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

net/publication/23390380

Nutritional quality evaluation of eighteen date pit varieties

Article  in  International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition · October 2008

DOI: 10.1080/09637480802314639 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

123 1,145

2 authors:

Hosam Habib Wissam Ibrahim

Alexandria University United Arab Emirates University
74 PUBLICATIONS   1,483 CITATIONS    79 PUBLICATIONS   2,063 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Selenium metabolism in dromedary camel View project

EFFECTS OF CO2 DRIVEN ACIDIFICATION ON BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF THE SHRIMP LITOPENAEUS VANNAMEI View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wissam Ibrahim on 08 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Habib, Hosam]
On: 19 October 2008
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 904259645]
Publisher Informa Healthcare
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713425816

Nutritional quality evaluation of eighteen date pit varieties

Hosam M. Habib a; Wissam H. Ibrahim a
a
Department of Nutrition and Health, College of Food and Agriculture, United Arab Emirates University, Al-
Ain, United Arab Emirates

First Published on: 16 October 2008

To cite this Article Habib, Hosam M. and Ibrahim, Wissam H.(2008)'Nutritional quality evaluation of eighteen date pit
varieties',International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition,
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09637480802314639
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09637480802314639

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition
2008, 1
13, iFirst article

Nutritional quality evaluation of eighteen date pit

varieties

HOSAM M. HABIB & WISSAM H. IBRAHIM

Department of Nutrition and Health, College of Food and Agriculture, United Arab Emirates
University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates

Abstract
The pits from date palm fruits (Phoenix dactylifera L.) are nutrient dense but the nutrient
composition across varieties has not been extensively studied. In the present study, 18 leading
varieties of date pits from date fruits cultivated in the United Arab Emirates (Khalas, Barhe,
Lulu, Shikat alkahlas, Sokkery, Bomaan, Sagay, Shishi, Maghool, Sultana, Fard, Maktoomi,
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

Naptit Saif, Jabri, Kodary, Dabbas, Raziz and Shabebe) were analyzed and compared for their
chemical and physical properties. Dietary fiber, proximate analysis, micronutrients, and
physical properties (weight, length, and density) were determined. Significant differences
(P B0.05) in the measured parameters were observed among the different varieties. The results
show that date pits, depending on the variety, contain significant but quite variable amounts of
macronutrients and micronutrients, but all varieties are excellent sources of dietary fiber and
may therefore serve as important constituents of functional foods.

Keywords: Date pits, dietary fiber, mineral content, proximate analysis, physical properties,
functional foods

Introduction
The date palm Phoenix dactylifera L. is cultivated in dry and semi-arid regions in the
world and is mostly found between latitudes 108N and 398N (Aldhaheri et al. 2004).
Date palm is the highest fruit crop grown in the United Arab Emirates (UAE),
occupying about 30% of the cultivated land (MAF, 2000). The annual production of
raw dates reached 757,601 tons in the year 2000 (MAF, 2000). In most cases, date
pits end up as waste products of many date fruit-processing plants. Date pits are also
ground and added to the feed of some animals. In addition, date pits are used in
making a caffeine-free drink that can substitute for non-caffeinated coffee when
coffee-related flavor is desired. Such a drink has been used in the Arab world for
centuries. A commercial product (date pits powder used as a coffee substitute) has
also been introduced recently to the market (Rahman et al. 2007). Date pits could
potentially be used as ingredients in the production of some functional foods for
human consumption through enhancing the nutritional value of several food products;
for example, increasing the fiber content of bakery products.

Correspondence: Dr Hosam M. Habib, Department of Nutrition and Health, College of Food and
Agriculture, United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, P.O.B. 17555, United Arab Emirates. Tel: 971 3
7134496. Fax: 971 3 7675336. E-mail: hosamh@uaeu.ac.ae

ISSN 0963-7486 print/ISSN 1465-3478 online # 2008 Informa UK Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/09637480802314639
 2 H. M. Habib & W. H. Ibrahim

The chemical composition, including proximate analysis, crude fiber, and macro-
nutrients and micronutrients, of some date palm seeds from different regions of the
world have been reported (Mossa et al. 1986; Al-Showiman 1990; Belal and
Al-Owafeir 2004; Al-Masri 2005). However, to our knowledge, data on the dietary
fiber content of date pits are lacking and the data available regarding the proximate
analysis and the macronutrient and micronutrient content of date pits from date
varieties cultivated in the UAE are limited. Therefore, the purpose of the present study
was to determine the dietary fiber and macronutrient and micronutrient contents and
proximate analysis of 18 date pit varieties from date fruits cultivated in the UAE.

Materials and methods

Materials
Date palm fruits were obtained from the Al Ain Dates Factory. The seeds of the 18
varieties under investigation were directly isolated from date fruits having the same
origin and collected at the ‘Tamr Stage’ (full ripeness). The seeds were soaked in
water, washed to get rid of any adhering date flesh, and then air-dried. Their relative
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

percentage weight was compared with the weight of the fresh fruits. Date pits of each
variety were separately ground to powder form in a heavy-duty grinder (IKA M 20
Universal Mill; IKA werke GmbH Co. KG, Staufen, Germany).
Chemical analysis of powdered date pits
Dry matter. This was determined according to the Association of Official Analytical
Chemists (method 934.01) (AOAC, 2003).

Protein content. Total protein was determined by the Kjeldahl method. Protein was
calculated using the general factor (6.25) (El-Shurafa et al. 1982).

Fat content. Fat was measured by extracting with light petroleum ether and then
removing the solvent by distillation. The residue was dried at 1038C and the fat
content determined gravimetrically (Besbes et al. 2004).

Dietary fiber. Determination of dietary fiber was carried out using the AOAC
enzymatic
gravimetric official method (Method 991.43) (AOAC, 2003).

Minerals. Samples were prepared for the determination of minerals as described by

Heckman (1971). The minerals were determined using inductively coupled plasma
atomic emission spectrometry (Varian-Vista-MPX; Varian, Inc. Palo Alto, CA, USA)
as outlined in the manufacturer’s manual.

Carbohydrate content. Carbohydrate content was estimated by difference of mean

values: 100
(sum of percentages of moisture, ash, protein, lipids and dietary fiber)
(Al-Hootii et al. 1998; Besbes et al. 2004).

Physical measurements of date pits

Physical measurements were carried out according to Ismail et al. (2006). Thirty seeds
from each variety were selected randomly; each seed was subjected to physical
 Nutritional quality evaluation of date pit varieties 3

measurements as follows: seeds weight were determined, followed by length and

diameter using a micrometer caliper, while the volume was determined according to
the method of water displacement, and the seed density was calculated as weight over
volume.

Statistical analysis
All analytical determinations were performed in duplicate. Statistical analysis was
performed using SPSS for windows (version 14; SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA).
The data obtained were analyzed using analysis of variances to determine the
significance (P B0.05) of the main effects followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison
test for significance of differences. Values of different parameters are expressed as the
mean9standard deviation.

Results and discussion

Proximate analysis
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

Table I presents the chemical analysis of the 18 different UAE date pit varieties;
moisture, protein, fat, ash and carbohydrate levels showed significant (P B0.05)
differences among the 18 varieties. Moisture levels ranged between 8.64% and
12.45%. The Khalas variety had the lowest moisture content, while the Raziz variety
had the highest content. Protein levels ranged between 4.81% and 5.83%, with
Shabebe containing the lowest and Maktoomi the highest protein content. Fat content
ranged between 5.71% and 7.92%. Sagay had the lowest fat content, whereas Khalas
had the highest fat content. Ash content ranged between 0.82% and 1.14%. Lulu had
the lowest ash content, whereas Maghool had the highest ash content. Carbohydrate
level ranged between 2.43% and 4.65%. Barhe had the lowest carbohydrate content,
whereas Lulu had the highest carbohydrate content. Differences in nutrient
composition of date pits among the varieties grown in the same country, or different
regions, can probably be attributed to the differences in time of harvest, post-harvest
treatments, and the use of fertilizers. The proximate analysis values of date pits found
in the current study are within the range of values presented earlier in the literature
(Alwash and DePeters 1982; El shurafa et al. 1982; Sumianah et al. 1984; Al-Hooti
et al. 1998; Hamada et al. 2002; Aldhaheri et al. 2004; Besbes et al. 2004; Belal and
Al-Owafeir 2004; Al-Masri 2005; Ismail et al. 2006; Al-Farsi et al. 2007; Rahman
et al. 2007).

Dietary fiber composition

The dietary fiber content of date pits is presented in Table I. To our knowledge, our
study is the first to report the dietary fiber content of date pits. Dietary fiber showed
significant (P B0.05) differences among several of the 18 varieties of date seeds tested.
The range was between 67.56% and 74.20%. Raziz had a significantly lower
percentage of fiber than Fard, which had the highest percentage of dietary fiber.
Thus, date pits may serve as excellent sources of dietary fiber. The differences
observed among the 18 date pit varieties could be related to the stage of maturation,
as during the ripening process enzymes gradually break down these substances to
more soluble compounds (Fennema 1996). Dietary fiber consists mainly of cellulose,
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

4
H. M. Habib & W. H. Ibrahim
Table I. Proximate analysis and dietary fiber composition of date pits.

Component

Date pit variety Moisture Protein Fat Ash Dietary fiber Carbohydrate

Khalas 8.6490.23A 5.8490.01H 7.9290.06G 0.9690.01CDEFG 72.7290.26EFGH 3.9490.53B

Barhe 10.6490.30DEF 5.6890.01EF 7.5290.05EF 1.0690.01FGHI 72.6990.22EFGH 2.4390.49A
Lulu 11.9890.28GH 5.1490.35B 7.3790.06E 0.8290.01A 70.0590.03B 4.6590.14B
Shikat alkahlas 9.6090.06B 5.3290.35C 7.3990.01E 0.9790.05CDFG 72.7090.01EFGH 4.0390.14B
Sokkery 12.1490.14H 6.4390.00I 6.5290.09C 0.9690.01BCDE 70.4090.74BC 3.5690.52AB
Bomaan 9.6290.30B 5.3890.00C 6.4290.02BC 1.0290.01EFGH 74.0090.22GH 3.5890.10AB
Sagay 10.7890.14EF 5.3390.01C 5.7190.08A 0.9990.03DEFGH 73.2890.61EFGH 3.9290.35AB
Shishi 10.4190.07CDE 5.7090.02FG 6.2090.11B 0.9490.02BCDE 73.0790.45EFGH 3.7090.37AB
Maghool 9.7990.26BC 5.5590.01DE 6.5290.01C 1.1490.01I 73.3690.96EFGH 3.6690.70AB
Sultana 10.0490.00BCD 5.1890.00B 6.6490.01C 0.9190.02ABCD 74.0590.28GH 3.2090.26AB
Fard 8.6990.00A 5.8290.08GH 6.5190.06C 1.0290.01EFGH 74.2090.15H 3.7790.03AB
Maktoomi 9.7790.21BC 5.8390.00H 7.5390.01EF 1.0790.02GHI 72.0790.16DEF 3.7590.35AB
Naptit saif 10.1890.23BCDE 5.7090.01FG 6.9290.04D 0.8490.01AB 72.8790.00EFGH 3.5190.26AB
Jabri 9.9090.02BC 5.4290.08CD 7.0790.11D 0.9690.01CDEF 73.4790.42FGH 3.2090.64AB
Khodary 10.1790.12BCDE 5.3690.04C 7.6890.01FG 0.8790.01ABC 72.5290.32EFG 3.4190.13AB
Dabbas 12.2590.26H 5.1390.03B 6.9390.02D 0.9290.01ABCDE 70.8990.21BCD 3.8990.04AB
Raziz 12.4590.09H 6.9390.04J 8.7790.01H 0.9990.01DEFGH 67.5690.37A 3.3090.0.33AB
Shabebe 11.3590.18FG 4.8190.01A 7.7390.16FG 1.0990.09HI 71.8090.07CDE 3.2390.35AB

Data expressed as g/100 g on a fresh weight basis. Different uppercase superscript letters in a column denote significant differences, P B0.05.
 Nutritional quality evaluation of date pit varieties 5

non-cellulosic polysaccharides (formerly referred to as ‘hemicellulose’) and pectin.

Lignin is also often classified as a dietary fiber. Cellulose is insoluble in water, but
non-cellulosic polysaccharides (heteropolymers of mainly arabinose, xylose and
galactose) and pectin are partially soluble (Myhara et al. 1999). Although no Daily
Recommended Intake/Recommended Daily Allowance has been set, nutrition
professionals agree on the benefits of increased consumption of dietary fiber and
generally recommend an intake of at least 25 g/day. Because of different health
benefits of insoluble fiber and soluble fiber, further studies are warranted to determine
amounts and profiles of these nutrients in date pits.

Micronutrient (macroelements) composition

Table II shows the micronutrient (macroelements) composition [calcium (Ca),
phosphorus (P), sodium (Na), potassium (K) and magnesium (Mg)] of date seeds
for the 18 varieties. The level of K was the highest, followed by P, Mg, Ca, and Na
levels; and the results show significant (P B0.05) differences among several of the 18
varieties. Ca levels ranged between 13.83 mg/100 g and 34 mg/100 g; Shishi had the
lowest level, while Khalas had the highest level. P levels ranged between 110.09 mg/
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

100 g and 134.05 mg/100 g; Raziz had the lowest level, while Lulu had the highest
level. Na levels ranged between 7.53 mg/100g and 13.64 mg/100 g; Lulu had the
lowest level, while Bomaan had the highest level. K levels ranged between 175.02 mg/
100 g and 240.54 mg/100 g; Raziz had the lowest level, while Maktoomi had the
highest level. Mg levels ranged between 58.76 mg/100 g and 89.66 mg/100 g;
Khodary had the lowest level, while Maktoomi had the highest level.

Micronutrient (essential trace elements) composition

The micronutrient (essential trace elements) composition [iron (Fe), zinc (Zn),
copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo) and selenium (Se)] of
date seeds for the 18 varieties is presented in Table III. Fe was the highest, followed by
Zn, Mn, Cu, Mo and Co levels. The results showed significant (P B0.05) differences
among several of the 18 varieties. Fe ranged between 1.32 mg/100 g and 3.44 mg/
100 g; Dabbas had the lowest level, while Khalas had the highest level. Zn ranged
between 1.02 mg/100 g and 1.63 mg/100 g; Sultana had the lowest level, while Barhe
had the highest level. Cu ranged between 0.14 mg/100 g and 0.56 mg/100 g; Sultana
had the lowest level, while Bomaan had the highest level. Mn ranged between 0.55
mg/100 g and 1.33 mg/100 g; Maghool had the lowest level, while Raziz had the
highest level. Co ranged between 0.0006 mg/100 g and 0.0273 mg/100 g; Khodary
had the lowest level, while Raziz had the highest level. Mo ranged between 0.13 mg/
100 g and 0.21 mg/100 g; Khodary had the lowest level, while Shikat alkahlas had the
highest level. Se was not detected in any of the varieties at the detection limits tested.

Micronutrient (possibly essential trace elements) composition

Table IV show the composition of possibly essential trace elements [aluminum (Al),
arsenic (As), barium (Ba), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb),
strontium (Sr), vanadium (V)] of date seeds for 18 different varieties. Cr was the
highest, followed by Al, Sr, Ni, Ba, Pb, As, Cd, V and Se levels. They show significant
(PB0.05) differences among several of the 18 varieties. Al ranged between 0.93 mg/
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

6
H. M. Habib & W. H. Ibrahim
Table II. Micronutrient (macroelements) composition of date pits.

Component

Date pit variety Ca P Na K Mg

Khalas 34.0090.09J 133.2990.02GH 9.1090.00CD 202.1990.01BC 63.5590.12ABC

Barhe 30.0590.05I 122.9790.01DEF 8.0890.00AB 222.1990.01CDE 73.2190.00DEFGH
Lulu 19.8990.25DE 134.0592.72H 7.5390.08A 204.2293.83BCD 68.5191.05BCDE
Shikat alkahlas 20.7390.54DEF 125.8291.02EFG 9.0590.06BCD 217.5892.90CDE 86.1091.93IJ
Sokkery 14.6491.09AB 116.8790.87ABCD 8.6790.35BC 217.9294.09CDE 67.4792.02ABCDE
Bomaan 25.0691.07H 122.3990.31CDEF 13.6490.05H 206.82910.46BCD 77.0192.91FGH
Sagay 16.8590.65BC 121.8490.10CDEF 12.7190.03H 216.71915.64CDE 65.4094.98ABCD
Shishi 13.8390.21A 120.2490.12BCDE 9.2090.20CDE 209.4996.34BCD 71.5791.23CDEFG
Maghool 22.7090.06EFGH 146.5093.01I 15.4290.33I 240.2396.91E 74.9290.55EFGH
Sultana 18.0090.21CD 134.6890.38H 7.5390.68A 222.4792.53CDE 77.6191.56GHI
Fard 24.2190.05GH 115.9590.76ABCD 10.4790.11F 238.7994.13E 72.4091.82DEFGH
Maktoomi 20.6090.20DEF 173.0790.26J 11.6490.22G 240.5498.40E 89.6693.44J
Naptit saif 16.1391.43ABC 127.9290.05FGH 9.7090.26DEF 188.9193.03AB 76.7293.28FGH
Jabri 13.4190.47FGH 146.7792.32I 10.1090.02EF 226.2895.62DE 81.1490.88HIJ
Khodary 21.8190.86EFG 115.3491.32ABC 10.2490.10F 213.2591.34CD 58.7691.26A
Dabbas 24.5591.10GH 127.9193.13FGH 9.4990.33CDEF 225.9893.92CDE 62.6890.53AB
Raziz 20.1191.24DE 110.0994.65A 7.2490.07A 175.0290.37A 69.5492.83BCDEFG
Shabebe 24.4290.32GH 113.8692.38AB 7.3890.20A 239.4090.87E 67.6391.49BCDE

Data expressed as mg/100 g on a fresh weight basis. Different uppercase superscript letters in a column denote significant differences, PB0.05.
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

Table III. Micronutrient (essential trace elements) composition of date pits.

Component

Date pit variety Fe Zn Cu Mn Co Mo

Khalas 3.438890.0668J 1.454490.1257ABC 0.324390.0194ABCDEF 1.054890.0608GHI 0.001390.0004AB 0.147190.0095AB

Barhe 3.152090.0838I 1.631290.0018C 0.373290.0335BCDEF 0.942590.0067EFGH 0.002590.0000ABC 0.162590.0020AB
Lulu 1.627590.0325BCD 1.396590.1406ABC 0.513290.0223DEF 0.800290.0143BCDE 0.001590.0007ABC 0.181690.0087BC
Shikat alkahlas 1.824290.0390DE 1.129790.0224AB 0.276190.0288ABCD 0.918390.0098DEFGH 0.002290.0004ABC 0.214590.0042C

Nutritional quality evaluation of date pit varieties

Sokkery 2.42990.0608H 1.298790.1528ABC 0.236290.0544ABC 0.772490.0861BCD 0.001390.0005AB 0.168590.0096ABC
Bomaan 2.144090.04623G 1.534090.0778BC 0.560190.1480EF 1.058890.0194HI 0.018090.0001F 0.166890.0041ABC
Sagay 2.208590.0369GH 1.538990.1869BC 0.281490.0224ABCD 0.744490.0461BC 0.003790.0002CD 0.170090.0012ABC
Shishi 2.129090.0155G 1.554290.1714BC 0.185890.0034AB 0.748090.0335BC 0.002390.0003ABC 0.172890.0112ABC
Maghool 5.045590.0394K 1.621390.0825C 0.219590.0061ABC 0.551290.0304A 0.003390.0000BCD 0.191390.0022BC
Sultana 1.401790.0157AB 1.016390.0319A 0.138990.0065A 0.734490.0424BC 0.000790.0001A 0.178290.0238ABC
Fard 2.124190.0985FG 1.630390.2228C 0.468090.0958DEF 0.976990.0682FGHI 0.004890.0001D 0.172390.0011ABC
Maktoomi 1.518890.0694ABC 1.349990.01547ABC 0.217790.0194ABC 0.894790.0330CDEFG 0.001890.0000ABC 0.192290.0024BC
Naptit saif 1.847090.16942DEF 1.310390.0885ABC 0.206190.0203AB 0.790090.0014BCDE 0.002590.0003ABC 0.168190.0349ABC
Jabri 2.008290.1028EFG 1.200090.0113ABC 0.252690.0052ABC 0.686090.0034AB 0.002690.0003ABCD 0.191890.0002BC
Khodary 1.362490.0619AB 1.422990.1303ABC 0.398190.0294CDEF 0.855290.0337CDEF 0.000690.0000A 0.131290.0082A
Dabbas 1.315290.0401A 1.220290.0818ABC 0.455690.0278DEF 1.123290.0157I 0.002790.0001ABCD 0.154490.0038AB
Raziz 3.014290.0110I 1.230690.1400ABC 0.266190.0015ABC 1.328590.0646J 0.027390.0007G 0.156790.0159AB
Shabebe 1.712890.0054CD 1.272690.0482ABC 0.317490.0028ABCD 0.941290.0125EFGH 0.011290.0019E 0.158290.0076AB

Data expressed as mg/100 g on a fresh weight basis. Different uppercase superscript letters in a column denote significant differences, P B0.05.

7
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

8
Table IV. Micronutrient (possible essential trace elements) composition of date pits.

H. M. Habib & W. H. Ibrahim

Component

Date pit variety Al As Ba Cd Cr

Khalas 1.438590.0008CDE 0.008290.0009CDE 0.002390.0000A 0.000690.0000ABC 3.572590.0643E

Barhe 1.025690.0025AB 0.009490.0008DE 0.002290.0000A 0.000590.0000ABC 3.081590.0954D
Lulu 1.421690.0791CDE 0.017190.0012GHI 0.042390.0024A 0.000590.0004ABC 0.150290.0010A
Shikat alkahlas 1.348390.0388CD 0.003690.0001AB 0.042090.0129A 0.000890.0000ABCD 0.150690.0021A
Sokkery 1.673890.0196EF 0.000490.0061A 0.030990.0062A 0.000590.0000ABC 0.207190.0207A
Bomaan 3.391790.08214I 0.021590.0021I 0.060090.0036AB 0.000690.0000ABC 3.029190.0554D
Sagay 2.805990.0417H 0.010990.0020EF 0.060190.0064AB 0.000490.0000ABC 0.147390.0026A
Shishi 1.034390.0388AB 0.019990.0016HI 0.058090.0058AB 0.000390.0000A 0.173790.0031A
Maghool 1.886190.0858FG 0.015290.0015FG 0.048590.0087A 0.001390.0001DE 0.476090.0177B
Sultana 2.129190.0802G 0.005390.0002ABCD 0.027690.0037A 0.000590.0000ABC 0.132890.0117A
Fard 1.219990.0632BC 0.032690.0021J 0.062290.0147AB 0.000690.0000ABCD 0.148390.0095A
Maktoomi 4.543990.0254J 0.015890.0009GH 0.030790.0063A 0.000390.0000ABC 0.115490.0067A
Naptit saif 1.036390.0437AB 0.004790.0019ABC 0.041890.0000A 0.001290.0000CDE 0.158090.0064A
Jabri 1.883690.0012FG 0.002890.0001A 0.041890.0005A 0.001090.0000BCDE 0.151790.0188A
Khodary 2.996090.2162H 0.005790.0004ABCD 0.041990.0003A 0.000590.0001ABC 0.130890.0008A
Dabbas 0.927390.0043A 0.008190.0006BCDE 0.031290.0025A 0.000990.0000ABCD 0.103190.0097A
Raziz 1.894390.0319FG 0.004790.0009ABC 0.322290.0700C 0.001690.0007DE 4.243090.0791F
Shabebe 1.543190.0536DE 0.005690.0003ABCD 0.127490.0070B 0.000390.0000AB 1.711590.0011C
Ni Pb Sr V
ABC BC FGH
Khalas 0.110990.0138 0.019390.0036 0.370690.0354 0.001490.0002A
Barhe 0.130890.0004BCD 0.005490.0004AB 0.502990.0029I 0.001490.0001A
Lulu 0.119090.0019ABC 0.005890.0000AB 0.266890.0210CDE 0.000290.0000A
Shikat alkahlas 0.139390.0041BCDE 0.011390.0013ABC 0.265490.0541CDE 0.001890.0002A
Sokkery 0.197390.0061F 0.007790.0036ABC 0.312290.0141EFG 0.000590.0004A
Bomaan 0.630890.0021H 0.017190.0020ABC 0.534390.0001I 0.014890.0003C
Sagay 0.156090.0062DE 0.014190.0072ABC 0.120790.0008AB 0.000990.0006A
Shishi 0.171290.0068EF 0.011290.0105ABC 0.195690.0040BCD 0.001390.0003A
Maghool 0.202790.0129F 0.012590.0020ABC 0.881790.0076K 0.001690.0009A
Sultana 0.107690.0063ABC 0.004190.0034A 0.398190.0178GH 0.002490.0001A
Fard 0.134690.0083BCDE 0.011190.0004ABC 0.191790.0201BC 0.001290.0003A
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

Table IV (Continued)

Ni Pb Sr V

Maktoomi 0.144290.0058CDE 0.003590.0003A 0.454890.0420HI 0.001390.0000A

Naptit saif 0.139990.0043BCDE 0.004690.0017AB 0.081990.0250A 0.000290.0000A
Jabri 0.119490.0095ABCD 0.004190.0057A 0.776390.0176J 0.000590.0002A
Khodary 0.086990.0009A 0.003390.0000A 0.059690.0019A 0.000690.0003A
Dabbas 0.103790.0071AB 0.003290.0002A 0.282890.0049DEF 0.001590.0004A
Raziz 0.817490.0162I 0.010590.0013ABC 0.142390.0108AB 0.026490.0037D
Shabebe 0.458490.0252G 0.021390.0005C 0.324290.0103EFG 0.012490.0006B

Data expressed as mg/100 g on a fresh weight basis. Different uppercase superscript letters in a column denote significant differences, PB0.05.

Nutritional quality evaluation of date pit varieties

9
 10 H. M. Habib & W. H. Ibrahim

100 g and 4.54 mg/100 g; Dabbas had the lowest level, while Maktoomi had the
highest level. As ranged between 0.003 mg/100 g and 0.031 mg/100 g; Jabri had the
lowest level, while Fard had the highest level. Ba ranged between 0.002 mg/100 g and
0.322 mg/100 g; Barhe and Khalas had the lowest level, while Raziz had the highest
level. Cd ranged between 0.0003 mg/100 g and 0.0016 mg/100 g; Shishi had the
lowest level, while Raziz had the highest level. Cr ranged between 0.1 mg/100 g and
4.24 mg/100 g; Dabbas had the lowest level, while Raziz had the highest level. Ni
ranged between 0.09 mg/100 g and 0.82 mg/100 g; Khodary had the lowest level,
while Raziz had the highest level. Pb ranged between 0.003 mg/100 g and 0.021 mg/
100 g; Dabbas and Khodary had the lowest level, while Shabebe had having the
highest level. Sr ranged between 0.06 mg/100 g and 0.88 mg/100 g; Khodary had the
lowest level, while Maghool had the highest level. V ranged between 0.0002 mg/100 g
and 0.0264 mg/100 g; Naptit saif had the lowest level, while Raziz had the highest
level.
Comparable levels of macroelements and trace elements were reported by Al-hooti
et al. (1998), Al-Showiman (1990), Besbes et al. (2004), Devshony et al. (1992), El-
Shurafa et al. (1982), Mossa et al. (1986), Rahman et al. (2007), Sawaya, et al. (1984)
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

and Sumianah et al. (1984) in date pits from various date cultivars. Differences in the
levels of minerals among different date pit varieties may be due to genetic differences,
time of harvest, post-harvest treatments, fertilizers, quality of irrigation water,
differences in soil mineral availability, and environmental factors. Results from this
study and other studies clearly show that date pits have significant mineral contents.
Minerals have many health benefits. They are generally important as constituents of
bones, teeth, soft tissues, hemoglobin, muscle, blood, and nerve cells. Minerals are
also vital to overall mental and physical well-being (Sardesai 1998; O’Dell and Sunde
1997).

Physical properties
Significant variations were observed in physical properties among the 18 date pit
varieties, as presented in Table V. The physical properties of the 18 varieties fell within
the ranges reported by Ismail et al. (2006), Nour et al. (1986), Sawaya et al. (1983)
and Sourial et al. (1986), with some exceptions. Variations may exist in the physical
properties of the same date fruits varieties grown in different regions. This can be
attributed to several factors. Basha and Abo-Hassan (1982) found that soil
fertilization could affect the weight, volume, diameter, and length of date fruits.
Chemical fertilization such as nitrogen caused an increase in the date fruit weight,
length, and diameter (Hussein and Hussein 1982a). Irrigation can also contribute to
physical variations. Hussein and Hussein (1982b) reported that higher irrigation rates
increased the fruit weight, length, and diameter. Variations in physical properties of
dates could also be attributed to other environmental factors, such as daily
temperatures and duration of the growing period, and to other post-harvest
treatments, such as further drying or moistening of the fruit (Ismail et al. 2006). It
is conceivable that factors which affect the physical properties of date fruits are also
likely to affect those of date pits.
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

Table V. Physical properties of date pits.

Component

Date pit variety Mass (g) Length (mm) Diameter (mm) Percentage from fruit Volume (ml) Density (g/ml)

Khalas 0.8290.09DEF 21.8790.86I 7.0390.41B 7.8291.17CD 0.7990.33D 1.0490.26CDEF

Barhe 0.7590.09BCD 17.5390.73A 7.8390.65EF 7.9890.96CDE 0.7590.58D 1.0090.15BCD
Lulu 0.7990.08D 18.4590.94BC 7.9090.66EF 10.1391.58GH 0.8090.56D 0.9990.11BCD
Shikat alkahlas 0.7990.10D 21.5790.97HI 7.7090.47DEF 9.5391.78FG 0.6690.46C 1.2090.16FGH
Sokkery 1.2690.17K 18.6791.06C 9.3390.48H 11.4791.76I 1.2990.14G 0.9890.17BCD

Nutritional quality evaluation of date pit varieties 11

Bomaan 1.0090.05HI 17.2090.55A 8.4790.51FG 9.1890.89EFG 1.0590.09F 0.9690.09BC
Sagay 1.0690.25IG 23.6090.77J 8.1090.48FG 6.9291.57ABC 0.8990.89E 1.2090.31FGH
Shishi 0.6990.07ABC 20.4090.86EF 7.7090.65DEF 6.5590.85AB 0.6490.13C 1.1490.36DEFG
Maghool 1.1090.12J 20.9391.44FGH 9.3390.44H 7.4891.45BC 1.0990.08F 1.0290.13CDE
Sultana 0.8090.091DE 17.7790.68AB 7.6390.62CDEF 6.2991.46AB 1.2590.13G 0.6490.09A
Fard 0.6090.06A 21.4391.04GHI 6.3390.48A 6.1090.78A 0.4190.05A 1.4790.20IJ
Maktoomi 0.9390.05GH 20.6790.61FG 8.4390.50FG 9.2591.11FG 0.7890.03D 1.1890.07EFGH
Naptit saif 0.8090.03DE 19.7791.19DE 7.8390.65EF 7.3990.56BC 0.6290.03C 1.3190.08HI
Jabri 0.7390.03BCD 18.4790.86BC 7.4790.51BCDE 6.1190.60A 0.6190.58C 1.2290.13GH
Khodary 0.7890.15CD 23.4791.31J 7.2091.00BCD 7.9491.72CD 0.5190.06B 1.5690.34J
Dabbas 0.6690.05AB 18.8790.82C 7.1790.46BC 10.8891.2HI 0.7990.07D 0.8590.12B
Raziz 0.9190.08FGH 18.6390.77C 7.8790.73EF 9.7891.23FGH 0.8190.07D 1.1290.16CDEFG
Shabebe 0.8990.11EFG 19.2390.86CD 7.7090.47DEF 8.8692.28DEF 0.6590.06C 1.3990.20I

Different uppercase superscript letters in a column denote significant differences, PB0.05.

 12 H. M. Habib & W. H. Ibrahim

Conclusion
The results presented in this study show that the varieties of date pits analyzed serve as
excellent sources of dietary fiber, and that they contain considerable amounts of some
minerals, lipids, and protein. This in addition to other nutritive values, such as their
content of antioxidants (Ibrahim et al. 2005; Al-Farsi et al. 2007), render date pits an
excellent ingredient in the production of functional foods. The results from the
current and previous studies also show that the amounts of nutrients differ among
different varieties of date pits. Further research is needed to assess the value of date pit
varieties as functional food components and to further identify the quality and the
digestive and absorptive availability of these nutrients.

References
Aldhaheri A, Alhadrami G, Aboalnaga N, Wasfi I, Elridi M. 2004. Chemical composition of date pits and
reproductive hormonal status of rats fed date pits. Food Chem 86:93
97.
Al-Farsi M, Alasalvar C, Al-Abid M, Al-Shoaily K, Al-Amry M, Al-Rawahy F. 2007. Compositional and
functional characteristics of dates, syrupe, and their by-products. Food Chem 3:943
947.
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

Al-Hootii S, Sidhu JS, Qabzard H. 1998. Chemical composition of seeds date fruit cultivars of United Arab
Emirates. J Food Sci Technol 35:44
46.
Al-Masri MR. 2005. Nutritive value of some agricultural wastes as affected by relatively low gamma
irradiation levels and chemical treatments. Bioresource Technol 96:1737
1741.
Al-Showiman SS. 1990. Chemical composition of some date palm seeds (Phoenix dactylifera L.) in Saudi
Arabia. Arab Gulf J Sci Res 8:15
24.
Alwash AH, DePeters EJ. 1982. The use of date stones for feeding and fattening ruminant animals. World
Rev Anim Prod 18:30
32.
AOAC. 2003. Official methods of analyses. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
Basha MA, Abo-Hassan AA. 1982. Effects of soil fertilization on yield, fruit quality and mineral content of
Khudari date palm variety. In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Date Palm, King
Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, 23
25 March.
Belal IEH, Al-Owafeir MA. 2004. Incorporating date pits Phoenix dactylifera and their sprouts in semi
purified diets for nile tilapia Oreochromis niloticus (L.). J World Aqua Soc 4:452
459.
Besbes S, Blecker C, Deroanne C, Drira N, Nour-Eddine, Attia H. 2004. Date seeds: Chemical
composition and characteristic profiles of the lipid fraction. Food Chem 84:577
585.
Devshony S, Eteshola A, Shani A. 1992. Caracterisation and some potential application of date palm
(Phoenix dactylifera L.) seed and seeds oil. JAOCS 69:595
597.
El-Shurafa MY, Ahmed HS, Abou-Naji SE. 1982. Organic and inorganic constituent of dates palm pit
(seeds). J Date Palm 2:275
284.
Fennema OR. 1996. Food chemistry. 3rd ed. New York: Dekker.
Hamada JS, Hashim IB, Sharif AF. 2002. Preliminary analysis and potential uses of date pits in foods. Food
Chem 76:135
137.
Heckman M. 1971. Collaborative study of copper in feeds by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. J Assoc
Off Anal Chem 54:666
668.
Hussein F, Hussein MA. 1982a. Effect of nitrogen fertilization on growth, yield and fruit quality of sakkoti
dates grown in Asswan. In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Date Palm, King Faisal
University, Saudi Arabia, 23
25 March.
Hussein F, Hussein MA. 1982b. Effect of irrigation on growth, yield and fruit quality of dry dates grown at
Asswan. In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Date Palm, King Faisal University,
Saudi Arabia, 23
25 March.
Ibrahim W, Habib H, Kerkadi A. 2005. Effects of date fruit and date pits on oxidative damage and
antioxidant status in rat serum and liver. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Research Conference, UAEU.
UAE, Alain, 24-26 April, UAE University, Alain. pp CFS76
CFS80.
Ismail B, Haffar I, Baalbaki R, Mechref Y, Henry J. 2006. Physico-chemical characteristics and total quality
of five date varieties grown in the United Arab Emirates. Int J Food Sci Technol 41:919
926.
MAF. 2000. Statistics. UAE: Ministry of Agricultural and Fisheries, Alain.
 Nutritional quality evaluation of date pit varieties 13
Mossa JS, Hifnawy MS, Mekkawi AG. 1986. Phytochemical and biological investigation on date seeds
(Phoenix dactylifera L.) produced in Saudi Arabia. Arab Gulf J Sci Res 4:495.
Myhara M, Karkalas R, Taylor J, Mark S. 1999. The composition of maturing Omani dates. J Sci Food
Agric 79:1345
1350.
Nour GM, Khalifa AS, Hussein AAM, Moustaf AA. 1986. Studies on the evaluation of fruit characteristics
on nine dry date palm cultivars grown at Aswan. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium
on Date Palm, KSU, Saudi Arabia, 3
6 March.
O’Dell BL, Sunde RA. 1997. Introduction in Handbook of Nutritionally Essential Minerals, New York:
Dekker. pp 1
12.
Rahman MS, Kasapis S, Al-Kharusi NSZ, Al-Marhubi IM, Khan AJ. 2007. Composition characterization
and thermal transition of date pits powders. J Food Eng 80:1
10.
Sardesai VM. 1998. Introduction to clinical nutrition; New York: Dekker.
Sawaya W, Miski A, Khalil J, Khatchadourian H, Mashadi A. 1983. Physical and chemical characterization
of the major date varieties grown in Saudi Arabia: I Morphological measurements, proximate and mineral
analyses. Date Palm J 2:1
25.
Sawaya WN, Khalil JK, Safi WJ. 1984. Chemical compostion and nutritional quality of date seeds. J Food
Sci 49(2):617
619.
Sourial GF, Azouz S, Gaafar SI, Salem MS. 1986 Malformation of cultivar hindy mango panicles in relation
to different patterns of sandy soil fertilization. Hortscience 21:847
851.
Sumianah GhM, Makki YM, Rumney TG. 1984. Changes in the chemical composition of three cultivars of
date seed during germination. Date Palm J 3:395
407.
Downloaded By: [Habib, Hosam] At: 05:11 19 October 2008

View publication stats