4.7 Article

Mechanistic understanding of the effect of sodium citrate soaking of red kidney beans on their cooking behaviour

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 187, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115303

关键词

Common beans; Mg 2+/ Ca 2+migration; Citrate buffer; Phytate hydrolysis; Pectin solubilisation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the role of soaking beans in a sodium citrate solution in improving the cooking behaviour of beans. It shows that soaking in citrate buffer accelerates softening of the beans by releasing Mg2+ and Ca2+ through phytate hydrolysis. The solubilisation rate of pectin in beans treated with sodium citrate buffer is positively correlated with bean softening.
In this study, the role of soaking beans in a sodium citrate solution (a cation chelator) at pH = 4.4 and 41 degrees C in directing/improving the cooking behaviour of common beans was explored. The cooking behaviour of the presoaked red kidney beans was determined and the corresponding changes of phytate, minerals, starch, protein and pectin were quantified. Soaking beans in citrate buffer could accelerate softening of the beans during cooking in deionised water while subsequent cooking of beans in this buffer had a limited additional effect on softening compared to cooking in deionised water. Phytate hydrolysis during soaking in citrate buffer results in a release of Mg2+ and Ca2+. Both cations were leached into the soaking medium, higher amounts being observed for Mg2+ release to the soaking media because of the lower affinity of Mg2+ for pectin. It was observed that the pectin solubilisation rate in beans treated by sodium citrate buffer was positively correlated to bean softening. All of these results point out that soaking in a citrate buffer prohibits pectin Ca2+ cross linking therefore enhancing pectin solubilisation and thus increasing the bean softening rate constants during cooking, while starch and protein were not responsible for texture evolution.

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