Effect of dehusking and cooking on protein and dietary fibre of different genotypes of desi, kabuli and green type chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) (2024)

Seed material and processing

Three type of chickpeas - desi, kabuli and green seed types were selected. Seeds from four cultivars of desi type viz., DCP 92-3, KWR 108, JG 74 and BG 256; four cultivars of kabuli types viz., L 550, BG 1053, JKG 1 and KAK 2; and two cultivars of green seed type viz., Sadabahar and BGD 112 were collected from the crop grown at Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India during 2006-07 in three replications. Each replication of seed of all the genotypes was divided into two lots. One smaller lot of seed (50g) was dried at 70°C and powdered to a uniform particle size in a seed grinder Perten model 3303, and the second larger lot of seed (450g) was used for milling so as to produce dehusked grain or dahl. A part of dehusked grain was powdered for chemical analysis and another part was cooked in distilled water in open vessel till it became soft and palatable. The cooked dahl was dehydrated in a freeze dryer and used for chemical analysis. All determinations were done in triplicate and calculated on dry weight basis.

Determination of protein and dietary fibre

Protein in grains of different genotypes in raw as well as processed (dehusked and cooked) were estimated by Lowry’s method (1951) and reported as percent soluble protein on dry weight basis. The cellulose was determined by the method of Updegroff (1969) and results expressed as percent on dry weight basis. The hemicellulose was determined according to method of Goering and Van Soest (1975) and the results calculated as difference of NDF (neutral detergent fibre) and ADF (acid detergent fibre), and reported as g/100g of seed on dry weight basis. The lignin was determined by the method of AOAC (1980) and the ADL (acid detergent lignin) was reported as lignin g/100g seed on dry weight basis. The pectin was determined by the method of Ranganna (1979) and reported as percent on dry weight basis.

Statistical analysis

The data were statistically analysed using SPSS version 13 by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A multiple comparison of the treatment means was performed by Duncan’s new multiple range test for various parameters and presented in Table1. The mean and standard deviation of means of all genotypes for protein, cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin and pectin were calculated and presented in Tables2, ​,3,3, and ​and4.4. Significance of the differences was defined as P <0.05. The data of different genotypes were also grouped into desi, kabuli and green types.

Soluble protein

The dehusking of chickpea grain caused a remarkable increase in protein content of dehusked grain. The dehusked grain had significantly higher protein than raw seed and an average increase of 21.3% was observed in protein content of chickpea (Table1). The average soluble protein in dehusked grain of desi, kabuli and green types was 25.6%, 24.5% and 25.4%, respectively (Table2). Highest increase in soluble protein content on dehusking was observed in desi and green types. The increase in protein content in dehusked grain was due to removal of hull, which is mainly dependent on amount of hull removed from seed during the process of dehusking/dehulling. The desi and green type varieties of chickpeas had higher content of hull as compared to kabuli types and therefore higher protein was observed on dehusking of desi and green types. Increase in protein on dehusking of grain has also been reported earlier for chickpea and other pulses (Jambunath and Singh 1980; Ghavidel and Prakash 2007; Khalil et al. 2007).

The cooking also increased protein content of grain significantly (Table1). The average soluble protein in cooked dehusked chickpea was 26.2%. The desi and green type chickpeas had relatively higher soluble protein on cooking than kabuli types (Table2). BG 256 had recorded highest soluble protein in cooked chickpea dahl. Varieties such as JG 74, KWR 108 and BGD 112 showed higher soluble protein in cooked chickpeas. Nestares et al. (1997), Candela et al. (1997), De-Almeida Costa et al. (2006) and Wang et al. (2010) have reported an increase in protein content on cooking of chickpea. The increase in protein during cooking may be attributed to the loss of soluble solids during cooking, which would increase the concentration of protein in cooked seeds. Alajaji and El-Adawy (2006), have however reported no significant change in protein on cooking of chickpea seeds.

Cellulose

The cellulose content reduced drastically in chickpea on dehusking of grain. The cellulose in dehusked grain of chickpea genotypes was observed in the range of 1.2 to 4.6%. The cellulose content on dehusking reduced drastically, but the reduction was not statistically significant. The average cellulose in dehusked grain of desi, kabuli and green types was 3.8%, 1.4% and 3.9%, respectively. The desi and green types recorded a significant decrease of 24.0% and 26.4% respectively, whereas kabuli types decreased their cellulose by 12.5%, which was due to thin seed coat of kabuli type genotypes.

Cooking of dehusked grain caused an increase in cellulose content. The cellulose in cooked dehusked grain was in the range of 1.4 to 5.7%. The desi and green types had significantly higher cellulose in cooked dehusked grain than kabuli types. The cellulose in desi and green types was almost two and half times higher than kabuli type chickpeas. Vidal-Valverde and Frias (1991) also reported an increase in cellulose content on cooking of lentils. Ramulu and Udayasekhararao (1997) reported an increase in total and insoluble dietary fibre in chickpea, pigeonpea and lentils on cooking. Similar results were reported by Chang and Morris (1990).

Hemicellulose

The hemicelluloses decreased on dehusking of grain of chickpea. The hemicellulose in dehusked grain of chickpea was found in the range of 1.4 to 2.7%. The desi and green type chickpeas had higher hemicellulose in dehulled grain than kabuli types. Lowest hemicellulose was observed in JKG 1, KAK 2, BG 1053 and L 550 genotypes of kabuli types on dehusking, whereas BG 256 and DCP 92-3 of desi types contained highest hemicellulose in dehusked grain. Singh (1984) also reported higher hemicellulose in dehusked desi types as compared to kabuli type chickpeas. The hemicellulose content in chickpeas reduced significantly by 29.6% on dehusking. The reduction in hemicellulose of desi, kabuli and green types on dehusking was 28.1%, 25.0% and 34.4%, respectively. This shows a higher reduction in desi and green types as compared to kabuli types.

Cooking of dehusked grain caused no significant change in hemicellulose content. However, a reduction of 15.8% in hemicellulose content was observed on cooking of dehusked grain. The average hemicellulose in cooked desi, kabuli and green type chickpeas was 2.0%, 1.2% and 1.7%, respectively. The cooking caused highest reduction in hemicellulose of kabuli types.

Lignin

The average lignin in dehusked grain of chickpea was 1.7%. The lignin of seed decreased on dehusking and a reduction of 27.3% in lignin content was observed. The reduction, however was not statistically significant. The desi, kabuli and green type chickpeas had 2.1%, 1.1% and 2.1% lignin respectively in dehusked grain. The desi and green type chickpeas were similar in lignin content, whereas kabuli types had relatively low lignin in dehusked grain. The lignin in desi, kabuli and green types reduced by 19.2%, 26.7% and 19.2%, respectively during dehusking. Hulls mainly consist of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin (Dalgetty and Baik 2003). Thus the removal of seed hull leads to a decrease in lignin content as well. Dalgetty and Baik (2003) have reported 10.0% of insoluble dietary fibre (IDF) in raw seed and 6.5% IDF in chickpea flour (besan). The chickpea flour (besan) had lower IDF due to removal of hulls and was the powder of dehusked cotyledon, which consists of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin as components of IDF. Seed coat is composed primarily of insoluble NSP (non soluble polysaccharides) in the form of cellulose, lignin, polyphenolics and minerals (Singh 1984). As desi and green type chickpeas had a thicker seed coat, changes in composition due to seed coat removal are more pronounced in desi and green types than in kabuli types. Removal of seed coat by dehusking produces dahl or flour commonly known as besan with a lower content of dietary fibre.

Cooking of dehusked grain resulted in an increase in the lignin content, but this increase was non-significant. The average lignin in cooked dehusked grain (dahl) was 2.0% and there was a wide range in lignin content of cooked dehusked grain (1.1 to 2.8%). There was an increase in lignin content on cooking of the dehusked grain. The lignin in the cooked dehusked grain (dahl) of desi, kabuli and green seed types was 2.4%, 1.4% and 2.5%, respectively. Porres et al. (2002) reported an increase in lignin during autoclaving of lentils. Vidal-Valverde et al. (1992) also reported an increase in lignin of lentil on cooking. Ramulu and Udayasekhararao (1997) also reported an increase in IDF (insoluble dietary fibre) on cooking. Rehinan et al. (2004) reported an increase of 15.2–27.8% in lignin of different food legumes on cooking.

Pectin

Pectin in dehusked seed of chickpea was found in the range of 3.2 to 7.4%. The pectin in dehusked grain of chickpea was 5.3%. The pectin of seed increased on dehusking, but non-significantly. The average pectin in dehusked grain of desi, kabuli and green types was 3.3%, 6.3% and 7.1%, respectively. Highest increase of 37.5% in pectin content was observed in desi type on dehusking, followed by kabuli and green type chickpeas, which had 23.5% and 20.3% increase respectively. Dalgetty and Baik (2003) have also reported an increase in SDF (soluble dietary fibre) content of chickpea on dehusking. The SDF mainly consists of pectin. The increase in pectin on dehusking was due to removal of hull from the seed.

The pectin content in cooked dehusked chickpea grain was 5.6%. The pectin content of dehusked grain did not change significantly on cooking. However, there was a marginal increase of 5.7% in pectin content on cooking (Table1). The average content of pectin in cooked dehusked grain of desi, kabuli and green type chickpeas was 3.6, 6.8 and 7.4% respectively. Highest pectin of 7.8% was observed in KAK 2 variety of kabuli type on cooking of dehusked grain. All varieties of kabuli and green type chickpeas had highest pectin in cooked dehusked grain, whereas desi type had significantly lower pectin in cooked dehusked grain (dahl). Cooked kabuli and green types had almost double pectin than desi type chickpeas.

The softening of legumes during cooking is due to disintegration of the cotyledonous tissue in individual cells. This is caused by the conversion of native protopectin to pectin, which quickly depolymerises on heating. The middle lamella of the cell walls, which consists of pectins and strengthens the tissue disintegrates in the process (Belitz et al. 2009). Remarkable increase in SDF (soluble dietary fibre) has been reported in mungbean on soaking and cooking by Azizah and Zainon (1997). Vidal-Valverde et al. (1992) also reported an increase in pectin content of lentil during cooking.

• Alajaji SA, El-Adawy TA. Nutritional composition of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as affected by microwave cooking and other traditional cooking methods. J Food Comp Anal. 2006;19:806–812. doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2006.03.015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• AOAC (1980) Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 13 th edn, Washington DC, pp 134–135
• Azizah AH, Zainon H. Effect of processing on dietary fibre contents of selected legumes and cereals. Malaysian J Nut. 1997;3:131–136. [Google Scholar]
• Belitz HD, Gorsch W, Schieberle P. Food Chemistry. 4. Berlin: Springer Publications; 2009. Legumes; pp. 746–769. [Google Scholar]
• Candela M, Astiasaran I, Bello J. Cooking and Warm-Holding: Effect on general composition and amino acids of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), chickpeas (Cicer arietinum), and lentils (Lens culinaris) J Agric Food Chem. 1997;45:4763–4767. doi:10.1021/jf9702609. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chang MC, Morris WC. Effect of heat treatments on chemical analysis of dietary fibre. J Food Sci. 1990;55:1647–1650. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb03591.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Chavan JK, Kadam SS, Salunkhe DK. Chickpea. In: Salunkhe DK, Kadam SS, editors. Handbook of world food legumes: nutritional chemistry, processing technology and utilization. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1989. pp. 260–266. [Google Scholar]
• Dalgetty DD, Baik BK. Isolation and characterization of cotyledon fibres from peas, lentils and chickpeas. Cereal Chem. 2003;80:310–315. doi:10.1094/CCHEM.2003.80.3.310. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• De-Almeida Costa GE, Queiroz-Monici KS, Machado Reis SMP, De-Oliveira AC. Chemical composition, dietary fibre and resistant starch contents of raw and cooked pea, common bean, chickpea and lentil legumes. Food Chem. 2006;94:327–330. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.11.020. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dhingra D, Michael M, Rajput H, Patil RT. Dietary fibre in foods: a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2012;49:255–266. doi:10.1007/s13197-011-0365-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ghavidel RA, Prakash J. The impact of germination and dehulling on nutrients, antinutrients, in vitro iron and calcium bioavailability and in vitro starch and protein digestibility of some legume seeds. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 2007;40:1292–1299. doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2006.08.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Goering HD, Van Soest PJ. Forage fibre analysis. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service; 1975. [Google Scholar]
• Jacob DR, Gallaghar DD. Whole grain intake and cardiovascular disease: a review. Cur Athero Rep. 2004;6:415–423. doi:10.1007/s11883-004-0081-y. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Jambunath R, Singh U. Studies on desi and kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. Proc Internat Workshop on Chickpea Improv. Patencheru: ICRISAT; 1980. p. 61. [Google Scholar]
• Jenkins DJA, Kendall CWC, Marchie A, Faulkner DA, Wong JMW, De Souza RD, Emam A, Parker TL, Vidgen E, Lapsley KG, Trautwein EA, Josse RG, Leiter LA, Connelly PW. Effects of a dietary portfolio of cholesterol lowering foods vs lovastatin on serum lipids and c-reactive protein. J Am Med Assoc. 2003;290:502–510. doi:10.1001/jama.290.4.502. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kadam SS, Salunkhe DK. Milling. In: Salunkhe DK, Kadam SS, editors. Handbook of world food legumes: nutritional chemistry, processing technology and utilization. Florida: Boca Raton; 1989. pp. 121–132. [Google Scholar]
• Khalil AW, Zeb A, Mahmood F, Tariq S, Khattak AB, Shah H. Impact of germination time on comparative sprout quality characteristics of desi and kabuli type chickpea cultivars (Cicer arietinum L.) LWT-Food Sci Technol. 2007;40:937–945. doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2006.05.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Liener IE. Legume toxins in relation to protein digestibility- a review. J Food Sci. 1976;41:1076–1081. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1976.tb14391.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL, Randall RJ. Protein measurement with the folin-phenol reagent. J Biol Chem. 1951;193:265–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Muzquiz M, Burbano C, Ayet G, Pedrosa MM, Cuadrado C. The investigation of antinutritional factors in Phaseolus vulgaris: Environmental and varietal differences. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ. 1999;3:210–216. [Google Scholar]
• Nestares T, Urbano G, Lopez-Frıas M, Barrionuevo M. Nutritional assessment of magnesium from raw and processed chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in growing rats. J Agric Food Chem. 1997;45:3138–3142. doi:10.1021/jf960828y. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Porres MJ, Urbano G, Fernandez-Figares I, Prieto C, Perez L, Aguilera JF. Digestive utilization of protein and amino acids from raw and heated lentils by growing rats. J Sci Food Agric. 2002;82:1740–1747. doi:10.1002/jsfa.1251. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ramulu P, Udayasekhararao P. Effect of processing on dietary fibre content of cereals and pulses. Pl Foods Hum Nut. 1997;50:249–257. doi:10.1007/BF02436061. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ranganna S. Manual of analysis of fruits and vegetable products. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publ Co Ltd; 1979. p. 634. [Google Scholar]
• Rehinan Z, Rashid M, Shah WH. Insoluble dietary fibre components of food legumes as affected by soaking and cooking processes. Food Chem. 2004;85:245–249. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2003.07.005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rimm EB, Ascherio A, Giovannucci E, Spiegelman D, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Vegetables, fruits and cereal fibre intake and risk of coronary heart disease among men. J Am Med Assoc. 1996;275:447–451. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530300031036. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Singh U. Dietary fibre and its constituents in desi and kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. Nutr Rep Internat. 1984;29:419–426. [Google Scholar]
• Singh R, George M, Soni GL. Role of dietary fibre from pulses as hypocholesterolemic agent. J Food Sci Technol. 1983;20:228–230. [Google Scholar]
• Soni GL, George M, Singh R. Role of common Indian pulses as hypocholesterolemic agent. Indian J Nutr Dietet. 1982;19:184–189. [Google Scholar]
• Updegroff DM. Semi-micro determination of cellulose in biological material. Anal Biochem. 1969;32:420–424. doi:10.1016/S0003-2697(69)80009-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Vasishtha H, Srivastava Rajendra P (2011) Effect of soaking and cooking on dietary fibre components of different type of chickpea genotypes. J Food Sci Technol. doi:10.1007/s13197-011-0366-4, Published online [PMC free article] [PubMed]
• Vidal-Valverde C, Frias J. Legume processing effects on dietary fibre components. J Food Sci. 1991;56:1350–1352. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1991.tb04770.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Vidal-Valverde C, Frias J, Esteban R. Dietary fibre in processed lentils. J Food Sci. 1992;57:1161–1163. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1992.tb11288.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wang N, Hatcher DW, Tyler RT, Toews R, Gawalko EJ. Effect of cooking on the composition of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) Food Res Internat. 2010;43:589–594. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]