Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Legume Research, volume 40 issue 1 (february 2017) : 27-31

Effect of physical mutagen on the salmonella inactivation, sensory evaluation and proximate analysis of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

Rukhama Haq, Neelma Munir*, Faiza Saleem*, Anam Mushtaq, Azka Saleem, Shagufta Naz
1<p>Department of Biotechnology,&nbsp;Lahore College for Women University, Lahore.</p>
Cite article:- Haq Rukhama, Munir* Neelma, Saleem* Faiza, Mushtaq Anam, Saleem Azka, Naz Shagufta (2017). Effect of physical mutagen on the salmonella inactivation, sensory evaluation and proximate analysis of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) . Legume Research. 40(1): 27-31. doi: 10.18805/lr.v0i0.7018.

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important pulse crop grown and consumed all over the world. It is a good as well as the cheapest source of protein, soluble, insoluble fibers, vitamins, potassium and phosphorus. The present research was done to check the efficacy of gamma irradiation on chickpea’s proximate components and how the physical mutagen helped in Salmonella inactivation without any significant change in the proximate components of chickpea. The samples were treated with three different doses of gamma radiation (0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 kGy). Screening and evaluation of native micro flora on chickpea was performed and the viable counts of the microbes detected on samples of chickpea were Bacillus subtillis, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella sp. which were confirmed by biochemical test (API strips) before and after gamma irradiation. Results showed that 2 kGy is the optimum dose for chickpea at which complete elimination of Salmonella was recorded with no significant effect on sensory property as well as the proximate content of Cicer arietinum L.

  1. AOAC. (2005). Official Methods of Analysis (18th Ed.). Association of Analytical Chemists. AOAC, Washington.

  2. Aquino, D.S. (2012). Sterilization by gamma irradiation. INTECH Open Access Publisher. Croatia: InTech Europe.

  3. Arab, E. A. and Helmy, I. (2010). Nutritional evaluation and functional properties of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flour and the improvement of spaghetti produced from it. J. Am. Sci. 6: 1055-1072.

  4. Chen, W., Basandrai, A.K., Basandrai, D., Banniza, S., Bayaa, B., Buchwaldt, L., Davidson, J., Larsen, R., Rubiales, D. and Taylor, P.W. (2009). 17 Diseases and their Management. The Lentil, 262.

  5. FAO, 2014. FAOSTAT. [http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QC/E]. Accessed 15th May 2016.

  6. Gent, D.H. and Schwartz, H.F. (2005). Management of Xanthomonas leaf blight of onion with a plant activator, biological control agents and copper bactericides. Plant Dis. 89: 631-639.

  7. Hameed, A. and Shah, T.M. (2008). Gamma irradiation effects on seed germination and growth, protein content, peroxidase and protease activity, lipid peroxidation in desi and kabuli chickpea. Pak. J. Bot. 40: 1033-1041.

  8. Iqbal, S.M., Rauf, C.A., Ayub, N. and Ghafoor A. (2002). Morphological characters of chickpea cultivars related to resistance against blight. Int. J. Agri. Bio. 4: 496-499.

  9. Jeremiah, O.J., Ilesanmi, O.R. and Ige, M.M. (2015). Proximate and mineral composition of synsepalum dulcificum seed. Sci. Res. J. 3: 3.

  10. Jukanti, A.K., Gaur, P.M., Gowda, C.L.L. and Chibbar, R.N. (2012). Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): a review. Brit. J. Nutri. 108: 11-26.

  11. Kassie, M. and Shiferaw, B. (2009). Current situation and future outlooks of the chickpea sub–sector in Ethiopia. ICRISAT and EIAR (http://www. icrisat. org/tropicallegumesII/pdfs/Current_Situation. pdf).

  12. Khan, M. A. (1989). Utilization of chickpea and groundnut in Pakistan. Uses of Tropical Grain Legumes 27: 95.

  13. Malik, B.A. (1984). Pulses in Pakistan with emphasis on chickpea and Ascochyta blight. pp 1–9. In Proceedings of a Training course on Ascochyta blight of chickpea in Pakistan. 3–10 March 1984, Islamabad, Pakistan.

  14. Özer, S. and Karaköy, T. (2010). Nutritional and physicochemical variation in Turkish kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) landraces. Euphytica, 175: 237-249.

  15. Rizvi, A.H., Dwivedi, V.K., Sairam, R.K., Yadav, S.S., Bharadwaj, C., Sarker, A. and Alam, A. (2014). Physiological Studies on Moisture Stress Tolerance in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Genotypes. Int. J. Sci. Res. Agri. Sci. 1: 23-31.

  16. Scott, V. N. and Chen, Y. (2009). Control of Salmonella in low-moisture foods I: Minimizing entry of Salmonella into a processing facility. Food. Prot. Trend. 29: 342-353.

  17. Shah, N.A., Aujla, K.M., Abbas, M. and Mahmood, K. (2007). Economics of chickpea production in the Thal Desert of Pakistan. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci. 5: 6-10.

  18. Shah, H. and Khan, U. (2011). Effect of home cooking on the retention of various nutrients in commonly consumed pulses in Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric. 27: 279.

  19. Singh, F. and Diwaker, B. (1995). Chickpea botany and production practices. Skill develop. Ser. 16: 8-9.

  20. Syed, M. and Islam, M. (2012). Genetic Divergence in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). B. J. Agri. Res. 37: 129-136.

  21. Wood, J. A. and Grusak, M. A. (2007). 5 Nutritional value of chickpea. Chickpea breeding and management: 101.


Editorial Board

View all (0)