Proximate analysis reveals mineral profiles and anti-nutritional factors in three okra varieties, indicating high bioavailability.
The nutritional and industrial potentials of three varieties of Abelmoschus esculentus (Okra) seeds were evaluated using the AOAC method. Proximate analysis revealed significant varietal differences among Clemson Spineless, NHAE-74, and Ex-Samaru seeds. While residual moisture (4.67–5.33%), crude fibre (8.33–9.83%), and available carbohydrates (440.17–447.00 mg/100g) showed no significant differences (p > 0.05), Ex-Samaru exhibited significantly (p < 0.05) higher ash content (6.17%) compared to Clemson Spineless (4.83%) and NHAE-74 (4.67%). The crude lipid content in NHAE-74 (25.67%) was significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that of Clemson Spineless (24.33%) and ExSamaru (23.50%), with corresponding variations in energy values. Elemental analysis demonstrated varietal-specific mineral profiles: potassium content was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in Clemson Spineless (350 mg/100g) than NHAE74 (323 mg/100g), while Ex-Samaru showed elevated sodium (198.42 mg/100g) and copper (0.75 mg/100g) levels compared to other varieties. Iron content remained consistent (p > 0.05) across varieties, whereas calcium and phosphorus exhibited significant differences (p < 0.05). Manganese content inClemson Spineless (6.47 mg/100g) significantly (p < 0.05) surpassed ExSamaru (3.48 mg/100g) but not NHAE-74 (5.15 mg/100g). Anti-nutritional analysis revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) in phytate or tannin content, though oxalate levels varied significantly (p < 0.05). Bioavailability assessment using molar ratios (anti-nutrient to mineral) indicated that all varieties are safe for consumption. However, Clemson Spineless and ExSamaru exhibited a distinct oxalate-to-calcium ratio compared to NHAE-74. The results confirm that all three okra varieties possess favourable nutritional profiles, high mineral bioavailability, and suitability for dietary and industrialapplications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abba et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: