4.7 Article

Reduction of pulse antinutritional content by optimizing pulse canning process is insufficient to improve fat-soluble vitamin bioavailability

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 370, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131021

关键词

Chickpeas; Germination; Phytates; Tannins; Saponins; Vitamin D; Vitamin K; Bioaccessibility; Caco-2 cells

资金

  1. INRAE (National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment)
  2. CTCPA (Technical Center for the Conservation of Agricultural Products)
  3. C2VN (Center for CardioVascular research and Nutrition)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that after optimizing the canning process, phytate, saponin, and tannin content in canned chickpeas were significantly reduced, while folate also decreased. However, the bioaccessibility and cellular uptake of vitamin D and K remained unaffected after in vitro digestion.
Some bioactive compounds found in pulses (phytates, saponins, tannins) display antinutritional properties and interfere with fat-soluble vitamin bioavailability (i.e., bioaccessibility and intestinal uptake). As canned chickpeas are consumed widely, our aim was to optimize the chickpea canning process and assess whether this optimization influences fat-soluble vitamin bioavailability. Different conditions during soaking and blanching were studied, as was a step involving prior germination. Proteins, lipids, fibers, vitamin E, lutein, 5-methyl-tetrahydro-folate, magnesium, iron, phytates, saponins and tannins were quantified. Bioaccessibility and intestinal uptake of vitamin D and K were assessed using in vitro digestion and Caco-2 cells, respectively. Significant reductions of phytate, saponin and tannin contents (-16 to-44%), but also of folate content (up to-97%) were observed under optimized canning conditions compared with the control. However, bioaccessibility and cellular uptake of vitamin D and K remained unaffected after in vitro digestion of test meals containing control or optimized canned chickpeas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据