Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:06:00.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of heat treatment and particle size of bran on mineral absorption in rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Andrea Caprez  and
Susan J. Fairweather-Tait
Andrea Caprez
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Food Research Institute, Colney Lane, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7UA
Susan J. Fairweather-Tait
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Food Research Institute, Colney Lane, Norwich, Norfolk NR4 7UA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The effect of heat treatment of bran on true zinc absorption was measured using an isotope-dilution technique. A bran-based breakfast cereal (heated to 204° for 40 min during manufacture) was incorporated into a semi-synthetic diet at a level of 180 g/kg, A parallel diet was formulated containing an identical weight of untreated bran from the same source plus other ingredients used to make the cereal.

2. Young male Wistar rats (mean weight 80 g) were injected intramuscularly with 65Zn to label body Zn. They were given the heat-treated- and untreated-bran diets for 9 d. During the last 6 d of this period Zn intakes and faecal and urinary Zn were measured in order to calculate apparent Zn retention. True Zn retention was measured by taking into account losses of Zn of endogenous origin (labelled with 65Zn), by measuring faecal and urinary 65Zn taking the mean specific radioactivity of Zn in kidneys and upper small intestine to represent specific radioactivity of endogenous origin.

3. Heat treatment of bran removed approximately one-third of the phytate, but this was not enough to improve Zn absorption from the diet. True Zn retention measured by isotope dilution was significantly higher (P < 0.02) than apparent Zn retention measured bv the conventional balance technique.

4. The hypothesis that a reduction in particle size of bran would improve mineral availability was tested by feeding coarse and milled bran (100 g/kg diet) in a semi-synthetic diet to rats and measuring true Fe and apparent Zn absorptions. The importance of phytate was also investigated by feedino a diet containing dephytinized bran.

5. Male Wistar rats (mean weight 172 g) were given diets containing coarse, milled or dephytinized bran for 9 d. Fe and Zn intakes were measured and faeces and urine collected for Fe and Zn analysis.

6. The mean (±SE) particle size of the bran was reduced on milling from 3.5 (± 1.8) to 0.2–0.5 mm. There were no differences in the fraction of Fe retained between the three groups. Particle size had a small effect on Zn retention which was marginally higher in rats on the milled-bran diet (0.126 (± 0.023)) than in those on the coarse-bran diet (0.087 (± 0.012)). Total removal of phytate had a greater effect and apparent Zn retention from the dephytinized-bran diet was significantly higher (0.182 (±0.027), P < 0.01).

Type
Papers of direct relevance to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , November 1982 , pp. 467 - 475
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, N. E. & Clydesdale, F. M. (1980). J. Fd Sci. 45, 1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitar, K. & Reinhold, J. G. (1972). Biochim. biophys. Acta 268, 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorn-Rasmussen, E. (1974). Nutr. Metab. 16, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodribb, A. J. M. & Groves, C. (1978). Gut 19, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camire, A. L. & Clydesdale, F. M. (1981). J. Fd Sci. 46, 548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheryan, M. (1980). CRC Crit. Rev. Fd Sci. Nutr. 13, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. T. & Nightingale, R. (1975). Br. J. Nutr. 34, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, N. T. & Reid, H. (1979). Br. J. Nutr. 41, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dintzis, F. R., Legg, L. M., Deatherage, W. L., Baker, F. L., Inglett, G. E., Jacob, R. A., Reck, S. J., Muñoz, J. M., Klevay, L. M., Sandstead, H. H. & Shuey, W. C. (1979). Cereal Chem. 56, 123.Google Scholar
Evans, G. W., Johnson, E. C. & Johnson, P. E. (1979). J. Nutr. 109, 1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairweather-Tait, S. J. (1982). Br. J. Nutr. 47, 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Widdowson, E. M. (1942). J. Physiol., Lond. 101, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMasters, M. M., Hinton, J. J. C. & Bradbury, D. (1971). In Wheat Chemistry and Technology, p. 51. [Pomeranz, Y., editor]. St. Paul, Minnesota: American Association of Cereal Chemists.Google Scholar
Matseshe, J. W., Phillips, S. F., Malagelada, J-R. & McCall, J. T. (1980). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 33, 1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, E. R. & Ellis, R. (1976). J. Nutr. 106, 753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranhotra, G. S., Lee, C. & Gelroth, J. A. (1979). Nutr. Rep. Int. 19, 851.Google Scholar
Reinhold, J. G., Ismail-Beigi, F. & Faradji, B. (1975). Nutr. Rep. Int. 12, 75.Google Scholar
Sandstead, H. H., Muñoz, J. M., Jacob, R. A., Klevay, L. M., Reck, S. J., Logan, G. M., Dintzis, F. R., Inglett, G. E. & Shuey, W. C. (1978). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 31, 1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, K. M., Morris, E. R. & Cook, J. D. (1981). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 34, 1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southgate, D. A. T. (1969). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 20, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6th ed. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. & Kirchgessner, M. (1976). Nutr. Metab. 20, 314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigand, E. & Kirchgessner, M. (1980). J. Nutr. 110, 469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyman, J. B., Heaton, K. W., Manning, A. P. & Wicks, A. C. B. (1976). Am. J. clin. Nutr. 29, 1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar