4.7 Article

Dependence of in-vitro starch and protein digestions on particle size of field peas (Pisum sativum L.)

Journal

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 63, Issue 1, Pages 541-549

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.03.037

Keywords

Milling; Hydration properties; Nutrient asynchrony; Particle size distribution; Rate of digestion

Funding

  1. Australian Cooperative Research Centre for High Integrity Australian Pork (Pork CRC) [4B-112]
  2. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two varieties (Maki and Walana) of field peas were hammer- and disc-milled to various particle size distributions. Water hydration characteristics were significantly (p < 0.05) dependent on the particle size distribution of the milled peas, and were adequately described by a multiple regression equation. In-vitro starch (from glucose release) and protein digestions (from pH changes) of the milled peas were modelled using a modified first order kinetic equation and related to the particle sizes. The hammer-milled peas digested the most, possibly because of mechanical and frictional effects of the mill. The rate of protein digestion of the hammer-milled peas was independent (p < 0.05) of the particle size, while the reciprocal of the rate of protein digestion of the disc-milled peas was significantly (p < 0.05) dependent on the square of the particle size. The rate of starch digestion of the disc-milled peas was independent (p < 0.05) of the particle size, but the reciprocal of the rate of starch digestion of the hammer-milled peas was significantly (p < 0.05) dependent on the square of the particle size. The in-vitro protein digestion, based on pH changes, proceeded at a much faster rate than the in-vitro starch digestion in the milled peas. This has implications for nutrient asynchrony, which is discussed. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available