INTRODUCTION:

In the past few years, there has been a sharp increase in demand for Zero Trans Oils and fats. The consumer has grown more health-conscious also is well-read and is particular about the food he/she chooses for consumption. Looking at the harmful effect of trans fatty acids such as increased cardiovascular diseases specifically coronary artery diseases hence there is a substantial and rising interest in improving the commercial manufacturing processes for zero trans fat food products in conformance with stringent regulations put in place by various governments.^1,2,3

Indian Food Regulatory body: Food safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has already put forth notification of reducing the Trans level below 3% by January 2021 and not more than 2% by weight on and from 1^st January 2022.⁴ Also, scientiﬁc deposition confirms that consuming trans fats contributes to the risk of heart and other cardiovascular ailments by raising the concentration of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) intheblood.^5,6,7,8 Trans fats are a result of a process called partial hydrogenation of oil and its various fraction which is done for manufacturing Shortening. An alternative way for fat hardening is first fully hydrogenating the fat which will be 100% saturated fat and then blending it or inter-esterifying it with other soft oils to have the ideal melting curve and solid fat content required for Shortening and Specialty fats required for the confectionery industry. Inter-e steriﬁcation is are action through which it ispossible to rear range TAG structure by shifting the position of fatty acid moieties keeping the same fatty acid composition.⁹Tailor-made fats can be produced with the help of Inter-Esterification (IE). Chemical Inter-esterification (CIE) is by far the easiest and cheapest process available in the industry today.^10,11CIE has been widely used for biodiesel synthesis from palmitic and oleic acid using MgO as base catalyst and also it can be used for manufacturing confectionery fats.¹²The confectionery fats manufactured from the CIE process have Physico-chemical properties similar to that of confectionery fat. Enzymatic IE still is an expensive process as compared to CIEand Oil Industry being a low margin Industry it becomes even more imperative to have alternative products for cocoa butter manufactured using CIE which will mimic Cocoa butter (CB) and will be economically viable as well.Apart from confectionery fats cocoa butter bases for the preparation of suppositories in pharmacy condition with a various active pharmaceutical ingredients by casting method, which is hygienic, convenient, fast and efficient.^13,14 CB is extracted from Cocoa bean. It is used in Confectioneries because of its peculiar melting profile: It is brittle at temperatures below 25 but softens in hand and melts in the mouth at 34C. Other exotic fats such as Sal fat, Kokum Fat, Mango Kernel Fat can be used in place of Cocoa Butter Substitute (CBS) or can be mixed with CBto mimic the performance of the confectionery fat.^{15, 16,17}But these specialty fats are costly and seasonal which makes there availability difficult all around the year. Due to the high cost and fluctuations in the supply and demand of CB, the need of the hour is to formulate cost effective blends which can function as CBS and raw materials of which are readily available all around the year and also are low on trans content. At this point of time Palm oil and Palm Kernel Oil are the most cost effective and easily available edible oils available form South East Asian countries. Fully hydrogenated Palm oil and Palm kernel oil can function as potential raw material for the above said cost effective and low trans blends. CIE blends of fully hydrogenated oils, Unsaturated oils such as Palmolein (PO), Soyabean, Palm stearin (PPO) can help us achieve desired slip melting point, microsructure and solid fat content through rearrangement of fatty acids in the triacylglycerol structure.^18,19,20,21Palm kernel oil (PKO) is extracted from the kernel of the palm fruitand Fully Hydrogenated Palm Kernel Oil (FHPKO) which has a higher melting point than that of Refined palm kernel oil is obtained through full hydrogenation of palm kernel oil (Iodine Value <3). Full hydrogenation of palm oil (FHPO) leads to increase of melting point and solid fat content of the blendat all temperatures resulting in improved high-temperature performance and stability but is brittle in nature giving the final fat blend very low plasticity and has a constant melting curve, hence it will not melt at body temperature. For a confectionery fat, the melting curve should be sharp with almost zero solid fat content at 35C. Therefore, FHPO is chemical inter esteriﬁed with Lauric Oils such as HPKO and HPKO IE that gives a sharp melting profile similar or closer to that of commercially marketed cocoa butter. The objective of this research was to synthesize and analyze the confectionery fatby performing CIE of PPO, PKO, FHPKO, and FHPO blends in comparison with commercially marketed CB. The physical and chemical properties and melting performance of the blends were analyzed and compared with that of commercially marketed cocoa butter (CB) and Commercial CBS. It was anticipated to synthesize a cost effectivefat blends, by IE blends based on Palm oil, Palm kernel oil and its fractions that has attributes similar or closer to that of commercially cocoa butter can be used as Low trans-CBS for the chocolate and confectioneryindustry.^22,23

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

PKO, PPO, Palm Oil was purchased from a Local vendor (Mumbai, Maharashtra, India) while Hydrogenation of Palm Kernel Oil and Palm Oil was done in a house , having Slip Melting Point (SMP) of 26, 60, 38, 52 degree Celsius, respectively, as analyzed by AOCS Cc3-25 (AOCS,1997). Commercially marketed Cocoa Butter was procured from Minimal Confections (Gujarat, India). Organic and inorganic solvents analytical chemicals were purchased from Thermo-Fisher Scientiﬁc Inc. (Mumbai, India), Merck (Mumbai, India). Reagents used for the analysis were of analytical grade. The Solid Fat Content of the fat blends was measured on NMR and Fatty acid profiling of the Inter-esterified fats blends was done on Gas Chromatograph.

Fat Blending:

Thirteen Inter-esterified ternary blends of PKO, FHPKO, FHPO, PPO, and PO were synthesized as per formulations given in Table 1.

Table 1: Inter-esterified Blend Composition

Fat Blend	% Palm stearin (PPO)	% PKO	% FHPKO	% FHPO	% Palm Olein (PO)
J		50	50
L			100 (IE)
K		40	60
M			100
H			70	30
G			80	20
A	35	25		40
I				10	90
F	35	30		35
E	40		60
C	70		30
B	75		25
D	37.5		25	37.5

Note: PPO: Palm stearin, PKO: Palm Kernel Oil, FHPKO:Fully hydrogenated Palm Kernel Oil, FHPO:Fully Hydrogenated Palm Oil, PO:Palm Olein

Chemical Inter-esteriﬁcation

The CIE reactions were carried out at 110^○C for 1hr. using 0.2% Sodium Methoxide as a catalystwith a mixing speed of 200rpm. The products obtained were analyzed using specific analytical methods mentioned below.

Analysis of Physical and Chemical Properties

The Chemically Inter-esterified (CIE) Blends were analyzed for Iodine Value (I.V.) using Iodine Monochloride (Wijssolution)as per the AOCS official method Cd 1-25(93). While the Slip Melting Point (SMP) was analyzed using AOCS ofﬁcial method Cc 3–25(93).

Analysis of Solid Fat Content

Variations in the melting profile of the initial fat blends vis-a-vis the melting profile ofthe Chemically Inter-esterified product and the commercially marketed cocoa butter were measured in form of Solid fat content as a function of temperature ranging from 20 to 40C by pulsed-field Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectrometer (Minispec-mq20, BRUKER, Germany) as per AOCS ofﬁcial method Cd 16–81(93).

Analysis of Fatty Acid Composition:

PKO, PPO, FHPKO, FHPO were converted into FAME and Fatty acid elucidation was done using method AOCS official Method Ce 1c-89 (93). The Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME) were analyzed on Nucon 5765 Gas Chromatograph with ﬂame ionization detector and Capillary column BPX-70. Injector temperature set at 230C, Detector temperature set at 40C. Oven Initial temperature set at 140C for 2 mins and then 2C temperature rise per minute set up-to 230C programmed for total Runtime of 47 minutes. Fatty acids were determined by comparing the retention time of the Sigma Aldrich standards. The Methyl ester samples were prepared by refluxing 0.2 gms sample with 6ml methanolic KOH (0.5N) to completely saponify the sample. Then 8 ml Boron-trifluoride sample added and boiled with the saponified oil for 2 minutes. After reaction with Boron-trifluoride the reaction mixture is cooled and washed with petroleum ether. The petroleum ether extracts were added to 50 ml standard volumetric flask along with saturated sodium chloride solution, shaken vigorously and upper petroleum ether layer is taken for injecting in the GC.

RESULTS:

Physical and Chemical Properties:

Table 1 and Table 2 show the difference in the melting point of the Physical Blends and their respective I.E. blends increases with an increase in the Nonlauric content of the blend which needs to be studied further concerning the impact of fatty acid distribution in TAG molecule.

Table 2: The difference in Slip Melting point (SMP) of selected Inter-Esterified (I.E.) Blends respective to their Physical Blends (P.B.)

Fat Blend	SMP of the P.B. (^○C)	SMP of the I.E(^○C)	The difference in P.B. and I.E. (^○C)
L (Lauric Blend)	38	34	5
K (Lauric Blend)	36	32	4
G	42.5	38.6	3.8
C	47.8	43.5	4.3
B	48.5	44	4.5
H	44.6	39.5	5.1
E	43.6	38.2	5.4
A	49	41.6	7.4

Table 2 and Table 3 indicates a decrease in the melting point of IE Blends as compared to the melting point of physical blends. The Inter-esterified (I.E.) Blends have lower melting points than their respective Physical Blends (P.B.) in the range of 3.8-7.4C. Table 2 shows that Lauric-Non Lauric Oil Blend A has the highest difference in Melting Point of 7.4C followed by Blend E of 5.4C and Blend H of 5.1C. While Blends J and K which are only Lauric oil blends show a low difference in Melting points of PB and IE as compared to the difference between Lauric-NonLauric oil IE Blends. Table 2 and Table 3 show as SMP decrease with an increase in Iodine Value but the correlation is weak with an R squared value of just 0.1042 which indicates that Iodine value and saturation are not the only factors responsible for the Melting profile of the fats but the distribution of fatty acids within TAG molecule and fatty acid chain length is the major factor affecting the Melting profile of the fat blend. Comparing Blend D having a melting point of 48C which has 85.22% total saturates as compared to melting point of 42.5C and 75.37% saturates in Blend F indicates an increase in saturates leading to increase in melting point. The same correlation is shown by Blend J and Blend K. where Blend J has 50% FHPKO with melting point of 33.2C while Blend K has 60% FHPKO having melting point of 35C indicating an increase in the amount of saturates increase melting point of the blend. The melting point of Blend E is 42.5C and I.V. of 2.09 with 45% PPO (major C18 chain length) but at the same time Blend B with I.V. of 25.83 has a Melting Point of 44 C with 75% PPO indicating that Fatty acid chain length has a major impact on the melting point of the fat blend. Blend E contains 60% FHPKO which means it has a higher content of C12 almost up to 26.77% as against 11.16 % in Blend B, also C16 is almost up to 52.39% as against 36.82 % in Blend B. But Blend E has a higher amount of Total saturate 84.23% as compared to 75.60% in Blend B implying that fatty acid chain length (higher amount of C18) has a larger impact on Melting Point of the fat blend than the amount of saturates.

Table 4: % Fatty acid content of Starting Materials and the Inter-esterified Fats Blends and their Saturated (Sat.), Unsaturated (Unsat.) and Trans content

Fat Blend	C8	C10	C12	C14	C16	C18	C18:1	C18:2	C18:3	Sat.	Unsat.	Trans
J	1.30	3.19	43.31	13.76	13.52	8.47	10.07	0.80	0.00	83.55	10.87	0.18
(CB)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.10	26.00	34.50	34.50	3.20	0.00	60.60	37.70	0.00
L	2.60	1.38	44.62	11.52	19.04	14.93	5.14	0.34	0.00	94.09	5.48	0.36
K	1.56	2.83	43.57	13.31	14.62	9.76	9.08	0.70	0.00	85.65	9.79	0.22
M	2.60	1.38	44.62	11.52	19.04	14.93	5.14	0.34	0.00	94.09	5.48	0.36
H	1.82	0.97	31.36	8.39	26.85	25.00	4.17	0.24	0.00	94.39	4.40	0.25
G	2.08	1.10	35.78	9.43	24.25	21.65	4.49	0.27	0.00	94.29	4.76	0.29
A	0.00	1.25	10.67	4.83	42.26	21.59	13.32	2.19	0.04	80.59	15.54	0.00
I	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.11	40.51	8.99	37.09	10.11	0.45	49.65	47.65	0.00
F	1.5	12.75	14.4	4.8	33.32	21	5.25	0.035	0	87.77	5.29	0.10
E	1.56	0.83	26.77	7.36	36.82	10.88	13.16	2.35	0.04	84.23	15.54	0.22
C	0.78	0.41	13.39	4.24	50.16	7.85	19.17	3.85	0.07	76.83	23.09	0.11
B	0.65	0.35	11.16	3.72	52.39	7.34	20.17	4.11	0.08	75.60	24.35	0.09
D	0.65	0.35	11.31	3.71	45.48	23.73	11.44	2.10	0.04	85.22	13.57	0.09

Note:C8: Caprylic, C10: Capric, C12: Lauric, C14: Myristic, C16: Palmitic, C18: Stearic, C18:1: Oleic, C18:2: Linoleic, C18:3: Linolenic fatty acid

Table 5: Solid Fat Content (SFC) of Various Inter-esterified fats

Fat Blend	N20	N25	N30	N35	N40
Cocoa Butter (CB)	52.27	33.38	11.7	0	0
L	68.26	44.51	18.03	0.69	0.09
K	59.27	40.72	17.28	0.98	0.11
J	52.27	33.38	11.7	0	0
M	87.21	64.39	31.25	10.93	4.04
G	78.73	64.26	35.59	17.69	3.2
H	65.94	53.94	39.26	25.03	11.4
I	30.72	21.95	13.95	8.61	3.16
F	65.94	53.94	39.26	25.03	11.4
E	67.5	53.1	39.26	25.03	4.17
C	68.18	58.47	43.73	29.47	15.5
B	70.01	58.24	44.77	30.43	15.8
D	78.18	68.71	56.09	43.13	29.2
A	60.9	48.43	34.35	20.27	8.72

Note: N20: % SFC at 20C, N25: % SFC at 25C, N30: % SFC at 30C, N35: % SFC at 35C, N40: % SFC at 40C

Table 6: % Fatty acid composition, Saturates, Unsaturates, SFC, average content of selective fatty acids, average SFC and average Saturates and Unsaturates

	Blends with 35% & more C16 fatty acid			Blends having 20% and less C16 fatty acid
Parameters	Blend B	Blend C	Blend A	Blend E	Blend G	Blend H
C8 (%)	1.31	1.556	1.41	3.032	4.016	3.524
C10 (%)	1.045	1.242	1.095	2.424	3.212	2.818
C12 (%)	12.39	14.74	12.26	28.79	38.16	33.48
C14 (%)	4.42	5.05	3.92	8.89	11.44	10.17
C16 (%)	36.81	34.94	36.63	23.74	16.27	20.00
C18 (%)	8.88	9.64	18.45	14.21	24.29	26.29
C18:1 (%)	27.03	25.23	17.77	14.44	0.24	0.34
C18:2 (%)	7.11	6.65	3.96	3.88	0.24	0.26
C18:3 (%)	0.15	0.14	0.07	0.08	0.00	0.00
Total Saturates (%)	64.85	67.16	73.76	81.08	97.39	96.28
Total Un-Saturate (%)	34.29	32.02	21.80	18.40	0.48	0.60
N35 (%)	30.43	29.47	25.03	25.03	17.69	19.99
N40 (%)	15.83	15.54	11.40	4.17	3.20	6.92
% Drop in SFC from 35 to 40C	47.98 47.26 54.45			83.34 81.91 65.38
%Average Drop in SFC	45.53			76.88
Average C16 content	36.29			20.00
Average N35 and N40 SFC	25.00			12.83
Average C12 Fatty acid content	12.95			33.48
AverageUn-saturates	26.46			6.49
Average Saturates	70.95			91.58
Average N40	17.98			4.76

Table 7: Statistical analysis of data in Table 5 and 6 in terms of Significance and R square values with confidence limit of 95%

Variable X	Variable Y (Drop in SFC)	Significance F(P value)	IF P value < 0.05 (Results are Significant)	RSquare value	If R square value > 0.7 (Indicates strong relation)
C12 (%)	From 35C to 40C	0.027	Result is statistically significant	0.74	Strong Relationship
C16 (%)	From 35C to 40C	0.027	Result is statistically significant	0.74	Strong Relationship
C18 (%)	From 35C to 40C	0.26	Result is not statistically significant	0.3	Very Weak Relationship
C18:1 (%)	From 35C to 40C	0.1	Result is not statistically significant	0.52	Weak Relationship
Total Saturates	From 35C to 40C	0.08	Result is not statistically significant	0.57	Weak Relationship
Total Un-saturates	From 35C to 40C	0.1	Result is not statistically significant	0.51	Weak Relationship
C12 (%)	N40	0.013	Result is statistically significant	0.81	Strong Relationship
C16 (%)	N40	0.012	Result is statistically significant	0.81	Strong Relationship
C18(%)	N40	0.1	Result is not statistically significant	0.52	Weak Relationship
C18:1 (%)	N40	0.032	Result is statistically significant	0.72	Strong Relationship

Figure 1:Solid Fat Content (SFC) measured of selected blends closer to Cocoa Butter at different temperatures

Solid Fat content:

Figure1and Table 5 shows the Solid Fat content of I.E. blends concerning the Standard sample of Cocoa butter. The melting profile of Cocoa butter is very steep with almost zero solid fat content at 35C denoted by N35. Attempt was made to match the melting profile of cocoa butter by doing I.E. Blends. 100% Lauric oil I.E. blend shows nearest possible melting behavior to Cocoa Butter with zero SFC @ 35C (N35=0%) L (100% HPKO I.E. blend) being the nearest one followed by J (50:50 HPKO: PKO) with N35 of 0% and K (60:40 HPKO: PKO) with N35 of 0.11% and finally by HPKO as is with N35 10.93% of 4.04. As far as Lauric and Nonlauric blends are considered Blend G (80:20, HPKO: FHPO) comes near to Cocoa Butter melting profile with N35 of 17.69% followed by Blend H (70:30, HPKO: FHPO) with N35 of 19.99 followed by Blend E (60:40, HPKO: PPO) and Blend E being the most cost-effective of the Lauric Non-lauric I.E. blends. Table 5 show that Blend A (PPO:PKO:FHPO, 35:25:40) being the most cost-effective of all has N35 of 20.27%. Blend A is followed by Blend F (PPO:PKO:FHPO, 35:30:35) having N35 of 25.03%.Trans fat content of all Inter-esterified Fat Blends shown in Table 5 is below 0.5%.

DISCUSSION:

Pure Lauric oil IE blends form the most closest Cocoa butter substitutes than Lauri-Non Lauric IE Blends. Data in Table 4 show that the Solid fat content at 20C, 25C, 30C, 35C, 40Cof Blend L and Blend K which is a 60/40 blend of PKO/FHPKO are similar to that of Cocoa butter market sample. Table 2 shows the difference in melting point of physical blends and I.E. blends it is observed that the difference in SMP of IE and PBblends of Lauric-Nonlauric oils (Blend H, E and A)is higher when compared with pure lauric oil IE and PB blends (Blend L and K) can be attributed to more amount of diversification in chain length from C12 to C18. Blend H, E and A the C12 fatty acid content decreases in manner 31.36%, 26.77% and 10.67% respectively while the C16 fatty acid content increases in manner 26.85, 36.82 and 42.26 respectively. This varying amount of C12 and C16 fatty acid content resulted inan asymmetrical structure leading to loose packing of triglyceride molecules.²⁴Blend L and K has C12 content of 44.62% and 43.67% and C16 content of 19.04 and 14.62 respectively which leads to a more symmetrical structure and leading to lesser difference of 4 C eachinSMP of their respective PB and IE blends respectively. While in I.E. blends of Lauric-Nonlauricoils due to more asymmetrical structure a higher difference in SMP of 5.1, 5.4 and 7.4 respectively of the P.B. and their respective I.E. Blends is observed.^{25, 26}Data in Table 2 show that Blend J and K has lesser difference in SMP of PB and their respective I.E since they are pure Lauric Oil Blends.For an easily perceivable melt in mouth effect which is a most desirable characteristic of a confectionery fat, the fat should show a sharp decrease in SFC from 35C to 40C i.e. larger is the drop in SFC from 35Cto 40C more evident is the melt in mouth effect. Table 6 shows that especially Lauric-Non Lauric blends withhigher amount of palmitic acidhas a profound impact on the Solid Fat Content (SFC) of Fat blends, percentage drop in SFC from 35C to 40C is higher around 77% with C16 content of about 20% or less when compared with Blends having C16 content of about 36%the percentage drop in SFC from 35C to 40C is lower around 46%. Table 5 also shows that combined average SFC at 35C and 40C is 25% for the Blends having average C16 fatty acid content of about 36% which is higher as compared to the combined average SFC at 35C and 40C is 12.83% for the Blends having average C16 fatty acid content of about 20%. Hence it is observed that higher is the amount of C16 (Palmitic acid)content lower is drop in the Solid Fat Content and higher is the average SFC.²⁷Table 6 also shows that higher amount of C12 fatty acid content gives a larger drop in SFC from 35C to 40C, the Blends with C12 fatty acid content between 33%-34% gives larger drop in SFC of 77% as compared to Blends with 12-13% content of C12 fatty acids gives smaller drop in SFC of 46%.Table 7 also indicates a strong relationship between C12 and C16 content with percentage drop in Solid Fat Content from 35C to 40C with R square values of 0.74 each and P values of 0.027 (<0.05) indicating statistically significant results.Table 6 also show that Blends with average C16 fatty acid content of about 36% haveSFC at 40C (N40) of 17.98% as compared to Blends with C16 fatty acid content of about 20% have average SFC at 40C (N40) of 4.76% implying that fat blends with high C16 content have higher SFC at 40C (N40 value) implying that higher C16 content will lead to higher SFC at 40C (N40 value).Table 6 also show fat blends with average C12 fatty acid content of about 12.95% has average SFC at 40C (N40) of 17.98% and fat blends with average C12 fatty acid content of about 33.48% has average SFC at 40C (N40) of 4.76% implying that higher the C12 fatty acid content lower will be the SFC at 40C (N40) values.Table 7show a very strong relation of C16 and C12 fatty acid content with SFC at 40C (N40) with R square value of 0.81 and P values of 0.013 and 0.012 (P < 0.05) indicating statistically significant results. The results show that C16 has a direct relationship with N40 values while C12 has an inverse relationship with N40 values. A higher saturate content should actually result in a higher SFC at 40C (N40), but Blends with higher average saturate content of 91% shows lower SFC at 40C (N40) of 4.76%. While a lower saturate content should actually result in a lower SFC at 40C (N40) but Blends with lower average saturate content of 71% shows higher SFC at 40C (N40) of 17.98%. Similarly a lower un-saturate content should actually result in a higher SFC at 40C (N40), but Blends with lower average un-saturate content of 6.49% shows lower SFC at 40C (N40) of 4.76%. While a higher un-saturate content should actually result in lower SFC at 40C (N40) but Blends with higher average un-saturate content of 26.46% shows higher SFC at 40C (N40) of 17.98%.Italso indicates weak relationship of Total Saturates and Un-saturates with % drop in Solid Fat Content at 40C (N40) with R square value 0.57 and 0.517 respectively and P values of 0.08 and 0.1 respectively both greater than 0.05 indicating that results are not statistically significant. The above observations imply that the impact of Fatty acid chain length (i.e. the molecular weight of fatty acid) on the percentage drop in SFC from 35C to 40C(melting behavior) is more when compared with the content of saturates and un-saturates.Table 7 show that C18:1 fatty acid content shows strong relationship with Solid Fat Content at 40C (N40) with R square value 0.72 and P value of 0.032 (<0.05) indicating statistically significant results implying that C18:1 content also has impact on percentage drop in SFC from 35C to 40C (melting behavior) though somewhat lesser than C16 and C12.This study has demonstrated that regular CIE can function as an economically viable alternative to enzymatic IE for the manufacture of Trans free fats. Pure Lauric Oil IE blends provide the closest alternative for cocoa butter which are Low Trans with desirable physical and chemical properties, as well as a close matching melting profile of IE blends of FHPKO and PKO at 50:50 and 60:40 ratio. Alternative cost-effective blends of Lauric and Non-Lauric oil blends constituting PPO, FHPO, and FHPKO provide a similar melting behavior and other physiochemical properties to CB and can function as CBS.²⁸ All the blends synthesized has less than 0.5% of trans fat by weight.

REFERENCES:

1. Dhaka V et al.Trans fats sources, health risks, and alternative approach:A review.Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2011; 48(5): 534-541. doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0225-8

2. Cekici H, Akdevelioglu Y. The association between trans fatty acids, infertility and fetal life: a review.Human Fertility. 2018; 22: 154-163. doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2018.1432078

3. Ahmed SH et al.Correlation of trans fatty acids with the severity of coronary artery disease lesions.Lipids in Health and Diseases. 2018; 17(52): 3-13. doi.org/10.1186/s12944-018-0699-3

4. https://fssai.gov.in/cms/food-safety-and-standards-regulations.php.(30 July 2022).

5. Teng K et al. Effects of partially hydrogenated, semi-saturated and high oleate vegetable oils on inflammatory markers and lipids.Lipids.2010; 45:385-392. doi.org/10.1007/s11745-010-3416-1

6. Ahmed A, Haider AA. TG/HDL, Non-HDL, and TyG index as predictive parameters for CVDs in uncontrolled diabetic patients better than LDL-C and LDL/HDL ratio. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2022; 15(12): 5490-4. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00926

7. Kotian GB et al. Analysis and correlation of small dense low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (sdLDL-C) with various lipoproteins and cardiac markers in acute coronary syndrome patients associated with normal Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) level: A cross sectional study. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2023; 16(3):1214-8. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2023.00201

8. Pooja et al. Correlation of Oxidised LDL with Oxidant and Antioxidant enzymes in subjects with Elevated LDL levels. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2022; 15(9): 3836-0. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00643

9. Kodali DR. Trans Fat Alternative. AOCS Publishing, New York.2005. doi.org/10.1201/9780429104503

10. Asif M. Process advantages and product benefits of inter-esterification in oils and fats.International Journal of Nutrition, Pharmacology, Neurological Diseases. 2011; 1(2): 134-138.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0738.84203

11. Chushenko VM et al. Creation of Cocoa butter bases for preparation of suppositories in pharmacy condition by the casting method. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2020; 13(7): 3343-3346. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00593.4

12. DakhilIA et al. Formulation and Evaluation of Trifluoperazine HCl as rectal suppositories by using different types of surfactants in Cocoa butter. Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2019; 12(10): 4934-4940. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2019.00856.4

13. Shanmugam M et al. Biodiesel Synthesis from Palmitic Acid and Oleic Acid via Esterification Method using MgO base catalyst. Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2017; 10(11): 3945-3950. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2017.00716.8

14. Petrauskaite V et al. Physical and Chemical properties of trans-free fats produced by chemical interesterification of vegetable oil blends.Journal of American Oil Chemist Society. 1998; 75(4): 489-493. doi.org/10.1007/s11746-998-0252-z.

15. Zhen Z et al. Effects of Chemical Interesterification on the triacylglycerols, solid fat contents and crystallization kinetics of palm oil-based fats.Food & Function. 2019; 10(11): 7553-7564. doi.org/10.1039/C9FO01648A

16. Gioielli LA, Rodrigues JN. Chemical inter-esterification ofmilkfat and milkfat-corn oil blends.Food Research International. 2002; 36: 149-159. doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(02)00130-8

17. Naeem A et al. Mango Seed Kernel Fat as a Cocoa Butter Substitute Suitable for the Tropics.Journal of Food Science. 2019; 84 (6): 1315-1321. doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.14614

18. Reddy SY, Prabhakar JV. Confectionery fats from Sal Fat (Shorea Robusta) and Phulwara (MadhucaButyracea) butter.Food Chemistry.1998; 34(2): 131-139. doi.org/10.1016/0308-8146(89)90081-2

19. Naik B, Kumar V. Cocoa Butter and its Alternatives: A Review.Journal of Bioresource Engineering and Technology. 2014 ; 1: 7-17.

20. Karabulut I et al. Effects of chemical interesterification on solid fat content and slip the melting point of fat/oil blends,European Food Research and Technology. 2003; 218: 224-229. doi.org/10.1007/s00217-003-0847-4.

21. Graef VDe et al.Effect of TAG composition on the solid fat content profile, microstructure, and hardness of model fat blends with identical saturated fatty acid content,European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology. 2012; 114(5): 592-601. doi.org/10.1002/ejlt.201100215

22. Hassim NAM, Dian NLHM. Usage of Palm Oil, Palm Kernel Oil and their fractions as confectionery fats. Journal of Oil Palm Research. 2017; 29(3): 301-310. doi.org/10.21894/jopr2017.2903.0

23. Coenen JWE. Hydrogenation of Edible Oils.Journal of American Oil Chemists Society. 1976; 53: 382-389. doi.org/10.1007/BF02605727

24. Smith KW, Cocoa Butter and Related Compounds.InConfectionery Fats.Edited by Garti Nand Widlak NR. AOCS Press, Urbana, Illinois. 2012; 1st ed:475-495.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-9830791-2-5.50022-0.

25. Gregersen SB et al. Texture and Microstructure of cocoa butter replacers: Influence of composition and cooling rate.Food Structure. 2015; 4: 2-15. doi.org/10.1016/j.foostr.2015.03.001

26. Kim JY, Lee KT. Enzymatic Interesterification and Melting Characteristic for Asymmetric 1,2-Distearoyl-3-Oleoyl-rac-Glycerol Triacylglycerol Enriched Product.Journal of Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition. 2014; 43(1): 93-101. doi.org/10.3746/jkfn.2014.43.1.093

27. Bornaz S et al. Limit of the solid fat content modification of butter.Journal of American Oil Chemists Society. 1994; 71(12): 1373-1380. doi.org/10.1007/BF02541358

28. Rooijen MA, Mensink RP. Palmitic Acid Versus Stearic Acid: Effects of interesterification and intakes of cardiometabolic risk marker-A systematic Review. Nutrients. 2020; 12: 615. doi.org/10.3390/nu12030615

29. Sonwai S et al. Lauric Fat Cocoa Butter Replacer from Krabok (IrvingiaMalayana) Seed Fat and Coconut Oil. Journal of Oleo Science. 2015; 64(4): 357-365. doi.org/10.5650/jos.ess14244

Received on 08.03.2023 Modified on 11.08.2023

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2024; 17(4):1578-1584.

DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00249

Fat / Fat blend	I.V. (g I₂ / 100g of fat)	SMP (^○C)
PKO	18	28
FHPKO	5.56	38
FHPO	2	60
PPO	32	52
J	10.66	33.2
HPKO IE	5.56	33
K	9.64	35
M	5.4	38
H	4.4	39.5
G	4.79	38.6
A	16.02	41.6
I	52.79	41
F	16.37	42.5
E	2.09	38.2
C	24.47	43
B	25.83	44
D	14.25	48