Article

Profiling the Nutritional, Phytochemical, and Functional

Properties of Mung Bean Varieties
Fekiya Mohammed Idris 1,2,3 , Kelbessa Urga 4 , Habtamu Admassu 2,3, * , Eskindir Getachew Fentie 2,5 ,
Sook-Min Kwon 6 and Jae-Ho Shin 5,6,7, *

1 Center for Food Science and Nutrition, College of Natural Sciences, Addis Ababa University,
Addis Ababa 16417, Ethiopia; mfekiya@yahoo.com
2 Department of Chemical Engineering, Food Process Engineering Program, College of Engineering, Addis
Ababa Science and Technology University, Addis Ababa 16417, Ethiopia; eskench@gmail.com
3 Biotechnology and Bioprocess Center of Excellence, Addis Ababa Science and Technology University,
Addis Ababa 16417, Ethiopia
4 Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Ministry of Health, Addis Ababa 1242, Ethiopia; kelbessau@yahoo.com
5 NGS Center, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Republic of Korea
6 Department of Integrative Biotechnology, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Republic of Korea;
ksv6178@gmail.com
7 Department of Applied Biosciences, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Republic of Korea
* Correspondence: hadtess2009@gmail.com (H.A.); jhshin@knu.ac.kr (J.-H.S.)

Abstract: The Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (EARI) adopted four mung bean
varieties for cultivation, following extensive research on their adaptability, productivity,
and drought tolerance. However, the physicochemical, techno-functional, and antioxidant
properties of these cultivars, which can vary significantly due to genetic and agro-ecological
differences, have not been sufficiently explored in previous research. Hence, this study
aimed to elucidate these properties to facilitate their seamless integration into food formu-
lation and product development. The study results revealed that the protein content of
these varieties ranged from 22.63 to 25.84 g/100 g, while carbohydrate content ranged from
54.9 to 58.82 g/100 g. Moreover, all examined varieties exhibited elevated levels of essential
amino acids, particularly lysine, phenylalanine, and leucine. The foaming capacity and
emulsion activity varied between 40.27–49.2% and 52.75–54.13%, respectively. The loss
Academic Editor: Akinbode A. modulus of all varieties surpassed the storage modulus. Total polyphenol and flavonoid
Adedeji contents ranged from 2.36 to 3.05 mg GAE/g and 1.42 to 2.22 mg QE/g, respectively. The
Received: 7 January 2025 antioxidant activities were assessed using different assays and revealed that all samples
Revised: 27 January 2025 were concentration-dependent, with all cultivars exhibiting high antioxidant activity at
Accepted: 7 February 2025 higher concentrations. The comparative analysis of the examined varieties revealed that
Published: 8 February 2025 none excelled in all of the tested parameters. However, these diverse qualities make
Citation: Idris, F.M.; Urga, K.; Ethiopian mung bean varieties suitable for various food formulations tailored to specific
Admassu, H.; Fentie, E.G.; Kwon, desired characteristics.
S.-M.; Shin, J.-H. Profiling the
Nutritional, Phytochemical, and
Keywords: mung bean; lysine; polyphenol; rheology; antioxidant activity; cultivars
Functional Properties of Mung Bean
Varieties. Foods 2025, 14, 571. https://
doi.org/10.3390/foods14040571

Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.

1. Introduction
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article Mung beans (Vigna radiata L.), native to India, are a highly nutritious and economically
distributed under the terms and valuable legume crop that has gained prominence across East, South, and Southeast Asia,
conditions of the Creative Commons as well as parts of Africa [1]. Renowned for their exceptional nutritional profile, mung
Attribution (CC BY) license beans are an excellent source of plant-based protein, dietary fiber, iron, folate, and essential
(https://creativecommons.org/
vitamins such as B-complex vitamins. They also provide substantial amounts of macro- and
licenses/by/4.0/).

Foods 2025, 14, 571 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14040571

Foods 2025, 14, 571 2 of 16

micronutrients, including magnesium, potassium, zinc, and copper, alongside bioactive

phytochemicals like phenolic acids, flavonoids, and saponins [2]. These bioactive com-
pounds contribute to several health benefits, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and
anti-tumor activities, making mung beans a critical food resource for populations facing
nutritional challenges [3–5].
In addition to their nutritional significance, mung beans are valued for their agronomic
traits, including a short growth cycle of about 60 days, high drought tolerance, and adapt-
ability to semi-arid and arid environments, which makes them suitable for sustainable
cultivation in water-limited regions [6]. In Ethiopia, mung beans have recently emerged
as a promising crop, cultivated on approximately 41,633 hectares and yielding 1.235 tons
per hectare, with an annual production of 514,227 quintals. To support agricultural pro-
ductivity, the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (EARI) introduced four mung bean
varieties: Rasa (N-26), Borda (MH-97-6), NVL-1, and Arkebe (SML-668). These varieties
were developed based on adaptability, productivity, and drought resistance. Notably, while
most varieties originated in India, Rasa (N-26) was sourced from Kenya [7,8].
Mung beans are not only a significant dietary component due to their protein, iron,
and folate content but are also a source of essential amino acids, dietary fiber, fatty acids,
and bioavailable minerals. Their phytochemical composition—including flavonoids, phe-
nolic acids, and tannins—enhances their role in reducing oxidative stress, improving
metabolic health, and supporting immune function [3–5]. However, mung bean’s nutri-
tional, functional, and antioxidant activity varies among and within cultivars due to genetic,
environmental, and post-harvest factors [8,9]. Despite their nutritional and agronomic
potential, detailed studies on Ethiopian mung bean cultivars remain limited. Previous
research has primarily focused on yield improvement, uniform maturity, and resistance to
environmental stressors. To fully integrate these varieties into the food value chain and
leverage their health benefits, investigations into their physicochemical, techno-functional,
and health-promoting properties are essential. This study addresses these gaps by analyz-
ing the nutritional composition, techno-functional properties, and antioxidant activity of
four mung bean varieties cultivated in Ethiopia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Raw Materials Collection, Preparation, and Storage
Four varieties of mung bean seeds, namely, Rasa (N-26), Baroda (MH-97-6), NVL-1,
and Shoarobit (local), were obtained from Melkasa Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia.
The seeds were then cleaned, ground, and sieved through 400 µm mesh before being stored
at a refrigerated condition of 4 ◦ C for future analysis.

2.2. Proximate and Mineral Analysis

The proximate composition of mung bean varieties, including moisture content,
crude protein, fat, ash, and fiber was determined by following the standard procedure
of AOAC [10]. Furthermore, the mineral contents were analyzed by following the meth-
ods developed by Schultz et al. [11] using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission
spectroscopy (Spectro CIROS ICP–AES, Spectro Analytical Instruments, Kleve, Germany).

2.3. Amino Acid Profiles

The samples were first hydrolyzed with 6 M HCl overnight and derivatized with
30 µL of MTBSTFA and 100 µL of acetonitrile at 100 ◦ C for 1 h, before being injected into
a GC-MS system (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) with a 10:1 split ratio
program. The separation was achieved using a non-polar Rxi-5Sil MS capillary column (30
m length, 0.25 mm ID, 0.25 µm film thickness) (Restek, Bellefonte, PA, USA) with helium as
Foods 2025, 14, 571 3 of 16

the carrier gas at a 1 mL/min flow rate. The oven temperature was initially set at 80 ◦ C for
1 min, ramped to 170 ◦ C at a rate of 10 ◦ C/min, held for 1 min, and then increased to 320 ◦ C
at a rate of 30 ◦ C/min for 3 min. The mass spectrometer operated in electron impact (EI)
mode at an ionization energy of 70 eV, scanning mass-to-charge ratios (m/z) from 30 to 700.

2.4. Color Analysis

A spectrophotometer (V-770 UV-Visible, Tokyo, Japan) was used to measure the color
of mung bean flour, following a baseline scan from 200 to 800 nm. The specular component
was included in both sample and reference measurements, and six spectra were obtained
to assess measurement reproducibility by varying the measurement position. The Spectra
Manager software determined the L*, a*, and b* color coordinates.

2.5. Phytochemical Contents

Following effective sample extraction using methanol as solvent, total polyphenol
content (TPC) was determined using Folin–Ciocalteu assay as described by Phuyal et al. [12].
The total flavonoid content (TFC) was measured following the method used by Priti
et al. [13], while phytic acid was determined using the colorimetric method outlined by Shi
et al. [14]. Similarly, total tannin content was analyzed using the modified vanillin–HCl
in methanol as described by Khandelwal et al. [15], and oxalate content was determined
following the procedure described in AOAC [10].

2.6. Techno-Functional Properties

The water-absorption capacity (WAC), oil-absorption capacity (OAC), emulsion activ-
ity (EA), and emulsion stability (ES) of mung bean flour were determined using the method
described by Argel et al. [16]. Solubility (S) and swelling power (SP) were measured follow-
ing the protocol used by Yu et al. [17]. The foaming capacity (FC) and foaming stability
(FS) were evaluated using the technique described in Vinayashree and Vasu [18]. Bulk
density (BD) and tapped density (TD) were measured according to the methods of Ahmed
et al. [19] and Andrabi et al. [6], respectively. The falling number (FN) was determined
using a Perten Falling Number Instrument (version Falling Number® 10001.0 E.N., Hager-
sten, Sweden), following ICC Standard No. 107/1 (2000). The water activity of the mung
bean flour was measured using an Aqua Lab 4TE. Similarly, the thermal properties of mung
bean flour were evaluated using a differential scanning calorimeter (SKZ, 1052B, Beijing,
China) equipped with a nitrogen gas intercooler following the method of Aprodu et al. [20].
The pasting properties of mung bean flour were evaluated using a Rapid Visco-Analyzer
(RVA-4500, Perten, Macquarie Park, NSW, Australia) according to the AACC [21] method
No. 76-21. While dynamic rheological properties were determined using a Modulator
Compact Rheometer (Anton-Paar, Graz, Austria) following the method of Zhong et al. [22].

2.7. Determination of Antioxidant Capacity

The antioxidant activity of mung bean flour was evaluated using DPPH, Ferric Re-
ducing Antioxidant Power (FRAP), and ABTS•+ radical cation scavenging activity assays
by following the methods used by Wathoni et al. [23], Xie et al. [24], and Lee et al. [25],
respectively.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Every data set was acquired in triplicate and presented as mean ± standard deviation.
After checking the normality and homoscedasticity of the data, the statistically significant
differences (p < 0.05) were assessed through parametric one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA). Duncan’s multiple range tests were employed as post-hoc tests to compare
 Foods 2025, 14, 571 4 of 16
Foods 2025, 14, 571 4 of 16

differences (p < 0.05) were assessed through parametric one-way analysis of variance
between sample means. All statistical data analyses were performed using R software
(ANOVA). Duncan’s multiple range tests were employed as post-hoc tests to compare
version 4.2.3.
between sample means. All statistical data analyses were performed using R software ver-
sion 4.2.3.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1.
3. Proximate Composition
Results and Discussion
3.1.Protein and
Proximate carbohydrates are the two most dominant nutritional components of
Composition
mung Protein
bean seed and (Figure 1A). The
carbohydrates arecrude
the two protein
most content
dominantofnutritional
mung bean varieties under
components of
the
mung bean seed (Figure 1A). The crude protein content of mung bean varietiesisunder
current investigation ranged from 22.63 to 25.84 g/100 g. This value comparable
the
tocurrent
that ofinvestigation
other legumes, rangedsuch as 22.63
from soybeans (ranging
to 25.84 g/100g.from 25.5%isto
This value 36.62%), which
comparable to that are
renowned for their high protein content [23]. Like other legumes, mung
of other legumes, such as soybeans (ranging from 25.5% to 36.62%), which are renowned bean varieties
showed
for theira high
lowerprotein
fat content
content ranging from
[23]. Like 1.13legumes,
other to 1.63 (g/100
mung beang) (Figure
varieties1A). Van Hung
showed a
etlower
al. [24]
fatalso reported
content ranging a from
similar1.13low-fat
to 1.63 (1.6%) content
(g/100 g) (Figurefor the
1A). mung
Van Hung bean
et al.variety.
[24] alsoThe
Rasa munga similar
reported bean variety
low-fatexhibited significantly
(1.6%) content higher
for the mung beanprotein and
variety. Thefat content
Rasa mung(pbean< 0.05)
variety exhibited
compared significantly
to the other Ethiopianhigher
mungprotein and fat content
bean varieties. (p < 0.05)
This variation compared
could to the to
be attributed
other
the Ethiopian
genetic mung of
differences bean
thisvarieties.
particularThis variation
variety, could
which be adapted
was attributedfrom
to the geneticwhereas
Kenya, dif-
ferences of this particular variety, which was adapted from Kenya, whereas
the other varieties originated from India and were cultivated in Ethiopia. The carbohydrate the other va-
rieties originated
contents from mung
of the studied India and
beanwere cultivated
varieties rangedin Ethiopia.
from 54.9The carbohydrate
to 58.82 g/100 g contents
(Figure 1A).
of the studied mung bean varieties ranged from 54.9 to 58.82
Notable differences were observed, except for the Baroda and NVL varieties.g/100 g (Figure 1A). Notable
There was no
differences were observed, except for the Baroda and NVL varieties.
significant difference (p < 0.05) in moisture content recorded for the studied mung There was no signif-
bean
icant difference (p < 0.05) in moisture content recorded for the studied mung bean varieties
varieties (9.17% to 9.5%) (Table S1). The same harvesting, storage, and preparation process
(9.17% to 9.5%) (Table S1). The same harvesting, storage, and preparation process for all
for all sample varieties might contribute to the abovementioned result. Moreover, the ash
sample varieties might contribute to the abovementioned result. Moreover, the ash con-
content in the current study ranged from 3.33 to 3.67 (g/100 g) (Figure 1A). The Baroda
tent in the current study ranged from 3.33 to 3.67 (g/100 g) (Figure 1A). The Baroda variety,
variety, in particular, showed a significantly (p < 0.05) higher ash content than the other
in particular, showed a significantly (p < 0.05) higher ash content than the other varieties
varieties (Table S1).
(Table S1).

Figure1.1.Ethiopian
Figure Ethiopian mung
mung bean varieties
varietiesflour
flour(A)
(A)proximate
proximate composition,
composition, (B)(B) trace
trace minerals,
minerals, and and
(C)
(C)major
majorminerals composition.SH,SH,
minerals composition. R,and
R, B, B, and
NVL NVL
are theare the bean
mung mung bean variety’s
variety’s name
name codes codes
repre-
representing Shoarobit, Rasa, Baroda, and NVL-1, respectively.
senting Shoarobit, Rasa, Baroda, and NVL-1, respectively.

Wang
Wangetetal. [9] reported
al. [9] reporteda acomparable
comparable ashash content
content resultresult for mung
for mung bean varieties
bean varieties col-
collected from different regions of China. Generally, based on the proximate
lected from different regions of China. Generally, based on the proximate composition composition
results
resultsofofthis
thisstudy,
study,Ethiopian
Ethiopian mung beanvarieties
mung bean varietiescan
canbebe categorized
categorized as as a nutritious
a nutritious andand
versatile ingredient suitable for various food products including but not limited
versatile ingredient suitable for various food products including but not limited to the to the
development
developmentof ofmeat
meat analogs
analogs [23].
[23].

3.2. Mineral Composition

This investigation revealed that Ethiopian mung bean varieties are a significant source
of major and trace minerals (Figure 1B,C). A similar investigation conducted by [26]
reported that mung beans are abundant sources of major and trace minerals including Ca,
Mg, Zn, Fe, P, and K. Major and trace minerals contribute significantly to overall health,
Foods 2025, 14, 571 5 of 16

from bone growth and structure to muscle contraction, nerve impulse transmission, energy
metabolism, immune system function, and antioxidant defenses [27].
The mineral content of the mung bean varieties cultivated in Ethiopia showed sig-
nificant differences (p < 0.05) among each other (Figure 1B,C). The Shoarobit variety for
instance demonstrated a significantly higher (p < 0.05) calcium content (2095.03 mg/kg),
while the Baroda variety showed a significantly higher (p < 0.05) phosphorus content
(3347.30 mg/kg) when compared to the other varieties (Figure 1C; Table S2). A mung
bean variety with high phosphorus content is anticipated to possess genetic traits that
enhance its ability to absorb and utilize phosphorus from the soil efficiently [28]. In the
case of trace minerals, a significantly higher (p < 0.05) iron content and a significantly lower
(p < 0.05) zinc content were obtained for Rasa and Baroda varieties, respectively (Table S3).
In general, factors such as genetic traits, soil conditions (including pH, nutrient availability,
and composition), and post-harvest handling practices can influence the ability of crops
to absorb minerals from their ultimate source, which is the soil they grow in. Even within
the same growth location, the mineral uptake mechanism from the soil may differ among
different varieties, depending on factors such as root mycorrhiza and plant architecture [29].

3.3. Amino Acid Profile

All mung bean varieties examined in this study were found to be excellent sources of
essential amino acids, particularly lysine, threonine, phenylalanine, leucine, and histidine
(Table 1). The concentrations of these essential amino acids exceed the FAO/WHO (2007)
reference values [30]. The lysine content, which ranks as the second most abundant amino
acid with an average ranging from 6.71 to 7.77 mg/g, sets these beans apart from other
protein-rich grains. Although other grains may have higher total crude protein, they often
lack essential amino acids such as lysine. Additionally, Ethiopian mung bean varieties are
rich in non-essential and conditionally essential amino acids, such as glutamic acid, aspartic
acid, alanine, and glycine (Table 1). In particular, glutamic acid, the most abundant amino
acid, with an average value between 8.54 and 10.65 mg/g, plays a critical role in protein
synthesis and facilitates communication between brain cells, contributing to memory,
cognition, and mood regulation. Based on essential amino acid content, especially lysine,
phenylalanine, and leucine, the NVL varieties, followed by the Rasa variety, exhibited
significantly higher (p < 0.05) values compared to the other varieties (Table 1). This variation
may be attributed to genetic differences among the varieties.

Table 1. Amino acid contents of mung bean seed (mg/g) varieties.

Amino Acids (mg/g) Variety

SH R B NVL
d c a
Histidine 2.69 ± 0.01 3.15 ± 0.01 3.33 ± 0.01 3.22 ± 0.01 b
Isoleucine 1.66 ± 0.01 d 1.82 ± 0.01 a 1.76 ± 0.01 c 1.79 ± 0.01 b
Leucine 2.92 ± 0.01 d 3.17 ± 0.01 a 2.98 ± 0.01 c 3.09 ± 0.01 b
Lysine 6.71 ± 0.01 d 7.25 ± 0.01 c 7.5 ± 0.01 b 7.77 ± 0.01 a
Methionine 0.68 ± 0.01 d 0.71 ± 0.01 c 0.82 ± 0.01 a 0.79 ± 0.01 b
Phenylalanine 2.93 ± 0.01 c 3.2 ± 0.01 b 3.34 ± 0.01 a 3.35 ± 0.01 a
Threonine 1.81 ± 0.01 b 1.78 ± 0.01 c 1.87 ± 0.01 a 1.56 ± 0.01 d
Valine 2.19 ± 0.01 d 2.5 ± 0.01 a 2.22 ± 0.01 c 2.28 ± 0.01 b
Alanine 2.9 ± 0.01 d 3.17 ± 0.01 a 2.95 ± 0.01 c 2.99 ± 0.01 b
Aspartic acid 3.22 ± 0.01 d 3.47 ± 0.01 c 3.63 ± 0.01 b 3.74 ± 0.01 a
Cysteine 0.29 ± 0.01 c 0.31 ± 0.01 b 0.52 ± 0.01 a 0.31 ± 0.01 b
Glutamic acid 8.54 ± 0.01 d 9.74 ± 0.01 c 10.65 ± 0.01 a 10.34 ± 0.01 b
Glycine 2.19 ± 0.01 b 2.5 ± 0.01 a 2.33 ± 0.01 b 2.34 ± 0.01 b
Foods 2025, 14, 571 6 of 16

Table 1. Cont.

Amino Acids (mg/g) Variety

SH R B NVL
Proline 2.12 ± 0.01 d 2.31 ± 0.01 a 2.24 ± 0.01 c 2.28 ± 0.01 b
Serine 2.67 ± 0.01 c 2.8 ± 0.01 b 2.82 ± 0.01 a 2.79 ± 0.01 b
Tyrosine 1.55 ± 0.01 c 1.67 ± 0.01 b 1.75 ± 0.01 a 1.68 ± 0.01 b
Cystine 0.48 ± 0.01 b 0.54 ± 0.01 a 0.53 ± 0.01 a 0.52 ± 0.01 a
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the means in each column. SH, R, B,
and NVL are codes representing the mung bean varieties Shoarobit, Rasa, Baroda, and NVL-1, respectively.

3.4. Color Property

The Ethiopian mung bean varieties’ color features (L*, a*, and b*) are tabulated in
Table 2. The Baroda variety showed the highest a* value and L* value, indicating its lighter
green color. Conversely, Shoarobit and Rasa had the lowest L* value, meaning they are the
darkest mung bean flour compared to the other varieties (Table 2; Figure S1). Overall, mung
bean varieties showed significant variations in color intensity and hue. This information is
important for food product developers, manufacturers, and consumers since color plays a
vital role in determining the quality and attractiveness of food products.

Table 2. Color measurement values of Ethiopian mung bean varieties.

Variety
Color
SH R B NVL
L* 58.61 ± 0.04 c 58.61 ± 0.03 c 66.57 ± 0.04 a 62.16 ± 0.04 b
a* −2.785 ± 0.01 a −2.76 ± 0.04 a −3.16 ± 0.04 c −3.07 ± 0.04 b
b* 10.12 ± 0.02 c 10.12 ± 0.01 c 11.58 ± 0.05 a 11.22 ± 0.05 b
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the means in each column. SH, R, B,
and NVL are codes representing the mung bean varieties Shoarobit, Rasa, Baroda, and NVL-1, respectively.

3.5. Phytochemicals
The TPC of the Ethiopian mung bean varieties under this investigation ranged from
2.36 to 3.05 mg GAE/g. However, Singh et al. [31] reported a higher range of TPC
(14.06–31.31 mg GAE/g) for mung bean extracts. A significant difference (p < 0.05) was
observed in the TPC values among these varieties (Table 3). Particularly Rasa has shown
significantly lower (p < 0.05) TPC content compared to the other Ethiopian mung bean
varieties. In contrast, the Baroda variety exhibited significantly higher (p < 0.05) TPC con-
tent compared to the other varieties. The genetic variations, and post-harvest processing
methods, such as drying, storage, and cooking, might contribute to these variations [9,32].
However, it is important to understand that these factors are not mutually exclusive, and
the variations in polyphenol content among mung bean varieties are likely influenced by a
combination of these factors [9].
The TFC of the analyzed Ethiopian mung bean varieties ranged from 1.42 to
2.22 mg QE/g. Sutrisno [33] also reported a comparable TFC result for several varieties
of mung beans, which ranged from 1.51 to 2.35 mg CE/g. Notably, the Baroda cultivar
exhibited significantly higher (p < 0.05) TFC compared to the other varieties (Table 3). This
variation may be attributed to environmental factors affecting the growth of different mung
bean varieties, such as soil composition and climate. Additionally, differences in TFC values
could stem from the limitations of the assay itself, as the AlCl3 colorimetric method does
not capture all flavonoids in food components, given that some flavonoids do not react
with the AlCl3 reagent.
Foods 2025, 14, 571 7 of 16

Table 3. Phytochemicals in mung bean flour.

Varieties
Phytochemicals
SH R B NVL
d 5175.19 ± 6.29 a b 4264.81 ± 4.19 c
Phytic acid (µg/gm) 3745.18 ± 5.76 4521.85 ± 1.05
Tannin (mg/100 g) 669.38 ± 2.06 c 718.24 ± 3.74 b 767.92 ± 0.79 a 597.06 ± 2.14 d
Oxalate (mg/100 g) 0.41 ± 0.04 c 0.35 ± 0.04 c 0.72 ± 0.05 a 0.6 ± 0.04 b
Total polyphenol
2.67 ± 0.01 b 2.36 ± 0.01 c 3.05 ± 0.02 a 2.65 ± 0.01 b
(GAE mg/g)
Total flavonoid
1.78 ± 0.02 b 1.60 ± 0.02 c 2.22 ± 0.01 a 1.42 ± 0.01 d
(QEmg/g)
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the means in each column. SH, R, B,
and NVL are codes representing the mung bean varieties Shoarobit, Rasa, Baroda, and NVL-1, respectively.

The phytic acid content of mung bean varieties in this study was in the range of
3745 to 5175 (µg/gm) (Table 3). This value was in the range of data reported by Grewal
and Jood [34]. Moreover, the levels of phytic acid also varied significantly (p < 0.05)
among different mung bean varieties (Table 3). Specifically, the Rasa variety showed a
significantly higher phytic acid content as compared to the other varieties. This variation
may be attributed by genetic differences among these mung bean varieties, particularly
variations in the synthesis and accumulation of phytic acid. At physiological pH, phytic
acid (C6 H18 O24 P6 ) carries a negative charge, giving it a high affinity for positively charged
divalent mineral ions, thereby rendering these minerals unavailable for absorption [7].
However, it is also important to recognize that phytic acid exhibits antioxidant properties
and is linked to various health benefits.
The mean tannin content of Ethiopian mung bean seeds was in the range of
597.06–767.92 (mg/100 g). These values are higher than the tannin content reported by
Mubarak [35] for mung bean (330 mg/100 g). Moreover, a significant tannin content differ-
ence was also observed among varieties. More specifically, the Baroda variety exhibited a
significantly higher concentration of tannins (p < 0.05), whereas the NVL variety exhibited
a significantly lower concentration of tannins (p < 0.05) (Table 3). Tannin is a bitter polyphe-
nolic compound that binds to or precipitates proteins and other organic compounds such as
amino acids and alkaloids. Trypsin, chymotrypsin, lipase, and amylase may all be inhibited
by these tannins, which reduces the quality of protein and impedes iron absorption [36].
Conversely, tannin content in the food matrix also has both beneficial and detrimental
effects on human health by acting as an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent.
The oxalate content of mung bean varieties under this study was relatively lower as
compared to tannin and phytic acid, which ranged from 0.35 to 0.72 mg/100 g (Table 3). The
Borda variety showed a significantly higher (p < 0.05) and the Shoarobit variety showed a
significantly lower (p < 0.05) oxalate content. Variations in the genetic makeup of the seeds
might lead to differences in oxalate accumulation between different varieties [31]. Generally,
the anti-nutritional content of the examined mung bean varieties is within acceptable limits.
A daily intake of tannins below the range of 1.5–2.5 g is considered safe for consumption
and does not lead to any adverse effects; however, consumption exceeding this range
is associated with a decreased absorption of dietary iron [37]. Additionally, the phytate
content of the mung bean varieties currently under investigation is within a safe level. An
ideal phytate content for healthy consumption maybe 25 mg or less per 100 g in the diet to
minimize micronutrient loss.

3.6. Techno-Functional Properties of Mung Bean Flour

The techno-functional properties of food materials give vital information about how
the ingredients will behave during and after processing. The WAC of mung bean flour
Foods 2025, 14, 571 8 of 16

varieties under this investigation ranged from 2.12 to 2.32 (g/g). However, no significant
difference (p < 0.05) was observed among compared varieties (Table 4). The main con-
tributing factor to this outcome could be the lack of variance in the mung bean cultivars’
carbohydrate content. Moreover, the OAC of mung bean varieties in the present investiga-
tion ranged from 1.87 to 2.0 (g/g). Particularly, the OAC of the Rasa and Shoarobit varieties
showed significantly higher (p < 0.05) values compared to the other varieties (Table 4). The
higher crude protein content of these mung bean varieties might have contributed to this
result. Moreover, OAC values in the range of 1 to 2 g/g, which correspond to our findings,
have been reported for numerous dry mung beans [38].

Table 4. Techno-functional properties of mung bean flour.

Techno-Functional Varieties
Properties SH R B NVL
ab b a
WAC (g/g) 2.24 ± 0.08 2.12 ± 0.08 2.32 ± 0.05 2.20 ± 0.07 ab
OAC (g/g) 2.00 ± 0.00 a 1.93 ± 0.06 ab 1.89 ± 0.06 b 1.87 ± 0.06 b
S (%) 18.6 ± 0.42 b 20.28 ± 0.35 a 18.64 ± 0.31 b 19.22 ± 0.39 b
SP (g/g) 7.13 ± 0.32 a 6.57 ± 0.08 b 6.42 ± 0.38 b 6.57 ± 0.14 b
BD(g/mL) 0.66 ± 0.01 b 0.67 ± 0.01 a 0.62 ± 0.01 c 0.68 ± 0.01 a
TD(g/mL) 0.86 ± 0.01 b 0.88 ± 0.01 a 0.85 ± 0.01 b 0.90 ± 0.01 a
EA (%) 52.75 ± 0.16 c 53.92 ± 0.08 a 54.13 ± 0.28 a 53.14 ± 0.20 b
ES (%) 51.84 ± 0.34 c 50.22 ± 0.22 d 52.8 ± 0.25 a 52.29 ± 0.02 b
FC (%) 40.27 ± 0.46 c 49.2 ± 0.35 a 43.67 ± 0.58 b 44.33 ± 0.58 b
FS (%) 33.12 ± 1.66 b 39.97 ± 1.06 a 32.82 ± 1.16 b 35.35 ± 1.74 b
FN (Sec.) 242 ± 0.00 a 236.33 ± 0.58 b 242 ± 0.00 a 221.67 ± 0.58 c
WA 0.59 ± 0.00 b 0.59 ± 0.00 b 0.59 ± 0.01 b 0.63 ± 0.01 a
WAC, OAC, S, SP, BD, TD, EA, ES, FC, FS, FN, and WA codes represent techno-functional properties representing
water-absorbing capacity, oil-absorbing capacity, solubility, swelling power, bulk density, tapped density, emulsion
activity, emulsion stability, foaming capacity, foaming stability, falling number, and water activity, respectively.
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the means in each column. SH, R, B,
and NVL are codes representing the mung bean varieties Shoarobit, Rasa, Baroda, and NVL-1, respectively.

Solubility is the ability of the food components to dissolve in water under predefined
conditions [39]. The average solubility value of the mung bean varieties in this study
ranged from 18.6 to 20.83% (Table 4). These results are comparable with other mung bean
varieties from another country, which have been reported to range from 15.1% to 23.2% [40].
Further, a significantly higher (p < 0.05) solubility result was observed for Rasa varieties
(Table 4). This could be attributed to the difference in the content and composition of
protein among the varieties [9].
In the current study, the average bulk density value of mung bean varieties ranged
between 0.62 and 0.68 g/mL, which falls within the typical bulk density range for legumes
(0.536 to 0.816 g/mL) [41]. Moreover, a significantly (p < 0.05) higher bulk density was ob-
served for the NVL and Rasa varieties (Table 4). The Baroda variety recorded a significantly
lower bulk density compared to the other samples, making it suited for complementary
food formulation [42].
The Ethiopian mung bean varieties average swelling power ranged from 7.13 g/g to
6.42 g/g (Table 4). The swelling power obtained in this study is higher than that of other
pulses, such as cowpea flour, 2.65 to 2.68 (g/g), and slightly lower than that of cereals (17 to
22.6) [43]. The swelling power of Shoarobit variety flour was significantly (p < 0.05) higher
than the rest of the mung bean varieties under this investigation. The higher carbohydrate
content of the Shoarobit variety might be the most probable reason for this result. This
high swelling capacity property might give it a chance to be incorporated into food systems
requiring swelling, such as extruded and puffed snacks and emulsified products.
Foods 2025, 14, 571 9 of 16

The falling number of the mung bean samples ranged from 221.67 to 242s (Table 4),
which is significantly lower than the falling number of wheat, which ranges from 418
to 1197s in most studies. Moreover, a significantly (p < 0.05) higher falling number was
observed for the Baroda and Shoarobit varieties (Table 4). A greater falling number indicates
that the grain will not start to germinate easily and has low enzymatic activity [44].
The ability of the mung bean food component to facilitate emulsion formation is
indicated by its emulsion activity. The average emulsion activity of Ethiopian mung bean
varieties ranged from 52.75 to 54.13% (Table 4). This result is consistent with a previous
report by Locali-Pereira et al. with average values of 65% [45]. Rasa and Baroda showed
significantly (p < 0.05) higher value of EA as compared to the other varieties (Table 4). The
differences in food components, more specifically protein types and quantities, are essential
for the formation and stability of emulsions [46].
In addition, retaining the formed emulsion during processing and storage is also
equally important while considering the techno-functional properties of food components.
The average emulsion stability value of mung bean flour varieties in this study was in the
range of 50.22% to 52.8% (Table 4). This result agreed with other studies that reported an ES
value of 51.8% for mung bean flour [47]. However, mung bean flours have a three to four
times greater ES when compared to wheat flour [48]. Conversely, the values are lower as
compared to other legumes, particularly chickpeas [16]. Generally, the quantity and quality
of soluble proteins in the samples have a huge effect on the ES value.
The average FC and FS values of the Ethiopian mung bean varieties ranged from
40.27 to 49.2% and 32.82 to 39.97%, respectively. This result was comparable with previous
reports for mung bean varieties from another country, which revealed typical FC values
of 35–55% and FS values of 80–100% [41]. Moreover, Rasa varieties showed significantly
(p < 0.05) higher values for both FC and FS values as compared to the other varieties in
this study (Table 4). The higher protein content of the Rasa variety might make a big
contribution to this result. The higher hydrophobic amino acid content in proteins has been
linked to improved foaming ability [49], while a flour’s fat content may help keep foam
structures stable.
The average water activity of Ethiopian mung bean varieties ranged from 0.59 to
0.63 (Table 4). This result is compatible with the water activity of other crops, which was
reported in the range of 0.58 to 0.62. However, no significant difference (p < 0.05) was
observed among the varieties under the study. A similar moisture content between the
varieties might be the major cause for this result.

3.7. Thermal Property

Thermal property analyses of food components are an important parameter to opti-
mize cooking and other thermal processing conditions to enhance the nutrient digestibility
and bioavailability of food components. The thermal properties of Ethiopian mung bean va-
rieties were evaluated by utilizing differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) method. During
the heating scan between 100 and 200 ◦ C, the probable endothermic event in the mung seed
flour might be protein denaturation (Figure 2B). The denaturation temperatures for the
Baroda, Shoarobit, NVL, and Rasa cultivars were 117.2 ◦ C, 132.8 ◦ C, 132.7 ◦ C, and 133.3 ◦ C,
respectively. The crude protein content, the protein profile, and molecular interactions
among proteins might influence the stability of the protein structure, thereby affecting the
denaturation temperature [46]. Furthermore, a Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was
also used to evaluate the trend of mass loss as a function of temperature (Figure S3). All
varieties showed significant mass loss between 200 and 600 ◦ C.
 thereby affecting the denaturation temperature [46]. Furthermore, a Thermogravimetric
Foods 2025, 14, 571 10 of 16
analysis (TGA) was also used to evaluate the trend of mass loss as a function of tempera-
ture (Figure S3). All varieties showed significant mass loss between 200 and 600 °C.

Figure2.2.Ethiopian
Figure Ethiopianmung
mung bean varieties’
varieties’(A)
(A)pasting
pastingproperties and
properties and(B)(B)
differential scanning
differential calory
scanning calory
metervalues.
meter values.The
Theabbreviations
abbreviations AA,
AA, SH,
SH,R, R,B,B,and
andNVL
NVLare used
are to to
used represent ascorbic
represent acid,
ascorbic andand
acid, the the
Shoarobit,Rasa,
Shoarobit, Rasa,Baroda,
Baroda,and
and NVL-1
NVL-1 varieties,
varieties,respectively.
respectively.

3.8.
3.8.Rheological
RheologicalProperties
Properties
3.8.1. Pasting Property
3.8.1. Pasting Property
The
Thepasting
pastingproperty
property is is one
one ofofthe
theimportant
importantparameters
parameters forfor understanding
understanding the prop-
the prop-
erties
ertiesofofstarch
starchviscosity
viscosity under
under aa simulated
simulatedcooking
cookingprocess.
process.It It
hashas a significant
a significant influence
influence
ononthe quality
the quality and aesthetic values of the food, particularly for beaker products. The av-The
aesthetic values of the food, particularly for beaker products.
average
erage peakpeakviscosity
viscosity(PV)(PV)of of Ethiopian
Ethiopian mung mungbeanbean varieties
varieties was inwastheinrange
the range
of 771 of to 771
to11,493.33
11,493.33 (cP)
(cP) (Figure
(Figure 2A).2A). In comparison
In comparison to otherto cereals,
other cereals, particularly
particularly wheat flour wheat(2574flour
cP) [44], mung bean flour has a relatively low PV. The increased protein
(2574 cP) [44], mung bean flour has a relatively low PV. The increased protein content of content of legume
flour inflour
legume general, and mung
in general, bean flour
and mung beaninflour
particular, contributed
in particular, to this to
contributed lower
this value
lowerby value
inhibiting starch granules not to swell [19]. Moreover, a significantly
by inhibiting starch granules not to swell [19]. Moreover, a significantly higher (p < 0.05)higher (p < 0.05) PV
PVwaswasobserved
observed forfor
thethe
Shoarobit
Shoarobit variety
variety(1149.33
(1149.33cP)cP)
as compared
as compared to the varieties
to the under
varieties under
investigation. The difference in PV values among Ethiopian mung
investigation. The difference in PV values among Ethiopian mung bean cultivars could bean cultivars could be be
related to the underlying structure of starch rather than total carbohydrate content.
related to the underlying structure of starch rather than total carbohydrate content.
The breakdown viscosity (BDV) of the mung bean varieties in this study was in the
The breakdown viscosity (BDV) of the mung bean varieties in this study was in the
range of 9.67 cP to 78.67 cP (Figure 2A). This result is comparable with the BDV value (5.33
range of 9.67 cP to 78.67 cP (Figure 2A). This result is comparable with the BDV value
cP to 85 cP) of other legume flour in a similar study [50]. However, these values are very
(5.33 cP to 85 cP) of other legume flour in a similar study [50]. However, these values
low as compared to the BDV of refined wheat flour [44]. The BDV is basically an indicator
are very low as compared to the BDV of refined wheat flour [44]. The BDV is basically
of starch stability as it tells the flour’s resistance to heat and shear stress during cooking.
anAsindicator of starch the
the BDV increases, stability
ability as it tells
of the starchtheto flour’s
withstand resistance
heat and to heat
shear anddecreases.
stress shear stress
duringThe cooking. As the BDV increases, the ability of the starch to withstand
final viscosity (FV) of Ethiopian mung bean varieties was in the range of 1306 heat andcP shear
stress decreases.
to 2156 cP (Figure 2A). As it compared with its peak viscosity, the FV of mung bean vari-
The final viscosity
eties is significantly (FV)This
high. of Ethiopian
viscosity is mung bean varieties
an indication was capacity
of flour’s in the range of 1306 cP
to produce a to
2156 cP (Figure 2A). As it compared with its peak viscosity, the FV
viscous paste after cooking and chilling. Additionally, it provides a measurement of the of mung bean varieties
ispaste’s
significantly high.toThis
resistance shear viscosity
force whenis anstirring
indication[50].ofAflour’s capacity
significantly to produce
higher (p < 0.05)a viscous
FV
paste
valueafter
wascooking
recordedandfor chilling. Additionally,
the Shoarobit it provides
variety. Thus, a measurement
this variety of the paste’s
could be preferred for
cooking applications,
resistance to shear force such as thickening
when sauces
stirring [50]. A or smoothing batters,
significantly higher because
(p < 0.05) of FV
its in-
value
creased
was viscosity
recorded andShoarobit
for the resistance variety.
to shear Thus,
stress. this variety could be preferred for cooking
applications, such as thickening sauces or smoothing batters, because of its increased
viscosity and resistance to shear stress.

3.8.2. Dynamic Rheological Properties

The dynamic rheological properties of Ethiopian mung bean varieties were evaluated
by analyzing their storage (G′ ) and loss (G′′ ) modulus. In all of the samples, the storage
modulus was higher than the loss modulus (Figure 3). Moreover, there was no crossover
 3.8.2. Dynamic Rheological Properties
Foods 2025, 14, 571 11 of 16
The dynamic rheological properties of Ethiopian mung bean varieties were evaluated
by analyzing their storage (G′) and loss (G″) modulus. In all of the samples, the storage
modulusthe
between was
twohigher
modulithanacross
the loss
themodulus
complete (Figure 3). Moreover,
frequency there This
sweep range. was no crossover
is an indication
between the two moduli across the complete frequency sweep range. This is an indication
that the mung bean flour’s elasticity is greater than its viscosity. This combination of
that the mung bean flour’s elasticity is greater than its viscosity. This combination of prop-
properties is characteristic of a weak gel, where the structure can deform under stress
erties is characteristic of a weak gel, where the structure can deform under stress but re-
but retains its shape once the stress is removed [51]. Moreover, the absence of crossover
tains its shape once the stress is removed [51]. Moreover, the absence of crossover between
between G′ and G′′ further confirmed the formation of a stable gel structure in the mung
G′ and G″ further confirmed the formation of a stable gel structure in the mung bean flour
bean flour paste. Their composition, primarily the starch, protein network, particle size, and
paste. Their composition, primarily the starch, protein network, particle size, and particle
particle size distribution,
size distribution, can be attributed
can be attributed to the variations
to the variations in loss andinstorage
loss and storage modulus.
modulus.

Figure3.3.Rheological
Figure Rheologicalproperties
propertiesof
ofmung
mung bean
bean varieties
varieties in
in Ethiopia
Ethiopia during
during frequency
frequencysweep
sweepatat2525 ◦ C
°C and 0–100 rad/sec are expressed as (A) storage modulus and (B) loss of modulus. The abbrevia-
and 0–100 rad/sec are expressed as (A) storage modulus and (B) loss of modulus. The abbreviations
tions
SH, SH,and
R, B, R, B,
NVLandrepresent
NVL represent the Shoarobit,
the Shoarobit, Rasa,Rasa, Baroda,
Baroda, andand NVL-1
NVL-1 varieties,
varieties, respectively.
respectively.

Theloss
The lossofof tangent
tangent (δ)(δ) values
values consistently
consistently remained
remained below
below 0.25,0.25, except
except for Shoaro-
for the the
Shoarobit variety, as shown in Table 5. This indicates that
′ the G′ value
bit variety, as shown in Table 5. This indicates that the G value exceeded the G value exceeded the
′′ G″ in
allvalue in samples,
of the all of the samples,
throughoutthroughout
the entirethefrequency
entire frequency
range. range. The Shoarobit
The Shoarobit variety
variety demon-
demonstrated higher storage modulus ′ (G′) values as compared to the other varieties in
strated higher storage modulus (G ) values as compared to the other varieties in this study
this study (Figure 3). This was reaffirmed by the higher loss tangent value for the Shoaro-
(Figure 3). This was reaffirmed by the higher loss tangent value for the Shoarobit variety
bit variety paste (0.38), suggesting a system with a greater emphasis on viscous behavior
paste (0.38), suggesting a system with a greater emphasis on viscous behavior compared to
compared to the other varieties. On the other hand, the other varieties of flour pastes ex-
the other varieties. On the other hand, the other varieties of flour pastes exhibited low tan δ
hibited low tan δ values (0.15–0.21), suggesting a more organized system with a stronger
values (0.15–0.21), suggesting a more organized system with a stronger solid-like behavior.
solid-like behavior. The content, profile, structure, and interaction between food compo-
The content,
nents, more profile, structure,
particularly, proteinandandinteraction between
carbohydrates, food components,
contributed more particu-
to the aforementioned
larly, protein and carbohydrates, contributed to the aforementioned result
result [52]. Generally, understanding the rheological properties of food samples will [52]. Generally,
help
understanding
in selecting thethe
rightrheological
mung beanproperties
variety forof food
their samples
specific will help
product in selecting the right
formulations.
mung bean variety for their specific product formulations.
Table 5. Mean values of the storage modulus (G′), loss modulus (G″), and loss tangent (tan δ) values
Table 5. Mean
at 0.1–100. values
Rad s-1 of of
thethe storage
flour modulus (G′ ), loss modulus (G′′ ), and loss tangent (tan δ) values
pastes.
at 0.1–100. Rad s-1 of the flour pastes.
Variety
Viscoelastic Properties SH R
Variety B NVL
G′ (Pa) 1010.91 ± 2.60 c 843.90 ± 6.26 d 1205.89 ± 7.98 a 1065.35 ± 5.95 b
Viscoelastic
G″ (Pa) SH
385.41 ± 2.38 a R ± 2.60 d
132.06 255.18B± 2.03 b 222.58 NVL
± 2.23 c
Properties
tan δ (G″/G′) 0.38 ± 0.00 a 0.16 ± 0.00 c 0.21 ± 0.00 b a 0.21 ± 0.00 b
G′ (Pa) 1010.91 ± 2.60 c 843.90 ± 6.26 d 1205.89 ± 7.98 1065.35 ± 5.95 b
G′′ (Pa) 385.41 ± 2.38 a 132.06 ± 2.60 d 255.18 ± 2.03 b 222.58 ± 2.23 c
tan δ (G′′ /G′ ) 0.38 ± 0.00 a 0.16 ± 0.00 c 0.21 ± 0.00 b 0.21 ± 0.00 b
Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the means in each column. SH, R, B,
and NVL are codes representing the mung bean varieties Shoarobit, Rasa, Baroda, and NVL-1, respectively.
 Different superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between the means in each
Foods 2025, 14, 571 12 of 16
column. SH, R, B, and NVL are codes representing the mung bean varieties Shoarobit, Rasa, Baroda,
and NVL-1, respectively.

3.9.
3.9.Antioxidant
AntioxidantCapacity
Capacity
The
TheFRAP
FRAPassay
assayevaluates
evaluates the ability
ability of
ofaasample
sampletotoreduce
reduceferric
ferric ions
ions 3+) 3+
(Fe(Fe to)ferrous
to ferrous
ions (Fe ).). Although
ions(Fe 2+2+ Although thethe reducing
reducingpotential
potentialofofallallmung
mung bean
beansamples
samples waswassignificantly
significantly
lowerthan
lower thanthat
thatofofthe
the standard
standard (ascorbic
(ascorbicacid)
acid)across
acrossallallconcentrations,
concentrations, their reducing
their reducing
capacity increased with rising concentrations of the extracts (Figure 4A). This
capacity increased with rising concentrations of the extracts (Figure 4A). This increase may increase
bemay be attributed
attributed to the presence
to the presence of bioactive
of bioactive compounds,
compounds, includingincluding polyphenols,
polyphenols, to-
tocopherols,
copherols, carotenoids,
carotenoids, and other metabolites.
and other metabolites. Among Among the varieties
the varieties underunder this investiga- the
this investigation,
tion, the Baroda variety exhibited a significantly higher antioxidant capacity
Baroda variety exhibited a significantly higher antioxidant capacity (p < 0.05), specifically (p < 0.05), at
specifically at a lower sample concentration. However, at higher concentrations, no sig-
a lower sample concentration. However, at higher concentrations, no significant difference
nificant difference in antioxidant activity was observed between the samples. Notably, at
in antioxidant activity was observed between the samples. Notably, at a concentration
a concentration of 600 µg/mL, the NVL variety demonstrated a significantly higher anti-
of 600 µg/mL, the NVL variety demonstrated a significantly higher antioxidant capacity
oxidant capacity compared to the other samples. The significantly higher (p < 0.05) TPC
compared to the other samples. The significantly higher (p < 0.05) TPC and TFC observed
and TFC observed in the Baroda and NVL varieties (Table 3) may have contributed to
in the Baroda and NVL varieties (Table 3) may have contributed to these results.
these results.

Figure4.4.Ethiopian
Figure Ethiopianmung
mung bean
bean varieties’
varieties’antioxidant
antioxidantactivities:
activities:(A)(A)
FRAP,
FRAP, (B)(B)
DPPH, andand
DPPH, (C) (C)
ABTS
ABTS
values.The
values. Theabbreviations
abbreviations AA,
AA, SH,
SH, R,
R, B,
B,and
andNVL
NVLrepresent
represent ascorbic
ascorbic acid, andand
acid, thethe
Shoarobit, Rasa,
Shoarobit, Rasa,
Baroda, and NVL-1 varieties, respectively.
Baroda, and NVL-1 varieties, respectively.

The
TheDPPH
DPPHscavenging
scavengingability
abilityof
ofall
allmung
mung bean
bean cultivars concentration-dependent,
cultivars was concentration-depend-
ent,antioxidant
with with antioxidant activity
activity increasing
increasing as theasconcentration
the concentration increased
increased (Figure
(Figure 4B). antioxi-
4B). The The
antioxidant
dant activity activity
of mung ofbean
mungseeds
bean is
seeds is attributed
attributed to bioactive
to bioactive compounds
compounds such
such as as pro-
proantho-
anthocyanidins,
cyanidins, flavonoids,
flavonoids, and lignans,
and lignans, which which exerteffects
exert their their effects
through through
hydrogenhydrogen
bonding,
bonding, hydrophobic interactions, and electrostatic interactions [5,53].
hydrophobic interactions, and electrostatic interactions [5,53]. Among the varieties Among the vari-
stud-
eties studied, the Baroda variety demonstrated a superior DPPH scavenging
ied, the Baroda variety demonstrated a superior DPPH scavenging capacity, particularly capacity, par-
atticularly at lower concentrations.
lower concentrations. However, However, at theconcentration
at the final final concentration
(0.64 (0.64
mmol),mmol), no sig-
no significant
nificant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between the varieties. The higher levels of
differences (p < 0.05) were observed between the varieties. The higher levels of bioac-
bioactive compounds, such as phenolic compounds and flavonoids, in the Baroda variety
tive compounds, such as phenolic compounds and flavonoids, in the Baroda variety may
may explain these results. The Baroda variety’s antioxidant activity may be attributed to
explain these results. The Baroda variety’s antioxidant activity may be attributed to its
its unique blend of bioactive compounds, including proanthocyanidins, flavonoids, and
unique blend of bioactive compounds, including proanthocyanidins, flavonoids, and lig-
lignans, which effectively combat free radicals and reduce oxidative stress [13,54]. The
nans, which effectively combat free radicals and reduce oxidative stress [13,54]. The Baroda
Baroda variety’s unique composition and synergistic effects may enhance its DPPH scav-
variety’s unique composition
enging capacity and antioxidant and synergistic
activity, even ateffects
lowermay enhance its DPPH scavenging
concentrations.
capacity and antioxidant activity, even at lower concentrations.
The ABTS radical scavenging capacity of all samples, as well as the standard Trolox
The ABTS radical
(water-soluble vitaminscavenging capacity with
E analog), increased of allrising
samples, as well as(Figure
concentration the standard Trolox
4C). Inter-
(water-soluble vitamin E analog), increased with rising concentration (Figure
estingly, at lower concentrations, the Shoarobit variety exhibited a significantly higher (p 4C). Inter-
estingly, at lower concentrations, the Shoarobit variety exhibited a significantly higher
(p < 0.05) ABTS scavenging activity compared to the other samples, including the standard.
This result may be attributed to the higher (next to Baroda) TPC (2.67 mg GAE/g) and
TFC (1.75 mg QE/g) of the Shoarobit variety, in addition to the different mechanisms of
action used in the ABTS antioxidant assay. However, at higher concentrations, the Baroda
and Rasa varieties demonstrated a significantly greater (p < 0.05) ABTS scavenging activ-
Foods 2025, 14, 571 13 of 16

ity when comparing between the varieties. In summary, the Baroda mung bean variety
exhibited the strongest overall potential to neutralize reactive species and protect against
oxidative stress across all antioxidant assays.
The results provide a substantial understanding of the antioxidant capacities of various
mung bean varieties, particularly regarding concentration levels. The study indicates that
the Shoarobit variety has superior antioxidant properties, possibly due to its higher total
phenolic and total flavonoid content, which neutralize free radicals. The observation that
the Shoarobit variety outperformed the others at lower concentrations suggests that it uses
its antioxidant compounds more efficiently, making it a valuable candidate for applications
where lower dosages are advantageous. This efficiency may also imply a distinctive
mechanism of action that enhances its scavenging capability in the ABTS assay. In contrast,
the increased ABTS scavenging activity observed in the Baroda and Rasa varieties at higher
concentrations suggests that these varieties may possess a unique profile of antioxidant
compounds that are more effective at elevated levels. This result indicates a threshold effect,
where the antioxidant capacity of these varieties is optimized at greater concentrations,
potentially due to synergistic interactions among the various phytochemicals present

4. Conclusions
To maximize the potential of Ethiopian mung bean varieties in diverse food applica-
tions, this study evaluated their nutritional composition, techno-functional characteristics,
and antioxidant properties. As a result, notable variations were observed both among
Ethiopian mung bean varieties and in comparison to mung bean cultivars from other coun-
tries. Notably, the Rasa variety exhibited a higher crude protein content, while the NVL-1
variety showed elevated levels of essential amino acids, particularly lysine, phenylala-
nine, and leucine. Additionally, the Baroda variety excelled in major mineral composition,
while the Shoarobit variety stood out for its higher levels of trace minerals, particularly
zinc—a vital micronutrient for human health. The Shoarobit variety also exhibited su-
perior rheological properties and high thermal resistance before denaturation, making it
well suited for high-temperature cooking. Furthermore, although the antioxidant activity
of all varieties was concentration-dependent, the Baroda variety stood out for its higher
phytochemical concentration and greater antioxidant activity. In a nutshell, these diverse
attributes highlight the suitability of Ethiopian mung bean varieties for various food prod-
uct developments. However, further molecular-level carbohydrate profiling and in vivo
antioxidant activity studies are still required to fully explore the potential of these mung
bean varieties.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods14040571/s1, Figure S1: Ethiopian mung varieties (A) Baroda
(MH-97-6), (B) Rasa (N-26), (C) NVL-1, (D) Shoarobit (land raised); Figure S2: Fourier transform
infrared of Rasa, Shoarobit, NVL-1, and Baroda variety mung bean; Figure S3: The TGA results of
Ethiopian mung bean varieties SH, R, B, and NVL are name codes that represent Shoarobit, Rasa,
Baroda, and NVL-1, respectively; Table S1: Proximate composition of Ethiopian mung bean varieties;
Table S2: Major mineral composition of Ethiopian mung bean varieties; Table S3: Trace mineral
composition of Ethiopian mung bean varieties; Table S4: Pasting property.

Author Contributions: F.M.I.: Conceptualization, investigation, methodology, formal analysis, data

curation, writing—original draft. K.U.: Writing—review and editing, supervision, methodology,
conceptualization. H.A.: Writing—review and editing, supervision, methodology, conceptualization.
E.G.F.: Conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing—review and editing, data curation,
formal analysis, visualization. S.-M.K.: Software, investigation. J.-H.S.: Writing—review and edit-
ing, supervision, funding acquisition, conceptualization. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Foods 2025, 14, 571 14 of 16

Funding: This research was supported by the biological materials specialized graduate program
through the Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI), funded by the Ministry
of Environment (MOE), and by a grant from the Korea Basic Science Institute (National Research
Facilities and Equipment Center) funded by the Ministry of Education (2021R1A6C101A416), Republic
of Korea, and also supported by Addis Ababa University.

Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in this study are included in the
article/Supplementary Materials. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to Addis Ababa Science and
Technology University, Addis Ababa University, and Kyungpook National University. They would
also like to thank Melkassa Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia, for providing the mung bean
varieties used in this study. Moreover, the authors acknowledge Kyungpook National University
Next Generation Sequencing Center for providing analysis server.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Mogotsi, K.K. Vigna radiata (L.) R. wilczek. In PROTA 1: Cereals and Pulses/Céréales et Légumes secs. [CD-Rom]; PROTA: Wageningen,
The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 1, pp. 1–13. Available online: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/14363 (accessed on 1 January
2020).
2. Habibullah, H.; Muhammad Abbas, M.A.; Shah, H.U. Proximate and mineral composition of mung bean. Sarhad J. Agric. 2007, 23,
463–466.
3. Bai, Y.; Chang, J.; Xu, Y.; Cheng, D.; Liu, H.; Zhao, Y.; Yu, Z. Antioxidant and myocardial preservation activities of natural
phytochemicals from mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) seeds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 4648–4655. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Chai, W.M.; Ou-Yang, C.; Huang, Q.; Lin, M.Z.; Wang, Y.X.; Xu, K.L.; Pang, D.D. Antityrosinase and antioxidant properties of
mung bean seed proanthocyanidins: Novel insights into the inhibitory mechanism. Food Chem. 2018, 260, 27–36. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
5. Yang, Q.; Ge, Y.; Gunaratne, A.; Kong, K.; Li, H.; Gan, Y. Food Bioscience Phenolic profiles, antioxidant activities, and antiprolifer-
ative activities of different mung bean (Vigna radiata) varieties from Sri Lanka. Food Biosci. 2020, 37, 100705. [CrossRef]
6. Andrabi, S.N.; Wani, I.A.; Gani, A.; Hamdani, A.M.; Masoodi, F.A. Comparative study of physico-chemical and functional
properties of starch extracted from two kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and green gram cultivars (Vigna radiata L.) grown in
India. Starch-Stärke 2016, 68, 416–426. [CrossRef]
7. Dahiya, P.K.; Linnemann, A.R.; Nout, M.J.R.; van Boekel, M.A.J.S.; Grewal, R.B. Nutrient composition of selected newly bred and
established mung bean varieties. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 54, 249–256. [CrossRef]
8. Payasi, D.K. Genetic Variability Analysis for Seed Yield and its Components in Mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Int. J. Plant
Breed. Genet. 2015, 9, 177–188. [CrossRef]
9. Wang, F.; Huang, L.; Yuan, X.; Zhang, X.; Guo, L.; Xue, C.; Chen, X. Nutritional, phytochemical and antioxidant properties of 24
mung bean (Vigna radiate L.) genotypes. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2021, 3, 28. [CrossRef]
10. Myers, R.; Betz, J.M.; Bøjstrup, M.; Craft, N.E.; Figore, H.; Hall, A.; Joseph, G.; Kennedy, D.; Khachik, F.; Coates, S.G.; et al. AOAC
SMPR® 2016.004. J. AOAC Int. 2016, 99, 1105–1106. [CrossRef]
11. Schultz, C.J.; Kochian, L.V.; Harrison, M.J. Genetic variation for root architecture, nutrient uptake and mycorrhizal colonisation in
Medicago truncatula accessions. Plant Soil 2010, 336, 113–128. [CrossRef]
12. Phuyal, N.; Jha, P.K.; Raturi, P.P.; Rajbhandary, S. Total phenolic, flavonoid contents, and antioxidant activities of fruit, seed, and
bark extracts of Zanthoxylum armatum DC. Sci. World J. 2020, 2020, 8780704. [CrossRef]
13. Priti; Mishra, G.P.; Dikshit, H.K.; Vinutha, T.; Tontang, M.T.; Stobdan, T.; Sangwan, S.; Aski, M.; Singh, A.; Kumar, R.R.; et al.
Diversity in phytochemical composition, antioxidant capacities, and nutrient contents among mungbean and lentil microgreens
when grown at plain-altitude region (Delhi) and high-altitude region (Leh-Ladakh), India. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 710812.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Shi, L.; Arntfield, S.D.; Nickerson, M. Changes in levels of phytic acid, lectins and oxalates during soaking and cooking of
Canadian pulses. Food Res. Int. 2018, 107, 660–668. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Khandelwal, S.; Udipi, S.A.; Ghugre, P. Polyphenols and tannins in Indian pulses: Effect of soaking, germination and pressure
cooking. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 526–530. [CrossRef]
16. Argel, N.S.; Ranalli, N.; Califano, A.N.; Andrés, S.C. Influence of partial pork meat replacement by pulse flour on physicochemical
and sensory characteristics of low-fat burgers. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 3932–3941. [CrossRef]
Foods 2025, 14, 571 15 of 16

17. Yu, S.; Wu, Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, C.; Zhang, D.; Wang, L. Effect of different milling methods on physicochemical and functional
properties of mung bean flour. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1117385. [CrossRef]
18. Vinayashree, S.; Vasu, P. Biochemical, nutritional and functional properties of protein isolate and fractions from pumpkin
(Cucurbita moschata var. Kashi Harit) seeds. Food Chem. 2021, 340, 128177. [CrossRef]
19. Hamid, S.; Muzzafar, S.; Wani, I.A.; Ahmad, F. Physicochemical and functional properties of two cowpea cultivars grown in
temperate Indian climate. Cogent Food Agric. 2015, 4, 1099418. [CrossRef]
20. Aprodu, I.; Vasilean, I.; Muntenită, C.; Patrascu, L. Impact of broad beans addition on rheological and thermal properties of wheat
flour based sourdoughs. Food Chem. 2019, 293, 520–528. [CrossRef]
21. American Association of Cereal Chemists; Approved Methods Committee. Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal
Chemists; American Association of Cereal Chemists: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2000; Volume 1.
22. Zhong, F.; Li, Y.; Ibanz, A.M.; Oh, M.H.; McKenzie, K.S.; Shoemaker, C. The effect of rice variety and starch isolation method on
the pasting and rheological properties of rice starch pastes. Food Hydrocoll. 2009, 23, 406–414. [CrossRef]
23. Wathoni, N.; Yuan Shan, C.; Yi Shan, W.; Rostinawati, T.; Indradi, R.B.; Pratiwi, R.; Muchtaridi, M. Characterization and
antioxidant activity of pectin from Indonesian mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.) rind. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02299. [CrossRef]
24. Xie, J.; Du, M.; Shen, M.; Wu, T.; Lin, L. Physico-chemical properties, antioxidant activities and angiotensin-converting enzyme
inhibitory of protein hydrolysates from Mung bean (Vigna radiate). Food Chem. 2019, 270, 243–250. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Lee, J.H.; Jeon, J.K.; Kim, S.G.; Kim, S.H.; Chun, T.; Imm, J.Y. Comparative analyses of total phenols, flavonoids, saponins and
antioxidant activity in yellow soy beans and mung beans. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 46, 2513–2519. [CrossRef]
26. Zafar, S.H.; Umair, M.; Akhtar, M. Nutritional evaluation, proximate and chemical composition of mungbean varieties/cultivars
pertaining to food quality characterization. Food Chem. Adv. 2023, 2, 100160. [CrossRef]
27. Gharibzahedi, S.M.T.; Jafari, S.M. The importance of minerals in human nutrition: Bioavailability, food fortification, processing
effects and nanoencapsulation. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 62, 119–132. [CrossRef]
28. Balo, S. Studies on response of mung bean on phosphorous nutrition: A Review. Pharm. Innov. J. 2022, 11, 902–906.
29. Frossard, E.; Bucher, M.; Mächler, F.; Mozafar, A.; Hurrell, R. Potential for increasing the content and bioavailability of Fe, Zn and
Ca in plants for human nutrition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2000, 80, 861–879. [CrossRef]
30. Millward, D.J. Identifying recommended dietary allowances for protein and amino acids: A critique of the 2007 WHO/FAO/UNU
report. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108, S3–S21. [CrossRef]
31. Singh, B.; Singh, N.; Thakur, S.; Kaur, A. Ultrasound assisted extraction of polyphenols and their distribution in whole mung
bean, hull and cotyledon. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 921–932. [CrossRef]
32. Hou, D.; Yousaf, L.; Xue, Y.; Hu, J.; Wu, J.; Hu, X.; Feng, N.; Shen, Q. Mung bean (Vigna radiata L.): Bioactive polyphenols,
polysaccharides, peptides, and health benefits. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1238. [CrossRef]
33. Sutrisno, S. Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity of Mung bean Seed Cultivars from Optimized Extraction Treatment.
Bul. Palawija 2019, 17, 1. [CrossRef]
34. Grewal, A.; Jood, S. Effect of processing treatments on nutritional and antinutritional contents of green gram. J. Food Biochem.
2006, 30, 535–546. [CrossRef]
35. Mubarak, A.E. Nutritional composition and antinutritional factors of mung bean seeds (Phaseolus aureus) as affected by some
home traditional processes. Food Chem. 2005, 89, 489–495. [CrossRef]
36. D’Mello, J.P.F. Farm Animal Metabolism and Nutrition; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2000; ISBN 0851993788.
37. Sharma, K.; Kumar, V.; Kaur, J.; Tanwar, B.; Goyal, A.; Sharma, R.; Gat, Y.; Kumar, A. Health effects, sources, utilization and safety
of tannins: A critical review. Toxin Rev. 2021, 40, 432–444. [CrossRef]
38. Gupta, S.; Chhabra, G.S.; Liu, C.; Bakshi, J.S.; Sathe, S.K. Functional properties of select dry bean seeds and flours. J. Food Sci.
2018, 83, 2052–2061. [CrossRef]
39. Kaur, A.; Singh, N.; Ezekiel, R.; Guraya, H.S. Physicochemical, thermal and pasting properties of starches separated from different
potato cultivars grown at different locations. Food Chem. 2007, 101, 643–651. [CrossRef]
40. Woo, S.; Kim, M.; Sim, E.; Kim, H.; Lee, C.K.; Jeon, Y.H. Quality Characteristics of Commercially Available Soybean and
Mung-bean Flours in Korea. J. Korean Soc. Food Nutr. 2017, 30, 1119–1126.
41. Du, S.; Jiang, H.; Yu, X.; Jane, J. Physicochemical and functional properties of whole legume fl our. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 55,
308–313. [CrossRef]
42. Ratnawati, L.; Desnilasari, D.; Surahman, D.N.; Kumalasari, R. Evaluation of physicochemical, functional and pasting properties
of soybean, mung bean and red kidney bean flour as ingredient in biscuit. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 251, 012026.
[CrossRef]
43. Zhao, L.F.; Seib, P.A. Alkaline-carbonate noodles from hard winter wheat flours varying in protein, swelling power, and
polyphenol oxidase activity. Cereal Chem. 2005, 82, 504–516. [CrossRef]
44. Admasu, F.; Fentie, E.G.; Admassu, H.; Shin, J.H. Functionalization of wheat bread with prebiotic dietary insoluble fiber from
orange-fleshed sweet potato peel and haricot bean flours. LWT 2024, 200, 116182. [CrossRef]
Foods 2025, 14, 571 16 of 16

45. Locali-pereira, A.R.; Tiaki, M.; Kubo, K.; Fuzetti, C.G. Functional properties of physically pretreated kidney bean and mung bean
flours and their performance in microencapsulation of a carotenoid-rich oil. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 845566. [CrossRef]
46. Sun, H.; Fan, J.; Sun, H.; Jiang, G.; Meng, Y.; Zeng, X.; Yang, Z.; Nan, X.; Kang, L.; Liu, X. Study on protein structures of eight
mung bean varieties and freeze-thaw stability of protein-stabilized emulsions. Foods 2022, 11, 3343. [CrossRef]
47. Dahiya, P.K.; Linnemann, A.R.; Van Boekel, M.A.J.S.; Khetarpaul, N.; Grewal, R.B.; Nout, M.J.R. Mung bean: Technological and
nutritional potential. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 55, 670–688. [CrossRef]
48. Ferawati, F.; Hefni, M. Flours from Swedish pulses: Effects of treatment on functional properties and nutrient content. Food Sci.
Nutr. 2019, 7, 4116–4126. [CrossRef]
49. Chibudike, H.O. Concentration Effect on Foaming and Stability of Isolates from Two Varieties (DAS & BS) of Nigerian Cultivated
Solojo Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp). Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 8, 1–7. [CrossRef]
50. Adebowale, Y.A.; Adeyemi, I.A.; Oshodi, A.A. Functional and physicochemical properties of flours of six Mucuna species. Afr. J.
Biotechnol. 2005, 4, 1461–1468. [CrossRef]
51. Banchathanakij, R.; Suphantharika, M. Effect of different b -glucans on the gelatinisation and retrogradation of rice starch. Food
Chem. 2009, 114, 5–14. [CrossRef]
52. Khatkar, B.S.; David Schofield, J. Dynamic rheology of wheat flour dough. I. Non-linear viscoelastic behaviour. J. Sci. Food Agric.
2002, 82, 827–829. [CrossRef]
53. Fentie, E.G.; Jeong, M.; Emire, S.A.; Demsash, H.D.; Kim, M.A.; Shin, J.H. Fermentation dynamics of spontaneously fermented
Ethiopian honey wine, Tej. LWT 2022, 155, 112927. [CrossRef]
54. Kassa, Y.; Abie, A.; Mamo, D.; Ayele, T. Exploring farmer perceptions and evaluating the performance of mung bean (Vigna
radiata L.) varieties in Amhara region, Ethiopia. Heliyon 2022, 8, e12525. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

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.