Advertisement

European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 245, Issue 1, pp 191–198 | Cite as

Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) flour: microstructure, physico-chemical properties and in vitro digestion

  • A. Romano
  • C. V. L. Giosafatto
  • A. Al-Asmar
  • P. Masi
  • M. Aponte
  • L. Mariniello
Original Paper
  • 84 Downloads

Abstract

Flour from grass pea, a legume that is adapted to arid conditions containing high levels of proteins, was characterized according to microstructure, some functional properties and digestibility. Microstructural results showed that grass pea starch granules appeared surrounded by an integral matrix with heterogeneous sizes from 6 to 30 µm. Thermal properties displayed a single endothermic transition corresponding to starch gelatinization transition. The digestibility of starch was 79.6%, expressed as the ratio of non-resistant starch to the total amount of resistant and non-resistant starch. The flour was also relatively rich in phenolic substances possessing antioxidant properties as demonstrated by the 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical method. Adult and elderly in vitro digestion demonstrated that proteins were easily digested. These findings suggest that this legume is suitable for feeding of a large spectrum of population, being endowed with attractive properties that make it potential enough as functional food.

Keywords

Grass pea flour In vitro elderly digestion Microstructure Novel foods 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Elisabetta Pucci and Maria Fenderico for their technical collaboration.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

Compliance with ethics requirements

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.

References

  1. 1.
    Kumar S, Bejiga G, Ahmed S, Nakkoul H, Sarker A (2011) Genetic improvement of grass pea for low neurotoxin (β-ODAP) content. Food Chem Toxicol 49:589–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yan ZY, Spencer PS, Li ZX, Liang YM, Wang YF, Wang CY, Li FM (2006) Lathyrus sativus (grass pea) and its neurotoxin ODAP. Phytochemistry 67:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jiao CJ, Jiang JL, Ke LM, Cheng W, Li FM, Li ZX, Wang CY (2011) Factors affecting β-ODAP content in Lathyrus sativus and their possible physiological mechanisms. Food Chem Toxicol 49:543–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rizzello CG, Hernández-Ledesma B, Fernández-Tomé S, Curiel JA, Pinto D, Marzani B, Coda R, Gobbetti M (2015) Italian legumes: effect of sourdough fermentation on lunasin-like polypeptides. Microb Cell Fact 14:168–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mariniello L, Giosafatto CVL, Di Pierro P, Sorrentino A, Porta R (2007) Synthesis and resistance to in vitro proteolysis of transglutaminase-crosslinked phaseolin, the major storage protein from Phaseolus vulgaris. J Agric Food Chem 55:4717–4721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levi CS, Alvito P, Andrés A, Assunção R, Barberá R et al (2017) Extending in vitro digestion models to specific human populations: perspectives, practical tools and bio-relevant information. Trends Food Sci Technol 60:52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagler RM, Hershkovich O (2005) Relationships between age, drugs, oral sensorial complaints and salivary profile. Arch Oral Biol 50:7–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levi CS, Lesmes U (2014) Bi-compartmental elderly or adult dynamic digestion models applied to interrogate protein digestibility. Food Funct 5:2402–2409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    AACC International (1999) approved methods of analysis. 11th edn. Method 44-15.02. Moisture–Air-Oven Methods. Approved November 3, Method 02-52.01. Hydrogen-ion activity (pH)—electrometric method; St. Paul, MN, U.S.AGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Romano A, Di Luccia A, Romano R, Sarghini F, Masi P (2015) Microscopic and thermal characteristics of experimental models of starch, gliadins, glutenins and gluten from semolina. Chem Eng Trans 43:163–168Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’Appolonia BL (1977) Rheological and baking studies of legume-wheat flour blends. Cereal Chem 54:53–59Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Romano A, Giosafatto CVL, Masi P, Mariniello L (2015) Impact of dehulling on the physico-chemical properties and in vitro protein digestion of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Food Funct 6:1345–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Romano A, Mackie A, Farina F, Aponte M, Sarghini F, Masi P (2016) Characterisation, in vitro digestibility and expected glycemic index of commercial starches as uncooked ingredients. J Food Sci Technol 53:4126–4134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    AACC International (2002) Approved Methods of Analysis, 11th edn. Method 32-40.01. Resistant Starch in Starch Samples and Plant Materials. Approved October 17, AACC International, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kjeldahl J (1883) Neue Methode zur Bestimmung des Stickstoffs in organischen Körpern. Fresenius’ J Anal Chem 22:66–382Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Toledo NM, Rocha LC, da Silva AG, Canniatti Brazaca SG (2013) Interaction and digestibility of phaseolin/polyphenol in the common bean. Food Chem 138:776–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kähkönen MP, Hopia AI, Vuorela HJ, Rauha J, Pihlaja K, Kujala TS, Heinonen M (1999) Antioxidant activity of plant extracts containing phenolic compounds. J Agric Food Chem 47:3954–3962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giosafatto CVL, Di Pierro P, Gunning AP, Mackie A, Porta R, Mariniello L (2014) Trehalose-containing hydrocolloid edible films prepared in the presence of transglutaminase. Biopolymers 101:931–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giosafatto CVL, Rigby NM, Wellner N, Ridout M, Husband F, Mackie A (2012) Microbial transglutaminase-mediated modification of ovalbumin. Food Hydrocolloid 26:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laemmli UK (1970) Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227:680–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ma Z, Boye JI, Simpson BK, Prasher SO, Monpetit D, Malcolmson L (2011) Thermal processing effects on the functional properties and microstructure of lentil, chickpea, and pea flours. Food Res Int 44:2534–2544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gularte MA, Gómez M, Rosell CM (2012) Impact of legume flours on quality and in vitro digestibility of starch and protein from gluten-free cakes. Food Bioprocess Tech 5:3142–3150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wani IA, Sogi DS, Wani AA, Gill BS (2013) Physico-chemical and functional properties of flours from Indian kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars. LWT Food Sci Technol 53:278 – 284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Doporto MC, Dini C, Mugridge A, Viña SZ, García MA (2012) Physicochemical, thermal and sorption properties of nutritionally differentiated flours and starches. J Food Eng 113:569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blanchard C, Labouré H, Verel A, Champion D (2012) Study of the impact of wheat flour type, flour particle size and protein content in a cake-like dough: proton mobility and rheological properties assessment. J Cereal Sci 56:691–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rodríguez-Miranda J, Ruiz-López II, Herman-Lara E, Martínez-Sánchez CE, Delgado-Licon E, Vivar-Vera MA (2011) Development of extruded snacks using taro (Colocasia esculenta) and nixtamalized maize (Zea mays) flour blends. LWT Food Sci Technol 44:673–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Siddiq M, Ravi R, Harte JB, Dolan KD (2010) Physical and functional characteristics of selected dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) flours. LWT Food Sci Technol 4:232–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Protonotariou S, Drakos A, Evageliou V, Ritzoulis C, Mandala I (2014) Sieving fractionation and jet mill micronization affect the functional properties of wheat flour. J Food Eng 134:24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Romano A, Masi P, Aversano R, Carucci F, Palomba S, Carputo D (2018) Microstructure and tuber properties of potato varieties with different genetic profiles. Food Chem 239:789–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Korus J, Witczak M, Juszczak L, Ziobro R (2008) Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) starch as an alternative for cereal starches: Rheological properties and retrogradation susceptibility. J Food Eng 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Henshaw FO, McWatters KH, Akingbala JO, Chinnan MS (2003) Thermal properties of cowpea flour: a study by differential scanning calorimetry. Nahrung 47:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosa MJ, Ferreira RB, Teixeira AR (2000) Storage proteins from Lathyrus sativus seeds. J Agric Food Chem 48:5432–5439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chattopadhyay A, Subba P, Pandey A, Bhushan D, Kumar R, Datta A, Chakraborty S, Chakraborty N (2011) Analysis of the grasspea proteome and identification of stress-responsive proteins upon exposure to high salinity, low temperature, and abscisic acid treatment. Phytochemistry 72:1293–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Desphande SS, Campbell CG (1992) Genotype variation in BOAA, condensed tannins, phenolics and enzyme inhibitors of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus). Can J Plant Sci 72:1037–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Devasagayam TP, Tilak JC, Boloor KK, Sane KS, Lele RD (2004) Free radicals and antioxidants in human Health: Current status and future prospects. J Assoc Physicians India 52:795–804Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tamburino R, Guida V, Pacifico S, Rocco M, Zarelli A, Parente A, Di Maro A (2012) Nutritional values and radical scavenging capacities of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) seeds in Valle Agricola district, Italy. Aust J Crop Sci 6:149–156Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aprianita A, Purwandari U, Watson B, Vasiljevic T (2009) Physico-chemical properties of flours and starches from selected commercial tubers available in Australia. Int Food Res J 16:507–520Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liu Q, Donner E, Yin Y, Huang RL, Fan MZ (2006) The physicochemical properties and in vitro digestibility of selected cereals, tubers and legumes grown in China. Food Chem 99:470–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pratap Rudra MP, Raghuveer Singh M, Junaid MA, Jyothi P, Rao SLN (2004) Metabolism of dietary ODAP in humans may be responsible for the low incidence of neurolathyrism. Clin Biochem 37:318–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ravindranath V (2002) Neurolathyrism: mitochondrial dysfunction in excitotoxicity mediated by l-β-oxalyl aminoalanine. Neurochem Intern 40:505–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CAISIAL-University of Naples FEDERICO IIPorticiItaly
  2. 2.DSC-University of Naples FEDERICO II, Complesso Universitario Monte Sant’AngeloNaplesItaly
  3. 3.Agricultural Department-University of Naples FEDERICO IIPorticiItaly
  4. 4.Analysis, Poison control and Calibration Center (APCC)An-Najah National UniversityNablusPalestine

Personalised recommendations