM 2400, Karaj, Iran) (ball:powder ratio; 10:1) under a rotation velocity of 320 rpm for 2 h at ambient temperature (25 °C) to produce garlic nanoparticles. The garlic nanoparticles (Ga-NPs) were assessed with a Zetasizer (Nano-Sight NS300, UK) that was 90 ± 7 nm. The Ga-NPs were packaged in dark bottles until utilized according to Morsy, Morsy, Elbarbary and Saad [6]. Extraction of Ga-LP and Ga-NPs to obtain Ga-LPE and Ga-NPsE was done in an ultrasonic bath (Bandelin-Super Sonorex RK-100H), as asserted by Tabaraki, et al. [27]. The 50 mL methanol (70%) was added to a 1 g sample in a conical flask and sonicated for 30 min, then cooled to 25 ± 1 °C. The garlic extracts were passed through Whatman paper No. 1 and concentrated by rotary evaporator (IKA-WERKE; Germany) at a rotation speed of 250 rpm at 40 °C under vacuum. Samples were frozen at ~−40 ± 1 °C, then dried for 72 h in a lyophilizer.

2.3. LC/MS/MS Fingerprint

The organosulfur compounds in garlic were determined using LC/MS/MS [28]. LC/MS/MS analyses were carried out by a Sciex 4000 QTRAP^® system LC system coupled a hybrid triple quadrupole LIT (linear ion trap), including Harvard apparatus 11 plus. Pump: The isolation was performed on a SUPELCO Discovery HS-F5 column (3 μm, 3 × 150 mm; Sigma- Aldrich Co., Steinheim Germany). The mobile phase contained A (water + 0.1% formic acid) and B (acetonitrile). The mobile phase carried out was: 0–15 min, B 0–100%; 15–25 min, B 100 %. The flow speed was 30 μL min⁻¹, and the column oven was kept operational at 30 ± 1 °C. The injection volume was 5 μL. Software: Analyst^® 1.6.3 with Hotfix.

2.4. Total Phenolics Content (TPC), Total Flavonoids Content (TFC), and Antioxidant Ability of Extracts

TPC was calculated using the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, as described by Singleton et al. [29]. The results were expressed as mg GAE (gallic acid equivalent) per g⁻¹ dw extract. Total flavonoids content (TFC) was determined in accordance with Zhishen, et al. [30] and expressed as mg RE (Rutin equivalents) per g⁻¹ dw extract. The antioxidant ability of garlic extracts in terms of free radical scavenging potential was tested using DPPH assay. The outcomes were computed as IC₅₀ (µg mL⁻¹) [31]. The ABTS method was also used in accordance with Re, et al. [32], which measured at a wavelength of 734 nm.

2.5. Sunflower Oil (SFO) and Ga-NPs

The SFO (without synthetic antioxidants) was divided into seven groups. Garlic nanoparticles (Ga-NPs) were added to SFO in 3 groups at different concentrations, namely, 200 ppm, 600 ppm, and 1000 ppm (w/v). The 4th group contained Ga-LPE 600 ppm (w/v). The 5th and 6th groups included BHT and α-tocopherol at 200 ppm (w/v). The final one was SFO without antioxidant (control group). The oil samples were packed into dark glass bottles and stored under accelerated oxidation conditions (65 °C/24 days). Oil samples were collected at regular intervals for analysis at 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 days of storage.

2.6. Oxidative Stability Parameters of SFO during Storage

2.6.1. Peroxide Value (PV)

The peroxide value (PV) of SFO samples was performed as stated by Zhang, et al. [33]. The PV was calculated as meq kg⁻¹ oil (milliequivalent per kilogram).

2.6.2. p-Anisidine Value (p-AnV) and Totox Value (TV)

p-Anisidine value was carried out according to Chong, et al. [34] using the spectrophotometer (Model CM-5; Konica Minolta Sensing, Inc., Osaka, Japan) at 350 nm. The outcomes of p-AnV were calculated as mg kg⁻¹ in accordance with the equation (Equation (1)):

AV = 25 × [(1.2 As − Ab)]/W(1)

where As is the absorbance of oil sample with the p-anisidine reagent, Ab is the absorbance of blank, and W is the sample weight (g). Totox value (TV) was estimated using AOCS [35] using the Equation (2):

Totox value = p-AnV + 2 PV(2)

where p-AnV is the p-anisidine value and PV is the peroxide value

2.6.3. Conjugated Dienes (CDs) and Conjugated Trienes (CTs)

Determination of CDs and CTs of oil samples were performed using a spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 233 and 268 nm, respectively [36].

2.6.4. Induction Period (IP), Antioxidant Efficiency, and Shelf Life Prediction

The induction period (IP) of the oil samples was estimated with a Metrohm 679 Rancimat instrument (Switzerland) at 110 ± 1 °C at a flow velocity of 15 Lh⁻¹ [37]. Protection factor (PF) and antioxidant activity (AA) values of SFO were determined according to Bandonien, et al. [38] based on the following calculations (Equations (3) and (4)):

PF = IP_S/IP_C(3)

AA = IP_S − IP_C/IP_BHT − IP_C(4)

where IP_S is the induction period of the sample (SFO) with an antioxidant additive, IP_c is the induction period of the control sample without an antioxidant additive, and IP_BHT is the induction period of the sample with BHT.

The line slopes were measured by the plotting concentration, and time was used to calculate the temperature acceleration factor (Q10), which was based on the increase in oxidation level for every 10 °C increase in temperature, in accordance with [39] using the Equation (5):

Q ₁₀= e ^{(T1 − T2)/10}(5)

where e is the constant equal (2), T1 is the accelerated temperature (65 °C), and the T2 is ambient temperature (25 °C).

2.7. Sensory Evaluation

The organoleptic test of sunflower oil (SFO) was performed by an experienced and trained 12-member panel from the Biochemistry Department, according to Sadeghi, et al. [40]. The SFO treatments were placed into small dark glasses (~30 mL) with random numbers. All SFO samples were scored by the panel members using a hedonic (7-point) scale for color, aroma, and acceptability.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The statistical significance in the SFO analysis was accomplished using the ANOVA test (SPSS 19, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test, with a significance level of p < 0.05 [41]

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characterization of Garlic and Garlic Nanoparticles (Ga-NPs)

3.1.1. Antioxidant Capacity

TPC and TFC are important constituents that can be used as an indicator of antioxidant capacities. Different cultivars of garlic such as Egyptian garlic (Balady), Italian Red, Sids-40, Chinese, and Brazilian Hozan samples were used. The TPCs in varied cultivars of garlic are presented in Table 1. The average TPCs ranged from 22.7–27.2 mg GAE g⁻¹ extract (on dw). The TPC was highest in the Balady garlic cloves (p < 0.05) when compared to other cultivars. Petropoulos, Fernandes, Barros, Ciric, Sokovic and Ferreira [16] found that TPC values in garlic ranged from 8.59–44.85 mg GAE g⁻¹ dw extract, while Kim, et al. [42] reported that the TPC in aged black garlic was 22.17 mg GAE g⁻¹ dw. This variation could be attributed to cultivars or extraction methods. Total flavonoid content (TFC) in garlic cultivars ranged from 0.65–1.52 mg g⁻¹ dw extract. These findings are consistent with those reported by Soto, et al. [43]. On the other hand, the nanoparticles of Balady garlic (Ga-NPs) had the highest TPC of 38.1 and TFC of 3 mg GAE g⁻¹ compared to garlic (bulk shape). According to previous research, phenolics and flavonoids play an important role in antioxidant capacity [44].

Table 1 illustrates that the antioxidant activity (DPPH and ABTS) of Balady garlic extract and Ga-NPs. The data reveal that garlic extract has a high antioxidant ability of 11.8 and 10.8 μg mL⁻¹ for DPPH and ABTS, respectively. The antioxidant ability of Balady Ga-NPsE was lower than BHT and higher than α-tocopherol. The results are consistent with data obtained by Iqbal and Bhanger [45]. The analysis of the data reveals that the antioxidant activity of garlic cultivars was correlated with TPC and TFC (R = 1). The TFC and TPC became increasingly important to antioxidant activity. [44,45] also found that antioxidant ability was positively correlated with TFC and TPC.

3.1.2. LC/MS/MS Fingerprint

The organosulfur compounds in garlic were determined using QTRAP LC/MS/MS analysis. The results in Figure 1 confirmed that garlic extracts have a significant number of organosulfur compounds. The LC/MS/MS recognized the major sulfur compounds (~4 peaks) in garlic extracts as alliin, allicin, S-allyl-mercapto-cysteine, and Glutamyl-(s)-Allyl-Cyste. The compounds’ precursor–product ion pairs (quantification transitions) were discovered to be m/z 178.1–88, 163.1–73.2, 194.0–111.2, and 291.3–145.2, respectively. These fragments were also observed by Zhu, Kakino, Nogami, Ohnuki and Shimizu [28], who found that garlic extract have alliin, S-allyl-L-cysteine, γ-glutamyl-S-allyl-L-cysteine, and allicin. These compounds are primarily responsible for the biological activities of garlic extract, which include antioxidant, antibacterial, and anticancer properties [46]. Sulfur compounds’ antioxidant activity is linked to their ability to reduce reactive oxygen species and activate antioxidative enzymes [47]. When exposed to negative conditions such as high temperatures, oxygen, and light, the organosulfur compounds found in garlic become volatile, thermally unstable, and prone to degradation and oxidation [48]. The characterization of bioactive compounds is dependent on the stability of garlic. Alliin is unstable and non-volatile due to the alliinase-catalyzed conversion into allicin when garlic is crushed. Alliinase reacts with alliin to produce reactive intermediates that combine to form allicin, an unstable alkenyl alkene thiosulfinate [49]. While allicin decomposes quickly in vitro to form a variety of organosulfur compounds, such as diallyl sulfides. This degradation was observed within hours at room temperature or during cooking [50].

3.2. Impact of Ga-NPsE on the Oxidative Stability of SFO Samples

3.2.1. Peroxide Value (PV)

Table 2 shows the addition of antioxidants and time of storage on PV had a significant impact on PV (p ≤ 0.05). In general, the PV increased for all samples with the progression of time. The PV increased in the following sequence: control > α-tocopherol > Ga-LPE 600 ppm > Ga-NPsE 200 ppm > Ga-NPsE 600 ppm > Ga-NPsE 1000 ppm > BHT meq kg⁻¹. Sunflower oil treatments without the antioxidant (control) achieved the highest PV of 166.1 meq kg⁻¹ after 24 days of storage at 65 °C. The increase in PV caused by lipid hydroperoxide formation may also degrade into volatile and non-volatile compounds, causing the oil’s quality to deteriorate [51]. PV was found to be significantly different between the control and garlic extract samples. The rate of peroxide formation was slowed at all concentrations where the PV recorded was 70.6, 46.4, 41.7, 38.6, 20.14, 20.2 meq kg⁻¹ for α-tocopherol, Ga-LPE 600 ppm, Ga-NPsE 200 ppm, Ga-NPsE 600 ppm, Ga-NPsE 1000 ppm, and BHT, respectively, while the limiting value of peroxide was less than 21 meq kg⁻¹ oil. Samples containing α-tocopherol, on the other hand, had significantly higher values than all Ga-NPsE and Ga-LPE samples combined. However, the PV in BHT-containing SFO samples was lower than in garlic-containing samples [45].

3.2.2. p-Anisidine Value (p-AnV)

The p-anisidine value (p-AnV) is a measurement of the secondary fat oxidation output such as aliphatic aldehydes, ketones, alcohols, acids, and hydrocarbons. In this case, the edible oils develop off flavors and off odors. Table 2 shows the results, which reveal increases in p-AnV for all the SFO samples. The p-AnV concentration in the control group significantly increased from 4.20 to 25.26 mg kg⁻¹ until day 24 of storage. Ga-NPsE (1000 ppm) and BHT-incorporated oil showed the lowest amount of p-AnV compared to α-tocopherol, Ga-LPE 600 ppm, Ga-NPsE 200 ppm, and Ga-NPsE 600 ppm. The threshold of p-AnV in oil is less than 10 mg kg⁻¹. These findings are consistent with the findings reported by Nyam, et al. [52], who found that the natural extracts have a notable reduction impact against the oxidation of SFO under accelerated storage. Although Ga-NP extract was significantly lower in the p-AnV, the efficiency of BHT synthetic antioxidants was slightly higher than Ga-NPsE.

3.2.3. Totox Value (TV)

Totox value (TV) indicates the presence of primary and secondary oxidation compounds, indicating the early and later stages of oxidative rancidity. As a result, it provides a more accurate estimate of oil deterioration and quality. There was a noticeable difference in the totox value of the treated SFO and the control (Table 3). After 24 days of storage, the maximum values were 357.5 and 160.7 meq kg⁻¹ for the control samples and α-tocopherol-enriched sample, respectively, while those of oil samples enriched with BHT and Ga-NPs 1000 ppm Ga-NPsE had the lowest TV.

3.2.4. Conjugated Dienes (CDs) and Conjugated Trienes (CTs)

Table 4 shows the formation of CDs and CTs in the control and stabilized SFO treatments during storage. Generally, the CD values of all groups increased. The highest contents were observed for the control sample, while the addition of garlic reduced the number of CDs. BHT recorded the lowest value (6.15). Ga-NPsE (1000 ppm) had a low value compared to the samples containing non-synthetic antioxidants. Furthermore, the values of CTs were increased significantly with storage time in all treatments (Table 4). CT values were lowest in oil samples supplemented with BHT and Ga-NPs 1000. The CDs and CTs of the SFO samples supplemented with BHT were significantly lower than those given garlic extract-treated samples [52].

3.3. Induction Period (IP) and Antioxidant Efficiency of Ga-NPsE

Table 5 demonstrates that all SFO samples were significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) in IP values than that of the control. IP values in samples containing Ga-NPs were 15.4, 18.7, and 22.2 h, for Ga-NPs concentrations of 200 ppm, 600 ppm, and 1000 ppm, respectively. It was noted that there are significant differences in the samples’ IP scores, including different concentrations of Ga-NPs. The SFO sample containing BHT exhibited the highest IP (25.3 h). The findings agree with those reported by Carelli, et al. [53], who found that natural antioxidants increased the IP of SFO. Table 5 shows that the values of the protection factor (PF) of SFO samples including garlic extracts ranged from 1.21 to 3.33. The high concentrations of Ga-NPsE showed a significant increase in PF value. Moreover, the antioxidant activity (AA) of samples containing BHT and Ga-NPsE 1000 ppm did not differ significantly (p ≥ 0.05). In addition, we observed that AA increased up to 1 in SFO containing BHT. Generally, adding Ga-NPsE to SFO samples significantly increased the antioxidant efficiency (AE).

3.4. Impact of Ga-NPsE and/or Ga-LPE (600 ppm) on Stability

Figure 2 illustrates the differences in the oxidation parameters (PV, p-AnV, and CD value) after 24 days of storage of SFO incorporating 600 ppm Ga-NPsE and/or Ga-LPE 600. The oxidation parameters of samples containing Ga-NPsE 600 ppm and Ga-LPE 600 ppm differed significantly (p ≤ 0.05). Moreover, the PV, p-AnV, and CD values of Ga-NPsE 600 ppm (25.1, 12.8, and 8.2, respectively) were lower than those of Ga-LPE (46.4, 17.7, and 13.5, respectively). The results confirm that Ga-NPsE enhanced the oxidative stability of SFO.

3.5. Sensory Evaluation of SFO Incorporating Ga-NPsE

Figure 3 depicts the sensory parameters, such as color, aroma, and acceptability, of sunflower oil (SFO) treatments during storage. The sensory assessment of SFO samples was done for different storage periods caused by the ending of shelf life with the intelligible development of an off flavor. Panelists generally approved of all sensory properties of SFO treatments at time zero; as the storage progressed, the sensory acceptability decreased. The control sample scored the lowest color value during the storage periods, while the oil sample incorporating Ga-NPs at different levels were accepted up to day 24. The aroma value differed significantly (p ≤ 0.05) between the oil treatments and the control group. SFO samples incorporating BHT, α-tocopherol or Ga-NPS 1000 ppm were accepted until day 24 of storage; however, the control was rejected on day 12 due to an off flavor. SFO samples’ acceptability values decreased significantly over time, whereas BHT and Ga-NPS 1000 ppm samples did not differ after 24 days. The sensory data demonstrate that the control sample was rejected after day 12 of storage; however, the oil samples incorporating BHT, α-tocopherol, and Ga-NPS 1000 ppm were accepted up to day 24. These changes match well with chemical indicators, i.e., PV, p-AnV, and TV. These findings are consistent with those noted by Iqbal and Bhanger [45], who found that the chemical and sensory parameters are important to evaluate the efficacy of garlic antioxidants in sunflower oil.

The shelf life of SFO at 65 °C and predictable shelf life during storage at 25 °C are shown in (Figure 4). The data reveal that the shelf life of SFO at 65 °C was 12 days for the control sample, 16 days for Ga-NPsE 200 ppm, 20 days for Ga-NPsE 600 ppm, 24 days for Ga-NPsE 1000 ppm, 24 days for BHT, and 24 days for α-tocopherol. Nevertheless, the expected shelf life of SFO at 25 °C ranged from 192–384 days. Consequently, the acceleration factor was 16 days (Q₁₀ value for fat oxidation of 2.0); this signifies that one day at 65 °C is equal to 16 days at 25 °C [54].

4. Conclusions

It can be concluded that the Ga-NPsE, Balady cultivar, may be used as an alternative antioxidant to the synthetic BHT against the oxidation reactions in SFO through storage at 65 ± 1 °C/24 days. A total of four organosulfur compounds in Ga-NPs were identified based on QTRAP LC/MS/MS. The highest phenolic, flavonoid, and antioxidant ability was found in Ga-NPsE. In Ga-NPsE-treated SFO, the values of peroxide, p-anisidine, totox, conjugated dienes, and conjugated trienes were significantly lower than in the control. The antioxidant indices of SFO samples containing Ga-NPs were higher than the control. The Ga-NPsE enhanced the sensory acceptability of SFO treatments up to 24 days of storage. The garlic nanoparticles are more active due to their small size, widespread distribution, and interaction with various antioxidant modes of action. The results show that Ga-NPsE is an effective antioxidant for enhancing the stability of SFO and extending its shelf life (~384 days at 25 °C). However, more experiments are required to test the efficacy of Ga-NPsE antioxidants such as biological-based antioxidant mechanisms (electron transfer or inhibition of lipid peroxidation).

Author Contributions

M.K.M., N.A. and E.M. constructed the experiments, visualized and analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript; M.E.-N., E.A., G.N. and M.K.M. edited and revised the manuscript; M.E.A.-A., N.S.S. and S.Y.A.-D. prepared the methodology and revised the results; N.A., R.A.A., G.N., E.F., R.I.H.I. and E.A. peer viewed and edited the manuscript in its final version, and prepared the manuscript to submit it to the journal. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia for support. The authors also would like to thank W. Armbruster, Institute of Food Chemistry, Hohenheim University (Germany) for providing the chemical standards.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Product ion spectra and the main fragmentation pathway of [M + H]+ for alliin (a), allicin (b), allyl-mercapto-cysteine (c), and Glutamyl-(s)-Allyl-Cysteine (d).

Figure 2. Effect of Ga-NPsE and Ga-LPE (600 ppm) on the oxidation parameters of SFO after 24 days of storage. Peroxide value (a), p-anisidine value (b), and conjugated dienes (c).

Figure 3. Impact of the addition of Ga-NPs on color (a), aroma (b), and acceptability (c) in SFO samples during storage at (65 °C).

Figure 4. The shelf life of SFO during storage at 65 °C and predictable shelf life during storage at 25 °C.

Table 1

Total phenolic content (TPC), Total flavonoid content (TFC), and antioxidant activities (AA) of garlic extracts from different cultivars compared to BHT and α-tocopherol (mean ± SD, n = 3).

Sample	TPC(mg g−1 dw Extract)	TFC (mg g−1 dw Extract)	DPPH IC50 (μg mL−1)	ABTS assay (μg mL−1)	R
Balady	27.25 ± 0.45 b	1.52 ± 0.14 b	11.87 ± 0.76 d	10.88 ± 1.51 e	1
Italian Red	25.35 ± 0.88 c	0. 91 ± 0.65 c	12.14 ± 0.41 d	11.34 ± 0.87 d	1
Sids-40	24.37 ± 1.07 c	0.65 ± 0.33 d	14.41 ± 0.32 c	13.11 ± 0.23 c	1
Chinese	23.30 ± 0.78 d	0.74 ± 0.65 d	17.77 ± 2.06 a	15.55 ± 0.22 b	1
Brazilian Hozan	22.76 ± 1.56 d	0.72 ± 1.33 d	18.30 ± 1.65 a	17.17 ± 0.44 a	1
BHT (200 ppm)	-	-	5.05 ± 0.87 f	3.79 ± 1.42 g
α-Tocopherol (200 ppm)	-	-	16.15 ± 1.61 b	13.21 ± 0.55 c

^a–g: There are no significant differences between any two means in the same column that have the same lowercase superscript letter (p ≥ 0.05). TPC: Total phenolic content. TFC: Total flavonoid content. R: Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Table 2

Effect of garlic nanoparticle extracts on peroxide value and p-anisidine value of SFO during storage at 65 °C (mean ± SD, n = 3).

Sample	Storage Period (day)
	Time Zero	4	8	12	16	20	24
	Peroxide value (meq kg−1)
Control	1.20 ± 0.02 a G	20.22 ± 0.15 a F	25.15 ± 0.33 b E	40.54 ± 0.21a D	78.00 ± 0.02 a C	170.11 ± 0.56 a A	166.16 ± 0.34 a B
Ga-NPsE (200 ppm)	1.03 ± 0.01 a G	17.39 ± 0.21b F	24.09 ± 0.04 b E	31.16 ± 0.43 c D	35.25 ± 0.6 d C	39.67 ± 0.09 c B	41.78 ± 0.29 b A
Ga-NPsE (600 ppm)	1.01 ± 0.03 a G	12.30 ± 0.02 c F	14.43 ± 0.13 c E	18.45 ± 0.32 d D	28.13 ± 0.17 e C	32.09 ± 0.22 d B	38.65 ± 0.11d A
Ga-NPsE (1000 ppm)	1.03 ± 0.02 a G	5.24 ± 0.04 a F	10.16 ± 0.07 d E	13.32 ± 0.01 e D	17.75 ± 0.05 f C	18.81 ± 0.46 f B	20.14 ± 0.16 e A
Ga-LPE (600 ppm)	1.12 ± 0.04 a G	16.44 ± 0.06 b F	28.54 ± 0.11a E	35.33 ± 0.05 b D	37.87 ± 0.28 c C	39.34 ± 0.03 c B	46.43 ± 0.12 c A
BHT (200 ppm)	1.11 ± 0.01 a G	3.12 ± 0.16 d F	4.16 ± 0.10 e E	10.52 ± 0.14 f D	13.66 ± 0.26 g C	16.54 ± 0.12 g B	20.22 ± 0.18 f A
α-Tocopherol (200 ppm)	1.02 ± 0.01 a G	15.14 ± 0.31c F	28.11 ± 0.07 a E	40.43 ± 0.15 a D	57.16 ± 0.18 b C	65.36 ± 0.43 b B	70.62 ± 0.07 b A
	p-Anisidine value (mg kg−1)
Control	4.20 ± 0.04 a G	6.52 ± 0.25 a F	11.65 ± 0.15 a E	14.38 ± 0.31a D	16.55 ± 0.42 a C	19.12 ± 0.11 a B	25.26 ± 0.04 a A
Ga-NPsE (200 ppm)	4.12 ± 0.10 a G	5.04 ± 0.12 b F	7.31 ± 0.30 c E	9.96 ± 0.05 d D	11.44 ± 0.05 c C	14.22 ± 0.12 d B	16.65 ± 0.02 d A
Ga-NPsE (600 ppm)	4.03 ± 0.03 a G	4.80 ± 0.22 c F	6.93 ± 0.09 c E	7.46 ± 0.82 e D	9.12 ± 0.21 d C	10.12 ± 0.06 e B	12.81 ± 0.31 e A
Ga-NPsE (1000 ppm)	4.11 ± 0.23 a G	4.24 ± 0.04 c F	5.19 ± 0.11 d E	6.15 ± 0.04 f D	7.75 ± 0.23 e C	8.83 ± 0.04 f B	10.02 ± 0.12 f A
Ga-LPE (600 ppm)	4.31 ± 0.05 a G	5.49 ± 0.20 b F	7.75 ± 0.57 c E	12.04 ± 0.03 c D	15.27 ± 0.06 b C	16.11 ± 0.17 c B	17.78 ± 0.28 c A
BHT (200 ppm)	3.98 ± 0.21 a G	4.33 ± 0.01 c F	4.19 ± 0.07 e E	5.02 ± 0.13 g D	6.68 ± 0.09 f C	8.84 ± 0.12 f B	9.72 ± 0.09 g A
α-Tocopherol (200 ppm)	4.02 ± 0.09 a G	5.56 ± 0.21 b F	8.67± 0.02 b E	13.43 ± 0.12 b D	16.91 ± 0.01 a C	17.93 ± 0.30 b B	19.54 ± 0.23 b A

^a–g: There are no significant differences between any two means in the same column that have the same lowercase superscript letter (p ≥ 0.05). ^A–G: There are no significant differences between any two means in the same row that have the same uppercase superscript letter (p ≥ 0.05). Ga-NPsE: garlic nanoparticles extract; Ga-LPE: garlic lyophilized powder extract.

Table 3

Effect of garlic nanoparticle extracts on the totox value (meq kg⁻¹) of SFO during storage at 65 °C (mean ± SD, n = 3).

Sample	Storage Period (day)
	Time Zero	4	8	12	16	20	24
Control	6.61 ± 0.31 a G	46.97 ± 0.71 a F	61.95 ± 0.73 b E	95.47 ± 0.29 a D	172.55 ± 0.98 a C	359.33 ± 0.67 a A	357.58 ± 1.17 a B
Ga-NPsE (200 ppm)	6.36 ± 0.55 a G	40.26 ± 0.82 b F	55.94± 0.08 c E	74.36 ± 0.23 c D	85.77 ± 0.75 d C	95.46 ± 0.53 c B	101.34 ± 0.7 d A
Ga-NPsE (600 ppm)	6.05 ± 0.40 a G	29.4 ± 0.45 e F	35.79 ± 0.51 d E	44.36 ± 1.2 d D	65.37 ± 0.69 e C	74.31 ± 0.54 e B	90.11 ± 1.3 e A
Ga-NPsE (1000 ppm)	6.16 ± 0.24 a G	14.72 ± 0.39 f F	25.51 ± 0.9 e E	32.8 ± 0.60 e D	43.25 ± 0.19 f C	52.45 ± 0.34 f B	60.31 ± 1.1f A
Ga-LPE (600 ppm)	6.35 ± 0.32 a G	37.91 ± 0.37 c F	64.39± 0.33 a E	80.61 ± 0.96 b D	87.18 ± 0.39 c C	92.9 ± 0.36 d B	109.51 ± 0.98 c A
BHT (200 ppm)	6.21 ± 0.29 a G	10.58 ± 0.93 g F	12.51 ± 0.11 f E	26.06 ± 0.41f D	34 ± 0.92 g C	41.92 ± 0.43 g B	50.15 ± 0.87 g A
α-Tocopherol (200 ppm)	6.06 ± 0.62 a G	35.85 ± 0.81d F	64.88± 0.97 a E	94.29 ± 0.12 a D	131.23 ± 0.88 b C	148.66 ± 0.77 b B	160.78 ± 0.96 b A

^a–g: There are no significant differences between any two means in the same column that have the same lowercase superscript letter (p ≥ 0.05). ^A–G: There are no significant differences between any two means in the same row that have the same uppercase superscript letter (p ≥ 0.05). Ga-NPsE: garlic nanoparticles extract; Ga-LPE: garlic lyophilized powder extract. These results could be attributed to bioactive compounds of garlic such as allicin, 1,2-vinyldithiin, allicin, and S-allyl-cysteine [46].

Table 4

Effect of garlic nanoparticle extracts on conjugated dienes and conjugated trienes of SFO during storage at 65 °C (mean ± SD, n = 3).

Sample	Storage Period (day)
	Time Zero	4	8	12	16	20	24
	Conjugated dienes value (ε1%1cm λ233)
Control	2.50 ± 0.03 a G	6.17 ± 0.04 a F	9.19 ± 0.10 a E	11.07 ± 0.2 a D	13.65 ± 0.11 a C	15.22 ± 0.67 a B	19.22 ± 0.01 a A
Ga-NPsE (200 ppm)	2.46 ± 0.06 a G	4.11 ± 0.2 b F	5.34± 0.06 c E	7.01 ± 0.9 d D	8.08 ± 0.03 d C	9.00 ± 0.33 d B	12.11± 0.98 d A
Ga-NPsE (600 ppm)	2.45 ± 0.04 a G	4.04 ± 0.04 b F	5.00 ± 0.05 c E	5.06± 0.02 e D	5.37 ± 0.06 e C	6.13 ± 0.51 e B	8.21 ± 0.8 e A
Ga-NPsE (1000 ppm)	2.45 ± 0.09a G	3.15 ± 0.03 c F	3.50 ± 0.1d E	4.10 ± 0.40 f D	4.65 ± 0.19 f C	5.05 ± 0.3 f B	6.71 ± 0.01 f A
Ga-LPE (600 ppm)	2.47 ± 0.09 a G	4.33 ± 0.82 b F	5.82± 0.08 c E	8.18 ± 0.02 c D	9.79 ±0.06 c C	10.14 ± 0.05 c B	13.55 ± 0.7 c A
BHT (200 ppm)	2.41 ± 0.07 a G	2.98 ± 0.14 d F	3.53 ± 0.21 d E	3.91 ± 0.04 g D	4.61 ± 0.12 f C	5.0 ± 0.21 f B	6.15 ± 0.07 f A
α-Tocopherol (200 ppm)	2.46 ± 0.07 a G	4.29 ± 0.17 b F	7.46± 0.27 b E	9.21 ± 0.22 b D	10.00 ± 0.23 b C	12.56 ± 0.30 b B	16.00 ± 0.09 b A
	Conjugated trienes value (ε1%1cm λ268)
Control	0.54 ± 0.03 a G	1.55 ± 0.01 a F	1.89 ± 0.10 a E	2.09 ± 0.02 a D	2.60 ± 0.01 a C	3.00 ± 0.01 a B	4.12 ± 0.02 a A
Ga-NPsE (200 ppm)	0.53± 0.04 a G	1.00 ± 0.2 a F	1.22± 0.04 c E	1.61 ± 0.9 b D	1.78 ± 0.03 b C	2.54 ± 0.03 b B	3.42 ± 0.09 b A
Ga-NPsE (600 ppm)	0.52 ± 0.03 a G	0.94 ± 0.03 b F	1.01 ± 0.05 c E	1.39± 0.1b D	1.62 ± 0.04 c C	2.22 ± 0.02 c B	3.33 ± 0.01b A
Ga-NPsE (1000 ppm)	0.52 ± 0.03a G	0.81 ± 0.01b F	0.91 ± 0.01d E	1.20 ± 0.04 b D	1.42 ± 0.01 c C	2.15 ± 0.03 c B	3.11 ± 0.07 c A
Ga-LPE (600 ppm)	0.53 ± 0.07 a G	1.12 ± 0.02a F	1.14± 0.03 c E	1.88 ± 0.02 a D	2.15 ±0.03 b C	2.73 ± 0.02 b B	3.54 ± 0.05 b A
BHT (200 ppm)	0.51 ± 0.06 a G	0.62 ± 0.01 c F	0.87 ± 0.02 d E	1.11 ± 0.04 c D	1.33 ± 0.01c C	1.98 ± 0.02 d B	3.00 ± 0.05 d A
α-Tocopherol (200 ppm)	0.53 ± 0.09 a G	1.23 ± 0.01b F	1.43± 0.07 b E	1.98 ± 0.04 a D	2.26 ± 0.01 b C	2.86 ± 0.03 a B	3.7 ± 0.17 b A

^a–d: There are no significant differences between any two means in the same column that have the same lowercase superscript letter (p ≥ 0.05). ^A–G: There are no significant differences between any two means in the same row that have the same uppercase superscript letter (p ≥ 0.05). Ga-NPsE: garlic nanoparticles extract; Ga-LPE: garlic lyophilized powder extract.

Table 5

Induction period (IP), protection factor (PF), and antioxidant activity (AA) of garlic nanoparticle extracts during storage at 65 °C (mean ± SD, n = 3).

	IP (h)	PF	AA
Control	7.6 ± 0.11 g	-	-
Ga-NPsE (200 ppm)	15.4 ± 0.15d	2.03± 0.12 d	0.44 ± 0.09 c
Ga-NPsE (600 ppm)	18.7 ± 0.30 c	2.46± 0.31 c	0.63 ± 0.1b
Ga-NPsE (1000 ppm)	22.2 ± 0.24 b	2.92± 0.15 b	0.82 ± 0.08 a
Ga-LPE (600 ppm)	12.0 ± 0.2 e	1.57± 0.03 e	0.27 ± 0.21 d
BHT (200 ppm)	25.3 ± 0.21 a	3.33± 0.09 a	1 ± 0.11a
α-Tocopherol (200 ppm)	9.2 ± 0.32f	1.21 ± 0.15 f	0.9 ± 0.12 a

^a–g: There are no significant differences between any two means in the same column that have the same lowercase superscript letter (p ≥ 0.05). Ga-NPsE: garlic nanoparticles extract; Ga-LPE: garlic lyophilized powder extract. IP: induction period, PF: protection factor, AA: antioxidant activity.

References

1. Romanić, R.S.; Lužaić, T.Z.; Radić, B.Đ. Enriched sunflower oil with omega 3 fatty acids from flaxseed oil: Prediction of the nutritive characteristics. LWT; 2021; 150, 112064. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112064]

2. Cherif, A.; Slama, A. Stability and Change in Fatty Acids Composition of Soybean, Corn, and Sunflower Oils during the Heating Process. J. Food Qual.; 2022; 2022, 6761029. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/6761029]

3. Xu, T.-t.; Li, J.; Fan, Y.-W.; Zheng, T.-W.; Deng, Z.-Y. Comparison of oxidative stability among edible oils under continuous frying conditions. Int. J. Food Prop.; 2015; 18, pp. 1478-1490. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2014.913181]

4. Viana da Silva, M.; Santos, M.R.C.; Alves Silva, I.R.; Macedo Viana, E.B.; Dos Anjos, D.A.; Santos, I.A.; Barbosa de Lima, N.G.; Wobeto, C.; Jorge, N.; Lannes, S.C.D.S. Synthetic and natural antioxidants used in the oxidative stability of edible oils: An overview. Food Rev. Int.; 2021; pp. 1-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2020.1869775]

5. Silva, M.M.; Lidon, F.C. An overview on applications and side effects of antioxidant food additives. Emir. J. Food Agric.; 2016; 28, pp. 823-832. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2016-04-351]

6. Morsy, M.K.; Morsy, O.M.; Elbarbary, H.A.; Saad, M.A. Enhancing of oxidative stability and quality attributes of olive oil using spirulina (Arthospira platensis) nanoparticles. LWT; 2019; 101, pp. 444-455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.11.056]

7. Cardoso-Ugarte, G.A.; Sosa-Morales, M.E. Essential oils from herbs and spices as natural antioxidants: Diversity of promising food applications in the past decade. Food Rev. Int.; 2021; pp. 1-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2021.1872084]

8. Morsy, M.K.; Sami, R.; Algarni, E.; Al-Mushhin, A.A.; Benajiba, N.; Almasoudi, A.G.; Mekawi, E. Phytochemical Profile and Antioxidant Activity of Sesame Seed (Sesamum indicum) By-Products for Stability and Shelf Life Improvement of Refined Olive Oil. Antioxidants; 2022; 11, 338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox11020338]

9. Akbarpour, A.; Kavoosi, B.; Hosseinifarahi, M.; Tahmasebi, S.; Gholipour, S. Evaluation of yield and phytochemical content of different Iranian garlic (Allium sativum L.) ecotypes. Int. J. Hortic. Sci. Technol.; 2021; 8, pp. 1-16.

10. Kovarovič, J.; Bystricka, J.; Vollmannova, A.; Toth, T.; Brindza, J. Biologically valuable substances in garlic (Allium sativum L.)–A review. J. Cent. Eur. Agric.; 2019; 20, pp. 292-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/20.1.2304]

11. Feng, Y.; Xu, B.; Yagoub, A.E.A.; Ma, H.; Sun, Y.; Xu, X.; Yu, X.; Zhou, C. Role of drying techniques on physical, rehydration, flavor, bioactive compounds and antioxidant characteristics of garlic. Food Chem.; 2021; 343, 128404. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128404]

12. Prajapati, S.K.; Misha, G.; Malaiya, A.; Jain, A.; Mody, N.; Raichur, A.M. Antimicrobial application potential of phytoconstituents from turmeric and garlic. Bioactive Natural Products for Pharmaceutical Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 409-435.

13. Rauf, A.; Abu-Izneid, T.; Thiruvengadam, M.; Imran, M.; Olatunde, A.; Shariati, M.A.; Bawazeer, S.; Naz, S.; Shirooie, S.; Sanches-Silva, A. Garlic (Allium sativum L.): Its chemistry, nutritional composition, toxicity, and anticancer properties. Curr. Top. Med. Chem.; 2022; 22, pp. 957-972. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1568026621666211105094939]

14. Mancini, S.; Nuvoloni, R.; Pedonese, F.; Paci, G. Effects of garlic powder and salt additions in rabbit meat burgers: Preliminary evaluation. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2019; 43, e13894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13894]

15. Khan, S.; Guha, P. Effect of Garlic Essential Oil on Performance of Rice Bran Oil During Deep Fat Frying. Biosci. Biotechnol. Res. Asia; 2017; 14, pp. 473-481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bbra/2467]

16. Petropoulos, S.; Fernandes, Â.; Barros, L.; Ciric, A.; Sokovic, M.; Ferreira, I.C. Antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of various Greek garlic genotypes. Food Chem.; 2018; 245, pp. 7-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.10.078]

17. Rawat, K. Nanotechnology in Food Production. Nanotechnology; Jenny Stanford Publishing: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2021; pp. 333-368.

18. Morsy, M.K.; Khalaf, H.H.; Sharoba, A.M.; El-Tanahi, H.H.; Cutter, C.N. Incorporation of essential oils and nanoparticles in pullulan films to control foodborne pathogens on meat and poultry products. J. Food Sci.; 2014; 79, pp. M675-M684. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12400]

19. Sridhar, A.; Ponnuchamy, M.; Kumar, P.S.; Kapoor, A. Food preservation techniques and nanotechnology for increased shelf life of fruits, vegetables, beverages and spices: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett.; 2021; 19, pp. 1715-1735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01126-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33192209]

20. Ashfaq, A.; Khursheed, N.; Fatima, S.; Anjum, Z.; Younis, K. Application of nanotechnology in food packaging: Pros and Cons. J. Agric. Food Res.; 2022; 7, 100270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100270]

21. Shehzad, Q.; Rehman, A.; Jafari, S.M.; Zuo, M.; Khan, M.A.; Ali, A.; Khan, S.; Karim, A.; Usman, M.; Hussain, A. Improving the oxidative stability of fish oil nanoemulsions by co-encapsulation with curcumin and resveratrol. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces; 2021; 199, 111481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2020.111481]

22. Saeed, A.; Shabbir, A.; Khan, A. Stabilization of sunflower oil by using potato peel extract as a natural antioxidant. Biomass Convers. Biorefin.; 2022; pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02696-7]

23. Poiana, M.-A. Enhancing oxidative stability of sunflower oil during convective and microwave heating using grape seed extract. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2012; 13, pp. 9240-9259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms13079240]

24. Chen, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zu, Y.; Yang, L.; Lu, Q.; Wang, W. Antioxidant effects of rosemary extracts on sunflower oil compared with synthetic antioxidants. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2014; 49, pp. 385-391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12311]

25. Pezeshky, A.; Khakbaz Heshmati, M.; Abutalebi, Z. Effect of thyme and ginger metanoic extraction on the oxidative stability of sunflower oil. J. Food Res.; 2020; 30, pp. 107-121.

26. Khataee, A.; Fathinia, S.; Fathinia, M. Production of pyrite nanoparticles using high energy planetary ball milling for sonocatalytic degradation of sulfasalazine. Ultrason. Sonochem.; 2017; 34, pp. 904-915. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2016.07.028] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27773320]

27. Tabaraki, R.; Heidarizadi, E.; Benvidi, A. Optimization of ultrasonic-assisted extraction of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) peel antioxidants by response surface methodology. Sep. Purif. Technol.; 2012; 98, pp. 16-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2012.06.038]

28. Zhu, Q.; Kakino, K.; Nogami, C.; Ohnuki, K.; Shimizu, K. An LC-MS/MS-SRM method for simultaneous quantification of four representative organosulfur compounds in garlic products. Food Anal. Methods; 2016; 9, pp. 3378-3384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12161-016-0535-1]

29. Singleton, V.L.; Orthofer, R.; Lamuela-Raventós, R.M. [14] Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of folin-ciocalteu reagent. Methods in Enzymology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999; Volume 299, pp. 152-178.

30. Zhishen, J.; Mengcheng, T.; Jianming, W. The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chem.; 1999; 64, pp. 555-559. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(98)00102-2]

31. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.-E.; Berset, C. Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity. LWT-Food Sci. Technol.; 1995; 28, pp. 25-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0023-6438(95)80008-5]

32. Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.; Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med.; 1999; 26, pp. 1231-1237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0891-5849(98)00315-3]

33. Zhang, Y.; Yang, L.; Zu, Y.; Chen, X.; Wang, F.; Liu, F. Oxidative stability of sunflower oil supplemented with carnosic acid compared with synthetic antioxidants during accelerated storage. Food Chem.; 2010; 118, pp. 656-662. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.05.038]

34. Chong, Y.M.; Chang, S.K.; Sia, W.C.M.; Yim, H.S. Antioxidant efficacy of mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana Linn.) peel extracts in sunflower oil during accelerated storage. Food Biosci.; 2015; 12, pp. 18-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2015.07.002]

35. AOCS. Official Methods and Recommended Practices of the American Oil Chemists’ Society; AOCS Press: Champaign, IL, USA, 1998.

36. Paquot, C. Standard Methods for the Analysis of Oils, Fats and Derivatives; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013.

37. Läubli, M.W.; Bruttel, P.A. Determination of the oxidative stability of fats and oils: Comparison between the active oxygen method (AOCS Cd 12-57) and the rancimat method. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc.; 1986; 63, pp. 792-795. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02541966]

38. Bandonien, D.; Pukalskas, A.; Venskutonis, P.; Gruzdien, D. Preliminary screening of antioxidant activity of some plant extracts in rapeseed oil. Food Res. Int.; 2000; 33, pp. 785-791. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(00)00084-3]

39. Steele, R. Understanding and Measuring the Shelf-Life of Food; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2004.

40. Sadeghi, E.; Karami, F.; Etminan, A. The effect of Ferulago angulata (Schlecht) Boiss essential oil on stabilization of sunflower oil during accelerated storage. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2017; 41, e12745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.12745]

41. Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, a Biometrical Approach; McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd.: Tokyo, Japan, 1980.

42. Kim, J.H.; Nam, S.H.; Rico, C.W.; Kang, M.Y. A comparative study on the antioxidative and anti-allergic activities of fresh and aged black garlic extracts. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2012; 47, pp. 1176-1182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.02957.x]

43. Soto, V.; Gonzalez, R.E.; Sance, M.M.; Galmarini, C.R. Organosulfur and phenolic content of garlic (Allium sativum L.) and onion (Allium cepa L.) and its relationship with antioxidant activity. Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on Edible Alliaceae; Nigde, Turkey, 21–25 May 2015; Volume 1143, pp. 277-290.

44. Della Pelle, F.; Compagnone, D. Nanomaterial-based sensing and biosensing of phenolic compounds and related antioxidant capacity in food. Sensors; 2018; 18, 462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s18020462] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29401719]

45. Iqbal, S.; Bhanger, M. Stabilization of sunflower oil by garlic extract during accelerated storage. Food Chem.; 2007; 100, pp. 246-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.09.049]

46. Martins, N.; Petropoulos, S.; Ferreira, I.C. Chemical composition and bioactive compounds of garlic (Allium sativum L.) as affected by pre-and post-harvest conditions: A review. Food Chem.; 2016; 211, pp. 41-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.05.029]

47. Leelarungrayub, N.; Rattanapanone, V.; Chanarat, N.; Gebicki, J.M. Quantitative evaluation of the antioxidant properties of garlic and shallot preparations. Nutrition; 2006; 22, pp. 266-274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2005.05.010]

48. Tavares, L.; Barros, H.L.B.; Vaghetti, J.C.P.; Noreña, C.P.Z. Microencapsulation of garlic extract by complex coacervation using whey protein isolate/chitosan and gum arabic/chitosan as wall materials: Influence of anionic biopolymers on the physicochemical and structural properties of microparticles. Food Bioprocess Technol.; 2019; 12, pp. 2093-2106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11947-019-02375-y]

49. Prati, P.; Henrique, C.M.; Souza, A.S.d.; Silva, V.S.N.d.; Pacheco, M.T.B. Evaluation of allicin stability in processed garlic of different cultivars. Food Sci. Technol.; 2014; 34, pp. 623-628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-457x.6397]

50. Ilić, J.D.; Nikolovski, B.G.; Petrović, L.B.; Kojić, P.S.; Lončarević, I.S.; Petrović, J.S. The garlic (A. sativum L.) extracts food grade W1/O/W2 emulsions prepared by homogenization and stirred cell membrane emulsification. J. Food Eng.; 2017; 205, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.02.006]

51. Velasco, J.; Dobarganes, C.; Márquez-Ruiz, G. Oxidative rancidity in foods and food quality. Chemical Deterioration and Physical Instability of Food and Beverages; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 3-32.

52. Nyam, K.; Wong, M.; Long, K.; Tan, C. Oxidative stability of sunflower oils supplemented with kenaf seeds extract, roselle seeds extract and roselle extract, respectively under accelerated storage. Int. Food Res. J.; 2013; 20, pp. 695-701.

53. Carelli, A.A.; Franco, I.C.; Crapiste, G.H. Effectiveness of added natural antioxidants in sunflower oil. Grasas Aceites; 2005; 56, pp. 303-310. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3989/gya.2005.v56.i4.97]

54. Gharby, S.; Harhar, H.; Mamouni, R.; Matthäus, B.; Charrouf, Z. Chemical Characterization and Kinetic parameter determination under Rancimat test conditions of four monovarietal virgin olive oils grown in Morocco. Ocl; 2016; 23, A401. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2016014]