Implications of two different methods for analyzing total dietary fiber in foods for food composition databases

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorPhillips, Katherine M.en
dc.contributor.authorHaytowitz, David B.en
dc.contributor.authorPehrsson, Pamela R.en
dc.contributor.departmentBiochemistryen
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-20T18:10:26Zen
dc.date.available2020-02-20T18:10:26Zen
dc.date.issued2019-12en
dc.description.abstractSince 1989, total dietary fiber values in USDA databases were determined by the enzymatic-gravimetric (EGF) method (AOAC 991.43), where "fiber" is the residue remaining after samples are subjected to enzymatic treatments mimicking digestion. In 2009 EGF was modified to recover additional non-digestible components (e.g., galacto/fructo-oligosaccharides, polydextrose, resistant starch) (AOAC 2009.01, 2011.25) (mEGF). Limited mEGF data and high cost create a need to identify suitable foods for analysis. USDA's National Food and Nutrient Analysis Program sampled suitable foods for analysis by EGF and mEGF. No detectable difference between EGF and mEGF was found in almonds, wheat bread, oatmeal cookies, tortilla chips, taco shells, kale, fast food French fries, or cooked dried pulses. mEGF exceeded EGF in uncooked dried pulses (5.4-10.5 g/100 g), raw potatoes (13.7 g/100 g), and cooked plantains (3.1 g/100 g), and slightly higher (0.7-2.2 g/100 g) in hummus, canned refried beans, prepared wild rice mix, and frozen raspberry berries, concentrate, and puree. Statistical power was hindered by high analytical uncertainty, especially for mEGF (up to 33% RSD), likely due to cumulative errors in the multiple steps comprising mEGF. mEGF analyses should focus on foods containing significant levels of fiber components not included in EGF, and reporting individual, particularly metabolically active, fiber components.en
dc.description.adminPublic domain – authored by a U.S. government employeeen
dc.description.notesThis work was supported by cooperative agreements59-8040-8-005, 60-8040-6-011 and 60-8040-8-005 between the USDA Agricultural Research Service Nutrient Data Laboratory and Virginia Tech (including funds from interagency agreements between USDA and the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, the American Pulse Association (agreement #15-1435-01), and the National Processed Raspberry Council (agreement #8040-05-25 0057704). Amy Rasor, Nancy Conley, and Ryan McGinty assisted with sample preparation.en
dc.description.sponsorshipUSDA Agricultural Research Service Nutrient Data Laboratory [59-8040-8-005, 60-8040-6-011, 60-8040-8-005]; Virginia Tech (USDA) [59-8040-8-005, 60-8040-6-011, 60-8040-8-005]; Virginia Tech (National Cancer Institute) [59-8040-8-005, 60-8040-6-011, 60-8040-8-005]; Food and Drug AdministrationUnited States Department of Health & Human Services; American Pulse Association [15-1435-01]; National Processed Raspberry Council [8040-05-25 0057704]en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2019.103253en
dc.identifier.eissn1096-0481en
dc.identifier.issn0889-1575en
dc.identifier.otherUNSP 103253en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/96955en
dc.identifier.volume84en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsCC0 1.0 Universalen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/en
dc.subjectBeansen
dc.subjectFood analysisen
dc.subjectFood compositionen
dc.subjectDietary fiberen
dc.subjectAnalytical methodsen
dc.subjectFood composition databasesen
dc.subjectLegumesen
dc.subjectNutritionen
dc.subjectPotatoesen
dc.subjectQuality controlen
dc.titleImplications of two different methods for analyzing total dietary fiber in foods for food composition databasesen
dc.title.serialJournal of Food Composition and Analysisen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
1-s2.0-S0889157519303527-main.pdf
Size:
3.63 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Biochemistry