Hello everybody,

There is a research paper about beetroot leaves (in natura and dehydrated) in which physicochemical composition was analyzed (file attached).

In natura means as they have grown naturally without having experimented any physico chemical change as in the case of dehydrated leaves (heat effect in air-circulating oven).

Moisture, lipids, ash and protein content are reported for in natura and dehydrated beetroot leaves. Data in both samples is different being dehydrated leaves that gave greater physicochemical content in comparison to in natura leaves.

Here is my doubt:

Equations used for determination of physicochemical content in food are expressed in WET WEIGHT BASIS:

  • Moisture: (Wi - Wf)/Wi x 100
  • Lipids: W lipids/Wsample x 100
  • Ash: W ash/W sample x 100
  • Nitrogen: (V HCl - V blank) x N HCl x Nitrogen / W sample x 100
  • Protein: Nitrogen x protein factor

Were In natura beetroot leaves analyzed without prior treatment? I mean, for lipid determination, leaves were not dehydrated and were in contact directly with petroleum ether. For ash determination, they were submited directly in muffle at 525°C for 12 - 18h considering that dehydration is necessary when samples overcome moisture of 15%. And, a similar situation for protein determination.

Dehydrated leaves gave greater results and I think it is expressed in a wet weight basis. What is weird is that physicochemical content seems to be expressed in dry weight basis because of a high content of ash (18.4%), lipid (12.7%) and protein (31%).

I got a little confused in identifying the data expressed in wet weight basis. Maybe I don't understand what the author has done but,

What is the importance of analysing physicochemical composition of in natura leaves instead dehydrated? considering that dehydration is obligatory before lipid, ash and protein determination.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Regards

More Andrés Silva's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions