Liberal · Journal of the science of food and agriculture 2024 · comparative laboratory analytical study · n=?

Nutritional, chemical, and antioxidant screening of selected varieties of lentils (Lens culinaris spp.) from organic and conventional agriculture.

Cited 11 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Laboratory bench chemical analysis without human or animal subjects (graded by design analogy).

PubMed 37535858 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.12896 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

Selected varieties of lentils (Lens culinaris spp.) grown under organic and conventional farming systems were evaluated in the laboratory for nutritional profiles, chemical composition, and antioxidant capacity. Analyses included macronutrient and carbohydrate profiling (fibre, starch), sugars by HPLC with refraction index detection, organic acids (oxalic, quinic, malic, shikimic) by UFLC-PDA, tocopherols by HPLC with fluorescence detection, fatty acid methyl esters, and antioxidant assays (thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and oxidative haemolysis inhibition).

What was found

Carbohydrates were the predominant macronutrients, with fibre ranging from 11.62% to 27.36% and starch from 41.98% to 50.27%. The Beluga variety exhibited protein content of 21.9–23.3 g/100 g fresh weight and ash of 1.38–1.82 g/100 g fresh weight. Detected compounds included fructose, sucrose, four organic acids, and α- and γ-tocopherol isoforms. Polyunsaturated fatty acids comprised 33.5–46.3% of fatty acids. Lentil variety was found to have a greater influence on nutritional composition than the cultivation method (organic vs. conventional).

Why it matters

This work demonstrates that lentil cultivar selection is more critical for determining macronutrient, micronutrient, and antioxidant composition than whether the crop is grown organically or conventionally.

Limits

The abstract does not state the total number of varieties evaluated, replicates, or growing locations/soil conditions. As a laboratory analytical screening, it does not assess human bioavailability, digestion, or clinical health endpoints.

Cited by