. 2011 Jan 18;49(6):673–684. doi: 10.1007/s13197-010-0223-x

Table 3.

Effect of certain indigenous processing methods on the L-Dopa content of wild type legume grains^a,b,c

Name of the wild type legume grain	Raw seeds	Processed seeds
Name of the wild type legume grain	Raw seeds	Soaking in tamarind solution + cooking	Soaking in alkaline solution + cooking	Sprouting + oil-frying	Open-pan roasting
Acacia nilotica	2.6^a ± 0.20	2.1^b ± 0.25	1.9^c ± 0.06	1.7^d ± 0.17	2.3^a ± 0.13
Acacia nilotica	2.6^a ± 0.20	(−18)	(−29)	(−34)	(−13)
Bauhinia purpurea	3.8^a ± 0.24	2.9^b ± 0.24	2.5^c ± 0.24	2.2^d ± 0.22	3.2^e ± 0.18
Bauhinia purpurea	3.8^a ± 0.24	(−26)	(−34)	(−42)	(−17)
Canavalia ensiformis	2.4^a ± 0.14	1.6^b ± 0.05	1.3^c ± 0.04	1.2^d ± 0.05	2.0^e ± 0.08
Canavalia ensiformis	2.4^a ± 0.14	(−31)	(−46)	(−48)	(−14)
Cassia hirsuta	2.9^a ± 0.06	2.1^b ± 0.14	1.9^c ± 0.08	1.6^d ± 0.13	2.5^e ± 0.06
Cassia hirsuta	2.9^a ± 0.06	(−27)	(−37)	(−45)	(−16)
Caesalpinia bonducella	3.7^a ± 0.08	2.7^b ± 0.13	2.3^c ± 0.16	2.1^d ± 0.06	3.2^e ± 0.12
Caesalpinia bonducella	3.7^a ± 0.08	(−27)	(−38)	(−41)	(−13)
Erythrina indica	1.3^a ± 0.17	0.96^b ± 0.03	0.88^c ± 0.09	0.7^d ± 0.05	1.1^a ± 0.13
Erythrina indica	1.3^a ± 0.17	(−28)	(−34)	(−47)	(−16)
Mucuna gigantea	5.4^a ± 0.12	4.2^b ± 0.18	3.8^c ± 0.17	3.3^d ± 0.08	4.9^e ± 0.15
Mucuna gigantea	5.4^a ± 0.12	(−22)	(−31)	(−39)	(−10)
Pongamia pinnata	1.9^a ± 0.28	1.4^b ± 0.11	1.3^c ± 0.25	1.2^d ± 0.09	1.6^a ± 0.22
Pongamia pinnata	1.9^a ± 0.28	(−27)	(−33)	(−40)	(−16)
Sebania sesban	3.5^a ± 0.16	2.4^b ± 0.14	2.2^c ± 0.18	2.0^d ± 0.14	2.9^e ± 0.17
Sebania sesban	3.5^a ± 0.16	(−30)	(−38)	(−42)	(−17)
Xylia xylocarpa	2.3^a ± 0.14	1.7^b ± 0.10	1.6^c ± 0.15	1.5^d ± 0.16	1.9^e ± 0.11
Xylia xylocarpa	2.3^a ± 0.14	(−24)	(−30)	(−35)	(−15)

^aValues are mean ± standard deviation of five separate determinations (n = 5)

^bValues given within the parenthesis with negative sign indicate the percentage of reduction

^cValues in the same row with different alphabet superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05)