Nutrition & Food Science Nutritional and Sensory

Mamatha C and Prakash J, J Nutr Food Sci 2016 1: 001

Nutrition & Food Science

Research Article

Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Iron Fortified Tamarind Candies Mamatha C and Prakash J* Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Mysore, Mysore, INDIA

Abstract

*Corresponding author: Jamuna Prakash, Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Mysore, Mysore, INDIA, Tel: 08212419634; E-mail: [email protected]

The investigation aimed at formulation of iron fortified tamarind (Tamarindus indica) candies and analysis of its nutritional composition, bioaccessible iron and sensory acceptability. Candies were formulated using tamarind paste, sugar, salts, spices and pectin. Ferrous sulfate or ferrous fumarate was used as fortificant to yield 30 mg iron/100 g product. In addition, nut flavoured candies (with ‘Charoli seeds’ Buchanania lanzan, Family, Anacardiaceae), were also prepared as a variation. Products were analyzed for nutrients, antinutrients and bioaccessible iron using standard methods. The candies were evaluated for sensory attributes by 48-54 members with the help of a specially developed score card. The range of constituents in tamarind ripe and control candy per 100 g respectively were as follows:- moisture, 10.8 & 40.78%; protein, 2.08 & 0.44%; iron, 16.64 & 3.2 mg; calcium, 167.2 & 53.0 mg; oxalates, 196.4 & 38.0 mg; phytates, 718.3 & 85.8 mg and tannins, 762.6 & 58.06 mg. In iron fortified products, iron content ranged from 31.8-32.8 mg/100 g. Bioaccessible iron in control candy was 1.11 mg whereas in iron fortified candy, it ranged from 25.2 -29.8 mg /100g. More than 80% of iron was bioaccessible in iron fortified products, in comparison to 34.6% in control product. All the products were highly acceptable by panel members for all sensory attributes.

Received Date: January 14, 2016 Accepted Date: March 07, 2016 Published Date: March 15, 2016 Citation: Mamatha C, Prakash J (2016) Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Iron Fortified Tamarind Candies. J Nutr Food Sci 1: 001.

can either increase or decrease mineral absorption. Hence they are known as enhancers and inhibitors [4]. A wide range of body functions are dependent on iron. Iron deficiency can result in anaemia which is a nutritional problem of multiple etiologies. Low intake, poor bioavailability, repeated pregnancies, increased iron needs during growth and development of children and adolescents, parasitic infections and chronic blood loss are major causes for iron deficiency. The major cause of anemia is poor bioavailability of the mineral. Bioavailability (or biological availability) is referred as the proportion of the nutrient in the food and its availability in the form of utilization and absorption [5]. Iron deficiency anemia is public health problem in Indian population with incidence ranging from 70-80% in children to 70% in pregnant women [6].

Keywords: Anti-nutritional factors; Bioaccessible iron; Ferrous fumarate; Ferrous sulphate; Sensory attributes

Introduction Tamarind fruit, referred to as Indian date because of its appearance is highly valued for its versatility. It is also known as back bone of traditional medicine [1]. Tamarindus indica, a slow growing tree adopted by India from Africa belongs to Leguminosae (Fabaceae) family, and used for domestic and commercial purposes in different ways. It provides flattish bean like fruit with sticky pulp and seeds. Maturation of the fruit provides brown or reddish brown pulp which is acidophilus. Seeds are hard, shiny, reddish or purpulish brown made up of tough fibers and surrounded by pulp [2]. It is known to contain the highest level of carbohydrates and protein than any other fruit. It has high potassium, phosphorus, iron, calcium and vitamins such as thiamin and niacin. Among organic acids, tartaric acid is present throughout the stages of development of the fruit. Oxalic acid, succinic acid, citric acid and quinic acid are also reported in the tamarind. Ascorbic acid content is very less in the pulp [3]. Both plant and animal foods are sources of mineral constituents in our diet. As structural elements, regulators of chemical reactions, the inorganic elements (minerals) are needed for the body. Free metal ions require no digestion and are fully absorbed, but minerals bound in food matrix are poorly absorbed. There are various factors which

Henry Publishing Group © Mamatha C and Prakash J 2016

The major approaches to control iron deficiency is through medicinal supplementation, dietary diversification and fortification (addition of a nutrient to a food to improve its quality). Food fortification is used to combat malnutrition and improve the nutritional quality of foods. Though iron supplementation is considered necessary for groups at high risk as a short-term emergency measure, nationwide long-standing supplementation program have shown irregular supplies, poor counseling, non-compliance by beneficiaries, etc. Hence supplementation strategy has proved to be inadequate in Indian context [7]. Ascorbic acid, citric acid and tartaric acid are the organic acids which prevent precipitation of ferric iron by reducing it to ferrous state and forming suitable soluble ligands which are available for absorption. Tartaric acid was shown to increase iron absorption both in model systems as well as in fortified products when used as a promoter [5,8]. The present study was undertaken to formulate iron fortified sweet-sour tamarind fruit candies, and to analyze the products for chemical composition, iron bioaccessibility and sensory acceptability.

1 of 6

Volume: 1 | Issue: 1 | 100001 ISSN: HJNFS

Citation: Mamatha C, Prakash J (2016) Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Iron Fortified Tamarind Candies. J Nutr Food Sci 1: 001.

Methodology

Pictures of Charoli nuts, and formulated tamarind candies are presented in Figure 1-4. Charoli nuts grown in Northwest part of India are small lentil sized nuts rich in protein and fat similar to other oilseeds. The reported nutritional composition of Charoli nuts per 100 g is as follows - protein, 19.0 g; fat, 59.1 g; energy, 656 Kcal. ; calcium, 279 mg and iron, 8.5 mg [9]. They have an almond like flavor and are used in cooking to garnish sweets and to thicken gravies.

Materials The ingredients needed for formulation of candies namely ripe tamarind, (Tamarindus indica), ‘Charoli seeds’ (Buchanania lanzan, Family, Anacardiaceae), sugar, salt, and chili powder were purchased from local market. The chemicals used for analysis were of analytical grade and procured from Sd Fine Chemicals and Qualigens Ltd. India. All the analysis was carried out in duplicates. Glass double distilled water was used for all the experiments. The dialysis tubing was procured from Sigma, USA which had a molecular mass cut off of 12000 kDa.

Methods The study design included formulation of candies using tamarind. A control product was standardized with basic ingredients, followed by preparation of iron fortified candies. The ripe tamarind and formulated products were analyzed for nutrients, anti-nutrients and bioaccessible iron. The products were subjected to sensory analysis.

Product preparation and processing

Figure 1: Charoli seeds.

The procedure for preparation of all products was standardized in the laboratory to get end product of uniform quality. For the control tamarind candy [TC-C], preparation was as follows, clean and fresh ripe tamarind was deseeded and fibers were removed. Weighed amount of tamarind was soaked in water for one hour and boiled to facilitate softening of pulp. The softened pulp was strained through a strainer. To this pulp, sugar, pectin and spices were added and the mass heated with continuous stirring till it thickened. The optimum cooking temperature was maintained to 110°C. The ingredient used for a typical batch were tamarind, 180 g; water for pulp extraction, 875 ml; sugar, 560 g; red chili powder, 10 g; salt, 9.0 g; black salt, 5.0 g; pepper, 1.5 g; ginger powder, 2.0 g; pectin, 9.0 g; and citric acid, 0.9 g. The end point was identified by using the fork test (when the mass is lifted with a fork, it forms a web between the spokes indicating the thickness of cooking mixture). The entire mass was set in a tray to a thickness of 1.6 cm, allowed to cool and cut into pieces. The yield was 1.0 kg of finished product. For preparation of fortified products, four types of candies were prepared using either ferrous sulphate or ferrous fumerate. Iron salts were added in amounts proportional to yield 30 mg iron per 100 g of ready-to-eat product. To one set of products, crushed dry seeds called as “Charoli” (Buchanania lanzan, Family, Anacardiaceae) were added at 10% level for additional flavor during cooking. The details for prepared products are as follows: a) Tamarind candy fortified with ferrous sulphate (FeSO4.7H2O), [TC-FS]. b) Tamarind candy fortified with ferrous fumarate (C4H2FeO4), [TCFF]. c) Tamarind candy with Charoli seeds and ferrous sulphate, [TCCFS]. d) Tamarind candy with Charoli seeds and ferrous fumarate, [TCCFF].


Figure 2: Tamarind Candy-Control.

Chemical Analysis Ripe tamarind and formulated products were analyzed for different constituents as follows: the moisture content of the sample was determined by repeated oven drying and weighing, and fat was analyzed by crude fat extraction method [10]. The samples were ashed in a muffle furnace and ash solution was prepared by mixing with double distilled water. Calcium was analyzed by precipitation as calcium oxalate and subsequent titration with potassium permanganate, iron was determined colorimetrically by Wong’s method.

2 of 6



NAME: DATE: Instruction: You are given two sweet-sour tamarind candies. Please evaluate the sensory qualities as per the descriptive terms given below. Indicate your acceptance by ticking in the appropriate box. Attribute

Description

Code

Code

Attribute

Description

Attractive APPEARANCE

COLOUR

TEXTURE

Appealing

Sour

Not appealing

Spicy

TASTE

Acceptable

Code

Sweet

Not Acceptable

Metallic

Soft

Pleasant

Very soft

Like extremely

Rubbery

Like moderately

Excellent

Like slightly FLAVOUR

Good OVER ALL QUALITY

Code

Salty

Neither like nor dislike

Satisfactory

Dislike slightly

Fair

Dislike moderately

Poor

Dislike very much Table 1: Score card for Tamarind Candy.

Figure 4: Tamarind Candy fortified with ferrous fumerate.

Figure 3: Tamarind Candy fortified with ferrous sulphate.

The estimation of nitrogen was done by Kjeldahl method and protein content obtained by multiplying the nitrogen value by 6.25 [10].

stand for 30 min and absorbance read at 740 nm using spectrophotometer [14].

Phytic acid was extracted and determined according to the supernatant difference method of Thompson and Erdman [11]. The conversion factor 3.55 for phosphorus to phytic acid was used. Oxalates were extracted with hydrochloric acid, precipitated as calcium oxalate from the deproteinised extract and were estimated by subsequent titration with potassium permanganate [12]. Colorimetric estimation of tannins was based on the measurement of blue colour formed by the reduction of phosphotungstomolybdic acid by tannin like compounds in alkaline solution [13]. A 0.2 ml of sample was mixed with 1 ml of Folin-Ciocalteau reagent (10 fold dilutions) and 0.8 ml of 2% Na2CO3 was added. The volume was made up to 10 ml using water-methanol (4:6) as diluting fluid. This was allowed to

In vitro bioaccesible iron in iron fortified products were determined by simulated gastrointestinal digestion using pepsin for the gastric stage followed by pancreatin and bile salt for the intestinal stage. The proportion of mineral diffused through a semi permeable membrane was used to measure mineral dialysability. The dialysate was used to analyze available iron by α-α-bipyridyl method.


Sensory evaluation of products Products developed were subjected to sensory evaluation based on the descriptive quality preference test. A score card was prepared to obtain descriptive responses and preference of panel members as

3 of 6



given in Table 1. Respondents were young students of college who served as untrained consumer panel. Coded samples were presented to members on different days, i.e., each fortified sample was presented along with a control sample on a given day. The results were compiled as frequency distribution of responses among each category.

Results and Discussion The results of the study are summarized in Table 2 and 3. The composition, anti-nutrients and bioaccessible iron of ripe tamarind and formulated products are presented in Table 2. The tamarind fruit had 2.08 g of protein, 0.16 g of fat, 16.64 mg of iron, 167 mg of calcium and 2.7 g of dietary fiber per 100 g. The fat content was negligible whereas ash content was 3.27% indicating it to be a rich source of minerals. The anti-nutritional components were high with oxalates, phytates and tannins, in the range of 196 mg, 718 mg and 762 mg per 100 g respectively. These are the potential constituents known to bind minerals and decrease their bioavailability. They can also form protein complex and reduce their digestibility. Phenolic compounds not only decrease the bioavailability of vitamins and minerals but also that of proteins and carbohydrates. Further they decrease the activity of digestive enzymes such as α-amylase, trypsin, chymotrypsin and lipase and may cause damage to the mucosa of digestive tract [15]. Phytates are considered as the anti-nutrients which bind iron, calcium and zinc [16]. Among all organic acids, oxalic acid is known to inhibit iron absorption [17].

Figure 5: Iron bioavailability as percent of total iron in Tamarind and Candies.

Nutritional constituents

Ripe Tamarind

Moisture (%) Protein (g)

In formulated products, the range of moisture was 37.73 to 41.43%. As expected, protein and fat contents were in the lower range. In fortified products, ash content was higher on account of addition of iron salts. While control candy had 3.2 mg of iron per 100 g, the fortified candies had 31.79 to 32.75 mg of iron per 100 g. Calcium and fiber were in similar range in all products, anti nutrient components were also present in all formulated products, though the amount was lesser in comparison to ripe tamarind. According to Parvez et al. [18] tamarind was reported to contain 600 mg of tannins on dry basis and pulp had 81-466 mg of calcium/100 g. The bioaccessible iron, which is considered equivalent to physiologically absorbed iron, was low in control candy, and very high in fortified candies. This is an important finding as these candies can be a good source of iron despite the presence of iron binding factors. This can be attributed to the presence of tartaric acid in the tamarind. Our earlier studies indicated that tartaric acid can be a good promoter of added iron [8]. Even in model system, tartatric acid promoted the absorption of iron [5]. When iron availability was considered as percent of total iron, from ripe tamarind, 27%, and in fortified products, 79.3 to 91.4% of iron was bioaccessible (Figure 5). There were no major differences in iron bioaccessibility from two different iron salts used as iron fortificants. Presence of charoli nuts slightly decreased the iron accessibility. This clearly re-affirmed that from fortified candies most of the added iron was bioaccessible. Studies indicate that iron absorption from ferrous fumarate is equivalent to that from ferrous sulfate [19]. But the relative biological value of ferrous fumarate can vary with the iron status of the subjects. Ferrous sulfate is said to be more sensitive to food matrix effects than ferrous fumarate, especially ascorbic acid and phytic acid have a greater influence on iron absorption from ferrous sulfate than from ferrous fumarate [20]. Iron availability from foods depends on the presence of inhibiting and promoting factors in foods. Indian diets are specifically known to have very low bioavailable iron on account of diets being vegetarian, presence of inhibitory factors and absence of promoting factors like haem iron [21]. Earlier studies have shown that fruit cheese can be a good vehicle for iron fortification as even in fruit cheese, iron bioaccessibility is comparatively higher [22]. Tamarind Candies

TC-C

TC-FS

TC-FF

TC-CFF

TC-CFS

10.81 ± 0.24

40.78 ± 0.78

41.43 ± 0.25

40.60 ± 0.09

37.99 ± 0.75

37.73 ± 0.17

2.08 ± 0.16

0.44 ± 0.07

0.35 ± 0.02

0.37 ± 0.028

1.15 ± 0.07

1.05 ± 0.07

Fat (g)

0.16 ± 0.01

0.057 ± 0.006

0.06 ± 0

0.06 ± 0

0.065 ± 0.007

0.07±0

Ash (g)

3.27 ± 0.098

1.83 ± 0.014

1.85 ± 0.071

1.77 ± 0.092

1.89 ± 0.042

1.88 ± 0.11

Iron (mg)

16.64 ± 0.58

3.20 ± 0.42

32.54 ± 0.70

32.51 ± 1.57

32.75 ± 0.70

31.79 ± 0.24

Calcium (mg)

167.2 ± 0.62

52.95 ± 0.96

50.80 ± 0.99

52.21 ± 0

52.76 ± 0.77

52.19 ± 0.52

Dietary fiber (g)

2.7 ± 0.83

0.1 ± 0.03

0.3 ± 0.02

0.4 ± 0.19

0.4± 0.29

0.4 ± 0.22

Tannins (mg)

762.6 ± 1.35

58.06 ± 0.17

60.63 ± 0.61

58.10 ± 0.07

62.69 ± 0.75

62.05 ± 0.33

Phytates (g)

718.3 ± 0.70

85.82 ± 0.81

85.42 ± 0.90

85.72 ± 0.99

87.80 ± 3.35

86.70 ± 0.80

Total oxalates (mg)

196.4 ± 0.25

38.00 ± 0.25

37.53 ± 0.12

37.93 ± 0.23

40.00 ± 0.78

39.78 ± 0.38

Bioavailable Iron (mg/100g)

4.56 ± 0.28

1.11 ± 0.42

29.75 ± 0.28

28.64 ± 0.41

26.39 ± 0.47

25.20 ± 0.38

Table 2: Chemical composition and bioaccessible iron in tamarind pulp and formulated products (per 100 g). Abbreviations used: TC-C: Tamarind Candy-Control, TC-FS: Tamarind Candy fortified with Ferrous Sulphate (FeSO4.7H2O), TC-FF: Tamarind Candy fortified with Ferrous Fumarate (C4H2FeO4), TC-CFS: Tamarind Candy with Charoli and Ferrous Sulphate, TC-CFF: Tamarind Candy with Charoli and Ferrous Fumarate.


4 of 6



Attributes

Description

Appearance

Colour

Texture

Taste

Flavour

Overall quality

Set- 1

Set-2

Set-3

Set-4

TC-C

TC-FS

TC-C

TC-FF

TC-C

TC-CFS

TC-C

TC-CFF

Attractive

17

15

24

19

24

34

12

18

Appealing

31

30

24

32

24

14

38

27

Not Appealing

1

4

6

3

0

0

0

5

Acceptable

45

45

50

46

44

41

50

47

Not acceptable

4

4

4

8

4

7

0

3

Soft

37

37

27

28

36

40

45

50

Very soft

11

9

26

24

7

3

5

0

Rubbery

1

3

1

2

5

5

0

0

Salty

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

Sour

6

5

5

4

11

10

12

14

Spicy

5

0

2

1

8

4

0

0

Sweet

6

3

9

0

6

2

0

0

Metallic

0

5

0

6

0

5

0

6

Pleasant

32

36

38

43

22

26

38

30

Like extremely

4

3

11

4

7

5

0

0

Like very much

20

14

10

6

15

11

6

18

Like moderately

10

21

22

8

15

19

33

16

Like Slightly

6

5

11

19

8

11

6

11

Neither like nor dislike

6

5

0

11

3

2

5

5

Dislike slightly

3

1

0

6

0

0

0

0

Excellent

25

15

25

23

18

17

22

19

Good

15

22

23

25

23

25

23

26

Satisfactory

5

6

6

3

7

3

5

5

Poor

4

6

0

3

0

3

0

0

Table 3: Number of responses of Panelists for sensory attributes of formulated products. Abbreviations used: TC-C: Tamarind Candy- Control, TC-FS: Tamarind Candy fortified with Ferrous Sulphate (FeSO4.7H2O), TC-FF: Tamarind Candy fortified with Ferrous Fumarate (C4H2FeO4), TC-CFS: Tamarind Candy with Charoli and Ferrous Sulphate, TC-CFF: Tamarind Candy with Charoli and Ferrous Fumarate. There were no scores for dislike moderately or dislike very much.

Analysis of sensory characteristics of fortified candy All the formulated products were subjected to sensory evaluation by a panel size ranging from 48-54 members on different days. Each of the fortified product was presented with a control candy with a structured score card and the results are summarized in Table 3. For the quality attribute of appearance all the products were described either as attractive or appealing. There were very few who marked them as non-appealing. Similarly for colour the products were marked as acceptable by majority of panel members. A small number indicated non-acceptability of colour, which could have been due to dark colour of candy. Since the major ingredient of candy was tamarind, the colour was naturally dark. Textual quality was described as soft by majority followed by very soft by a small panel. Since the product had added pectin, the texture was maintained as pectin gets bound to sugar and helps in gelation process forming a network of fibrils [23]. Under the attribute of taste the quality description ranged from salty to pleasant (Table 1) to incorporate varieties of responses, which could be felt by members. Since the candy was sour on account of tamarind, sweet because of added sugar, spicy because of added


spices, for all these categories, some responses were obtained. Spices contribute to specific taste quality of products to which they are added. Ginger and black pepper are particularly recognized for their antioxidant and medicinal properties [24-28]. Few of the panelists could detect a metallic taste in fortified candies. However, most of the panel members described the taste quality as pleasant indicating their acceptance of the taste. For flavor the responses were distributed over a wide range of responses. Most of the responses were in the category of ‘like very much’ and ‘like moderately’. There were some who showed a slight liking for the product. However, there were no responses for dislike moderately or very much. This shows the general acceptability of this new product. The overall quality was rated as excellent or good by majority of panel. Results of sensory analysis indicated that the product was appreciated for sensory attributes by most of the members, hence it has a good potential to be introduced as an iron fortified product.

Conclusion Iron deficiency anemia is well known as ‘silent killer’ and it affects millions of people around the world. Food fortification is a proven long term strategy to supplement the existing dietaries with iron. The present study focused on formulation of iron fortified tamarind

5 of 6



candies and assessing its nutritional quality and acceptability. The formulated candies exhibited a very high bioaccessible iron of nearly 90%. The sensory attributes of candies were also acceptable by a consumer panel. Products fortified with both ferrous sulphate and ferrous fumarate were equally acceptable. Hence this product can be used as a potential vehicle for iron fortification due to high iron availability and it will be preferred by young adults and children due to its appealing sweet and sour taste.

References 1. Farnsworth NR (1994) Ethnopharmacology and drug development. Ciba Found Symp 185: 42-51. 2. Singh D, Moond SK, Wangchu L (2008) Medicinal value of tamarind (Tamarindus indica). In: Singh VK, Govil JN, Sharma RK (eds.). Recent progress in Medicinal plants, Phytopharmacology and Therapeutic values. 19: 293-305.

14. Matthäus B (2002) Antioxidant activity of extracts obtained from residues of different oilseeds. J Agric Food Chem 50: 3444-3452. 15. Liener IE (1994) Implications of antinutritional components in soybean foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 34: 31-67. 16. Norhaizan ME Jr, Nor Faizadatul Ain AW (2009) Determination of phytate, iron, zinc, calcium contents and their molar ratios in commonly consumed raw and prepared food in malaysia. Malays J Nutr 15: 213-222. 17. Gillooly M, Bothwell TH, Torrance JD, MacPhail AP, Derman DP, et al. (1983) The effects of organic acids, phytates and polyphenols on the absorption of iron from vegetables. Br J Nutr 49: 331-342. 18. P arvez SS, Parvez MM, Nishihara E, Gemma H, Fujii Y (2003) Tamarindus indica L. leaf is a source of allelopathic substance. Plant Growth Regulation 40: 107-115.

3. Ishola MM, Agbaji EB, Agbaji AS (1990) A Chemical Study of Tamarindus indica (Tsamiya) Fruits grown in Nigeria. J Sci Food Agri 51: 141-143.

19. Kulsum A, Lakshmi JA, Prakash J (2009) Iron nutriture of Indian children residing in an urban slum with reference to dietary iron intakes. Research Reach 8: 38-46.

4. Mahaan K, Escott-Stump S (2004) Food Nutrition & Diet Therapy. Nutrition Basics- Minerals (11th ed). United States 120-154.

20. Salma NU, Prakash J (2014) Nutritional composition and sensory quality of iron fortified fruit cheese. Ind J Nutr Dietet. 51: 135-144.

5. Jyothi Lakshmi A, Gupta S, Prakash J (2006) Comparative analysis of influence of promoters and inhibitors on in vitro available iron using two methods. Int J Food Sci Nutr 57: 559-569.

21. Fidler MC, Davidsson L, Zeder C, Walczyk T, Hurrell RF (2003) Iron absorption from ferrous fumarate in adult women is influenced by ascorbic acid but not by Na2EDTA. Br J Nutr 90: 1081-1085.

6. N FHS (2007) National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) 2005-06. International Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India. 7. Vijayaraghavan K (2002) Control of micronutrient deficiencies in India: obstacles and strategies. Nutr Rev 60: S73-76. 8. Govindaraj T, KrishnaRau L, Prakash J (2007) In vitro bioavailability of iron and sensory qualities of iron-fortified wheat biscuits. Food Nutr Bull 28: 299306. 9. Gopalan C, Rama Sastri BV, Balasubramanian SC (1989) Nutritive value of Indian Foods. National Institute of Nutrition, ICMR, Hyderabad, India Pg no: 156. 10. Raghuramulu N, Madhavan Nair K, Kalyanasundaram SA (2003) Manual of laboratory techniques. (2nd ed). National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad. India, 53-328. 11. Thompson DB, Erdman Jr JW (1982) Phytic acid determination in soybeans. J Food Sci 47: 513-517. 12. B aker CJL (1952) The determination of oxalates in fresh plant material. Analyst 77:340-344. 13. Ranganna S (1986) Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and vegetable products (2nd ed). Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New Delhi, India, Pg no: 1112.


22. Moretti D, Zimmermann MB, Wegmüller R, Walczyk T, Zeder C, et al. (2006) Iron status and food matrix strongly affect the relative bioavailability of ferric pyrophosphate in humans. Am J Clin Nutr 83: 632-638. 23. Thakur BR, Singh RK, Handa AK (1997) Chemistry and uses of pectin--a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 37: 47-73. 24. Jeena K, Lijy VB, Umadevi NP, Kuttan R (2014) Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive properties of black pepper essential oil (Piper nigrum Linn). J Essen Oil Bear Plants. 17: 1-12. 25. M alhotra S, Singh AP (2003) Medicinal properties of ginger (zingiber officinale Rosc). Natural Product Radiance. 2: 296-301. 26. Nikousaleh A, Prakash J (2008) Effect of dry heat treatment of six spices on antioxidant activities of their water extracts. Foods 2: 139-144. 27. Nikousaleh A, Prakash J (2009) Antioxidant activity of water extracts from thermally treated black pepper (Piper nigrum Linn) and cumin (Cuminum cyminum Linn.). Ind J Nutr Dietet 46: 364-371. 28. Pilerood SA, Prakash J (2011) Nutritional composition and antioxidant properties of ginger root (Zingiber officinale). J Med Plants Res 4 (24): 26742679.

6 of 6




7 of 6
