See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226002426

Influence of processing on available carbohydrate content and antinutritional

factors of chickpeas

Article  in  European Food Research and Technology · March 2000

DOI: 10.1007/s002170050560

CITATIONS READS

99 607

5 authors, including:

Juana Frias Concepción Díaz

Spanish National Research Council Laboratorios Combix, S.L.U., Zydus Group
199 PUBLICATIONS   7,649 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   470 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PRODUCTION AND VALIDATION OF MULTIFUNCTIONAL INGREDIENTS COMBINED WITH PHYSICAL EXERCISE FOR METABOLIC SYNDROME MANAGEMENT View project

Lentils for Sustainable and Healthy Proteins View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Concepción Díaz on 31 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Eur Food Res Technol (2000) 210 : 340–345
ORIGINAL PAPER
Juana Frias 7 Concepción Vidal-Valverde
Cristina Sotomayor 7 Concepción Diaz-Pollan
Gloria Urbano
Influence of processing on available carbohydrate content and
antinutritional factors of chickpeas
Received: 22 April 1999 / Revised version: 28 June 1999
Abstract The effect of chickpea processing (soaking,
soaking plus cooking and dry heating) on the content of
available carbohydrate (monosaccharides, disacchar-
ides and starch) and antinutritional factors (a-galacto-
sides and trypsin inhibitor activity) was studied. Soak-
ing produced a reduction in available carbohydrates
(19–20%) and a-galactosides (16–27%), and either did
not affect or caused a slight reduction of trypsin inhibi-
tor activity (TIA) in chickpeas. Soaking plus cooking
brought about a larger decrease in available carbohy-
drates (23–24%) and a-galactosides (45–58%), and
completely eliminated TIA. Dry heating caused a 24%
reduction in available carbohydrates, a 46% decrease in
a-galactosides and a 27% decrease in TIA. Overall,
cooking the presoaked seeds in water, acidic or basic
solution seems to be adequate to obtain a chickpea
flour with a large reduction in antinutritional factors
(a-galactosides and TIA) and also a high level of avail-
able carbohydrate content.
Key words Carbohydrates 7 Chickpeas 7 Starch 7
a-Galactosides 7 Trypsin inhibitor activity
Introduction
Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) are the fifth most im-
portant legume in the world on the basis of total grain
production after soybeans, peanuts, beans and peas [1].
They are the most widely consumed legume throughout
Spain and are especially popular in Andalusia [2].
J. Frias 7 C. Vidal-Valverde (Y) 7 C. Sotomayor
C. Diaz-Pollan
Instituto de Fermentaciones Industriales (CSIC),
Juan de la Cierva 3, E-28006 Madrid, Spain
e-mail: ificv126ifi.csic.es
G. Urbano
Departamento de Fisiologia, Instituto de Nutricion,
Facultad Farmacia, Campus Universitario de Cartuja s/n,
E-18071 Granada, Spain
Q Springer-Verlag 2000
Chickpeas are a good source of protein (12.6–30.5%)
[3], and exhibit higher true digestibility, biological val-
ue and net protein utilisation than cowpeas and mung
beans [4], higher net protein utilisation than soybeans,
peas, beans and lentils [5], and higher PER than soy-
beans, faba beans, pigeon peas, black gram and mung
beans [6].
Chickpea seeds contain 54.4% to 70.9% of total car-
bohydrates, of which the major proportion is starch
(37.2–50.8%) [1]. Although chickpeas are considered to
be one of the most nutritious pulses [3], they contain
several antinutritional factors that could limit their con-
sumption and the nutritive utilisation of their proteins
[7]. Among these are the flatulence-causing a-galacto-
sides [8–10], which have been related to the excessive
accumulation of gas in the intestine [11, 12]. Conse-
quently, the presence of these sugars in chickpea seeds
is one of the major constraints in their full utilisation as
human food.
Trypsin inhibitors are also present in chickpea seeds
and they are capable of binding to the trypsin enzyme,
thus inhibiting its activity, interfering with the digestion
of proteins and resulting in an increased pancreatic se-
cretion and hypertrophy of the pancreas [13, 14].
The removal of undesirable components is therefore
essential to improve the nutritional quality of legumes
and effectively utilise their full potential as human
food. Simple and inexpensive processing techniques are
an effective method of achieving desirable changes in
the seed composition and improving palatability. Var-
ious authors have reported that soaking and heat treat-
ments improve the quality of legumes. Soaking re-
moves some antinutritional compounds, which can be
partly or totally solubilised and eliminated with the dis-
carded soaking solution. At the same time, some meta-
bolic reactions take place during the soaking proce-
dure, affecting the content and composition of the
seeds [10]. Heat treatments generally inactivate heat-
sensitive factors such as trypsin inhibitors and remove
volatile compounds. The cooking water may be dis-
carded and some other soluble compounds removed. In

many instances, the use of only one method may not
result in the desired removal of antinutritional com-
pounds and the combination of two or more methods is
required.
Although some information has been found con-
cerning the chemical composition of chickpeas, not
much work has been carried out on the effect of simple
processes, or their combination, on the modification of
the nutritional and antinutritional composition of
chickpeas. The aim of this work was to evaluate the ef-
fect of simple treatments on the content of available
carbohydrate and on some antinutritional factors of
chickpeas in order to obtain chickpea flours with high
nutritive value, which may be utilised for human con-
sumption as part of the diet or in the fortification of
foods.
Materials and methods
Samples. Raw, dry chickpeas (R) (C. arietinum L. cv. Blanco le-
choso) were grown in Andalusia (southern Spain). The seeds
were subjected to seven different treatments: S p soaking in dis-
tilled water; SA p soaking in acidic medium; SB p soaking in
basic medium; SC p S c cooking; SAC p SA c cooking; SBC
p SB c cooking; H p dry heating.
Soaking. Chickpea seeds were soaked at room temperature for
9 h in distilled water (pHp5.3), citric acid solution (0.1%,
pHp2.6) or sodium bicarbonate solution (0.07%, pHp8.4). The
seed to solution ratio was 1 : 3 (w/v). The soaking liquid was
drained off, and the seeds were blended and lyophilised.
Cooking. Soaked chickpeas seeds were cooked by boiling in dis-
tilled water for 35 min at a seed to water ratio of 1 : 6.67 (w/v).
The cooking water was drained off, and the seeds were crushed
and lyophilised.
Dry heating. Raw ground chickpeas were dry heated under pres-
sure at 120 7C and 1 atm for 15 min.
Determination of monosaccharides, disaccharides and a-galacto-
sides. The analysis of these compounds was carried out by high-
performance liquid chromatography according to Frias et al.
[15].
Starch determination. Starch was analysed from the residue ob-
tained after soluble carbohydrate extraction using a procedure
based on the total enzymatic digestion to glucose [16]. Glucose
content was measured by the method of glucose-oxidase peroxi-
dase [17]. The starch content was calculated by multiplying the
resulting glucose content by 0.9.
Trypsin inhibitor activity. Extraction of trypsin inhibitors was
performed according to the method of Kakade et al. [18] modif-
ied by Valdebouze et al. [19].
Statistical methods. Multifactor analysis of variance was applied
to the data using Statgraphic Statistical Graphics 5.0 System Soft-
ware (Statistical Graphics Corporation, Rockville, Md., USA).
Results and discussion
The effects of soaking in water, citric acid and sodium
bicarbonate, soaking in those solutions plus cooking in
341
water, and dry heating at 120 7C at 1 atm for 15 min on
the content of available carbohydrate and antinutrition-
al factors [a-galactosides and trypsin inhibitor activity
(TIA)] of chickpeas are shown in Tables 1 to 3.
Starch content decreased by 20–21% after soaking.
The type of solution employed did not affect this reduc-
tion (Table 1). The effect of soaking on the starch con-
tent is controversial because of the different results
found in the literature. Chavan et al. [3], Jood et al. [20,
21], Ologhobo and Fetuda [22] and Vidal-Valverde et
al. [23] reported that during soaking of Vicia faba, C.
arietinum, Cajanus cajan, Phaseolus vulgaris and Pha-
seolus mungo the starch content decreases between 6%
and 16%. These differences might be due to differences
in starch structure, seed size and membrane permeabil-
ity, since these factors may contribute to the different
solubilisations of starch during soaking. In faba beans
[23] and kidney beans [24] the pH during soaking did
not significantly affect the starch content, whilst Jood et
al. [20], working with V. faba, C. arietinum, P. vulgaris,
P. mungo and Ca. cajan found a large starch decrease
when soaking was carried out in basic solution com-
pared with water. Sathe et al. [25] reported for P. mun-
go that soaking at acidic and basic pH caused a reduc-
tion in the viscosity possibly because of a larger starch
breakdown giving rise to more sugar leaching. On the
other hand, Frias [26] reported that soaking lentils in
acidic and basic solution caused an increase in starch
content compared with water soaking. These different
results show that changes in starch content during soak-
ing seem to depend not only on the type of solution
employed but also on the legume investigated.
Soaking plus cooking caused a decrease in starch
content and reductions of 21–22% were also obtained,
irrespective of the previous soaking solution employed
(Table 1). Information in the literature about the effect
of soaking plus cooking on the starch content of chick-
peas is scarce. Various authors have reported that dur-
ing soaking and cooking the decrease in starch content
may be due not only to the type of legume and its phy-
sical characteristics [3, 21–23, 26–28], but also to wheth-
er or not a previous treatment has been carried out [21,
23, 28]. Our results indicate no significant differences in
starch content between the soaking treatment and the
soaking plus cooking treatment.
Dry heating caused larger losses in starch content
than those observed after soaking and cooking and a
26% reduction was obtained. These larger losses are
probably caused by the high temperature and pressure
used during dry heating, which could modify the starch
structure differently compared with the soaking and
cooking treatment. These results are in accordance with
those reported by Jood et al. [20] for V. faba, by Ologh-
obo and Futuda [22] for P. lunatus, and by Jood et al.
[21] for C. arietinum and Phaseolus. Kataria et al. [28]
showed that dry heating of soaked Phaseolus caused
larger starch reductions than in non-soaked Phaseolus.
Fructose and sucrose did not show significant
changes (P^0.05) after soaking compared with raw
342

Table 1 Effect of processing on available carbohydrate content of chickpeas. Values are the mean of four determinations B standard
deviation. The same superscript in the same column means no significant differences (P^0.05)

Cicer arietinum Starch Fructose Sucrose Total available

carbohydrates

g/100 g Reduc- g/100 g Reduc- g/100 g Reduc- g/100 g Reduc-

(d.m.) tion (d.m.) tion (d.m.) tion (d.m.) tion
(%) (%) (%) (%)

Unprocessed 52.56B1.66 0.12B0.02 ab 3.53B0.42 a 56.21

Water soaking 41.53B1.16 a 21 0.14B0.03 a P 3.29B0.35 a 7 44.81 20
Citric acid soaking 42.04B1.07 a 20 0.13B0.02 a P 3.49B0.25 a 1 45.66 19
Sodium bicarbonate soaking 41.81B2.63 a 20 0.11B0.01 b P 3.35B0.22 a 5 45.27 19
Water soaking c cooking 40.74B2.15 a 22 0.07B0.01 42 1.93B0.08 b 45 42.74 24
Citric acid soaking c cooking 40.99B1.70 a 22 0.02B0.01 83 1.76B0.07 b 50 42.77 24
Sodium bicarbonate soaking c cooking 41.64B2.77 a 21 0.04B0.02 67 1.78B0.09 b 50 43.46 23
Dry heating 38.95B1.43 26 0.16B0.01 P 3.40B0.32 a 4 42.51 24

chickpeas (Table 1). Cooking the soaked seeds brought
about a large decrease in both available sugars: fructose
showed a reduction between 42% and 83% and sucrose
between 45% and 50%. These results agree with those
published by Iyengar and Kulkarni [29] for lima beans,
Iyer et al. [30] for Phaseolus and Jood et al. [20, 21] for
different cultivars of chickpeas; these authors found
larger losses after cooking compared with the soaking
process.
Taking into account the fact that the total available
carbohydrate is the sum of starch, sucrose and fructose
(Table 1), it can be said that the three soaking treat-
ments carried out with chickpeas resulted in similar re-
ductions of 19–20%. Similarly, with the three cooking
treatments and dry heating a reduction of 23–24% oc-
curs. These results show that when soaking or heat
treatments are carried out on chickpeas, the total avail-
able carbohydrate content, as a whole, can still contri-
bute very much to the energetic intake of the diet, al-
though individual available carbohydrates can suffer
from the effect of processing in different ways.
Table 2 shows the content of raffinose, ciceritol, sta-
chyose and total a-galactosides in raw and processed
chickpeas. In raw seeds, ciceritol was present in the
largest amount (2.7%) followed by stachyose (1.7%)
and raffinose (0.5%), values which are in agreement
with the range found in the literature [21, 31–35].
As a consequence of soaking, the a-galactoside con-
tent suffered a decrease that was sharper when soaking
was carried out in water (a decrease of 27%) than
either in acidic or basic medium (17% and 16% reduc-
tions, respectively) (Table 2). The individual a-galacto-
sides behaved differently depending on the type of so-
lution, raffinose suffered a decrease of 20–22% in
chickpeas soaked in water and basic solution but only a
7% decrease after soaking in acidic solution. Ciceritol
decreased by 30–32% after soaking in acidic and basic
solution and by 40% when chickpeas were soaked in
water. Stachyose, however, showed only a slight de-
crease (7%) in water-soaked chickpeas whilst when
soaking was carried out in basic solution it suffered a
fair but significant increase (P^0.05).
These results are in agreement with the data found
in the literature for different legumes and, as a conse-
quence of soaking, a significant reduction of a-galacto-
sides is achieved when the soaking solutions are re-
moved. The decrease obtained depends not only on the
type of legume and soaking solution but also on the
process time and temperature [21, 23, 29, 30, 36–38].
The decrease obtained during the soaking process in
total carbohydrates and especially in a-galactosides
may be partly due to the solubilisation and leaching of
these compounds to the soaking solution and also to
some metabolic changes which take place during soak-
ing, since the a-galactosides, which are storage prod-
ucts, can be metabolised. Vidal-Valverde et al. [10] ob-
served this phenomenon during lentil soaking.
Greater reduction in total a-galactoside content was
achieved after the soaking plus cooking treatment (Ta-
ble 2), and the reduction obtained ranged between 45%
and 58%. In these treatments all individual a-galacto-
sides suffered a remarkable decrease. According to in-
formation from the literature, the elimination of a-gal-
actosides in legumes after soaking plus cooking seems
to be connected with the removal of the soaking and
cooking solution. When the processing liquids are not
discarded, a increase or no marked decreases in a-gal-
actoside content is observed [20–22, 25, 28, 39, 40]
whilst removing the processing solutions causes a large
reduction in a-galactosides [10, 23, 29, 30, 34].
Dry heating also caused a large a-galactoside de-
crease and a 46% reduction was obtained (Table 2).
Raffinose and stachyose underwent decreases of 57%
and 58% respectively, and a loss of 37% was observed
for ciceritol, results which are in agreement with those
presented by Jood et al. [20], who found that dry heat-
ing caused a 73% reduction of total a-galactosides in
chickpeas.
a-galactosides are considered as antinutritional fac-
tors because of their flatus production and discomfort
after consumption of legumes [9], and they can also be
associated with a low food intake in animal experi-
ments. Nestares et al. [41] fed rats with the same raw
and processed chickpeas used in the present paper and
 343

Table 2 Effect of processing on the a-galactoside content of chickpeas. Values are the mean of four determinations B standard
deviation. The same superscript in the same column means no significant differences (P^0.05)

C. arietinum Raffinose Ciceritol Stachyose Total a-galactosides

g/100 g Reduc- g/100 g Reduc- g/100 g Reduc- g/100 g Reduc-

(d.m.) tion (d.m.) tion (d.m.) tion (d.m.) tion
(%) (%) (%) (%)

Unprocessed 0.46B0.04 a 2.70B0.18 1.68B0.16 ab 4.84

Water soaking 0.36B0.05 b 22 1.61B0.08 40 1.57B0.10 a 7 3.53 27
Citric acid soaking 0.43B0.03 a 7 1.83B0.09 a 32 1.75B0.09 bc P 4.01 17
Sodium bicarbonate soaking 0.37B0.03 b 20 1.89B0.15 a 30 1.82B0.16 c P 4.08 16
Water soaking c cooking 0.17B0.02 63 1.82B0.13 a 33 0.68B0.09 d 60 2.67 45
Citric acid soaking c cooking 0.13B0.01 c 72 1.48B0.08 45 0.66B0.09 d 61 2.27 53
Sodium bicarbonate soaking c cooking 0.11B0.02 c 76 1.30B0.04 52 0.60B0.06 d 64 2.01 58
Dry heating 0.20B0.02 57 1.69B0.10 37 0.71B0.11 d 58 2.60 46

they reported that the food intake, expressed as grams In Phaseolus, Sathe et al. [25] reported losses of 3.3%
of diet per 100 g of body weight, was significantly and 13.3% after soaking the seeds in water or basic so-
greater for all processed diets than for raw chickpeas, lution. In soaked lentils, Batra et al. [49] observed TIA
which could be related to the decrease in a-galactosides losses of 58–66%, whilst Vidal-Valverde et al. [50] re-
obtained after processing. ported losses of only 4–11% depending on the type of
Table 3 shows changes in the content of trypsin inhi- soaking solution employed. These results indicate that
bitor activity (TIA) of chickpeas during processing. For the effect of soaking on the activity of trypsin inhibitors
raw chickpeas a TIA of 10.4 units/mg d.m. was ob- depends not only on the type of legume but also on the
tained, a content that is higher than that for peas, lentils pH of the soaking solution.
and faba beans [5, 42–44]. Soni et al. [45] reported that Cooking the soaked chickpeas completely elimi-
trypsin inhibitor levels in chickpeas were 66% of that nated TIA, irrespective of the type of soaking solution
for soya bean. employed (Table 4). Since compounds with TIA are
Soaking chickpeas in distilled water modified slight- heat labile, heat treatments seems to be effective in re-
ly TIA and a decrease of only 12% was found, whilst ducing the TIA. These results indicate that the cooking
soaking in citric acid and sodium bicarbonate did not treatment can inactivate the action of trypsin inhibitors,
affect TIA content (Table 4). Information found in the potentially improving legume protein digestibility. In
literature about the effect of soaking on TIA of chick- biological studies carried out on rats using the proc-
peas is very scarce. Hamza et al. [46] observed that essed chickpeas described in this paper, Nestares et al.
soaking of chickpeas, faba beans and lentils caused a [41] showed that the digestive utilisation of protein, ex-
decrease on electrophoretic bands of TIA. Vidal-Val- pressed as the apparent digestibility coefficient (ADC),
verde et al. [47] reported that soaking faba beans in increased compared with the protein ADC for raw
either water or sodium bicarbonate led to a decrease of chickpeas (78.7 for raw seeds and 82–84 for cooked
19% and 24% respectively, whilst soaking in citric acid chickpeas), showing that the effect of processing on the
did not influence the activity of trypsin inhibitors. Shar- increase in chickpea protein digestibility can be related
ma and Sehgal [48] also reported that TIA of faba to the decrease in the TIA of processed seeds. Savage
beans was not modified after 12 h of soaking in water. and Thomson [51] also reported that cooking chickpeas
in water increased the net protein utilisation by be-
tween 12% and 20%, and explained this effect as a re-
Table 3 Effect of processing on trypsin inhibitor activity (TIA) of
chickpeas; ND p not detected (less than 0.5 TIU/mg). Values are sult of trypsin inhibitor removal. These results indicate
the mean of four determinations B standard deviation that cooking can be considered as a means of obtaining
legume flour with reduced TIA levels and improved
C. arietinum TIA nutritional quality.
Units/mg Reduction Although cooking seems to destroy the TIA and im-
(d.m.) (%) prove protein digestibility, results found in the litera-
ture on the effect of heat on trypsin inhibitors are con-
Unprocessed 10.43B0.77 a troversial. Gallardo et al. [42] reported that the TIA
Water soaking 9.20B0.67 12
Citric acid soaking 10.47B0.46 a P
was different under heat conditions depending on the
Sodium bicarbonate soaking 10.77B0.75 a P type of legume, being heat stable in Phaseolus and heat
Water soaking c cooking ND 100 labile in V. faba. When high molecular weight proteins
Citric acid soaking c cooking ND 100 are among the compounds with TIA the heat inactiva-
Sodium bicarbonate soaking c ND 100 tion is more rapid, whereas the presence of other TIA
cooking
Dry heating 7.60B0.50 27 compounds such as phenolic compounds makes them
more heat resistant [52]. Sayeed and Njaa [53] reported
344
that as a consequence of cooking a sharp reduction of
TIA was observed in lentils and chickpeas, although it
was not eliminated completely. Vidal-Valverde et al.
[50] observed the total removal of TIA after cooking
presoaked lentils in different solutions, whereas in faba
beans TIA was totally removed only in cooked seeds
after soaking in water and citric acid. Hamza et al. [46]
reported that as a consequence of cooking the activity
of trypsin inhibitors in chickpeas, faba beans and lentils
was removed and electrophoretic bands were not
found. In chickpea seeds, Sotelo et al. [54] reported
that cooking caused a 57% reduction of TIA, whilst
Davinder-Kaur and Hira [55] observed total TIA elimi-
nation after cooking.
Table 3 shows that dry heating caused only a 27%
reduction in TIA. No information has been found on
the effect of dry heating on the TIA of chickpeas. In
faba beans, Griffiths [56] and Kozlowska et al. [57, 58]
observed the removal of TIA after dry heating, whilst
Vidal-Valverde et al. [23] found 31% TIA remaining
after dry heating for 15 min at 120 7C. In lentils, Sohon-
ie and Bhanderkar [59] observed that after 30 min of
dry heating the activity of trypsin inhibitors was elimi-
nated. However, Urbano et al. [60] noted a 58% loss in
the TIA of lentils after dry heating at 121 7C for 15 min
and Batra et al. [49] found that dry heating for 20 min
at 121 7C abolished TIA completely in lentils. The heat
source also seems to play an important role in remov-
ing TIA. Hung et al. [61] demonstrated that a large de-
crease in TIA was obtained when lentils were submit-
ted to microwave treatment for 2 min, and Rajkó et al.
[62] designed experiments for reducing TIA in soy-
beans by microwave energy. Kas et al. [63] reported
that TIA was removed from faba bean seeds treated
with an infrared source for 40–50 s (plus 120 s of keep-
ing time). Batra et al. [49], working with different heat
sources, concluded that water boiling was the most ef-
fective heat treatment for reducing TIA.
In conclusion, cooking the presoaked chickpeas in
either water, acidic or basic solution seems to be an ad-
equate treatment for obtaining a nutritious legume
flour since a fair decrease in starch was observed, the
largest a-galactoside reduction was produced and TIA
was completely eliminated, which improved the diges-
tive utilisation of the protein.
Acknowledgements This study was supported by Commision In-
terministerial de Ciencia y Tecnologia ALI 96-0480, and forms
part of the PhD of C. Sotomayor.
References
1. Aykroyd WR, Doughty J (1982) Las leguminosas en la nutri-
ción humana. Estudio FAO: Alimentacion y Nutricion No 20.
Organización de las naciones unidas para la agricultura y la
alimentación, Rome, pp1–136
2. Varela G, Moreiras O, Carbajal A, Campo M (1995) Estudio
nacional de nutrición y alimentación 1990/1991. Instituto Na-
cional de Estadísitica, Madrid, pp 1–351
3. Chavan JK, Kadam SS, Salunkhe DK (1986) CRC Crit Rev
Food Sci Nutr 25 : 107–158
4. Khan MA, Jacobsen I, Eggum BO (1979) J Sci Food Agric
30 : 395–400
5. Pak N, Barja I (1974) Arch Latinoam Nutr 23 : 495–506
6. Chandrasekharappa, G (1979) Nutr Rep Int, 18 : 401–7
7. Chavan JK, Kadam SS, Salunkhe DK (1989) Chickpeas. In:
Salunkhe DK, Kadam SS (eds) Handbook of world food leg-
umes: nutritional, processing, technology and utilization.
CRC, Boca Raton, pp 247–288
8. Dey PM (1980) Chem Biochem 37 : 283–372
9. Price KR, Lewis J, Wyatt GM, Fenwick GR (1988) Nahrung
6 : 609–626
10. Vidal-Valverde C, Frias J, Valverde S (1992) J Food Prot
55 : 301–306
11. Cristofaro E, Mottu F, Wuhrmann JJ (1972) Am Assoc Cer-
eal Chem 2 : 102–106
12. Calloway DH, Hickey CA, Murphy EL (1975) J Food Sci
36 : 251–255
13. Liener IE, Kakade ML (1980) Protease inhibitors. In: Liener
IE (ed) Toxic constitutents of plant foodstuffs. Academic,
New York, pp 7–71
14. Birk Y (1989) Protein protease inhibitors of plant origin and
their significance in nutrition. In: Huisman J, Van der Poel
TFB, Liener IE (eds) Recent advances of research in anti-
nutritional factors in legume seeds. Proceedings of the first
international workshop of antinutritional factors (ANF) in
legume seeds. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp 83–94
15. Frias J, Price K, Fenwick RG, Hedley CL, Vidal-Valverde C
(1994) J Liq Chromatogr 17 : 2469–2483
16. Li BW, Shuhmann PJ, Wolf WR (1985) J Agric Food Chem
33 : 531–536
17. Dahlqvist A (1964) Anal Biochem 7 : 18–27
18. Kakade, ML, Rackis JJ, McGhee JE, Puski G (1974) Cereal
Chem 51 : 376–382
19. Valdebouze P, Bergeron E, Gaborit T, Delort-Laval J
(1980)Can J Plant Sci 60 : 695–701
20. Jood S, Mehta U, Singh R (1986) J Agric Food Chem
34 : 417–420
21. Jood S, Chauhan BM, Kapoor AC (1988) Food Chem
30 : 113–127
22. Ologhobo AD, Fetuda BL (1988) Nahrung 32 : 173–177
23. Vidal-Valverde C, Frias J, Sotomayor C, Díaz-Pollán C, Fer-
nandez M, Urbano G (1998)Z Lebensm Unters Forsch A
207 : 140–145
24. Rockland LB, Jones FT (1974) J Food Sci 39 : 342–346
25. Sathe SK, Desphande SS, Salunkhe DK (1984)CRC Crit Rev
Food Sci Nutr 21 : 41–93
26. Frias J (1992) Eliminacion de alfa-galactosidos en lentejas
(Lens culinaris) mediante procesado. Efecto en el contenido
en almidon y fibra alimentaria. PhD thesis, Facultad de Far-
macia, Universidad Alcalá de Henares
27. El-Shahy KM, Fahmi AH, Hamed AS (1979) Newslett Faba
Bean Inform Serv 2 : 51–53
28. Kataria A, Chauhan BM, Punia D (1990)Food Chem
36 : 63–72
29. Iyengar AK, Kulkarni PR (1977) J Food Sci Technol
14 : 222–223
30. Iyer V, Salunkhe DK, Sathe SK, Rockland LB (1980) Qual
Plant Plant Food Hum Nutr 30 : 45–52
31. Lineback DR, Ke CH (1975) Cereal Chem 52 : 334–347
32. Jambunathan R, Singh U (1978) Studies on desi and Kabuli
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. In: Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Chickpeas. ICRISAT, Hydera-
bad, p 337
33. Reddy NR, Pierson MD, Sathe SK, Salunkhe DK (1984)
Food Chem 13 : 25–68
34. Vidal-Valverde C, Frias J, Valverde S (1993)J Am Diet Assoc
93 : 547–550
35. Singh U, Kherdekar MS, Jambunatham R (1982) J Food Sci
47 : 510–512
36. Kon S (1979)J Food Sci 44 : 1329–1334

37. Silva HC, Braga GL (1982) J Food Sci 47 : 924–929
38. Silva HC, Luh BS (1979) Can Inst Food Sci Technol
12 : 103–106
39. Rao PU, Belavady B (1978) J Agric Food Chem 26 : 316–319
40. Abdel-Gawad A S (1993) Food Chem 46 : 25–31
41. Nestares T, Lopez-Frias M, Barrionuevo M, Urbano G (1996)
J Agric Food Chem 44 : 2760–2765
42. Gallardo F, Araya H, Pak N, Tagle MA (1974) Arch Lati-
noam Nutr 24 : 183–189
43. Chavan JK, Hejgaard J (1981) J Sci Food Agric 32 : 857–862
44. Bacon J, Lambein N (1991) Aspects Appl Biol 27 : 199–201
45. Soni GL, Singh TP, Singh R (1978) Indian J Nutr Diet
15 : 341–345
46. Hamza MA, El-Tabey AM, Stegemann H (1987) Qual Plant
Plant Food Hum Nutr 36 : 139–142
47. Vidal-Valverde C, Frias J, Diaz-Pollán C, Fernandez M, Lo-
pez-Jurado M, Urbano G (1997) J Agric Food Chem
45 : 3559–3564
48. Sharma A, Sehgal S (1992) Plant Food Hum Nutr
42 : 127–131
49. Batra VP, Vasishta R, Dhindsa KS (1986) J Food Sci Technol
23 : 260–263
50. Vidal-Valverde C, Frias J, Estrella I, Gorospe MJ, Ruiz R,
Bacon J (1994) J Agric Food Chem 42 : 2291–2295
51. Savage GP, Thompson DR (1993) Effect of processing on the
trypsin inhibitor content and nutritive value of chickpeas
(Cicer arietinum). In: Huisman J, Van der Poel TFB, Liener
IE (eds) Recent advances of research in anti-nutritional fac-
tors in legume seeds. Proceedings of the second international
workshop of antinutritional factors (ANF) in legume seeds.
Pudoc, Wageningen, pp 435–440
View publication stats
345
52. De Lumen BO, Salamat LA (1980) J Agric Food Chem
28 : 533 –536
53. Sayeed S, Njaa LR (1986) Qual Plant Plant Food Hum Nutr
35 : 379–382
54. Sotelo A, Flores F, Hernandez M (1988) Plant Food Hum
Nutr 37 : 299–304
55. Davinder-Kaur R, Hira CK (1989) J Sci Food Agric
46 : 201–209
56. Griffiths DW (1983) Newslett Faba Bean Inform Serv 6 : 1–3
57. Kozlowska H, Borowska J, Fornal J, Scheneider C,
Schamndke H (1990) Acta Aliment Pol 15 : 161–165
58. Kozlowska H, Borowska J, Scheneider C (1990) Acta Ali-
ment Pol 15 : 171–177
59. Sohonie K, Bhanderkar AP (1955) J Sci Indust Res (India)
14C:100–106
60. Urbano G, Lopez-Jurado M, Hernandez J, Fernandez M,
Moreu MC, Frias J, Diaz-Pollan Prodanov M, Vidal-Valverde
C (1995) J Agric Food Chem 43 : 1871–1877
61. Hung ND, Cseke E, Vas M, Szabolcsi G (1984) J Food Sci
49 : 1543–1547
62. Rajkó R, Szabó G, Vidal-Valverde C, Kovács E. (1997) J Ag-
ric Food Chem 45 : 3565–35
63. Kas J, Fukal L, Kasafirek E, Cap M, Solc J (1986)Sbor Vys
Sko Chem Techn Praze 56 : 177–180