Content uploaded by M.J. Robert Nout
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by M.J. Robert Nout on Jul 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Wageningen UR Library]
On: 16 July 2015, At: 06:45
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG
Click for updates
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bfsn20
Mung Bean: Technological and Nutritional Potential
P. K. Dahiyaabcd, A. R. Linnemannc, M. A. J. S. Van Boekelc, N. Khetarpaula, R. B. Grewala &
M. J. R. Noutd
a Centre of Food Science and Technology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar,
Haryana, India
b Department of Foods and Nutrition, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana,
India
c Food Quality and Design, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
d Laboratory of Food Microbiology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Accepted author version posted online: 12 Sep 2013.Published online: 11 Nov 2014.
To cite this article: P. K. Dahiya, A. R. Linnemann, M. A. J. S. Van Boekel, N. Khetarpaul, R. B. Grewal & M. J. R. Nout (2015)
Mung Bean: Technological and Nutritional Potential, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 55:5, 670-688, DOI:
10.1080/10408398.2012.671202
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.671202
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 55:670–688 (2015)
Copyright C
Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-8398 / 1549-7852 online
DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2012.671202
Mung Bean: Technological
and Nutritional Potential
P. K. DAHIYA,1,2,3,4 A. R. LINNEMANN,3M. A. J. S. VAN BOEKEL,3
N. KHETARPAUL,1R. B. GREWAL,1andM.J.R.NOUT
4
1Centre of Food Science and Technology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, India
2Department of Foods and Nutrition, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, India
3Food Quality and Design, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
4Laboratory of Food Microbiology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek) has been intensively researched; scattered data areavailable on various properties.
Data on physical, chemical, food processing, and nutritional properties were collected for whole mung bean grains and
reviewed to assess the crop’s potential as food and to set research priorities. Results show that mung bean is a rich source
of protein (14.6–33.0 g/100 g) and iron (5.9–7.6 mg/100 g). Grain color is correlated with compounds like polyphenols and
carotenoids, while grain hardness is associated with fiber content. Physical properties like grain dimensions, sphericity,
porosity, bulk, and true density are related to moisture content. Anti-nutrients are phytic acid, tannins, hemagglutinins, and
polyphenols. Reported nutrient contents vary greatly, the causes of which are not well understood. Grain size and color have
been associated with different regions and were used by plant breeders for selection purposes. Analytical methods require
more accuracy and precision to distinguish biological variation from analytical variation. Research on nutrient digestibility,
food processing properties, and bioavailability is needed. Furthermore, the effects of storage and processing on nutrients
and food processing properties are required to enable optimization of processing steps, for better mung bean food quality
and process efficiency.
Keywords Nutrients, anti-nutrients, minerals, fatty acids, amino acids, physical properties
INTRODUCTION
Mung bean or green gram (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek) has
been cultivated in India since prehistoric times and is believed
to be a native crop of India (Vavilov, 1926). It is cultivated
throughout Southern and Eastern Asia, Central Africa, some
parts of China, South and North America and Australia, partic-
ularly for its protein-rich grains. Mung bean is a warm seasonal
annual legume, grown mostly as a rotational crop with cereals
like wheat and rice. Mung bean plants are erect with branches
carrying pods in clusters near the top of the plant. Pods contain
8–15 seed grains. The grains are green or brown colored and
globose in shape with a flat hilum. The crop’s main advantages
are that, as a legume, it does not require fertilization for nitro-
gen (Murakami et al., 1991), and that it has a short growth cycle
(75–90 days), requires little water and fits easily into crop ro-
tations with cereals. It grows well under most adverse arid and
semiarid conditions.
Address correspondence to A. R. Linnemann, Product Design and Quality
Management Group, P. O. Box 8129 6700 EV Wageningen, the Netherlands.
E-mail: anita.linnemann@wur.nl
Mung bean is considered a good source of protein (Engel,
1978). Its different food products such as dhals (i.e., thick stews
from dehulled and split grains), sweets, snacks, and savory foods
have evolved and became popular in the Indian subcontinent
(Adsule et al., 1986; Singh et al., 1988), whereas products like
cake, sprouts, noodles, and soups evolved in oriental countries
like China (Cheng et al., 1988; Singh and Singh, 1992), the
Philippines (Rosario, 1991) as well as in Iran (Amirshahi, 1978)
and Thailand (Prabhavat, 1990).
Biochemical analyses in previously published studies reveal
that mung bean and its processed products are rich in nutrients.
Chemistry and technology of mung bean have been reviewed
previously by Adsule et al. (1986), who provided substantial
information on the nutritional aspects, but only gave limited
information on processing of mung bean. Some publications
also reviewed mung bean food products (Adsule et al., 1986;
Prabhavat, 1990; Rosario, 1991; Singh and Singh, 1992). How-
ever, these reviews are dated and do not deal in detail with the
physical and food processing properties of mung bean grains, or
other new developments in mung bean chemistry. Knowledge
about the effects of food processing and physical characteristics
670
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
MUNG BEAN: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL POTENTIAL 671
is essential to enable standardization and quality assurance of
foods prepared by different processing methods. The present
review investigates the physical, chemical, food processing, and
nutritional properties of raw mung bean grain based on literature
data and critically evaluates the similarities and divergences of
the values in relation to the research methods used. Although the
chemistry of raw grains does not represent the nutrient content
of mung bean as consumed, the data establish the potential of
stored nutritional composition of the grain. For each component,
the reported values are, as much as possible, converted into the
same unit, and their average, minimum, and maximum values
are calculated and reported in tables. Finally, further research
needs are identified for strengthening the knowledge base of this
important food grain.
For the purpose of this review, we searched all scientific pub-
lication sources relating to chemistry, processing, and consump-
tion of mung bean. We focused, however, on the more recent
literature data. We included four data sources from the period
1926–1960, 1 source from the seventies, 23 sources from the
eighties, 36 from the nineties, 29 from the period 1991–2000,
whereas the period 2001 till present yielded 50 relevant publi-
cations.
A. PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
Knowledge of physical and engineering properties is essen-
tial for designing equipment for processing, transportation, sort-
ing, separation, and storage. Physical properties of mung bean
grains and their relation with its chemical composition, partic-
ularly with moisture content, have been studied (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001; Mangaraj et al., 2005; Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008). The relevant physical properties of mung bean
grains include shape, size, mass, volume, bulk density, true
density, porosity, static friction against different surfaces, rup-
ture strength, angle of repose, and terminal velocity (Table 1).
Volume, density, and porosity are among the parameters that
determine the suitability of mung bean grains for processing
technologies and affect grain resistance toward air flow in trans-
port and separation unit operations (Unal et al., 2008). Rupture
strength of the grains determines the milling behavior and cook-
ability of the grains, as grains with low rupture strength will be
easy to handle in flour making and soften easily during cooking.
Dimensions of mung bean grains are important for the quality
of its derived products, such as texture in the case of sprouts
and consistency in the case of dhals. Consumer’s appreciation
for sprouts may vary with bean varieties of different sizes.
Dimensions and Shape of the Grain
Physical dimensions of the grain, i.e., length (L), width (B),
and thickness (T), are relevant in grading, sorting, sieving, and
other postharvest operations. Grain size plays an important role
Tab l e 1 Physical and engineering properties of mung bean
Physical and
engineering
properties Average∗Minimum Maximum References
Length (mm) 4.94.26.2 (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001;
Mangaraj et al., 2005;
Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
Width (mm) 3.73.24.5 (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001;
Mangaraj et al., 2005;
Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
Thickness (mm) 3.63.14.2 (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001;
Mangaraj et al., 2005;
Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
Geometric mean
diameter (mm)
4.33.74.9 (Mangaraj et al., 2005;
Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
Sphericity 0.82 0.75 0.90 (Mangaraj et al., 2005;
Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
Volume (mm3)33.230.435.0 (Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
Thousand seed
weight (g)
35.67.360.1 (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001;
Mangaraj et al., 2005;
Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
Bulk density
(kg m3)
756.81 679.1 821.3 (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001;
Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
True density (kg
m3)
1335.4 1230.0 1456.7 (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001;
Unal et al., 2008)
Porosity (%) 40.830.447.1 (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001;
Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
Terminal velocity
(m s−1)
7.54.912.1 (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001;
Yildiz, 2005; Unal
et al., 2008)
Angle of repose
(degree)
27.625.929.4 (Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay, 2001;
Unal et al., 2008)
Projected area
(mm2)
18.417.519.3 (Unal et al., 2008)
∗Mean value of all collected data.
in selection and distribution of mung bean varieties around
the globe, as consumers selected varieties with specific sizes
along with other agronomic characteristics (Tomooka et al.,
1991; Mangaraj et al., 2005). This has led to three mung bean
areas on the basis of seed size, namely the Indian subconti-
nent with small-seeded mung bean, south-east Asia with large-
sized mung bean, and east Asia with medium-sized mung been
grains (Tomooka et al., 1991). The reported length, width, and
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
672 P. K. DAHIYA ET AL.
thickness of the mung bean are given in Table 1. Dimensions
of the mung bean grain were measured by analog or digital
Vernier calliper (Nimkar and Chattopadhyay, 2001), whereas
Yildiz (2005) used a micrometer. Measurements were done at
different moisture contents, ranging from 6.7 to 33.4% dw (dry
weight). From these results, all authors (Nimkar and Chattopad-
hyay, 2001; Yildiz, 2005; Unal et al., 2008) concluded that
length, width, and thickness are a function of moisture content
of the grains and that dimensions increase at higher moisture
contents with a high correlation coefficient (R2=0.998). The
reported geometric mean diameter (D) was calculated by the
equation, D=(L×B×T)1/3. The variation in the dimension
may be due to the use of different varieties and can be influenced
by sample quality, particularly moisture content. However, use
of an analog Vernier calliper or micrometer as tools of analysis
seems to have no effect on the calculated values. Length/width
ratio of the mung bean ranged from 1.0 to 1.5, which was used
as an indicator of the shape of mung bean (Tomooka, 1991).
Grain size is also reported to be correlated with protein content
as discussed later in this paper.
Sphericity of the grain is the geometric tolerance of the grain
that indicates how much it deviates from a perfectly round
sphere. Sphericity (φ) was calculated by the equation φ=D/L,
where Dis the geometric mean diameter and Lis the length of
the grain. Its value is the ratio and thus dimensionless. Higher
values of sphericity indicate that the shape of the grain is closer
to a sphere. This parameter is important in the movement of
the grains during milling, sorting, and dehulling processes and
for determination of terminal velocity, the drag coefficient, and
the Reynolds number. The sphericity of the mung bean grain
decreases nonlinearly with an increase in the moisture content
from 6.7 to 18.6% (R2=0.892) (Unal et al., 2008) and is com-
parable to that of cowpea (Yalcın, 2007), millet (Baryeh, 2002),
and pea (Yalcın et al., 2007) with values ranging from 0.78–0.80,
0.79–0.80, and 0.84–0.85, respectively.
Grain Color and Appearance
The color of the mung bean grain is a quality indicator, as
consumers select grains of a specific color and reject others.
Mung bean grains generally appear green but other colors have
also been reported (Paroda and Thomas, 1988). The color of
the grain is due to the color of the testa. The cotyledons are
generally pale yellow. Colors of mung bean grains may range
from dark green, light yellow, light green, deep green, shin-
ing green, dull green, golden yellow to mottled yellow (Yousif
et al., 2003; Katiyar et al., 2007). Mung bean grains have been
divided into five groups on the basis of grain color, i.e., green
with glossy seed, dull green, yellow with glossiness and dull
luster, black with glossy luster, and brown with dull seed luster
by Tomooka et al. (1991), who identified a geographic gradient
for mung bean varieties based on grain color. Most of the shiny
green mung bean varieties (49%) are from the Philippines, Viet-
nam, Thailand, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, whereas dull
green varieties are mainly from Korea, China, Taiwan, Turkey,
and Indonesia. Yellow colored varieties are from Korea, Tai-
wan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and India but account
for only 4% of the studied varieties, whereas brown varieties
are mainly from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and the Afghan region
(Tomooka et al., 1991). The variation in grain color may be
due to differences in genetic makeup (Akhtar et al., 1988;
Pandey et al., 1989; Bhadra et al., 1991; Chen and Liu, 2001;
Yousif et al., 2003; Katiyar et al., 2007) and storage conditions
(Yousif et al., 2003). Color of the grains is an important prop-
erty for varietal identification and acts as a marker for breeding
experiments (Chhabra et al., 1990). Dark colored mung bean
grains have been reported to contain higher polyphenol levels
(Salunkhe et al., 1982; Muhammed et al., 2010), probably due
to higher concentrations in the grain testa (Barroga et al., 1985).
Yellow mung bean varieties contained higher quantities of seed
coat polyphenols than green varieties, which indicate effective
removal of polyphenols in yellow varieties by the dehulling
process. Difference in color in mung bean varieties is also due
to different carotenoid contents as discussed later in the paper.
The color of the grain imparts color to certain food products
prepared by use of whole mung beans, thus it seems that mung
bean varieties that impart odd colors to a product will not be
acceptable. Authors reported mung bean colors based on sub-
jective observations; to our knowledge, no author reported the
color of mung bean based on instrumental studies.
Grain Hardness
Hardness is the ability of the grain to resist penetration, break-
age, and scratching. Sood et al. (1982) reported grain hardness
of nine mung bean varieties to range from 1.9 to 3.8 kg/seed
with an average of 3.0 kg/seed, measured using a unspecified
hardness tester. Grain hardness has been reported to correlate
with grain weight (Humphry et al., 2005) and color of the grains.
Felicito and Evelyn Mae (1990) reported that high lignin and
silica contents in combination with a compact solid structure can
be the reason for the hardness of the seed coat in hard mung bean
grains, as well as for their impermeability to water. Mendoza
et al. (1988) reported that hardness of mung bean occurs in fresh
grains mostly during the dry season and that yellow varieties are
more likely to develop hardness. Felicito and Evelyn Mae (1990)
reported that hydroxyprolines and pectins are not involved in the
hard seed coat phenomenon of mung bean as they did not find
hydroxyprolines in the amino acid profile of mung bean and
the pectin content of normal and hard grains showed no sig-
nificant difference. The authors also reported that the thickness
of the seed coat of hard seeds was twice that of normal seeds,
which may be due to the reported 9–25% higher fiber content.
Various authors (Molina et al., 1974; Werker et al., 1979) have
correlated hardness of grains with high concentrations of pectin
substances. To our knowledge, no study has been conducted
on the effect of storage, maturity, and moisture content on the
hardness of mung bean grains. Similarly, no comparative study
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
MUNG BEAN: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL POTENTIAL 673
has been done on the grain hardness of the normal, as well as
hard-to-cook mung bean grains, which would be important for
optimization of the processing conditions.
Volume of the Grain
Grain volume is a parameter that helps to calculate differ-
ent other parameters that are important for handling processes.
Yildiz (2005) reported a volume of 30 and 35 mm3for mung
bean grains at moisture contents of 6.7 and 18.6%, respec-
tively. The variation in the volume of the mung bean grain
is due to its moisture content, which depends on the matu-
rity level of the grain at the time of harvest and postharvest
drying.
Grain Weight
Grain weight is important for different handling processes.
It varies within and between grains of different varieties in re-
lation to growing conditions and maturity at harvest as this
influences the moisture content. After harvesting, its value may
change depending on the storage conditions. Mung bean has
relatively small grains in comparison to other commonly used
pulses (Nimkar and Chattopadhyay, 2001). The reported thou-
sand seed weights (Table 1) were estimated with moisture con-
tents ranging from 8.4 to 33.4% dw by weighing 100 randomly
selected grains from the bulk and then calculating the 1000 grain
weight. Tomooka (1991) observed a geographic gradient for the
distribution of mung bean varieties on the basis of seed weight,
as he did for seed color. He noted that small-seeded varieties
with a low seed weight were found predominantly in the Indian
subcontinent and West Asia, whereas seeds with higher weights
were found mainly in south-east Asian countries.
Bulk Density of the Grain
Mangaraj et al. (2005) and Unal et al. (2008) determined
bulk density (ρb) with the help of a 1000-ml measuring cylinder,
whereas Yildiz (2005) and Nimkar and Chattopadhyay (2001)
used a hectoliter tester. Grain samples were poured in the mea-
suring cylinder and weighed. Bulk density is expressed as the
ratio of mass of the sample and its volume (Nimkar and Chat-
topadhyay, 2001; Mangaraj et al., 2005). The values of bulk
density were reported to have a negative linear relationship with
the moisture content (MC) of the grain. Unal et al. (2008) re-
ported that the bulk density of the grain bears the following
relationship with moisture content with a coefficient of deter-
mination of R2=0.99:
ρb=867.3−6.2MC.
According to Nimkar and Chattopadhyay (2001), this rela-
tionship is
ρb=843.3−4.2MC.
Unal et al. (2008) reported that the bulk density of mung
bean at a moisture content of 14.7% dw is larger than that of
most pulses, for example, gram and soya bean grain, due to the
larger size of these grains as compared to mung bean. To our
knowledge, bulk density of whole mung bean flour has not been
determined.
Grain (True) Density
Grain density is the ratio of mass of the grain to its volume.
It is different from the bulk density in the fact that true density
is the density of a single grain, whereas bulk density is the
density of certain amount of grains in a given vessel or container,
which also includes the void spaces between the grains. It can
be measured either by air or by liquid displacement methods.
Water and toluene are the liquids used in the liquid displacement
method. Unal et al. (2008) reported that true density shows a
positive linear relation with moisture content, whereas Nimkar
and Chattopadhyay (2001) found the opposite. These authors
reported altogether different correlations, although both used
the same toluene displacement method for the determination of
true density by calculating the ratio of sample mass to the true
volume of particles.
Porosity of the Grain
Porosity of the bulk of grain is a measure of the void spaces in
a material, and is a fraction of the volume of voids over the total
volume. Its value depends on the values of true and bulk density.
It is important as it influences milling properties, drying rate,
breakage susceptibility, and grain hardness. The bulk porosity
(ε) of the mung bean grain was calculated by using mean values
of the bulk density and true density in the flowing equation:
ε=100 [1 −(ρb/ρt)]
where ρband ρtare bulk density and true density, respectively.
Unal et al. (2008) reported that bulk porosity of mung bean, at a
moisture content of 12.6% dw, (38.7%) is smaller than for chick
pea (43.6%), and pigeon pea (41.7%). This may be due to the
larger sizes of chickpea and pigeon pea grains.
Terminal Velocity of the Grain
Terminal velocity is an important parameter in aerodynamic
and hydrodynamic behavior, and depends on acceleration of
gravity and fluid flow. It is important, for instance, when sep-
arating chaff and grain. Terminal velocity has a positive linear
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
674 P. K. DAHIYA ET AL.
relationship with moisture content of the grain. Nimkar and
Chattopadhyay (2001) reported that an increase in terminal ve-
locity with an increase in moisture content is due to the increase
in mass of individual grains per unit frontal area facing the
air stream during suspension. Moreover, an increase in moisture
content also increases the size of the grain, which also affects ter-
minal velocity. Most authors used air column and temperature-
type anemometers to determine the terminal velocity. In this
method, grains are positioned on a platform confronting a con-
trolled airflow. By increasing the airflow gradually, the grains
start to float to a certain height. The air velocity at this height is
measured as terminal velocity.
Coefficient of Static Friction of the Grain
The coefficient of friction is the degree of interaction between
two surfaces. It has a dimensionless value from 0 to 1, the latter
indicating a greater resistance. The coefficient of friction plays
its role in transport, storage, and packaging of mung bean grains
(Unal et al., 2008), for example, in the construction of silo walls
and selection of materials for postharvest cleaning and grading
equipment and packaging material. The reported values were
assessed at moisture levels of grains ranging from 8.4 to 33%
dw. The coefficient of static friction of mung bean showed a
positive linear relationship with moisture content. According
to Nimkar and Chattopadhyay (2001), this increase is due to
increased adhesion between the grains and the material surface
at higher moisture contents. The coefficient of static friction
of mung bean is reported to be highest against rubber (from
0.40 to 0.63) and least for glass (from 0.32 to 0.35). Nimkar
and Chattopadhyay (2001) reported that rubber as a surface for
sliding offered maximum friction followed by galvanized iron,
fiber board, stainless steel, aluminum, and glass. To determine
the coefficient of static friction, the authors placed a plastic
cylinder of 100 mm diameter and 50 mm height filled with
sample on an adjustable tilting plate. The cylinder was raised
slightly so as not to touch the surface. Next, the surface with
the cylinder resting on it was inclined gradually using a screw
device, until the box just started to slide down. The angle of tilt
was read.
Angle of Repose of Grain
Angle of repose is the angle made by the inclined plane with
the horizontal surface such that the body lying on the inclined
plane is just at the verge of sliding down along the inclined
plane. It is the measure of the maximum slope at which grains
are stable. It is an important bulk property of the mung bean
as it is required for the storage of the grains in piles and to
design processing equipment and hoppers or conveyorbelt for
transporting the grains from one part of a processing plant to
another. It is measured by allowing bulk of grain to slide down
from one side of the topless, bottomless box to make a heap at
a certain angle. The angle made is measured as angle of repose.
The reported values vary from 26 to 31◦with an average of
28◦(Nimkar and Chattopadhyay, 2001; Unal et al., 2008) at
moisture contents ranging from 7.3 to 33.4% dw. The angle of
repose was found to increase with an increase in the moisture
content of the grain. Nimkar and Chattopadhyay (2001) reported
that the angles of repose of mung bean are lower than those of
pumpkin seeds and higher than those of chickpea.
Rupture Strength of Grain
Rupture strength is the minimum force applied to axial di-
mensions (length, width, and thickness) of the grain to deform
it. Unal et al. (2008) reported that rupture strength is highly de-
pendent on the moisture content and they indicated that greater
forces were necessary to rupture seeds with lower moisture
contents. The small rupturing force at higher moisture content
is attributed to the fact that grain becomes more sensitive to
cracking at high moisture content. Rupture strength of the grain
has its importance during the development of mechanization
of production processes for the preparation of, e.g., porridge,
semolina, and split legume. The rupture strength of the mung
bean was determined with a penetrometer at moisture contents
ranging from 7.3 to 17.8%.
Projected Area of Grain
The projected area of grain reflects its fluidization character-
istics for which its front two-dimensional area is measured. It
is important for the design and development of conveyers for
transporting grains and agricultural machines. Unal et al. (2008)
reported values for the projected area of 17.0 and 19.2 mm2with
an average of 18.4 mm2in mung bean grains at moisture con-
tents of 7.3–17.8% dw. The projected shape is globose, and
reported to increase with an increase in moisture content. The
projected area of the mung bean was determined by using a
digital camera.
B. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION
The mung bean grain has three main parts, viz. testa, em-
bryo, and cotyledons, which respectively constitute 12.2–23.5,
2.3, and 76.5–87.2% dw of the whole grain (Singh et al., 1968;
Muhammed et al., 2010). The chemical constituents are un-
evenly distributed in the different parts of the grain. The major
chemical components of mung bean dry matter are carbohy-
drates, proteins, fat, fiber, ash, fatty acids, and amino acids,
while micronutrients include minerals and vitamins. The mini-
mum and maximum reported values along with calculated av-
erage value of each chemical constituent are given for each
parameter in the respective tables.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
MUNG BEAN: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL POTENTIAL 675
Tab l e 2 Macronutrient composition of mung bean
Macronutrient Average∗Minimum Maximum References
Moisture (g/100 g) 9.80 4.10 15.20 (Kadwe et al., 1974; Watson, 1977; Tsou and Hsu, 1978; Khatoon and
Prakash, 2004; Mubarak, 2005; Khattak et al., 2007a; Sampath
et al., 2008)
Crude protein (g/100 g) dm 23.8 14.632.6 (Kadwe et al., 1974; Watson, 1977; Tsou and Hsu, 1978; Rao and
Belavady, 1979; Shehata and Thannoun, 1980; Rao and Deosthale,
1983; Khader and Rao, 1986; Ignacimuthu and Babu, 1987;
Prabhavat, 1990; Poehlman, 1991; Singh and Singh, 1992; Sathe,
1996; Jood et al., 1998; Bravo et al., 1999; El-Adawy et al., 2003;
Khatoon and Prakash, 2004; Mubarak, 2005; Fatima and Kapoor,
2006; Barakoti and Bains, 2007; Khattak et al., 2007a, 2007b;
Mallillin et al., 2008)
Crude lipid (g/100 g) dm 1.22 0.71 1.85 (El-Adawy et al., 2003; Khatoon and Prakash, 2004; Mubarak, 2005;
Fatima and Kapoor, 2006; Barakoti and Bains, 2007; Watson, 1977;
Tsou and Hsu, 1978; Shehata and Thannoun, 1980; Prabhavat,
1990; Poehlman, 1991; Singh and Singh, 1992; Sathe, 1996; Jood
et al., 1998; Bravo et al., 1999)
Crude fiber (g/100 g) dm 4.57 3.86.15 (Watson, 1977; Tsou and Hsu, 1978; Shehata and Thannoun, 1980;
Prabhavat, 1990; Poehlman, 1991; Singh and Singh, 1992; Sathe,
1996; El-Adawy et al., 2003; Mubarak, 2005; Barakoti and Bains,
2007)
Ash (g/100 g) dm 3.51 0.17 5.87 (Tsou and Hsu, 1978; Shehata and Thannoun, 1980; Rao and
Deosthale, 1981; Rao and Deosthale, 1983; Prabhavat, 1990;
Poehlman, 1991; Sathe, 1996; Watson, 1977; Bravo et al., 1999;
El-Adawy et al., 2003; Khatoon and Prakash, 2004; Mubarak, 2005;
Fatima and Kapoor, 2006; Barakoti and Bains, 2007; Khattak et al.,
2007a)
Carbohydrate (g/100 g) dm 61.0 53.367.1 (Watson, 1977; Shehata and Thannoun, 1980; Prabhavat, 1990;
Poehlman, 1991; Singh and Singh, 1992; Sathe, 1996; El-Adawy
et al., 2003; Mubarak, 2005)
Energy (kcal/100 g) dm 344 338 347 (Poehlman, 1991)
∗Mean value of all collected data.
Proximate Analysis
The reported values for macronutrients are presented in
Table 2. The crude protein content of mung bean shows large
variations, which may be due to differences between varieties
(Yohe and Poehlman, 1972; Thakare et al., 1988), different
methods of analysis and growth conditions, as discussed later.
Most authors used the micro-Kjeldahl method for analysis with
a conversion factor of 6.25 to determine the protein content,
whereas Cai et al. (2002) used the combustion method to ex-
tract nitrogen from their sample to nitrogen oxide, reducing
it to nitrogen, which then is detected by a thermoconductivity
detector. Most of the protein in mung bean is present in the
cotyledons, with the majority of protein as salt-soluble storage
globulins. Mung bean contains both storage proteins found in
legume grains, viz. legumin and vicilin. Vicilin protein is glyco-
sylated contrary to legumin globulin. Vicilin is more abundant
in mung bean than legumin (Sathe, 1996). Vicilin is rich in
acidic amino acids. Bhadra et al. (1991) reported a negative cor-
relation between protein content and grain size; varieties with
small-sized grains and a low yield were found to have a high
protein content. However, Trung and Yoshipa (1983) reported
a positive correlation between seed size and protein content (r
=0.555). Research at the Asian Vegetable Research Develop-
ment Centre (AVRDC) is based on crosses between large-seeded
Philippine and small-seeded Indian cultivars (Poehlman, 1991).
Tomooka et al. (1992) distinguished eight protein types of mung
bean varieties distributed over different geographical areas and,
based on this, the authors suggested the origin of mung bean
to be west Asia instead of India. Four proteins, named Vig r2
(52 kDa), Vig r3 (50 kDa), Vig r4 (30 kDa), and Vig r5 (18 kDa),
in mung bean grains were reported to be potentially allergenic
in nature as they induced strong IgE-mediated reactions (Misra
et al., 2011). This is the only study on the potential allergic na-
ture of proteins in mung bean and therefore further studies are
required.
There is a wide variation in the reported lipid content that
may be due to the genetic variation and/or different analytical
methods. Most authors used soxhlet equipment and some Sox-
tec, which reduces the extraction time to two to three hours as
compared to more than six hours for soxhlet equipment.
The average crude fiber content is 4.6 g/100 g dw. Fiber
content of mung bean is correlated with seed hardness due to
the fact that hard seeds have a thick seed coat (Felicito and
Evelyn Mae, 1990). The seed coat contains 12% more fiber
than the cotyledons (Felicito and Evelyn Mae, 1990). Singh
et al. (1968) reported that 80–93% of the crude fiber in mung
bean is present in the seed coat, whereas the embryo contains
only 2–3% crude fiber. Apart from the reported maximum and
minimum values, there is no wide variation in fiber content of
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
676 P. K. DAHIYA ET AL.
mung bean. Most authors used the AOAC method to determine
crude fiber, whereas El-Adawy et al. (2003), who reported the
highest value of 6.2 g/100 g dw, did not mention the method
used.
Khattak et al. (2007b) reported the ash content of 13 varieties
with an average value of 0.18 g/100 g dw. This value is much
lower than the average of the values from all other authors.
The reason for this deviation is not known. In general, there is
wide variation in the reported ash content, which may be partly
genetic (Grewal and Jood, 2009). All authors used the AOAC
method to determine the ash content.
The energy content of mung bean grains averages 344
kcal/100 g dw. As the major energy components of mung bean
are present in the cotyledons, removal of the seed coat and
embryo during dehulling do not significantly reduce its energy
value (Singh et al., 1968).
The variation in the reported values of the macronutrients is
very large. This may be attributed to differences in detection
methods and/or mung bean varieties. Most authors determined
carbohydrates by difference. The number of authors who deter-
mined macronutrients in mung bean is large compared to those
who measured other parameters like nutrient digestibility and
bioavailability.
Carbohydrates
Carbohydrates in mung bean (Table 3) have been analyzed
by many authors; starch has been studied by most. Starch is
used in noodle making in oriental countries (Cheng et al., 1988;
Singh and Singh, 1992), except South Asian countries like In-
dia and Pakistan. Other carbohydrates in mung bean, including
monosaccharides – maltose, glucose, xylose; oligosaccharides
– raffinose, stachyose, verbascose; starch components – avail-
able and resistant starch; and fibers – lignin, cellulose, have
been studied less frequently. There is wide variation in the car-
bohydrate fractions in mung bean, the reasons of which could
be genetic makeup, or grain maturity. The amounts of maltose,
xylose, arabinose, and inositol in mung bean were reported
Tab l e 3 Carbohydrate profile of mung bean
Carbohydrates (%) Average∗Minimum Maximum References
Monosaccharides
Glucose 0.30.20.4 (Udayasekhara Rao and Bhavani, 1978)
Total soluble sugars 5.63.98.5 (Goel and Verma, 1981; Adsule et al., 1986; Kataria et al., 1988; Singh
et al., 1989)
Reducing sugars 1.80.39 4.7 (Kataria et al., 1988; Urooj and Puttaraj, 1994; El-Adawy et al., 2003)
Nonreducing sugars 6.34.98.1 (Kuo et al., 1988; Kataria et al., 1988; Anisha and Prema, 2008)
Oligosaccharides
Sucrose 1.30.32.1 (Iyengar and Kulkarni, 1977; Udayasekhara Rao and Bhavani, 1978;
Goel and Verma, 1981; Adsule et al., 1986; Poehlman, 1991;
Anisha and Prema, 2008)
Raffinose 1.10.32.6 (Iyengar and Kulkarni, 1977; Udayasekhara Rao and Bhavani, 1978;
Goel and Verma, 1981; Poehlman, 1991; Philip and Prema, 1998;
Bravo et al., 1999)
Stachyose 1.61.02.8 (Iyengar and Kulkarni, 1977; Goel and Verma, 1981; Adsule et al.,
1986; Kuo et al., 1988; Philip and Prema, 1998; Anisha and Prema,
2008)
Verbascose 2.70.93.8 (Iyengar and Kulkarni, 1977; Adsule et al., 1986; Philip and Prema,
1998; Poehlman, 1991)
Fibers
Total dietary fiber 18.814.524.5 (Veena et al., 1995; Khatoon and Prakash, 2006; Lin and Lai, 2006)
Insoluble dietary fiber 15.313.119.0 Rao, 2003) Khatoon and Prakash, 2006; Veena et al., 1995; Lin and
Lai, 2006)
Soluble dietary fiber 2.30.75.6 (Veena et al., 1995; Rao, 2003; Khatoon and Prakash, 2006; Lin and
Lai, 2006)
Lignin 3.92.27.2 (Adsule et al., 1986; Rao, 2003)
Cellulose 3.92.54.6 (Adsule et al., 1986; Rao, 2003)
Hemi cellulose 4.70.39.1 (Adsule et al., 1986)
Starch
Amylose 24 14 35 (Adsule et al., 1986)
Starch 47 37 58 (Aman, 1979; Adsule et al., 1986; Kataria et al., 1988; Kuo et al.,
1988; Prabhavat, 1990; Urooj and Puttaraj, 1994; Veena et al., 1995;
Sathe, 1996; Bravo et al., 1999; El-Adawy et al., 2003; Fatima and
Kapoor, 2006; Khatoon and Prakash, 2006)
Available starch 37 37 37 (Veena et al., 1995)
Resistant starch 8.98.98.9 (Veena et al., 1995)
∗Mean value of all collected data.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
MUNG BEAN: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL POTENTIAL 677
as 0.12, 0.36, 0.07, and 0.04% of soluble sugars, respectively
(Bravo et al., 1999).
Oligosaccharides, such as raffinose, stachyose, and verbas-
cose, are associated with intestinal gas (flatus) production after
consumption of beans (Iyengar and Kulkarni, 1977; Goel and
Verma, 1981; Adsule et al., 1986; Kuo et al., 1988; Philip and
Prema, 1998; Anisha and Prema, 2008). Flatulence is caused by
such oligosaccharides that escape digestion and are fermented
by the intestinal microflora. Mung beans contain less stachyose
than red gram, lentils, and bengal gram. Fermentation was re-
ported to reduce the flatulence factors in mung bean (Goel and
Verma, 1981).
Amino Acid Composition
The highest values of amino acids in mung bean are reported
for glutamic acid (18.3 g/16 g of N) and aspartic acid (12.9 g/16 g
N) (Table 4). Sekhon et al. (1980) reported a negative correlation
of protein in mung bean with lysine and threonine, whereas
a positive correlation of these amino acids with methionine
has been found, suggesting that an increase in the methionine
content in mung bean is always accompanied by a decrease
of the total protein content in mung bean. Isoleucine, leucine,
phenylalanine, tyrosine, and valine were found to be higher in
the globulin fraction of the protein, whereas lysine, methionine,
threonine, and tryptophan were higher in the albumin fraction
(Bhatty, 1982).
Mubarak (2005) reported a chemical score of 76% for mung
bean amino acids, which was calculated using the FAO/WHO
(1973) reference pattern, whereas Tsou et al. (1979) reported
that the chemical score of mung bean proteins is about 32% of
egg protein (FAO, 1970) or 40% of the FAO provisional pat-
tern. Mung bean grains are adequate in most essential amino
acids with the exception of the sulfur-containing amino acids
methionine and cystine, which can be compensated by consum-
ing mung bean in combination with cereals. Cereals are rich
in sulfur-containing amino acids and the deficiency of lysine in
cereals gets compensated by its presence in mung bean. A 7:3 ra-
tion of rice protein to mung bean protein was suggested as good
for consumption (Florentino, 1974). Geervani and Theophilus
(1980) reported the availability of lysine, methionine, and cys-
tine in mung bean grain to be 78, 83, and 94%, respectively. Khan
et al. (1979) reported a significant correlation (r=0.97) between
the biological value and the total amount of sulfur-containing
amino acids in mung bean. This also indicates that from a nu-
tritional point of view, it is advisable to consume mung bean in
combination with foods high in sulfur-containing amino acids.
In general, wide variations exist in the reported values of
the amino acid contents, which may be due to differences in
the mung bean varieties used by the different authors, as differ-
ent accessions of mung bean were reported to contain different
amounts of the same amino acid, like lysine and methionine
(Yohe and Poehlman, 1972). Another possible reason can be the
analytical methods used by different authors. Cai et al. (2002)
determined the cysteine and cystine contents of mung bean pro-
tein by analyzing the cysteic acid produced by oxidation of
Tab l e 4 Amino acid composition of mung bean
Amino acid (g/16 g of nitrogen) Average∗Minimum Maximum References
Alanine 4.13.64.5 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Arginine 5.84.56.7 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Aspartic acid 13.012.015.1 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999)
Cysteic acid 13.513.513.5 (Mubarak, 2005)
Glutamic acid 18.313.621.7 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Glycine 3.63.24.3 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Histidine 3.22.45.6 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Isoleucine 4.33.65.4 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Leucine 7.66.98.7 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Lysin e 6.54.18.1 (Rao and Belavady, 1979; Geervani and Theophilus, 1980; Khader
and Rao, 1986, 1996; Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem,
1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Methionine 1.20.51.9 (Rao and Belavady, 1979; Khader and Rao, 1986, 1996; Geervani and
Theophilus, 1980; Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Kochhar and Hira,
1997; Mubarak, 2005)
Phenylalanine 5.44.66.2 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Proline 4.53.75.6 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Mubarak, 2005)
Serine 4.94.05.8 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Threonine 3.22.74.0 (Geervani and Theophilus, 1980; Khader and Rao, 1986, 1996;
Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Tryptophan 1.20.53.4 (Rao and Belavady, 1979; Geervani and Theophilus, 1980; Khader
and Rao, 1986, 1996; Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Kochhar and Hira,
1997; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Tyr o s ine 2.72.23.3 (Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
Valine 5.14.16.4 (Dzudie and Hardy, 1996; Abd El-Moniem, 1999; Mubarak, 2005)
∗Mean value of all collected data.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
678 P. K. DAHIYA ET AL.
Tab l e 5 Lipid fraction of mung bean
Lipid fraction % of Total fat content References
Total saturated fatty
acids
27.7 (Sathe, 1996)
Total unsaturated fatty
acid
72.8 (Sathe, 1996)
C16:0 (Palmitic) 14.1 (Sathe, 1996)
C18:0 (Stearic) 4.3 (Sathe, 1996)
C18:1 (Oleic) 20.8 (Sathe, 1996)
C18:2 (Linoleic) 16.3 (Sathe, 1996)
C18:3 (Linolenic) 35.7 (Sathe, 1996)
C21 (Behenic acid) 9.3 (Sathe, 1996)
the cysteine and cystine. A microbiological assay was used by
Vijayabaghavan and Srinivasan (1953) for most of the amino
acids, but methionine was determined colorimetrically.
Lipid Fraction
Most lipid research on leguminous crops was on soya bean.
Few investigations have dealt with the lipid fraction in mung
bean (Table 5) and thus the information on the fatty acid com-
position of the mung bean is scanty. Lipids are components
measured after saponification as compared to crude lipid, which
is measured by a solvent extraction method like in, e.g., soxh-
let. Adsule et al. (1986) reviewed the fatty acid composition of
mung bean. The different fatty acids present in mung bean are
palmitic, stearic, oleic, linoleic, linolenic, arachidic, behenic,
capric, lauric, and myristic acid.
Abdel-Rahman et al. (2007) reported 33.1% of total fat to
be linoleic acid, which was higher than recorded by Adsule
et al. (1986). Both authors reported that linoleic acid is the
fatty acid that is present in the highest amount and that the
quantity of lauric acid is the lowest in mung bean. The total
amount of essential fatty acids in mung bean is reported to be
50.1% of total fat. Gopala Krishna et al. (1997) reported 35.6%
saturated fatty acids, 5.4% monounsaturated fatty acids, 37.1%
diunsaturated fatty acids, and 21.8% triunsaturated fatty acids
in the oil extracted from the mung bean grain. Oil content of the
mung bean is reported to vary from 2.1 to 2.7% (Zia-Ul-Haq
et al., 2008). Reflective index, relative density, saponification
value, iodine value, and unsaponifiable matter of the oil is found
to be 1.5, 1.0 g/cm3, 173–181 mg KOH/g, 114–117, and 13.8 to
15.0% w/w, respectively (Zia-Ul-Haq et al., 2008).
Gopala Krishna et al. (1997) investigated the tocopherol and
tocotrienol content of mung bean. The reported values for α,
β, and γtocopherol are 10.9, 0.9, and 1458 mg/100 g fat,
respectively, while the values for α,β, and γtocotrienol are
2.7, 0.9, and 1.9 mg/100 g fat, respectively. The total tocopherol
content of mung bean (12.5 mg/100 g) is reported to be higher
than in black gram (6.7 mg/100 g), bengal gram (11.4 mg/100 g),
and horse gram (7.4 mg/100 g). The authors used a HPLC
method to determine tocopherol isomers. There is no study for
tocopherols and tocotrienol in mung beans.
Abdel-Rahman et al. (2007) reported the values of 32.3, 7.6,
6.6, 5.7, and 2.8% of lipid fraction for phospholipids, monoglyc-
erides, 1, 2, and 2,3-diglycerides, sterols, and 1,3-diglycerides in
mung bean, respectively. They also reported that the free fatty
acid, hydrocarbons, sterols, and tri-glyceride fractions consti-
tute 8.4, 6.7, 5.6, and 30.1% of the lipid fraction in mung bean,
respectively.
Vitamins
Vitamins reported in mung bean are thiamine, riboflavin,
niacin, pantothenic acid, and nicotinic acid (Table 6). Vitamin
C was reported to range from 0 to 10 mg/100 g dw (Prabhavat,
1990) with an average of 3.1 mg/100 g dw. This variation could
be due to experimental variation or genetic differences; the au-
thor does not provide an explanation. Barakoti and Bains (2007)
reported 0.62 g/100 g (fresh weight) ascorbic acid using the
AOVC method (1996), whereas Kylen and McCready (1975)
reported no ascorbic acid using the method involving extrac-
tion by 5% metaphosphoric acid in the bromine-oxidized fil-
trate by the 2,4 dinitrophenylhydrazine procedure. Apart from
these three studies, all other reported values do not mention any
underlying experimental research, thus more research needs to
be done to assess the precise amount of ascorbic acid in raw
mung bean. The number of authors who investigated the vi-
tamin content is lower than the number of authors who de-
termined macronutrients. Harina and Ramirez (1978) studied
the carotenoid content of 20 mung bean varieties of different
color and sizes and found that green colored mung bean grains
Tab l e 6 Vitamin composition of mung bean
Vitamin (mg/100 g) dw Average∗Minimum Maximum References
Thiamine 0.50.12 0.7 (Kylen and McCready, 1975; Abdullah and Baldwin, 1984; Prabhavat,
1990; Sathe, 1996; Ghavidel and Prakash, 2006)
Riboflavin 0.30.23 0.47 (Kylen and McCready, 1975; Abdullah and Baldwin, 1984; Prabhavat,
1990; Sathe, 1996)
Niacin 2.21.13.1 (Kylen and McCready, 1975; Abdullah and Baldwin, 1984; Prabhavat,
1990; Sathe, 1996)
Vitamin C 3.1 0 10 (Prabhavat, 1990; Barakoti and Bains, 2007)
Pantothenic acid 1.91.91.9 (Poehlman, 1991)
Nicotinic acid 1.61.61.6 (Rao and Belavady, 1979)
∗Mean value of all collected data.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
MUNG BEAN: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL POTENTIAL 679
contained higher amounts of carotenoids (0.9 mg/100 g) than
yellow varieties (0.7 mg/100 g), which is attributed to higher
amounts of carotenoids in the seed coat of green colored varieties
(41.5%) than in that of yellow varieties (16.2%) (Harina and
Ramirez, 1978). These authors also found that the carotenoid
content in cotyledons of mung bean (0.5–0.8 mg /100 mg) differs
slightly between green and yellow varieties, whereas it varies
significantly in seed coats (0.07–0.44 mg/100 mg) of green
and yellow mung bean varieties. Carotenoids in mung bean are
present in the form of β-carotene and xanthophylls (Harina and
Ramirez, 1978). These authors also found that grain size has
no correlation with the carotenoid content in mung bean. The
riboflavin content of mung bean is found to be 0.29 mg/100 g
(Nisha et al., 2005), which they assumed to be stable due to
the protective effect of some unknown phytochemicals present.
These authors also suggested further research on these phyto-
chemicals and their protective effect on the riboflavin in mung
bean. Degradation of riboflavin in mung bean during processing
follows a first-order reaction at temperatures ranging from 50 to
120◦C (Nisha et al., 2005). To our knowledge, there is no study
on folic acid in mung bean.
Minerals
Minerals and trace elements are important for human health
as they, for instance, play a significant role in the metabolism by
acting as cofactor of enzymes. Mung bean contains a relatively
high amount of minerals according to the literature reviewed
(Table 7). The minerals in mung bean grains are calcium, cop-
per, iron, potassium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, zinc, and
other elements of nutritional importance like phosphorus, which
is comparable to other pulses. Of these, iron, zinc, and calcium
are the most important due to their physiological functions in
the human body. Insufficient iron uptake is one of the most im-
portant factors for anemia throughout the world (Wang et al.,
2008).
The total mineral content in mung bean grain is reported
to be 3.5 g/100 g dw (Adsule et al., 1986). The cumulative
mineral contents represent less than the total ash content; this
is due to the fact that the minerals are determined as elements
and the ash contains their salts. Ash may also contain salts of
which the elements were not determined. Literature shows that
mung bean contains considerable amounts of iron, calcium, and
potassium. The amount of calcium in mung bean is four times
higher than in cereals, but the amounts of calcium, iron, zinc,
and phosphorus are lower than in soya bean. Singh et al. (1968)
reported the distribution of different minerals in the anatomical
parts of mung bean. They reported that calcium is primarily
present in the seed coat (30–50%, i.e., (812 mg/100 g dw), iron
in the embryo (23 mg/100 g dw) and seed coat (17 mg/100 g
dw), and phosphorus in the embryo (756 mg/100 g dw) and
cotyledons (341 mg/100 g dw). Removal of the embryo and seed
coat during dehulling and milling will not affect the nutritive
value of mung bean grain much (except for crude fiber and
calcium), as these only account for a small proportion of whole
mung bean grain (Singh et al., 1968).
Researchers used different methods to determine miner-
als, which might have contributed to the wide variation in
the reported data. Rao and Deosthale (1981) used the AOAC
(1960) method for calcium, phosphorous, and iron, whereas
magnesium, zinc, manganese, copper, and chromium were ana-
lyzed using atomic absorption spectrometry. Barakoti and Bains
(2007) also used atomic absorption spectrometry. Fatima and
Tab l e 7 Mineral composition of mung bean
Mineral (mg/100 g dw) Average∗Minimum Maximum References
Calcium 113.4 55 200 (Kadwe et al., 1974; Watson, 1977; Tsou and Hsu, 1978; Rao and Deosthale,
1981; Singh et al., 1988; Prabhavat, 1990; Poehlman, 1991; Sathe, 1996;
Khatoon and Prakash, 2004; Fatima and Rashmi, 2006; Grewal and Jood,
2006; Hemalatha et al., 2007b)
Copper 1.00.91.5 (Poehlman, 1991; Sathe, 1996)
Iron 5.94 7.6 (Kadwe et al., 1974; Rao and Deosthale, 1981; Narasinga Rao and Tatineni,
1982; Rao and Deosthale, 1983; Hira et al., 1988; Poehlman, 1991; Sathe,
1996; Chitra and Rao, 1997; Khatoon and Prakash, 2004; Lestienne et al.,
2005; Fatima and Kapoor, 2006; Fatima and Rashmi, 2006; Grewal and
Jood, 2006; Barakoti and Bains, 2007; Hemalatha et al., 2007b)
Potassium 956.6 326 1246 (Watson, 1977; Prabhavat, 1990; Poehlman, 1991; Sathe, 1996)
Magnesium 162.4 50 320 (Kadwe et al., 1974; Tsou and Hsu, 1978; Rao and Deosthale, 1981; Rao and
Deosthale, 1983; Prabhavat, 1990; Poehlman, 1991; Sathe, 1996)
Manganese 1.05 1.01.1 (Poehlman, 1991)
Sodium 16.7 6 30 (Prabhavat, 1990; Sathe, 1996)
Phosphorous 384.4 271 590 (Kadwe et al., 1974; Watson, 1977; Rao and Deosthale, 1981; Rao and
Deosthale, 1983; Prabhavat, 1990; Sathe, 1996; Khatoon and Prakash,
2004; Fatima and Rashmi, 2006)
Phytin phosphorous 171.3 140 206 (Annapurani and Murthy, 1985; Barakoti and Bains, 2007)
Zinc 2.72.4 3 (Rao and Deosthale, 1983; Lestienne et al., 2005; Hemalatha et al., 2007b)
∗Mean value of all collected data.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
680 P. K. DAHIYA ET AL.
Rashmi (2006) used AOAC (1995) methods, whereas Kadwe
et al. (1974) used the EDTA titration method for calcium and
magnesium. Khatoon and Prakash (2004) used the method of
Ranganna (1986). Moreover, the variation in the mineral con-
tents can also be due to genetic differences, which, among
others, control the mechanism by which roots absorb miner-
als from the soil, and the translocation and physiological role
of minerals in the plant as suggested by Frossard et al. (2000).
This author also mentioned that mineral uptake mechanisms de-
pend on root mycorrhiza and architecture, which may vary from
variety to variety, causing variation in mineral contents.
Iron content has been studied the most in mung bean as com-
pared to other minerals, probably due to its high significance for
human health. After iron, calcium is the most studied mineral,
followed by phosphorus.
Few authors have determined mineral bioavailability in mung
bean. However, this is significant from a nutritional point of
view. Reported values for the iron bioavailability in mung bean
show wide variation, which may be due to different genetic
factors (Chitra and Rao, 1997). Presence of minerals as such is
of relative importance, as their actual absorption in the human
body is affected by many factors that may be related to human
physiology and/or the characteristics of the food itself. Among
the food-related factors, presence of anti-nutritional components
is most important. Literature shows that mineral bioavailability
is affected by the presence of anti-nutritional factors like phytic
acid, polyphenols as well as fiber (Canniatti Brazaca and Da
Silva, 2003).
Mung bean varieties with high amounts of anti-nutritional
factors cause a lower bioavailability of minerals (Grewal and
Jood, 2006). The presence of relatively high amounts of phytic
acid in mung bean is not only indicative of a low mineral
bioavailability of divalent minerals like iron, zinc, and calcium
but also of a low bioavailability of phosphorus, which was re-
ported to be unavailable in young chickens (Common, 1939)
as phosphorus in mung bean grain is mainly present in phytic
acid. The wide variation in the reported mineral bioavailabil-
ity may partly be due to the genetic basis (Jood et al., 1998).
Minerals present in large amounts, like calcium, can also af-
fect the iron and zinc bioavailability negatively. Variation in the
amount of anti-nutrients (Kataria et al., 1989; Jood et al., 1998)
and presence of endogenous phytase can also affect mineral
bioavailability.
Increasing the mineral bioavailability in mung bean is pos-
sible by plant breeding, agricultural practices, and food pro-
cessing techniques. Varieties can be developed with better abil-
ities to acquire nutrients from the soil, and agronomic practices
like fertilization influence the mineral content of the harvested
seeds. Furthermore, it is possible to use breeding techniques
to increase the concentration of nutrient-uptake enhancers, like
ascorbic acid, and to decrease the concentration of nutrient-
uptake inhibitors like phytic acid, polyphenols, etc. (Frossard
et al., 2000). Food processing techniques like fermentation and
germination help in dephytinization (Barakoti and Bains, 2007;
Hemalatha et al., 2007a). Processes like dehulling and cook-
ing can reduce the amount of polyphenols, thereby increasing
the nutritional value of the grain (Madhuri et al., 1996). Thus,
increasing the iron content in mung bean will not be effective
if anti-nutrients affecting its bioavailability are present in large
quantities.
The term mineral bioavailability as used in the literature
usually does not represent actual bioavailability in the human
body, but signifies the in vitro mineral solubility assessed after
treatment with digestive enzymes. To our knowledge, no study
investigated the bioavailability of minerals from mung bean
through the use of radioactive markers in humans. Molar ratios
of phytic acid with minerals have been used as an indicator of
their bioavailability (Adeyeye et al., 2000). In the case of mung
bean, there is no literature available reporting these ratios.
Anti-Nutritional Compounds
Anti-nutritional factors (Table 8) are chemical compounds
that negatively affect digestion, bioavailability, and bioconver-
sion, and restrict the realization of the full nutritional potential
of the food. Anti-nutritional components reported in mung bean
are tannins, phytic acid, hemagglutinins, polyphenols, trypsin
inhibitor, and proteinase inhibitor.
Phytic acid is the myo-inositol 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, hexakis-
dihydrogen phosphate present in the crystalline form inside
protein bodies in the cotyledons. It is negatively charged at
Tab l e 8 Anti-nutritional factors in mung bean
Anti-nutritional Properties Average∗Minimum Maximum References
Tannins (mg/100g) 366.6 100.4 575 (Noor et al., 1980; Rao and Prabhavathi, 1982; Sathe, 1996; El-Adawy
et al., 2003; Das et al., 2005; Mubarak, 2005; Hemalatha et al.,
2007a; Hemalatha et al., 2007b)
Phytic acid (mg/100g) 441.5 230.2 808.3 (Kataria et al., 1989; Philip and Prema, 1998; El-Adawy et al., 2003;
Lestienne et al., 2005; Mubarak, 2005; Das et al., 2006; Grewal and
Jood, 2006; Fatima and Kapoor, 2006; Hemalatha et al., 2007b)
Hemagglutinin activity (HU/g) 2615 2560 2670 (El-Adawy et al., 2003; Mubarak, 2005)
Polyphenols (mg/100g) 462.5 285 808 (Kataria et al., 1989; Fatima and Kapoor, 2006; Grewal and Jood,
2006; Barakoti and Bains, 2007; Hemalatha et al., 2007b)
Trypsin inhibitor activity (TIU/mg of protein) 17.312.624.1 (Noor et al., 1980; El-Adawy et al., 2003; Mubarak, 2005)
∗Mean value of all collected data.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
MUNG BEAN: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL POTENTIAL 681
physiological pH, having a high affinity for positively charged
divalent mineral ions making them unavailable for absorption.
Phytic acid is the main seed storage molecule for phosphorus
and is essential for seed development and germination. Phy-
tates are compounds formed by the interaction of phytic acid
with minerals. In legumes, phytates are present in the protein
bodies of the endosperm. Wide variation exists in the reported
values of phytic acid in mung bean, which may be due to ge-
netic differences as there are reports suggesting a genetic basis
of inheritance of phytate content in mung bean (Sompong et al.,
2009). However, the variation could also be due to the method
of analysis. Lestienne et al. (2005) determined phytate in mung
bean by estimation of the myo-inositol hexaphosphate content
obtained by anion exchange HPLC separation, whereas Gre-
wal and Jood (2006) extracted phytic acid using 0.5 M HNO3
and determined it colorimetrically. The reported value in mung
bean is high enough to bind a significant amount of minerals,
thus reducing their bioavailability. Based on the mean values
presented in Tables 7 and 8 for iron and phytic acid, molar ra-
tios of phytate/iron and phytate/zinc amount to 6.3 and 16.3,
respectively, in raw mung bean. These values greatly exceed the
cutoff values, viz. <0.4 and <5 respectively, regarded for ad-
equate bioavailability (Nout, 2009). However, phytic acid can
be reduced during cultivation and by food processing, which
may improve this situation. However, the reduction of phytic
acid during cultivation is not possible after a certain minimum
limit as a further reduction hampers the physiological growth of
the seedling (Bohn et al., 2008). Nutritionally, phytic acid can
be considered an anti-nutritional compound but it provides re-
sistance to the grain against the bruchid beetle Callosobruchus
maculatus during storage (Srinivasan et al., 2007). Therefore,
adequate food processing is important to degrade phytic acid
(Coelho et al., 2002). Fermentation, germination, and dehulling
are the food processing operations reported to effectively reduce
the phytic acid content in mung bean (Barakoti and Bains, 2007;
Hemalatha et al., 2007a).
Hemagglutinins are the sugar-binding proteins that bind with
red blood cells and agglutinate them. They bind with specific
receptors at epithelial cells of the intestine, causing lesions and
improper microvillus development leading to abnormal absorp-
tion of nutrients. Only two authors (El-Adawy et al., 2003;
Mubarak, 2005) investigated hemagglutinin activity in mung
bean and they did not show much variation. The amount of
hemagglutinin can be reduced by germination (El-Adawy et al.,
2003). A high-temperature treatment during processing is re-
ported to reduce hemagglutinins in red kidney beans (Thomp-
son et al., 1983). The lectin content in mung bean is lower than
in pea but higher than in lentils (El-Adawy et al., 2003).
Tannins are polyphenols that affect protein digestibility by
making strong bonds with them, thus rendering them unavailable
for absorption. The wide variation in the polyphenol content in
mung bean could be due to genetic makeup (Dicko et al., 2002),
type and amount of fertilization and the production site (Hamouz
et al., 2006). Mung bean contains a considerable amount of
polyphenols that affects the nutrient digestibility and bioavail-
ability adversely. Therefore, efforts should be made to reduce
the amount in mung bean grains. The possibilities for breeding
seem promising in this respect, as polyphenols are reported to be
present in higher amounts in colored and darker legume varieties
than in pale varieties (Salunkhe et al., 1982). Thus, color of the
mung bean can be used as a marker for the selection of varieties
with lower amounts of polyphenols. Thus, products made of
yellow or light colored mung bean varieties might have higher
protein digestibility and mineral bioavailability, as polyphenols
has been reported to reduce the protein digestibility and mineral
bioavailability. Muhammed et al. (2010) suggested that, being
bioactive molecules, the seed coat polyphenols can help the
seed against pathogens and improve seed viability. Therefore,
the yellow mung beans varieties may be cultivated for better
yields. At food processing level, polyphenols can be reduced
subsequently by using various processing methods. Polyphenols
in mung bean have been reported to have a low protein precip-
itating capacity and relatively high flavanol contents (Barroga
et al., 1985). These authors also reported that 81–85% of the
polyphenols are present in the seed coat, which is three to four
times more than in the cotyledon. Mung bean varieties contain
68–83 g/ 100 g in the seed coat as compared to 17–32 g/100 g
in the cotyledon (Muhammed et al., 2010). The reduction in
the polyphenol content due to dehulling ranged between 14%
and 52% (Muhammed et al., 2010). Nevertheless, even when
52% of polyphenols would be removed, the remaining concen-
trations (cf. Table 8) would still have a strong inhibitory effect
on, e.g., iron bioavailability (Hurrell et al., 1999). This indicates
that dehulling during dhal making is effective in reducing the
polyphenol content of the food. Polyphenols are also reduced
by roasting and leaching during soaking (Barroga et al., 1985).
Trypsin inhibitors inhibit proteolytic enzymes, thereby af-
fecting protein digestion adversely. Trypsin inhibitor in mung
bean does not inhibit chymotrypsin as well as vicilin peptidohy-
drolase (Chrispeels and Baumgartner, 1978). Trypsin inhibitor
activity of mung bean is much lower than that of soya bean,
kidney bean, and chickpea (Guillam´
on et al., 2008). Germina-
tion and soaking reportedly lower the trypsin inhibitor activity.
Trypsin inhibitors are low molecular-weight proteins and thus
likely to leach during soaking. Trypsin inhibitor activity is also
reduced by heat treatments (Chandrashekar et al., 1989).
The presence of other anti-nutrients like proteinase inhibitors
and sulfhydryl proteinase inhibitors in mung bean has not been
reported. However, Marickar and Pattabiraman (1988) found a
chymotrypsin inhibition of 427 μg/g in mung bean, indicating
the presence of chymotrypsin inhibitors. To our knowledge,
there is no published report on the presence of phytosterols,
goitrogens, and toxicants such as phenolic glycosides, quinones,
chromones, phynyl propanoids, anthrones, etc. in mung bean.
The presence of anti-nutritional factors in mung bean indi-
cates that it is necessary to process the grain before consump-
tion. The anti-nutritional factors can be partially removed or de-
graded by processing methods like fermentation, germination,
and soaking, whereas a positive impact of mineral enhancers
to increase mineral bioavailability has also been reported
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
682 P. K. DAHIYA ET AL.
(Canniatti Brazaca and Da Silva, 2003). This can be one of
the reasons why mung bean is consumed in the form of various
food products, viz. snacks, sweets, and savory products.
C. NUTRITIONAL PROPERTIES
In vitro digestibility and bioavailability of nutrients are im-
portant properties, as they indicate the amount of the nutrient
that is potentially absorbed by the human body. Digestibility and
bioavailability are affected not only by other chemical compo-
nents in the grain such as bioavailability enhancers like vitamin
C in the case of iron but also by inhibitors of digestibility or
bioavailability, such as phytic acid and polyphenols in the case
of divalent minerals. Reports on in vitro protein digestibility
show wide variation for mung bean (Table 9). In vitro protein
digestibility is usually determined by measuring the change in
the pH of the sample solution after incubation at 37ºC with a
trypsin – pancreatin enzyme mixture (Mertz et al., 1983). The
wide variation in the protein digestibility can be due to the
variation in the actual protein content as well as the presence
of trypsin inhibitor, which has been reported to reduce the di-
gestibility of protein. The protein digestibility of mung bean
can be increased by thermal processing methods, which help
in unfolding the protein structure and degrading anti-nutritional
factors.
True digestibility of mung bean was reported to be 73%
(Tsou and Hsu, 1978; Mubarak, 2005). Protein efficiency ratio
of mung bean is 4.29, which is quite high, whereas the essential
amino acid index is 67.8. Rat-feeding experiments show that a
combination of 75% protein from rice and 25% protein from
mung bean gives a protein efficiency ratio equivalent to 75% of
casein protein (Tsou and Hsu, 1978).
Net protein utilization of the food is the ratio of amino acid
converted to proteins to the ratio of amino acids supplied. Its
value ranges from 1 to 0, with 1 meaning 100% utilization of
nitrogen present as protein, whereas 0 indicates no utilization.
Tsou et al. (1979) reported that the biological value of mung
bean could be improved by incorporating the high methionine
character of black gram in mung bean through breeding as this
character is not associated with a lower digestibility of proteins
in black gram, and thus the desirable character of a high di-
gestibility of mung bean will not be affected. The author also
suggested that the amount of dipeptides present in mung bean
also affects the biological value of its proteins. The dipeptides
present in mung bean are γ-glutamyl-S-methylcystine and γ-
glutamyl-S-methylcystine sulfoxide. The amount of the latter is
smaller than that of the former compound (Otoul et al., 1975).
This author also concluded that grains of mung bean were char-
acterized by the presence of γ-glutamyl-S-methylcysteine and
its sulfoxide, which makes it different from grains of urd bean
(Vigna mungo), as the latter does not contain these compounds
but is particularly rich in γ-glutamylmethionine and its sulfox-
ide.
D. FOOD PROCESSING PROPERTIES
The food processing properties of a raw food material deter-
mine its behavior during processing and thus affect the quality
of the end product. The main food processing properties of sig-
nificance for whole mung bean flour and grains are wettability,
water and oil absorption capacity, gelation and emulsifying ca-
pacity, hydration capacity, hydration index, swelling capacity,
swelling index, cooking time, and leached out solids (Table 10).
Water absorption capacity of mung bean flour is important
since many products are prepared from flour dough and thus the
quality of the final products is related to the water absorption
capacity. The considerable variation in the data may be due to
differences in chemical composition of the grains of different
varieties. Most of the authors used centrifuge techniques for the
determination of water absorption capacity. Its value has been
reported to increase by germination and to decrease by dehulling
(Ghavidel and Prakash, 2006).
Hydration capacity is the increase in weight of grains after
absorption of water. Hydration capacity and hydration index are
essential in producing sprouts, and thus high-quality sprouts are
those possessing a high hydration capacity. Swelling capacity
is the increase in the volume of the seed after absorption of
water. Hydration and swelling capacity are the indicators of
the potential of a grain to absorb water, thereby gaining weight
Tab l e 9 Nutritional properties of mung bean
Nutritional properties Average∗Minimum Maximum References
In vitro protein digestibility (%) 70.252 83.9 (Singh and Padmakar, 1991; Hira et al., 1988; Mubarak, 2005;
Khatoon and Prakash, 2006)
In vitro starch digestibility (mg/100 mg Maltose released) 10.310.310.3 (Khatoon and Prakash, 2004)
Apparent digestibility 65.465.465.4 (Tsou and Hsu, 1978)
True digestibility (%) 49.225 73.3 (Tsou and Hsu, 1978)
Net protein utilization (NPU) 56.353 59.7 (Tsou and Hsu, 1978)
Biological value (%) 64.039 80.7 (Vijayabaghavan and Srinivasan, 1953; Tsou and Hsu, 1978;
Geervani and Theophilus, 1980; Poehlman, 1991; Rosaiah et al.,
1993; Sathe, 1996)
Digestibility coefficient 75.5 62 82 (Geervani and Theophilus, 1980; Poehlman, 1991; Sathe, 1996)
Chemical score (%) 76.276.276.2 (Mubarak, 2005)
Essential amino acid index (%) 67.867.867.8 (Mubarak, 2005)
∗Mean value of all collected data.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
MUNG BEAN: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL POTENTIAL 683
Tab l e 1 0 Food processing properties of mung bean
Food processing properties Average∗Minimum Maximum References
Water absorption capacity (%) 131 79 187 (Rosario and Flores, 1981; Hira et al., 1988; Kochhar and Hira, 1997;
Nagmani et al., 1997; El-Adawy et al., 2003; Ghavidel and Prakash,
2006)
Hydration capacity (g/seed) 0.034 0.033 0.034 (Aggarwal et al., 2004; Khattak et al., 2007a, 2007b)
Hydration index 0.015 0.01 0.02 (Aggarwal et al., 2004; Khattak et al., 2007a, 2007b)
Swelling capacity (ml/seed) 0.041 0.006 0.076 (Aggarwal et al., 2004; Khattak et al., 2007a, 2007b)
Swelling index (ml/seed) 0.07 0.03 0.13 (Aggarwal et al., 2004; Khattak et al., 2007a, 2007b)
Cooking time (minutes) 37 14 60 (Hira et al., 1988; Rosaiah et al., 1993; Kochhar and Hira, 1997;
Aggarwal et al., 2004; Khattak et al., 2007a, 2007b)
Leached out solid (%) 3.72.94.5 (Rosaiah et al., 1993)
Oil absorption capacity (g of oil/g of flour) 0.80.81.9 (Mesallam and Hamza, 1987; Ghavidel and Prakash, 2006)
Emulsification capacity (ml of oil/g of flour) 33.919.848.0 (Mesallam and Hamza, 1987; Ghavidel and Prakash, 2006)
∗Mean value of all collected data.
and volume. These parameters depend on the size of grains;
Indian mung bean varieties with a small grain size will have
lower hydration and swelling capacities than the large-sized
varieties of south-east Asian countries. This may the reason for
the production of large amounts of sprouts in Europe and in
oriental countries, but not in India.
The gelation capacity of mung bean flour is important in
products, which utilize oil for processing. The reported value of
the gelation capacity of mung bean is contributed to the presence
of protein (particularly the globulin fraction) and starch (Rosario
and Flores, 1981). The authors used the least concentration end-
point method for determination of gelation capacity in mung
bean. In this method, samples of different concentrations were
stirred and adjusted to pH 7.0 with 0.5 M NaOH. Then, 10 ml
aliquots were heated for 10 min in an 80 ◦C water bath and
cooled to 0 ◦C in an ice-bath. The strength of the coagulum was
evaluated by inverting the tube. The lowest concentration of
protein, which formed a stable gel or which remained inverted
in the tube, was termed the gelation end-point.
Cooking time for mung bean grains varies from 14 (Khattak
et al., 2007b) to 60 minutes (Aggarwal et al., 2004). The average
cooking time is 37 minutes. The wide variation in the reported
values is attributed to the fact that cooking time depends on the
variety and the “hard-to-cook” phenomenon, which is related
to storage conditions and duration of storage (Rodriguez and
Mendoza, 1990). The influence of varietal differences on the
amount of hard-to-cook seeds has been reported by Felicito and
Evelyn Mae (1990). Cooking time might also depend on the
chemical composition of the grain and seed coat. Thus, differ-
ent varieties of mung bean with varying amounts of chemical
constituents will have different cooking times. However, till
now, no study has confirmed this correlation and thus it is nec-
essary to determine the possible factors affecting the cooking
time of mung bean grains.
Leached out solids during the cooking of grains determine
the consistency and overall sensory acceptability of the prod-
ucts, particularly in soups and dhals. The average of reported
values for the amount of leached out solids is 2.9% for different
varieties (Rosaiah et al., 1993). The authors do not discuss the
reported values but it seems likely that the amount of leached
out solids is correlated with the rupture strength of the grains,
as mung bean varieties with lower rupture strength tend to have
lower amounts of leached out solids. Until now, no study has
been conducted to confirm this supposition. Cooking time and
temperature also influence the leached out solids and thus need
to be studied.
Oil absorption capacity is relevant for mung bean as dif-
ferent products, particularly sweets and snacks, are prepared
with mung bean flour as raw material and frying as processing
method. Thus, it is important to use mung bean flour with a
low oil absorption capacity to limit the fat content of the final
product, which determines sensory characteristics as well as the
shelf life. Oil absorption of whole mung bean flour has been
studied, but oil absorption capacity of whole mung bean grain
and dehulled mung bean grain is also important as these are
used in making snacks. Therefore, oil absorption capacity of the
mung bean grains and the effect of grain moisture and oil tem-
perature on it should also be studied to optimize the frying of
the mung bean grain to make snacks, like namkeen. Similarly,
oil absorption of dehulled mung bean grain flour needs to be
studied as mung bean laddo, an Indian sweet, is prepared from
it with fat.
Emulsification capacity of whole mung bean flour is im-
portant for products that involve dough and batter making as
important unit operations. Dzudie and Hardy (1996) reported
the emulsification capacity of dehulled mung bean to be 21.7 ml
of oil/g of flour, which is higher than for dehulled red common
bean (19.8 ml of oil/g of flour), black common bean (14.5 ml
of oil/g of flour), and white common bean (15.5 ml of oil/g of
flour). These authors suggested its appropriateness as an ingre-
dient for meat analogs. Ghavidel and Prakash (2006) correlated
emulsification capacity with the quality and quantity of solu-
ble protein in mung bean and showed that during dehulling as
soluble protein increases emulsification capacity also increases.
Emulsification capacity of dehulled mung bean flour was found
to be 73 ml of oil/g of flour. Emulsification activity of whole
mung bean flour is found to be 54%, while its emulsification sta-
bility is 51.8% (Ghavidel and Prakash, 2006). Germination is
reported to increase the emulsification activity in mung bean by
3% and emulsification stability by 5% (Ghavidel and Prakash,
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
684 P. K. DAHIYA ET AL.
2006). These authors suggested that partial denaturation, in-
creased hydrophobicity – to a certain extent, and increased pro-
tein solubility during germination might be the possible factors
resulting in increased emulsification activity and stability in ger-
minated mung bean flour as compared to non-germinated mung
bean flour. Similarly, dehulling also increased emulsification ac-
tivity and stability in mung bean, which is also suggested to be
due to an increase in total and soluble protein content (Ghavidel
and Prakash, 2006). High emulsification activity and stability of
whole, dehulled, and germinated mung bean flours make them
useful in food systems requiring stabilized colloidal emulsions
(Ghavidel and Prakash, 2006). Emulsification capacity, activ-
ity, and stability should be determined for mung bean grains of
different varieties so as to know their possible correlation with
genetic makeup. Moreover, it will also help the characterization
of mung bean varieties for their usefulness as meat analogs and
in stabilized colloidal emulsions as proposed by several authors.
Information on food processing properties of mung bean
flours is scarce. Certain food processing properties, like the
pH of whole mung bean flour, have not been studied. It is im-
portant to know the pH of grain flour in a water suspension,
since some food processing properties, such as solubility and
emulsion properties, are highly affected by pH (McWatters and
Cherry, 1977). Knowledge of food processing properties can
help in new product development and mechanization of old tra-
ditional processes for the preparation of mung bean foods.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The nutritional value of mung bean cannot be precisely eval-
uated from the data presented in literature to date. There are
variations in the reported data, which might be due to a num-
ber of factors, but these factors have not been studied. Area of
origin is one of the main factors contributing to the variation in
values of different properties. Trung and Yoshida (1983) studied
mung bean varieties from the Philippines and India and found
that Philippine varieties are higher in protein content (23.4%)
and 1000 seed weight (59.1 g) than Indian varieties with an
average 19.8% protein and a 1000 grain weight of 27.3 g. The
genetic makeup of the grain is one of the reasons for the varia-
tion in mung bean properties. Color of the grains is a function of
genetic makeup of the variety and thus varies among varieties
(Paroda and Thomas, 1988). Variations in properties were also
noticed between wild and cultivated varieties. Cultivated mung
bean varieties were found to posses higher amounts of certain
amino acids like lysine, valine, isoleucine, leucine, phenylala-
nine, and tyrosine than wild varieties (Vigna radiata var. sublo-
bata) in central India (Babu et al., 1988). The wide variation
in the nutritional value also seems to be controlled by agro-
nomical practices and location-to-location variations, which are
insufficiently quantified. For example, phosphorus in the form
of fertilizers is added for the proper growth of plants, but it has
been reported that its use increases the phytate content of grains
(Coelho et al., 2002).
Similarly, food processing properties need to be researched
more and the effects of factors like temperature, pH, and parti-
cle size on the variation in the reported data for different food
processing properties. This variability in the reported values for
different properties of mung bean may be due to raw material
used for experimentation like quality of the sample, age of the
sample, pretreatment given to the sample, etc. Physical and engi-
neering properties of the grain are strongly affected by moisture
content, which may vary in relation to the duration of storage
after harvesting (Yildiz, 2005; Unal et al., 2008).
Storage conditions are reported to influence the food pro-
cessing properties of the grain too. For example, cooking time
increases with an increase in the storage period (Vimala and
Pushpamma, 1985). The level of insect infestation during the
storage of grains has also been reported to influence the chem-
ical composition of the mung bean grains (Modgil and Mehta,
1994). Apart from the variability in the material, the analytical
methods (sampling plans, sampling methods, analytical meth-
ods, and analytical quality control) can be another reason for
the variability in reported values.
Our review shows that limited work has been carried out
on the physical properties of mung bean and their relationship
with moisture content. Nutritionally, mung bean seems to have
a good potential with a higher protein content than chickpea,
lower fat content than soya bean and a considerable amount
of iron. The grain quality depends mainly on genetic factors,
of which the expression is modified by agronomical practices.
From the literature review on mung bean and its properties, it
can be concluded that the reported information shows varia-
tions, although many investigations have been published about
the nutritional properties of mung bean. There are gaps in the
information on the different properties of the mung bean, which
need to be filled as these play an important role in the nutritional
potential of the grain and its processing behavior. The lack of
information about some of the components, like vitamins and
fatty acids, also persists. During future investigation of mung
bean properties, care should be taken to control the experimental
setup and limit the variability in sampling and analytical tech-
niques. Data related to quality control during the various steps
of analysis should be described in detail. Information on the
type of sample used for analysis, like whole grain, dehulled or
dehusked grain, should be clearly described; some authors, like
(Elkowicz and Sosulski, 1982) failed to do this.
With respect to further research, we make the following rec-
ommendations:
1. Most mung bean breeding research has focused on yield,
early maturation with uniform maturity and stable yield,
resistance to pests, pathogens, and drought (Singh and
Ahlawat, 2005). This needs to be expanded with nutritional
and food processing properties.
2. More attention should be given to the appropriateness of
analytical methods to be able to separate biological variation
from analytical variation. Use of specific methods with good
detection limits is advocated.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
MUNG BEAN: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL POTENTIAL 685
3. Research on digestibility and bioavailability of nutrients in
mung bean is needed as the factors that affect them are many
and their behavior is not well understood.
4. Food processing properties need to be determined in greater
detail, as literature on these parameters is limited.
5. Various properties of the dehusked mung bean dhal and
dehulled mung bean dhal need to be determined as many
products are made from them instead of whole mung bean
grain, particularly in India.
6. The protein quality of mung bean needs to be improved by
use of biotechnological and plant breeding techniques.
REFERENCES
Abd El-Moniem, G. M. (1999). Sensory evaluation and in vitro protein di-
gestibility of mung bean as affected by cooking time. J. Sci. Food Agric.
79:2025–2028.
Abdel-Rahman, E. S. A., El-Fishawy, F. A., El-Geddawy, M. A., Kurz, T. and
El-Rify, M. N. (2007). The changes in the lipid composition of mung bean
seeds as affected by processing methods. Int. J. Food Eng. 3:1–10.
Abdullah, A. and Baldwin, R. E. (1984). Minerals and vitamins contents of seeds
and sprouts of newly available small-seeded soybeans and market samples of
mung beans. J. Food Sci. 49:656–657.
Adeyeye, E. I., Arogundade, L. A., Akintayo, E. T., Aisida, O. A. and Alao,
P. A. (2000). Calcium, zinc and phytate interrelationships in some foods of
major consumption in Nigeria. Food Chem. 71:435–441.
Adsule, R. N., Kadam, S. S., Salunkhe, D. K., Adsule, R. N., Kadam, S. S.
and Salunkhe, D. K. (1986). Chemistry and technology of green gram (Vigna
radiata [L.] Wilczek). Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 25:73–105.
Aggarwal, V., Singh, N. and Kamboj, S.-S. (2004). Some properties of seeds
and starches separated from mung (Phaseolus mungo) cultivars. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 41:341–343.
Akhtar, M. I., Bhadra, S. K. and Quasem, A. (1988). Inheritance of seed-coat
colour in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Bangladesh J. Botany
17:111–116.
Aman, P. (1979). Carbohydrates in raw and germinated seeds from mung
bean Phaseolus aureus and chick pea Cicer arietinum.J. Sci. Food Agric.
30:869–875.
Amirshahi, M. C. (1978). Mung bean: Breeding, production and utilization
in Iran. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Mung Bean Symposium,
pp. 233–235. Los Banos, Philippines.
Annapurani, S. and Murthy, N. K. (1985). Bioavailability of iron by invitro
method II–from selected foods/diets and effect of processings. Indian J. of
Nutr. Diet. 24:95–105.
Anisha, G. S. and Prema, P. (2008). Reduction of non-digestible oligosaccha-
rides in horse gram and green gram flours using crude alpha-galactosidase
from Streptomyces griseoloalbus.Food Chem.106:1175–1179.
AOAC (1960). Official methods of analysis. 9th ed., p. 283. Association of
Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.
AOAC (1960). Official methods of analysis. 16th ed., Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, Washington.
AOVC (1996). Methods of vitamin assays. Association of Vitamin Chemists,
Inter Science Publishers, New York, pp. 306–312.
Babu, C. R., Sharma, S. K., Chatterjee, S. R. and Abrol, Y. P. (1988). Seed
protein and amino acid composition of wild Vigna radiata var. sublobata
(Fabaceae) and two cultigens Vigna mungo and Vigna radiata.Econ. Bot.
42:54–61.
Barakoti, L. and Bains, K. (2007). Effect of household processing on the in
vitro bioavailability of iron in mung bean (Vigna radiata). Food Nutr. Bull.
28:18–22.
Barroga, C. F., Laurena, A. C. and Mendoza, E. M. T. (1985). Polyphenols in
mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) – Determination and removal. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 33:1006–1009.
Baryeh, E. A. (2002). Physical properties of millet. J. Food Eng. 51:39–46.
Bhadra, S. K., Akhter, M. I. and Quasem, A. (1991). Genetics of seed lustre
and joint inheritance of seed-coat colour and seed lustre in mung bean (Vigna
radiata (L.) Wilczek). Bangladesh J. Bot. 20:61–64.
Bhatty, R. S. (1982). Albumin proteins of eight edible grain legume species:
Electrophoretic patterns and amino acid composition. J. Agric. Food Chem.
30:620–622.
Bohn, L., Meyer, A. S. and Rasmussen, S. K. (2008). Phytate: Impact on envi-
ronment and human nutrition. A challenge for molecular breeding. J. Zhejiang
Univ.: Sci. B.9:165–191.
Bravo, L., Siddhuraju, P. and Saura-Calixto, F. (1999). Composition of under-
exploited Indian pulses: Comparison with common legumes. Food Chem.
64:185–192.
Cai, R., McCurdy, A. and Baik, B. K. (2002). Textural property of 6 legume
curds in relation to their protein constituents. J. Food Sci. 67:1725–1730.
Canniatti Brazaca, S. G. and Da Silva, F. C. (2003). Enhancers and inhibitors
of iron availability in legumes. Plant Food Hum. Nutr. 58:1–8.
Chandrashekar, S., Hunshal, S. and Malik, D. S. (1989). Effect of soaking and
germination temperatures on selected nutrients and anti-nutrients of mung
bean. Food Chem. 34:111–120.
Chen, H. and Liu, X. (2001). Inheritance of seed color and lustre in mungbean
(Vigna radiata). Agric. Sci. Technol.- Hunan. 2:8–12.
Cheng, C., Tsou, S. C. S. and Wang, H. (1988). Utilization patterns of mung
bean in the Chinese diet. In: Proceedings of the Second International Mung
bean Symposium, pp. 498–507. Bangkok, Thailand, November 16–20, 1987.
Chhabra, A. K., Singh, V. P. and Kharb, R. P. S. (1990). Multifactor inheri-
tance of seed coat in green gram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek.). Euphytica.
47:153–158.
Chitra, U. and Rao, P. V. (1997). Effect of varieties and processing methods on
the total and ionizable iron contents of grain legumes. J. Agric. Food Chem.
45:3859–3862.
Chrispeels, M. J. and Baumgartner, B. (1978). Trypsin inhibitor in mung
bean cotyledons. Purification, characteristics, subcellular localization, and
metabolism. Plant Physiol. 61:617–623.
Coelho, C. M. M., Santos, J. C. P., Tsai, S. M. and Vitorello, V. A. (2002).
Seed phytate content and phosphorus uptake and distribution in dry bean
genotypes. Br. J. Plant Physiol. 14:51–58.
Common, R. H. (1939). Phytic acid and mineral metabolism in poultry. Nature.
143:379–380.
Das, P., Raghuramulu, N. and Chittemma Rao, K. (2006). Determination of
bioavailable zinc from plant foods using in vitro techniques. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 43:167–172.
Das, P., Raghuramulu, N. and Rao, K. C. (2005). Determination of in vitro
availability of iron from common foods. J. Hum. Ecol. 18:13–20.
Devadas, R. P., Chandrasekhar, U., Vasanthamani, G. and Gayathri, V. (1977).
Oligosaccharide levels of processed legumes. J. Food Sci. Technol., India.
14:5, 222–223. 10 references.
Dicko, M. H., Hilhorst, R., Gruppen, H., Traore, A. S., Laane, C., Van Berkel,
W. J. H. and Voragen, A. G. J. (2002). Comparison of content in phenolic
compounds, polyphenol oxidase, and peroxidase in grains of fifty sorghum
varieties from Burkina Faso. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:3780–3788.
Dzudie, T. and Hardy, J. (1996). Physico-chemical and functional properties of
flours prepared from common beans and green mung beans. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 44:3029–3032.
El-Adawy, T. A., Rahma, E. H., El-Bedawey, A. A. and El-Beltagy, A. E.
(2003). Nutritional potential and functional properties of germinated mung
bean, pea and lentil seeds. Plant Food Human Nutr. 58:1–13.
Elkowicz, K. and Sosulski, F. W. (1982). Antinutritive factors in eleven legumes
and their air-classified protein and starch fractions. J. Food Sci. 47:1301–
1304.
Engel, R. W. (1978). The importance of legumes as a protein source in Asian
diets. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Mung Bean Symposium,
pp. 35–39. Los Banos, Philippines.
FAO (1970). Amino-acid content of foods and biological data on proteins. FAO,
Rome.
FAO/WHO ( 1973).Energy and protein requirements. Report of FAO Nutritional
Meeting Series No 52. FAO, Rome.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
686 P. K. DAHIYA ET AL.
Fatima, S. and Kapoor, R. (2006). In vitro and in vivo glycemic effects of certain
legumes. J. Food Sci. Technol. 43:263–266.
Fetima, S. and Raehmi, K. (2006). In vivo and in vitro glycemic effects of
certain legumes. J. Food Sci. Technol. 43:263–266.
Rodriguez, F. M. and Mendoza, E. M. T. (1990). Physicochemical basis for
hardseededness in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). J. Agric. Food
Chem. 38:29–32.
Florentino, R. F. (1974). Nutritional aspects of eating rice. Philippine J. Nutr.
27:129–140.
Frossard, E., Bucher, M., M¨
achler, F., Mozafar, A. and Hurrell, R. (2000).
Potential for increasing the content and bioavailability of Fe, Zn and Ca in
plants for human nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agr. 80:861–879.
Geervani, P. and Theophilus, F. (1980). Effect of home processing on the protein
quality of selected legumes. J. Food Sci. 45:707–710.
Ghavidel, R. A. and Prakash, J. (2006). Effect of germination and dehulling on
functional properties of legume flours. J. Sci. Food Agr. 86:1189–1195.
Goel, R. and Verma, J. (1981). Removal of flatulence factor of some pulses by
microbial fermentation. Indian J. Nutr. Diet. 18:6, 215–217.
Gopala Krishna, A. G., Prabhakara, J. V. and Aitzetm ¨
ullerb, K. (1997). Toco-
pherol and fatty acid composition of some Indian pulses. J. Am. Oil Chem.
Soc. 74:1603–1606.
Grewal, A. and Jood, S. (2006). Effect of processing treatments on nutritional
and anti-nutritional contents of green gram. J. Food Biochem.30:535–546.
Grewal, A. and Jood, S. (2009). Chemical composition and digestibility (in
vitro) of green gram as affected by processing and cooking methods. Nutr.
Food Sci. 39:342–349.
Guillam´
on, E., Pedrosa, M. M., Burbano, C., Cuadrado, C., S´
anchez, M. d. C.
and Muzquiz, M. (2008). The trypsin inhibitors present in seed of different
grain legume species and cultivar. Food Chem.107:68–74.
Hamouz, K., Lachman, J., Dvorak, P., Juzl, M. and Pivec, V. (2006). The effect
of site conditions, variety and fertilization on the content of polyphenols in
potato tubers. Plant, Soil and Environ. 52:407–412.
Harina, T. H. and Ramirez, D. A. (1978). The amount and distribution of
carotenoids in the mung bean seed (Vigna radiata). Philippine J. Crop Sci.
3:65–70.
Hemalatha, S., Platel, K. and Srinivasan, K. (2007a). Influence of germination
and fermentation on bioaccessibility of zinc and iron from food grains. Eur.
J. Clin. Nutr. 61:342–348.
Hemalatha, S., Platel, K. and Srinivasan, K. (2007b). Zinc and iron contents and
their bioaccessibility in cereals and pulses consumed in India. Food Chem.
102:1328–1336.
Hira, C. K., Kanwar, J. K., Gupta, N. and Kochhar, A. (1988). Cooking quality
and nutritional evaluation of the rice-bean (Vigna umbellata). J. Food Sci.
Technol. 25:133–136.
Humphry, M. E., Lambrides, C. J., Chapman, S. C., Aitken, E. A. B., Imrie, B.
C., Lawn, R. J., McIntyre, C. L. and Liu, C. J. (2005). Relationships between
hard seededness and seed weight in mung bean (Vigna radiata) assessed by
QTL analysis. Plant Breeding. 124:292–298.
Hurrell, R. F., Reddy, M. and Cook, J. D. (1999). Inhibition of non-haem
iron absorption in man by polyphenolic-containing beverages. Br.J.Nutr.
81:289–295.
Ignacimuthu, S. and Babu, C. R. (1987). Vignaradiata var. Sublobata (Fabaceae):
Economically useful wild relative of urd and mung beans. Econ. Bot.
41:418–422.
Iyengar A. K. and Kulkarni P. R. (1977). Oligosaccharide levels of processed
legumes. J. Food Sci. Technol. (India) 14:222–223.
Jood, S., Bishnoi, S. and Sehgal, S. (1998). Effect of processing on nutri-
tional and anti-nutritional factors of moong bean cultivars. J. Food Biochem.
22:245–257.
Kadwe, R. S., Thakare, K. K. and Badhe, N. N. (1974). A note on the protein
content and mineral composition of twenty-five varieties of pulses. Indian J.
Nutr. Diet. 11:83–85.
Kataria, A., Chauhan, B. M., Kataria, A. and Chauhan, B. M. (1988). Contents
and digestibility of carbohydrates of mung beans (Vigna radiata L.) as af-
fected by domestic processing and cooking. Plant Food Human Nutr. 38:51–
59.
Kataria, A., Chauhan, B. M. and Punia, D. (1989). Anti-nutrients in am-
phidiploids (Black gram ×Mung bean) – Varietal differences and effect
of domestic processing and cooking. Plant Food Human Nutr. 39:257–266.
Katiyar, P. K., Chandra, S., Singh, B. B., Dixit, G. P. and Hasmat, A. (2007).
Characterization of mung bean varieties released in India. Acta Horticul.
752:271–273.
Khader, V. and Rao, V. S. (1986). Effect of cooking and processing on protein
quality of Bengal gram, green gram and horse gram. Indian J. Nutr. Diet.
23:57–65.
Khader, V. and Rao, S. V. (1996). Studies on protein quality of green gram
(Phaseolus aureus). Plant Food Human Nutr. 49:127–132.
Khan, M. A., Jacobsen, I. and Eggum, B. O. (1979). Nutritive value of some
improved varieties of legumes. J. Sci. Food Agr. 30:395–400.
Khatoon, N. and Prakash, J. (2004). Nutritional quality of microwave-cooked
and pressure-cooked legumes. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 55:441–448.
Khatoon, N. and Prakash, J. (2006). Nutrient retention in microwave cooked
germinated legumes. Food Chem.97:115–121.
Khattak, A. B., Bibi, N. and Aurangzeb (2007a). Quality assessments and con-
sumers acceptability of the newly evolved mung bean genotypes. Am. J. Food
Technol.2:563–542.
Khattak, A. B., Nizakat, B. and Aurangzeb (2007b). Quality assessment and
consumers acceptability studies of newly evolved mung bean genotypes (Vi-
gna radiata).Am. J. Food Technol. 2:536–542.
Kochhar, A. and Hira, C. K. (1997). Nutritional and cooking evaluation of green
gram (Vigna radiata. L. Wilczek) cultivars. J. Food Sci. Technol. 34:328–330.
Kuo, T. M., VanMiddlesworth, J. F. and Wolf, W. J. (1988). Content of raffinose
oligosaccharides and sucrose in various plant seeds. J. Agric. Food Chem.
36:32–36.
Kylen, A. M. and McCready, R. M. (1975). Nutrients in seeds and sprouts of
alfalfa, lentils, mung beans and soybeans. J. Food Sci. 40:1008–1009.
Lestienne, I., Icard-Verniere, C., Mouquet, C., Picq, C. and Treche, S. (2005).
Effects of soaking whole cereal and legume seeds on iron, zinc and phytate
contents. Food Chem.89:421–425.
Lin, P.-Y. and Lai, H.-M. (2006). Bioactive compounds in legumes and their
germinated products. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54:3807–3814.
Madhuri, K., Pratima, S. and Rao, B. Y. (1996). Effect of processing on in
vitro carbohydrate digestibility of cereals and legumes. J. Food Sci. Technol.
33:493–497.
Mallillin, A. C., Trinidad, T. P., Raterta, R., Dagbay, K. and Loyola, A. S. (2008).
Dietary fibre and fermentability characteristics of root crops and legumes. Br.
J. Nutr.100:485–488.
Mangaraj, S., Agrawal, S., Kulkarni, S. D. and Kapur, T. (2005). Studies on
physical properties and effect of pre-millling treatments on cooking quality
of pulses. J. Food Sci. Technol.42:258–262.
Marickar, Y. and Pattabiraman, T. N. (1988). Changes in protease inhibitory
activity in plant seeds on heat processing. J. Food Sci. Technol.25:56–62.
McWatters, K. H. and Cherry, J. P. (1977). Emulsification, foaming and protein
solubility properties of defatted soybean, peanut, field pea, and pecan flours.
J. Food Sci. 42:1444–1450.
Mendoza, E. M. T., Barroga, C. F., Rodriguez, F. M., Revilleza, M. J. R. and
Laurena, A. C. (1988). Factors affecting the nutritional quality and accept-
ability of mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilzeck). Trans. Nat. Acad. Sci.
Technol. (Philippines) 10:305–322.
Mesallam, A. S. and Hamza, M. A. (1987). Studies on green gram (Phaseolus
aureus) protein concentrate and flour. Plant Food Human Nutr.37:17–27.
Mertz, E. T., Kirleis, A. W. and Axtell, J. D. (1983). In vitro digestibility of
proteins in major food cereals. In: Federation Proceedings, Federation of
American Societies for Experimental Biology, pp. 6026–6031.
Misra, A., Kumar, R., Mishra, V., Chaudhari, B. P., Raisuddin, S., Das, M. and
DwivedI, P. D. (2011). Potential allergens of green gram (Vigna radiata L.
Millsp) identified as members of cupin superfamily and seed albumin. Clin.
Exp. Allergy.41:1157–1168.
Modgil, R. and Mehta, U. (1994). Effects of different levels of Callosobruchus
chinensis L. infestation on proximate principles, true protein, methionine
and uric acid contents of greengram and redgram. J. Food Sci. Technol.
31:135–139.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
MUNG BEAN: TECHNOLOGICAL AND NUTRITIONAL POTENTIAL 687
Molina, M. R., De La Fuente, G. and Bressani, R. (1974). Interrelationships
between soaking time, cooking time, nutritive value and other characteristics
of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). J. Food Sci. 24:469–483.
Mubarak, A. E. (2005). Nutritional composition and anti-nutritional factors of
mung bean seeds (Phaseolus aureus) as affected by some home traditional
processes. Food Chem.89:489–495.
Muhammed, T., Manohar, S. and Junna, L. (2010). Polyphenols of mung bean
(Phaseolus aureus L.) cultivars differing in seed coat color: Effect of de-
hulling. J. New Seeds.4:369–379.
Murakami, T., Siripin, S., Wadisirisuk, P., Boonkerd, N., Yoneyama, T.,
Yokoyama, T. and Imai, H. (1991). The nitrogen fixing ability of mung bean
(Vigna radiata). In: Proceedings of the Mungbean Meeting, pp. 187–198.
Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Nimkar, P. M. and Chattopadhyay, P. K. (2001). Some physical properties of
green gram. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 80:183–189.
Nisha, P., Singhal, R. S. and Pandit, A. B. (2005). A study on degradation
kinetics of riboflavin in green gram whole (Vigna radiata L.). Food Chem.
89:577–582.
Noor, M. I., Bressani, R. and Elias, L.G. (1980). Changes in chemical and
selected biochemical components, protein quality and digestibility of mung-
bean (Vigna radiata) during germination and cooking. Plant Foods Human
Nutr.29:135–144.
Nout, M. J. R. (2009). Rich nutrition from the poorest – Cereal fermentations
in Africa and Asia. Food Microbiol. 26:685–692.
Otoul, E., Marechal, R., Dardenne, G. and Desmedt, F. (1975). Sulphur dipep-
tides differentiate between Vigna radiata and Vigna mungo.Phytochem.
14:173–179.
Pandey, R. N., Pawar, S. E., Chintalwar, G. J. and Bhatia, C. R. (1989). Seed
coat and hypocotyl pigments in green gram and blackgram. Proc. Ind. Acad.
Sci. Plant Sci. 99:301–306.
Paroda, R. S. and Thomas, T. A. (1988). Genetic resources of mungbean (Vigna
radiata (L.) Wilczek) in India. In: Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium, pp. 19–28. Taipei, Taiwan.
Philip, J. and Prema, L. (1998). Oligosaccharides in cowpea (Vigna unguicu-
lata) and green gram (Vigna radiata): varietal variation. Indian J. Nutr. Diet.
34:257–258.
Poehlman, J. M. (1991). The Mung Bean. 375 pp. Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co., New Delhi..
Prabhavat, S. (1990). Mung bean utilization in Thailand. In: Proceedings of the
Second International Symposium, pp. 9–15. Taipei, Taiwan.
Ranganna, S. (1986). Handbook of Analysis and Quality Control for Fruit and
Vegetable Products. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
Rao, B. N. (2003). Bioactive phytochemicals in Indian foods and their potential
in health promotion and disease prevention. Asia Pacific J. Clin. Nutr. 12:9–22.
Rao, B.S.N. and Prabhavathi, T. (1982). Tannin content of foods commonly
consumed in India and its influence on ionisable iron. J. Sci. Food Agr.
33:89–96.
Rao, D. S. S. and Deosthale, Y. G. (1981). Mineral composition of four Indian
food legumes. J. Food Sci. 46:1962–1963.
Rao, P. K. and Deosthale, Y. G. (1983). Effect of germination and cooking on
mineral composition of pulses. J. Food Sci. Technol.20:195–197.
Rao, U. P. and Belavady, B. (1979). Chemical composition of high yielding
verities of pulses varietal, locational and year to year differences. Indian J.
Nutr. Diet. 16:440–446.
Rodriguez, F. M. and Mendoza, E. M. T. (1990). Physicochemical basis for
hardseededness in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). J. Agric. Food
Chem. 38:29–32.
Rosaiah, G., Santha Kumari, D., Satyanarayana, A., Rajarajeswari, V., Naidu, N.
V. and Umaid, S. (1993). Cooking quality and nutritional characters of mung
bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) varieties. J. Food Sci. Technol. 30:219–
221.
Rosario, R. R. D. and Flores, D. M. (1981). Functional properties of flour types
of mung bean flour. J. Sci. Food Agr. 32:175–180.
Rosario, R. R. d. (1991). Processing and utilization of legumes with particu-
lar reference to mung bean in the Philippines. In: Uses of Tropical Grain
Legumes: Proceedings of a Consultants Meeting, pp. 211–221. Patancheru,
India.
Salunkhe, D. K., Jadhav, S. J., Kadam, S. S. and Chavan, J. K. (1982). Chem-
ical, biochemical, and biological significance of polyphenols in cereals and
legumes. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 17:277–305.
Sampath, S., Rao, M.-T., Reddy, K.-K., Arun, K. and Reddy, P. V. M. (2008).
Effect of germination on oligosaccharides in cereals and pulses. J. Food Sci.
Technol.45:196–198.
Sathe, S. K. (1996). The nutritional value of selected asiantic pulses - chick pea,
black gram, mung bean & pigeon pea. In: Legumes and Oilseeds in Nutrition,
pp. 12–32. Nwokolo, E. and Smart, J., Eds., Chapman and Hall, London.
Sekhon, K. S., Gupta, S. K. and Bakhshi, A. K. (1980). Amino acid composition
of mung (Phaseolus aureus). Indian J. Nutr. Diet. 16:417–419.
Shehata, A. A. Y. and Thannoun, A. M. (1980). Chemical and amino acid
composition of Iraqi mung beans. Zeitschrift fur Lebensmittel-Untersuchung
und -Forschung.171:360–362.
Singh, A. and Padmakar (1991). Effect of ultra violet radiation on nutritional
quality of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) seeds. Die Nahrung.35:215–216.
Singh, D. P. and Ahlawat, I. P. S. (2005). Green gram (Vigna radiata) and
blackgram (Vigna mungo) improvement in India: Past, present and future
prospects. Indian J. Agr. Sci. 75:243–250.
Singh, S., Singh, H. D. and Sikka, K. C. (1968). Distribution of nutrients in the
anatomical parts of common Indian pulses. Cereal Chem. 45:13–18.
Singh, U., Voraputhaporn, W., Rao, P. V. and Jambunathan, R. (1989). Physic-
ochemical characteristics of pigeonpea and mung bean starches and their
noodle quality. J. Food Sci. 54:1293–1297.
Singh, U. and Singh, B. (1992). Tropical grain legumes as important human
foods. Econ. Bot.46:310–321.
Singh, V. P., Chhabra, A. and Kharb, R. P. S. (1988). Production and utilization
of mung bean in India. In: Second International Mung bean Symposium
Proceedings, pp. 486–497. S. Shanmuga Sundaram, Ed., AVRDC, Shanhua,
Tainan.
Sompong, U., Kaewprasit, C., Nakasathien, S. and Srinives, P. (2009). Inheri-
tance of seed phytate in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Euphytica.
171:389–396.
Sood, D. R., Wagle, D. S. and Dhindsa, K. S. (1982). Studies on the nutritional
quality of some varieties of mung bean (Vigna radiata). J. Food Sci. Technol.
19:123–125.
Srinivasan, T., Duriaraj, C. and Senguttuvan, S. (2007). Role of phytic acid in
the resistance of green gram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) seeds to Calloso-
bruchus maculatus Fabricius (Bruchidae: Coleoptera). Pest Manage. Econ.
Zool. 15:63–69.
Thakare, R. G., Gadgil, J. D. and Mitra, R. (1988). Origin and evolution of seed
protein genes in Vigna mungo and Vigna radiata.In: Mungbean: Proceed-
ings of the Second International Symposium, Asian Vegetable Research and
Development Centre, pp. 47–52. Taipei, Taiwan.
Thompson, L. U., Rea, R. L. and Jenkins, D. J. A. (1983). Effect of heat process-
ing on hemagglutinin activity in red kidney beans. J. Food Sci. 48:235–236.
Tomooka, N. (1991). Genetic diversity and landrace differentiation of mung-
bean, Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek, and evaluation of its wild relatives (the
subgenus Ceratotropis) as breeding materials. Tech. Bull. Trop. Agr. Res.
Center (Japan). 28: 4–17.
Tomooka, N., Lairungreang, C., Nakeeraks, P., Egawa, Y. and Thavarasook,
C. (1991). Center of genetic diversity, dissemination pathways and landrace
differentiation in mung bean. In: Proceedings of the Mungbean Meeting 90,
pp. 47–71. Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Tomooka, N., Lairungreang, C., Nakeeraks, P., Egawa, Y. and Thavarasook,
C. (1992). Center of genetic diversity and dissemination pathways in mung
bean deduced from seed protein electrophoresis. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83:289–
293.
Trung, B. C. and Yoshida, S. (1983). A comment on the varietal differences
of production of mung bean and its grain properties. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.
28:413–417.
Tsou, C. S., Hsu, M. S., Tan, S. T. and Park, H. G. (1979). The protein quality
of mungbean and its improvement. Acta Hortic. 93:279–287.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
688 P. K. DAHIYA ET AL.
Tsou, S. C. S. and Hsu, M. S. (1978). The potential role of mung bean as a
diet component in Asia. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Mung Bean
Symposium, pp. 40–45. Cowell, R., Ed., AVRDC, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan.
Udayasekhara Rao, P. and Bhavani, B. (1978). Oligosaccharides in pulses:
Varietal differences and effects of cooking and germination. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 26(2):316–319.
Unal, H., Isik, E., Izli, N. and Tekin, Y. (2008). Geometric and mechanical
properties of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) grain: Effect of moisture. Int. J.
Food Properties. 11:585–599.
Urooj, A. and Puttaraj, S. (1994). Effect of processing on starch digestibility in
some legumes - an in vitro study. Nahrung-Food. 38:38–46.
Vavilov, N. I. (1926). Studies on the origin of cultivated plants. Bull. Appll. Bot.
Genet. Plant Breeding.16:1–248.
Veena, A., Ujooj, A. and Puttaraj, S. (1995). Effect of processing on the com-
position of dietary fibre and starch in some legumes. Nahrung.39:132–138.
Vijayabaghavan, P. K. and Srinivasan, P. R. (1953). Essential amino acid com-
position of some common Indian pulses. J. Nutr. 51:261–271.
Vimala, V. and Pushpamma, P. (1985). Effect of improved storage methods on
cookability of pulses stored for one year in different containers. J. Food Sci.
Technol.22:327–329.
Wang, B., Zhan, S. Y., Xia, Y. Y. and Lee, L. M. (2008). Effect of
sodium iron ethylenediaminetetra-acetate (NaFeEDTA) on haemoglobin and
serum ferritin in iron-deficient populations: A systematic review and meta-
analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. Br. J. Nutr.
100:1169–1178.
Watson, J. D. (1977). Chemical composition of some less commonly used
legumes in Ghana. Food Chem.2:267–271.
Werker,E., Marbach, I. and Mayer, A. M. (1979). Relation between the anatomy
of the testa, water permeability and the presence of phenolics in the genus
Pisum. Ann. Bot. 43:765–771.
Yalcın, I. (2007). Physical properties of cow pea (Vigna sinensis L.) seed. J.
Food Eng. 79:57–62.
Yalcın, I., Ozarslan, C. and Akbas, T. (2007). Physical properties of pea (Pisum
sativum) seed. J. Food Eng. 79:731–735.
Yildiz, U. M. (2005). Some physical properties of mash bean seeds culivated in
Turk ey. S.U.Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi. 35:41–45.
Yohe, J. M. and Poehlman, J. M. (1972). Genetic variability in the mung bean,
Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek. Crop. Sci. 12:461–464.
Yousif, A. M., Kato, J. and Deeth, H. C. (2003). Effect of storage time and
conditions on the seed coat colour of Australian adzuki beans. Food Aust.
55:479–484.
Zia-Ul-Haq, M., Ahmad, M. and Iqbal, S. (2008). Characteristics of oil from
seeds of 4 mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) cultivars grown in Pak-
istan. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 85:851–856.
Downloaded by [Wageningen UR Library] at 06:45 16 July 2015
