Phenolic Profile and Antioxidant Capacity of Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) as Affected by a Dehydration Process
- 872 Downloads
This study presents the effects of soaking, cooking and industrial dehydration on the phenolic profile, and antioxidant capacity in two chickpea varieties (Sinaloa and Castellano). Chromatographic analysis identified a total of 24 phenolic components, being isoflavones the main phenolics in raw and processed Sinaloa and Castellano flours. The impact of the industrial dehydration was different depending on the chickpea variety. Although Castellano chickpea exhibited the highest levels of phenolic compounds (103.1 μg/g), significant reductions were observed during processing; in contrast, the dehydration did not cause any further effects in Sinaloa flours. Interestingly, Sinaloa variety showed high thermal stability of isoflavones during processing. As expected, the levels of antioxidant capacity were in accordance with the behavior of phenolic compounds exhibiting noticeable reductions in Castellano chickpea and not relevant changes in Sinaloa chickpea. Thus, the significant occurrence of bioactive phenolic compounds along with the relevant antioxidant capacities of dehydrated chickpea flours make them to be considered functional ingredients for their beneficial health effects, especially in case of Sinaloa.
KeywordsAntioxidant capacity Bioactive phenolic compounds Chickpeas Dehydration process Legume flours
Area under the fluorescence decay curve
Duncan’s multiple range test
Oxygen radical absorbing capacity assay
Principal component analysis
M. Dueñas also thanks to the Program Ramón y Cajal for a contract.
- 1.FAO Statistics (2008) Productions, crops. Retrieved September 15, 2010 from http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor
- 10.Satwadhar PN, Kadam SS, Salunkhe DK (1998) Effects of germination and cooking on polyphenols and in vitro protein digestibility of horse gram and moth bean. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 31(1):71–76Google Scholar
- 13.Bender FE, Douglass LW, Kramer A (1989) Statistical methods for food and agriculture. In: Bender FE, Douglass LW, Kramer A (eds) Food Products Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kalogeropoulos N, Chiou A, Ioannou M, Karathanos VT, Hassapidou M, Andrikopoulos NK (2010) Nutritional evaluation and bioactive microconstituents (phytosterols, tocopherols, polyphenols, triterpenic acids) in cooked dry legumes usually consumed in the Mediterranean countries. Food Chem 121(3):682–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Saxena AK, Chadha M, Sharma S (2003) Nutrients and antinutrients in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars after soaking and pressure cooking. J Food Sci Technol 40(5):493–497Google Scholar
- 25.Saharan K, Khetarpaul N, Bishnoi S (2002) Antinutrients and protein digestibility of faba bean and rice bean as affected by soaking, dehulling and germination. J Food Sci Technol 39(4):418–422Google Scholar