Purpose - This paper aimed to demonstrate the proximate composition of cereal (wheat and maize) and legume (mungbean and groundnut) flours when subjected to two traditional processing methods (i.e. roasting and germination). Cereals are staple foods for human nutrition and most of the inhabitants use wheat as an ample food due to the dietary proteins in flour. Maize is an important cereal grain in the world and it has a diverse form of utilization including human food uses, animal feed formulation and as a basic raw material for industrial purposes. Legumes contain high amounts of protein; mungbean is an excellent source of high quality plant protein. Groundnut is a legume with seed rich in oil and protein.

Design - Raw ingredients were obtained, cleaned and divided into three batches. The first batch of material was raw and considered as control. The second and third batch samples were roasted and germinated respectively. Roasting and germination were done by the standard methods. Proximate composition such as moisture, ash, protein, fat, fiber, carbohydrate and energy were determined using the standard procedures.

Results - Processing methods such as roasting and germination greatly influenced the nutritional composition of cereal and legume flours. Roasting decreased all nutrients in flours. Germination increased moisture and protein content in all flours.

Conclusion - This study concluded that the cereal and legume flours have great nutritional values that could be harnessed by roasting and germination to meet nutritional needs and may be used in formulation of various foods.

•    Proximate composition
•    Germination
•    Roasting
•    Cereals
•    Legumes

Kavitha S, Parimalavalli R (2014) Effect of Processing Methods on Proximate Composition of Cereal and Legume flours. J Hum Nutr Food Sci 2(4): 1051.

Germination and roasting are the simple and easily adaptable technologies for reduction of bulkiness and increasing shelf life of cereal and legume based food formulations [1]. Germination has been reported to induce an increase in free limiting amino acids and available vitamins with modified functional properties of seed components [2]. It has also been shown to decrease anti nutritional factors and also increase the protein digestibility, crude fibre and protein contents [3].

Roasting improves colour, extends shelf life, enhances flavor and reduces the anti-nutrient factors of cereals and legumes. More over roasting of grains lead to denaturation of proteins, thus improving their digestibility [4]. Most of the inhabitants use wheat as an ample food due to the scrupulous properties of proteins in flour [5]. Maize was traditionally grown as staple food, primarily for household consumption, but its demand for feed and industrial uses has increased rapidly in the recent past [6]. Mungbean is an excellent source of high quality plant protein [7]. Groundnut is widely consumed in various parts of the world. Groundnut is a legume with seed rich in oil (48-49%) and protein (about 26%) [8]. Proximate composition is important in determining the quality of raw material and often the basis for establishing the nutritional value and overall acceptance of the consumers [9]. Physicochemical properties should be evaluated since they play an important role in the physical behavior of food or ingredients during processing and storage [10]. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of roasting and germination on the proximate composition of wheat, maize, mungbean and groundnut.

Raw materials such as wheat, maize, mungbean and groundnut were obtained from local market, Salem, Tamil Nadu. The materials were cleaned to remove dirt and stones, washed, shade dried and divided into three batches. The first batch of material was raw and considered as control. The second and third batch samples were roasted and germinated respectively. Roasting and germination were done by the standard methods: wheat [11,12], maize [13,14], mungbean [15,16] and groundnut [17,18].

The samples of the three extruded weaning foods were separately analyzed for proximate composition using the official standard methods. Moisture content of the extrudates was determined by Association of Official Analytical Chemists method [19]. The gross energy values were estimated by multiplying the crude protein, fat and carbohydrate by their at water values of 4, 9 and 4 kcal/g respectively. Protein content was estimated from the crude nitrogen content of the sample determined by the MicroKjeldhal method (N × 6.25) [19]. Fat content of the samples was estimated by Soxhlet method given by [19]. Carbohydrate was calculated by difference method. Crude fiber and ash content of the samples was determined by the procedure given by Association of Official Analytical Chemists [19].

Triplicate analyses were done for all nutritional properties. Statistical analyses were performed with Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS 14.0). A level of p < 0.05 was used to indicate significant differences among the samples.

Food processing may affect the functionality and nutritional quality of the food products. Effect of processing methods on nutritional composition of wheat flour is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Proximate Composition of wheat flours.

Properties	Control (CWF)	Roasted (RWF)	Germinated (GWF)
Moisture (%) Ash (%) Protein (%) Fat (%) Fiber (%) Carbohydrate (%) Energy (Kcal)	12.20± 1.26 a 1.01± 0.03 a 10.02 ± 1.10 a 1.92 ± 0.66 a 1.51 ± 0.56 a 87.60±6.83a 397.68±10.24 a	10.56 ± 0.64 b 0.89 ± 0.09 b 11.23 ± 1.94 b 1.72 ± 0.54 b 1.46 ± 0.08 b 84.06 ± 4.56 b 389.06 ± 9.94 b	13.56±1.94 c 0.97±0.09 c 14.10±1.83 c 1.43±0.26 c 1.62±0.08 c 80.32 ± 7.26 c 386.46 ± 15.60

Mean values of triplicate determination. Mean values within same row followed by different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).

Major nutrients of wheat flour samples are presented in Table 1. Moisture content of GWF was the highest (13.56 ± 1.94 %) followed by CWF (12.20± 1.26%) and RWF (10.56 ± 0.64%). These values are within the range reported by other investigators [20,21,22]. However, investigations have shown that low moisture content of food samples is a desirable phenomenon, since the microbial activity is reduced [23]. Low moisture content in food samples increased the storage period of the food products [24]; while high moisture content in foods encourage microbial growth; hence, food spoilage occur [25].

Protein content of processed wheat samples varied between 10.02 ± 1.10% (CWF) and 14.10±1.83% (GWF). However, the protein content of both germinated and roasted wheat flour samples were significantly (p<0.05) higher than that of CWF sample. This observation is agreed with other scientific findings that processing techniques such as germination and roasting improved the nutritional quality of the food products, particularly in terms of protein content [26,27]. Proteins in the raw samples were degraded and converted into a soluble state after germination. It was remarkable facts that free amino acids content decreased during steeping, mostly during the initial germination stage. The speed of utilizing the amino acid to synthesize the bio enzymes was faster than the proteins were being degraded into amino acids [28]. The significant increase in protein content seen in germinating flours is attributed to increased water activity as a result of induction of hydrolytic enzymes [29], hormonal changes [30] or a compositional change following the degradation of other constituents.

Carbohydrate and energy values of the wheat flour ranged between 80.32±7.26- 87.60±6.83% and 386.46±15.68 - 397.68±10.24 Kcal, respectively. The carbohydrate content and energy values of germinated sample were lower than those of raw and roasted wheat flour samples; this observation could be due to the utilization of fat and carbohydrate for biochemical activities of the germinating seeds [31]. This result is similar with [32] who stated that carbohydrate and energy values of the raw and germinated wheat flour samples ranged 82.13 ± 0.49 - 84.63±0.43 g/100g and 396.17 ± 1.05 to 398.83 ± 2.41 Kcal, respectively.

Ash content of CWF was significantly (p<0.05) higher than RWF and GWF. This result is supported by [28] who indicated that ash content of raw wheat was 1.43 ± 0.02% and germinated wheat was 0.85 ± 0.04%. Fat content of CWF was significantly (p<0.05) higher than RWF and GWF. The decline is likely to be due to the use of the lipid as energy source during germination [33]. This result is supported by [28] who indicated that fat content of raw wheat was 1.47 ± 0.51% and germinated wheat was 0.60 ± 0.01%. Similarly fibre content of GWF was significantly (p<0.05) higher than CWF and RWF. This result is supported by [34] who indicated that fiber content of raw wheat was 1.70 ± 0.34% and germinated wheat was 1.93 ± 0.18%.

Proximate analyses (percentage moisture, ash, protein, fat, carbohydrate, fiber and carbohydrate) were carried out on maize flours and the result is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Proximate Composition of maize flours.

Properties	Control (CMF)	Roasted (RMF)	Germinated (GMF)
Moisture (%) Ash (%) Protein (%) Fat (%) Fiber (%) Carbohydrate (%) Energy (Kcal)	7.60±0.83 a 1.34 ± 0.16 a 5.64 ± 0.15 a 4.36 ± 0.36 a 1.54± 0.26 a 97.60±4.83 a 384.20±14.83 a	7.06 ± 0.94 b 1.19± 0.54 b 4.24 ± 0.17 b 5.09 ± 0.37 b 0.84± 0.04 b 87.06 ± 5.94 b 357.06 ± 11.10 b	8.02 ± 1.26 c 1.24±0.23 c 7.30±1.54 c 4.28±0.67 c 0.75±0.08 c 78.02 ± 3.26c 348.02 ± 10.11c

Mean values of triplicate determination. Mean values within same row followed by different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).

Moisture content of maize flours were ranged from 7.06 ± 0.94 to 8.02 ± 1.26 %. Ash content of CMF was higher than RMF and GMF. This result is on par with [35] who reported that the ash content of raw and roasted maize flours was 1.23% and 1.51% respectively. The reduction in ash content might be due to the leaching out of both macro and micro elements into the soaking and cooking water [36].

Protein content of GMF was significantly (p<0.05) higher than CMF and RMF. This result is similar with [37] who stated that there was increment in protein content of sprouted maize flour than raw maize flour. The nutritional value of native proteins is improved by heat treatments as they are converted to more digestive denatured forms as well as result into inactivation of heat labile enzymes such as lipoxygenase, trypsin inhibitor and urease [38,39]. Fat content of RMF was significantly (p<0.05) higher than CMF and GMF. This result is similar with [37] who stated that sprouted maize flour contains less fat than raw maize flour. CMF had higher percentage of fiber than the RMF and GMF. The percentage composition of fiber in the maize flours was ranged from 0.75 % to 1.54 %, with GMF had the least percentage composition. [35] depicted that the fiber content of raw and roasted maize was 1.58% and 0.82%. Carbohydrate and energy values of the maize flour samples ranged between 78.02 ± 3.26 and 97.60±4.83% and 348.02±10.11 - 384.20±14.83 Kcal, respectively. The carbohydrate content and energy values of germinated sample were lower than those of raw and roasted maize flour samples. Percentage composition of carbohydrate was also found to be higher in the raw maize than roasted maize. This result is agreed with [35,40].

The proximate composition of mungbean flour samples is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Proximate Composition of mungbean flours.

Properties	Control (CMBF)	Roasted (RMBF)	Germinated (GMBF)
Moisture (%) Ash (%) Protein (%) Fat (%) Fiber (%) Carbohydrate (%) Energy (Kcal)	7.60±0.83 a 3.42 ± 0.09 a 21.9± 1.60 a 1.40 ± 0.15 a 3.80± 0.09 a 65.12 ± 3.26 a 342.12 ± 7.26 a	3.42 ± 0.45 b 3.06± 0.04 b 24.46 ± 1.94 b 1.36 ± 0.24 b 3.10 ± 0.12 b 64.4± 2.10 b 348.20 ± 0.94 b	9.65 ± 0.12 c 3.10±0.53 c 31.83±2.83 c 1.20±0.21 c 3.40±0.08 c 61.24±1.32 c 369.20±5.29 C

Mean values of triplicate determination. Mean values within same row followed by different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).

Moisture content was significantly increased after germination in mungbean (p < 0.05). This finding is similar to [41] in germinated legumes. As germination proceeds, legumes took up water from the surrounding in order for the metabolic process to commence. Dry legumes absorb water rapidly, influenced by structure of the legume. The increase in water uptake with time is due to the increasing number of cells within the seed becoming hydrated [29].

Ash content was significantly decreased in RMBF than CMBF and GMBF which is parallel to observations of [41,42,43,44]. The decrease in ash content represents loss in minerals due to rootlet and washing in water to reduce the sour smell during the period of germination [45].

Protein content was significantly increased in GMBF (p < 0.05). This result is similar with other studies done by [41,46,47,48] found different results. They found that total protein increased after germination process. [30] assumed that the increased was due to synthesis of enzyme proteins or a compositional change following the degradation of other constituents.

Fat content was decreased in GMBF than CMBF and RMBF (p < 0.05). Similar results occurred in study by [3,20,44,49] where the fat content decrease with increase in the time of germination. This is because fat was used as the major source of carbon for seed growth [30,44] also suggested that fatty acids are oxidized to carbon dioxide and water to generate energy for germination.

Carbohydrate content was increased significantly (p < 0.05) in CMBF than GMBF and RMBF [50] explained that during germination, carbohydrate was used as source of energy for embryonic growth which could explain the changes of carbohydrate content after germination. Additionally, β-amylase activity that hydrolyzes the starch into simple carbohydrate was increased [51]. Starch in cotyledon was broken down into smaller molecules such as glucose and fructose to provide energy for cell division while the seeds mature and grow [29,43,50] explained that carbohydrate breakdown in which α-amylase activities were found to parallel with the pattern of starch breakdown.

Fiber content was significantly decreased in CMBF than GMBF and RMBF. Fiber was significantly decreased in germinated kidney and mung beans (p < 0.05) but significant increased was found in germinated soy bean and peanut (p < 0.05). [52] reported that the effect of germination on fiber was dependent on type of legumes. Study by [53] demonstrated that fiber was decreased in soaked wheat, barley, peanut and mung bean, but conversely increased in soaked rice and soy bean. This indicates that germination process affect the level of fiber during the period of soaking before the actual phase of germination.

As shown in Table 4, moisture content was significantly increased after germination (p < 0.05). This finding is similar to the results reported by [41] in germinated groundnut. As germination proceeds, legumes took up water from the surrounding in order for the metabolic process to commence. Dry legumes absorb water rapidly, influenced by the structure of the legume. The increase in water uptake with time is due to the increasing number of cells within the seed becoming hydrated [29].

Table 4: Proximate Composition of groundnut flours.

Properties	Control (CGF)	Roasted (RGF)	Germinated (GGF)
Moisture (%) Ash (%) Protein (%) Fat (%) Fiber (%) Carbohydrate (%) Energy (Kcal)	1.57±0.42 a 2.51 ± 0.13 a 29.12 ± 1.26 a 42.60± 1.81 a 2.70 ± 0.42 a 79.01± 5.21 a 582.13 ± 12.3 a	1.37 ± 0.24 b 2.35 ± 0.26 b 30.12 ± 1.94 b 43.21± 1.94 b 2.02 ± 0.34 b 74.06 ± 6.94 b 567.06 ± 9.94 b	2.89±0.41 c 2.22±0.10 c 31.60±2.83 c 40.60±1.62 c 2.10±0.65 c 76.21±4.83 c 574.16±10.83 c

Mean values of triplicate determination. Mean values within same row followed by different superscripts are significantly different (p<0.05).

Ash content was significantly decreased in GGF sample (p < 0.05), parallel to observations of Ahmad and [31,41,44] reported that the differences in ash content after soaking for a specific time was due to decreased ash content. There was a significant effect of roasting and germination on ash content of groundnut compared to CGF. These findings are in agreement with those of [54] who reported that no significant effect of roasting on groundnuts. Germination significantly reduced the ash and fiber in groundnut. Fat content of GGF was deceased when compared to CGF and RGF. It has been suggested that the decrease in lipid content during germination was due to conversion of fatty acids into carbohydrates through the glyoxylate cycle [3].

Energy value of CGF was significantly (p<0.05) higher than RGF and GGF. Germination which is the process of soaking and steeping dry seeds in water, involves chemical changes due to the hydrolysis by the amylolytic enzymes α- and β- amylases, of complex macromolecules such as starch and proteins into low-molecular-weight and more digestible, molecules [49]. In addition, degradation and oxidation of starch observed during respiration provide energy for the increased metabolic functions in the germinated seeds. That may explain the decrease in energy value observed in groundnut after germination and roasting, compared to the raw groundnut (617±2 Kcal/100g) [55].

Protein content of CGF was significantly (p<0.05) lower than the processed flours. Protein levels were significantly greater in processed groundnuts compared to CGF, due to germination. [56] observed that significant increases in protein levels in groundnut after germination. [39] also reported an increase in protein content in groundnut compared to raw seeds. [30] assumed that the increased was due to synthesis of enzyme proteins or a compositional change following the degradation of other constituents. A further explanation was done by [29] where they noted that protein synthesis occurred during imbibition and that hormonal changes play an important role in achieving the completion of germination [57].

The study concluded that processing methods such as roasting and germination affect the nutritional composition of cereal and legume flours. Germination increased moisture and protein content in cereal and pulse flours. Roasting and germination significantly affect ash, fat, fiber, carbohydrate and energy content. From this study, it is believed that the cereal and legume flours have great nutritional values, which could be harnessed by processing methods to meet nutritional needs and used in formulation of various foods.

Financial support from the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi for conducting this research work is gratefully acknowledged.

1. Gernah DI, Ariahu CC, Ingbian EK. Effects of malting and lactic fermentation on some chemical and functional properties of maize (Zea mays). American Journal of Food Technology. 2011; 6: 404-412.

2. Hallen E, Ibanoglu S and Ainsworth P. Effect of fermented/germinated cowpea flour addition on the rheological and baking properties of wheat flour. J. Food Eng. 2004; 63: 177-184.

3. El-Adawy TA, Rahma EH, El-Bedawey AA, El-Beltagy AE. Nutritional potential and functional properties of germinated mung bean, pea and lentil seeds. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 2004; 58: 1-13.

4. Boye J, Fatemeh Z, Alison P. Pulse proteins: Processing, characterization, functional properties and applications in food and feed. Food Research International. 2010; 43: 414-431.

5. Traore T, Mouquet C, Icard-Verniere C, Traore AS, Trecie S. Changes in nutrient composition phytate and cyanide contents and amylase activity during cereal malting in small production units in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). Food Chemistry. 2004; 88: 105-114.

6. Adetuyi FO, Badejo OF, Ikujenlola AV, Omosuli SV. Storage influence on the functional properties of malted unmalted maize (Zea mays L ssp mays) and soybean (Glycine max L Merrill) flour blends, African Journal of Food Science. 2009; 3: 56-60.

7. Sattar A, Durrani SK, Mahmood F, Ahmad A, Khan I. Effect of soaking and germination temperatures on selected nutrients and antinutrients in mungbean. Food Chemistry. 1989; 34: 111–120.

8. Adeyeye EI, Aye PA. The effects of sample preparation on the proximate composition and the functional properties of the African yam bean flours. Note 1 La Rivista Italiana Della Sostanze Grasse, LXXV- Maggio. 1998; 253-261.

9. Moses O, Olawuni I, Iwouno JO. The Proximate Composition and Functional Properties of Full-Fat Flour, and Protein Isolate of Lima Bean (Phaseolus Lunatus). Open Access scientific Reports. 2012; 1(7): 1-5.

10. Enwere NJ, Ngoddy PO. Effect of heat treatment on selected functional properties of cowpea flour. Tropical Science. 1986; 26: 223-232.

11. Abbey BW, Mark-Balm T. Nutritional quality weaning foods prepared from composite flours of maize, ungerminated and germinated cowpea, Nutrition Rep. Int. 1988; 38; 519.

12. Tochampa W, Jittrepotch N, Kongbangkerd T, Krabourn K, Rojsuntornkitti K. The study of microwave heating time on chemical and microbiological properties and sensory evaluation in sweet fermented glutinous rice (Khao-Mark). Int. Food Res. J. 2011; 18: 239–248.

13. Housson P, Ayenor GS. Appropriate processing and food functional properties of maize flour, African Journal of Science and Technology. 2002; 3 (1): 126-121.

14. Jowitt RC. Heat transfer in food processing applications of fluidization. Chemical Engineering (November). 1977; 779–782.

15. Del Rosario RR, Flores DM. Functional properties of four types of mung bean flour. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 1981; 32: 175–180.

16. Cheung PC, Chau CF . Changes in the Dietary Fiber (Resistant Starch and Nonstarch Polysaccharides) Content of Cooked Flours Prepared from Three Chinese Indigenous Legume Seeds. J Agric Food Chem. 1998; 46: 262-265.

17. Abayomi P, Isaac A, Ayodele O. Effects of processing conditions and packaging materials on the quality attributes of dry-roasted peanuts. Journal Food Science Agriculture. 2002; 82: 1465-1471.

18. Ahmed EM and Schmidt RH. Functional properties of peanut and soyabean proteins as influenced by processing method, Peanut Science. 1979; 6: 1–6.

19. AOAC. Official methods of Analysis, Association of official Analytical Chemistry, 15 th Edition. 2000.

20. Ghavidel RA, Prakash J. The impact of germination and dehulling on nutrients, antinutrients, in vitro iron and calcium bioavailability and in vitro starch and protein digestibility of some legume seeds.LWT. 2007; 40: 1292-1299.

21. Rasha MK, Gibriel AY, Rasmy NMH, Abu-Salem FM, Abou-Arab EA. Influence of legume processing treatments individually or in combination on their trypsin inhibitor and total phenolic contents. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2011; 5: 1310-1322.

22. Amagloh FK, Mutukumira AN, Brough L, Janet L, Weber JL, Hardacre1 A, Coad J. Carbohydrate composition, viscosity, solubility, sensory acceptance of sweet potato- and maize-based complementary foods. Food & Nutrition Research. 2013; 57: 1-9.

23. Oyenuga VA. Nigeria’s foods and feeding-stuffs; their chemistry and nutritive value, Ibadan University Press, Ibadan, 2013.

24. Alozie Y, Akpanabiatu MI, Eyong EU, Umoh IB and Alozie G. Amino acid composition of Dioscorea dumetorum varieties. Pakistan J. Nutr.2009; 8: 103-105.

25. Temple VJ, Badamosi EJ, Ladeji O, Solonom M. Proximate chemical composition of three locally formulated complementary food. West Afr. J. Biol. Sci. 1996; 134-143.

26. Enujiugha VN, Badejo AA. Cultural alteration for the improvement of Bacillus subtillis in the fermentation of African oil beam seeds pentaclethia macrophylla benth. Applied Agric. 2002; 7: 6-11

27. Fasasi OS, Eleyinmi AF, Fasasi AR, Karim OR. Chemical properties of raw and processed breadfruit (Treculia africana) seed flour. Food Agriculture and Environment. 2004; 2: 65–68.

28. Pandhare RB, Sangameswaran B, Mohite PB, Khanage SG. Antidiabetic Activity of Aqueous Leaves Extract of Sesbania sesban (L) Merr. in Streptozotocin Induced Diabetic Rats. Avicenna J Med Biotechnol. 2011; 3: 37-43.

29. Nonogaki H, Bassel GW and Bewley JW. Germination-still a mystery. Plant Science. 2010;

30. Bau H, Villaume C, Nicolas J, Mejean L. Effect of germination on chemical composition, biochemical constituents and antinutritional factors of soya bean (Glycine max) seeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 1997; 73: 1-9.

31. Wang N, Lewis MJ, Breman JG and Westby. Effect of processing methods on nutrients and antinutritional factors in cowpea. Food Chemistry. 1997; 58: 59-68.

32. Torres A, Frias J, Granito M, Vidal-Valverde C. Germinated Cajanus cajanseeds as ingredients in pasta products: Chemical, biological and sensory evaluation. Food Chemistry. 2007; 101: 202-211.

33. Rumiyati AP, James, Jayasena V. Effect of germination on the nutritional and protein profile of Australian Sweet Lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.). Food and Nutrition Sciences. 2012; 3: 621-626.

34. Compaore RW, Nikiema AP, Bassole NH, Savadogo A, Hounhouigan D, Mouecoucou J, Traore AS. Nutritional properties of enriched local complementary flours. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2011; 3: 31-39.

35. Adetunde OT, Oluseyi TO, Olayinka KO, Oyeyiola AO, Alo B. Effects of Roasting on the Proximate Composition and Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Some Roasted Nigerian Delicacies. J. Emerg. Trend. Eng. Appl. Sc. 2012; 3: 857-862.

36. Myrene R. D’souza. Effect of Traditional processing Methods on Nutritional Quality of Field Bean. Adv. Biores. 2013; 4: 29-33.

37. Pandhare RB, Sangameswaran B, Mohite PB, Khanage SG. Attenuating effect of Sesbania sesban (L) Merr. extract on neuropathic pain in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats: an evidence of neuroprotective effects. Phytopharmacol. 2012; 2:190-201

38. Savage WD, Wie LS, Sutherland JW, Schmidt SJ. Biologically active components inactivation and protein insolubilization during heat processing of soybean. Journal of Food Science.1995; 60: 164-180.

39. Mubarak AE. Nutritional composition and antinutritional factors of mungbean seeds (Phaseolus aureus) as affected by some home traditional processes. J. Food Chem. 2005; 89: 489-495.

40. Yasmin A, Zeb A, Khalil AW, Paracha GM, Khattak AB. Effect of processing on antinutritional factors of red kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) grains. Food Bioprocess Technology. 2008; 1: 415-419.

41. Khatoon N, Prakash J. Nutrient retention in microwave cooked germinated legumes. Food Chemistry. 2006; 97: 115-121.

42. Ahmad S, Pathak DK. Nutritional changes in Soy bean during germination. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2000; 37: 665- 666.

43. Ohtsubo K, Suzuki K, Yasui Y, Kasumi T. Bio-functional components in the processed pregerminated brown rice by a twin-screw extruder. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2005; 18: 303–316.

44. Hahm TS, Park SJ, Martin Lo Y . Effects of germination on chemical composition and functional properties of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) seeds. Bioresour Technol. 2009; 100: 1643-1647.

45. Tatsadjieu NL, Etoa F-X, Mbofung CMF. Drying Kinetics, Physicochemical and Nutritional Characteristics of “Kindimu”, a Fermented Milk Based-Sorghum-Flour. The Journal of Food Technology in Africa. 2004; 9: 17-22

46. Urbano G, Lopez-Jurado M, Frejnagel S, Gomez Villalva E, Porres JM, Frias J, et al. Nutritional assessment of raw and germinated pea (Pisum Sativum L.) protein and carbohydrate by in vitro and in vivo techniques. Nutrition. 2005; 21: 230-239.

47. Ghavidel RA and Prakash J. The impact of germination and dehulling on nutrients, antinutrients, in vitro iron and calcium bioavailability and in vitro starch and protein digestibility of some legume seeds. LWT. 2007; 40: 1292-1299.

48. Kaushik G, Satya S, Naik SN. Effect of domestic processing techniques on the nutritional quality of the soybean. Mediterranean Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism. 2010; 3: 39-46.

49. Dhaliwal YS, Aggarwal RAK. Composition of fat in soybeans as affected by duration of germination and drying temperature. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 1999; 36: 266-267.

50. Vidal-Valverde C, Frias J, Hernandez A, Martin-Alvarez PJ, Sierra I, Rodriguez C, et al. Assessment of nutritional compounds and antinutritional factors in pea (Pisum sativum) seeds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture.2003; 83, 298–306.

51. Suda M, Watanabe T, Kobayashi M, Matsuda K. Changes in starch content and related enzyme activities during the growth of germinating soybeans. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry. 1986; 50: 3195-3196

52. Marero LM, Payumo EM, Librando EC, Lainez W, Gopez MD, Homma S. Technology of weaning food formulations prepared from germinated cereals and legumes, Journal of Food Science.1989; 53: 1391–1395.

53. Azizah AH, Zainon H. Effect of processing on dietary fiber contents of selected legumes and cereals. Malaysia Journal of Nutrition. 1997; 3:131-136.

54. Sekhon KS, Dhillon SS, Singh N, Singh B . Functional suitability of commercially milled rice bran in India for use in different food products. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 1997; 50: 127-140.

55. Kuo Y, Rozan P, Lambein F, Frias J, Vidal Valverde C. Effects of different germination conditions on the contents of free protein and nonprotein amino acids of commercial legumes. Food Chemistry. 2003; 86: 537- 545.

56. Alonso R, Aguire A, Marzo F. Effects of extrusion and traditional processing methods on antinutrients and in vitro digestibility of protein and starch in faba and kidney beans. J. Food Chem.2000; 68: 159-165.

57. Rodriguez C, Frias J, Vidal-Valverde C, Hernandez A. Correlations between some nitrogen fractions, lysine, histidine, tyrosine, and ornithine contents during the germination of peas, beans, and lentils. Food Chemistry. 2008; 108: 245-252.