Abizari, A.-R.Moretti, D.Schuth, S.Zimmermann, M.B.Armar-Klemesu, M.Brouwer, I.D.2019-01-112019-01-112012-11Volume 142, Issue 11,Pages 1950–1955https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.112.164095http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh/handle/123456789/26752Limited data exist on iron absorption from NaFeEDTA and FeSO4 in legume-based flours. The current study compared iron absorption from NaFeEDTA and FeSO4 as fortificants within and between red and white varieties of cowpea with different concentrations of polyphenols (PP) but similar phytic acid (PA)-to-iron molar ratios. We performed a paired crossover study in young women (n = 16). Red-cowpea (high-PP) and white-cowpea (low-PP) test meals (Tubani) were each fortified with (57Fe)-labeled NaFeEDTA or (58Fe)-labeled FeSO4 and were randomly administered. Iron absorption was measured as erythrocyte incorporation of stable iron isotopes. Per serving, the mean (6SD) PP concentrations of the white- and red-cowpea-basedmeals were 7463.6 and 15861.8mg, respectively, and themolar ratio of PA to ironwas 3.0 and 3.3. Iron bioavailabilities from red and white cowpeas were 1.4 and 1.7%, respectively, in NaFeEDTA-fortified meals and 0.89 and 1.2%, respectively, in FeSO4-fortified meals. Compared with FeSO4, fortification with NaFeEDTA increased the amount of iron absorbed from either of the cowpeameals by 0.05 to0.08mg(P < 0.05). Irrespective of the fortificant used, therewas no significant difference in the amount of iron absorbed fromthe 2 varieties of cowpea. The results suggest that NaFeEDTA ismore bioavailable in legume-based flours comparedwith FeSO4. In cowpea-based flours, themajor determinant of lowiron absorptionmay be the highmolar ratio of PA to iron and not variations in PP concentration. © 2012 American Society for Nutrition.enPhytic AcidIron Molar RatioPolyphenol ConcentrationWhole-Cowpea MealYoung Womeniron isotopesIron BioavailabilityArticle