Nutrition & Food Science Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Iron Fortified Tamarind Candies

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

*Corresponding author: Jamuna Prakash, Department of Food Abstract Science and Nutrition, University of Mysore, Mysore, INDIA, The investigation aimed at formulation of iron fortified tamarind Tel: 08212419634; E-mail: [email protected] (Tamarindus indica) candies and analysis of its nutritional composition, bioaccessible iron and sensory acceptability. Candies Received Date: January 14, 2016 were formulated using tamarind paste, sugar, salts, spices and pectin. Ferrous sulfate or ferrous fumarate was used as fortificant Accepted Date: March 07, 2016 to yield 30 mg iron/100 g product. In addition, nut flavoured candies (with ‘Charoli seeds’ Buchanania lanzan, Family, Anacardiaceae), Published Date: March 15, 2016 were also prepared as a variation. Products were analyzed for nutrients, antinutrients and bioaccessible iron using standard Citation: Mamatha C, Prakash J (2016) Nutritional and Sensory methods. The candies were evaluated for sensory attributes by Quality of Iron Fortified Tamarind Candies. J Nutr Food Sci 1: 001. 48-54 members with the help of a specially developed score card. The range of constituents in tamarind ripe and control candy per can either increase or decrease mineral absorption. Hence they 100 g respectively were as follows:- moisture, 10.8 & 40.78%; are known as enhancers and inhibitors [4]. A wide range of body protein, 2.08 & 0.44%; iron, 16.64 & 3.2 mg; calcium, 167.2 & 53.0 functions are dependent on iron. Iron deficiency can result in mg; oxalates, 196.4 & 38.0 mg; phytates, 718.3 & 85.8 mg and anaemia which is a nutritional problem of multiple etiologies. Low 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 intake, poor bioavailability, repeated pregnancies, increased iron candy was 1.11 mg whereas in iron fortified candy, it ranged from needs during growth and development of children and adolescents, 25.2 -29.8 mg /100g. More than 80% of iron was bioaccessible in iron parasitic infections and chronic blood loss are major causes for iron fortified products, in comparison to 34.6% in control product. All the deficiency. The major cause of anemia is poor bioavailability of the products were highly acceptable by panel members for all sensory mineral. Bioavailability (or biological availability) is referred as the attributes. proportion of the nutrient in the food and its availability in the form of Keywords: Anti-nutritional factors; Bioaccessible iron; Ferrous utilization and absorption [5]. Iron deficiency anemia is public health fumarate; Ferrous sulphate; Sensory attributes problem in Indian population with incidence ranging from 70-80% in Introduction children to 70% in pregnant women [6]. The major approaches to control iron deficiency is through Tamarind fruit, referred to as Indian date because of its appearance is highly valued for its versatility. It is also known as back medicinal supplementation, dietary diversification and fortification bone of traditional medicine [1]. Tamarindus indica, a slow growing (addition of a nutrient to a food to improve its quality). Food forti- tree adopted by India from Africa belongs to Leguminosae (Fabaceae) fication is used to combat malnutrition and improve the nutritional family, and used for domestic and commercial purposes in different quality of foods. Though iron supplementation is considered ways. It provides flattish bean like fruit with sticky pulp and seeds. necessary for groups at high risk as a short-term emergency measure, Maturation of the fruit provides brown or reddish brown pulp which is acidophilus. Seeds are hard, shiny, reddish or purpulish brown nationwide long-standing supplementation program have shown made up of tough fibers and surrounded by pulp [2]. It is known to irregular supplies, poor counseling, non-compliance by beneficiaries, contain the highest level of carbohydrates and protein than any other etc. Hence supplementation strategy has proved to be inadequate in fruit. It has high potassium, phosphorus, iron, calcium and vitamins Indian context [7]. Ascorbic acid, citric acid and tartaric acid are the such as thiamin and niacin. Among organic acids, tartaric acid is organic acids which prevent precipitation of ferric iron by reducing present throughout the stages of development of the fruit. Oxalic acid, it to ferrous state and forming suitable soluble ligands which are succinic acid, citric acid and quinic acid are also reported in the tamarind. Ascorbic acid content is very less in the pulp [3]. available for absorption. Tartaric acid was shown to increase iron absorption both in model systems as well as in fortified products Both plant and animal foods are sources of mineral constituents when used as a promoter [5,8]. The present study was undertaken to in our diet. As structural elements, regulators of chemical reactions, formulate iron fortified sweet-sour tamarind fruit candies, and to the inorganic elements (minerals) are needed for the body. Free metal ions require no digestion and are fully absorbed, but minerals bound analyze the products for chemical composition, iron bioaccessibility in food matrix are poorly absorbed. There are various factors which and sensory acceptability.

Henry Publishing Group Volume: 1 | Issue: 1 | 100001 1 of 6 © Mamatha C and Prakash J 2016 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 Materials part of India are small lentil sized nuts rich in protein and fat similar to other oilseeds. The reported nutritional composition The ingredients needed for formulation of candies namely ripe of Charoli nuts per 100 g is as follows - protein, 19.0 g; fat, 59.1 tamarind, (Tamarindus indica), ‘Charoli seeds’ (Buchanania lanzan, g; energy, 656 Kcal. ; calcium, 279 mg and iron, 8.5 mg [9]. Family, Anacardiaceae), sugar, salt, and chili powder were purchased They have an almond like flavor and are used in cooking to from local market. The chemicals used for analysis were of analytical garnish sweets and to thicken gravies. 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 Figure 2: Tamarind Candy-Control. at 10% level for additional flavor during cooking. The details for prepared products are as follows: Chemical Analysis

a) Tamarind candy fortified with ferrous sulphate (FeSO4.7H2O), [TC-FS]. Ripe tamarind and formulated products were analyzed for different constituents as follows: the moisture content of the sample b) Tamarind candy fortified with ferrous fumarate (C H FeO ), [TC- 4 2 4 was determined by repeated oven drying and weighing, and fat was FF]. analyzed by crude fat extraction method [10]. The samples were ashed c) Tamarind candy with Charoli seeds and ferrous sulphate, [TC- in a muffle furnace and ash solution was prepared by mixing with CFS]. double distilled water. Calcium was analyzed by precipitation as d) Tamarind candy with Charoli seeds and ferrous fumarate, [TC- calcium oxalate and subsequent titration with potassium perman- CFF]. ganate, iron was determined colorimetrically by Wong’s method.

Henry Publishing Group Volume: 1 | Issue: 1 | 100001 2 of 6 © Mamatha C and Prakash J 2016 ISSN: HJNFS Citation: Mamatha C, Prakash J (2016) Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Iron Fortified Tamarind Candies. J Nutr Food Sci 1: 001.

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 Code Code Attractive Salty APPEARANCE Appealing Sour Not appealing Spicy TASTE Acceptable Sweet COLOUR Not Acceptable Metallic Soft Pleasant TEXTURE Very soft Like extremely Rubbery Like moderately Excellent Like slightly Good FLAVOUR Neither like nor dislike OVER ALL QUALITY Satisfactory Dislike slightly Fair Dislike moderately Poor Dislike very much Table 1: Score card for Tamarind Candy.

Figure 3: Tamarind Candy fortified with ferrous sulphate. Figure 4: Tamarind Candy fortified with ferrous fumerate.

The estimation of nitrogen was done by Kjeldahl method and protein stand for 30 min and absorbance read at 740 nm using spectropho- content obtained by multiplying the nitrogen value by 6.25 [10]. tometer [14].

Phytic acid was extracted and determined according to the In vitro bioaccesible iron in iron fortified products were supernatant difference method of Thompson and Erdman [11]. determined by simulated gastrointestinal digestion using pepsin for The conversion factor 3.55 for phosphorus to phytic acid was used. the gastric stage followed by pancreatin and bile salt for the intestinal Oxalates were extracted with hydrochloric acid, precipitated as stage. The proportion of mineral diffused through a semi permeable calcium oxalate from the deproteinised extract and were estimated membrane was used to measure mineral dialysability. The dialysate by subsequent titration with potassium permanganate [12]. was used to analyze available iron by α-α-bipyridyl method. Colorimetric estimation of tannins was based on the measurement of blue colour formed by the reduction of phosphotungstomolybdic acid Sensory evaluation of products 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) Products developed were subjected to sensory evaluation based and 0.8 ml of 2% Na2CO3 was added. The volume was made up to 10 on the descriptive quality preference test. A score card was prepared ml using water-methanol (4:6) as diluting fluid. This was allowed to to obtain descriptive responses and preference of panel members as

Henry Publishing Group Volume: 1 | Issue: 1 | 100001 3 of 6 © Mamatha C and Prakash J 2016 ISSN: HJNFS Citation: Mamatha C, Prakash J (2016) Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Iron Fortified Tamarind Candies. J Nutr Food Sci 1: 001.

given in Table 1. Respondents were young students of college who In formulated products, the range of moisture was 37.73 to served as untrained consumer panel. Coded samples were presented 41.43%. As expected, protein and fat contents were in the lower range. to members on different days, i.e., each fortified sample was presented In fortified products, ash content was higher on account of addition along with a control sample on a given day. The results were compiled of iron salts. While control candy had 3.2 mg of iron per 100 g, the as frequency distribution of responses among each category. 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 Results and Discussion were also present in all formulated products, though the amount was The results of the study are summarized in Table 2 and 3. The lesser in comparison to ripe tamarind. According to Parvez et al. [18] composition, anti-nutrients and bioaccessible iron of ripe tamarind tamarind was reported to contain 600 mg of tannins on dry basis and and formulated products are presented in Table 2. The tamarind pulp had 81-466 mg of calcium/100 g. The bioaccessible iron, which fruit had 2.08 g of protein, 0.16 g of fat, 16.64 mg of iron, 167 mg of is considered equivalent to physiologically absorbed iron, was low in calcium and 2.7 g of dietary fiber per 100 g. The fat content was control candy, and very high in fortified candies. This is an negligible whereas ash content was 3.27% indicating it to be a rich important finding as these candies can be a good source of iron source of minerals. The anti-nutritional components were high with despite the presence of iron binding factors. This can be attributed oxalates, phytates and tannins, in the range of 196 mg, 718 mg and 762 to the presence of tartaric acid in the tamarind. Our earlier studies mg per 100 g respectively. These are the potential constituents known indicated that tartaric acid can be a good promoter of added iron [8]. to bind minerals and decrease their bioavailability. They can also form Even in model system, tartatric acid promoted the absorption of iron protein complex and reduce their digestibility. Phenolic compounds [5]. When iron availability was considered as percent of total iron, not only decrease the bioavailability of vitamins and minerals but also that of proteins and carbohydrates. Further they decrease the activity from ripe tamarind, 27%, and in fortified products, 79.3 to 91.4% of of digestive enzymes such as α-amylase, trypsin, chymotrypsin and iron was bioaccessible (Figure 5). There were no major differences lipase and may cause damage to the mucosa of digestive tract [15]. in iron bioaccessibility from two different iron salts used as iron Phytates are considered as the anti-nutrients which bind iron, calcium fortificants. Presence of charoli nuts slightly decreased the iron and zinc [16]. Among all organic acids, oxalic acid is known to inhibit accessibility. This clearly re-affirmed that from fortified candies most iron absorption [17]. 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 Figure 5: Iron bioavailability as percent of total iron in Tamarind and Candies. cheese, iron bioaccessibility is comparatively higher [22].

Tamarind Candies Nutritional constituents Ripe Tamarind TC-C TC-FS TC-FF TC-CFF TC-CFS Moisture (%) 10.81 ± 0.24 40.78 ± 0.78 41.43 ± 0.25 40.60 ± 0.09 37.99 ± 0.75 37.73 ± 0.17 Protein (g) 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).

Henry Publishing Group Volume: 1 | Issue: 1 | 100001 4 of 6 © Mamatha C and Prakash J 2016 ISSN: HJNFS Citation: Mamatha C, Prakash J (2016) Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Iron Fortified Tamarind Candies. J Nutr Food Sci 1: 001.

Set- 1 Set-2 Set-3 Set-4 Attributes Description 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 Appearance 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 Colour Not acceptable 4 4 4 8 4 7 0 3 Soft 37 37 27 28 36 40 45 50 Texture 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 Taste 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 Flavour 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 Overall quality 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 spices, for all these categories, some responses were obtained. Spices contribute to specific taste quality of products to which they are fortified candy added. Ginger and black pepper are particularly recognized for their antioxidant and medicinal properties [24-28]. All the formulated products were subjected to sensory evaluation by a panel size ranging from 48-54 members on different Few of the panelists could detect a metallic taste in fortified days. Each of the fortified product was presented with a control candy candies. However, most of the panel members described the taste with a structured score card and the results are summarized in Table 3. quality as pleasant indicating their acceptance of the taste. For For the quality attribute of appearance all the products were described flavor the responses were distributed over a wide range of responses. either as attractive or appealing. There were very few who marked Most of the responses were in the category of ‘like very much’ and them as non-appealing. Similarly for colour the products were ‘like moderately’. There were some who showed a slight liking for the marked as acceptable by majority of panel members. A small number product. However, there were no responses for dislike moderately or indicated non-acceptability of colour, which could have been due very much. This shows the general acceptability of this new product. to dark colour of candy. Since the major ingredient of candy was The overall quality was rated as excellent or good by majority of panel. tamarind, the colour was naturally dark. Textual quality was described Results of sensory analysis indicated that the product was appreciated as soft by majority followed by very soft by a small panel. Since the for sensory attributes by most of the members, hence it has a good product had added pectin, the texture was maintained as pectin gets potential to be introduced as an iron fortified product. bound to sugar and helps in gelation process forming a network of fibrils [23]. Conclusion Under the attribute of taste the quality description ranged from Iron deficiency anemia is well known as ‘silent killer’ and it affects salty to pleasant (Table 1) to incorporate varieties of responses, which millions of people around the world. Food fortification is a proven could be felt by members. Since the candy was sour on account of long term strategy to supplement the existing dietaries with iron. The tamarind, sweet because of added sugar, spicy because of added present study focused on formulation of iron fortified tamarind

Henry Publishing Group Volume: 1 | Issue: 1 | 100001 5 of 6 © Mamatha C and Prakash J 2016 ISSN: HJNFS Citation: Mamatha C, Prakash J (2016) Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Iron Fortified Tamarind Candies. J Nutr Food Sci 1: 001.

candies and assessing its nutritional quality and acceptability. The 14. Matthäus B (2002) Antioxidant activity of extracts obtained from residues of formulated candies exhibited a very high bioaccessible iron of nearly different oilseeds. J Agric Food Chem 50: 3444-3452. 90%. The sensory attributes of candies were also acceptable by a 15. Liener IE (1994) Implications of antinutritional components in soybean foods. consumer panel. Products fortified with both ferrous sulphate and Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 34: 31-67. ferrous fumarate were equally acceptable. Hence this product can be used as a potential vehicle for iron fortification due to high iron 16. Norhaizan ME Jr, Nor Faizadatul Ain AW (2009) Determination of phytate, availability and it will be preferred by young adults and children due iron, zinc, calcium contents and their molar ratios in commonly consumed to its appealing sweet and sour taste. 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) References The effects of organic acids, phytates and polyphenols on the absorption of iron from vegetables. Br J Nutr 49: 331-342. 1. Farnsworth NR (1994) Ethnopharmacology and drug development. Ciba Found Symp 185: 42-51. 18. Parvez SS, Parvez MM, Nishihara E, Gemma H, Fujii Y (2003) Tamarindus indica L. leaf is a source of allelopathic substance. Plant Growth Regulation 2. Singh D, Moond SK, Wangchu L (2008) Medicinal value of tamarind (Tama- 40: 107-115. rindus indica). In: Singh VK, Govil JN, Sharma RK (eds.). Recent progress in Medicinal plants, Phytopharmacology and Therapeutic values. 19: 293-305. 19. Kulsum A, Lakshmi JA, Prakash J (2009) Iron nutriture of Indian children 3. Ishola MM, Agbaji EB, Agbaji AS (1990) A Chemical Study of Tamarindus residing in an urban slum with reference to dietary iron intakes. Research indica (Tsamiya) Fruits grown in Nigeria. J Sci Food Agri 51: 141-143. Reach 8: 38-46.

4. Mahaan K, Escott-Stump S (2004) Food Nutrition & Diet Therapy. Nutrition 20. Salma NU, Prakash J (2014) Nutritional composition and sensory quality of Basics- Minerals (11th ed). United States 120-154. iron fortified fruit cheese. Ind J Nutr Dietet. 51: 135-144.

5. Jyothi Lakshmi A, Gupta S, Prakash J (2006) Comparative analysis of influ- 21. Fidler MC, Davidsson L, Zeder C, Walczyk T, Hurrell RF (2003) Iron absorp- ence of promoters and inhibitors on in vitro available iron using two methods. tion from ferrous fumarate in adult women is influenced by ascorbic acid but Int J Food Sci Nutr 57: 559-569. not by Na2EDTA. Br J Nutr 90: 1081-1085.

6. NFHS (2007) National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3) 2005-06. Internation- al Institute for Population Sciences, Mumbai, India. 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 7. Vijayaraghavan K (2002) Control of micronutrient deficiencies in India: obsta- pyrophosphate in humans. Am J Clin Nutr 83: 632-638. cles and strategies. Nutr Rev 60: S73-76. 23. Thakur BR, Singh RK, Handa AK (1997) Chemistry and uses of pectin--a 8. Govindaraj T, KrishnaRau L, Prakash J (2007) In vitro bioavailability of iron review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 37: 47-73. and sensory qualities of iron-fortified wheat biscuits. Food Nutr Bull 28: 299- 306. 24. Jeena K, Lijy VB, Umadevi NP, Kuttan R (2014) Antioxidant, anti-inflammato- ry and antinociceptive properties of black pepper essential oil (Piper nigrum 9. Gopalan C, Rama Sastri BV, Balasubramanian SC (1989) Nutritive value Linn). J Essen Oil Bear Plants. 17: 1-12. of Indian Foods. National Institute of Nutrition, ICMR, Hyderabad, India Pg no: 156. 25. Malhotra S, Singh AP (2003) Medicinal properties of ginger (zingiber officina- 10. Raghuramulu N, Madhavan Nair K, Kalyanasundaram SA (2003) Manual of le Rosc). Natural Product Radiance. 2: 296-301. laboratory techniques. (2nd ed). National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad. India, 53-328. 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. 11. Thompson DB, Erdman Jr JW (1982) Phytic acid determination in soybeans. J Food Sci 47: 513-517. 27. Nikousaleh A, Prakash J (2009) Antioxidant activity of water extracts from thermally treated black pepper (Piper nigrum Linn) and cumin (Cuminum 12. Baker CJL (1952) The determination of oxalates in fresh plant material. Ana- cyminum Linn.). Ind J Nutr Dietet 46: 364-371. lyst 77:340-344. 28. Pilerood SA, Prakash J (2011) Nutritional composition and antioxidant prop- 13. Ranganna S (1986) Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and erties of ginger root (Zingiber officinale). J Med Plants Res 4 (24): 2674- vegetable products (2nd ed). Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New Delhi, India, 2679. Pg no: 1112.