Advertisement

Chemical composition of the seed and ‘milk’ of three common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) varieties

  • Calvince AninoEmail author
  • Arnold N. Onyango
  • Samuel Imathiu
  • Julius Maina
  • Faith Onyangore
Original Paper
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Beans are a good source of nutrients and a variety of phytochemicals such as flavonoids, tannins and phytates. On the one hand, these non-nutrient phytochemicals reduce nutrient bio availability, but on the other hand they have some health benefits including reducing the risks for aging-related diseases. This study investigated the content of nutrients and non-nutrient phytochemicals in three varieties of common beans, namely red haricot, pinto and yellow kidney beans, and their corresponding milk extracts. Carbohydrates were the most abundant nutrient in the beans (63–66%), followed by proteins (21–24%), crude fiber (5–7%), crude ash (4–5%), and crude fat (2–3%). The beans were also rich in non-nutrient phytochemicals. The protein, carbohydrate and fat contents of the milk (18–26%, 63–67%, and 3–4%, respectively) did not differ much from the beans. Unlike the beans, the milk lacked crude fiber, and had greatly reduced ash (2%) and phytochemicals. Consistent with the reduction in ash, there was a reduction in minerals; calcium, iron, zinc and magnesium in the milk. The reduction in minerals was less than the reduction of phytates, indicating that the milk may have higher bioavailability of minerals than the beans. The milk also had higher protein digestibility. Thus, consumption of bean milk may be encouraged as an alternative way of bean consumption, especially by individuals whose greater needs are for nutrients rather than phytochemicals. The bean varieties had significant differences in the retention of nutrients and phytochemicals, and such differences should be considered during bean milk production.

Keywords

Common beans Bean milk Anti-nutrients 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the University of Kabianga for funding the present research and the Department of Food Science and Technology, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology for the good will to use the laboratory facilities. We are very appreciative of Mr. David Rasugu from JKUAT for his technical assistance during the study.

Author contributions

CA, AO and SI participated in study design. CA did the experiments and drafted the manuscript. All authors participated in interpretation of results and improving the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

All authors have agreed to submit the manuscript in its current form for publication in the Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization.

Research involving human participants

No tests, measurements or experiments were performed on humans as part of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    V.R. Campos, D.L.P. Oomah, A. Guadalupe Vergara-Castaneda, Common beans and their non-digestible fraction: cancer inhibitory activity—an overview. J. Food Sci. 2, 374–392 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.3390/foods2030374 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Z. Rehman, A.M. Salariya, S.I. Zafar, Effect of processing on available carbohydrate content and starch digestibility of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Food Chem. 73, 351–355 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Karanja, Pulse Crops Grown in Ethiopia, Kenya and United Republic of Tanzania for Local and Export Markets (Int Trade Centre & East Africa Grain Council, Nairobi, 2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G.J. Kiptoo, M. Kinyua, O. Kiplagat et al., Evaluation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties for resistance to bean stem maggot (Ophiomyia spp .) in Kenya. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 12, 1–7 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2016/24915 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Katungi, A. Farrow, J. Chianu et al., Common Bean in Eastern and Southern Africa: A Situation and Outlook Analysis (Int Centre for Tropical Agriculture, Palmira, 2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.G. Mureithi, C.K. Gachene, J. Ojiem, The role of green manure legumes in smallholder farming systems in kenya: the Legume Research Network Project. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 1, 57–70 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.C. Reyes, L.O. Paredes, Hard - to - cook phenomenon in common beans—a review hard-to-cook phenomenon in common beans—a review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 33, 227–286 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.M. Laparra, R.P. Glahn, D.D. Miller, Assessing potential effects of inulin and probiotic bacteria on Fe availability from common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to caco-2 cells. J. Food Sci. 74, 40–46 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.01027.x Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H.G. Akillioglu, S. Karakaya, Changes in total phenols, total flavonoids, and antioxidant activities of common beans and pinto beans after soaking, cooking, and in vitro digestion process. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 19, 633–639 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-010-0089-8 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E.R. Aminigo, L.E. Metzger, Pretreatment of African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa): effect of soaking and blanching on the quality of African yam bean seed. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 60, 165–171 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-005-9551-4 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.K. Salunkhe, J.K. Chavan, S.S. Kadam, Dietary Tannins: Consequences and Remedies (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.D.A.G. Cruz, A.G.M. Oliveira, V.C. Pires et al., Protein quality and in vivo digestibility of different varieties of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Brazilian J. Food Technol. 6, 157–162 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.M. Nakitto, J.H. Muyonga, D. Nakimbugwe, Effects of combined traditional processing methods on the nutritional quality of beans. Food Sci. Nutr. 3, 233–241 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.209 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Sethi, S.K. Tyagi, R.K. Anurag, Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging segment of functional beverages: a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 53, 3408–3423 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Ma, B. Li, F. Han et al., Evaluation of the chemical quality traits of soybean seeds, as related to sensory attributes of soymilk. Food Chem. 173, 694–701 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.096 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Min, Y. Yu, S. Yoo et al., Effect of soybean varieties and growing locations on the flavor of soymilk. Food Chem. Toxicol. 70, 1–7 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    AOAC, Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 17th edn. (Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) International, Gaithersburg, 2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M.T. Mosisa, D.C. Tura, Effect of processing on proximate and mineral composition of hepho, a black climbing bean (Lablab purpureus L.) flour. J Food Nutr Sci 5, 16–22 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jfns.20170501.13 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Perkin Elmer Coorporation, Analytical Methods for Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (Perkin Elmer Coorporation, Waltham, 1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    V.R. Campos, R. Reynoso-Camacho, G. Pedraza-Aboytes et al., Chemical composition and in vitro polysaccharide fermentation of different beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.). J. Food Sci. 74, T59–T65 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01292.x Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B.J. Xu, S.K.C. Chang, A comparative study on phenolic profiles and antioxidant activities of legumes as affected by extraction solvents. J. Food Sci. 72, 159–166 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E.T. Mertz, M.M. Hassen, C. Cairns-Whittern et al., Pepsin digestibility of proteins in sorghum and other major cereals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81, 1–2 (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.81.1.1 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Vargas Toress, P. Osorio-Diaz, J. Tovar, L.A. Bello-Pérez, Chemical composition, starch bioavailability and indigestible fraction of common beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.). Starch-Starke 56, 74–78 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Z. Teklehaimanot, Exploiting the potential of indigenous agroforestry trees: Parkia biglobosa and Vitellaria paradoxa in sub-Saharan Africa. Agrofor. Syst. 61, 207–220 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Niyibituronsa, A.N. Onyango, S. Gaidashova, S. Imathiu, M. Uwizerwa, E.P. Ochieng, F. Nganga, J. Birungi, S. Ghimire, J. Harvey, The effect of different processing methods on nutrient and isoflavone content of soymilk obtained from six varieties of soybean grown in Rwanda. Food Sci. Nutr. Early View (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.812 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J.L. Mession, N. Sok, A. Assifaoui, R. Saurel, Thermal denaturation of pea globulins (Pisum sativum L.)-molecular interactions leading to heat-induced protein aggregation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 1196–1204 (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    I.S. Urua, E.A. Uyoh, V.O. Ntui, E.C. Okpako, Effect of processing on proximate composition, anti-nutrient status and amino acid content in three accessions of African locust bean (Parkia biglobosa (jacq .) benth. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 64, 94–102 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.3109/09637486.2012.704903 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C.S.S. Gouveia, G. Freitas, J.H. de Brito, J.J. Slaski, M.A.A.P. de Carvalho, Nutritional and mineral variability in 52 accessions of common bean varieties (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Madeira Island. Agric. Sci. 5, 317–329 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. Kasmin, A.M. Lazim, R. Awang, Effect of heat treatments on the yield, quality and storage stability of oil extracted from palm fruits. Malaysian J. Anal. Sci. 6, 1373–1381 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. Saso, G. Valentini, M.L. Casini et al., Inhibition of protein denaturation by fatty acids, bile salts and other natural substances: a new hypothesis for the mechanism of action of fish oil in rheumatic diseases. Jpn. J. Pharmacol. 79, 89–99 (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Madukwe, P.E. Eme, Chemical evaluation and sensory attributes of soymilk fortified with carrot powder. Africa J. Food Sci. 6:483–486 (2012)  https://doi.org/10.5897/AJFS12.040 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    S. Shankar, E. Lanza, Dietary fiber and cancer prevention. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. N. Am. 5, 25–41 (1991)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S.M. Tosh, S. Yada, Dietary fibres in pulse seeds and fractions: Characterization, functional attributes, and applications. Food Res. Int. 43, 450–460 35 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Maria, M. Prigol, C. Wayne et al., Mineral concentrations in the embryo and seed coat of common bean cultivars. J. Food Compos. Anal. 26, 89–95 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2012.03.003 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    L.M.J. Carvalho, M.M. Correa, E.J. Pereira et al., Iron and zinc retention in common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) after home cooking. Food Nutr. Res. 56, 1–6 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.3402/fnr.v56i0.15618 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J.T. Moraghan, J.D. Etchevers, J. Padilha, Contrasting accumulations of calcium and magnesium in seed coats and embryos of common bean and soybean. Food Chem. 95, 554–561 (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    C.M. Paredes, V.V. Becerra, U.J. Tay, Inorganic nutritional composition of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes race chile. Chill J Agric Res 69, 486–495 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M.A. Silva, P. Brigide, N.M.V. de Toledo, S.G. Canniatti-Brazaca, Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of two bean cultivars (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) submitted to cooking. Braz. J. Food Technol. 21, e2016072 (2018)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Y. Yao, X. Cheng, L. Wang, S. Wang, G. Ren, Biological potential of sixteen legumes in china. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 12, 7048–7058 (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    S.-C. Ren, Z.-L. Liu, P. Wang, Proximate composition and flavonoids content and in vitro antioxidant activity of 10 varieties of legume seeds grown in China. J. Med. Plants Res. 6, 301–308 (2012)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    R.S. Gibson, K.B. Bailey, M. Gibbs, E.L. Ferguson, A review of phytate, iron, zinc, and calcium concentrations in plant-based complementary foods used in low-income countries and implications for bioavailability. Food Nutr. Bull. 31, 134–146 (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    A.A. Elmoneim, H. El-Beltagi, A.E.S. Samiha, O.A. Azza, Biochemical changes in phenols, flavonoids, tannins, vitamin E, β-carotene and antioxidant activity during soaking of three white sorghum varieties. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2, 203–209 (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    A. Clemente, R. Shnchez-vioque, J. Vioque et al., Effect of cooking on protein quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinrcm) seeds. Food Chem. 62, 1–6 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Food Science and TechnologyJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and TechnologyNairobiKenya
  2. 2.Department of Environmental HealthUniversity of KabiangaKerichoKenya

Personalised recommendations