Abstract
Effect of soaking, dehulling and pressure cooking on in-vitro digestibility and antinutritional factors of chickpea was studied. In-vitro starch and in-vitro protein digestibility ranged from 29.72 to 35.24 mg maltose released/100g and 63.14 to 77.09 per cent, respectively. Soaked, dehulled and pressure cooked chickpea varieties showed significant increment in in-vitro digestibility. Phytic acid ranged from 705.03 to 802.16 mg/100g and decreased from 11.52 to 20.87 per cent in processed chickpea seeds. Trypsin inhibitor activity ranged from 533.33 to 587.92 per cent. Processing decreased trypsin inhibitor activity from 7.72 to 22.87 per cent. Maximum increase in in-vitro digestibility and reduction in antinutritional factors was recorded during pressure cooking followed by dehulling and soaking.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
In-vitro starch digestibility of chickpea ranged from 29.72 to 35.24 mg maltose released/100g.
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Outcome
- In-vitro starche2
- Value
- 29.72 to 35.24 mg maltose released/100ge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Effect of soaking, dehulling and pressure cooking on in-vitro digestibility and antinutritional factors of chickpea was studied”
e2“In-vitro starch and in-vitro protein digestibility ranged from 29.72 to 35.24 mg maltose released/100g and 63.14 to 77.09 per cent, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In-vitro protein digestibility of chickpea ranged from 63.14 to 77.09 per cent.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Outcome
- in-vitro proteine2
- Value
- 63.14 to 77.09 per cente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Effect of soaking, dehulling and pressure cooking on in-vitro digestibility and antinutritional factors of chickpea was studied”
e2“In-vitro starch and in-vitro protein digestibility ranged from 29.72 to 35.24 mg maltose released/100g and 63.14 to 77.09 per cent, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Soaking, dehulling and pressure cooking significantly increased in-vitro digestibility of chickpea varieties.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- Soaked, dehulled and pressure cookede1
- Outcome
- in-vitro digestibilitye1
- Direction
- incremente1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Soaked, dehulled and pressure cooked chickpea varieties showed significant increment in in-vitro digestibility”
Claim · model-written summary
Processing decreased phytic acid in chickpea seeds by 11.52 to 20.87 per cent.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- processede1
- Outcome
- Phytic acide1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Value
- 11.52 to 20.87 per cente1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Phytic acid ranged from 705.03 to 802.16 mg/100g and decreased from 11.52 to 20.87 per cent in processed chickpea seeds”
Claim · model-written summary
Processing decreased trypsin inhibitor activity of chickpea by 7.72 to 22.87 per cent.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- Processinge2
- Outcome
- trypsin inhibitor activitye2
- Direction
- decreasede2
- Value
- 7.72 to 22.87 per cente2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Effect of soaking, dehulling and pressure cooking on in-vitro digestibility and antinutritional factors of chickpea was studied”
e2“Processing decreased trypsin inhibitor activity from 7.72 to 22.87 per cent”
Claim · model-written summary
Trypsin inhibitor activity of chickpea ranged from 533.33 to 587.92 per cent.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Outcome
- Trypsin inhibitor activitye2
- Value
- 533.33 to 587.92 per cente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Effect of soaking, dehulling and pressure cooking on in-vitro digestibility and antinutritional factors of chickpea was studied”
e2“Trypsin inhibitor activity ranged from 533.33 to 587.92 per cent”
Claim · model-written summary
Phytic acid of chickpea ranged from 705.03 to 802.16 mg/100g.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Outcome
- Phytic acide1
- Value
- 705.03 to 802.16 mg/100ge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Phytic acid ranged from 705.03 to 802.16 mg/100g and decreased from 11.52 to 20.87 per cent in processed chickpea seeds”
Claim · model-written summary
Pressure cooking gave the maximum increase in in-vitro digestibility and reduction in antinutritional factors, ahead of dehulling and soaking.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- pressure cookinge2
- Outcome
- in-vitro digestibility and reduction in antinutritional factorse2
- Direction
- Maximum increasee2
- Comparator
- dehulling and soakinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Effect of soaking, dehulling and pressure cooking on in-vitro digestibility and antinutritional factors of chickpea was studied”
e2“Maximum increase in in-vitro digestibility and reduction in antinutritional factors was recorded during pressure cooking followed by dehulling and soaking”
The same questions in other papers
processing · quality: grain · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
application · quality: grain · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.