4.1 Article

Chemical and biochemical characterization of soybean produced under drought stress

Journal

CIENCIA E TECNOLOGIA DE ALIMENTOS
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 676-681

Publisher

SOC BRASILEIRA CIENCIA TECNOLOGIA ALIMENTOS
DOI: 10.1590/S0101-20612009000300034

Keywords

Glycine max; quality of grains; climate conditions; storage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Brazil is the second soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) producer and exporter in the world. In 2005, soybean cultivated in the southeastern region of the country suffered drought stress imposed by adverse high temperatures and low humidity during its reproductive stage. Little information is available regarding the effect of drought stress on the quality of grains. In this study chemical and biochemical characteristics of five soybean samples belonging to three different cultivars grown under drought stress were evaluated. The samples did not meet standards for marketing and contained high amounts of green seeds. Grains were analyzed for appearance, 100 seed weight, humidity, water activity, proteins, lipids, lipoxygenase I activity, peroxides, and pigment contents after harvest and after 20 months of storage at room temperature. Acidity was measured also after 30 months of storage. The values of water activity and humidity were 0.6-0.7 and 8.7-11.9%, respectively, and they did not change during storage time, but there was an increase in acidity, which alludes to lipase activity. The activity of lipoxygenase I was greatly affected. Immediately after harvest, the green pigments were represented mainly by pheophytin a, followed by pheophytin b, small quantities of chlorophyll b and chlorophyll a, and traces of other chlorophyll derivatives. After 20 months of storage almost all green pigments had disappeared. Drought stress probably enhanced membrane permeability, which led to a lower pH and promoted transformation of chlorophylls to pheophytins.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available