EFFECTS OF HEATING ON PHYTONUTRIENTS IN COOKED AQUEOUS EXTRACT OF VIGNA UNIGULCULATA (BLACK EYED BEAN)
Objective: To investigate the effects of heating on phytonutrients of cooked Vigna unigulculata.
Methods: The consequences of heating on V. unigulculata were investigated by phytochemical analysis (qualitatively and quantitatively), alongside analysis of proximate contents. Five phytochemicals were quantified and nutrient contents determined.
Results: Results revealed that phytochemicals in raw sample were significantly (p<0.05) higher than cooked sample. Alkaloids, saponins and flavonoids in raw black-eyed bean (RBEB) were significantly (p<0.05) higher than cooked black-eyed bean (CBEB). Meanwhile, apart from crude fat content, others (carbohydrate content, ash content, protein and fiber content) of CBEB V. unigulculata were significantly (p < 0.05) higher than RBEB V. unigulculata.
Conclusions: Cooking by heating influenced a reduction of phytochemicals but an increase in proximate content in V. unigulculata.
Peer Review History:
Received 11 May 2021; Revised 18 June; Accepted 29 June, Available online 15 July 2021
UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Our reviewers check the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency.
Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.0/10
Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 7.5/10