Unlocking the Solution to Hidden Hunger in Developing Nations: Assessing the potential of Microgreens for attaining SDG 2
A
Hemlata
Singh
1
Manoj
Punasiya
2
Ashish
Panda
2
Jyostnarani
Pradhan
1
Roshni
Agnihotri
2✉
Emailroshni@rpcau.ac.in
1
Department of Botany, Plant Physiology & Biochemistry
Prasad Central Agricultural University
Dr. Rajendra
848125
Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar
India
2
Department of Horticulture
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University
848125
Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar
India
Hemlata Singh
1*
, Manoj Punasiya2, Ashish Panda2, Jyostnarani Pradhan1 and Roshni Agnihotri2*,
1Department of Botany, Plant Physiology & Biochemistry, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur 848125 (Bihar), India
2Department of Horticulture, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur 848125 (Bihar), India
Communicating author E mail- roshni@rpcau.ac.in
*Contribution of first and communicating author is equal in this work
Key Words:
Microgreen
Hidden Hunger
Nutrient Quality Score
Anti-oxidant Index
SDG 2
Abstract
A
India faces a serious hunger problem, ranking 105th in the 2024 Global Hunger Index, with a significant portion of its population suffering from hidden hunger due to micronutrient deficiencies. As of urban middle class population poor dietary habits, particularly the consumption of sugary and processed foods, have led to an epidemic of non-communicable diseases like obesity and diabetes. Microgreens, which are young, nutrient-dense seedlings, offer a promising solution to this issue, providing a diverse range of vitamins, minerals, and bioactive compounds. Microgreens are being promoted as rich in vitamins, minerals, and bioactive compounds, making them a promising solution to micronutrient deficiencies but scientific data backing for commercial varieties in India is insufficient to draw such conclusion. This research aims to investigate the potential of microgreens to promote better health outcomes and food security, focusing on 16 vegetable species known for their high nutritional density and widespread consumption. Radish, kale, broccoli, and fenugreek were excellent sources of vitamin C (97.88–85.77 mg 100 g− 1FW)., Celery, parsley, Palak and spinach were excellent sources of calcium (410.15-320.14 mg/100g DW). Palak, fenugreek, and spinach were good sources of iron and zinc. Most microgreens had low oxalate content (range-15.89-55.14 mg/100 g Fresh Weight), making them safe for consumption. Palak, Broccoli,Fenugreek and kale microgreens had the higher Nutrient Quality Score (NQS) due to their high levels of vitamin C, crude fiber, and iron. The study suggests that microgreens can be considered nutrient-dense crops with strong potential for improving dietary quality. The NQS can be a useful tool for guiding dietary decisions and food product development. This research provides scientific evidence supporting the role of microgreens in promoting better health outcomes and food security.A
Introduction
In the 2024, Global Hunger Index (GHI), India ranked 105th out of 127 countries, with a score of 27.3 which has placed India in the "serious" category. According to multiple data quoted by World Bank reports, people in Latin America and Indian metropolises, the swelling middle class is excessively obsessed with sugary, processed food, which has resulted in an epidemic of noncommunicable diseases like obesity, heart disease, diabetes etc. People live longer, but the quality of life is compromised. One of the critical consequences of poor dietary habits is hidden hunger, a condition resulting from deficiencies in essential micronutrients like iron, zinc, iodine, and vitamin A. Despite meeting daily caloric requirements, individuals consuming energy-dense but nutrient-deficient diets suffer long-term health complications. It affects over two billion people, mainly in low- and middle-income countries reliant on inexpensive, low-diversity foods. Enhancing diet quality is key to achieving UN Sustainable Development Goal 2: ending hunger and improving nutrition. At the midpoint of the UN's Nutrition Decade, progress lags, worsened by COVID-19 and global food system shocks. Tackling food system inequalities is crucial for a sustainable, cost-effective approach that benefits marginalized communities. The developing and underdeveloped categories of nations need to work together to fight for food sufficiency along with nutritionally dense food in order to cope with multiple lifestyle diseases occurring as a cost of development.
A promising solution to this issue lies in microgreens, which are nutrient-dense, easy to cultivate, and highly accessible. Microgreens are 7 to 21 days old seedlings [1]. They provide a diverse range of vitamins, minerals, and bioactive compounds, often in higher concentrations than their fully grown counterparts [2]. Furthermore, they are recognized for their high antioxidant content, featuring polyphenols and carotenoids, essential in mitigating oxidative stress and lowering the risk of chronic illnesses [3]. Microgreens are derived from the seeds of various vegetables, herbs, and grains, presenting a broad spectrum of flavors, colors, and textures [4]. Additionally, the simplicity of cultivating microgreens at home, coupled with their rapid growth cycle, renders them an accessible and fresh nutritional resource. By incorporating microgreens into daily diets, individuals, particularly those in low-income and food-insecure regions, could significantly improve their nutrient intake, reduce the prevalence of hidden hunger, and mitigate risks associated with chronic diseases. This research seeks to provide scientific evidence supporting the role of microgreens in promoting better health outcomes and food security worldwide.
Based on the aforementioned information, a total of 16 vegetable species were selected for the present study. These species were specifically chosen for their high nutritional density and widespread consumption, either as leafy vegetables or in fresh, uncooked form.
2. Materials and methods
2.1 Plant materials and growth conditions for microgreens
Microgreens were grown in a controlled temperature polyhouse, employing cocopeat as the growing medium in trays sized 16x7 cm. A selection of 16 vegetable species from Brassicaceae, Amaranthaceae, Asteraceae, Composite, and Apiaceae was made for microgreen cultivation, with seeds sourced from IARI Katrain in Himachal Pradesh. The cultivation environment was carefully monitored, with irrigation performed every two days, and the entire process was executed without the use of any chemicals. Microgreens were harvested when they presented fully expanded and turgid cotyledons and the presence of their first true leaves, sanitized scissors were utilized during harvesting to maintain hygiene standards.
2.2 Biochemical analysis
A
The above-ground portion of the seedlings was utilized for biochemical analysis. The quantification of ascorbic acid was done through titration with 2,6-Dichlorophenol indophenol, utilizing a 4% oxalic acid solution as described by [5] and expressed in mg/100 g FW. Protein estimation is done by [6] g/100 g. The quantification of total phenols was done using the Folin–Ciocalteau method as described by [7] and expressed as mg GAE/100 g FW. A single assay cannot assess the antioxidant potential [8]. Hence, two commonly used assays, DPPH assay, which is based on hydrogen donating capacity to scavenge DPPH radical and FRAP assay, a electron transfer based assay was used in this study to evaluate antioxidant potential. The determination of 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) scavenging activity was conducted following the methodology outlined by [9] and expressed as IC50 umol/ml. Furthermore, the extract was evaluated using the Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP) assay as referenced by [10]. Mineral analysis was done by using AAS spectrophotometer and Flame photometer according to [11]. Crude fiber was estimated by gravimetric method [11]. Antinutrient oxalate content was determined by spectrophotometer as described by [12].Antioxidant Index Calculation
To evaluate the overall antioxidant potential of the microgreens, an Antioxidant Index (AI) was calculated by integrating results from three assays: Total Phenolic Content (TPC), DPPH radical scavenging activity (expressed as IC₅₀ values), and Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP).
Each parameter was first normalized using Min-Max scaling to bring them to a common scale ranging from 0 to 1:
Normalized value = X − Xmin
Xmax−Xmin
Since lower IC₅₀ values indicate stronger antioxidant activity, the DPPH values were inverted as follows:
Normalized DPPH = 1 − Normalized IC₅₀
The Antioxidant Index was then computed as the mean of the three normalized parameters:
Antioxidant Index= (Normalized TPC + Normalized DPPH + Normalized FRAP)
3
The present method is a modified method of calculation used by [13]
Estimated daily intake (EDI) and nutrient contribution (NC)
EDI and NC were calculated by following the method described by [14].
EDI = Nutrient content (per 100g) × RACC(g)
100
RACC = USDA reference amount customarily consumed (it is 85 g for microgreens [14].
NC = EDI×100
RDI or RDV
RDI – Reference Daily Intake, RDV- Reference Daily Value
RDI: Vitamin C − 90 mg, Calcium − 1300 mg, Potassium − 4700 mg, Iron − 18 mg, Zinc − 11 mg,
RDV: Protein − 50 g, Dietary fibre − 28 g, Maximum Recommended Values (MRV): Oxalate − 200 mg, [14].
Nutrient Quality Score (NQS)
NQS was calculated by following the modified method of [14]. Nutrients to encourage in the diet used in this calculation were protein, vitamin C, crude fiber, iron, zinc, potassium and calcium, whereas oxalate was nutrients to limit. NQS was calculated as the sum of NC for 7 nutrients to encourage, minus the NC of 1 nutrients to limit.
NQS = ∑1−7 NC for nutrients to encourage - ∑1 NC for nutrients to limit
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Macronutrient content
The biochemical composition of various microgreens was analysed, with a particular focus on their vitamin C content, protein, crude fiber, and total sugars. The content of vitamin C, protein, crude fiber, and total sugars of the selected microgreens is listed in Table 1.
Significant variation was observed in vitamin C (mg 100 g − 1 FW) levels among different species. Radish microgreens exhibited the highest concentration (97.88mg 100 g − 1 FW), followed by kale (90.87) and broccoli (89.47). In contrast, coriander (47.66) and parsley (54.70) had the lowest vitamin C levels. Radish microgreens vitamin C content (97.88 mg 100 g − 1 FW) in this study was slightly lower than the 114.4 reported by [15]. Similarly, the value recorded for broccoli (89.47mg 100 g − 1 FW) closely aligned with [16], who documented 89.3 mg 100 g − 1 FW. Cauliflower microgreens exhibited a vitamin C level of 68.42 mg 100 g − 1 FW, which was lower than the 89.3 observed by [16]. Kale microgreens contained 90.87 mg 100 g − 1 FW, exceeding the 66.4 mg 100 g − 1 FW reported for Chinese kale [16] yet aligning with other kale varieties (89.3 mg 100 g − 1 FW).
Vitamin C plays a crucial role in immune function, iron absorption, and antioxidant defense. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recommends a daily intake of 90 mg for adult males and 75 mg for females. The consumption of 100 g of radish microgreens would exceed these requirements, while kale and broccoli microgreens would nearly fulfill them. Coriander and parsley, though lower in vitamin C, can complement a balanced diet.
The protein content of microgreens varies significantly among species, with fenugreek and beeroot had the highest levels of protein 4.42 and 4.30 g 100 g− 1FW, respectively, while lettuce (1.90 g 100 g− 1FW) and amaranth (2.03 g 100 g− 1FW) contained the lowest. Broccoli microgreens in this study recorded a protein content of 3.63 g 100 g− 1FW, exceeding previous finding by [17] but aligning with [18]. Radish protein levels (2.03 g 100 g− 1FW) fell between values reported by [15] and [17] The findings suggest that microgreens, particularly fenugreek and beetroot, can serve as potential dietary protein sources. Based on ICMR recommendations (0.8–1.0 g/kg body weight), consuming 100 g of fenugreek microgreens can fulfill approximately 7.9% and 9.6% of daily protein needs for males and females, respectively. These results emphasize the role of microgreens in enhancing dietary protein intake.
The crude fiber content of microgreens varied significantly among species, with broccoli (11.95 g 100 g − 1 DW) and cabbage (11.48 g 100 g − 1 DW) exhibiting the highest levels, while lettuce (2.29 g 100 g − 1 DW) and parsley (4.12 g 100 g − 1 DW) contained the lowest. The findings align with [19] for cabbage but show minor variations for broccoli, radish, beetroot, and amaranth, likely due to differences in growth media and environmental factors. ICMR recommends a daily fiber intake of 38 g for males and 25 g for females. Incorporating fiber-rich microgreens such as broccoli and cabbage can contribute significantly to meeting these requirements, supporting digestive health and overall well-being.
|
Crops
|
Vitamin C
(mg 100 g− 1FW)
|
Protein
(g 100 g− 1FW)
|
Crude fiber
(g 100 g − 1 DW)
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Cauliflower
|
68.42g
|
2.83de
|
10.40b
|
|
Cabbage
|
70.63f
|
2.98cd
|
11.48a
|
|
Kale
|
90.87b
|
3.15c
|
9.12c
|
|
Broccoli
|
89.47c
|
3.63b
|
11.95a
|
|
Brussels sprouts
|
65.47h
|
2.82de
|
8.83c
|
|
Spinach
|
68.36g
|
2.45fg
|
7.48d
|
|
Palak
|
70.74f
|
2.36gh
|
7.55d
|
|
Celery
|
58.33j
|
2.22hi
|
5.10g
|
|
Parsley
|
54.70k
|
2.14hi
|
4.12h
|
|
Amaranth
|
68.43g
|
2.03ij
|
6.80e
|
|
Lettuce
|
62.81i
|
1.90j
|
2.29i
|
|
Fenugreek
|
85.77d
|
4.42a
|
4.44h
|
|
Beetroot
|
58.03j
|
4.30a
|
10.23b
|
|
Radish
|
97.88a
|
2.03ij
|
9.15c
|
|
Carrot
|
80.55e
|
2.27gh
|
5.64f
|
|
Coriander
|
47.66l
|
2.67ef
|
7.14de
|
|
Daily requirement for adults (ICMR)
|
75–90 mg/day
|
0.8-1 g/ kg of body weight
|
25–38 g/day
|
Different alphabets within the same column indicate significant difference among microgreens at p ≤ 0.05
3.2 Mineral content of microgreens
The mineral composition of microgreens (Table 2), particularly iron content, exhibits both congruencies and discrepancies with previous studies. In this study, fenugreek and palak demonstrated the highest iron levels ̴ 3 mg/100 g DW, aligning with their established nutritional profiles. Amaranth (2.14 mg/100 g DW) exhibited a significantly higher iron concentration than the 0.432 mg/100 g FW reported by [20]. Broccoli contained 1.06 mg/100 g DW iron, exceeding the 0.67 mg/100 g FW documented by [21]. Cabbage (1.01 mg/100 g DW) also surpassed previous findings of 0.59 mg/100 g FW [21]. Given ICMR recommendations of 17 mg/day for males and 21 mg/day for females, iron-rich microgreens significantly contribute to dietary iron intake, supporting their role in sustainable nutrition.
The zinc content of microgreens analyzed in this study reveals substantial variation across species, with fenugreek (2.39 mg/100 g DW) and palak (2.15 mg/100 g DW) exhibiting the highest concentrations. These values contrast with prior studies, such as [22], which reported a higher zinc content in lettuce (0.6 mg/100 g DW) than the 0.45 mg/100 g DW observed here. Broccoli (1.24 mg/100 g DW) and radish (1.10 mg/100 g DW) surpassed the findings of [21], who documented 0.37 mg/100 g FW and 0.28 mg/100 g FW, respectively. Similarly, Brussels sprouts (1.49 mg/100 g DW) exceeded prior values (0.29 mg/100 g FW). Given ICMR’s daily zinc intake recommendation of 14 mg for males and 11 mg for females, high-zinc microgreens like fenugreek and palak serve as valuable dietary sources for improving mineral intake.
The potassium content of microgreens varies significantly across species, with palak (684.98 mg/100 g DW) and amaranth (610.74 mg/100 g DW) exhibiting the highest concentrations. Comparisons with previous studies reveal notable discrepancies. Radish microgreens contain 430.36 mg/100 g DW, substantially exceeding the 176–283 mg/100g FW reported by [21]. Conversely, fenugreek (350.15 mg/100 g DW) aligns with [23] at 379.5 mg/100 g DW. Lettuce microgreens (392.90 mg/100 g DW) closely match the 395 mg/100 g DW reported by [22] affirming consistency. However, broccoli (503.49 mg/100 g DW) and cauliflower (584.96 mg/100 g DW) surpass values documented by [20, 21] respectively. Given ICMR’s recommended 3,500 mg daily potassium intake, microgreens, particularly palak, serve as valuable dietary sources.
The calcium content of microgreens varies widely, with celery (410.15 mg/100 g DW) and parsley (390.47 mg/100 g DW) exhibiting the highest levels, followed by palak (355.94 mg/100 g DW) and spinach (320.14 mg/100 g DW). In contrast, amaranth (90.65 mg/100 g DW) and beetroot (94.42 mg/100 g DW) contain the least calcium. Comparisons with previous studies reveal substantial differences. Amaranth (90.65 mg/100 g DW) surpasses the 19.50 mg/100 g DW reported by [24], while fenugreek (240.76 mg/100 g DW) is considerably lower than the 435.5 mg/100 g DW documented by [23]. Lettuce (125.65 mg/100 g DW) also falls below [22] at 167 mg/100 g DW. Given the ICMR-recommended 1,000 mg daily calcium intake, microgreens such as celery and parsley serve as valuable dietary sources, providing up to 41% and 39% of the daily requirement, respectively.
|
Iron
|
Zinc
|
Potassium
|
Calcium
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Crops
|
(mg / 100 g DW)
|
|||
|
Cauliflower
|
1.35h
|
1.25e
|
584.95c
|
185.48f
|
|
Cabbage
|
1.01j
|
1.35d
|
519.92d
|
160.06i
|
|
Kale
|
1.43g
|
1.10f
|
461.82e
|
177.73g
|
|
Broccoli
|
1.06j
|
1.24e
|
503.48d
|
164.57h
|
|
Brussels sprouts
|
0.97j
|
1.49c
|
441.13f
|
158.65i
|
|
Spinach
|
2.01d
|
1.97b
|
492.38de
|
320.14d
|
|
Palak
|
3.20a
|
2.15b
|
684.98a
|
355.94c
|
|
Celery
|
0.47l
|
0.85h
|
567.11c
|
410.15a
|
|
Parsley
|
0.51l
|
0.80h
|
490.50de
|
390.47b
|
|
Amaranth
|
2.14c
|
1.36d
|
610.74ab
|
90.65n
|
|
Lettuce
|
1.94d
|
0.45i
|
392.89g
|
125.65j
|
|
Fenugreek
|
3.10b
|
2.39a
|
350.15h
|
240.75e
|
|
Beetroot
|
1.77e
|
0.91g
|
395.90g
|
94.42m
|
|
Radish
|
0.62k
|
1.10f
|
430.35fg
|
104.56l
|
|
Carrot
|
1.20i
|
0.86h
|
363.10h
|
122.56j
|
|
Coriander
|
1.68f
|
0.48i
|
328.69i
|
112.17k
|
|
Daily requirement for adults ( ICMR)
|
17–21 mg/day
|
11–14 mg/day
|
3,500 mg/day
|
800–1000 mg/day
|
Different alphabets within the same column indicate a significant difference among microgreens at p ≤ 0.05
3.3. Antioxidant activity of microgreens
Microgreens are rich in antioxidants, including vitamins C and E, and polyphenols, which help protect the body from oxidative stress. These compounds neutralize free radicals, reducing inflammation and lowering the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease and cancer. Quantifying the antioxidant potential through an Antioxidant Index (AI) offers a valuable metric to assess the functional quality of microgreens beyond their basic nutrient composition. AI was calculated based on Total phenol, DPPH and FRAP data (see supplementary data).
Fig. 2
Antioxidant Index of Different Microgreens
Among the tested microgreens, radish microgreens exhibited the highest AI (0.83) reparented in Fig. 2, coriander (AI = 0.80) and fenugreek (AI = 0.79) microgreen followed closely, these microgreens demonstrated not only strong phenolic content but also efficient radical scavenging activity, making them promising candidates for functional foods or dietary supplements. Carrot microgreen, had moderate phenol content, still it showed high AI (0.73), primarily due to its strong DPPH and FRAP. This suggests the presence of other non-phenolic antioxidants, such as vitamin C, contributing to their redox activity. The high vitamin C content of carrot microgreens (80.55 mg/ 100 g FW) likely played a significant role in enhancing their antioxidant potential, supporting this observation.
3.5 Oxalate
Oxalates are an antinutritional factor, it form insoluble salts with metal ions such as calcium and its excessive intake can contribute to stone formation. It is commonly found in leafy vegetables.
|
Crops
|
Oxalate (mg /100 g FW)
|
Reference
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Microgreen
|
Mature leaf/edible portion
|
||
|
Cauliflower
|
21.25ij
|
150
|
[25]
|
|
Cabbage
|
25.44h
|
100
|
[25]
|
|
Kale
|
17.99i
|
297
|
[26]
|
|
Broccoli
|
28.26e
|
67
|
[27]
|
|
Brussels sprouts
|
26.83fg
|
50
|
[27]
|
|
Spinach
|
26.68fg
|
731–1020
|
[28]
|
|
Palak
|
21.86i
|
661.74
|
[29]
|
|
Celery
|
35.13d
|
54.23
|
[30]
|
|
Parsley
|
37.26c
|
140–200
|
[31]
|
|
Amaranth
|
55.14a
|
779
|
[30]
|
|
Lettuce
|
27.34ef
|
364
|
[30]
|
|
Fenugreek
|
20.31j
|
34.29
|
[30]
|
|
Beetroot
|
26.21gh
|
600
|
[25]
|
|
Radish
|
15.89m
|
480
|
[25]
|
|
Carrot
|
44.21b
|
500
|
[25]
|
|
Coriander
|
19.21k
|
10
|
[25]
|
The oxalic acid concentrations quantified in the microgreens evaluated in the present study are detailed in Table 4, alongside comparative reference values for mature leaves/edible portion as reported in previously published literature [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]. The oxalate concentrations in various microgreens ranged from 15.89 mg/100 g FW in radish to 55.14 mg/100 g FW in Amaranth microgreens. A comparative assessment with corresponding mature leaf values reported by [30] indicated that microgreens generally exhibited markedly lower oxalic acid concentrations relative to their mature counterparts. Spinach mature leaves, which are commonly consumed as leafy vegetable had 22 times more oxalate content than its microgreen. Similarly, mature amaranth and lettuce leaves had 14- and 13-times higher oxalate content, respectively, than their microgreen forms. Radish and beetroot mature leaves contained 3- and 5-fold higher oxalate levels compared to their microgreens. Similar results were observed by [15], they cultivated spinach, fenugreek, and roselle microgreen to the mature stage and reported that spinach and fenugreek microgreens had around 3-fold lower and roselle had around 2-fold lower oxalate than mature leaf. However, exceptions were observed in cabbage and Brussels sprouts, where the microgreens demonstrated higher oxalic acid levels. Specifically, cabbage microgreens contained 25.44 mg/100 g FW compared to 9.42 mg/100 g FW in the mature leaves, while Brussels sprouts microgreens recorded 26.83 mg/100 g FW, notably exceeding the 12.04 mg/100 g FW found in their mature counterparts.
3.4. Estimated daily intake (EDI), nutrient contribution (NC) and Nutrient Quality Score (NQS)
To evaluate nutritional potential of the studied microgreens, EDI and NC was calculated. The NC value was used to indicate the nutritional significance of microgreens by comparing it with daily values (DV) set by the US FDA. According to FDA guidelines, foods contributing 10–19% of the DV for a given nutrient are classified as 'good sources', while those contributing ≥ 20% are classified as 'excellent sources'.
The NC value of different microgreen is represented in Table 5. The NC for protein ranged from 3.2–7.5, suggesting that the microgreens are generally fair sources of protein. Crude fiber NC values ranged from 6.9– 36.3, with broccoli and cauliflower microgreens contributing over 35% of the DV, categorizing them as excellent sources of crude fiber.
|
Crop
|
Protein
|
Crude fiber
|
Vitamin C
|
Zinc
|
Iron
|
Potassium
|
Calcium
|
Oxalate
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cauliflower
|
4.8
|
31.6
|
64.6
|
9.7
|
6.4
|
10.6
|
12.1
|
9.0
|
|
Cabbage
|
5.1
|
34.9
|
66.7
|
10.4
|
4.8
|
9.4
|
10.5
|
10.8
|
|
Kale
|
5.4
|
27.7
|
85.8
|
8.5
|
6.8
|
8.4
|
11.6
|
7.6
|
|
Broccoli
|
6.2
|
36.3
|
84.5
|
9.6
|
5.0
|
9.1
|
10.8
|
12.0
|
|
Brussels sprouts
|
4.8
|
26.8
|
61.8
|
11.5
|
4.6
|
8.0
|
10.4
|
11.4
|
|
Spinach
|
4.2
|
22.7
|
64.6
|
15.2
|
9.5
|
8.9
|
20.9
|
11.3
|
|
Palak
|
4.0
|
22.9
|
66.8
|
16.6
|
15.1
|
12.4
|
23.3
|
9.3
|
|
Celery
|
3.8
|
15.5
|
55.1
|
6.6
|
2.2
|
10.3
|
26.8
|
14.9
|
|
Parsley
|
3.6
|
12.5
|
51.7
|
6.2
|
2.4
|
8.9
|
25.5
|
15.8
|
|
Amaranth
|
3.5
|
20.6
|
64.6
|
10.5
|
10.1
|
11.0
|
5.9
|
23.4
|
|
Lettuce
|
3.2
|
7.0
|
59.3
|
3.5
|
9.2
|
7.1
|
8.2
|
11.6
|
|
Fenugreek
|
7.5
|
13.5
|
81.0
|
18.5
|
14.6
|
6.3
|
15.7
|
8.6
|
|
Beetroot
|
7.3
|
31.1
|
54.8
|
7.0
|
8.4
|
7.2
|
6.2
|
11.1
|
|
Radish
|
3.5
|
27.8
|
92.4
|
8.5
|
2.9
|
7.8
|
6.8
|
6.8
|
|
Carrot
|
3.9
|
17.1
|
76.1
|
6.6
|
5.7
|
6.6
|
8.0
|
18.8
|
|
Coriander
|
4.5
|
21.7
|
45.0
|
3.7
|
7.9
|
5.9
|
7.3
|
8.2
|
Vitamin C content was particularly high in radish, kale, broccoli, and fenugreek, contributing between 81.0–92.4% of the DV. These microgreens could be categorized as excellent sources of vitamin C. Among micronutrients, the calcium NC value for palak (23.3), celery (26.8), parsley (25.5), spinach (20.9) is more that 20%, hence these microgreens can be considered as an excellent source of calcium. Similarly for iron, palak microgreen provided 15.1% of DV and fenugreek (14.6) and Amaranthus (10.1) could be considered as good sources of iron. Fenugreek with a NC value of 18.5 found to be near-excellent source of zinc, while Palak (16.6), Spinach (15.2), Brussels sprouts (11.5), Amaranth (10.5), Cabbage (10.4), Cauliflower (9.7) and Broccoli (9.6) were found to be good source of zinc. Oxalate intake from all microgreens was below 50 mg/day, which is considered safe and categorized as low-oxalate [32].
According to the criteria proposed by [ 33, 34], foods that provide ≥ 20% of the Daily Value (DV) for multiple nutrients per serving are classified as excellent sources. In the present study, the majority of microgreens exhibited Nutrient Contribution (NC) values exceeding 20% of the DV for several key nutrients, supporting their classification as nutrient-dense crops with strong potential for improving dietary quality.
The Nutrient Quality Score (NQS) offers a comprehensive and standardized approach to evaluating the food's nutritional potential. NQS allows researchers and food technologists to identify and select crops with the most promising nutrient profiles for the development of functional foods. NQS also provides a practical tool for consumers to make informed food choices as it translates complex nutritional data into simple scores. Among the evaluated crops, Palak (152), Broccoli (149), Fenugreek (149), Kale (146), and Radish (143) microgreens exhibited the highest NQS (Fig. 3) followed by spinach, Cabbage and Cauliflower, and Palak, which had NQS in the range of 135 − 131. Their superior scores are driven by high levels of vitamin C, crude fiber, and iron, coupled with relatively moderate levels of oxalate—nutrients considered negative in this evaluation. On the other end, Amaranth had a moderately good nutrient profile but a relatively low NQS (102.88) due to elevated oxalate concentration. Crops such as Lettuce (85.85), Coriander (87.98), Parsley (94.96), and Celery (105.28) had comparatively lower NQS values. Although they are widely used in salads and garnishes, their limited contribution in terms of protein, iron, and vitamin C may explain their lower scores. These findings underscore the value of NQS as a tool for guiding dietary decisions and food product development.
Fig. 3
NQS for different microgreens
4. Conclusion
This study highlights the substantial nutritional potential of microgreens and their role in improving dietary quality and combating hidden hunger. Microgreens such as radish, kale, and broccoli emerged as excellent sources of vitamin C, while fenugreek and beetroot showed high protein content. Broccoli and cabbage contributed significantly to dietary fiber. Mineral analysis revealed that fenugreek, palak, and amaranth were rich in iron and zinc, and celery and parsley were good sources of calcium. NQS was used to compare the nutritional potential of microgreens. Fenugreek and radish ranked highest. Furthermore, the antioxidant index highlighted radish, coriander, and fenugreek as potent antioxidant-rich microgreens. Moreover, microgreens demonstrated substantially lower oxalate levels compared to their mature counterparts, reinforcing their safety and suitability for regular consumption. Incorporating microgreens into a balanced diet can enhance nutrient intake, promote health, and mitigate risks associated with oxidative stress and mineral deficiencies.
Declaration
No funding was provided for this student’s research but the research laboratory facility provided by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University is greatly acknowledged.
A
Author Contribution
Roshni Agnihotri and Hemlata Singh conceptualized the research and drafted the manuscript. Manoj Punasia carried out the research work in laboratory. Ashish Panda helped in data analysis and Jyostnarani Pradhan reviewed the manuscript.
A
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
A
Acknowledgement
Authors acknowledge the support received from Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa for providing all necessary laboratory facility for carrying out the research work. We also acknowledge Dr. Mayank Rai, Dean, Post Graduate College of Agriculture for his encouragement in choosing microgreen as our research forte.
References
1.
Xiao, Z., Lester, G. E., Luo, Y. & Wang, Q. Assessment of vitamin and carotenoid concentrations of emerging food products: edible microgreens. J. Agril Food Chem. 60, 7644–7651. 10.1021/jf300459b (2012). https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/
2.
Paradiso, V. M. et al. Nutritional characterization and shelf-life of packaged microgreens. Food Funct. 9, 5629–5640 (2018). https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/fo/c8fo01182f
3.
Choe, U., Yu, L. L. & Wang, T. T. The science behind microgreens as an exciting new food for the 21st century. J. Agril Food Chem. 66, 11519–11530 (2018). https://pubsacsorg/doi/abs/101021/acsjafc8b03096
4.
Bhabani, M. G., Shams, R. & Dash, K. K. Microgreens and novel non-thermal seed germination techniques for sustainable food systems: a review. Food Sci Biotech 33: 1541–1557. https://linkspringercom/article/101007/s10068-024-01529-9 (2024).
5.
Sadasivam, S. & Balasubraminan, T. In: Practical manual in Biochemistry (Tamil Nadul Agricultural University Coimbatore p14, 1987).
6.
Lowry, O. H., Nira, J. R., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. Protein measurement with the Folin phenol reagent 265–275. (1951). https://wwwcabidigitallibraryorg/doi/full/105555/19511404458
7.
Vinson, J. A., Hao, Y., Su, X. & Zubik, L. Phenol antioxidant quantity and quality in foods: vegetable. J. Agril Food Chem. 46, 3630–3634 (1998). https://pubsacsorg/doi/abs/101021/jf980295o
8.
Zugic, A. et al. Antioxidant activity and phenolic compounds in 10 selected herbs from Vrujci Spa, Serbia. Ind. Crops Prod. 52, 519–527 (2014). https://wwwsciencedirectcom/science/article/pii/S0926669013006535
9.
Braca, A. et al. Antioxidant principles from Bauhinia terapotensis. J. Nat. Prod. 64, 892–895 (2001). https://pubsacsorg/doi/abs/101021/np0100845
10.
Benzie, I. F. F. & Strain, J. J. The Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma (FRAP) as a Measure of ‘‘Antioxidant Power’’: The FRAP Assay. Anal. Biochem. 239, 70–76 (1996). https://wwwsciencedirectcom/science/article/pii/S0003269796902924
11.
Sadasivam, S. & Manikam, A. Biochemical methodspp 246 (Wiley Eastern Ltd., 1992).
12.
Naik, V. V., Patil, N. S., Aparadh, V. T. & Karadge, B. A. Methodology in determination of oxalic acid in plant Tissue: A comparative approach. J. Global Trends Pharm. Sci. 5, 1662–1672. 10.5555/20143229078 (2014). https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/
13.
Ng, Z. X., Samsuri, S. N. & Yong, P. H. The antioxidant index and chemometric analysis of tannin, flavonoid, and total phenolic extracted from medicinal plant foods with the solvents of different polarities. J. Food Process. Presev. 44, e14680. 10.1111/jfpp.14680 (2020). https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/
14.
Ghoora, M. D., Babu, D. R. & Srividya, N. Nutrient composition, oxalate content and nutritional ranking of ten culinary microgreens. J. Food Compos. Anal. 91, 103495 (2020). https://wwwsciencedirectcom/science/article/pii/S0889157519317806
15.
Ghoora, M. D., Haldipur, A. C. & Srividya, N. Comparative evaluation of phytochemical content, antioxidant capacities and overall antioxidant potential of select culinary microgreens. J. Agril Food Res. 2, 100046 (2020). https://wwwsciencedirectcom/science/article/pii/S2666154320300272
16.
Xiao, Z. et al. Microgreens of Brassicaceae: Genetic diversity of phytochemical concentrations and antioxidant capacity. LWT 101, 731–737 (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0023643818309228
17.
Kowitcharoen, L. et al. Bioactive composition and nutritional profile of microgreens cultivated in Thailand. Appl Sci 11:7981. https://wwwmdpicom/2076-3417/11/17/7981 (2021).
18.
Rani, S., Singh, N., Kaur, C. & Varghese, E. Measurement of phytochemical content and nutritional characteristics of microgreens grown in high altitude region of India. J Food Meas Charact 1–15. https://linkspringercom/article/101007/s11694-024-02390-4 (2024).
19.
Gunjal, M. et al. Comparative analysis of morphological, nutritional, and bioactive properties of selected microgreens in alternative growing medium. S Afr. J. Bot. 165, 188–201 (2024). https://wwwsciencedirectcom/science/article/pii/S0254629923007822
20.
Di Gioia, F. et al. Yield performance, mineral profile, and nitrate content in a selection of seventeen microgreen species. Front. Plant. Sci. 14, 1220691 (2023). https://wwwfrontiersinorg/articles/103389/fpls20231220691/full
21.
Xiao, Z. et al. Microgreens of Brassicaceae: Mineral composition and content of 30 varieties. J. Food Compos. Anal. 49, 87–93 (2016). https://wwwsciencedirectcom/science/article/pii/S0889157516300448
22.
Pinto, E., Almeida, A. A., Aguiar, A. A. & Ferreira, I. M. Comparison between the mineral profile and nitrate content of microgreens and mature lettuces. J. Food Compos. Anal. 37, 38–43 (2015). https://wwwsciencedirectcom/science/article/pii/S0889157514001513
23.
Mohanty, A., Mahahlik, G. & Parida, S. Nutritional analysis of few edible microgreens in variable growth medium using XRF technique Asian. J Biol Life Sci, 9:360–364 https://pdfssemanticscholarorg/767c/30c60e78fb3da4fd445c9efb71bffd1224dcpdf (2021).
24.
Wojdyło, A., Nowicka, P., Tkacz, K. & Turkiewicz, I. P. Sprouts vs Microgreens as novel functional foods: Variation of nutritional and phytochemical profiles and their in vitro bioactive properties. Molecules 25:4648 https://wwwmdpicom/1420-3049/25/20/4648 (2020).
25.
Han, H., Segal, A. M., Seifter, J. L. & Dwyer, J. T. Nutritional management of kidney stones (nephrolithiasis). Clin. Nutr. Res. 4, 137–152 (2015). https://synapsekoreamedorg/articles/1059793
26.
Erdogan, B. Y. & Onar, A. N. Determination of nitrates, nitrites and oxalates in kale and sultana pea by capillary electrophoresis. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 102051–102057. 10.3923/javaa.2011.2051.2057 (2011).
27.
Korus, A., Lisiewska, Z., Słupski, J. & Gębczyński, P. Retention of oxalates in frozen products of three brassica species depending on the methods of freezing and preparation for consumption. Int. J. Refrig. 34, 1527–1534 (2011). https://wwwsciencedirectcom/science/article/pii/S0140700711001150
28.
Shi, A., Mou, B. & Correll, J. C. Association analysis for oxalate concentration. spinach Euphytica. 212, 17–28. 10.1007/s10681-016-1740-0 (2016). https://link.springer.com/article/
29.
Thampi, S. S. & Vethamoni, P. I. Quality improvement of palak (Beta vulgaris var Bengalensis Hort) through organic manures. J. Pharmacogn Phytochem. 8, 938–942 (2019). https://www.academia.edu/download/77541485/8-1-528-932.pdf
30.
Longvah, T. et al. Indian food composition tablespp 2–58 (National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research, 2017). https://www.academia.edu/download/51599403/IFCT.pdf
31.
Salgado, N. et al. Oxalate in foods: extraction conditions, analytical methods, occurrence, and health implications. Foods 12:3201 (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/17/3201
32.
Coe, F. The Kidney Stone Diet Retrieved October 23, 2019 from The University of Chicago Home Page. (2019). https://kidneystones.uchicago.edu/2016/09/19/the-kidney-stone-diet/
33.
Drewnowski, A. Concept of a nutritious food: Toward a nutrient density score. Am J Clin Nutr 82:721–732. (2005). https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(23)29630-6/fulltext
A
34.Di Noia, J. Defining powerhouse fruits and vegetables: A nutrient density approach. Prev. Chronic Dis. 11, E95 (2014). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4049200/