COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON MINERAL, PROXIMATE AND VITAMIN B2 COMPOSITION OF COWPEA (Vigna Unguiculata) AND MUNG BEAN (Vigna Radiata)

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the nutritional composition of cooked and raw samples of Cowpea (Vignaunguiculata) and Mung bean (Vignaradiata), two vital legumes in human diets. Proximate analysis, mineral content and vitamin B2 (Riboflavin) compositions were evaluated using standard methods. Results showed significant differences in moisture, ash, crude protein, crude fiber, crude lipid and carbohydrates contents between cowpea and mung bean. Cooked cowpea had higher crude protein (11.25 %) than cooked mung bean (10.00 %) while raw mung bean have higher crude protein (10.75 %) than raw cowpea (8.81%). Cooked cowpea have higher moisture content (30.50 %) than cooked mung bean (16.00 %). Raw mung bean have higher moisture content (22.00 %) than raw cowpea (13.50 %).This study shows that cooked samples have low lipid content than the raw samples with 0.005 %, 0.55 %, 2.00 % and 2.00 % for cooked cowpea, cooked mung bean, raw cowpea and raw mung bean respectively. The cooked samples also have higher crude fiber than the raw samples with the percentage, 22.00 %, 17.23 %, 0.50 % and 2.00 % for cooked cowpea, cooked mung bean, raw cowpea and raw mung bean respectively. Cooked and raw cowpea have ash content of 19.50 % and 33.50 % respectively while cooked and raw mung bean have ash content of 41.69 % followed by cooked mung bean having 23.7 %, then raw mung bean having 20.75 % and lastly cooked cowpea having 16.79 %. Mineral analysis revealed that cowpea was richer in Mg (47.7 mg/kg) and lower in Fe (4.5 mg/kg), lower in Zn (4.80 mg/kg) and has the level of 21.30 and 21.1 mg/kg in K and Ca respectively. Cooked mung bean has the level of (26.80, 14.30, 7.30, 7.70, 32.80 and 19.80 mg/kg for K, Na, Fe, Zn, Mg and Ca respectively. Raw cowpea has the highest concentration of Na, Mg and Ca with the values, 19.50, 50.60 and 31.6 mg/kg respectively. It also have 28.90, 47.8 and 5.30 mg/kg levels of K, Fe, and Zn respectively. Raw mung bean was found to have higher levels of K, Zn, and Fe with the values 37.10 mg/kg, 8.50 and 85.90 mg/kg respectively and also has the level of 13.40, 44.20, and 24.40 mg/kg for Na, Mg, and Ca respectively. Vitamin B2 composition of (0.081 mg/100g) than raw cowpea (0.081). These findings highlight the nutritional strengths of each legume, underscoring their potential as complementary food sources for addressing micronutrient deficiencies. The study provides valuable information for nutritionists, food scientists, and policymakers aiming to promote sustainable and healthy food systems to enhance human health.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE…………………………………………………………………………………….. i

TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………………………………….ii

DECLARATION…………………………………………………………………………..iii

CERTIFICATION………………………………………………………………………….iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………..….v

DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………….……….vi

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………….vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………….viii

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………….1

1.1 Background of the Study ……………………………………………………..………….1

1.2 Statement of Research Problem………………………………………………….……….3

1.3 Aim and Objectives……………………………………………………………………….3

1.3.1 Aim: ………………………………………………………………………………....….3

1.3.2 Objectives of the Study are: ……………………………………………………..….….3

1.4 Scope and Limitation of the Study…………………………………………………….….4

1.5 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………….4

CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………………………..…….6

2.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….6

2.2 The Botany of Mung Bean……………………………………………………….……….15

2.3 The Botany of Cowpea…………………………………………………………..……….15

2.4 Nutritional Values of Cowpea…………………………………………………………….16

2.5 Nutritional Values of Mung Bean…………………………………………………………17

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS………………………………………….………….20

3.1 Material……………………………………………………………………………….20

3.1.1 Apparatus: ………………………………………………………………………….20

3.1.2 Reagents: ……………………………………………………………….…………20

3.2 Methods………………………………………………………………..……………20

3.2.1 Proximate analysis: ………………………………………………………….…….20

3.2.2 Moisture Content………………………………………………………….………..21

3.2.3 Determination of Ash Content……………………………………………………..21

3.2.4 Determination of Crude Fibre: …………………………………………………….21

3.2.5 Determination of Crude Lipid Content By Soxhlet Method………………….…….22

3.2.6 Determination of Nitrogen and Crude Protein……………………………..……….22

3.2.7 Determination of Carbohydrate by (Difference): ………………………………….24

3.2.8 Mineral Analysis ……………………………………………………………..…….24

3.2.9 Determination of Vitamin B2 ……………………………………………………….25

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………………….26

4.1 Results …………………………………………………………………………..…….26

4.1.1 MINERALS ANALYSIS ………………………………………………..………….26

4.1.2 PROXIMATE ANALYSIS………………………………………………….……….26

4.1.3 VITAMIN B2 COMPOSITION…………………………………………..………….27

4.2 DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………………….27

CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………….30

5.1 Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………….30

5.2 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..31

5.3 Recommendation ……………………………………………………………….………32

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………..…………….33