| Title |
Retention of nutrients in green leafy vegetables on dehydration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-011-0407-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sheetal Gupta, B. S. Gowri, A. Jyothi Lakshmi, Jamuna Prakash |
| Abstract |
The objective of the study was to investigate the influence of dehydration on nutrient composition of Amaranthus gangeticus, Chenopodium album, Centella asiatica, Amaranthus tricolor and Trigonella foenum graecum. The green leafy vegetables (GLV) were steam blanched for 5 min after pretreatment and dried in an oven at 60 °C for 10-12 h. The fresh and dehydrated samples were analyzed for selected proximate constituents, vitamins, minerals, antinutrients and dialyzable minerals. Dehydration seems to have little effect on the proximate, mineral and antinutrient content of the GLV. Among the vitamins, retention of ascorbic acid was 1-14%, thiamine 22-71%, total carotene 49-73% and β-carotene 20-69% respectively, of their initial content. Dialyzable iron and calcium in the fresh vegetables ranged between 0.21-3.5 mg and 15.36-81.33 mg/100 g respectively, which reduced to 0.05-0.53 mg and 6.94-58.15 mg/100 g on dehydration. Dehydration seems to be the simplest convenient technology for preserving these sources of micronutrients, especially when they are abundantly available. Irrespective of the losses of vitamins that take place during dehydration, dehydrated GLV are a concentrated natural source of micronutrients and they can be used in product formulations. Value addition of traditional products with dehydrated GLV can be advocated as a feasible food-based approach to combat micronutrient malnutrition. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 126 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 19% |
| Unknown | 31 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 50 | 39% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Chemical Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 39 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2014.
All research outputs
#20,221,866
of 22,745,803 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#1,093
of 1,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,457
of 111,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#15
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,745,803 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 111,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.