You are on page 1of 6

JFS C: Food Chemistry and Toxicology

Effects of Solvent, Temperature, Time, Solvent-


to-Sample Ratio, Sample Size, and Defatting on
the Extraction of Soluble Sugars in Soybean
ENZO GIANNOC
NZO CAR
IANNOCCARO, YA-JANE WANG, AND PENGYIN CHEN
CARO

C: Food Chemistry & Toxicology


ABSTRA
ABSTRACT CT
CT:: E xtr
Extr action solv
xtraction ent, temper
solvent, atur
temperatur e, time
ature time,, and solv ent-to-sample rratio
solvent-to-sample atio wer
wer e studied to identify the opti-
ere
mal conditions for extr acting sugars fr
extracting om nondefatted so
from ybean. Water and 10%, 50%, and 80% (v/v) ethanol w
soybean. er
wer
eree
used as the solvents. Extraction temperatures of 25 °C, 50 °C, and 80 °C, for 15, 30, and 60 min and solvent-to-
sample ratios of 5:1, 10:1, and 15:1 (v/w) were combined with different solvents. The sugar composition in the
soybean extracts was analyzed by high-performance anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric
detection. The sugar appropriate to be used as the standard in the phenol-sulfuric acid method in sugar quan-
tification, and effects of sample size and defatting on sugar extraction were also evaluated. The optimum extrac-
tion protocol concluded from this study includes the use of water as the solvent at a solvent-to-sample ratio of 5:1
at 25 °C or 50 °C for 15 min. Sucrose was shown to be the best sugar as the standard to quantify the total soluble
sugars in soybean. Extractions from sample size of 1 g and 0.1 g yielded similar soluble sugars. A greater amount
of sugars was extracted with the defatted soybean meal than with the nondefatted sample.
K eywor ds: so
eywords: ybean, sugars
soybean, sugars,, extraction solv
extraction ent, extr
solvent, action temper
extraction atur
temperatur e, phenol-sulfur
ature ic acid method, HP
phenol-sulfuric AEC-
HPAEC-
PAD

Introduction (1996) observed a significant interaction between solvent and tem-

C arbohydrate is the 2nd most predominant component in soy-


bean seeds, next to protein, representing approximately 1/3 of
the seed composition (Aspinall 1988). Insoluble carbohydrates in
perature when extracting sugars from toasted soybean meal. Rela-
tively higher amounts of sugar were obtained with increasing tem-
perature when water or 50% and 80% ethanol were used as solvents.
soybean are mainly composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin, Kim and others (2003) concluded that temperatures below 50 °C had
and trace amounts of starch (Liu 1997). Soluble sugars consist of a positive influence in aqueous extractions, but temperatures above
sucrose, raffinose, stachyose, glucose, fructose, and trace amounts 50 °C decreased the extractability of sugar from defatted soybean.
of arabinose, rhamnose, fucose, ribose, xylose, and mannose (Eld- The phenol-sulfuric acid method by Dubois and others (1956) is
ridge and others 1979). Sucrose is responsible for enhancing the a reliable and simple method and has been widely used for total
taste of soy food products (Taira 1990; Geater and Fehr 2000), sugar determination in soybean. This procedure detects not only
whereas consumption of the indigestible raffinose and stachyose soluble sugars but also oligomeric/polymeric sugars because the high
is associated with flatulence and abdominal discomfort (Rackis sulfuric acid concentration can hydrolyze oligomeric/polymeric sug-
1975). Research is being conducted to improve the nutritional qual- ars into monomers. However, divergences were noted on the prepa-
ity of soybean by increasing its sucrose level and reducing the both- ration of the standard curve for quantification of the sugar concen-
ersome saccharides. Therefore, rapid yet reliable methods to ex- tration. Sucrose and glucose have been used for establishing the
tract and quantify soluble sugars are needed. standard curve in the phenol-sulfuric acid method for determination
Many procedures for extraction and quantification of soluble of soybean sugars (Openshaw and Hadley 1978; Kennedy and oth-
sugars in soybean have been reported; nevertheless, discrepan- ers 1985; Cober and others 1997; Geater and Fehr 2000; Geater and
cies exist among reported optimal extraction conditions, and defat- others 2000, 2001; Gulewicz and others 2000). It is known that the
ted soybean meal was used in most studies. Early studies showed color response of the phenol-sulfuric method varies with different
that extractions with water at 25 °C and 100 °C produced compara- sugars due to their differences in molecular structure (Saha and
ble results to those using 80% ethanol (Kawamura 1967; Delente Brewer 1994). The quantification of the total sugars present in a par-
and Ladenburg 1972; Kennedy and others 1985). Shukla (1987) and ticular sample will, therefore, be affected by the type of sugar used
Knudsen and Li (1991) found that water and 50% ethanol were in preparing the standard curve (BeMiller and Low 1998). However,
better solvents than 80% ethanol in extracting sugars from soybean, little attention has been given to the selection of sugar for the stan-
which was also observed by Cegla and Bell (1976). dard curve to accurately quantify total sugars in soybean.
Temperature and time have been shown to affect sugar extraction High-performance anion exchange chromatography coupled with
from plant materials (Shi and others 2002). Johansen and others pulsed-amperometric detection (HPAEC-PAD) has become increas-
ingly popular and has been extensively used for sugar analysis (Rock-
MS 20050419 Submitted 7/12/05, Revised 8/22/05, Accepted 10/3/05. Authors
Giannoccaro and Wang are with Dept. of Food Science, Univ. of Arkansas, lin and Pohl 1983; Townsend and others 1988; Mohamed and Duarte
Fayetteville, AR 72704. Author Chen is with Dept. of Crop, Soil and Environ- 1995; Frias and others 1999; Cataldi and others 1999, 2000). PAD is
mental Sciences, Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Ark. Direct inquiries to highly selective and sensitive because only reactive compounds will
author Wang (E-mail: yjwang@uark.edu).
give response and at very low concentrations; for example, nano-

© 2006 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 71, Nr. 1, 2006—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE C59
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited Published on Web 1/13/2006
Extraction of sugars in soybean . . .

grams can still be precisely quantified, which is very important for Purification, separation, and quantification
soybean breeder when only small sample sizes are available. of soluble sugars by HP
by AEC-P
HPAEC-P
AEC-PADAD
The objective of this study was to optimize the extraction condi- Soluble sugars were extracted from ground Hutcheson soybean
tions for soluble sugars in nondefatted soybean meal by evaluat- meal by following Kim and others (2003), except that the sample
ing the effects of solvent, temperature, extraction time, solvent-to- was spiked with melibiose as the internal standard, which was cho-
sample ratio, and sample size. This study also intended to identify sen to check recovery and to ensure accurate quantification of sug-
the most appropriate sugar for preparing the standard curve in the ars (Black and Bagley 1978; Li and others 1985). After the extraction,
phenol-sulfuric acid method to best estimate the soluble sugars in the tube was centrifuged at 20000 × g for 10 min, and 2 mL of each
soybean. supernatant were pipetted into another centrifuge tube.
The extract was further purified by following the method of Black
Materials and Methods and Glover (1980) with some modifications. Three milliliters of ac-
etonitrile was slowly added into the centrifuge tube with constant
Materials shaking to precipitate the residual protein, and the tube was left at
C: Food Chemistry & Toxicology

Seeds of 5 soybean lines, Hutcheson, Camp, SS-516, MFL-552, room temperature for 30 min. The tube was then centrifuged at
and V99-5089, grown in Fayetteville, Ark., in 2002 with known 1500 × g for 10 min, and 1 mL of the clear supernatant was pipetted
amounts of soluble sugars were provided by the Dept. of Crop, Soil into a 1.7-mL microcentrifuge tube and brought to complete dry-
and Environmental Sciences at the Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, ness using a heat block at 80 °C for 60 min. The residue was redis-
Ark. Fifteen grams of each soybean line was ground in a mill solved in 1 mL 90 mM NaOH, and the solution was quantitatively
(Knifetec 1095, Foss, Hoganas, Sweden) for 20 s, and the ground transferred to a 100-mL volumetric flask and brought to volume
flour was screened through a 150-␮m sieve (W.S Tyler, Mentor, Ohio, with 90 mM NaOH. Ten milliliters of the diluted solution was fil-
U.S.A.) and used for sugar extraction without defatting. Glucose, tered through a 0.2-␮m membrane (HT Tuffryn Nylon) followed by
galactose, sucrose, raffinose, stachyose, and melibiose were ob- a cartridge (OnGuard II RP, Dionex, Sunnyvale, Calif., U.S.A.) to
tained from Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, Mo., U.S.A.). All other remove possible residual lipids, surfactants, hydrocarbons, and
chemicals were ACS grade. high-molecular-weight carboxylic acids (Wicks and others 1991;
Kadnar 1998) before injection into the HPAEC-PAD.
Seed chemical composition The HPAEC-PAD system (Dionex DX500) consisted of a GP-50
Moisture and ash contents were determined according to Ap- gradient pump, ED40 electrochemical detector, a CarboPac PA-10
proved Methods 44-31 and 08-16, respectively (AACC 1997). Protein pellicular anion-exchange resin column (250 × 4-mm inner dia)
content was determined by the combustion method (Campbell preceded by a CarboPac PA-10 guard column (50 × 4-mm inner dia)
1992), and the conversion factor of 6.25 was used to convert total and an AminoTrap column (30 × 3-mm inner dia) (Dionex, Sunny-
nitrogen to protein. Calcium was analyzed by using inductively cou- vale, Calif., U.S.A.). Samples were injected via an AS40 automated
pled plasma emission spectroscopy (ICP-ES) (Model Ciros; Spectro sampler with a 25-␮L sample loop, and sugars were eluted with 90
Analytical Instruments, Inc., Marborough, Mass., U.S.A.) following mM NaOH at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The mobile phase, 90 mM
the methods of Donohue and Aho (1992). Crude lipid content was NaOH, was prepared by diluting carbonate-free 50% (w/w) NaOH
measured according to AACC Approved Method 30-20 (AACC 1997) solution in distilled water, which was previously filtered with a 0.45-
with the following modifications. Soybean meal (5 g) was extracted ␮m membrane and degassed with a sonicator (Zenith Inc, T800-2H,
with 70 mL petroleum ether by boiling at 135 °C for 20 min and rins- Norwood, N.J., U.S.A.) for 30 min. Sugar standards were used to
ing for 30 min in a Soxtec system (Avanti 2055; Foss North America, identify the sugars based on their retention times.
Eden Prairie, Minn., U.S.A.). The percentage of crude lipids in the
original sample was calculated by dividing the amount of lipids ex- Extraction procedure
tracted by the dry weight of the original sample. Total fiber content Two types of solvents, deionized (DI) water and ethanol, were
in all samples was calculated by the difference from the amount of investigated, and only 1 soybean line, Hutcheson, was used in all
ash, protein, lipids, and soluble sugars previously obtained. All chem- extraction experiments. For aqueous extraction, samples of 1-g
ical composition analyses were performed in triplicate, and results ground soybean meal were mixed with DI water at ratios of 5:1,
were expressed as percentage on a dry-weight basis. 10:1, and 15:1 (v/w) and extraction temperatures of 25 °C, 50 °C, and
80 °C for 15, 30, and 60 min. Only 1 combination of factors was used
Standard curve and sugar quantification with 100 °C as the extraction temperature: a solvent-to-sample ratio
Six standard curves for the phenol-sulfuric acid method (Dubois of 10:1 at 100 °C for 15 min.
and others 1956) were prepared with glucose, galactose, fructose, For ethanolic extraction, dilutions of 10%, 50%, and 80% (v/v)
sucrose, raffinose, and stachyose at concentrations from 10 to 115 ethanol in water were studied at solvent-to-sample ratios of 5:1
␮g/mL for each sugar. The total sugars of each soybean line was and 10:1 and temperatures of 25 °C, 50 °C, and 80 °C for 15 min.
extracted following the optimal conditions reported by Kim and Only 1 combination of factors was used with 100 °C as the extraction
others (2003). Duplicate samples of 1 g of soybean meal were temperature: a solvent-to-sample ratio of 10:1 using 80% ethanol
stirred into 5 mL of water at 50 °C for 60 min. The extracts were cen- as the solvent at 100 °C for 15 min. Triplicates of 1-g samples were
trifuged and the supernatants were filtered through a 0.2-␮m mem- placed in 50-mL centrifuge tubes with the selected extractant.
brane (HT Tuffryn Nylon). One milliliter of each filtrate was mixed Tubes were capped, placed horizontally, completely immersed in a
with 1 mL of 5% (w/v) phenol solution and then quickly mixed with water bath, and shaken at 200 rpm. Both aqueous and ethanolic
5 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid, vortexed, and cooled at room extractions were repeated until no sugars were detected in the su-
temperature for 30 min. The mixtures were then vortexed again, pernatant after centrifugation at 20000 × g for 10 min using the
and absorbance at 490 nm was measured using a spectrophotom- phenol-sulfuric acid method. Only 1 extraction was needed with
eter (model DU-520; Beckman, Fullerton, Calif., U.S.A.). The water and 10% ethanol as the solvents (no sugar detected in 2nd
amount of total soluble sugars was expressed as a percentage of the extraction), whereas 50% or 80% ethanol required 2 additional ex-
sample on a dry-weight basis. tractions (no sugar detected in 4th extraction). The combined su-

C60 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 71, Nr. 1, 2006 URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Extraction of sugars in soybean . . .

pernatants from 50% and 80% ethanol extractions were centrifuged amount of total sugars, followed by raffinose, sucrose, galactose/
at 20000 × g for 10 min to separate lipids from the extract, which was stachyose, and glucose in descending order for all soybean lines. The
present at the bottom of the tube and carefully removed using a results clearly demonstrated that quantification of sugars using the
disposable pipette. The ethanolic supernatant was quantitatively phenol-sulfuric acid method strongly depends on the sugar used for
transferred to a 100-mL beaker and brought to dryness using a hot the standard curve. To verify that only low-molecular-weight soluble
plate at 60 °C for 60 min. The residue was then re-dissolved in 100 sugars were present in the extracts and to determine the sugar con-
mL of DI water and filtered through a 0.2-␮m membrane (HT Tuf- centration, HPSEC-PAD was used to identify the sugar composition
fryn Nylon) for further purification. All extractions were repeated 3 and to quantify the sugar content in the extract of Hucheson soybean
times on different days to check reproducibility. line. The HPAEC-PAD chromatogram of Hutcheson extract (Figure 1)
shows that only glucose (0.15%), fructose (0.08%), sucrose (5.64%),
Sample size and defatting effects on extraction raffinose (1.09%), and stachyose (5.97%) were present in the aque-
To study the effect of sample size, 0.1 g and 1 g of Hutcheson ous extract. Oligosaccharides with degree of polymerization higher
soybean meal were compared using water as the solvent and a sol- than 4 were not present or their contents were too low to be detected

C: Food Chemistry & Toxicology


vent-to-sample ratio of 5:1 at 50 °C for 15 min. For the defatting by the HPAEC-PAD system. The total amount of soluble sugars in
study, 2 g Hutcheson soybean meal was defatted according to AACC Hutcheson was 12.93% based on HPAEC-PAD results, which was
method 30-26 (AACC 1997) except that hexane was used instead of comparable to the results obtained with the colorimetric method
petroleum ether as the solvent. The lipid content was calculated when sucrose was used as the standard.
based on the extracted lipid after solvent was completely removed Although glucose has been conventionally used as the standard
in the vented hood. Both the defatted and nondefatted soybean to determine the amount of total sugars in soybean (Geater and
meals were extracted concurrently with water at a solvent-to-sam- Fehr 2000; Gulewicz and others 2000; Geater and others 2001), the
ple ratio of 5:1 at 50 °C for 15 min and their soluble sugars were present results indicate that sucrose standard gave the closest es-
determined. The percentage of total sugars in the defatted sample timation for the true value, whereas glucose tended to underesti-
was calculated based on the initial nondefatted meal weight (db). mate the total sugar content. Because different sugars would re-
spond differently to the phenol-sulfuric acid reaction (Saha and
Statistical analysis Brewer 1994; BeMiller and Low 1998), the final color from the phe-
Two statistical analyses were conducted to investigate the opti- nol-sulfuric acid method was assumed to be a combination of the
mal combination of solvent, temperature, extraction time, and sol- colors that resulted from the reaction of different sugars. Sucrose as
vent-to-sample ratio to extract soluble sugars from soybean seeds the standard provided the best estimation probably because it
and the interactions of the extraction factors. Student t test was represents the majority of the soluble sugars present in soybean.
used to detect significant differences among the extraction condi- Therefore, sucrose is proposed to be more suitable than any other
tions in terms of the amount of soluble sugars extracted. A General sugars for preparing the standard curve in quantifying total solu-
Linear Model (GLM) procedure was used to investigate significant ble sugars in soybean.
interactions among the extraction factors. In the factorial study, not
all the interactions were possible to be analyzed due to the incom- Aqueous extraction
pleteness of the experimental design used. The Tukey-Kramer The amounts of total sugars in Hutcheson soybean line ranged
HSD test was used to detect significant differences among total from 11.48% to 12.54% when using water as the solvent (Table 3).
sugars extracted from the 2 sample sizes and among soybean meal Extraction with water at 25 °C and 50 °C generally resulted in higher
samples quantified using standard curves prepared with different amounts of soluble sugars than extractions at 80 °C, regardless of
sugars. All statistical analyses were carried out using version 9.0.1 extraction time and solvent-to-sample ratio. When extraction was
of SAS statistical software (SAS Inst. 2003). conducted at 80 °C, lower sugar amounts were generally obtained
with solvent-to-sample ratios of 10:1 and 15:1 than with 5:1. The
Results and Discussion extraction performed at 100 °C for 15 min with a solvent-to-sample

Chemical composition
The chemical compositions of the 5 soybean lines studied are
summarized in Table 1. All lines showed a similar total sugar con-
tent of around 12% with exception of V99-5089, which had the low-
est sugar but the highest protein content. Krober and Cartter (1962)
found that an increase in protein content was associated with a
decrease in total soluble sugars for soybean. SS-516 had the high-
est amount of sugars but the lowest lipids and calcium contents.
Hutcheson was high in sugars and lipids, but low in protein and
fiber. The positive correlation between total soluble sugars and lip-
ids, and negative correlation between lipids and protein in soybean
had previously been demonstrated by Hymowitz and others (1972).
The amount of total sugars present in the 5 soybean lines analyzed
was within the range (6.2% to 16.6%) previously reported by Hy-
mowitz and Collins (1974) from their study of 195 soybean lines.
Figure 1—Separation of soluble sugars in the extract ob-
Standard curve for sugar quantification tained from Hutcheson using high-performance anion ex-
Significant differences in total sugars were observed when extract change chromatography coupled with pulsed-
amperometric detection (HPAEC-PAD). Glucose (1), fruc-
from the same soybean line was analyzed using standard curves tose (2), melibiose (3), sucrose (4), raffinose (5), and stachy-
prepared with different sugars (Table 2). Fructose gave the highest ose (6).

URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org Vol. 71, Nr. 1, 2006—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE C61
Extraction of sugars in soybean . . .

Table 1—Seed chemical composition of 5 soybean lines


Percentage (dry-weight basis)
Line Moisture Total sugars Protein Lipids Fiber Ash Calcium
Hutcheson 7.38ab ± 0.00 12.84ab ± 0.44 41.83d ± 0.18 23. 60a ± 0.09 16.73c 5.00c ± 0.11 0.21c ±0.00
Camp 7.16c ± 0.10 11.57c ± 0.15 41.35e ± 0.61 20.05d ± 0.17 21.56a 5.47b ± 0.09 0.34b ± 0.01
SS-516 7.18c ± 0.04 13.23a ± 0.73 43.30b ± 0.60 18.18e ± 0.08 19.85b 5.45b ± 0.21 0.18d ± 0.00
MFL-552 7.23bc ± 0.08 11.38cd ± 0.15 42.60c ± 0.21 22.83b ± 0.15 18.25c 4.95d ± 0.14 0.20c ± 0.00
V99-5089 7.41a ± 0.05 6.31e ± 0.29 48.22a ± 0.40 21.97c ± 0.07 17.74d 5.75a ± 0.01 0.38a ± 0.01
a Values are means of duplicate measurements. Means in a column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).

Table 2—Quantification of total soluble sugars in Hutcheson, Camp, SS-516, MFL-552, and V99-5089 soybean lines
using standard curves obtained with different sugars as the standarda
C: Food Chemistry & Toxicology

Total sugars (%, db)


Sugar Hutcheson Camp SS-516 MFL-552 V99-5089
Glucose 7.61 ± 0.38e 6.51 ± 0.13e 7.95 ± 0.63de 6.34 ± 0.13e 1.94 ± 0.25e
Galactose 9.29 ± 0.35de 8.28 ± 0.12d 9.59 ± 0.58d 8.13 ± 0.12d 4.14 ± 0.23d
Fructose 31.01 ± 0.67a 29.02 ± 0.22a 31.56 ± 1.12a 28.75 ± 0.22a 21.02 ± 0.45a
Sucrose 12.84 ± 0.44c 11.57 ± 0.15c 13.23 ± 0.73c 11.38 ± 0.15c 6.31 ± 0.29c
Raffinose 17.77 ± 0.39b 16.60 ± 0.13b 18.09 ± 0.66b 16.45 ± 0.13b 11.91 ± 0.26b
Stachyose 9.71 ± 0.42d 8.49 ± 0.14d 10.09 ± 0.14d 8.30 ± 0.14d 3.42 ± 0.28d
a Values are means of duplicate measurements. Means in a column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).

Table 3—Total soluble sugars in Hutcheson soybean seeds under different extraction conditions using water as the
extractanta
Extraction temperature (°C)
25 50 80
Solvent-to-sample
ratio (v:w) 5:1 10:1 15:1 5:1 10:1 15:1 5:1 10:1 15:1
Extraction time
(min)
15 12.12a-f 12.46a 12.17a-e 12.54a 12.35a-c 12.31a-e 12.35a-c 11.80d-i 11.71d-j
± 0.36 ± 0.34 ± 0.31 ± 0.79 ± 0.20 ± 0.09 ± 0.39 ± 0.06 ±0.14
30 12.13a-h 12.07a-i 12.26a-e 12.29a-e 12.49ab 12.40a-c 12.20a-f 11.95a-i 11.53f-j
± 0.33 ± 0.34 ± 0.09 ± 0.23 ± 0.26 ± 0.20 ± 0.21 ± 0.06 ± 0.07
60 12.06a-i 12.06a-h 12.33a-e 12.18a-g 12.39a-d 12.14a-h 11.98a-i 11.69e-j 11.48h-j
± 0.49 ± 0.54 ± 0.32 ± 0.32 ± 0.18 ± 0.19 ± 0.24 ± 0.40 ± 0.100
a Values are means of duplicate measurements. Means in a column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). Means in this table are compared
with means in Table 4.

ratio of 10:1 gave rise to 11.50 ± 0.14 (%, db) of soluble sugars, which extracted (Table 4). It was also observed that increasing ethanolic
was also significantly lower than results obtained at 25 °C and 50 °C strength and temperature improved sugar extraction when using
(P < 0.05). The low amount of sugar extracted from soybean meal 80% ethanol as the extractant but had no effect on sugar extraction
with water at 80 °C could be attributed to the rapid denaturation of with 10% or 50% ethanol. Extraction with 80% ethanol at 100 °C for
soybean soluble proteins under high temperatures, which thereaf- 15 min produced 11.78 ± 0.18 (%, db) soluble sugars, which was not
ter entrapped soluble sugars and impaired their extractions (Kim significantly different from those extracted with 10% and 50% eth-
and others 2003). anol (P > 0.05). An increase in ethanol strength in the range of 50%
Kim and others (2003) found significant differences among dif- to 90% has been previously shown to significantly reduce the
ferent solvent-to-sample ratios and concluded that a solvent-to- amount of raffinose and stachyose extracted from plant materials
sample ratio of 5:1 was the optimal ratio to effectively extract sug- (Cegla and Bell 1976; Knudsen and Li 1991). The deficiency of 80%
ars from defatted soybean meal. The quantification of soluble ethanol in extracting soluble sugars could be related to the de-
sugars can be impaired by the dilution effect of using too much crease in efficiency of ethanol to extract sugars of increasing molec-
solvent or by reducing the extractability using inadequate amount ular weight (Shallenberger and Birch 1975). Therefore, 80% ethanol
of solvent. Nevertheless, all 3 solvent-to-sample ratios produced was not as effective as water in extracting raffinose and stachyose.
similar results in this study. This discrepancy could be ascribed to Johansen and others (1996) concluded that 80% ethanol was effec-
the defatted soybean meal used in their study in comparison with tive only at high temperatures in extracting sugars from toasted
nondefatted soybean meal used in our study. soybean meal. The process of toasting soybean might help the ex-
traction of soluble sugars with 80% ethanol. However, Kennedy and
Ethanolic extraction others (1985) found that water and 80% ethanol had the same ef-
No significant differences were observed among extractions ficiency to extract soluble sugars from defatted soybean meal.
using 10% and 50% ethanol (P > 0.05); however, extractions with The lower extraction efficiency of 80% ethanol in the present study
80% ethanol resulted in significantly lower amounts of total sugars could also be the result of a simultaneous extraction of lipids and

C62 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 71, Nr. 1, 2006 URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org
Extraction of sugars in soybean . . .

Table 4—Total soluble sugars in Hutcheson soybean seeds under different extraction conditions using different ethanolic
solvents as the extractants a
Ethanol (%, v/v)
10 50 80
Solvent-to-sample
ratio (v:w) 5:1 10:1 5:1 10:1 5:1 10:1
Temperature (°C)
25 12.25a-e* ± 0.11 12.32a-e ± 0.18 11.79c-j ± 0.08 11.83b-j ± 0.13 9.71m ± 0.20 10.79kl ± 0.21
50 12.19a-f ± 0.07 12.41a-c ± 0.12 11.89a-i ± 0.13 12.15a-h ± 0.30 10.75l ± 0.22 11.33jk ± 0.38
80 12.02a-i ± 0.13 12.11a-h ± 0.28 11.95a-i ± 0.17 12.11a-h ± 0.28 10.82l ± 0.81 11.49ij ± 0.35

a Values are means of duplicate measurements. Means in a column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05). Means in this table are compared

C: Food Chemistry & Toxicology


with means in Table 3.

sugars because nondefatted soybean meal was used, thus decreas- Table 5—Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of main effects and
ing its extraction capacity to interact with the sugars in the matrix. interactions among solvent, temperature, extraction time
(time), and solvent-to-sample ratio (ratio) on soluble sugar
Additionally, because water has a higher dielectric constant than
extraction
ethanol, it is assumed that higher temperatures would be required
for ethanol to more effectively extract the sugars from soybean. Effect Factor F value Pr > f
Main Solvent 239.6 <0.0001
Interactions of extraction conditions Temperature 1.8 0.1865
Solvent, temperature, extraction time, and solvent-to-sample Time 9.1 0.0043
Ratio 0 0.9484
ratio may exert different effects on the extraction of sugars from Interaction Solvent * temperature 68.4 <0.0001
soybean. A GLM procedure was conducted to elucidate the contri- Solvent * ratio 28.6 <0.0001
bution of each main effect and their possible interactions while Temperature * time 0.2 0.6558
extracting sugars from soybean. The results showed that solvent (F Temperature * ratio 7.8 0.0077
Time * ratio 0.7 0.4236
value = 239.6, P < 0.001) and time (F value = 9.1, P < 0.0043) signif-
icantly affected the extraction of sugars from nondefatted soybean
meal (Table 5). Interactions of solvent and temperature (F value =
68.4, P < 0.0001), solvent and solvent-to-sample ratio (F value =
28.6, P < 0.0001), and temperature and solvent-to-sample ratio (F and accessible to solvents after defatting, thus facilitating solvents
value = 7.8, P < 0.0077) also played significant roles in soybean sug- to extract the sugars in the soybean and resulting in improved sugar
ar extractions. extraction. In addition, the higher amount of sugars extracted from
It was observed that higher temperatures were more effective defatted soybean meal could also be attributed to the lack of inter-
for 80% ethanolic extractions, but less effective for water extractions action of lipids and sugars during extraction.
(Table 3 and 4). The solvent and temperature interaction had pre-
viously been observed by Johansen and others (1996); however, Conclusions
they reported that more sugars were extracted with 80% ethanol
only at boiling temperature. The solvent and solvent-to-sample
ratio interaction was also more evident for 80% ethanol extractions,
T he optimum conditions to extract soluble sugars from nonde-
fatted soybean based on the results from this study included
using water as the solvent and a solvent-to-sample ratio of 5:1 at
where more sugars were extracted at a higher solvent-to-sample 25 °C or 50 °C for 15 min. These combinations provided simple, fast,
ratio. For temperature and solvent-to-sample ratio interaction, the and efficient extractions of the greatest amounts of soluble sugars
highest solvent-to-sample ratio (15:1) extracted slightly less of the and there was no difference in total extracted sugars between sam-
sugars than the lower ratios under aqueous extraction at 80 °C. ple sizes of 0.1 g and 1.0 g. Among the 47 extractions conducted in
When using 80% ethanol as the solvent at 80 °C, the amount of ex- this study, the majority of the conditions produced similar results
tracted sugars was significantly affected by temperature and sol- (P > 0.05). Extraction with ethanol, however, presented the disad-
vent-to-sample ratio. vantage of being more laborious than extractions with water be-
cause water required only 1 extraction step, whereas ethanolic ex-
Sample size and defatting effects on extraction tractions required 2 additional steps to completely remove sugars
The total soluble sugars extracted using sample sizes of 0.1 g and from soybean. Additionally, with water being the solvent, minimal
1.0 g were 12.60 and 12.28 (%, db), respectively. The result with 0.1 residual lipids were present; therefore, no additional cleaning step
g was not significantly different (P > 0.05) from that with 1 g. These was needed for further identification and quantification of sugars
results demonstrated that reproducibility could be obtained with by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). However, ex-
a sample size as small as 0.1 g, which could be critical for breeding tractions with nondefatted soybean meals would underestimate
programs where only limited samples are available for the mea- the amount of total sugars compared with extractions with defatted
surement of total sugars in new soybean lines and where a large samples.
number of lines need to be evaluated.
Extraction using defatted Hutcheson soybean meal resulted in Acknowledgments
15.33 ± 0.12 (%, db) of total sugars extracted, which was about 2.5% The authors thank Dr. Ronald W. McNew, professor and coordina-
higher than the sugars extracted from the nondefatted meal tor of the Agricultural Statistics Laboratory at the Univ. of Arkansas,
(12.84%). It is possible that soybean meal became more porous for his assistance with data analysis.

URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org Vol. 71, Nr. 1, 2006—JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE C63
Extraction of sugars in soybean . . .

References temperature on the quantitative determination of oligosaccharides from plant


[AACC] American Assn. of Cereal Chemists. 1997. Approved methods of the materials by high-performance liquid chromatography. J Agric Food Chem
American Assn. of Cereal Chemists. St. Paul, Minn.: The Association. 9th ed. 44:1470–4.
Methods 08-16, 30-26, 44-31. Kadnar R. 1998. Determination of alkali and alkaline earth metals in oilfield
Aspinall GO. 1988. Chemistry of soybean carbohydrates. In: Soybean utilization water by ion chromatography. J Chromatogr A 804:217–21.
alternatives. St. Paul, Minn.: L. McCann. p 117–29. Kawamura S. 1967. Isolation and determination of sugars from the cotyledon,
BeMiller JN, Low NH. 1998. Carbohydrate analysis. In: Nielsen SS, editor. Food hull, and hypocotyls of soybeans of selected varieties. Technical Bull. Japan:
analysis. 2nd ed. Gaithersburg, Md.: Chapman and Hall. p 167–87. Kagawa Univ. 15:117–31.
Black LT, Bagley EB. 1978. Determination of oligosaccharides in soybean by Kennedy IR, Mwandemele OD, McWhirter KS. 1985. Estimation of sucrose, raffi-
high-pressure liquid chromatography using an internal standard. J Am Oil nose and stachyose in soybean seeds. Food Chem 17:85–93.
Chem Soc 55:228–32. Kim S, Kim W, Hwang IK. 2003. Optimization of the extraction and purification of
Campbell CR. 1992. Determination of total nitrogen in plant tissue by combus- oligosaccharides from defatted soybean meal. Int J Food Sci Technol 38:337–42.
tion. In: Owen PC, editor. Plant analysis reference procedures for the Southern Knudsen KEB, Li BW. 1991. Determination of oligosaccharides in protein-rich
region of the United States. Athens, Ga.: Univ. of Georgia. p 21–3. feedstuffs by gas-liquid chromatography and high-performance liquid chro-
Cataldi TRI, Campa C, Angelotti M, Bufo SA. 1999. Isocratic separations of close- matography. J Agric Food Chem 39:689–94.
ly-related mono- and disaccharides by high-performance anion-exchange Krober OA, Cartter JL. 1962. Quantitative interrelations of protein and nonpro-
chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection using dilute alkaline tein constituents of soybean. Crop Sci 2:171–2.
spiked with barium acetate. J Chromatogr A 855:539–50. Li BW, Schuhmann JS, Wolf WR. 1985. Chromatography determination of sugars
C: Food Chemistry & Toxicology

Cataldi TRI, Margiotta G, Lasi L, Di Chio B. 2000. Determination of sugar com- and starch in a diet composite reference material. J Agric Food Chem 33:531–6.
pounds in olive plant extracts by anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed Liu K. 1997. Soybeans: chemistry, technology, and utilization. New York: Chap-
amperometric detection. Anal Chem 72:3902–7. man & Hall. p 25–78.
Cegla GF, Bell KR. 1976. High-pressure liquid chromatography for the analysis of Mohamed AA, Rayas-Duarte P. 1995. Composition of Lupinus albums. Cereal-
soluble carbohydrates in defatted oilseed flours. J Am Oil Chem Soc 54:150–2. Chem 72:645–7.
Cober ER, Fregeau-Reid JA, Pietrzak AR, McElroy AR, Voldeng HD. 1997. Geno- Openshaw SJ, Hadley HH. 1978. Material effects on sugar content in soybean
type and environmental effects on natto soybean quality traits. Crop Sci seeds. Crop Sci 18:581–4.
37:1151–4. Rackis JJ. 1975. Oligosaccharides of food legumes: alpha-galactosidase activity
Delente J, Ladenburg K. 1972. Quantitative determination of the oligosaccharides and flatus problem. In: Jeanes A, Hodge J, editors. Physiological effects of food
in defatted soybean meal by gas-liquid chromatography. J Food Sci 37:372–4. carbohydrates. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society. p 207–22.
Donohue SJ, Aho DW. 1992. Determination of P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, Al, B, Cu, and Rocklin RD, Pohl A. 1983. Determination of carbohydrates by anion exchange
Zn in plant tissue by inductive coupled plasma (ICP) emission spectroscopy. In: chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection. J Liq Chromatogr 6:1577–
Owen PC, editor. Plant analysis reference procedures for the Southern region 90.
of the United States. Athens, Ga.: Univ. of Georgia. p 37–40. Saha SK, Brewer CF. 1994. Determination of the concentrations of the oligosac-
Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F. 1956. Colorimetric method charides, complex type carbohydrates, and glycoproteins using the phenol-
for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem 28:350–6. sulfuric acid method. Carbohydr Res 254:157–67.
Eldridge AC, Black LT, Wolf JW. 1979. Carbohydrate composition of soybean flours, SAS Inst. 2003. SAS 9.1.0. Cary, N.C.: SAS Inst.
protein concentrates, and isolates. J Agric Food Chem 27:799–802. Shallenberger RS, Birch GG. 1975. Occurrence and properties of sugars. In: Hirst
Frias J, Bakhsh A, Jones D, Arthur A, Vidal-Valverde C, Rhodes M, Hedley C. 1999. EL editor. Sugar chemistry. Westport, Conn.: AVI Publishing Co. p 46–88.
Genetic analysis of the raffinose oligosaccharide pathway in lentil seeds. J Exp Shi J, Mazza G, Le Maguer M. 2002. Biochemical and processing aspects. In: Shi
Bot 50:469–76. J, Mazza G, Le Maguer M, editors. Functional foods. Vol. 2. Cleveland, Ohio: CRC
Geater CW, Fehr WR. 2000. Assn. of total sugar content with other seed traits of Press. p 332–9.
diverse soybean cultivars. Crop Sci 40:1552–5. Shukla VKS. 1987. Quantitative determination of oligosaccharides in defatted
Geater CW, Fehr WR, Wilson LA. 2000. Assn. of soybean seed traits with physical soybean products by high-speed liquid chromatography. Fett Wiss Technol
properties of natto. Crop Sci 40:1529–34. 89:75–9.
Geater CW, Fehr WR, Wilson LA, Robyt JF. 2001. A more rapid method of total sugar Taira H. 1990. Quality of soybean for processed foods in Japan. Jap Agric Res
analysis for soybean seed. Crop Sci 41:250–2. Quart 24:224–30.
Gulewicz P, Ciesciolka D, Frias J, Vidal-Valverde C, Frejnagel S, Trojanowska K, Townsend RR, Hardy MR, Hindsgaul O, Lee YC. 1988. High-performance anion-
Gulewicz K. 2000. Simple method of isolation and purification of ␤-galacto- exchange chromatography of oligosaccharides using pellicular resins and
sides from legumes. J Agric Food Chem 48:3120–3. pulsed amperometric detection. Anal Biochem 174:459–70.
Hymowitz T, Collins FI. 1974. Variability of sugar content in seed of Glycine max Wicks RJ, Moran MA, Pittman LJ, Hodson RE. 1991. Carbohydrate signatures of
and G. soja. Agron J 66:239–40. aquatic macrophytes and their dissolved degradation products as determined
Hymowitz T, Collins FI, Panczner J, Walker WM. 1972. Relationship between the by a sensitive high-performance ion chromatography method. Appl Environ
content of oil, protein and sugar in soybean seeds. Agron J 64:613–5. Microbiol 57:3135–43.
Johansen HN, Glitso V, Knudsen KEB. 1996. Influence of extraction solvent and

C64 JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE—Vol. 71, Nr. 1, 2006 URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at www.ift.org