1. Introduction
Edible tubers—including beetroot (Beta vulgaris), carrot (Daucus carota), cassava (Manihot esculenta), potato (Solanum tuberosum), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), yam (Dioscorea spp.), Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), taro (Colocasia esculenta), and yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius)—represent a nutritionally and functionally diverse group of crops with growing importance in health-oriented food systems (Figure 1). These tubers are increasingly investigated for their potential as ingredients in bakery products due to their content of bioactive compounds such as phenolic acids, flavonoids, carotenoids, anthocyanins, dietary fiber, resistant starch, and prebiotic oligosaccharides. In addition to enhancing nutritional profiles, these crops offer technological advantages such as improved texture, natural coloring, moisture retention, and gluten-free applicability. However, their use also requires consideration of antinutritional compounds, including phytates, oxalates, and cyanogenic glycosides, as well as FODMAP (fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols) content, which may impact consumer tolerance [1,2]. This review synthesizes current knowledge on the compositional, functional, and health-promoting attributes of these tubers in the context of their utilization in baked goods.
The incorporation of tuber flours and extracts into bakery recipes aligns with evolving consumer preferences toward clean-label formulations, plant-based diets, and nutritionally enriched foods [1,2]. These crops exhibit unique functional and rheological properties, including high water-binding capacity, improved crumb structure, and natural sweetness [3]. Additionally, their lack of prolamins facilitates gluten-free product development for individuals with celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity [4]. Despite many advantages, tubers also present several important challenges. Antinutritional factors such as phytates, oxalates, and cyanogenic glycosides can limit their utilization, while the high FODMAP content may affect some consumers’ tolerance. Additionally, processing techniques alter the stability and bioavailability of the bioactive compounds in some tubers, leading to potential nutritional loss.
Nutritionally, tubers are rich in a diverse array of bioactives. Purple sweet potatoes are abundant in anthocyanins such as peonidin-3-glucoside, which modulate Nrf2 and NF-κB pathways and exhibit hepatoprotective and neuroprotective activity [3]. Jerusalem artichoke is a major source of inulin-type fructans, providing not only dietary fiber but also serving as a selective substrate for gut microbiota, promoting the growth of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. [3]. Likewise, Chinese yam contributes unique polysaccharides, resistant starches, steroidal saponins, and mucilage fibers with proven anti-diabetic, hypocholesterolemic, and immunomodulatory properties [1,5]. A growing body of evidence also supports the valorization of tuber processing by-products. Peels, pomace, and after-extraction residues are increasingly explored as sources of concentrated antioxidants, fibers, and micronutrients, with viable applications in fortifying bakery goods while supporting zero-waste and circular bioeconomy strategies [2,6].
Although considerable progress has been made, the scientific literature remains fragmented. Most available studies are focused on specific species or narrow nutritional attributes (e.g., glycemic response or fiber enrichment), without a comprehensive synthesis across multiple types or technological applications [7]. This gap inhibits the optimized utilization of tubers in bakery systems, especially in the context of bioactive retention, process optimization, and health outcomes.
Therefore, this review aims to provide an integrative synthesis of the biochemical, prebiotic, technological, and health-relevant attributes of selected edible tuber crops. A particular focus is placed on their applicability in the formulation of functional bakery products, including the valorization of by-products, compositional diversity, and morphological suitability for processing (Table 1).
2. Methods
A structured narrative literature review was conducted without adherence to PRISMA guidelines, as the aim was to provide a broad and integrative synthesis of existing knowledge rather than a narrowly focused quantitative analysis. This approach allowed for the inclusion of diverse sources and research designs, which would not have been feasible through a conventional systematic review. The search encompassed peer-reviewed publications up to April 2025, focusing on the biochemical, functional, technological, and nutritional properties of edible root and tuber crops used in baked goods. Specific keywords included “root vegetables”, “tubers”, “cassava”, “sweet potato”, “potato”, “taro”, “yam”, “beetroot”, “Jerusalem artichoke”, “inulin”, “resistant starch”, “polyphenols”, “antioxidants”, “dietary fiber”, “glycemic index”, “acrylamide”, “functional bakery products”, and “processing effects.” Reference lists of all retrieved articles and prior reviews were manually screened to identify additional relevant studies. Only studies published in English were included due to practical limitations related to translation and consistency. This review did not include a formal risk of bias assessment or meta-analysis and should be interpreted as a qualitative synthesis of current literature.
2.1. Eligibility Criteria
Included studies were original peer-reviewed articles published in English that focused on the biochemical, nutritional, technological, or functional characteristics of root and tuber crops used in baked food products. Reviews, conference abstracts, non-peer-reviewed literature, and studies unrelated to food applications were excluded. Only studies involving human food uses (not feed, fuel, or non-edible uses) were considered. The language restriction to English was due to resource limitations for translation and consistency in interpretation.
2.2. Study Selection
After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of the retrieved records from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were screened for relevance. Full texts of potentially eligible studies were then evaluated according to predefined inclusion criteria. Additionally, reference lists from included articles and relevant reviews were manually screened to identify further eligible sources. Two authors performed the selection process independently, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. As this was a structured narrative review, no formal quality appraisal or risk of bias assessment was conducted. In total, 193 articles were included in the final synthesis.
2.3. Data Extraction and Synthesis
Key data from included studies were extracted into a structured summary table, covering crop type, functional component(s), processing methods, and observed nutritional or technological outcomes. The results were synthesized narratively, highlighting common findings, emerging trends, and differences across crop types and processing techniques. No meta-analysis or formal statistical synthesis was conducted due to the heterogeneity of study designs and outcomes.
3. Bioactive Compounds in Plant Tubers
Root and tuber vegetables—including potato (Solanum tuberosum), carrot (Daucus carota), beetroot (Beta vulgaris), cassava (Manihot esculenta), taro (Colocasia esculenta), and Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus)—are rich in bioactive compounds such as polyphenols, resistant starch, vitamins, minerals, and natural pigments. These compounds exert antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, glycemia-modulating, and gut-supporting effects and are increasingly applied in the development of functional bakery products. Their bioactivity is strongly affected by species, genotype, environmental conditions, and processing techniques like baking, boiling, or drying, which may enhance or degrade specific phytochemicals [15,16,29,30,31].
3.1. Polyphenolic Compounds
Polyphenols, particularly phenolic acids and flavonoids, are major contributors to the antioxidant and health-promoting potential of root vegetables. Among phenolic acids, hydroxycinnamic acids such as ferulic, caffeic, p-coumaric, and chlorogenic acid dominate. Ferulic acid is found at high levels in carrots, taro, and beetroot; it is known for strong free radical scavenging and is especially abundant in outer tissues [32,33,34,35]. Chlorogenic acid is the principal phenolic in potatoes, especially in pigmented and peel-rich cultivars, comprising up to 90% of the total phenolics and reaching 200 mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/100 g dry weight (dw) [32,33,34,35,36,37]. Cassava peels and stems are rich in hydroxybenzoic acids like gallic and protocatechuic acid, contributing to moderate antioxidant activity [32,33,34,36,38].
Flavonoids such as rutin, kaempferol, quercetin, and luteolin occur in various tubers, often in lower concentrations than phenolic acids, but with synergistic effects. Rutin is prominent in carrots and potatoes, while quercetin glycosides are well documented in purple-flesh potato cultivars [32,33,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Jerusalem artichoke offers a unique flavonoid profile, including methoxylated compounds like hymenoxin and liquiritigenin, which have been linked to estrogenic, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties [43,44].
The total phenolic content varies significantly between crops. Beetroot contains the highest levels (352.46–489.06 mg GAE/100 g DW), with white varieties dominated by ferulic acid and red varieties enriched in both caffeic acid and betalains, which provide both color and biological activity [33,35,39,40,45]. Carrots contain 10–40 mg GAE/100 g fresh weight (fw), with black cultivars showing up to ninefold higher content than orange types, highlighting cultivar-driven variability [33,37,46]. Cassava extracts from stems contain p-coumaric acid, scopoletin, and syringaldehyde, with antioxidant effects concentrated in ethyl acetate fractions [38].
In potatoes, phenolic content and composition are strongly genotype dependent. Pigmented varieties such as ‘Vitelotte’ exhibit high anthocyanin levels (up to 54.09 mg/100 g FW), along with chlorogenic, caffeic, p-coumaric acids, and flavonoids such as quercetin-3-O-rutinoside [41,42]. In Jerusalem artichoke, ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-ESI-MS/MS) analysis identified over 50 polyphenolic compounds, including chlorogenic, neochlorogenic, and feruloylquinic acids, present predominantly as glycosylated derivatives, enhancing their solubility and bioactivity [43,44].
Importantly, processing modulates polyphenol availability and functionality. Baking at 200 °C enhances the extractability of chlorogenic acid in potatoes and ferulic acid in beetroot, while freeze-drying concentrates phenolics in carrot and cassava powders [15,16,29,30,31,35,39,40,47]. Fermentation can increase the proportion of free phenolic acids, as shown in beetroot, enhancing both antioxidant and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitory activity [35,45].
In the context of bakery applications, polyphenols serve not only as antioxidants but also as natural preservatives and pigment stabilizers. Their presence in root vegetable flours improves nutritional value and extends the shelf life of functional breads and snacks. However, their bioavailability and sensory effects are sensitive to thermal treatment and matrix interactions, requiring optimized formulation and processing.
3.2. Resistant Starch
Resistant starch (RS), a form of dietary fiber, escapes enzymatic digestion in the small intestine and undergoes fermentation in the colon. It promotes gut health by stimulating beneficial microbiota (e.g., Bifidobacteria, Lactobacilli), enhances short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) production—particularly butyrate and propionate—and exhibits anti-inflammatory, anticarcinogenic, and cholesterol-lowering effects [48,49,50,51,52,53]. RS also improves glycemic control, reduces postprandial glucose spikes, and supports weight management by promoting satiety [50,53].
RS is categorized into five types (RS1–RS5) based on structure and digestibility: RS1 (physically inaccessible), RS2 (native granular starch, e.g., raw potato), RS3 (retrograded starch from cooled cooked starch), RS4 (chemically modified), and RS5 (amylose–lipid complexes) [49,53,54].
Root vegetables, particularly potatoes, taro, cassava, and yams, are natural sources of RS—unlike refined cereal products. RS content varies by species, cultivar, and processing conditions. Raw potatoes contain up to 47–59% RS in dry matter [55], and potato flour retains 36–40% RS, depending on starch structure (crumbly > waxy types) [56,57]. RS content in lesser yam reaches 23.3%, while cassava roots show variability between 5.0 and 19.6%, depending on the cultivar and drying method [58,59]. Taro presents notable regional differences, with RS levels ranging from 15.1% to over 20.8%, and these levels can be further enhanced (~30%) by cold plasma treatment, a promising pre-processing method for food applications. In contrast, sweet potatoes exhibit low RS content (~3.2%), limiting their prebiotic potential unless modified [58].
From a technological standpoint, RS is particularly relevant in baking. Retrogradation during cooling of baked starches (RS3) enhances RS formation, enabling functional breads with improved glycemic index (GI) profiles. Potato and cassava flours, for instance, can enrich bakery formulations with RS, provided the baking and cooling stages are optimized to retain retrograded starch fractions. Moreover, RS’s water-binding capacity may influence dough rheology and texture, necessitating formulation adjustments in gluten-free applications. RS from root and tuber crops contributes not only to metabolic health but also offers functional potential in baking, especially in reformulated or high-fiber bread products. Their inclusion supports both nutrition-focused innovation and textural diversification in modern bakery systems.
3.3. Vitamins and Minerals
Root and tuber vegetables are important dietary sources of essential vitamins and minerals, contributing to immune function, antioxidant defense, cardiovascular protection, and metabolic regulation. The content of micronutrients varies by species, cultivar, and processing methods, with notable examples including Beta vulgaris (beetroot), Daucus carota (carrot), Manihot esculenta (cassava), Solanum tuberosum (potato), Colocasia esculenta (taro), and Helianthus tuberosus (Jerusalem artichoke) [30,32,33].
Vitamin A, particularly in the form of β-carotene, is abundant in orange-fleshed root vegetables like carrots, reaching levels between 6000 and 54,800 µg/100 g fresh weight, and representing up to 80% of their total carotenoids [32]. Other carotenoids such as α-carotene, lutein, and zeaxanthin enhance antioxidant potential, particularly in yellow and purple cultivars [32,37]. These compounds not only support visual and immune health but also serve as precursors for vitamin A in functional baked goods enriched with vegetable powders.
Vitamin C, a potent antioxidant and cofactor for collagen synthesis and immune regulation, is present in moderate amounts in most root crops—e.g., beetroot (up to 4.9 mg/100 g), Jerusalem artichoke (up to 14 mg/100 g), and potatoes (up to 30 mg/100 g) [33,35,47,60]. Vitamin C is partially degraded during high-temperature baking, although its retention can be improved through vacuum drying or the use of pre-gelatinized flours [32,47].
B-complex vitamins, including thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), and pyridoxine (B6), are distributed across carrots, cassava leaves, potatoes, taro, and Jerusalem artichoke [32,60,61,62,63]. These vitamins are vital for energy metabolism and nervous system function, and their incorporation via tuber flours can help reduce deficiencies in refined baked products.
Among minerals, potassium (K) is most abundant across root vegetables, contributing to electrolyte balance and muscle function. Taro (2271–4276 mg/100 g), parsley (up to 3375 mg/kg), carrots (~1524 mg/kg), and Jerusalem artichoke (~490 mg/100 g) all provide significant potassium content [32,47,63]. Calcium, essential for bone metabolism, ranges from ~15–35 mg/100 g in cassava to over 300 mg/kg in celery and parsley roots [32].
Magnesium, required for enzymatic reactions and cardiovascular health, appears in levels up to 543 mg/100 g in taro and ~30–80 mg/100 g in cassava [47,60,62]. Other essential trace elements include iron (notably high in taro and parsley), zinc, copper, and manganese, found in varying amounts across all studied tubers [32,47,63]. Beetroot and Jerusalem artichoke also contribute appreciable levels of folate, which supports hematopoiesis and fetal development [35,60].
Nutritionally, the regular intake of 200 g of raw carrots or parsley can provide over 20% of daily needs for iron, manganese, or copper, highlighting the potential of root vegetables to combat micronutrient deficiencies [32,47]. However, culinary processing affects vitamin and mineral retention. For example, β-carotene bioavailability increases with heat-induced cell wall disruption, while vitamin C losses can be minimized using steaming or vacuum-drying techniques [32].
From a technological and nutritional perspective, incorporating tuber flours into bakery products (e.g., cassava, taro, beetroot) allows for micronutrient enrichment, especially in gluten-free or reformulated products. Root vegetables serve not only as bulk or textural agents but also as natural carriers of vitamins and minerals with functional relevance. Moreover, the color and antioxidant contribution of carotenoid- and betalain-rich vegetables (e.g., carrot, beetroot) can enhance the visual appeal and health perception of baked goods.
In summary, root vegetables offer a broad spectrum of micronutrients, including vitamins A, C, and B-complex as well as potassium, magnesium, calcium, and iron. Their integration into bakery matrices can support improved nutritional profiles, especially when using minimally processed or thermally optimized flours [32,35,37,40,47,60,61,62,63].
3.4. Pigments
Root vegetables accumulate a wide range of bioactive pigments—including betalains, carotenoids, and anthocyanins—that contribute not only to their vivid coloration but also to their health-promoting potential. These pigments differ chemically and functionally, and their distribution varies across tuber species, with beetroot, carrot, purple potato, and cassava being especially rich sources [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,39,40,47].
Betalains, unique to species such as beetroot (Beta vulgaris), consist of betacyanins (e.g., betanin, isobetanin) and betaxanthins (e.g., vulgaxanthin I and II), which are synthesized from tyrosine and exhibit antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer activities. Their concentrations can reach 5.35–7.89 mg/g (betacyanins) and 3.81–5.51 mg/g (betaxanthins) dw. Due to their strong chromatic properties and radical-scavenging capacity, they are widely used as natural food colorants in bakery glazes and fillings. However, they are heat sensitive; optimal stability is retained through freeze-drying or low-temperature dehydration (~70 °C) [30,31,32,33,35].
Carotenoids, fat-soluble pigments responsible for yellow to orange hues, are abundant in carrots (Daucus carota) but also present in sweet potatoes, cassava, and taro. The most common is β-carotene, often accounting for up to 80% of the total carotenoids in carrots (6000–54,800 µg/100 g fw) [32]. Other important carotenoids include α-carotene, lutein, and zeaxanthin, which act as antioxidants and vitamin A precursors. Importantly, processing methods such as steam blanching and vacuum drying improve bioavailability via trans-to-cis isomerization, enhancing the functionality of carotenoid-rich tuber flours in baked applications [32,33,47].
Anthocyanins, water-soluble flavonoid pigments, impart purple and blue hues and are concentrated in purple-fleshed potatoes and cassava. Major anthocyanins such as cyanidin-3-glucoside and delphinidin derivatives contribute to the high antioxidant and anti-inflammatory potential of these cultivars [11,15,22]. Their content in purple potatoes can range from 2.5 to 8.0 mg/100 g fw, varying by genotype and environmental conditions. While anthocyanins are moderately heat sensitive, boiling and steaming offer acceptable retention levels, making them viable for functional bread and pastry coloration [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,39,40,47].
The bioactive pigment profile of root vegetables is both diverse and functionally relevant. Betalains (e.g., in beetroot) offer antioxidant colorant potential. Carotenoids (e.g., in carrots and taro) support visual and immune health. Anthocyanins (e.g., in purple potatoes and cassava) provide cardiovascular and cognitive protection. Their incorporation into bakery products, whether through powders, purées, or flours, can enhance both the nutritional value and sensory attributes of final goods. Applying gentle processing methods ensures optimal retention of these sensitive pigments, facilitating the development of naturally colored, health-promoting bakery formulations.
4. Health Benefits of Tuber
4.1. Antioxidant Effect
Root and tuber vegetables are rich in antioxidants, particularly polyphenolic compounds, carotenoids, betalains, vitamins (e.g., C, E, A), and essential minerals. These bioactive constituents play a vital role in neutralizing free radicals, reducing oxidative stress, and supporting the prevention of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disorders, diabetes, and cancer [33,35,64,65,66,67,68,69] (Table 2).
The antioxidant activity of these crops is typically assessed using DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl), ABTS (2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)), FRAP (ferric reducing antioxidant power), and ORAC (oxygen radical absorbance capacity) assays. For instance, beetroot exhibits high antioxidant capacity (DPPH: 0.45–1.30 mmol trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC)/100 g; ABTS: 0.90–1.80 mmol TEAC/100 g), mainly due to betalains (128.7–797 mg/100 g) and phenolic acids (e.g., gallic, caffeic, ferulic acids) [16,33,64,70,71]. Carrots, especially purple ones, contain hydroxycinnamic acids (e.g., chlorogenic, ferulic) and anthocyanins contributing to DPPH values of 56–90 mg GAE/100 g [33,62,68,72,73,74].
Sweet potatoes show antioxidant activity up to 25.8 µmol TEAC/g, particularly in purple-fleshed varieties due to anthocyanins, while orange-fleshed types are rich in β-carotene (up to 131 µg/g) [13,64,65,66,67,68,69,75,76]. Cassava and taro possess moderate antioxidant activity enhanced by fermentation or thermal processing, which increases polyphenol bioavailability [22,23,73,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87]. Yam, potato, and Jerusalem artichoke also demonstrate significant antioxidant properties due to their diverse phenolic profiles [11,47,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98].
Table 2Phytochemical composition and health effects of edible roots and tubers.
| Vegetables | Compounds Type | Compounds Class | Compound Average Content | Health Benefits | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carrot | Polyphenolic compounds | Caffeic acid; ferulic acid; sinapic acid; vanillic acid; p-coumaric acid; p-hydroxybenxoic acid; and total phenolic | 24 mg/100 mg fw; 2.4 mg/100 g fw; 0.06 mg/100 g fw; 1.2 mg/100 g fw; 0.71 mg/100 g fw; 4.2 mg/100 g fw; and 7.3–224 mg/100 g fw | Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antidiabetic and anticancer | [32,68,72,73,74] |
| Carotenoids | β-Carotene; α-carotene; lutein (orange, purple, red); lycopene (red); zeaxanthin; β-cryptoxanthin; and total of carotenoids | 0.09 to 7.6 μg/g dry kernel, 8.2 mg/100 g fw root; 3.5 mg/100 g fw root; 0.1 to 28 μg/g dry kernel, 250 μg μg/100 g fw root; 1 μg/100 g fw root; 0.01 to 8.1 μg/g dry kernel; | |||
| Vitamins | Vitamin A/provitamin A (β-carotene); vitamin E (tocopherols); vitamin C | 700 μg; 0.19–15 mg 1; 1–5.3 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Macro and micro elements | K; Ca; Mg; Mn | 152.4 mg; 31.4 mg; 27.2 mg; 0.58 mg; | |||
| Beetroot | Polyphenolic compounds | Gallic acid; chlorogenic acid; caffeic acid; ferulic acid; myricetin; luteolin; quercetin; epicatechin; and total phenols | 36.40–65.93 mg; 1.7–4.67 mg; 0.74–0.90 mg; 0.54–1.71 mg; 0.27–0.30 mg; 0.13–0.14 mg; 0.1–0.13 mg; 3.20 mg/100 g fw; and 245 mg GAE/100 g fw 3 | Antioxidation, anti-inflammatory, anti-hypertensive, decrease of oxidative stress and inflammation in animals studies | [16,71,72] |
| Betalains | Total betalains (isobetanin, 2,17′-bidecarboxy-neobetanin, miraxanthin II, vulgxanthin I (deep read), Vulgaxanthin I, indicaxanthin, miraxanthin (yellow)); betalain | 370 mg/100 g; 128.7–797 mg/100 g | |||
| Carotenoids | a-Carotene; lycopene | 22 mg/100 g fw; 0.03 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Vitamins | Vitamin B; vitamin A; vitamin C; riboflavin; vitamin B6; folacin; niacin | 0.3–0.4 mg 2; 36 IU; 4.9 mg; 0.04 mg; 0.067 mg; 109 mcg; 0.334 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Macro and micro elements | Potassium; sodium; phosphorus; calcium; magnesium; iron; zinc; copper; manganese; selenium | 325 mg; 78 mg; 40 mg; 16 mg; 23 mg; 0.80 mg; 0.35 mg; 0.075 mg/100 g; 0.33 mg/100 g; 0.7 mg/100 g | |||
| Taro | Polyphenolic compounds | Total catechin; trans-ferulic acid; anthocyanins | 35.5 mg; 26.80 mg/100 g de; 16 mg/100 g corm skin; 2.9 mg/100 g fw | Antimetastatic, antioxidant, anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antidiabetic, antimicrobial | [77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86] |
| Carotenoids | β-Carotene | 10.4–18.5 mg/100 g taro flour | |||
| Vitamins | Vitamin A; vitamin C; vitamin E; thiamin; riboflavin; niacin; vitamin K | 8.92 mg; 4.5–10.29 mg; 1.89–2.38 mg; 0.21 mg; 0.02–0.04 mg; 0.58 mg/100 g dw, 0.001 mg/100 g | |||
| Macro and micro elements | Calcium; iron; magnesium; phosphorus; sodium; potassium; manganese; zinc; copper | 41–782.15 mg; 1.16–218.50 mg; 7.3–543.90 mg; 1.39 mg; 6.2–25.6 mg; 224–372.40 mg; 0.13–221.30 mg; 5.14–392.23 mg; 0.67–231.70 mg | |||
| Sweet | Polyphenolic compounds | Chlorogenic acid; neochlorogenic acid | 56.3 mg, 620–2024 mg (peel), 88–252 mg (flesh); 5.18 mg, 53–83 mg/kg dw (peel) | Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, hypoglycemic anticancer, hepatoprotective | [13,68,73,75,76] |
| Carotenoids | β-Carotene (orange) | <1 (white cultivars)–131 μg/g fresh roots (orange | |||
| Vitamins | Vitamin C; thiamin; niacin; vitamin B6; vitamin K | 14.8 mg; 0.045 mg; 0.43 mg; 0.12; 0.2 μg/100 g fw | |||
| Macro and micro elements | Sodium; potassium; calcium; magnesium; iron; zinc; manganese; copper | 71.1 mg; 1134 mg; 60.7 mg; 31.3 mg; 1.4 mg; 1.1 mg; 0.5 mg; 0.5 mg/100 g | |||
| Yam | Polyphenolic compounds | Total anthocyanin; sinapic acid, ferulic acid; | 31 mg; 131 mg; 31.3 mg/100 g dm; 76.64–324.69 μg GAE/g fw 3 | Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, antidiabetic | [20,73,88,94,95] |
| Carotenoids | All-trans-β-carotene; β-carotene epoxides; provitamin A | 96–332 μg; 96–1670 μg; 102–927 μg/100 g dw | |||
| Vitamins | Vitamin C; vitamin E | 82.13 mg; 88.33 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Macro and micro elements | Sodium; magnesium; calcium; iron; zinc; copper; cobalt; manganese | 11.4–12.06 mg; 7.11–566 mg; 21.8–660 mg; 2.05 mg; 7.6–14.1 mg; 0.5 mg; 0.57–0.82 mg; 0.26–10.6 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Cassava | Polyphenolic compounds | Gallic acid; chlorogenic acid; ferulic acid; rutin; caffeic acid; catechin | 144.2 μg; 65.9 μg; 118.8 μg; 815 μg; 13.8; 12.8 μg/mL | Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, antimicrobial, hypoglycemic | [22,23,73,87] |
| Carotenoids | β-Carotene (orange color and cream color), | 0.2 to 4.9 μg/g fresh roots | |||
| Vitamins | Vitamin A; niacin; riboflavin; thiamin; vitamin C | 0.005–0.04; 0.6–1 mg; 0.03–0.06 mg; 0.03–0.28 mg; 14.9–50 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Minerals | Calcium; magnesium; phosphorus; iron; potassium; copper; manganese; sulfur; sodium; zinc | 16–176 mg; 30–80 mg; 6–152 mg; 0.3–14 mg; 250–720 mg; 0.3–0.6 mg; 273 ppm; 7.6–21.3 mg; 1.4–4.1 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Potatoes | Polyphenols | Chlorogenic acid; cryptochlorogenic acid; neochlorogenic acid; caffeic acid; caffeoyl putrescine; rutinose; kaempferol-3-rutinose; anthocyanins content | 21.9–80.4 mg 4; 1.0–12.6 mg 5; 0.1–2.9 mg 4; 0.5–5.2 mg 6; 0.2–1.3 mg 4; 0.29–1.36 mg 7; 0.13–0.46 mg 8; 5.5–368 mg/100 g fw 9 | Free radical, oxyradical, hydroxyl radical scavenging activity, protection of liver injury (rats), cholesterol-lowering effects in rats | [11,89,90,91] |
| Carotenoids | Carotenoids content in flesh | 50 to 2000 μg/100 g fw 10 | |||
| Vitamins | Vitamin C, total ascorbic acid; niacin; pantothenic acid; vitamin B6; folate total; choline total | 19.7 mg; 1.06 mg; 0.295 mg; 0.298 mg; 15 µg; 12.1 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Macro and micro | Calcium; magnesium; potassium; phosphorus; iron; zinc; manganese; copper; boron | 9.40–11 mg 11; 16–28 mg; 280–580 mg; 59–60.57 mg; 0.65–1.49 mg; 0.26 mg; 0.15 mg; 0.095 mg; 0.10 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Yacon | Polyphenolic compounds | Chlorogenic acid; caffeic acid; coumaric acid; | Fractional concentration (%) of phenolic compounds: 53.72; 40.63; 4.38; 175.1 μg/g yacon syrup 12 | Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, hypoglycemic, cardioprotective, prebiotic, anti-obesity | [95,96,97,98] |
| Carotenoids | Carotene | 80–130 μg/100 g fw | |||
| Vitamins | Thiamin; riboflavin; niacin, vitamin C | 10–70 μg; 100–310 μg; 330 μg, 13 mg/100 g fw | |||
| Macro and micro | Phosphorus; potassium; calcium; magnesium; | 23.2 mg; 171.7 mg; 6.3 mg; 3.7 mg; 9.7 mg/100 g fw yacon pulp | |||
| Jerusalem artichoke | Polyphenolic compounds | Chlorogenic acid (CQA); dicaffeoyl isomers 3,5-diCQA caffeic acid; total phenols | 1.48 mg; 0.82 mg; 70 μg/g dw; 7.4 mg GAE/g fw | Antioxidant, antibacterial, hepatoprotective, cardioprotective, anti-inflammatory, | [47,92] |
| Carotenoids | β-Carotene | 12 μg/100 g fw | |||
| Vitamins | Choline; niacin, vitamin C | 30 mg; 1.3 mg; 4 mg | |||
| Macro and micro | Potassium; phosphorous; magnesium; calcium; sodium | 490 mg; 78 mg; 17 mg; 14 mg; 4 mg/100 g fw |
1 Tocopherol equivalent; 2 dietary folate equivalent; 3 GAE—gallic acid equivalent; 4 CAE—caffeic acid equivalent 5 from white/purple potato to red/purple potato, 6 from yellow to red/purple potato, 7 from yellow to white/purple potato, 8 from white to red/purple potato, 9 red to purple potato, 10 white to dark yellow flesh, 11 potato without peel purple yam; 12—chlorogenic acid; fw—fresh weight; dw—dry weight; de—dry extract.
The antioxidant capacity strongly correlates with the concentration and profile of polyphenols and carotenoids. Betanin-rich beetroot and anthocyanin-rich sweet potatoes exhibit direct associations between these compounds and DPPH/ABTS values [33,64,65,66]. Processing such as baking or steaming can preserve or enhance antioxidant capacity by releasing bound compounds, although heat-sensitive vitamins like C may degrade [33,35,68]. Purple-flesh potatoes like ‘Vitelotte’ exhibited superior activity versus white varieties [92,93]. Taro leaves, rich in flavonoids, and Jerusalem artichoke, containing chlorogenic and caffeic acids, further support the contribution of these crops to antioxidative defense [33,47,64,65,66,67,68,69] (Table 2).
4.2. Glycemic Response
The glycemic index (GI) measures the postprandial effect of carbohydrates on blood glucose. Starch structure—particularly the amylose/amylopectin ratio—affects digestibility and GI. Amylose digests more slowly, increasing resistant starch (RS) formation, which acts as dietary fiber and improves glycemic control [99,100,101,102]. Polyphenols like chlorogenic and ferulic acids can inhibit α-amylase and α-glucosidase, slowing glucose absorption. Purple sweet potatoes, high in anthocyanins, exhibit stronger inhibitory effects and lower GI compared to white cultivars [68,70,103]. Carrots (GI: 35) and beetroot (GI: 64) enhance insulin sensitivity and reduce fasting glucose by 10–20 mg/dL in diabetic models [32,71,103].
In Monro et al.’s study [104], nine potato cultivars showed that RDS content dropped from 68% (fresh) to 44% (cold-stored), while RS increased from 3.9% to 7%, lowering GI significantly. Nayak et al. [102] confirmed that cooling boiled red potatoes reduced GI from over 70 to 56.2. Iancu [105] showed that adding cooked potatoes to bread raised RS content by 5.1%, improving glycemic outcomes. Sweet potatoes generally show GI values of 40–59 [106], while cassava flour substitutions reduced GI in bread to <50 with 100% replacement and cocoa addition [107]. Combining cassava, yam, taro, and sweet potato flours with rice flour lowered GI by 26% and increased RS content [107].
Jerusalem artichoke (JA), due to inulin content, reduced estimated GI of sourdough bread from 84.02 to 75.12 (with 20% JA powder) and also lowered GI in buckwheat extrudates by up to 42.3% [107,108,109]. Yacon, rich in fructooligosaccharides, lowered the GI of bread by 42% (with 11% flour addition), and its concentrate showed a GI of 40 [110]. Yam has a low GI of 51–66, and when used in bread, it raised RS content to ~42% [103,108,111]. Taro flour also reduced GI due to hydrolysis resistance, with values ranging from 55 to 77, depending on cultivar and processing [103,112,113].
5. Potentially Hazardous Compounds in Root and Tuber Vegetables
5.1. Acrylamide
Although root vegetables offer a plethora of benefits, including the potential for alternative processing methods and significant nutritional advantages, it is of equal importance to exercise caution regarding the potential formation of harmful compounds during high-temperature processing techniques [114]. One such compound is acrylamide (AA), which has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. As documented by the EFSA [115], AA is a chemical substance with documented neurotoxic, genotoxic, and carcinogenic properties. Its formation occurs in various foods during high-temperature treatments through the Maillard reaction, which involves the interaction between asparagine (Asn) and reducing sugars, primarily glucose and fructose, during processes such as frying, baking, and extrusion [114,115,116,117].
The content of asparagine in root vegetables, acting as a precursor in the release of AA in bakery products, varies significantly between species. Among root and tuber vegetables, potatoes exhibit the highest content of Asn, with an average range of 2030–4250 mg/kg fw [118]. The estimated potential for acrylamide formation in the analyzed potato samples ranged from 80 to 2020 µg/kg, with the levels of glucose and fructose exerting a significant influence. Despite their role as mediators, these compounds play an important part in the production of acrylamide [118]. With regard to the native variety of cassava designated as “530 cultivar”, the Asn content was determined to be 930 mg/kg. For diploid and tetraploid hybrids, the asparagine content was calculated based on the crude protein concentration and the percentage of asparagine in the total amino acids, with a range of 815.4 to 3976.18 mg/kg [119].
Research conducted by Lim et al. [120] shows that the highest amino acid concentration in sweet potatoes is glutamic acid, followed by asparagine and aspartic acid. The Asn content was 1976 mg/kg. The total content of asparagine and aspartic acid (Asx) residues in taro samples from the RIN (Ibo Ngaoundere) and CE (Country Ekona) varieties was measured at 144.3 mg/kg and 159.7 mg/kg for mucilage, and 152.3 mg/kg and 160.7 mg/kg for flour, respectively. These levels do not pose a risk for AA production in bakery products [121]. Studies conducted on juices obtained from two varieties of beetroots, “Wodan” and “Alto”, grown in Poland, showed that the Asn content was 489.02 and 797.17 mg/L respectively [122]. Similar values of AA precursor were obtained in fresh carrots; the Asn concentration was 520 mg/kg fw [123]. Low contents of Asn were shown in Jerusalem artichoke tubers. In the tested varieties, the Asn content ranged from 4.03 to 4.3 mg/kg and increased during 20 weeks of storage by 35–53% [124].
Varma’s study [125] found that different pre-treatments significantly reduced acrylamide formation in baked sweet potato, taro, and cassava. Garlic extract was the most effective, reducing levels by over 90%, while yeast and sodium chloride had minimal effects, varying by tuber type and treatment. Meanwhile, Sawicka et al. [126] demonstrated that incorporating potato flakes into bread formulations resulted in higher acrylamide levels in the crust, especially when larger quantities of potato were used in the flour blend. This finding underscores the importance of managing precursor compounds and considering other potential health risks associated with using tuber-based ingredients.
Also, Sawicka et al. [127] evaluated the effect of adding carrot strips on AA content in bread. Two carrot samples (Q1 and Q2) showed significant differences in Asn and AA levels. Q1 contained 91.1 mg/kg Asn and 35.7–38.3 μg/kg AA, with glucose and fructose at 445 and 25.7 mg/kg, respectively. Q2 had higher Asn (3554 mg/kg) but lower AA (16.6–17 μg/kg), with glucose at 15.8–16.4 mg/g. The addition of carrot significantly influenced AA content in bread. Control bread made with wheat flour and up to 20% added water had AA levels below 10 μg/kg. Bread with 22.5% Q2 and 10–20% water showed the highest AA levels (74–80 μg/kg). For Q1, adding 15–22.5% carrot at 0% water (quantity in control bread) increased AA to 62–73 μg/kg, while 10% water raised it to 50 μg/kg, meeting the EU benchmark. These results highlight the impact of carrot addition and water content on AA formation in bread.
According to Hamlet et al. [128], Asn concentrations varied significantly among cereals, with rye having the highest levels (396 mg/kg) and rice the lowest (61 mg/kg). In wheat, Asn concentrations ranged similarly in bread wheat flours, with white flours at 48–155 mg/kg and wholemeal flours at 106–346 mg/kg. The average Asn concentration in wholemeal wheat flour (255 mg/kg) was lower than in wholemeal bread flour (366 mg/kg), likely due to the lower protein content.
Acrylamide formation in baked products enriched with root and tuber crops is primarily determined by free asparagine, reducing sugar content, and thermal processing conditions. In bakery applications, mitigation strategies should focus on selecting low-asparagine cultivars, controlling sugar levels, and applying practical pre-processing methods such as blanching or soaking before drying. Optimizing moisture and baking parameters can further reduce acrylamide levels, supporting the safe use of root- and tuber-based flours without compromising technological performance or sensory properties.
5.2. Fermentable Oligo-, Di-, Monosaccharides, and Polyols (FODMAPs)
FODMAPs represent a class of short-chain carbohydrates that are poorly absorbed in the small intestine and highly fermentable by colonic microbiota. Their consumption may lead to gastrointestinal symptoms in sensitive individuals, particularly those with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), due to osmotic activity and rapid microbial fermentation producing gas and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) [129]. Among plant-based foods, several root and tuber crops, especially those with high concentrations of fructans, mannitol, or galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS), are considered moderate to high FODMAP sources.
Notably, Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) is one of the most concentrated natural sources of inulin-type fructans, with content ranging from 16% to 20% of dry weight, depending on cultivar, maturity stage, and postharvest storage conditions [3,130]. While this renders the crop highly valuable as a prebiotic and dietary fiber source, it also raises concerns regarding gastrointestinal tolerance in sensitive populations [131].
Yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius), a South American tuber increasingly used in functional bakery applications, is similarly rich in fructooligosaccharides (FOS), comprising up to 40% of its dry matter content [132]. Although FOS intake has been associated with improvements in calcium absorption, lipid metabolism, and immune response [133], clinical studies also report dose-dependent gastrointestinal distress, including bloating, flatulence, and osmotic diarrhea, particularly at intakes exceeding 10–15 g/day [134].
Cassava (Manihot esculenta), widely consumed in tropical regions, typically contains lower levels of FODMAPs, though processing methods such as fermentation and soaking have been shown to further reduce residual oligosaccharides and improve digestibility [135]. Sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas), conversely, contain moderate amounts of mannitol and can elicit symptoms in some IBS patients, particularly when consumed in large portions (>100 g cooked weight) [136].
In contrast, potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and taro (Colocasia esculenta) are generally classified as low-FODMAP tubers and are well tolerated by sensitive populations, making them suitable bases for functional bakery products aimed at consumers with FODMAP intolerance [137,138,139]. Notably, the majority of FODMAPs in tubers are water soluble and thus partially leach during boiling or blanching, emphasizing the importance of processing in modulating FODMAP levels [139]. From a technological perspective, high-FODMAP ingredients may present functionality advantages, such as enhanced water-binding, natural sweetness, and fat-replacement potential, due to their high solubility and fermentability. However, these benefits must be balanced against the risk of consumer intolerance. Controlled inclusion levels and proper labelling are critical for product design targeting sensitive individuals [140].
The fermentation of FODMAP-rich tuber flours (e.g., from Jerusalem artichoke or yacon) with selected lactic acid bacteria can reduce oligosaccharide content and enhance postbiotic generation, including SCFAs and bacteriocins, potentially offsetting their adverse effects [141]. Similarly, enzymatic hydrolysis using inulinases or invertases has been proposed as a tool to selectively degrade problematic oligosaccharides prior to baking [142]. The FODMAP content of edible tubers is highly variable and species dependent, with Jerusalem artichoke and yacon presenting the highest levels, while potatoes, taro, and cassava generally remain within low-FODMAP thresholds. Given the increasing prevalence of functional gastrointestinal disorders and consumer demand for sensitive-friendly bakery products, the characterization and modulation of FODMAP content is of considerable nutritional and industrial importance.
Elevated levels of FODMAPs derived from certain tuber-based flours may reduce gastrointestinal tolerance in gluten-free, conventional, and fiber-enriched baked goods, particularly among sensitive individuals. Although gluten-free products are often perceived as more easily digestible, a recent comparative analysis demonstrated that not all such products are low in FODMAPs; their content largely depends on the type and proportion of raw materials used [143]. This is particularly relevant for gluten-free formulations, where high-FODMAP tubers such as Jerusalem artichoke and yacon are commonly incorporated to enhance texture, moisture retention, and nutritional quality. Consequently, formulation strategies such as sourdough fermentation, enzymatic degradation, or portion size control are recommended to mitigate these effects and improve gastrointestinal tolerance [137].
5.3. Phytate
Phytate is an organic anion derived from phytic acid (inositol hexakisphosphate). It occurs in many plants, including root vegetables. It reduces mineral bioavailability by forming insoluble complexes with calcium, iron, zinc, and magnesium and inhibits digestive enzymes such as trypsin and amylase. Despite its antinutritional effects, phytate offers health benefits, including antioxidant activity, cholesterol reduction, cancer protection, and blood glucose regulation. Thermal processing, such as boiling, can lower phytate content by around 20%, improving mineral absorption [88,144].
Phytate levels in plant foods differ depending on the plant variety and specific plant parts, influenced by their unique genetic and physiological characteristics. The phytate content in selected root vegetables and tubers is presented in Table 3 [145,146].
Phytate levels can be reduced through technological processing during food preparation. Studies have shown that boiling for 15 min decreased phytate content in beetroot and carrots by 52 mg/100 g and 26 mg/100 g, respectively, corresponding to respective reductions of 22.4% and 46.9% [145]. Research investigating the impact of heat treatment on phytate content in potatoes demonstrated that cooking and microwave cooking reduced phytate levels by 15% and 25%, respectively. However, baking did not result in significant differences compared to raw potatoes. Similar research by Bhandari and Kawabata [156] analyzed four yam varieties with phytate levels ranging from 46 to 72 mg/100 gfw. Cooking was identified as the most effective heat treatment, reducing phytate content by an average of 22%, while pressure cooking and baking resulted in slight reductions of 6% and 3%, respectively [157]. Ayele et al. [88] demonstrated that controlled cooking at 91 °C reduced phytate content by 24% in yam and 26% in taro. Research on the incorporation of cassava flour (CF) in wheat bread production demonstrated that increasing the share of CF as a replacement for wheat flour significantly reduced phytate contents, with reductions ranging from 19.95% at 10% CF to 34.31% at 100% CF. The reference sample, made from wheat flour, had a phytate content of 15.04 mg/g [108]. Asiyanbi and Hammed [163], in their analysis comparing the physicochemical properties of wheat flour (WF) and fermented (F) and unfermented yam flour (UYF), found that yam flours had significantly lower phytic acid content, with values of 17 mg/100 g and 53 mg/100 g, respectively, compared to wheat flour (225 mg/100 g). Fermentation of yam flour notably reduced phytic acid content by 92% in WF and 68% in UYF.
5.4. Oxalate
Oxalate is the anionic form of oxalic acid, a simple dicarboxylic acid naturally occurring in various organisms, from microorganisms to plants and animals. In the human body, oxalate can originate not only from dietary sources but also from the metabolism of ascorbic acid and glyoxylate [164]. Excessive intake of oxalates may lead to oxalosis and the deposition of calcium oxalate in body tissues and organs [165]. In individuals with kidney stone disease, it is recommended to limit oxalate intake to less than 40–50 mg per day [166], which highlights the importance of determining oxalate content in food. Oxalates are naturally occurring antinutritional compounds commonly found in root and tuber vegetables. Their presence can affect the bioavailability of essential minerals such as calcium, iron, and magnesium, and at elevated concentrations, they may promote the formation of kidney stones. The oxalate content is presented in Table 3. In the case of carrots (Daucus carota), the oxalate content was reported to be 5 mg/100 g at concentrations low enough not to pose any risk to consumer health [84]. For beetroot juice (Beta vulgaris), the oxalate content ranged from 54 to 60 mg/100 g [156,157].
Substantial variation in oxalate content has been observed in yam tubers, with levels ranging from 67 to 197 mg/100 g fw in raw samples. Thermal processing, such as boiling, reduced oxalate content to between 31 and 106 mg/100 g fw, corresponding to an average reduction of 39%. The least effective method was baking, which resulted in only an 11% reduction [156]. In Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), oxalate levels ranged from 0.9 to 22 mg/100 g fw [161]. Taro flour contained 26.31 mg/100 g of oxalate [152], whereas analyses of various taro genotypes revealed a wide variation in oxalate content, ranging from 372.89 to 2386.55 mg/100 g fw [167].
5.5. Cyanogenic Glycosides
Cyanogenic glycosides are natural plant products derived from secondary metabolism. These compounds consist of an α-hydroxynitrile aglycone and a sugar component, typically D-glucose. These compounds, primarily linamarin and lotaustralin, are nitrogen-containing secondary metabolites produced by the plant as a defense mechanism. They consist of an α-hydroxynitrile aglycone and a sugar component, typically D-glucose [168,169].
When consumed without proper processing, these glycosides are hydrolyzed by the bacterial microflora of the gastrointestinal tract to produce hydrogen cyanide (HCN), a toxic compound that can cause acute or chronic health effects. At high oral doses, symptoms appear within minutes and may include nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headache, heart palpitations, rapid breathing followed by difficulty breathing, slowed heart rate, unconsciousness, and convulsions, ultimately leading to death [169]. The minimal lethal dose of cyanide in humans is frequently cited as approximately 0.5 mg/kg of body weight. Chronic exposure to lower doses of cyanide can result in neurological disorders, particularly in populations that rely on cassava as a dietary staple in tropical regions [170]. The detoxification process entails the metabolism of cyanide, primarily by the mitochondrial enzyme sulfur transferase (TST, rhodanese). This enzyme facilitates the conversion of cyanide into the less toxic thiocyanate, which is subsequently excreted in urine. The efficiency of this process is contingent upon the availability of sulfur compounds, which serve as a limiting factor [171].
Among root vegetables, cassava is notable for its relatively high content of cyanogenic glycosides, which can release hydrogen cyanide (HCN) upon enzymatic hydrolysis. According to available data, the total cyanogenic potential (expressed as HCN equivalent) ranges from 53 to 1300 mg/kg dw in the leaves and from 10 to 500 mg/kg dw in the roots [172,173]. This variability is also reflected in cassava flours, where the residual HCN content depends mainly on the cultivar and processing methods. For example, in Sri Lankan varieties, HCN levels ranged from 4.85 to 48.05 mg/kg, with some exceeding the WHO-recommended limit of 10 mg/kg for safe consumption [174]. Traditionally, soaked cassava chips and roots contain relatively high HCN levels (46.6 and 60.98 mg/kg, respectively), while cassava paste/dough averages 38.1 mg/kg. In contrast, processed products such as cassava biscuits (12 mg/kg) and especially gari, a fermented and roasted product (5.7 mg/kg), exhibit markedly lower HCN concentrations [175]. Those results prove that thermal processing alone is insufficient to eliminate cyanogenic compounds and that detoxification techniques—such as fermentation, soaking, and drying—are essential before incorporating cassava flour into bakery formulations.
Despite the high concentration of cyanide in cassava roots, which form a staple component of the diet in many countries, its content can be significantly reduced through the application of the following technological processes:
Peeling—Removing the peel reduces the cyanogenic glycoside content by approximately 50%. This method is particularly effective for sweet cassava varieties [176].
Sun drying of grating/slicing (<5 mm)–Mechanical fragmentation of cassava increases the surface area for interaction between cyanogenic glycosides and the enzyme linamarase, facilitating the breakdown and release of volatile hydrogen cyanide (HCN). Drying (14 h) detoxification is influenced by factors such as moisture content, the rate of moisture removal, and potentially enzyme activity. This process has the potential to reduce cyanogenic compounds by up to 65.9% (G) depending on the degree of fragmentation [177].
Soaking prior to sun drying—The process of soaking cassava in water for a period of 24 h induces hydrolysis of cyanogenic glycosides, potentially reducing HCN levels by up to 90% [178].
Fermentation—Fermentation using specific microorganisms, such as Aspergillus niger or lactic acid bacteria (Lactobacillus plantarum), is highly effective. It can lower HCN content by up to 95% while increasing cassava protein content by 50% [179].
Cooking and baking—The boiling of cassava in water inactivates enzymes that degrade cyanogenic glycosides, thereby reducing toxins. The reduction is more pronounced when smaller pieces of cassava (75% HCN, 2 g) are used in comparison to larger chunks (25% HCN, 50 g). Baking at 110 °C for 20 min reduces cyanide by 13% [23,180]. In baking, cassava flour must be properly detoxified through fermentation, soaking, and drying before use, as baking alone does not eliminate cyanogenic compounds. This is crucial for traditional dishes like cassabe, a South American flatbread made from soaked and fermented cassava or freshly grated roots, with detoxification depending on the variety and cyanide content [23]. Cassava’s gluten-free nature makes it attractive for functional and allergen-free bakery formulations; however, its use must be carefully controlled to ensure both safety—due to cyanogenic glycosides—and adequate product quality.
5.6. Steroidal Glycoalkaloids
α-Solanine and α-chaconine are the principal steroidal glycoalkaloids (SGAs) found in potato tubers, accounting for approximately 95% of the total glycoalkaloid content (TGA). While these compounds contribute to the plant’s defense mechanisms, they can be toxic to humans when consumed in high amounts [181]. SGAs exhibit beneficial bioactive properties at low concentrations, such as anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and cholesterol-lowering effects. However, excessive intake may lead to toxicity. Clinical symptoms can occur after consuming 1–5 mg TGA/kg body weight, with severe poisoning or death possible at 3–6 mg/kg. Reported symptoms include gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea), neurological (dizziness, drowsiness, visual disturbances, seizures), and, in rarer cases, hypothermia, tachycardia, respiratory failure, or coma [182,183]. Regulatory authorities recommend that commercial potato cultivars’ TGA levels not exceed 200 mg/kg fresh weight [181].
Commercial mashed potato flakes show notable variation in glycoalkaloid content, primarily influenced by raw material selection and processing. In a comparative analysis of six commercial products, TGA levels ranged from 33.86 to 81.59 mg/kg, with higher concentrations associated with products likely containing more potato peel, where glycoalkaloids are most concentrated. In contrast, peeled Idaho potatoes used as a control contained only 19.92 mg/kg. The predominance of α-chaconine in several products supports the hypothesis of limited peel removal during processing [184].
Given the tight safety margins and variability in human sensitivity, targeted interventions are essential to mitigate glycoalkaloid content in potato-derived food matrices. The following strategies represent a comprehensive, multi-level approach to reducing TGA levels across the potato supply chain:
Peeling and blanching—Glycoalkaloids are primarily concentrated in the potato peel and the outer 1–1.5 mm of the tuber cortex. Thus, peeling alone can remove up to 60% of total TGA content, while peeling followed by blanching of the tubers in hot water can further increase the reduction up to 90%, due to enhanced leaching and enzymatic deactivation [185,186].
Acidic soaking—Short-term soaking of blanched potato slices in 1% organic acid solutions (e.g., malic, citric, or lactic acid) significantly reduces glycoalkaloid levels—up to 97% for α-chaconine in snacks and 93% in French fries, especially in colored-flesh varieties [187].
Thermal processing—Thermal methods significantly reduced TGA content in potato peels by 52–84%, with frying, baking, and air frying at high temperatures being the most effective, achieving reductions of over 75%, while boiling and steaming were less effective [188]. In whole potatoes, glycoalkaloid levels decrease by approximately 20% after peeling, 8–39% after boiling, and up to 94% after frying, with greater reductions observed in fries than in chips. Boiling has also been more effective than microwaving, resulting in a 40–50% reduction in TGA content [181]. Drying is likewise highly effective, with studies reporting total glycoalkaloid reductions of approximately 80% when preceded by boiling [189].
Cultivar selection—Glycoalkaloid levels vary by potato variety. Colored-flesh cultivars like Double Fun and Mulberry Beauty often have lower TGA content [187]. The selection or breeding of cultivars with low glycoalkaloid content represents a key long-term strategy to reduce dietary exposure to these toxic compounds.
Biotechnological and microbial approaches—Emerging research suggests that certain microbes, such as Arthrobacter spp., and edible fungi like Pleurotus pulmonarius can enzymatically degrade glycoalkaloids to non-toxic metabolites such as solanidine. Although these methods are still experimental, they offer future promise for processing waste streams and valorizing potato pulp [190].
The use of potato-based flours or dried potato products in bakery applications may pose a safety risk due to the thermal stability of glycoalkaloids. α-Solanine and α-chaconine are not significantly degraded during baking (decomposition temperature above 170 °C), and their levels may persist in the final product, mainly if derived from unpeeled, inadequately processed, or improperly stored tubers. Therefore, a quality control strategy, including peeling, blanching (optional), and raw material selection, is essential to ensure the safety of potato-enriched breads and pastries.
A comparison of anti-nutritional risks in tubers is summarized in Table 4.
6. Conclusions
Root and tuber crops are valuable sources of bioactive compounds, offering significant health benefits and functional properties for bakery product development. This review demonstrates that various species, including potato, cassava, beetroot, carrot, yam, and sweet potato, provide compounds such as polyphenols, resistant starch, carotenoids, vitamins, minerals, and prebiotic fibers, which may enhance antioxidant potential, modulate glycemic response, and improve the nutritional profile of baked goods.
However, several limitations and risks must be considered. The presence of acrylamide, formed during high-temperature baking of starchy tubers, poses a potential health risk. Additionally, cyanogenic glycosides in cassava and high FODMAP content in Jerusalem artichoke and yacon may lead to gastrointestinal discomfort or toxicity if not properly processed. These safety concerns underscore the need for adequate technological treatments and standardization protocols.
Despite their promising potential, consumer acceptance may be hindered by color, taste, or texture changes when substituting traditional flour with root vegetable flours. Further research on sensory optimization, labelling, and education is needed to bridge the gap between nutritional value and market viability.
From a practical standpoint, industry stakeholders should focus on optimizing processing methods (e.g., steam blanching, fermentation, low-temperature baking) to enhance the stability and bioavailability of target compounds while minimizing harmful by-products. Nutritionists and food technologists are encouraged to formulate multi-functional bakery products using well-characterized tuber-based ingredients tailored for populations with metabolic disorders, such as diabetes or obesity.
While root and tuber crops offer notable benefits for health-oriented baking, their successful integration into food systems requires balancing functionality, safety, and consumer preferences. A multi-disciplinary approach involving food science, nutrition, and consumer research is essential to unlock their full potential and mitigate the associated drawbacks. A limitation of this study is the absence of a meta-analysis and the exclusion of non-English articles, which may have restricted the breadth of included studies.
Conceptualization, J.H.; methodology, R.W.; investigation, R.W.; data curation, R.W.; writing—original draft preparation, R.W. and E.P.; writing—review and editing, R.W., E.P. and J.H.; funding—E.P.; visualization, J.H.; supervision, J.H.; project administration, J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Edible tubers.
Chemical composition of root vegetables per 100 g of fresh weight (%).
| Raw | Energy [kcal/100 g] | Ash [%] | Carbohydrates [%] | Simple Sugars | FOS [%] | Fat | Protein | Dietary Fiber | Water | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carrot | 41 | 0.7–4.5 | 7–10 | F: 0.8; G: 0.4; S: 4.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 86–89 | [ |
| Potatoes | 80 | 2.1 | 16.8 | F: 0.9; G: 1.0; S: 1.5 | ND | 0.25 | 1.8 | 1.30 | 79 | [ |
| Sweet potatoes | 79 | 1.2 | 17.3 | F: 0.1.2; G: 0.1–1.2; S: 1.6–2.6 | 0.1–0.2 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 4.6 | 63.3–94.4 | [ |
| Beetroot | 43 | 1.1 | 9.6 | Total 6.76 | ND | 0.17 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 87.6 | [ |
| Taro | 112 | 1.2 | 26.4 | F: 0.2–1.4; G: 0.4; S: 0.8–2.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 2.45–4.1 | 70.64 | [ |
| Yam | 118 | 1.0–3.8 | 17.9–21.9 | F: 0.2–1.4; G: 0.14–2.0; S: 0.4–0.7 | 0.2 | 0.2 –0.5 | 3.7–7.5 | 4.1 | 68.1–73.3 | [ |
| Cassava | 110–160 | 0.4–1.7 | 25.3–38.1 | F: 0.3; G: 0.2; S: 1.7 | 0.1–0.2 | 0.1–0.3 | 0.3–3.5 | 0.1–3.7 | 59.7 | [ |
| Yacon | 46–56 | 0.2–0.3 | 10.6–13.1 | F: 0.9; G: 0.4; S: 1.4 | 4–9.1 | 0.1–0.2 | 0.37–0.7 | 0.4–1.1 | 85.9–86.8 | [ |
| Jerusalem artichoke | 73 | 1.9–2.5 | 15.8–17.4 | Total 9.6 | 12–15 | 0.1 | 1.8–2 | 1.6 | 80.3 | [ |
G—glucose, F—fructose, S—sucrose, FOS—fructooligosaccharides, ND—not detected.
Oxalate and phytate content ranges (mg/100 g fw) by vegetable tubers.
| Family | Species | Oxalate | Phytate | References 1 | References 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apiaceae | Carrot | 3–49 | 15–88; 446 ** | [ | [ |
| Amaranthaceae | Beetroot | 39–109 | 5–52 | [ | [ |
| Araceae | Taro | 26.3–109 | 49.6–169 | [ | [ |
| Solanaceae | Potato | ND–26 | 21–55 | [ | [ |
| Dioscoreaceae | Yam | 4–197 | 46–72; 184–363 *; 637 | [ | [ |
| Convolvulaceae | Sweet potato | 467.3–523.9 **; 25.6–793.3 * | ND–12; 50–420 ** | [ | [ |
| Euphorbiaceae | Cassava | 15.7 | 191.2–624 | [ | [ |
| Asteraceae | Jerusalem artichoke | 0.9–22 | 30–190 | [ | [ |
| Yacon | 8.5; 68.1 ** | 273 | [ | [ |
* Dry basis, ** dry mass basis, ND—not detected; 1—references for oxalates; 2—references for phytates.
Comparative table of anti-nutritional risks in tubers.
| Tuber | AA | HCN | α-Solanine, | Phytate | Oxalate | FODMAPs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cassava | Moderate-High | Moderate-High | N.d./N | Moderate-High | Low | Low |
| Potato | Moderate-High | N.d./N | Moderate-High | Low | Low | Low |
| Sweet potato | Moderate | N.d./N | N.d./N | Low | Moderate-High | Low |
| Beetroot | Low-Moderate | N.d./N | N.d./N | Low | Moderate | Low |
| Carrot | Low | N.d./N | N.d./N | Low | Low | Low |
| Taro | Low | N.d./N | N.d./N | Moderate | Moderate | Low |
| Yam | Low | N.d./N | N.d./N | Moderate | Moderate | Low |
| Jerusalem | Low | N.d./N | N.d./N | Low-Moderate | Low | High (inulin rich) |
| Yacon | Low | N.d./N | N.d./N | Moderate | Low | High (FOS rich) |
N.d./N—Not detected or not reported in the reviewed literature.
1. Rosell, M.Á.; Quizhpe, J.; Ayuso, P.; Peñalver, R.; Nieto, G. Proximate Composition, Health Benefits, and Food Applications in Bakery Products of Purple-Fleshed Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) and Its By-Products: A Comprehensive Review. Antioxidants; 2024; 13, 954. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox13080954] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39199200]
2. Quizhpe, J.; Ayuso, P.; Rosell, M.D.L.Á.; Peñalver, R.; Nieto, G. Brassica oleracea var italica and Their By-Products as Source of Bioactive Compounds and Food Applications in Bakery Products. Foods; 2024; 13, 3513. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods13213513] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39517297]
3. Apostol, L.; Belc, N.; Gaceu, L.; Vladut, V.; Oprea, O.B. Chemical Composition and Rheological Parametrs of Helianthus tuberosus Flour Used as a Sources of Bioactive Compounds in Bakery. Rev. Chim.; 2019; 70, pp. 2048-2053. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37358/RC.19.6.7273]
4. Daly, M.E.; Huang, X.; Nitride, C.; Hughes, C.; Tanskanen, J.; Shewry, P.R.; Gethings, L.A.; Mills, E.C. Proteomic Profiling of Celiac-Toxic Motifs and Allergens in Cereals Containing Gluten. J. Proteome Res.; 2025; 24, pp. 2336-2348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.3c00456]
5. Epping, J.; Laibach, N. An underutilized orphan tuber crop—Chinese yam: A review. Planta; 2020; 252, 58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00425-020-03458-3]
6. Sergheeva, E.; Netreba, N. Oil crop pomace as a potential source of portein and dietary fibery. J. Eng. Sci.; 2024; 31, pp. 196-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52326/jes.utm.2024.31(3).14]
7. Pradeepika, C.; Selvakumar, R.; Krishnakumar, T.; Nabi, S.U.; Sajeev, M.S. Pharmacology and Phytochemistry of Underexploited Tuber Crops: A Review. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem.; 2018; 7, pp. 1007-1019.
8. Halim, M.A.; Alharbi, S.A.; Alarfaj, A.A.; Almansour, M.I.; Ansari, M.J.; Nessa, M.J.; Kabir, F.N.A.; Khatun, A.A. Improvement and quality evaluation of gluten-free cake supplemented with sweet potato flour and carrot powder. Appl. Food Res.; 2024; 4, 100543. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2024.100543]
9. Judprasong, K.; Tanjor, S.; Puwastien, P.; Sungpuag, P. Investigation of Thai plants for potential sources of inulin-type fructans. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2011; 24, pp. 642-649. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2010.12.001]
10. Santamaria, M.; Ruiz, M.; Garzon, R.; Rosell, C.M. Comparison of vegetable powders as ingredients of flatbreads: Technological and nutritional properties. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2024; 59, pp. 7203-7212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.17441]
11. Atikur, R.M. Effects of Peeling Methods on Mineral Content of Potato and Development of Potato Based Biscuit. Int. J. Nutr. Food Sci.; 2015; 4, 669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnfs.20150406.21]
12. Dhingra, D.; Michael, M.; Rajput, H.; Patil, R.T. Dietary fibre in foods: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2012; 49, pp. 255-266. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0365-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23729846]
13. Millena, C.G.; Binaday, J.A.B.; Bulawan, C.; Nipas, E.G.D.; Ruivivar, S.S.; Rosales, A.L. Nutritional composition and mineral bioavailability of selected root and tuber crops in the Bicol Region, Philippines. Food Res.; 2024; 8, pp. 382-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.8(2).548] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40559556]
14. Wang, S.; Nie, S.; Zhu, F. Chemical constituents and health effects of sweet potato. Food Res. Int.; 2016; 89, pp. 90-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.08.032]
15. Ceclu, L.; Nistor, O.V. Red Beetroot: Composition and Health Effects—A Review. J. Nutr. Med. Diet. Care; 2020; 5, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.23937/2572-3278.1510043]
16. Mirmiran, P.; Houshialsadat, Z.; Gaeini, Z.; Bahadoran, Z.; Azizi, F. Functional properties of beetroot (Beta vulgaris) in management of cardio-metabolic diseases. Nutr Metab.; 2020; 17, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12986-019-0421-0]
17. Basiony, A.M.; Atta, M.B.; Abd-Elazim, E.I.; Mohamed, A.S. Chemical Composition and Functional Properties of Egyptian Taro (Colocasia esculenta) Mucilage. Al-Azhar J. Agric. Res.; 2022; 47, pp. 185-1901. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21608/ajar.2022.266499]
18. Shah, Y.A.; Saeed, F.; Afzaal, M.; Waris, N.; Ahmad, S.; Shoukat, N.; Ateeq, H. Industrial applications of taro (Colocasia esculenta) as a novel food ingredient: A review. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2022; 46, e16951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16951]
19. Agbor-Egbe, T.; Treche, S. Evaluation of the Chemical Composition of Cameroonian Yam Germplasm. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 1995; 8, pp. 274-283. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jfca.1995.1020]
20. Liu, Y.M.; Lin, K.W. Antioxidative Ability, Dioscorin Stability, and the Quality of Yam Chips from Various Yam Species as Affected by Processing Method. J. Food Sci.; 2009; 74, pp. C118-C125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.01040.x]
21. Mafaldo, Í.M.; Araújo, L.M.; Cabral, L.; Barão, C.E.; Noronha, M.F.; Fink, J.R.; de Albuquerque, T.M.R.; dos Santos Lima, M.; Vidal, H.; Pimentel, T.C.
22. Mohidin, S.R.N.S.P.; Moshawih, S.; Hermansyah, A.; Asmuni, M.I.; Shafqat, N.; Ming, L.C. Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz): A Systematic Review for the Pharmacological Activities, Traditional Uses, Nutritional Values, and Phytochemistry. J. Evid.-Based Integr. Med.; 2023; 28, 2515690X231206227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2515690X231206227] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37822215]
23. Panghal, A.; Munezero, C.; Sharma, P.; Chhikara, N. Cassava toxicity, detoxification and its food applications: A review. Toxin Rev.; 2021; 40, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2018.1560334]
24. Simanca-Sotelo, M.; De Paula, C.; Domínguez-Anaya, Y.; Pastrana-Puche, Y.; Álvarez-Badel, B. Physico-chemical and sensory characterization of sweet biscuits made with Yacon flour (Smallanthus sonchifolius). NFS J.; 2021; 22, pp. 14-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nfs.2020.12.001]
25. Cao, Y.; Ma, Z.; Zhang, H.; Jin, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Hayford, F. Phytochemical Properties and Nutrigenomic Implications of Yacon as a Potential Source of Prebiotic: Current Evidence and Future Directions. Foods; 2018; 7, 59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods7040059]
26. Kim, S.J.; Jin, Y.I.; Nam, J.H.; Hong, S.Y.; Sohn, W.B.; Kwon, O.K.; Chang, D.C.; Cho, H.M.; Jeong, J.C. Comparison of Nutrient Composition of Yacon Germplasm. Korean J. Plant Resour.; 2013; 26, pp. 9-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7732/kjpr.2013.26.1.009]
27. Samal, L.; Chaturvedi, V.B.; Saikumar, G.; Somvanshi, R.; Pattanaik, A.K. Prebiotic potential of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in Wistar rats: Effects of levels of supplementation on hindgut fermentation, intestinal morphology, blood metabolites and immune response. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2015; 95, pp. 1689-1696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6873]
28. Díaz, A.; García, M.A.; Dini, C. Jerusalem artichoke flour as food ingredient and as source of fructooligosaccharides and inulin. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2022; 114, 104863. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2022.104863]
29. Rubel, I.A.; Iraporda, C.; Manrique, G.D.; Genovese, D.B.; Abraham, A.G. Inulin from Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.): From its biosynthesis to its application as bioactive ingredient. Bioact. Carbohydr. Diet. Fibre; 2021; 26, 100281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bcdf.2021.100281]
30. Mogoș, T.; Dondoi, C.; Iacobini, A.E. A review of dietary fiber in the diabetic diet. Rom. J. Diabetes Nutr. Metab. Dis.; 2017; 24, pp. 161-164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/rjdnmd-2017-0021]
31. Nassar, N.M.; de Sousa, M.V. Amino acids profile in cassava, its interspecific hybrid. Genet. Mol. Res.; 2007; 6, pp. 292-297. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17573659]
32. Cozma, A.; Velciov, A.; Popescu, S.; Alexal, E.; Popescu, S.; Mărăzan, V.; Cozma, B.; Radaet, M. Fresh root vegetables as mineralizing foods. Res. J. Agric. Sci.; 2022; 54, pp. 49-56.
33. Sharma, K.D.; Karki, S.; Thakur, N.S.; Attri, S. Chemical composition, functional properties and processing of carrot—A review. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2012; 49, pp. 22-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0310-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23572822]
34. Canja, C.M.; Mazarel, A.; Lupu, M.I.; Margean, A.; Pădureanu, V. Dietary fiber role and place in baking products. Bull. Transilv. Univ. Brasov. Ser. II For. Wood Ind. Agric. Food Eng.; 2016; 9, pp. 91-96.
35. Chen, L.; Zhu, Y.; Hu, Z.; Wu, S.; Jin, C. Beetroot as a functional food with huge health benefits: Antioxidant, antitumor, physical function, and chronic metabolomics activity. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2021; 9, pp. 6406-6420. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2577]
36. Gęsiński, K.; Nowak, K. Comparative analysis of the biological value of protein of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. and Chenopodium album L. Part II. Amino acid composition of the green matter protein. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric.; 2011; 10, pp. 47-56.
37. Kaur, N.; Gupta, A.K. Applications of inulin and oligofructose in health and nutrition. J. Biosci.; 2002; 27, pp. 703-714. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02708379]
38. Yi, B.; Hu, L.; Mei, W.; Zhou, K.; Wang, H.; Luo, Y.; Wei, X.; Dai, H. Antioxidant Phenolic Compounds of Cassava (Manihot esculenta) from Hainan. Molecules; 2011; 16, pp. 10157-10167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules161210157]
39. Ferdaus, M.J.; Chukwu-Munsen, E.; Foguel, A.; da Silva, R.C. Taro Roots: An Underexploited Root Crop. Nutrients; 2023; 15, 3337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu15153337]
40. Shittu, T.A.; Dixon, A.; Awonorin, S.O.; Sanni, L.O.; Maziya-Dixon, B. Bread from composite cassava–wheat flour. II: Effect of cassava genotype and nitrogen fertilizer on bread quality. Food Res. Int.; 2008; 41, pp. 569-578. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2008.03.008]
41. De Masi, L.; Bontempo, P.; Rigano, D.; Stiuso, P.; Carafa, V.; Nebbioso, A.; Piacente, S.; Montoro, P.; Aversano, R.; D’Amelia, V.
42. Cebulak, T.; Krochmal-Marczak, B.; Stryjecka, M.; Krzysztofik, B.; Sawicka, B.; Danilčenko, H.; Jarienè, E. Phenolic Acid Content and Antioxidant Properties of Edible Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) with Various Tuber Flesh Colours. Foods; 2023; 12, 100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12010100] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36613318]
43. Kaszás, L.; Alshaal, T.; El-Ramady, H.; Kovács, Z.; Koroknai, J.; Elhawat, N.; Nagy, É. Finding valuable bioactive components from Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) leaf protein concentrate in a green biorefinery concept. bioXiv; 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1101/866178] arXiv: 866178
44. Kaszás, L.; Alshaal, T.; El-Ramady, H.; Kovács, Z.; Koroknai, J.; Elhawat, N.; Nagy, É. Identification of Bioactive Phytochemicals in Leaf Protein Concentrate of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). Plants; 2020; 9, 889. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants9070889]
45. Kujala, T.S.; Loponen, J.M.; Klika, K.D.; Pihlaja, K. Phenolics and Betacyanins in Red Beetroot (Beta vulgaris) Root: Distribution and Effect of Cold Storage on the Content of Total Phenolics and Three Individual Compounds. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2000; 48, pp. 5338-5342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf000523q]
46. Purkiewicz, A.; Ciborska, J.; Tańska, M.; Narwojsz, A.; Starowicz, M.; Przybyłowicz, K.E.; Sawicki, T. The Impact of the Method Extraction and Different Carrot Variety on the Carotenoid Profile, Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Properties of Juices. Plants; 2020; 9, 1759. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants9121759]
47. Munim, A.; Rod, M.; Tavakoli, H.; Hosseinian, F. An Analysis of the Composition, Health Benefits, and Future Market Potential of the Jerusalem Artichoke in Canada. J. Food Res.; 2017; 6, 69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jfr.v6n5p69]
48. Aigster, A.; Duncan, S.E.; Conforti, F.D.; Barbeau, W.E. Physicochemical properties and sensory attributes of resistant starch-supplemented granola bars and cereals. LWT-Food Sci. Technol.; 2011; 44, pp. 2159-2165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.07.018]
49. Raigond, P.; Ezekiel, R.; Raigond, B. Resistant starch in food: A review. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2015; 95, pp. 1968-1978. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6966]
50. Kavey, R.E.W.; Daniels, S.R.; Lauer, R.M.; Atkins, D.L.; Hayman, L.L.; Taubert, K. American Heart Association Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Beginning in Childhood. Circulation; 2003; 107, pp. 1562-1566. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000061521.15730.6E]
51. Bullock, N.R.; Norton, G. Biotechniques to assess the fermentation of resistant starch in the mammalian gastrointestinal tract. Carbohydr. Polym.; 1999; 38, pp. 225-230. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8617(98)00095-2]
52. Morita, T.; Oh-hashi, A.; Takei, K.; Ikai, M.; Kasaoka, S.; Kiriyama, S. Cholesterol-lowering effects of soybean, potato and rice proteins depend on their low methionine contents in rats fed a cholesterol-free purified diet. J. Nutr.; 1997; 127, pp. 470-477. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jn/127.3.470] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9082032]
53. Ashwar, B.A.; Gani, A.; Shah, A.; Wani, I.A.; Masoodi, F.A. Preparation, health benefits and applications of resistant starch—A review. Starch-Stärke; 2016; 68, pp. 287-301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/star.201500064]
54. Leszczyński, W. Resistant starch–classification, structure, production. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci.; 2004; 54, pp. 37-50.
55. Robertson, T.M.; Alzaabi, A.Z.; Robertson, M.D.; Fielding, B.A. Starchy carbohydrates in a healthy diet: The role of the humble potato. Nutrients; 2018; 10, 1764. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu10111764]
56. Brumovsky, L.A.; Brumovsky, J.O.; Fretes, M.R.; Peralta, J.M. Quantification of resistant starch in several starch sources treated thermally. Int. J. Food Prop.; 2009; 12, pp. 451-460. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942910701867673]
57. Peng, Z.; Cheng, L.; Meng, K.; Shen, Y.; Wu, D.; Shu, X. Retaining a large amount of resistant starch in cooked potato through microwave heating after freeze-drying. Curr. Res. Food Sci.; 2022; 5, pp. 1660-1667. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2022.09.023]
58. Moongngarm, A. Chemical compositions and resistant starch content in starchy foods. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci.; 2013; 8, pp. 107-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3844/ajabssp.2013.107.113]
59. Mejía-Agüero, L.E.; Galeno, F.; Hernández-Hernández, O.; Matehus, J.; Tovar, J. Starch determination, amylose content and susceptibility to in vitro amylolysis in flours from the roots of 25 cassava varieties. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2012; 92, pp. 673-678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4629]
60. Chauhan, D.S.; Vashisht, P.; Bebartta, R.P.; Thakur, D.; Chaudhary, V. Jerusalem Artichoke: A Comprehensive Review of Nutritional Composition, Health Benefits and Emerging Trends in Food Applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.; 2025; 24, e70114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.70114]
61. Spooner, D.M. Solanum tuberosum (Potatoes). Brenner’s Encyclopedia of Genetics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 481-483. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374984-0.01442-X]
62. Temesgen, M.; Retta, N. Nutritional potential, health and food security benefits of taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.)): A review. Food Sci. Qual. Manag.; 2015; 36, pp. 23-26.
63. Zekarias, T.; Basa, B.; Herago, T. Medicinal, nutritional and anti-nutritional properties of cassava (Manihot esculenta): A review. Acad. J. Nutr.; 2019; 8, pp. 34-46.
64. Dhawan, D.; Sharma, S. Exploration of the nourishing, antioxidant and product development potential of beetroot (Beta vulgaris) flour. Int. J. Health Sci. Res.; 2019; 9, pp. 280-284.
65. Atalo, E.G.; Rollon, R.J.C.; Jabagat, G.D. Impact of nutrient management strategies on cassava performance, nutrient uptake, and economic returns in Agusan del Sur, Philippines. Ceylon J. Sci.; 2025; 54, pp. 515-525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4038/cjs.v54i2.8550]
66. Zhou, L.; Mu, T.H.; Ma, M.M.; Zhang, R.F.; Sun, Q.H.; Xu, Y.W. Nutritional evaluation of different cultivars of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) from China by grey relational analysis (GRA) and its application in potato steamed bread making. J. Integr. Agric.; 2019; 18, pp. 231-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(18)62137-9]
67. Zhang, L.; Gao, Y.; Deng, B.; Ru, W.; Tong, C.; Bao, J. Physicochemical, nutritional, and antioxidant properties in seven sweet potato flours. Front. Nutr.; 2022; 9, 923257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.923257]
68. Rodriguez-Amaya, D.B.; Nutti, M.R.; Viana de Carvalho, J.L. Carotenoids of sweet potato, cassava, and maize and their use in bread and flour fortification. Flour and Breads and Their Fortification in Health and Disease Prevention; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 301-311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-380886-8.10028-5]
69. Tharise, N.; Julianti, E.; Nurminah, M. Evaluation of physico-chemical and functional properties of composite flour from cassava, rice, potato, soybean and xanthan gum as alternative of wheat flour. Int. Food Res. J.; 2014; 21, pp. 1641-1649.
70. Chhikara, N.; Kushwaha, K.; Jaglan, S.; Sharma, P.; Panghal, A. Nutritional, physicochemical, and functional quality of beetroot (Beta vulgaris L.) incorporated Asian noodles. Cereal Chem.; 2019; 96, pp. 154-161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cche.10126]
71. Clifford, T.; Howatson, G.; West, D.; Stevenson, E. The potential benefits of red beetroot supplementation in health and disease. Nutrients; 2015; 7, pp. 2801-2822. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu7042801]
72. Purewal, S.S.; Verma, P.; Kaur, P.; Sandhu, K.S.; Singh, R.S.; Kaur, A.; Salar, R.K. A comparative study on proximate composition, mineral profile, bioactive compounds and antioxidant properties in diverse carrot (Daucus carota L.) flour. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.; 2023; 48, 102640. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2023.102640]
73. Bashir, R.; Tabassum, S.; Rashid, A.; Rehman, S.; Adnan, A.; Ghaffar, R. Bioactive components of root vegetables. Advances in Root Vegetables Research; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.105961]
74. Tian, Z.; Dong, T.; Wang, S.; Sun, J.; Chen, H.; Zhang, N.; Wang, S. A comprehensive review on botany, chemical composition and the impacts of heat processing and dehydration on the aroma formation of fresh carrot. Food Chem. X; 2024; 22, 101201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101201] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38550883]
75. Franková, H.; Musilová, J.; Árvay, J.; Šnirc, M.; Jančo, I.; Lidiková, J.; Vollmannová, A. Changes in antioxidant properties and phenolics in sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas L.) due to heat treatments. Molecules; 2022; 27, 1884. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27061884]
76. Musilová, J.; Franková, H.; Fedorková, S.; Lidiková, J.; Vollmannová, A.; Sulírová, K.; Árvay, J.; Kasal, P. Comparison of polyphenols, phenolic acids, and antioxidant activity in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) tubers after heat treatments. J. Agric. Food Res.; 2024; 18, 101271. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101271]
77. Corrêa, A.C.N.T.F.; Vericimo, M.A.; Dashevskiy, A.; Pereira, P.R.; Paschoalin, V.M.F. Liposomal taro lectin nanocapsules control human glioblastoma and mammary adenocarcinoma cell proliferation. Molecules; 2019; 24, 471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules24030471]
78. Agyare, C.; Boakye, Y.D. Antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties of Anchomanes difformis (Bl.) Engl. and Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott. Biochem. Pharmacol.; 2015; 5, 1000201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2167-0501.1000201]
79. Baro, M.R.; Das, M.; Kalita, A.; Das, B.; Sarma, K. Exploring the anti-inflammatory potential of Colocasia esculenta root extract in in-vitro and in-vivo models of inflammation. J. Ethnopharmacol.; 2023; 303, 116021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2022.116021]
80. Li, H.; Hwang, S.; Kang, B.; Hong, J.; Lim, S. Inhibitory effects of Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott constituents on aldose reductase. Molecules; 2014; 19, pp. 13212-13224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules190913212]
81. Chakraborty, P.; Deb, P.; Chakraborty, S.; Chatterjee, B.; Abraham, J. Cytotoxicity and antimicrobial activity of Colocasia esculenta. J. Chem. Pharm. Res.; 2015; 7, pp. 627-635.
82. Elmosallamy, A.; Eltawil, N.; Ibrahim, S.; Hussein, S. Phenolic profile: Antimicrobial activity and antioxidant capacity of Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott. Egypt. J. Chem.; 2021; 64, pp. 2165-2172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21608/ejchem.2021.56495.3213]
83. Mergedus, A.; Kristl, J.; Ivancic, A.; Sober, A.; Sustar, V.; Krizan, T.; Lebot, V. Variation of mineral composition in different parts of taro (Colocasia esculenta) corms. Food Chem.; 2015; 170, pp. 37-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.08.025]
84. Nagar, C.K.; Dash, S.K.; Rayaguru, K.; Pal, U.S.; Nedunchezhiyan, M. Isolation, characterization, modification and uses of taro starch: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2021; 192, pp. 574-589. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.10.041] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34653440]
85. Baião, D.; De Freitas, C.; Gomes, L.; Da Silva, D.; Correa, A.; Pereira, P.; Aguila, E.; Paschoalin, V. Polyphenols from root, tubercles and grains cropped in Brazil: Chemical and nutritional characterization and their effects on human health and diseases. Nutrients; 2017; 9, 1044. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu9091044] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28930173]
86. Eze, F.O.; Mukosha, C.E.; Anozie, C.; Moudrý, J.; Ali, S.; Ghorbani, M.; Amirahmadi, E.; Baloch, S.B.; Baiyeri, K.P. Response of carrots (Daucus carota) on the growth, yield, and nutritional composition to varying poultry manure rates. Agric. Res.; 2024; 13, pp. 841-850. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40003-024-00723-9]
87. Verma, R.; Chandra, S.; Patel, S.V.; Sardar, R.S.S.; Patel, V. Cassava processing and its food application: A review. Pharma Innov. J.; 2022; 11, pp. 415-422.
88. Fang, Z.; Wu, D.; Yü, D.; Ye, X.; Liu, D.; Chen, J. Phenolic compounds in Chinese purple yam and changes during vacuum frying. Food Chem.; 2011; 128, pp. 943-948. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.03.123]
89. Brown, C.R. Breeding for phytonutrient enhancement of potato. Am. J. Potato Res.; 2008; 85, pp. 298-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12230-008-9028-0]
90. Brown, C.R.; Durst, R.W.; Wrolstad, R.; De Jong, W. Variability of phytonutrient content of potato in relation to growing location and cooking method. Potato Res.; 2008; 51, pp. 259-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11540-008-9115-0]
91. Pandey, J.; Gautam, S.; Scheuring, D.C.; Koym, J.W.; Vales, M.I. Variation and Genetic Basis of Mineral Content in Potato Tubers and Prospects for Genomic Selection. Front. Plant Sci.; 2023; 14, 1301297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1301297]
92. Showkat, M.M.; Falck-Ytter, A.B.; Strætkvern, K.O. Phenolic acids in Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.): Plant organ dependent antioxidant activity and optimized extraction from leaves. Molecules; 2019; 24, 3296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules24183296]
93. Ayele, E.; Urga, K.; Chandravanshi, B.S. Effect of cooking temperature on mineral content and anti-nutritional factors of yam and taro grown in southern Ethiopia. Int. J. Food Eng.; 2015; 11, pp. 371-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijfe-2014-0264]
94. Price, E.J.; Bhattacharjee, R.; Lopez-Montes, A.; Fraser, P.D. Carotenoid profiling of yams: Clarity, comparisons and diversity. Food Chem.; 2018; 259, pp. 130-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.03.066] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29680035]
95. Caetano, B.; De Moura, N.; Almeida, A.; Dias, M.; Sivieri, K.; Barbisan, L. Yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) as a food supplement: Health-promoting benefits of fructooligosaccharides. Nutrients; 2016; 8, 436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu8070436] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27455312]
96. Pereira, J.D.A.R.; Barcelos, M.D.F.P.; Pereira, M.C.D.A.; Ferreira, E.B. Studies of chemical and enzymatic characteristics of yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) and its flours. Food Sci. Technol.; 2013; 33, pp. 75-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-20612013005000020]
97. Sousa, S.; Pinto, J.; Rodrigues, C.; Gião, M.; Pereira, C.; Tavaria, F.; Malcata, F.X.; Gomes, A.; Pacheco, M.B.; Pintado, M. Antioxidant properties of sterilized yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) tuber flour. Food Chem.; 2015; 188, pp. 504-509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.04.047]
98. de Almeida Paula, H.A.; Abranches, M.V.; de Luces Fortes Ferreira, C.L. Yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius): A food with multiple functions. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2015; 55, pp. 32-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2011.645259] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24915403]
99. Trinidad, T.P.; Mallillin, A.C.; Sagum, R.S.; Encabo, R.R. Glycemic index of commonly consumed carbohydrate foods in the Philippines. J. Funct. Foods; 2010; 2, pp. 271-274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2010.10.002]
100. Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17226/10490]
101. Jansky, S.; Fajardo, D. Amylose content decreases during tuber development in potato. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2016; 96, pp. 4560-4564. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7673]
102. Nayak, B.; Berrios, J.D.J.; Tang, J. Impact of food processing on the glycemic index (GI) of potato products. Food Res. Int.; 2014; 56, pp. 35-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.12.020]
103. Foster-Powell, K.; Holt, S.H.; Brand-Miller, J.C. International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2002; 76, pp. 5-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/76.1.5]
104. Monro, J.; Mishra, S.; Blandford, E.; Anderson, J.; Genet, R. Potato genotype differences in nutritionally distinct starch fractions after cooking, and cooking plus storing cool. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2009; 22, pp. 539-545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2008.11.008]
105. Iancu, M.L. Effect of potato (Solanum tuberosum) addition on dough properties, sensory qualities and resistant starch content of bread. Ann. Univ. Dunarea Jos Galaţi Fascicle VI-Food Technol.; 2015; 39, pp. 93-108.
106. Kumar, A.; Mahapatra, S.; Nayak, L.; Biswal, M.; Sahoo, U.; Lal, M.K.; Nayak, A.K.; Pati, K. Tuber crops could be a potential food component for lowering starch digestibility and estimated glycemic index in rice. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2024; 104, pp. 8519-8528. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.13679] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38953558]
107. Ajani, R.; Oboh, G.; Adefegha, S.A.; Nwokocha, K.E.; Akindahunsi, A.A. Sensory attributes, nutritional qualities, and glycemic indices of bread blends produced from cocoa powder flavored yellow-fleshed cassava-wheat composite flours. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2020; 44, e14673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14673]
108. Çetin Babaoğlu, H.; Arslan Tontul, S.; Akin, N. Fiber enrichment of sourdough bread by inulin rich Jerusalem artichoke powder. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2021; 45, e15928. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.15928]
109. Radovanovic, A.M.; Milovanovic, Z.Z.; Kipic, M.Z.; Ninkovic, M.B.; Cupara, S.M. Characterization of bread enriched with Jerusalem artichoke powder content. J. Food Nutr. Res.; 2014; 2, pp. 895-898. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12691/jfnr-2-12-6]
110. Rolim, P.M.; Salgado, S.M.; Padilha, V.M.; Livera, A.V.S.; Andrade, S.A.C.; Guerra, N.B. Glycemic profile and prebiotic potential “in vitro” of bread with yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) flour. Ciênc. Tecnol. Aliment.; 2011; 31, pp. 467-474. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-20612011000200029]
111. Liu, X.; Lu, K.; Yu, J.; Copeland, L.; Wang, S.; Wang, S. Effect of purple yam flour substitution for wheat flour on in vitro starch digestibility of wheat bread. Food Chem.; 2019; 284, pp. 118-124. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.01.025]
112. Simsek, S.; El, S.N. In vitro starch digestibility, estimated glycemic index and antioxidant potential of taro (Colocasia esculenta L. Schott) corm. Food Chem.; 2015; 168, pp. 257-261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.07.052]
113. Ramdath, D.D.; Isaacs, R.L.C.; Teelucksingh, S.; Wolever, T.M.S. Glycaemic index of selected staples commonly eaten in the Caribbean and the effects of boiling v. crushing. Br. J. Nutr.; 2004; 91, pp. 971-977. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1079/BJN20041125]
114. Jaworska, D.; Mojska, H.; Gielecińska, I.; Najman, K.; Gondek, E.; Przybylski, W.; Krzyczkowska, P. The effect of vegetable and spice addition on the acrylamide content and antioxidant activity of innovative cereal products. Food Addit. Contam. Part A; 2019; 36, pp. 374-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2019.1577991]
115. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Scientific Opinion on acrylamide in food. EFSA J.; 2015; 13, 4104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4104]
116. Semla, M.; Goc, Z.; Martiniaková, M.; Omelka, R.; Formicki, G. Acrylamide: A common food toxin related to physiological functions and health. Physiol. Res.; 2017; 66, pp. 205-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33549/physiolres.933381] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27982682]
117. Pacetti, D.; Gil, E.; Frega, N.G.; Álvarez, L.; Dueñas, P.; Garzón, A.; Lucci, P. Acrylamide levels in selected Colombian foods. Food Addit. Contam. Part B; 2015; 8, pp. 99-105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19393210.2014.995236] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25494681]
118. Amrein, T.M.; Bachmann, S.; Noti, A.; Biedermann, M.; Barbosa, M.F.; Biedermann-Brem, S.; Grob, K.; Keiser, A.; Realini, P.; Escher, F.
119. Gomes, P.T.C.; Nassar, N.M.A. Cassava interspecific hybrids with increased protein content and improved amino acid profiles. Genet. Mol. Res.; 2013; 12, pp. 1214-1222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4238/2013.April.12.8]
120. Lim, P.K.; Jinap, S.; Sanny, M.; Tan, C.P.; Khatib, A. The influence of deep frying using various vegetable oils on acrylamide formation in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L. Lam) chips. J. Food Sci.; 2014; 79, pp. C173-C178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12250]
121. Njintang, N.Y.; Boudjeko, T.; Tatsadjieu, L.N.; Nguema-Ona, E.; Scher, J.; Mbofung, C.M.F. Compositional, spectroscopic and rheological analyses of mucilage isolated from taro (Colocasia esculenta L. Schott) corms. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2014; 51, pp. 900-907. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0580-0]
122. Choińska, R.; Piasecka-Jóźwiak, K.; Woźniak, Ł.; Świder, O.; Bartosiak, E.; Bujak, M.; Roszko, M.Ł. Starter culture-related changes in free amino acids, biogenic amines profile, and antioxidant properties of fermented red beetroot grown in Poland. Sci. Rep.; 2022; 12, 20063. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24690-9]
123. Stolz, P.; Strube, J. Determination of the physiological amino acid status for identification of the culture system of wheat and carrots—Method and validation. Biol. Agric. Hortic.; 2010; 27, pp. 107-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2010.10510433]
124. Danilcenko, H.; Jariene, E.; Gajewski, M.; Sawicka, B.; Kulaitiene, J.; Cerniauskiene, J. Changes in amino acids content in tubers of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) cultivars during storage. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus; 2013; 12, pp. 97-105.
125. Varma, K.; John, J.A. Cost-effective approaches for acrylamide mitigation in high-temperature-processed tuber snacks. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2022; 46, e17274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.17274]
126. Swiacka, J.; Kima, L.; Voß, A.; Grebenteuch, S.; Rohn, S.; Jekle, M. Special bakery products—Acrylamide formation and bread quality are influenced by potato addition. J. Cereal Sci.; 2024; 117, 103926. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2024.103926]
127. Swiacka, J.; Kima, L.; Voß, A.; Bork, L.V.; Grebenteuch, S.; Rohn, S.; Jekle, M. Carrot strips of various origins: Impact on acrylamide formation in baked goods. LWT; 2024; 204, 116453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2024.116453]
128. Hamlet, C.G.; Sadd, P.A.; Liang, L. Correlations between the Amounts of Free Asparagine and Saccharides Present in Commercial Cereal Flours in the United Kingdom and the Generation of Acrylamide during Cooking. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2008; 56, pp. 6145-6153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf703743g]
129. Gibson, P.R.; Shepherd, S.J. Evidence-based dietary management of functional gastrointestinal symptoms: The FODMAP approach. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.; 2010; 25, pp. 252-258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06149.x]
130. Ostermann-Porcel, M.V.; Rinaldoni, A.N.; Campderrós, M.E. Assessment of Jerusalem artichoke as a source for the production of gluten-free flour and fructan concentrate by ultrafiltration. Appl. Food Res.; 2022; 2, 100201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2022.100201]
131. Melilli, M.G.; Buzzanca, C.; Di Stefano, V. Quality characteristics of cereal-based foods enriched with different degree of polymerization inulin: A review. Carbohydr. Polym.; 2024; 332, 121918. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2024.121918]
132. Utami, N.W.A.; Sone, T.; Tanaka, M.; Nakatsu, C.H.; Saito, A.; Asano, K. Comparison of yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius) tuber with commercialized fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) in terms of physiology, fermentation products and intestinal microbial communities in rats. Biosci. Microbiota Food Health; 2013; 32, pp. 167-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12938/bmfh.32.167]
133. Costa, G.T.; Vasconcelos, Q.D.J.S.; Abreu, G.C.; Albuquerque, A.O.; Vilar, J.L.; Aragão, G.F. Systematic review of the ingestion of fructooligosaccharides on the absorption of minerals and trace elements versus control groups. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN; 2021; 41, pp. 68-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.11.007]
134. Morariu, I.D.; Avasilcai, L.; Vieriu, M.; Lupu, V.V.; Morariu, B.A.; Lupu, A.; Morariu, P.C.; Pop, O.L.; Starcea, I.M.; Trandafir, L. Effects of a low-FODMAP diet on irritable bowel syndrome in both children and adults—A narrative review. Nutrients; 2023; 15, 2295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu15102295]
135. Udoro, E.O.; Anyasi, T.A.; Jideani, A.I.O. Process-induced modifications on quality attributes of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) flour. Processes; 2021; 9, 1891. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr9111891]
136. Chumpitazi, B.P.; Lim, J.; McMeans, A.R.; Shulman, R.J.; Hamaker, B.R. Evaluation of FODMAP carbohydrates content in selected foods in the United States. J. Pediatr.; 2018; 199, pp. 252-255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.03.038] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29706489]
137. Atzler, J.J.; Sahin, A.W.; Gallagher, E.; Zannini, E.; Arendt, E.K. Characteristics and properties of fibres suitable for a low FODMAP diet—An overview. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2021; 112, pp. 823-836. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.04.023]
138. Sancho, R.A.S.; Souza, J.D.R.; de Lima, F.A.; Pastore, G.M. Evaluation of oligosaccharide profiles in selected cooked tubers and roots subjected to in vitro digestion. LWT-Food Sci. Technol.; 2017; 76, pp. 270-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.07.046]
139. Alowo, D.; Olum, S.; Mukisa, I.M.; Ongeng, D. Effect of thermal and non-thermal processing on fermentable oligo-di-monosaccharides and polyols (FODMAPs) content in millet, sorghum, soybean and sesame varieties. Front. Nutr.; 2025; 12, 1520510. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2025.1520510]
140. Franco-Robles, E.; López, M.G. Implication of fructans in health: Immunomodulatory and antioxidant mechanisms. Sci. World J.; 2015; 2015, 289267. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/289267]
141. Bae, J.-H.; Kim, H.-J.; Kim, M.-J.; Sung, B.H.; Jeon, J.-H.; Kim, H.-S.; Jin, Y.-S.; Kweon, D.-H.; Sohn, J.-H. Direct fermentation of Jerusalem artichoke tuber powder for production of l-lactic acid and d-lactic acid by metabolically engineered Kluyveromyces marxianus. J. Biotechnol.; 2018; 266, pp. 27-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2017.12.001]
142. Flores, A.C.; Morlett, J.A.; Rodríguez, R. Inulin potential for enzymatic obtaining of prebiotic oligosaccharides. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2016; 56, pp. 1893-1902. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2013.807220]
143. Matias, S.; Perez-Junkera, G.; Martínez, O.; Miranda, J.; Larretxi, I.; Peña, L.; Bustamante, M.Á.; Churruca, I.; Simón, E. FODMAP Content Like-by-like Comparison in Spanish Gluten-free and Gluten-containing Cereal-based Products. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr.; 2024; 79, pp. 545-550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11130-024-01177-8]
144. Thakur, A.; Sharma, V.; Thakur, A. An overview of anti-nutritional factors in food. Int. J. Chem. Stud.; 2019; 7, pp. 2472-2479.
145. Ooko Abong, G.; Muzhingi, T.; Wandayi Okoth, M.; Ng’ang’a, F.; Ochieng’, P.E.; Mahuga Mbogo, D.; Malavi, D.; Akhwale, M.; Ghimire, S. Phytochemicals in leaves and roots of selected Kenyan orange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) varieties. Int. J. Food Sci.; 2020; 2020, 3567972. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/3567972] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32083118]
146. Marfo, E.K.; Simpson, B.K.; Idowu, J.S.; Oke, O.L. Effect of local food processing on phytate levels in cassava, cocoyam, yam, maize, sorghum, rice, cowpea and soybean. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 1990; 38, pp. 1580-1585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf00097a032]
147. Akhtar, M.S.; Israr, B.; Bhatty, N.; Ali, A. Effect of cooking on soluble and insoluble oxalate contents in selected Pakistani vegetables and beans. Int. J. Food Prop.; 2011; 14, pp. 241-249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942910903326056]
148. Chai, W.; Liebman, M. Effect of different cooking methods on vegetable oxalate content. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2005; 53, pp. 3027-3030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf048128d] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15826055]
149. Abdi, F.A.; Gemede, H.F.; Olika Keyata, E. Nutritional composition, antinutrient contents, and polyphenol compounds of selected underutilized and some commonly consumed vegetables in East Wollega, West Ethiopia. J. Food Qual.; 2022; 2022, 6942039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/6942039]
150. Khokhar, S.; Pushpanjali,; Fenwick, G.R. Phytate content of Indian foods and intakes by vegetarian Indians of Hisar Region, Haryana State. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 1994; 42, pp. 2440-2444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf00047a014]
151. Santamaria, P.; Elia, A.; Serio, F.; Todaro, E. A survey of nitrate and oxalate content in fresh vegetables. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 1999; 79, pp. 1882-1888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199910)79:13<1882::AID-JSFA450>3.0.CO;2-D]
152. Phillippy, B.Q. Inositol phosphates in foods. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; Volume 45, pp. 1-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1043-4526(03)45002-X]
153. Savage, G.P.; Mårtensson, L. Comparison of the estimates of the oxalate content of taro leaves and corms and a selection of Indian vegetables following hot water, hot acid and in vitro extraction methods. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2010; 23, pp. 113-117. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2009.07.001]
154. Kaushal, P.; Kumar, V.; Sharma, H.K. Comparative study of physicochemical, functional, antinutritional and pasting properties of taro (Colocasia esculenta), rice (Oryza sativa) flour, pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) flour and their blends. LWT-Food Sci. Technol.; 2012; 48, pp. 59-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2012.02.028]
155. Uwamariya, V.; Wamalwa, L.N.; Anyango, J.; Nduko, J.M.; Indieka, A.S. Variation and correlation of corm trace elements, anti-nutrients and sensory attributes of taro crisps. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2021; 100, 103896. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2021.103896]
156. Holmes, R.P.; Kennedy, M. Estimation of the oxalate content of foods and daily oxalate intake. Kidney Int.; 2000; 57, pp. 1662-1667. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2000.00010.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10760101]
157. Joung, H.; Nam, G.; Yoon, S.; Lee, J.; Shim, J.E.; Paik, H.Y. Bioavailable zinc intake of Korean adults in relation to the phytate content of Korean foods. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2004; 17, pp. 713-724. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2003.10.002]
158. Raj Bhandari, M.; Kawabata, J. Cooking effects on oxalate, phytate, trypsin and α-amylase inhibitors of wild yam tubers of Nepal. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2006; 19, pp. 524-530. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2004.09.010]
159. Siener, R.; Seidler, A.; Voss, S.; Hesse, A. The oxalate content of fruit and vegetable juices, nectars and drinks. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2016; 45, pp. 108-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.10.004]
160. Gouveia, C.S.; Ganança, J.F.; Lebot, V.; Pinheiro de Carvalho, M.Â. Changes in oxalate composition and other nutritive traits in root tubers and shoots of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L. [Lam.]) under water stress. J. Sci. Food Agric.; 2020; 100, pp. 1702-1710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10185]
161. Judprasong, K.; Archeepsudcharit, N.; Chantapiriyapoon, K.; Tanaviyutpakdee, P.; Temviriyanukul, P. Nutrients and natural toxic substances in commonly consumed Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) tuber. Food Chem.; 2018; 238, pp. 173-179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.09.116]
162. Gonzales, M.G.; Del Rosario, R.M.; Walag, A.M.P. Proximate biochemical composition and antinutritional analyses of the selected parts of yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius). Asian J. Biol. Life Sci.; 2023; 12, pp. 352-358.
163. Asiyanbi-Hammed, T.T.; Simsek, S. Comparison of physical and chemical properties of wheat flour, fermented yam flour, and unfermented yam flour. J. Food Process. Preserv.; 2018; 42, e13844. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13844]
164. Williams, H.E.; Wandzilak, T.R. Oxalate synthesis, transport and the hyperoxaluric syndromes. J. Urol.; 1989; 141, pp. 742-747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)40999-2]
165. Sanz, P.; Reig, R. Clinical and pathological findings in fatal plant oxalosis. Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol.; 1992; 13, pp. 342-345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000433-199212000-00016]
166. Marcason, W. Where Can I Find Information on the Oxalate Content of Foods?. J. Am. Diet. Assoc.; 2006; 106, pp. 627-628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2006.02.023] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16567159]
167. Donkor, E.F.; Nyadanu, D.; Akromah, R.; Osei, K.; Odoom, D.A. Evaluation and phenotypic plasticity of taro [Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott.] genotypes for nutrient and anti-nutrient composition. PLoS ONE; 2023; 18, e0291358. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291358] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37703222]
168. Vetter, J. Plant cyanogenic glycosides. Toxicon; 2000; 38, pp. 11-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0041-0101(99)00128-2] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10669009]
169. JECFA. Safety Evaluation of Certain Food Additives and Contaminants; WHO Food Additives Series No. 65; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; Volume 65.
170. Abraham, K.; Buhrke, T.; Lampen, A. Bioavailability of cyanide after consumption of a single meal of foods containing high levels of cyanogenic glycosides: A crossover study in humans. Arch. Toxicol.; 2016; 90, pp. 559-574. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-015-1479-8]
171. Aloys, N.; Hui Ming, Z. Traditional cassava foods in Burundi—A review. Food Rev. Int.; 2006; 22, pp. 1-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87559120500379761]
172. Wobeto, C.; Corrêa, A.D.; Abreu, C.M.P.; Santos, C.D.; Pereira, H.V. Antinutrients in the cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) leaf powder at three ages of the plant. Ciênc. Tecnol. Aliment.; 2007; 27, pp. 108-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0101-20612007000100019]
173. Siritunga, D.; Sayre, R.T. Generation of cyanogen-free transgenic cassava. Planta; 2003; 217, pp. 367-373. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00425-003-1005-8]
174. Nilusha, R.A.T.; Jayasinghe, J.M.J.K.; Perera, O.D.A.N.; Perera, P.I.P.; Jayasinghe, C.V.L. Proximate Composition, Physicochemical, Functional, and Antioxidant Properties of Flours from Selected Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) Varieties. Int. J. Food Sci.; 2021; 2021, 6064545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/6064545]
175. Forkum, A.T.; Wung, A.E.; Kelese, M.T.; Ndum, C.M.; Lontum, A.; Kamga, E.B.; Nsaikila, M.N.; Okwen, P.M. Safety of Cassava and Cassava-Based Products: A Systematic Review. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2025; 9, 1497609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1497609]
176. Salami, O.S.; Salami, F.K. Fermentation: A means of treating and improving the nutrition content of cassava (Manihot esculenta C.) peels and reducing its cyanide content. Genom. Appl. Biol.; 2017; 8, pp. 17-25.
177. Akonor, P.T.; Dziedzoave, N.T.; Ofori, H. Degradation of cyanogenic glycosides during the processing of high quality cassava flour (HQCF). Ann. Food Sci. Technol.; 2015; 16, pp. 471-478.
178. Nebiyu, A. Soaking and drying of cassava roots reduced cyanogenic potential of three cassava varieties at Jimma, Southwest Ethiopia. Afr. J. Biotechnol.; 2011; 10, pp. 13465-13469. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJB10.2636]
179. Birk, R.; Bravdo, B.; Shoseyov, O. Detoxification of Cassava by Aspergillus Niger B-1; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1996; Volume 45, pp. 411-414.
180. Nambisan, B. Evaluation of the effect of various processing techniques on cyanogen content reduction in cassava. Acta Hortic.; 1994; 375, pp. 193-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1994.375.17]
181. Jayanty, S.S.; Kalita, D.; Bough, R. Effects of Cooking Methods on Nutritional Content in Potato Tubers. Am. J. Potato Res.; 2019; 96, pp. 183-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12230-018-09704-5]
182. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Scientific opinion on glycoalkaloids in food and feed. EFSA J.; 2020; 18, 6222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6222]
183. Romanucci, V.; Pisanti, A.; Di Fabio, G.; Davinelli, S.; Scapagnini, G.; Guaragna, A.; Zarrelli, A. Toxin levels in different varieties of potatoes: Alarming contents of α-chaconine. Phytochem. Lett.; 2016; 16, pp. 103-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phytol.2016.03.013]
184. Kondamudi, N.; Smith, J.K.; McDougal, O.M. Determination of Glycoalkaloids in Potatoes and Potato Products by Microwave Assisted Extraction. Am. J. Potato Res.; 2017; 94, pp. 153-159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12230-016-9558-9]
185. Rytel, E.; Tajner-Czopek, A.; Kita, A.; Kucharska, A.Z.; Sokół-Łętowska, A.; Hamouz, K. Content of anthocyanins and glycoalkaloids in blue-fleshed potatoes and changes in the content of α-solanine and α-chaconine during manufacture of fried and dried products. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2018; 53, pp. 719-727. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13647]
186. Friedman, M.; Levin, C.E. Glycoalkaloids and Calystegine Alkaloids in Potatoes. Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology; 2nd ed. Singh, J.; Kaur, L. Academic Press: London, UK, 2016; Chapter 7 pp. 167-194.
187. Pęksa, A.; Tajner-Czopek, A.; Gryszkin, A.; Miedzianka, J.; Rytel, E.; Wolny, S. Assessment of the Content of Glycoalkaloids in Potato Snacks Made from Colored Potatoes, Resulting from the Action of Organic Acids and Thermal Processing. Foods; 2024; 13, 1712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods13111712]
188. Martínez-García, I.; Pérez-Quintanilla, D.; Morante Zarcero, S.; Sierra Alonso, I. Effect of Various Culinary Treatments on the Glycoalkaloid Content of Potato Peel. J. Food Compos. Anal.; 2025; 137, 106937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2024.106937]
189. Ezekiel, R.; Singh, N. Use of Potato Flour in Bread and Flat Bread. Flour and Breads and Their Fortification in Health and Disease Prevention; Preedy, V.R.; Watson, R.R.; Patel, V.B. Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 247-259. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-380886-8.10023-6]
190. Happel, K.; Müller, L.; Hartwig, C.; Zorn, H. Degradation of potato pulp glycoalkaloids by cultivation of Pleurotus pulmonarius and Flammulina velutipes. Eur. Food Res. Technol.; 2025; 251, pp. 1481-1494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00217-025-04796-w]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Harasym Joanna 2
1 Department of Biotechnology and Food Analysis, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland; [email protected] (R.W.); [email protected] (J.H.)
2 Department of Biotechnology and Food Analysis, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Komandorska 118/120, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland; [email protected] (R.W.); [email protected] (J.H.), Adaptive Food Systems Accelerator-Science Centre, Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, 53-345 Wroclaw, Poland