Next Article in Journal
Rosemary Essential Oil Extraction and Residue Valorization by Means of Polyphenol Recovery
Previous Article in Journal
Biomass Production and Use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii in a Beverage for Athletes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology and Life Sciences Forum
Volume 26
Issue 1
10.3390/Foods2023-14994
blsf-logo
Submit to this Journal
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Factors Influencing Bioactive Constituents in Desi Chickpeas: Variety, Location, and Season †

by
Joel B. Johnson
*,‡ and
Mani Naiker
School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, North Rockhampton, QLD 4701, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Presented at the 4th International Electronic Conference on Foods, 15–30 October 2023; Available online: https://foods2023.sciforum.net/.
‡
Present address: Centre for Nutrition and Food Sciences, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia.
Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2023, 26(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/Foods2023-14994
Published: 13 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 4th International Electronic Conference on Foods)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is a significant pulse crop in Australia, with an industry value of over AUD 1.3 billion. However, there are few studies investigating the levels of health-benefiting constituents in desi chickpeas and the impacts of variety, growing location, and season on these constituents. This study aimed to study the levels of health-benefiting constituents in desi chickpeas, including 97 samples of Australian desi chickpeas, comprising 18 varieties, grown in a range of field trials across four Victorian locations and three growing seasons. Various physical characteristics and phytochemical compositions were determined in the samples, including 100-seed weight, colour, moisture content, total phenolic content (TPC), ferric-reducing antioxidant potential (FRAP), cupric-reducing antioxidant potential (CUPRAC), and total monomeric anthocyanin content (TMAC). The screening results showed a significant difference in TPC, TMAC, and FRAP among different desi varieties, suggesting there may be variation in their potential health benefits. Furthermore, the growing location and growing season significantly impacted all analytes. Correlation analysis revealed a number of significant correlations, including a moderate positive correlation between the b* colour and the antioxidant capacity and total phenolic content. This work provides the first detailed insight into the range of phenolic and antioxidant contents found in Australian desi chickpeas and the impact that genotype, location, and season can have.

1. Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is one of the oldest known pulse crops and is widely grown across the world [1,2]. Globally, it is ranked as the second-most produced cool season food legume crop, with 15.9 million tonnes harvested in 2021 [3]. Although this crop was not grown commercially in Australia until the 1970s [4,5], Australia has grown to become the eighth-largest producer and the largest exporter of chickpeas. In total, 876,468 tonnes were harvested in 2021 [3], with over 95% of this being exported primarily to the Indian subcontinent [6]. Chickpeas have been divided into two market classes: light-coloured and larger-seeded kabuli type and dark-seeded and smaller-seeded desi type [7]. Desi chickpeas are the dominant variety cultivated in Australia, accounting for approximately 90–95% of the total production [8]. The remaining 5–10% of production consists of kabuli chickpeas. The current value of the Australian chickpea industry is estimated at AUD 1.33 billion [8]. Furthermore, Australian chickpeas are highly regarded on the international market for their quality [8].
There is considerable potential for Australian growers to expand the production of chickpeas, particularly in northern Australia [9]. Notably, data from the International Trade Centre estimates the current untapped demand for chickpeas in international export markets to be worth over USD 400 million [10].
One notable nutritional characteristic of chickpea is its high protein content [11], making it an excellent replacement for meat in vegetarian diets. Furthermore, proteins and protein hydrolysates can be readily extracted from chickpeas using wet or dry extraction methods [12]. These protein fractions can then be used in the production of artificial meat analogues and other protein-fortified products, such as noodles, bread, and cookies [12].
In addition to this, chickpea has recently attracted interest due to its potential health-benefitting activity [13,14,15,16]. Previous work has shown that chickpeas or compounds isolated from chickpeas display a broad range of advantageous biological activities, including antioxidant activity [17], anti-cancer activity [18,19,20], hypocholesterolemic activity [21,22], hypoglycaemic activity [23,24,25], anti-hypertensive activity [26,27], and anti-inflammatory activity [28,29]. The major compound classes believed to be responsible for these beneficial effects include polyphenols, carotenoids, tannins, sterols, and peptides [13,14]. International research has shown that the content of these phytochemicals—including phenolics and carotenoids—can vary significantly between different chickpea varieties [30,31,32,33,34,35], similar to that observed in other pulse species [36,37,38]. Consequently, the primary objective of this study was to investigate the variability in key phytochemical constituents among various varieties and under different growing conditions in the Australian setting.
This study exclusively focused on the levels of health-benefiting constituents in desi-type chickpeas, as they represent the dominant variety cultivated in Australia. Specifically, this study aimed to investigate the impact of variety, location, and season on the phytochemical content of the chickpea samples.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Seed Material

The 97 desi chickpea samples included in this study were sourced from archived samples stored at Agriculture Victoria Research (Horsham Victoria). The samples comprised 18 different varieties, grown in a range of field trials across four sites in Victoria and 3 growing seasons (2017, 2019, and 2020). The number of samples from each variety ranges from 1 to 20 (mean = 5 samples/variety). The majority of samples (55) were grown under ambient conditions with no imposed treatments; however, 16 of the samples were from herbicide treatment trials, and 25 samples were part of pathology trials.

2.2. Seed Processing and Analysis of Physical Characteristics

The 100-seed weight (HKW) of the whole seed was determined using an IC-VA seed counter (AIDEX Co, Japan), with measurements performed in triplicate for each sample. The chickpea samples were then ground to a fine flour using a Breville Coffee and Spice Grinder (Botany, NSW, Australia).
The colour of the chickpea flour was quantified using a calibrated Konica Minolta chroma meter (CR-400), reported as CIE values of lightness (L*), yellow/blue (b*), and red/green colouration (a*). Measurements were performed in triplicate for each sample.
The moisture content of the flour was determined according to AOAC Official Method 925.10. Briefly, flour samples (~3 g) were dried in a laboratory oven (Memmert 400; Buchenbach, Germany) at 105 °C, and the loss in mass was quantified. All subsequent results were expressed on an oven-dry weight basis.

2.3. Measurement of Phytochemical Composition

Polar phenolic compounds were extracted from the chickpea flour samples with 90% methanol, following the protocol described in Johnson et al. [9], using 1 g of flour and a final volume of 14 mL. Extractions and subsequent assays were performed in duplicate for each sample.
The total phenolic content (TPC), ferric-reducing antioxidant potential (FRAP), cupric-reducing antioxidant potential (CUPRAC), and total monomeric anthocyanin content (TMAC), were analysed using microplate-based methods, as previously described in detail [39]. Results for TPC were expressed in gallic acid equivalents (GAE), results for FRAP and CUPRAC in Trolox equivalents (TE), and results for TMA in cyanidin-3-glucoside equivalents (cyd-3-glu); all per 100 g of original sample material (oven-dry weight basis).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Statistical tests were performed on the phytochemical and phenolic data using R Studio running R 4.0.5 [40]. Where applicable, results are presented as mean ± 1 standard deviation. When investigating statistical differences between varieties, only the varieties with ≥10 samples were included (n = 5 varieties in total) to ensure a high level of statistical power. However, all samples were included in statistical analyses by year or location.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Impact of Chickpea Variety

As the samples were not from a balanced genotype × environment × year trial with equal numbers of samples for each condition, the impact of these variables was unable to be explored through a three-way ANOVA. However, each of these variables was investigated separately, thus averaging out the impacts of the other two variables (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). Consequently, while the interactions between these terms were unable to be investigated, their broad impacts on phytochemical composition and physical seed parameters could be observed.
Examination of these parameters by variety (Table 1) revealed a significant level of variation in the FRAP, TPC, and TMAC between the wide chickpea varieties, as well as in the seed size (HKW) and the yellow–blue colouration of their flour (CIE b value). The Howzat variety displayed the highest FRAP and TPC, while the PBA Slasher variety showed the lowest concentrations of these analytes. However, this latter variety contained the highest TMAC.
The FRAP of the chickpea samples was approximately seven to eight times lower than the results previously found for faba bean [41] but higher than the values found for wheat and mung bean [42]. However, the CUPRAC was around three times lower than that found for mung bean. Overall, the FRAP values were lower than the results reported by Johnson et al. [9] in the kernel flour of five new chickpea genotypes from Australia. No literature values were found for the CUPRAC analysis of chickpeas.
The TPC of the chickpea extracts was around three times lower compared to faba bean but comparable to the results observed in mung bean. The TPC of these chickpea samples were also comparable to those found by Johnson et al. [9] in several new varieties of Australian desi chickpea. Furthermore, the TPC was comparable to values reported by Heiras-Palazuelos et al. [30] for desi chickpea cultivars from Mexico but lower than most values reported by Segev et al. [43] for Australian chickpeas.

3.2. Impact of Growing Location

All parameters differed significantly with the growing location (Table 2). The highest FRAP and TPC were found at the Curyo site, while the highest CUPRAC was observed at Horsham. Conversely, the highest TMAC was observed at Banyena.

3.3. Impact of Season

Similarly, the growing season had a significant impact on all parameters measured (Table 3). Both FRAP and CUPRAC were higher in the 2020 samples, while the TPC was significantly lower in the 2017 samples. It is important to caution that as all samples were stored following harvest, there may have been some change in their composition over this period, particularly for the older samples. Although there does not appear to be any work documenting this specifically in chickpeas, Nasar-Abbas et al. [44] noted a minor reduction in the TPC of faba bean samples over the period of one year, with the loss accelerated under higher temperatures or exposure to light. However, Ziegler et al. [45] found contrasting results in soybeans, with the free phenolic content increasing slightly over a storage period of one year.
In addition to possessing the highest TMAC, the oldest samples (2017) also tended to have a larger kernel size and higher moisture content. This latter parameter may be related to the absorption of moisture by the chickpea samples over the longer storage time.

3.4. Correlation Analysis

To further investigate the inter-relationships that may exist between the bioactive phytochemical constituents and the physical characteristics of the seed, Pearson R linear correlation analysis was performed. The results are summarised in the correlogram presented in Figure 1. Significant correlations were observed between TPC and FRAP but not between TPC and CUPRAC or FRAP and CUPRAC. The CUPRAC was positively correlated with the b* colour but negatively correlated with moisture content.

4. Conclusions

This study’s results demonstrated significant variation in the TPC, TMAC, and antioxidant capacity (FRAP but not CUPRAC) of different desi chickpea cultivars grown in Victoria, Australia. Similarly, the growing location and year had a significant impact on the levels of these phytochemical constituents. Finally, correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between TPC and FRAP in these samples but not between TPC and CUPRAC or FRAP and CUPRAC.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation: J.B.J. and M.N.; methodology: J.B.J.; software: J.B.J.; validation: J.B.J.; formal analysis: J.B.J.; investigation: J.B.J.; resources: J.B.J. and M.N.; data curation: J.B.J.; writing—original draft preparation: J.B.J.; writing—review and editing: J.B.J. and M.N.; visualisation: J.B.J.; supervision: M.N.; project administration: J.B.J.; funding acquisition: J.B.J. and M.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported in part by the Australian Government in the form of a Research Training Program Stipend provided to one of the authors (J.B.J.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study can be accessed openly through Mendeley Data: https://doi.org/10.17632/8bb2d725sd.1 [46].

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Joe Panozzo and Linda McDonald from Agriculture Victoria Research for supplying the chickpea samples used in this study. The work reported in this paper formed part of an MSc thesis of one of the authors (J.B.J.). We also thank Kerry Walsh for commenting on an early version of this manuscript (in the form of a thesis chapter).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yadav, S.S.; Chen, W. Chickpea Breeding and Management; CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbo, S.; Berger, J.; Turner, N.C. Viewpoint: Evolution of cultivated chickpea: Four bottlenecks limit diversity and constrain adaptation. Funct. Plant Biol. 2003, 30, 1081–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. FAO. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 12 January 2023).
  4. Pendergast, L.; Bhattarai, S.P.; Midmore, D.J. Evaluation of aerated subsurface drip irrigation on yield, dry weight partitioning and water use efficiency of a broad-acre chickpea (Cicer arietinum, L.) in a vertosol. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 217, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Siddique, K.; Brinsmead, R.; Knight, R.; Knights, E.; Paull, J.; Rose, I. Adaptation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) to Australia. In Linking Research and Marketing Opportunities for Pulses in the 21st Century; Knight, R., Ed.; Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 289–303. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pulse Australia. Chickpea Production: Northern Region. Available online: http://www.pulseaus.com.au/growing-pulses/bmp/chickpea/northern-guide (accessed on 19 March 2023).
  7. Jain, S.K.; Wettberg, E.J.v.; Punia, S.S.; Parihar, A.K.; Lamichaney, A.; Kumar, J.; Gupta, D.S.; Ahmad, S.; Pant, N.C.; Dixit, G.P.; et al. Genomic-Mediated Breeding Strategies for Global Warming in Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.). Agriculture 2023, 13, 1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wood, J.A.; Scott, J.F. Economic impacts of chickpea grain classification: How ‘seed quality is Queen’ must be considered alongside ‘yield is King’ to provide a princely income for farmers. Crop Pasture Sci. 2021, 72, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Johnson, J.B.; Walsh, K.B.; Bhattarai, S.P.; Naiker, M. Partitioning of nutritional and bioactive compounds between the kernel, hull and husk of five new chickpea genotypes grown in Australia. Future Foods 2021, 4, 100065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. KPMG. North Queensland Market and Agricultural Supply Chain Study; Townsville Enterprise Limited: Townsville, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. Clemente, A.; Vioque, J.; Sánchez-Vioque, R.; Pedroche, J.; Bautista, J.; Millán, F. Protein quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) protein hydrolysates. Food Chem. 1999, 67, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boukid, F. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) protein as a prospective plant-based ingredient: A review. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 5435–5444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Faridy, J.-C.M.; Stephanie, C.-G.M.; Gabriela, M.-M.O.; Cristian, J.-M. Biological Activities of Chickpea in Human Health (Cicer arietinum L.). A Review. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2020, 75, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wallace, T.C.; Murray, R.; Zelman, K.M. The Nutritional Value and Health Benefits of Chickpeas and Hummus. Nutrients 2016, 8, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. de Camargo, A.C.; Favero, B.T.; Morzelle, M.C.; Franchin, M.; Alvarez-Parrilla, E.; de la Rosa, L.A.; Geraldi, M.V.; Maróstica Júnior, M.R.; Shahidi, F.; Schwember, A.R. Is Chickpea a Potential Substitute for Soybean? Phenolic Bioactives and Potential Health Benefits. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kaur, R.; Prasad, K. Technological, processing and nutritional aspects of chickpea (Cicer arietinum)—A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 109, 448–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Domínguez-Arispuro, D.M.; Cuevas-Rodríguez, E.O.; Milán-Carrillo, J.; León-López, L.; Gutiérrez-Dorado, R.; Reyes-Moreno, C. Optimal germination condition impacts on the antioxidant activity and phenolic acids profile in pigmented desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seeds. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 638–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gupta, N.; Bisen, P.S.; Bhagyawant, S.S. Chickpea Lectin Inhibits Human Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation and Induces Apoptosis Through Cell Cycle Arrest. Protein Pept. Lett. 2018, 25, 492–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Gupta, N.; Bhagyawant, S.S. Enzymatic treatment improves ACE-I inhibiton and antiproliferative potential of chickpea. Vegetos 2019, 32, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bochenek, H.F.; Santhakumar, A.B.; Francis, N.; Blanchard, C.L.; Chinkwo, K.A. Anti-cancer effects of chickpea extracts. In Proceedings of the 69th Australasian Grain Science Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 27–29 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  21. Myint, H.; Kishi, H.; Koike, S.; Kobayashi, Y. Effect of chickpea husk dietary supplementation on blood and cecal parameters in rats. Anim. Sci. J. 2017, 88, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yust, M.d.M.; Millán-Linares, M.d.C.; Alcaide-Hidalgo, J.M.; Millán, F.; Pedroche, J. Hypocholesterolaemic and antioxidant activities of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) protein hydrolysates. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 1994–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Akhtar, H.M.S.; Abdin, M.; Hamed, Y.S.; Wang, W.; Chen, G.; Chen, D.; Chen, C.; Li, W.; Mukhtar, S.; Zeng, X. Physicochemical, functional, structural, thermal characterization and α-amylase inhibition of polysaccharides from chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) hulls. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 113, 108265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ercan, P.; El, S.N. Inhibitory effects of chickpea and Tribulus terrestris on lipase, α-amylase and α-glucosidase. Food Chem. 2016, 205, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sreerama, Y.N.; Sashikala, V.B.; Pratape, V.M. Phenolic compounds in cowpea and horse gram flours in comparison to chickpea flour: Evaluation of their antioxidant and enzyme inhibitory properties associated with hyperglycemia and hypertension. Food Chem. 2012, 133, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mamilla, R.K.; Mishra, V.K. Effect of germination on antioxidant and ACE inhibitory activities of legumes. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 75, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mokni Ghribi, A.; Sila, A.; Maklouf Gafsi, I.; Blecker, C.; Danthine, S.; Attia, H.; Bougatef, A.; Besbes, S. Structural, functional, and ACE inhibitory properties of water-soluble polysaccharides from chickpea flours. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2015, 75, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Mahbub, R.; Francis, N.; Blanchard, C.; Santhakumar, A. The anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties of chickpea hull phenolic extracts. Food Biosci. 2021, 40, 100850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Milán-Noris, A.K.; Gutiérrez-Uribe, J.A.; Santacruz, A.; Serna-Saldívar, S.O.; Martínez-Villaluenga, C. Peptides and isoflavones in gastrointestinal digests contribute to the anti-inflammatory potential of cooked or germinated desi and kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Food Chem. 2018, 268, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Heiras-Palazuelos, M.J.; Ochoa-Lugo, M.I.; Gutiérrez-Dorado, R.; López-Valenzuela, J.A.; Mora-Rochín, S.; Milán-Carrillo, J.; Garzón-Tiznado, J.A.; Reyes-Moreno, C. Technological properties, antioxidant activity and total phenolic and flavonoid content of pigmented chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 64, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Sharma, S.; Yadav, N.; Singh, A.; Kumar, R. Nutritional and antinutritional profile of newly developed chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties. Int. Food Res. J. 2013, 20, 805–810. [Google Scholar]
  32. Quintero-Soto, M.F.; Saracho-Peña, A.G.; Chavez-Ontiveros, J.; Garzon-Tiznado, J.A.; Pineda-Hidalgo, K.V.; Delgado-Vargas, F.; Lopez-Valenzuela, J.A. Phenolic profiles and their contribution to the antioxidant activity of selected chickpea genotypes from Mexico and ICRISAT collections. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2018, 73, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rezaei, M.K.; Deokar, A.A.; Arganosa, G.; Roorkiwal, M.; Pandey, S.K.; Warkentin, T.D.; Varshney, R.K.; Tar’an, B. Mapping Quantitative Trait Loci for Carotenoid Concentration in Three F2 Populations of Chickpea. Plant Genome 2019, 12, 190067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Serrano, C.; Carbas, B.; Castanho, A.; Soares, A.; Patto, M.C.V.; Brites, C. Characterisation of nutritional quality traits of a chickpea (Cicer arietinum) germplasm collection exploited in chickpea breeding in Europe. Crop Pasture Sci. 2017, 68, 1031–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bhagyawant, S.S.; Gautam, A.K.; Narvekar, D.T.; Gupta, N.; Bhadkaria, A.; Srivastava, N.; Upadhyaya, H.D. Biochemical diversity evaluation in chickpea accessions employing mini-core collection. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2018, 24, 1165–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Valente, I.M.; Maia, M.R.G.; Malushi, N.; Oliveira, H.M.; Papa, L.; Rodrigues, J.A.; Fonseca, A.J.M.; Cabrita, A.R.J. Profiling of phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties of European varieties and cultivars of Vicia faba L. pods. Phytochemistry 2018, 152, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, J.-K.; Kim, E.-H.; Lee, O.-K.; Park, S.-Y.; Lee, B.; Kim, S.-H.; Park, I.; Chung, I.-M. Variation and correlation analysis of phenolic compounds in mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) varieties. Food Chem. 2013, 141, 2988–2997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Xiang, J.; Apea-Bah, F.B.; Ndolo, V.U.; Katundu, M.C.; Beta, T. Profile of phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of finger millet varieties. Food Chem. 2019, 275, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Johnson, J. Investigation of the Phenolic and Antioxidant Content in Australian Grains Using Traditional and Non-Invasive Analytical Techniques. Master’s Thesis, CQUniversity, Rockhampton, Australia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  40. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, version 4.2.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2023.
  41. Johnson, J.; Collins, T.; Skylas, D.; Quail, K.; Blanchard, C.; Naiker, M. Profiling the varietal antioxidative content and macrochemical composition in Australian faba beans (Vicia faba L.). Legume Sci. 2020, 2, e28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Johnson, J.; Collins, T.; Skylas, D.; Naiker, M. ATR-MIR: A valuable tool for the rapid assessment of biochemically active compounds in grains. In Proceedings of the 69th Australasian Grain Science Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 27–29 August 2019; pp. 73–79. [Google Scholar]
  43. Segev, A.; Badani, H.; Galili, L.; Hovav, R.; Kapulnik, Y.; Shomer, I.; Galili, S. Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as Affected by Soaking and Cooking Conditions. Food Nutr. Sci. 2011, 2, 724–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nasar-Abbas, S.; Siddique, K.; Plummer, J.; White, P.; Harris, D.; Dods, K.; D’antuono, M. Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) seeds darken rapidly and phenolic content falls when stored at higher temperature, moisture and light intensity. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 42, 1703–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ziegler, V.; Vanier, N.L.; Ferreira, C.D.; Paraginski, R.T.; Monks, J.L.F.; Elias, M.C. Changes in the Bioactive Compounds Content of Soybean as a Function of Grain Moisture Content and Temperature during Long-Term Storage. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, H762–H768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Johnson, J.B. Phenolics in Australian Grain Crops. Mendeley Data, v. 1, 2022. Available online: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/8bb2d725sd/1 (accessed on 12 October 2023).
Blsf 26 00005 g001
Figure 1. Correlogram showing the correlations between the phytochemical constituents and physical parameters of the chickpea seed (n = 97 samples). Correlations with R values above 0.21 or below −0.21 were statistically significant at α = 0.05.
Figure 1. Correlogram showing the correlations between the phytochemical constituents and physical parameters of the chickpea seed (n = 97 samples). Correlations with R values above 0.21 or below −0.21 were statistically significant at α = 0.05.
Blsf 26 00005 g001
Table 1. The impact of variety on the size, colour, and phytochemical composition of desi chickpeas. Note that only varieties with ≥10 samples were included. Varieties with the same superscript were not statistically different according to a post hoc Tukey test at α = 0.05.
Table 1. The impact of variety on the size, colour, and phytochemical composition of desi chickpeas. Note that only varieties with ≥10 samples were included. Varieties with the same superscript were not statistically different according to a post hoc Tukey test at α = 0.05.
Parameters Howzat (n = 10)Kyabra (n = 14)PBA Slasher (n = 11)PBA Striker (n = 20)Sonali (n = 10)p Value
HKW (g/100) 18.6 ± 1.7 bc23.0 ± 1.9 a18.8 ± 1.2 bc20.2 ± 2.6 b16.6 ± 0.8 c<0.001 ***
Flour colour—L* 78.05 ± 1.4180.66 ± 0.7978.18 ± 6.3079.28 ± 1.3777.72 ± 1.100.066 NS
Flour colour—a* 1.93 ± 0.861.74 ± 0.391.78 ± 0.201.41 ± 0.601.51 ± 0.410.096 NS
Flour colour—b* 27.04 ± 1.65 a26.09 ± 1.28 ab24.96 ± 1.27 b26.27 ± 1.52 ab26.44 ± 0.30 ab0.013 *
Moisture (%) 9.21 ± 0.869.13 ± 0.839.24 ± 0.838.86 ± 0.728.39 ± 0.750.087 NS
FRAP (mg TE/100 g) 40.3 ± 16.2 a29.5 ± 6.7 ab24.9 ± 8.9 b33.1 ± 10.4 ab28.5 ± 13.3 ab0.028 *
CUPRAC (mg TE/100 g) 124 ± 20129 ± 21123 ± 17132 ± 42150 ± 260.232 NS
TPC (mg GAE/100 g) 93.7 ± 11.6 a80.3 ± 14.1 ab72.6 ± 8.8 b91.1 ± 9.5 a82.2 ± 13.7 ab<0.001 ***
TMAC (mg cyd-3-glu/100 g) 5.8 ± 1.5 ab5.0 ± 3.2 ab7.2 ± 1.5 a4.2 ± 2.0 b4.5 ± 1.4 b0.006 **
NS—not significant (p > 0.05), * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. The impact of growing location on the size, colour, and phytochemical composition of desi chickpeas. Note that one location (Rupanyup) was excluded as it contained only five samples. Locations with the same superscript were not statistically different according to a post hoc Tukey test at α = 0.05.
Table 2. The impact of growing location on the size, colour, and phytochemical composition of desi chickpeas. Note that one location (Rupanyup) was excluded as it contained only five samples. Locations with the same superscript were not statistically different according to a post hoc Tukey test at α = 0.05.
Parameters Banyena (n = 25)Curyo (n = 18)Horsham (n = 49)p Value
HKW (g/100) 20.1 ± 2.6 a 17.4 ± 1.2 b 19.8 ± 3.1 a0.003 **
Flour colour—L* 79.80 ± 1.06 a 77.81 ± 1.17 b 79.70 ± 1.46 a<0.001 ***
Flour colour—a* 1.67 ± 0.25 a 1.26 ± 0.74 b 1.98 ± 0.56 a<0.001 ***
Flour colour—b* 24.95 ± 0.68 c 26.86 ± 1.04 b 27.77 ± 0.98 a<0.001 ***
Moisture (%) 9.34 ± 0.51 a 9.05 ± 0.48 a 8.20 ± 0.96 b<0.001 ***
FRAP (mg TE/100 g) 27.0 ± 6.9 b 38.3 ± 13.9 a 34.9 ± 11.6 a0.002 **
CUPRAC (mg TE/100 g) 114 ± 18 b 133 ± 23 b 157 ± 36 a<0.001 ***
TPC (mg GAE/100 g) 74.1 ± 6.9 b 92.8 ± 13.9 a 87.0 ± 11.6 a<0.001 ***
TMAC (mg cyd-3-glu/100 g) 6.6 ± 2.5 a 5.0 ± 1.5 b 3.5 ± 1.4 c<0.001 ***
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. The impact of the growing year on the size, colour, and phytochemical composition of desi chickpea. Years with the same superscript were not statistically different according to a post hoc Tukey test at α = 0.05.
Table 3. The impact of the growing year on the size, colour, and phytochemical composition of desi chickpea. Years with the same superscript were not statistically different according to a post hoc Tukey test at α = 0.05.
Parameters 2017 (n = 30)2019 (n = 53)2020 (n = 14)p Value
HKW (g/100) 20.2 ± 2.4 a 19.3 ± 2.8 a 18.5 ± 3.1 a0.003 **
Flour colour—L* 80.00 ± 1.14 a 79.09 ± 1.71 b 79.57 ± 1.12 ab<0.001 ***
Flour colour—a* 1.68 ± 0.27 b 1.62 ± 0.65 b 2.42 ± 0.40 a<0.001 ***
Flour colour—b* 24.82 ± 0.74 b 27.54 ± 1.12 a 27.48 ± 0.88 a<0.001 ***
Moisture (%) 9.46 ± 0.56 a 8.45 ± 0.97 b 8.35 ± 0.81 b<0.001 ***
FRAP (mg TE/100 g) 26.9 ± 6.4 c 33.8 ± 11.9 b 43.7 ± 10.1 a0.002 **
CUPRAC (mg TE/100 g) 116 ± 18 c 142 ± 32 b 181 ± 28 a<0.001 ***
TPC (mg GAE/100 g) 76.4 ± 8.8 b 88.7 ± 12.2 a 88.3 ± 10.6 a<0.001 ***
TMAC (mg cyd-3-glu/100 g) 6.4 ± 2.4 a 4.0 ± 1.6 b 3.6 ± 1.0 b<0.001 ***
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Johnson, J.B.; Naiker, M. Factors Influencing Bioactive Constituents in Desi Chickpeas: Variety, Location, and Season. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2023, 26, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/Foods2023-14994

AMA Style

Johnson JB, Naiker M. Factors Influencing Bioactive Constituents in Desi Chickpeas: Variety, Location, and Season. Biology and Life Sciences Forum. 2023; 26(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/Foods2023-14994

Chicago/Turabian Style

Johnson, Joel B., and Mani Naiker. 2023. "Factors Influencing Bioactive Constituents in Desi Chickpeas: Variety, Location, and Season" Biology and Life Sciences Forum 26, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/Foods2023-14994

APA Style

Johnson, J. B., & Naiker, M. (2023). Factors Influencing Bioactive Constituents in Desi Chickpeas: Variety, Location, and Season. Biology and Life Sciences Forum, 26(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/Foods2023-14994

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop