By GEYANG WU A dissertation submitted in partial ...

QUINOA SEED QUALITY AND SENSORY EVALUATION

By

GEYANG WU

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY School of Food Science

MAY 2016

copy Copyright by GEYANG WU 2016 All Rights Reserved


ii

To the Faculty of Washington State University

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of GEYANG WU find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted

_________________________________ Carolyn F Ross PhD Co-Chair

_________________________________

Craig F Morris PhD Co-Chair

_________________________________ Barbara Rasco PhD

_________________________________

Kevin M Murphy PhD

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This dissertation is accomplished with a lot of collaborations of Food Science USDA-

ARS Western Wheat Quality Lab and Crop Science I gained significant advice and help from

my co-chairs and co-advisors Dr Craig Morris and Dr Carolyn Ross as well as my committee

members Dr Barbara Rasco and Dr Kevin Murphy Working with them on research proposals

experiments data processing and editing manuscripts I learned so much from scientific

philosophy critical thinking and efficient argument to scientific writing skills This dissertation

could never have been accomplished without their professional patient and persistent work

Additionally I owe thanks to many lab members who provided important help with the

experiments From the USDA-ARS Western Wheat Quality Lab Bozena Paszczynska who is no

longer with us trained me on most of the flour testing equipment Patrick Fuerst Alecia

Kiszonas Douglas Engle and Eric Wegner helped with experimental methods manuscript

preparation milling and equipment maintenance From the WSU Sensory Evaluation Lab Beata

Vixie Karen Weller Charles Diako and Ben Bernhard provided help in sensory study

preparation and serving From the WSU Sustainable Seed System Lab Max Wood Janet

Matanguihan Hannah Walters Adam Peterson Raymond Kinney Cedric Habiyaremye

Leonardo Hinojosa and Kristofor Ludvigson helped with quinoa field work (planting weeding

harvesting) post-harvest cleaning and greenhouse management I feel grateful to have met so

many brilliant and kind people and it is a pleasant journey to work with them and develop

friendships with them

Finally thanks to my family and friends Their understanding and support helped me

sincerely enjoy life and work during the past four years

iv


Abstract

by Geyang Wu PhD Washington State University

May 2016

Co-Chairs Carolyn F Ross Craig F Morris

Quinoa is a grain that has garnered increasing interest in recent years from global

markets as well as in academic research The studies in this dissertation focused on quinoa seed

quality and sensory evaluation among diverse quinoa varieties with potential adaptation to

growing conditions in Washington State The objectives in the dissertation were to study quinoa

seed quality as well as the sensory attributes of cooked quinoa as defined by both trained and

consumer panelists Regarding quinoa seed quality we investigated seed characteristics

(diameter weight density hardness seed coat proportion) seed composition (protein and ash

content) flour viscosity and thermal properties quinoa cooking quality and texture of cooked

quinoa Additionally the functional characteristics of quinoa were studied including the

determination of amylose content starch swelling power and water solubility texture of starch

gel and starch thermal properties Results indicated texture of cooked quinoa was significantly

influenced by protein content flour viscosity quinoa cooking quality amylose content and

starch enthalpy In addition the influences of soil salinity and fertility on quinoa seed quality

were evaluated The variety lsquoQQ065rsquo exhibited increased protein content and maintained similar

levels of hardness and density under salinity stress and is considered to be the best adapted

v

variety among four varieties Finally sensory evaluation studies on cooked quinoa were

conducted A lexicon of cooked quinoa was developed including the sensory attributes of aroma

tasteflavor texture and color Results from the trained and consumer panel indicated that

consumer liking of quinoa was positively influenced by grassy aroma and firm and crunchy

texture These results represent valuable information to quinoa breeders in the determination of

seed quality of diverse quinoa varieties In the food industry the results of seed quality and

sensory studies (lexicon and consumer-liking) can be utilized to evaluate quinoa ingredients from

multiple locations or years determine the efficiency of post-harvest processing and develop

appropriate products according to the properties of the specific quinoa variety Overall this

dissertation contributed to the growing body of research describing the chemical physical and

sensory properties of quinoa

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv-v

LIST OF TABLES ix-xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii-xiii

CHAPTERS

1 Introduction 1

References 6

2 Literature review 9

References 26

Tables 41

Figures44

3 Evaluation of texture differences among varieties of cooked quinoa 46

Abstract 46

Introduction 48

Materials and Methods 51

Results 54

Discussion 60

vii

Conclusion 63

References 65

Tables 71

Figures78

4 Quinoa starch characteristics and their correlation with

texture of cooked quinoa 80

Abstract 80

Introduction 81


Results 87

Discussion 95

Conclusion 102

References 103

Tables 109

5 Quinoa seed quality response to sodium chloride and

Sodium sulfate salinity 118

Abstract 118

Introduction 120


Results 125

Discussion 123

viii

Conclusion 132

References 134

Tables 139

Figure 145

6 Lexicon development and sensory attributes of cooked quinoa 146

Abstract 146

Introduction 148


Results and Discussion 155

Conclusion 165

References 167

Tables 172

Figures183

7 Conclusions 189

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

CHAPTER 2

Table 1 Essential amino acid of quinoa protein and FAOWHO suggested requirement (mgg

protein) 41

Table 2 Quinoa vitamin content (mg100g) 42

Table 3 Quinoa mineral content (mgmg ) 43

CHAPTER 3

Table 1 Varieties of quinoa used in the experimenthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip71

Table 2 Seed characteristics and composition 72

Table 3 Texture profile analysis (TPA) of cooked quinoa 73

Table 4 Cooking quality of quinoa 74

Table 5 Pasting properties of quinoa flour by RVA 75

Table 6 Thermal properties of quinoa flour by Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) 76

Table 7 Correlation coefficients between quinoa seed characteristics composition and

processing parameters and TPA texture of cooked quinoa 77

CHAPTER 4

Table 1 Quinoa varieties tested 109

Table 2 Starch content and composition 110

Table 3 Starch properties and α-amylase activity 111

Table 4 Texture of starch gel 112

Table 5 Thermal properties of starch 113

x

Table 6 Pasting properties of starch 114

Table 7 Correlation coefficients between starch properties and texture of cooked quinoa 115

Table 8 Correlations between starch properties and seed DSC RVA characteristics 116

CHAPTER 5

Table 1 Analysis of variance with F-values for protein content hardness and density of quinoa

seed 139

Table 2 Salinity variety and fertilization effects on quinoa seed protein content () 140

Table 3 Salinity variety and fertilization effects on quinoa seed hardness (kg) 141

Table 4 Salinity variety and fertilization effects on quinoa seed density (g cm3) 142

Table 5 Correlation coefficients of protein hardness and density of quinoa seed 143

Table 6 Correlation coefficients of quinoa seed quality and agronomic performance and seed

mineral content144

CHAPTER 6

Table 1 Quinoa samples 172

Table 2 Lexicon of cooked quinoa as developed by the trained panelists (n = 9) 173

Table 3 Significance and F-value of the effects of panelist replicate and quinoa variety on

aroma flavor and texture of cooked quinoa as determined using a trained panel (n = 9) 176

Table 4 Mean separation of significant tasteflavor attributes of cooked quinoa determined by

the trained panel Different letters within a column indicate attribute intensities were different

among quinoa samples at P lt 005 as determined using Fisherrsquos LSD 178

Table 5 Mean separation of consumer preference Different letters within a column indicate

consumer evaluation scores were different among quinoa samples at P lt 005 179

xi

Table 6 Hardness adhesiveness cohesiveness springiness gumminess and chewiness of the

cooked quinoa samples as determined using Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) Different letters

within a column indicate attribute intensities were different among quinoa samples at P lt 005

180

Table 7 Correlation of trained panel texture evaluation data and instrumental TPA over the 21

quinoa varieties 181

Table 1S Mean separation of significant aroma attributes of cooked quinoa determined by the

trained panel (n = 9) Different letters within a column indicate attribute intensities were different


Table 2S Mean separation of significant texture attributes of cooked quinoa determined by the

trained panel Different letters within a column indicate attribute intensities were different among

quinoa samples at P lt 005 as determined using Fisherrsquos LSD 187

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

CHAPTER 2

Figure 1 Quinoa seed section and two-layered pericarp under perianth (Wu et al 2014) 44

Figure 2 Figure 2-Quinoa seed structure (Prego et al 1998) 45

CHAPTER 3

Figure 1 Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA) graph of lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquoRed Commercialrsquo quinoa

flours 78

Figure 2 Seed coat image by SEM 79

CHAPTER 5

Figure 1 Protein content () of quinoa in response to combined fertility and

salinity treatments 145

CHAPTER 6

Figure 1 Principal component Analysis (PCA) biplot of aroma evaluations by the trained

sensory panel (n = 9) of the 21 varieties of cooked quinoa Attributes with significantly

differed among samples 182

Figure 2 Principal component Analysis (PCA) biplot of tasteflavor evaluations by the trained



xiii

Figure 3 Principal component Analysis (PCA) biplot of texturemouthfeel evaluations by the

trained sensory panel (n = 9) of the 21 varieties of cooked quinoa Attributes with significantly


Figure 4 Partial Least Squares (PLS) biplot correlating aroma color appearance tasteflavor

texture and overall attributes evaluated by the trained panel (n = 9) to the consumer panel (n =

102) for 6 quinoa samples (Consumer acceptances are in bold italics) 185

Figure-1S Demographic influence on preference of variety lsquoBlackrsquo 188

xiv

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to those who are interested in quinoa

the beautiful small grain providing nutrition and fun

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Quinoa is growing rapidly in the global market largely due to its high nutritional value

and potential application in a wide range of products Bolivia and Peru are the major producers

and exporters of quinoa In Peru production increased from 31824 MT (Metric Ton) in 2007 to

108000 MT in 2015 (USDA 2015) In 2013 organic quinoa from Bolivia and Peru were sold at

averages of $8000MT and $7000MT respectively (Nuntildeez de Acro 2015) Of all countries the

US and Canada import the most quinoa and comprise 53 and 15 of the global imports

respectively (Carimentrand et al 2015) Quinoa yield is on average 600 kgha with yield

varying greatly and among varieties and environments (Garcia et al 2004) The total production

cost is $720ha in the southern Altiplano region of Bolivia and the farm-gate price reached

$60kg in 2013 (Nuntildeez de Acro 2015) With 2600 kg annual quinoa yield in a small 3 ha farm

the revenue would be $15390 which could potentially raise a family out of poverty (Nuntildeez de

Acro 2015)

Quinoa possesses many sensory properties Food texture refers to those qualities of a

food that can be felt with the fingers tongue palate or teeth (Sahin and Sumnu 2006) Texture is

one of most significant properties of food products Quinoa has unique texture ndash creamy smooth

and a little crunchy (James 2009) The texture of cooked quinoa is not only influenced by seed

structure but also determined by compounds such as starch and protein However publications

describing the texture of cooked quinoa are limited

Seed characteristics and structure are important factors influencing the textual properties

of cooked quinoa seed Quinoa is a dicotyledonous plant species very different from

2

monocotyledonous cereal grains The majority of the seed is the middle perisperm of which cells

have very thin walls and angular-shaped starch grains (Prego et al 1998) The two-layer

endosperm of the quinoa seed consists of living thick-walled cells rich in proteins and lipids but

without starch The protein bodies found in the embryo and endosperm lack crystalloids and

contain one or more globoids of phytin (Prego 1998) Given the structure of quinoa the seed

properties such as seed size hardness and seed coat proportion may influence the texture of the

cooked quinoa Nevertheless correlations between seed characteristics seed structure and

texture of cooked quinoa have not been performed

Beside the physical properties of seed the seed composition will influence the texture as

well Protein and starch are the major components in quinoa while their correlation to texture

has not been studied Starch characteristics and structures significantly influence the texture of

the end product Starch granules of quinoa is very small (1-2μm) compared to that of rice and

barley (Tari et al 2003) Quinoa starch is lower in amylose content (11 of starch) (Ahamed

1996) which may yield the hard texture Chain length of amylopectin also influences hardness of

food product (Ong and Blanshard 1995) In sum the influence of quinoa seed composition and

characteristics on cooked product should be studied

In addition to seed quality and characteristics the sensory attributes of quinoa are also

significant as they influence consumer acceptance and the application of the quinoa variety

However there is a lack of lexicon to describe the sensory attributes of cooked quinoa Rice is

considered as a model when studying quinoa sensory attributes because they are cooked in

similar ways The lexicon of cooked rice were developed and defined in the study of Champagne

3

et al (2004) Sewer floral starchygrain hay-likemusty popcorn green beans sweet taste

sour and astringent were among those attributes

Consumer acceptance is of great interested to breeders farmers and the food industry

Acceptability of quinoa bread was studied by Rosell et al (2009) and Chlopicka et al (2012)

Gluten free quinoa spaghetti (Chillo et al 2008) and dark chocolate with 20 quinoa

(Schumacher et al 2010) were evaluated using a sensory panel However cooked quinoa the

most common way of consuming quinoa has not been studied for its sensory properties and

consumer preference Additionally consumer acceptance of quinoa may be influenced by the

panelistsrsquo demographic such as origin food culture familiarity with less common grains and

quinoa and opinion of a healthy diet Furthermore compared to instrumental tests sensory

evaluation tests are generally more expensive and time consuming hence correlations of sensory

panel and instrumental data are of interest If correlations exist instrumental analyses can be

used to substitute or complement sensory panel evaluation

Based on the above discussion this dissertation focused on the study of seed

characteristics quality and texture of cooked quinoa and starch characteristics among various

quinoa varieties Seed quality under saline soil conditions was also investigated To develop the

sensory profiles of cooked quinoa a trained panel developed and validated a lexicon for cooked

quinoa while a consumer panel evaluated their acceptance of different quinoa varieties From

these data the drivers of consumer liking were determined

The dissertation is divided into 7 chapters Chapter 1 is an introduction of the topic and

overall objectives of the studies Chapter 2 provides a literature review of recent progress in

4

quinoa studies including quinoa seed structure and compositions physical properties flour

properties health benefits and quinoa products Chapter 3 was published in Journal of Food

Science under the title of lsquoEvaluation of texture differences among varieties of cooked quinoarsquo

The objectives of Chapter 3 were to study the texture difference among varieties of cooked

quinoa and evaluate the correlation between the texture and the seed characters and

composition cooking process flour pasting properties and thermal properties

Chapter 4 includes the manuscript entitled lsquoQuinoa starch characteristics and their

correlation with texture of cooked quinoarsquo The objectives of Chapter 4 were to determine starch

characteristics of quinoa among different varieties and investigate the correlations between the

starch characteristics and cooking quality of quinoa

Chapter 5 has been submitted to Frontier in Plant Science under the title lsquoQuinoa seed

quality response to sodium chloride and sodium sulfate salinityrsquo In Chapter 5 quinoa seed

quality grown under salinity stress was assessed Four quinoa varieties were grown under six

salinity treatments and two levels of fertilization and then quinoa seed quality characteristics

such as protein content seed hardness and seed density were evaluated

Chapter 6 is the manuscript entitled lsquoLexicon development and sensory attributes of

cooked quinoarsquo In Chapter 6 a lexicon of cooked quinoa was developed using a trained panel

The lexicon provided descriptions of the sensory attributes of aroma tasteflavor texture and

color with references developed for each attribute The trained panel then applied this lexicon to

the evaluation of 16 field trial quinoa varieties from WSU and 5 commercial quinoa samples

from Bolivia and Peru A consumer panel also evaluated their acceptance of 6 selected quinoa

5

samples Using data from the trained panel and the consumer panel the key sensory attributes

driving consumer liking were determined Finally Chapter 7 presents the conclusions and

recommendations for future studies

6

References

Nuntildeez de Acro Chapter 12 Quinoarsquos calling In Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors Quinoa

Improvement and Sustainable Production Hoboken NJ John Wiley amp Sons Inc p 211 ndash 25

Ahamed NT Singhal RS Kulkarni PR Pal M 1996 Physicochemical and functional properties

of Chenopodium quinoa starch Carbohydr Polym 31 99-103

Ando H Chen Y Tang H Shimizu M Watanabe K Mitsunaga T 2002 Food Components in

Fractions of Quinoa Seed Food Sci Technol Res 8(1) 80-4

Carimentrand A Baudoin A Lacroix P Bazile D Chia E 2015 Chapter 41 International

quinoa trade In D Bazile D Bertero and C Nieto editors State of the Art Report of

Quinoa in the World in 2013 Rome FAO amp CIRAD p 316 ndash 29

Champagne ET Bett-Garber KL McClung AM Bergman C 2004 Sensory characteristics of

diverse rice cultivars as influenced by genetic and environmental factors Cereal Chem 81

237-43

Chillo S Civica V Iannetti M Mastromatteo M Suriano N Del Nobile M 2010 Influence of

repeated extrusions on some properties of non-conventional spaghetti J Food Eng 100 329-

35

Chlopicka J Pasko P Gorinstein S Jedryas A Zagrodzki P 2012 Total phenolic and total

flavonoid content antioxidant activity and sensory evaluation of pseudocereal breads LWT-

Food Sci Technol 46 548-55

7

Garcia M Raes D Allen R Herbas C 2004 Dynamics of reference evapotranspiration in the

Bolivian highlands (Altiplano) Agr Forest Meteorol 125(1) 67-82

James LEA 2009 Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) composition chemistry nutritional

and functional properties Adv Food Nutr Res 58 1-31

Ong MH Blanshard JMV 1995 Texture determinants in cooked parboiled rice I Rice starch

amylose and the fine structure of amylopectin J Cereal Sci 21 251-60

Perdon AA Siebenmorgen TJ Buescher RW Gbur EE 1999 Starch retrogradation and texture

of cooked milled rice during storage J Food Sci 64 828-32

Prego I Maldonado S Otegui M 1998 Seed structure and localization of reserves in

Chenopodium quinoa Ann Bot 82(4) 481-8

Ramesh M Ali SZ Bhattacharya KR1999 Structure of rice starch and its relation to cooked-

rice texture Carbohydr Polym 38 337-47

Rosell CM Cortez G Repo-Carrasco R 2009 Bread making use of Andean crops quinoa

kantildeiwa kiwicha and tarwi Cereal Chem 86 386-92

Sahin S Sumnu SG 2006 Physical properties of foods Springer Science amp Business Media

P39 ndash 109

Schumacher AB Brandelli A Macedo FC Pieta L Klug TV de Jong EV 2010 Chemical and

sensory evaluation of dark chocolate with addition of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) J


8

Tari TA Annapure US Singhal RS Kulkarni PR 2003 Starch-based spherical aggregates

screening of small granule sized starches for entrapment of a model flavouring compound

vanillin Carbohydr Polym 53 45-51

USDA US Department of Agriculture 2015a Peru Quinoa outlook Access from

httpwwwfasusdagovdataperu-quinoa-outlook

9

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Introduction

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) is a dicotyledonous pseudocereal from the Andean

region of South America The plant belongs to a complex of allotetraploid taxa (2n = 4x = 36)

which includes Chenopodium berlandieri subsp berlandieri Chenopodium berlandieri subsp

nuttalliae Chenopodium hircinum and Chenopodium quinoa (Gomez-Pando 2015 Matanguihan

et al 2015) Closely related species include the weed lambsquarter (Chenopodium album)

amaranth (Amaranth palmeri) sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L) and spinach (Spinacea oleracea L)

(Maughan et al 2004) Quinoa plant is C3 specie with 90 self-pollenating (Gonzalez et al

2011) Quinoa was domesticated approximately 5000 ndash 7000 years ago in the Lake Titicaca area

in Bolivia and Peru (Gonzalez et al 2015) Quinoa produces small oval-shaped seeds with a

diameter of 2 mm and a weight of 2 g ndash 46 g 1000-seed (Wu et al 2014) The seed color varies

and can be white yellow orange red purple brown or gray White and red quinoas are the most

common commercially available varietals in the US marketplace (Data from online resources

and local stores in Pullman WA) With such small seeds quinoa provides excellent nutritional

value such as high protein content balanced essential amino acids high proportion of

unsaturated fatty acids rich vitamin B complex vitamin E and minerals antioxidants such as

phenolics and betalains and rich dietary fibers (Wu 2015) For these reasons quinoa is

recognized as a ldquocompleterdquo food (Taverna et al 2012)

10

This chapter reviewed publications in quinoa varieties global development seed

structure and constituents quinoa health benefits physical properties and thermal properties

quinoa flour characteristics processing and quinoa products

Quinoa varieties

There are 16422 quinoa accessions or genetypes conserved worldwide 14502 of which

are conserved in genebanks from the Andean region (Rojas et al 2013) Bolivia and Peru

manage 13023 quinoa accessions (80 of world total accessions) in 140 genebanks (Rojas and

Pinto 2015)

Based on genetic diversity adaptation and morphological characteristics five ecotypes

of quinoa have been identified in the Andean region including valley quinoa Altiplano quinoa

salar quinoa sea level quinoa and subtropical quinoa (Tapia et al 1980) The sea-level ecotype

or Chilean lowland ecotype is the best adapted to temperate climate and high summer

temperature (Peterson and Murphy 2015a)

Adaptation

Quinoa has shown excellent adaptation to marginal or extreme environments and such

adaptation was summarized by Gonzalez et al (2015) Quinoa growing areas range from sea

level to 4200 masl (meters above sea level) with growing temperature rangeing from -4 to 38 ordmC

The plant has adapted to drought-stressed environments but can also grow in areas with

humidity ranging from 40 to 88 Quinoa can grow in marginal soil conditions such as dry

(Garcia et al 2003) infertile (Sanchez et al 2003) and with wide pH range from acidic to basic

(Jacobsen and Stolen 1993) Quinoa has also adapted to high salinity soil (equal to sea salt level

11

or 40 dSm) (Koyro and Eisa 2008 Hariadi et al 2011 Peterson and Murphy 2015b)

Furthermore quinoa has shown tolerance to frost at -8 to -4 ordmC (Jacobsen et al 2005)

Even though quinoa varieties are remarkably diverse and able to adapt to extreme

conditions time and resources are required to breed the high-yielding varieties that are adapted

to regional environments in North America Challenges to achieving strong performance include

yield waterlogging pre-harvest sprouting weed control and tolerance to disease insect pests

and animal stress (Peterson and Murphy 2015a) The breeding work not only needs the effort

from breeders and researchers but also demands the participation and collaboration of local

farmers

In addition to being widely grown in South America quinoa has also recently been

grown in North America Europe Australia Africa and Asia In US quinoa cultivation and

breeding started in the 1980s by the efforts from seed companies private individuals and

Colorado State University (Peterson and Murphy 2015a) Since 2010 Washington State

University has been breeding quinoa in the Pacific Northwest to suit the diverse environmental

conditions including rainfall and temperature Peterson and Murphy (2015a) found the major

challenges in North America included heat susceptibility downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola)

saponin removal weed stress and insect stress (such as aphids and Lygus sp)

With high nutritional value quinoa is recognized as significant in food security and

treating malnutrition issue in developing countries (Rojas 2011) Maliro and Guwela (2015)

reviewed quinoa breeding in Africa Initial experiments showed quinoa can grow well in Malawi

and Kenya in both warm and cool areas The quinoa grain yields in Malawi and Kenya are 3-4

12

tonha which are comparable to the yields in South America However the challenge remains to

adopt quinoa into the local diet and cultivate a quinoa consuming market

Physical Properties of Quinoa

Physical properties of seed refer to seed morphology size gravimetric properties

(weight density and porosity) aerodynamic properties and hardness which are critical to

technology and equipment designed for post-harvest process such as seed cleaning

classification aeration drying and storage (Vilche et al 2003)

The quinoa seed is oval-shaped with a diameter of approximately 18 to 22 mm (Bertero

et al 2004 Wu et al 2014) Mean 1000-seed weight of quinoa is around 27 g (Bhargava et al

2006) and a range of 15 g to 45 g has been observed among varieties (Wu et al 2014)

Commercial quinoa from Bolivia tends to have higher 1000-seed weight of 38 g to 45 g

Additionally bulk density ranges from 066 gmL to 075 gmL in most varieties (Wu et al

2014) Porosity refers to the fraction of space in bulk seed which is not occupied by the seed

(Thompson and Isaac 1976) The porosity of quinoa is 23 (Vilche et al 2003) while that of

rice is 50 to 60 (Kunze et al 2004)

Terminal velocity is the air velocity at which seeds remain in suspension This parameter

is important in cleaning quinoa to remove impurities such as dockage hollow and immature

kernels and mixed weed seeds Vilche et al (2003) reported the terminal velocity of 081 ms-1

while the value of rice was 6 ms-1 to 77 ms-1 (Razavi and Farahmandfar 2008)

Seed hardness or crushing strength is used as a rough estimation of moisture content in

rice (Kunze et al 2004) The hardness of quinoa seed can be tested using a texture analyzer (Wu

13

et al 2014) A stainless cylinder (10 mm in diameter) compressed one quinoa seed to 90 strain

at the rate of 5 mms Because of hardness variation among individual seeds at least six

measurements were required Among the thirteen quinoa samples that were tested hardness

ranged from 58 kg to 110 kg (Wu et al 2014)

Quinoa Seed Structure

Grain structure of quinoa was described in detail by Taylor and Parker (2002) On the

outside of grain is a perianth which can be easily removed during cleaning or rubbing

Sometimes betalain pigments concentrate on this perianth layer and the seed shows bright purple

or golden colors However this color will disappear with the removal of the perianth Inside the

perianth is two-layered pericarp with papillose surface (Figure 1) Beneath the pericarp a seed

coat or episperm is located The seed coat can be white yellow orange red brown or black

Red and white quinoa share the largest market share with consumers exhibiting increasing

interest in brownblack mixed products such as lsquoCalifornia Tricolorrsquo(data from Google

Shopping Amazon and local stores in Pullman WA)

The main seed is enveloped in outside layers and the structure was depicted by Prego et

al (1998) (Figure 2) The embryo (two cotyledons and radicle) coils around a center pericarp

which occupies ~40 of seed volume (Fleming and Galwey 1998) Protein and lipid bodies are

primarily present in the embryo whereas starch granules provide storage in the thin-walled

perisperm Minerals of phosphorus potassium and magnesium are concentrated in phytin

globoids located in the embryo and calcium is located in the pericarp (Konishi et al 2004)

Quinoa Seed Constituents

14

Quinoa is known as a lsquocomplete foodrsquo (James 2009) The seed composition was recently

reviewed by Wu (2015) and Maradini Filho et al (2015) In sum the high nutritional value of

quinoa arises from its high protein content complete and balanced essential amino acids high

proportion of unsaturated fatty acids high concentrations of vitamin B complex vitamin E and

minerals and high phenolic and betalain content

A protein range of 12 to 17 in quinoa has been reported by most studies (Rojas et al

2015) This protein content is higher than wheat (8 to 14 ww) (Halverson and Zeleny 1988)

and rice (4 - 105 ww) (Champagne et al 2004) Additionally quinoa contains all essential

amino acids at concentrations exceeding the suggested requirements from FAOWHO (Table 1)

Quinoa is also gluten-free because it is lacking in prolamins Prolamins are a group of

storage proteins that are rich in proline Prolamins can interact with water and form the gluten

structure which cannot be tolerated by those with celiac disease (Fasano et al 2003) Quinoa and

rice both contain low prolamins (72 and 89 of total protein respectively) and are

considered gluten-free crops Prolamins in wheat (called gliadin) comprise 285 of its total

protein and in maize this concentration of prolamin is 245 (Koziol 1992)

The protein quality of quinoa protein was reported by Ruales and Nair (1992) In raw

quinoa the net protein utilization (NPU) was 757 biological value (BV) was 826 and

digestibility (TD) was 917 all of which were slightly lower than those of casein The

digestibility of quinoa protein is comparable to that of other high quality food proteins such as

soy beans and skim milk (Taylor and Parker 2002) The Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER) in

quinoa ranges from 195 to 31 and is similar to that of casein (Gross et al 1989 Guzmaacuten-

15

Maldonado and Paredes-Lopez 2002) Regarding functional properties of quinoa protein isolates

Eugenia et al (2015) found Bolivian quinoa exhibited the highest thermal stability oil binding

capacity and water binding capacity at acidic pH The Peruvian samples showed the highest

water binding capacity at basic pH and the best foaming capacity at pH 5

Quinoa starch content ranges from 58 to 64 of the dry seed weight (Vega‐Gaacutelvez et

al 2010) Quinoa possesses a small granule size of 06 to 2 μm similar to that of amaranth (1 to

2 μm) and much smaller than those of other grains such as rice wheat oat barley and

buckwheat (2 to 36 μm) (Lindeboom et al 2004) The amylose content in quinoa starch tends to

be lower than found in common grains A range of 3 to 20 was reported by Lindeboom et al

(2005) whereas amylose content is around 25 in cereals As in most cereals quinoa starch is

type A in X-ray diffraction pattern (Ando et al 2002) Li et al (2016) found significant variation

among 26 commercial quinoa samples in the physicochemical properties of starch such as gel

texture thermal and pasting parameters which were strongly affected by apparent amylose

content

Quinoa lipids comprise 55 to 71 of dry seed weight in most reports (Maradini Filho

et al 2015) Ando et al (2002) found quinoa (cultivar Real TKW from Bolivia) perisperm and

embryo contained 50 and 102 total fatty acids respectively Among these fatty acids

unsaturated fatty acids such as oleic linoleic and linolenic comprised 875 Ogungbenle

(2003) reported the properties of quinoa lipids The values of acid iodine peroxide and

saponification were 05 54 24 and 192 respectively

16

Quinoa micronutrients of vitamins and minerals and the relative lsquoreference daily intakersquo

are summarized in Table 2 and 3 respectively Compared to Daily Intake References quinoa

provides a good source of Vitamin B1 B2 and B9 and Vitamin E as well as minerals such as

magnesium phosphorous iron and copper

Quinoa is one of the crops representing diversity in color including white vanilla

yellow orange red brown gray and dark Besides the anthocyannins in dark quinoa (Paśko et

al 2009) the major pigment in quinoa is betalain primarily presenting in seed coat and the

compounds can be subdivided into red-violet betacyannins and yellow-orange betaxanthins

(Tang et al 2015) Betalain is a water-soluble pigment which is permitted quantum satis as a

natural food colorant and applied in fruit yogurt ice cream jams chewing gum sauces and

soups (Esatbeyoglu et al 2015) Additionally betalain potentially offers health benefits such as

antioxidant activity anti-inflammation activity preventing low-density lipoprotein (LDL)

oxidation and DNA damage (Benavente-Garcia and Castillo 2008 Esatbeyoglu et al 2015)

Saponins

Saponins are compounds on the seed coat of quinoa that confer a bitter taste The

compounds are considered to be a defense system against herbivores and pathogens Regarding

chemical structure saponins are a group of glycosides consisting of a hydrophilic carbohydrate

chain (such as arabinose glucose galactose xylose and rhamnose) and a hydrophobic aglycone

(Kuljanabhagavad and Wink 2009) Chemical structures of aglycones were summarized by

Kuljanabhagavad and Wink (2009)

17

Saponins have been considered as anti-nutrient because of haemolytic activity which

refers to the breakdown of red blood cells (Khalil and El-Adawy 1994) However saponins

exhibited health benefit functions such as anti-inflammation (Yao et al 2009) antibacterial

antimicrobial activity (Killeen et al 1998) anti-tumor activity (Shao et al 1996) and

antioxidant activity (Guumllccedilin et al 2006) Furthermore saponins have medicinal use Sun et al

(2009) reported saponins can activate immune system and were used as vaccine adjuvants

Saponins also exhibited anti-cancer activity (Man et al 2010)

Even though saponins have potential health benefits their bitter taste is not pleasant to

consumers To address the bitterness found in bitter quinoa varieties (gt 011 saponin content)

sweet quinoa varieties were bred through conventional genetic selection to contain a lower

saponin content (lt 011 saponin content) For instance lsquoSajamarsquo lsquoKurmirsquo lsquoAynoqarsquo

lsquoKosunarsquo and lsquoBlanquitarsquo in Bolivia lsquoBlanca de Juninrsquo in Peru and lsquoTunkahuanrsquo in Ecuador are

considered sweet quinoa varieties (Quiroga et al 2015) Unfortunately varieties from Bolivia

Peru and Ecuador do not adapt to temperate climates such as those found in the Pacific

Northwest in US and Europe A sweet variety called lsquoJessiersquo exhibits acceptable yield in Pacific

Northwest and has a great market potential Further development of sweet quinoa varieties

adapted to local climate will happen in near future

To remove saponins both dry and wet processing methods have been developed The wet

method or moist method refers to washing quinoa while rubbing the grain with hands or by a

stone Repo-Carrasco et al (2003) suggested the best washing conditions of 20 min soaking 20

min stirring with a water temperature of 70 degC The wet method becomes costly due to the

required drying process Additionally quinoa grain may begin to germinate during wet cleaning

18

The dry method or abrasive dehulling uses mechanical abrasion to polish the grain and

remove the saponins A dehulling process was reported by Reichert et al (1986) using Tanential

Abrasive Dehulling Device (TADD) and removal of 6 - 15 of kernel was required to reduce

the saponins content to lower than 011 Additionally a TM-05 Taka-Yama testing mill was

used in the quinoa pearling process (to 20 - 30 pearling degree) (Goacutemez-Caravaca et al

2014) The dry method is relatively cheaper than wet method and does not generate saponin

waste water The saponin removal efficiency of the dry and washing methods were reported to be

87 and 72 respectively (Reichert et al 1986 Gee et al 1993) A combination of dry and wet

methods was recommended to obtain the efficient cleaning (Repo-Carrasco et al 2003)

Since quinoa is such an expensive crop a 25 to 30 weight lost during the cleaning

process represents a substantial loss on an industrial scale In addition mineral phenolic and

fiber content may dramatically decrease during processing resulting in a loss of nutritional

value Hence cleaning process should be further optimized to reach lower grain weight loss

while maintain an efficient saponins elimination

Removed saponins can be utilized as side products Since saponins also have excellent

foaming property they can be applied in cosmetics and foods as foam-stabilizing and

emulsifying agents (Yang et al 2010) detergents (Chen et al 2010) and preservatives

(Taormina et al 2006)

Saponin content is important to analyze since it highly influences the taste of quinoa

Traditionally the afrosimetric method or foam method was used to estimate saponins content In

this method saponon content is calculated from foam height after shaking quinoa and water

19

mixture for a specific time (Koziol 1991) This afrosimetric method is fast and affordable and

can be used by farmers as a quick estimation of saponin content however the method is not very

accurate The foam stability varies among samples A more accurate method was developed

using Gas Chromatography (GC) (Ridout et al 1991) Using this method quinoa flour was first

defatted using a Soxhlet extraction and then hydrolyzed in reflux for 3 h with a methanol

solution of HCl (2 N) The hydrolysis product sapogenins were extracted with ethyl acetate and

derivatized with bis-(trimethylsilyl) trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA) and dry pyridine and then

tested using GC Generally GC method is a more solid and accurate method compared to foam

method however GC also requires high capital investment as well as long and complex sample

preparation For quinoa farmers and food manufactures fast and affordable methods to test

saponins content in quinoa need to be developed

Saponins have been an important topic in quinoa research Future studies in this area can

include 1) breeding and commercialization of saponin-free or sweet quinoa varieties with high

yield and high agronomy performance (resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses) 2) development

of quick and low cost detection method of saponin content and 3) application of saponin in

medicine foods and cosmetics can be further explored

Health benefits

Simnadis et al (2015) performed a meta-analysis of 18 studies which used animal models

to assess the physiological effects associated with quinoa consumption From these studies

purported physiological effects of quinoa consumption included decreased weight gain

improved lipid profile (decrease LDL and cholesterol) and improved capacity to respond to

20

oxidative stress Simnadis et al (2015) pointed out that the presence of saponins protein and

20-hydroxyecdysone (affects energy homeostasis and intestinal fat absorption) contributed to

those benefit effects

Furthermore Ruales et al (2002) found increased plasma levels of IGF-1 (insulin-like

growth factor) in 50-65 month-old boys after consuming a quinoa infant food for 15 days This

result implicated the potential of quinoa to reduce childhood malnutrition In another study of 22

students (aged 18 to 45) the daily consumption of a quinoa cereal bar for 30 days significantly

decreased triglycerides cholesterol and LDL compared to those parameters prior to quinoa

consumption These results suggest that quinoa intake may reduce the risk of developing

cardiovascular disease (Farinazzi-Machado et al 2012) De Carvalho et al (2014) studied the

influence of quinoa on over-weight postmenopausal women Consumption of quinoa flakes (25

gd for 4 weeks) was found to reduce serum triglycerides and TBARS (thiobarbituric acid

reactive substances) and increase GSH (glutathione) and urinary excretion of enterolignans

compared to those indexes before consuming quinoa flakes

Quinoa flour properties

Functional properties of quinoa flour were determined by Ogungbenle (2003) Quinoa

flour has high water absorption capacity (147) and low foaming capacity (9) and stability

(2) Water absorption capacity was determined by the volume of water retained per gram of

quinoa flour during 30-min mixing at 24 ordmC (Beuchat 1977) The water absorption of quinoa was

higher than that of fluted pumpkin seed (85) soy flour (130) and pigeon pea flour (138)

which implies the potential use of quinoa flour in viscous foods such as soups doughs and

21

baked products Additionally foaming capacity was determined by the foam volumes before and

after whipping of 8 protein solution at pH 70 (Coffmann and Garciaj 1977) Then foam

samples were inverted and dripped though 2 mm wire screen in to beakers The foam stability

was determined by the weight of liquid released from foam after a specific time and the original

weight of foam (Coffmann and Garciaj 1977) Furthermore minimum protein solubility was

observed at pH 60 similar to that of pearl millet and higher than pigeon pea (pH 50) and fluted

pumpkin seed (pH 40) Relatively high solubility of quinoa protein in acidic condition implies

the potential application of quinoa protein in acidic food and carbonated beverages

Wu et al (2014) studied flour viscosity among 13 quinoa samples with large variations

reported among samples The ranges of peak viscosity final viscosity and setback were 59

RVU ndash 197 RVU 56 RVU ndash 203 RVU and -62 RVU ndash 73 RVU respectively which were

comparable to those of rice flour (Zhou et al 2003) Flour viscosity significantly influence

texture of quinoa and rice (Champagne et al 1998 Wu et al 2014)

Ruales et al (1993) studied processing influence on the physico-chemical characteristics

of quinoa flour The process included cooking and autoclaving of the seeds drum drying of

flour and extrusion of the grits Autoclaved quinoa samples exhibited the lowest degree of starch

gelatinization (325) whereas precookeddrum dried quinoa samples were 974 Higher

polymer degradation was found in the cooked samples compared to the autoclaved samples

Water solubility in cooked samples (54 to 156) and autoclaved samples (70 to 96) increased

with the processing time (30 to 60 min cooking and 10 to 30 min autoclaving)

Thermal Properties of quinoa

22

Thermal properties of quinoa flour (both starch and protein) have been determined using

Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) (Abugoch et al 2009) A quinoa flour suspension was

prepared in 20 (ww) concentration The testing temperature was raised from 27 to 120 degC at a

rate of 10 degCmin Two peaks in the DSC graph referenced the starch gelatinization temperature

at 657 degC and protein denaturalization at 989 degC Enthalpy refers to the energy required to

complete starch gelatinization or protein denaturazition In the study of Abugoch et al (2009)

the enthalpy was 59 Jg for starch and 22 Jg for proteins in quinoa

Product development with quinoa

Quinoa has been used in different products such as spaghetti bread and cookies to

enhance nutritional value including a higher protein content and more balanced amino acid

profile Chillo et al (2008) evaluated the quality of spaghetti from amaranth and quinoa flour

Compared to durum semolina spaghetti the spaghetti with amaranth and quinoa flour exhibited

equal breakage susceptibility higher cooking loss and lower instrumental stickiness The

sensory acceptance scores were not different from the control The solid loss weight increase

volume increase adhesiveness and moisture of a corn and quinoa mixed spaghetti were 162thinspg

kgminus1 23 times 26 times 20907thinspg and 384thinspg kgminus1 respectively (Caperuto et al 2001)

Schoenlechner et al (2010) found the optimal combination of 60 buckwheat 20 amaranth

and 20 quinoa yielded an improved dough matrix compared to other flour combinations With

the addition of 6 egg white powder and 12 emulsifier (distilled monoglycerides) this gluten-

free pasta exhibited acceptable firmness and cooking quality compared to wheat pasta

23

Stikic et al (2012) added 20 quinoa seeds in bread formulations which resulted in the

similar dough development time and stability compared to those of wheat dough even though

the bread specific volume was lower (63 mLg) compared to wheat bread (67 mLg) The

protein content of bread increased by 2 (ww) and sensory characteristics were lsquoexcellentrsquo as

evaluated by five trained expert panelists Iglesias-Puig et al (2015) found 25g100 g quinoa

flour substitution in wheat bread showed small depreciation in bread quality in terms of loaf

volume crumb firmness and acceptability whereas the nutritional value increased in dietary

fiber minerals protein and healthy fats Rizzello et al (2016) selected strains (lactic acid

bacteria) to develop a quinoa sourdough A wheat bread with 20 (ww) quinoa sourdough

exhibited improved nutritional (such as protein digestibility and quality) textural and sensory

features Quinoa leaves were also applied to bread making (Świeca et al 2014) With the

replacement of wheat flour by 1 to 5 (ww) quinoa leaves the bread crumb exhibited increased

firmness cohesiveness and gumminess Antioxidant activity and phenolic contents both

significantly increased compared to wheat bread

Pagamunici et al (2014) developed three gluten-free cookies with rice and quinoa flour

with 15 26 and 36 (ww) quinoa flour proportions respectively The formulation with

36 quinoa flour had the highest alpha-linolenic acid and mineral content and the cookie

displayed excellent sensory characteristics as evaluated by 80 non-trained consumer panelists

Another study optimized a gluten-free quinoa formulation with 30 quinoa flour 25 quinoa

flakes and 45 corn starch (Brito et al 2015) The cookie was characterized as a product rich in

essential amino acids linolenic acid minerals and dietary fiber This cookie was among those

24

products using the highest quinoa flour content (55 ww) while still received acceptable

sensory scores

Repo-Carrasco-Valencia and Serna (2011) introduced an extrusion process in Peru

Quinoa flour was tempered to 12 moisture for extrusion During extrusion total and insoluble

dietary fiber decreased by 5 to 17 and 13 to 29 respectively whereas the soluble dietary

fiber significantly increased by 38 to 71 Additionally the radical scavenging activity was

also increased in extruded quinoa compared to raw quinoa

Schumacher et al (2010) developed a dark chocolate with addition of 20 quinoa An

improved nutritional value was observed in 9 (ww) increase in vitamin E 70 - 104

increases in amino acids of cysteine tyrosine and methionine This quinoa dark chocolate

received over 70 acceptance index from sensory panel

Gluten-free beer is of increasing interest in the market (Dezelak et al 2014) Ogungbenle

(2003) found quinoa has high D-xylose and maltose and low glucose and fructose content

suggesting its potential use in malted drink de Meo et al (2011) applied alkaline steeping to

pseudocereal and found its positive effects on pseudocereals malt production by increasing total

soluble nitrogen and free amino nitrogen Kamelgard (2012) patented a method to create a

quinoa-based beverage fermented by a yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae The beverage can be

distilled and aged to form gluten-free liquor Dezelak et al (2014) processed a quinoa beer-like

beverage (fermented with Saccharomyces pastorianus TUM 3470) resulting in a product with a

nutty aroma low alcohol content and rich in minerals and amino acids However further

development of the brewing procedure was necessary since the beverage showed a less attractive

25

appearance (near to black color and greyish foam) and astringent mouthfeel Compared to barley

brewing attributes of quinoa exhibited lower malt extracts longer saccharification times higher

values in total protein fermentable amino nitrogen content and iodine test

Processing quinoa grain to dried edible product and sweet quinoa product were developed

by Scanlin and Burnett (2010) The edible quinoa product was processed through pre-

conditioning (abrasion and washing) moist heating (steam cooking and pressure cooking) dry

heating (baking toasting and dehydrating) and post-production treatment As for sweet quinoa

product germination and malting processing were applied Caceres et al (2014) patented a

process to extract peptides and maltodextrins from quinoa flour and the extracts were applied in

a gel-format food as a supplement during and after physical activity

26

References

Abugoch L Castro E Tapia C Antildeoacuten MC Gajardo P Villarroel A 2009 Stability of quinoa

flour proteins (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) during storage Int J Food Sci Tech 44(10)

2013-20

Abugoch LE Romero N Tapia CA Silva J Rivera M 2008 Study of some physicochemical

and functional properties of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) protein isolates J Agric

Food Chem 56(12) 4745-50



Benavente-Garcia O Castillo J 2008 Update on uses and properties of citrus flavonoids new

findings in anticancer cardiovascular and anti-inflammatory activity J Agric Food Chem

56(15) 6185-205

Bertero HD de la Vega AJ Correa G Jacobsen SE Mujica A 2004 Genotype and genotype-

by-environment interaction effects for grain yield and grain size of quinoa (Chenopodium

quinoa Willd) as revealed by pattern analysis of international multi-environment trials Field

Crops Res 89(2ndash3) 299-318

Beuchat LR 1977 Functional and electrophoretic characteristics of succinylated peanut flour

protein J Agric Food Chem 25(2) 258-61

Bhargava A Shukla S Rajan S Ohri D 2006 Genetic diversity for morphological and quality

traits in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Germplasm Genet Resour Crop Evol 54(1)

167-73

27

Brito IL de Souza EL Felex SSS Madruga MS Yamashita F Magnani M 2015 Nutritional

and sensory characteristics of gluten-free quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd)-based

cookies development using an experimental mixture design J Food Sci Technol 52(9) 5866-

73

Caceres JIE Calderon PD Lira FO 2014 Method for the formulation of a gel-format foodstuff

for use as a nutritional foodstuff enriched with peptides and maltodextrins obtained from

quinoa flour Google Patents

Caperuto LC Amaya-Farfan J Camargo CRO 2001 Performance of quinoa (Chenopodium

quinoa Willd) flour in the manufacture of gluten-free spaghetti J Sci Food Agric 81(1) 95-

101

Champagne ET Bett KL Vinyard BT McClung AM Barton FE Moldenhauer K Linscombe S

McKenzie K 1999 Correlation between cooked rice texture and rapid visco analyser

measurements Cereal Chem 76(5) 764-71

Champagne ET Wood DF Juliano BO Bechtel D 2004 Chapter 4 The rice grain and its gross

composition In Champagne ET editor Rice Chemistry and Technology 3rd edition St

Paul MN American Association of Cereal Chemists Inc p 88 ndash 9

Chen YF Yang CH Chang MS Ciou YP Huang YC 2010 Foam properties and detergent

abilities of the saponins from Camellia oleifera Int J Mol Sci11(11) 4417-25

28

Chillo S Laverse J Falcone PM Del Nobile MA 2008 Quality of spaghetti in base amaranthus

wholemeal flour added with quinoa broad bean and chick pea J Food Process Eng 84(1)

101-7

Coffmann CW Garciaj VV 1977 Functional properties and amino acid content of a protein

isolate from mung bean flour Int J Food Sci Technol 12(5) 473-84

De Carvalho FG Oviacutedio PP Padovan GJ Jordao Junior AA Marchini JS Navarro AM 2014

Metabolic parameters of postmenopausal women after quinoa or corn flakes intakendasha

prospective and double-blind study Int J Food Sci Nutr 65(3) 380-5

Deželak M Zarnkow M Becker T Košir IJ 2014 Processing of bottom-fermented gluten-free

beer-like beverages based on buckwheat and quinoa malt with chemical and sensory

characterization J Inst Brew 120(4) 360-70

Farinazzi-Machado FMV Barbalho SM Oshiiwa M Goulart R Pessan Junior O 2012 Use of

cereal bars with quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa W) to reduce risk factors related to

cardiovascular diseases Food Sci Technol(Campinas) 32(2) 239-44

Fasano A Berti I Gerarduzzi T Not T Colletti RB Drago S Hill ID 2003 Prevalence of celiac

disease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the United States a large multicenter study Arch

Intern Med 163(3) 286-92

Fleming JE Galwey NW 1998 Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) nutritional quality and

technological aspects as human food In Belton PS Taylor JRN editors Increasing the

29

utilisation of sorghum buckwheat grain amaranth and quinoa for improved nutrition

Norwich UK Institute of Food Research p 49-64

Friedman M Brandon DL 2001 Nutritional and health benefits of soy proteins J Agric Food

Chem 49(3)1069-86

Garcia M Raes D Jacobsen SE 2003 Evapotranspiration analysis and irrigation requirements

of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) in the Bolivian highlands Agr Water Manage 60(2) 119-

34

Gee JM Price KR Ridout CL Wortley GM Hurrell RF Johnson IT 1993 Saponins of quinoa

(Chenopodium quinoa) effects of processing on their abundance in quinoa products and their

biological effects on intestinal mucosal tissue J Sci Food Agric 63(2) 201-9

Goacutemez-Caravaca AM Iafelice G Verardo V Marconi E Caboni MF 2014 Influence of

pearling process on phenolic and saponin content in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd)

Food Chem 157 174-8

Gomez-Pando L 2015 Chapter 6 Quinoa breeding In Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors

Quinoa Improvement and Sustainable Production Hoboken NJ John Wiley amp Sons Inc p

87 ndash 97

Gonzaacutelez JA Bruno M Valoy M Prado FE 2011 Genotypic variation of gas exchange

parameters and leaf stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in ten quinoa cultivars grown under

drought J Agron Crop Sci 197(2) 81-93

30

Gonzaacutelez JA Eisa SSS Hussin SAES and Prado FE 2015 Chapter 1 Quinoa An Incan Crop

to Face Global Changes in Agriculture In Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors Quinoa

Improvement and Sustainable Production Hoboken NJ John Wiley amp Sons Inc p 182-6

Graf BL Rojas-Silva P Rojo LE Delatorre-Herrera J Baldeoacuten ME Raskin I 2015 Innovations

in health value and functional food development of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd)

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safety 14(4) 431-45

Gross R Koch F Malaga I de Miranda A Schoeneberger H Trugo L 1989 Chemical

composition and protein quality of some local Andean food sources Food Chem 34(1) 25-

34

Guumllccedilin İ Mshvildadze V Gepdiremen A Elias R 2006 The antioxidant activity of a

triterpenoid glycoside isolated from the berries of Hedera colchica 3-O-(β-d-

glucopyranosyl)-hederagenin Phytother Res 20(2) 130-4

Guzmaacuten-Maldonado S Paredes-Lopez O 2002 Functional products of plants indigenous to

Latin America amaranth quinoa common beans and botanicals In Shi J Mazza G

Maguer ML editors Functional foods Biochemical and processing aspects CRC Press p

293-328

Halverson J Zeleny L 1988 Chapter 2 Criteria of wheat quality In Pomeranz Y editor

Wheat Chemistry and Technology 3rd edition St Paul MN American Association of

Cereal Chemists Inc p 25 ndash 6

31

Hariadi Y Marandon K Tian Y Jacobsen SE Shabala S 2011 Ionic and osmotic relations in

quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) plants grown at various salinity levels J Exp Bot

62(1) 185-93

Iglesias-Puig E Monedero V Haros M 2015 Bread with whole quinoa flour and bifidobacterial

phytases increases dietary mineral intake and bioavailability LWT-Food Sci Technol 60(1)

71-7

Jacobsen SE Monteros C Christiansen J Bravo L Corcuera L Mujica A 2005 Plant responses

of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) to frost at various phenological stages Eur J Agron

22(2) 131-9

Jacobsen SE Stoslashlen O 1993 Quinoa-morphology phenology and prospects for its production as

a new crop in Europe Eur J Agron 2(1) 19-29



Kamelgard JI 2012 Quinoa-based beverages and method of creating quinoa-based beverages

Google Patents

Khalil A El-Adawy T 1994 Isolation identification and toxicity of saponin from different

legumes Food Chem 50(2) 197-201

Killeen GF Madigan CA Connolly CR Walsh GA Clark C Hynes MJ Power RF 1998

Antimicrobial saponins of Yucca schidigera and the implications of their in vitro properties

for their in vivo impact J Agric Food Chem 46(8) 3178-86

32

Konishi Y Hirano S Tsuboi H Wada M 2004 Distribution of minerals in quinoa

(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) seeds Biotechnol Appl Biochem 68(1) 231-4

Koyro HW Eisa SS 2008 Effect of salinity on composition viability and germination of seeds

of Chenopodium quinoa Willd Plant Soil 302(1-2) 79-90

Kozioł M1992 Chemical composition and nutritional evaluation of quinoa (Chenopodium

quinoa Willd) J Food Compost Anal 5(1) 35-68

Kuljanabhagavad T Wink M 2009 Biological activities and chemistry of saponins from

Chenopodium quinoa Willd Phytochem Rev 8(2) 473-90

Kunze OR Lan Y and Wratten FT 2004 Chapter 8 Physical and mechanical properties of rice

In Champagne ET editor Rice Chemistry and Technology 3rd edition St Paul MN

American Association of Cereal Chemists Inc p 193 ndash 211

Li G Wang S Zhu F 2016 Physicochemical properties of quinoa starch Carbohydr Polym 137

328-38

Lindeboom N Chang PR Falk KC Tyler RT 2005 Characteristics of starch from eight quinoa

lines Cereal Chem 82(2) 216-22

Lindeboom N Chang PR Tyler RT 2004 Analytical biochemical and physicochemical aspects

of starch granule size with emphasis on small granule starches a review Starch-Staumlrke 56(3-

4) 89-99

Man S Gao W Zhang Y Huang L Liu C 2010 Chemical study and medical application of

saponins as anti-cancer agents Fitoterapia 81(7) 703-14

33

Maradini Filho AM Pirozi MR Da Silva Borges JT Pinheiro SantAna HM Paes Chaves JB

Dos Reis Coimbra JS 2015 Quinoa nutritional functional and antinutritional aspects Crit

Rev Food Sci Nutr (just-accepted)

Matanguihan JB Jellen EN and Kolano A 2015 Chapter 7 Quinoa cytogenetics molecular

genetics and diversity In Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors Quinoa Improvement and

Sustainable Production Hoboken NJ John Wiley amp Sons Inc p 109-24

Maughan PJ Bonifacio A Jellen EN Stevens MR Coleman CE Ricks M Mason SL Jarvis

DE Gardunia BW Fairbanks DJ 2004 A genetic linkage map of quinoa (Chenopodium

quinoa) based on AFLP RAPD and SSR markers Theor Appl Genet 109(6) 1188-95

de Meo B Freeman G Marconi O Booer C Perretti G Fantozzi P 2011 Behaviour of Malted

Cereals and Pseudo-Cereals for Gluten-Free Beer Production J Inst Brew 117(4) 541-6

Ogungbenle H 2003 Nutritional evaluation and functional properties of quinoa (Chenopodium

quinoa) flour Int J Food Sci Nutr 54(2) 153-8

Ogungbenle HN 2003 Nutritional evaluation and functional properties of quinoa (Chenopodium


Quiroga C Escalera R Aroni G Bonifacio A Gonzaacutelez JA Villca M Saravia R Ruiz A 2015

Chapter 31 Traditional processes and Technological Innovations in Quinoa Harvesting

Processing and Industrialization In D Bazile D Bertero and C Nieto editors State of the

Art Report of Quinoa in the World in 2013 Rome FAO amp CIRAD p 213 - 4

34

Pagamunici LM Gohara AK Souza AHP Bittencourt PRS Torquato AS Batiston WP

Matsushita M 2014 Using chemometric techniques to characterize gluten-free cookies

containing the whole flour of a new quinoa cultivar J Brazil Chem Soc 25 219-28

Paśko P Bartoń H Zagrodzki P Gorinstein S Fołta M Zachwieja Z 2009 Anthocyanins total

polyphenols and antioxidant activity in amaranth and quinoa seeds and sprouts during their

growth Food Chem 115(3) 994-8

Peterson AJ Murphy KM 2015a Chapter 10 Quinoa Cultivation for Temperate North America

Considerations and Areas for Investigation In Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors Quinoa


Peterson A Murphy K 2015b Tolerance of lowland quinoa cultivars to sodium chloride and

sodium sulfate salinity Crop Sci 55(1) 331-8



Ranhotra GS Gelroth JA Glaser BK Lorenz KJ Johnson DL 1993 Composition and protein

nutritional quality of quinoa Cereal Chem 70(3)303-5

Razavi SMA Farahmandfar R 2008 Effect of hulling and milling on the physical properties of

rice grains Int Agrophys 22(4) 353-9

Reichert R Tatarynovich J Tyler R 1986 Abrasive dehulling of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa)

effect on saponin content as determined by an adapted hemolytic assay Cereal Chem 63(6)

471-5

35

Repo-Carrasco-Valencia RAM Serna LA 2011 Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) as a

source of dietary fiber and other functional components Food Sci Technol (Campinas) 31

225-30

Repo-Carrasco R Espinoza C Jacobsen SE 2003 Nutritional value and use of the Andean crops

quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and kantildeiwa (Chenopodium pallidicaule) Food Rev Int 19(1-

2) 179-89

Ridout CL Price KR Dupont MS Parker ML Fenwick GR 1991 Quinoa saponinsmdashanalysis

and preliminary investigations into the effects of reduction by processing J Sci Food Agric

54(2) 165-76

Rizzello CG Lorusso A Montemurro M Gobbetti M 2016 Use of sourdough made with

quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) flour and autochthonous selected lactic acid bacteria for

enhancing the nutritional textural and sensory features of white bread Food Microbiol 56 1-

13

Rojas W 2011 Quinoa an ancient crop to contribute to world food security Santiago Chile

FAO Oficina Regional para America Latina y el Caribe

Rojas W Pinto M Alanoca C Goacutemez-Pando L Leoacuten-Lobos P Alercia A Diulgheroff S

Padulosi S Bazile D 2013 Estado de la conservacioacuten ex situ de los recursos geneacuteticos de

quinua In Didier B Daniel BH Carlos N editors Estado del arte de la quinua en el mundo

en Libro de resuacutemenes Santiago FAO p 20-21

36

Rojas W Pinto M 2015 Chapter 8 Ex situ conservation of quinoa the bolivian experience In

Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors Quinoa Improvement and Sustainable Production

Hoboken NJ John Wiley amp Sons Inc p 128-30

Rojas W Pinto M Alanoca C Pando LG Leoacutenlobos P Alercia A Diulgheroff S Padulosi S

Bazile D 2015 Chapter 15 Quinoa genetic resources and ex situ conservation In Bazile D

Bertero D Nieto C editors State of the Art Report of Quinoa in the World in 2013 Rome

FAO amp CIRAD p 67

Ruales J Nair BM 1992 Nutritional quality of the protein in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa

Willd) seeds Plant Foods Hum Nutr 42(1) 1-11

Ruales J Nair BM 1993 Saponins phytic acid tannins and protease inhibitors in quinoa

(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) seeds Food Chem 48(2)137-43

Ruales J Valencia S Nair B 1993 Effect of processing on the physico-chemical characteristics

of quinoa flour (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Starch - Staumlrke 45(1)13-9

Ruales J Grijalva YD Lopez-Jaramillo P Nair BM 2002 The nutritional quality of an infant

food from quinoa and its effect on the plasma level of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in

undernourished children Int J Food Sci Nutr 53(2) 143-54

Sanchez HB Lemeur R Damme PV Jacobsen SE 2003 Ecophysiological analysis of drought

and salinity stress of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Food Rev Int 19(1-2) 111-9

Scanlin LA Burnett C (2010) Quinoa grain processing and products Google Patents

37

Schoenlechner R Drausinger J Ottenschlaeger V Jurackova K Berghofer E 2010 Functional

Properties of Gluten-Free Pasta Produced from Amaranth Quinoa and Buckwheat Plant

Foods Hum Nutr 65(4) 339-49



Food Sci Technol 47(2) 202-6

Shao Y Chin CK Ho CT Ma W Garrison SA Huang MT 1996 Anti-tumor activity of the

crude saponins obtained from asparagus Cancer Lett 104(1) 31-6

Simnadis TG Tapsell LC Beck EJ 2015 Physiological Effects Associated with Quinoa

Consumption and Implications for Research Involving Humans a Review Plant Foods Hum

Nutr 70(3) 238-49

Steffolani ME Villacorta P Morales-Soriano E Repo-Carrasco R Leoacuten AE Perez GT 2015

Physico-chemical and functional characterization of protein isolated from different quinoa

varieties (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Cereal Chem (Accepted for publication)

Stevens MR Coleman CE Parkinson SE Maughan PJ Zhang HB Balzotti MR Kooyman DL

Arumuganathan K Bonifacio A Fairbanks DJ Jellen EN Stevens JJ 2006 Construction of

a quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) BAC library and its use in identifying genes

encoding seed storage proteins Theor Appl Genet 112(8) 1593-600

Stikic R Glamoclija D Demin M Vucelic-Radovic B Jovanovic Z Milojkovic-Opsenica D

Jacobsen SE Milovanovic M 2012 Agronomical and nutritional evaluation of quinoa seeds

38

(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) as an ingredient in bread formulations J Cereal Sci 55(2)

132-8

Sun HX Xie Y Ye YP 2009 Advances in saponin-based adjuvants Vaccine 27(12) 1787-96

Świeca M Sęczyk Ł Gawlik-Dziki U Dziki D 2014 Bread enriched with quinoa leaves - The

influence of protein-phenolics interactions on the nutritional and antioxidant quality Food

Chem 162 54-62

Tang Y Li X Zhang B Chen PX Liu R Tsao R 2015 Characterisation of phenolics betanins

and antioxidant activities in seeds of three Chenopodium quinoa Willd genotypes Food

Chem 166 380-8

Taormina PJ Simpson PG Bertera EA Komitopoulou E 2006 Beverage preservatives Google

Patents

Tapia M Mujica A Canahua A 1980 Origen y distribucion geografica y sistemas de

produccion de la quinua (Chenopodium quinoa Wild) Publicacion Universidad Nacional

Tecnica del Altiplano

Taverna LG Leonel M Mischan MM 2012 Changes in physical properties of extruded sour

cassava starch and quinoa flour blend snacks Food Sci Technol (Campinas) 32 826-34

Taylor JRN Parker ML 2002 Chapter 3 Quinoa In Taylor JRN Parker ML editors

Pseudocereals and less common cereals grain properties and utilization potential Springer

Science amp Business Media p 96-9

39

Thompson R Isaacs G 1967 Porosity determinations of grains and seeds with an air-

comparison pycnometer T ASAE 10(5) 693-6

Vega-Gaacutelvez A Miranda M Vergara J Uribe E Puente L Martiacutenez EA 2010 Nutrition facts

and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd) an ancient Andean grain a

review J Sci Food Agric 90(15) 2541-7

USDA US Department of Agriculture Agricultrual Research Service 2015 USDA national

nutrient database for standard reference Release 18 Nutrient Data Laboratory Home Page

Available from httpwwwarsusdagovServicesdocshtmdocid=8964

Vilche C Gely M Santalla E 2003 Physical Properties of Quinoa Seeds Biosyst Eng 86(1) 59-

65

Wu G Morris CF Murphy KM 2014 Evaluation of texture differences among varieties of

cooked quinoa J Food Sci 79(11) 2337-45

Wu G Chapter 11 Nutritional properties of quinoa In Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors

Quinoa Improvement and Sustainable Production Hoboken NJ John Wiley amp Sons Inc

p193 ndash 205

Yang CH Huang YC Chen YF Chang MH 2010 Foam properties detergent abilities and long-

term preservative efficacy of the saponins from J Food Drug Anal 18(3) 4417-25

Yao Y Yang X Shi Z Ren G 2014 Anti-inflammatory activity of saponins from quinoa

(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Seeds in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated raw 2647

Macrophages Cells J Food Sci 79(5) 1018-23

40

Zhou Z Robards K Helliwell S Blanchard C 2003 Effect of rice storage on pasting properties

of rice flour Food Res Int 36(6) 625-34

41

Table 1-Essential amino acid of quinoa protein and FAOWHO suggested requirement (mgg protein)

Essential amino acid Quinoa protein a FAOWHO suggested requirement b

Histidine 258 18

Isoleucine 433 25

Leucine 736 55

Lysine 525 51

Methionine amp Cysteine 273 25

Phenylalanine amp Tyrosine 803 47

Threonine 439 27

Tryptophan 385 7

Valine 506 32

a) Abugoch et al (2008) b) Friedman and Brandon (2001)

42

Table 2-Quinoa vitamins content (mg100g)

Quinoa a-d Reference Daily Intake

Thianmin (B1) 029-038 15

Riboflavin (B2) 030-039 17

Niacin (B3) 106-152 20

Pyridoxine (B6) 0487 20

Folate (B9) 0781 04

Ascorbic acid (C) 40 60

α-Tocopherol (VE) (IU) 537 30

Β-Carotene 039 NR

a (Koziol 1992) b (Ruales and Nair 1993) c (Ranhotra et al 1993) d (USDA 2015)

43

Table 3-Quinoa minerals content (mgmg )

Whole graina RDI b

K 8257 NR

Mg 4526 400

Ca 1213 1000

P 3595 1000

Fe 95 18

Mn 37 NR

Cu 07 2

Zn 08 15

Na 13 NR

(aAndo et al 2002 bUSDA 2015)

44

Figure 1-Quinoa seed section and two-layered pericarp under perianth (Wu et al 2014)

45

Figure 2-Quinoa seed structure (Prego et al 1998)

(PE pericarp SC seed coat C cotyledons SA shoot apex H hypocotylradicle axis R radicle F funicle EN endosperm P perisperm Bar = 500 μm)

46

Chapter 3 Evaluation of Texture Differences among Varieties of

Cooked Quinoa

Published manuscript

Wu G Morris C F amp Murphy K M (2014) Evaluation of texture differences among

varieties of cooked quinoa Journal of Food Science 79(11) S2337-S2345

ABSTRACT

Texture is one of the most significant factors for consumersrsquo experience of foods Texture

differences of cooked quinoa were studied among thirteen different varieties Correlations

between the texture parameters and seed composition seed characteristics cooking quality flour

pasting properties and flour thermal properties were determined The results showed that texture

of cooked quinoa was significantly differed among varieties lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo and lsquoRed

Commercialrsquo yielded harder texture while lsquo49ALCrsquo lsquo1ESPrsquo and lsquoCol6197rsquo showed softer

texture lsquo49ALCrsquo lsquo1ESPrsquo lsquoCol6197rsquo and lsquoQQ63rsquo were more adhesive while other varieties

were not sticky The texture profile correlated to physical-chemical properties in different ways

Protein content was positively correlated with all the texture profile analysis (TPA) parameters

Seed hardness was positively correlated with TPA hardness gumminess and chewiness at P le

009 Seed density was negatively correlated with TPA hardness cohesiveness gumminess and

chewiness whereas seed coat proportion was positively correlated with these TPA parameters

Increased cooking time of quinoa was correlated with increased hardness cohesiveness

gumminess and chewiness The water uptake ratio was inversely related to TPA hardness

47

gumminess and chewiness RVA peak viscosity was negatively correlated with the hardness

gumminess and chewiness (P lt 007) breakdown was also negatively correlated with those TPA

parameters (P lt 009) final viscosity and setback were negatively correlated with the hardness

cohesiveness gumminess and chewiness (P lt 005) setback was correlated with the

adhesiveness as well (r = -063 P = 002) Onset gelatinization temperature (To) was

significantly positively correlated with all the texture profile parameters and peak temperature

(Tp) was moderately correlated with cohesiveness whereas neither conclusion temperature (Tc)

nor enthalpy correlated with the texture of cooked quinoa This study provided information for

the breeders and food industry to select quinoa with specific properties for difference use

purposes

Keywords cooked quinoa variety texture profile analysis (TPA) RVA DSC

Practical Application The research described in this paper indicates that the texture of different

quinoa varieties varies significantly The results can be used by quinoa breeders and food

processors

48

Introduction

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) a pseudocereal (Lindeboom et al 2007) is known as

a complete food due to its high nutritional value (Jancurovaacute et al 2009) Protein content of dry

quinoa grain ranges from 8 to 22 (Jancurovaacute et al 2009) Quinoa protein is high in nutritive

quality with an excellent balance of essential amino acids (Abugoch et al 2008) Quinoa is also a

gluten-free crop (Alvarez-Jubete et al 2010) Quinoa consumption in the US and Europe has

increased dramatically over the past decade but these regions rely on imports primarily from

Bolivia and Peru (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO 2013) For

these reasons greater knowledge of quinoa grain quality is needed

Quinoa is traditionally cooked as a whole grain similar to rice or milled into flour and made

into pasta and breads (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO 2013)

Quinoa can also be processed by extrusion drum-drying and autoclaving (Ruales et al 1993)

Commercial quinoa products include pasta bread cookies muffins cereal snacks drinks

flakes baby food and diet supplements (Ruales et al 2002 Del Castillo et al 2009 Cortez et al

2009 Demirkesen et al 2010 Schumacher et al 2010)

Texture is one of most significant properties of food that affects the consuming experience

Food texture refers to those qualities of a food that can be felt with the fingers tongue palate or

teeth (Vaclavik and Christian 2003) Cooked quinoa has a unique texture described as creamy

smooth and slightly crunchy (Abugoch 2009) Texture can be influenced by the seed structure

composition cooking quality and thermal properties However we know of no report which

documents the texture of cooked quinoa and the factors that affect it

49

Quinoa has small seeds compared to most cereals and seed size may affect the texture of

cooked quinoa Seed characteristics and structure are the significant factors potentially affecting

the textural properties of processed food Rousset et al (1995) indicated that the length and

lengthwidth ratio of rice kernels was associated with a wide range of texture attributes including

crunchy brittle elastic juicy pasty sticky and mealy which were determined by a sensory

panel The correlation between quinoa seed characteristics and cooked quinoa texture has not

been studied

Quinoa is consumed as whole grain without removing the bran unlike most rice and wheat

The insoluble fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in the seed coat can affect mouth feel and

texture Hence seed coat proportion may contribute to the texture of cooked quinoa Mohapatra

and Bal (2006) reported that the milling degree of rice positively influenced cohesiveness and

adhesiveness of cooked rice but was negatively correlated to hardness

Quinoa seed qualities such as the size hardness weight density and seed coat proportion

may influence the water binding capacity of seed during thermal processing thereby affecting

the texture of the cooked cereal (Fitzgerald et al 2003) Nevertheless correlations between seed

characteristics and texture of cooked quinoa have not been previously described

Seed composition may influence texture as well Higher protein content was reported to

cause reduced stickiness and harder texture of cooked rice (Ramesh et al 2000) Quinoa seeds

contain approximately 60 starch (Ando et al 2002) Starch granules are particularly small (05

- 3μm) Amylose content of quinoa is as low as 11 (Ahamed et al 1996) while the amylose

proportion in most cereals such as wheat is around 25 (Zeng et al 1997 BeMiller and Huber

50

2008) Amylose content of starch correlated positively with the hardness of cooked rice and

cooked white salted noodles (Ong and Blanshard 1995 Epstein et al 2002 Baik and Lee 2003)

Flour pasting properties can greatly influence the texture of cooked products Their

correlation has not been illustrated in quinoa while some research have been conducted on

cooked rice A lower peak viscosity and positive setback are associated with a harder texture

while a higher peak viscosity breakdown and lower setback are associated with a sticky texture

in cooked rice (Limpisut and Jindal 2002) Champagne et al (1999) indicated that adhesiveness

had strong correlations with Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA) measurements Ramesh et al (2000)

reported that harder cooked rice texture was associated with a lower peak viscosity and positive

setback while sticky rice had a higher peak viscosity higher breakdown and lower setback

The gelatinization temperature of quinoa starch ranges from 54ordmC to 71ordmC (Ando et al

2002) lower than that of rice barley and wheat starches (Marshall 1994 Tang 2004 Tang et al

2005) Gelatinization temperature likely plays an important role in waxy rice quality (Perdon and

Juliano 1975 Juliano et al 1987) but was not correlated to the eating quality of normal rice

(Ramesh et al 2000) Despite a considerable amount of work having been conducted on the

thermal properties of cereal starch little is known about the relationship between quinoa flour

thermal properties and cooked quinoa texture

The correlation of quinoa cooking quality and texture has not been previously reported In

rice cooking quality exhibited strong correlations to the texture profile analysis (TPA) Cooking

time has been reported to correlate positively with hardness and negatively with adhesiveness of

cooked rice (Mohapatra and Bal 2006) Higher water uptake ratio and volume expansion ratio

were associated with softer more adhesive and more cohesive texture of cooked rice

51

(Mohapatra and Bal 2006) Cooking loss has been reported to improve firmness but decrease

juiciness (Rousset et al 1995)

There is a need to further study the texture of cooked quinoa and its determining factors

The objective of this paper is to study the texture difference among varieties of cooked quinoa

and evaluate the correlation between the texture and the seed characters and composition

cooking process flour pasting properties and thermal properties

Materials and Methods

Seed characteristics

Eleven varieties and two commercial lots of quinoa are listed in Table 1 The two grain

lots were referred as lsquoYellow Commercialrsquo and lsquoRed Commercialrsquo according to the seed color

Seed size (diameter) was determined by lining up and measuring the length of 20 seeds Average

seed diameter was calculated from three repeated measurements Bulk density of seed was

measured by the weightvolume method Seed weight was determined gravimetrically Seed

hardness was determined using the texture analyzer TAndashXT2i (Texture Technology Corp

Scarsdale NY USA) A cylinder of 10 mm in diameter compressed one seed to 90 strain at

the rate of 5 mms The force (kg) was recorded as the seed hardness Seed coat proportions were

determined by a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) FEI Quanta 200F (FEI Corp Hillsboro

OR USA) The seed was cross-sectioned and the SEM image was captured under 800times

magnification The seed coat proportions were measured using the software ruler in micrometers

Chemical compositions

Whole quinoa flour was prepared using a cyclone sample mill (UDY Corporation Fort

Collins CO USA) equipped with a 05 mm screen and was used for compositional analysis

52

pasting viscosity and thermal properties Ash and moisture content of quinoa flour were tested

according to the Approved Method 08-0101 and 44-1502 respectively (AACCI 2012) Protein

content was determined by a nitrogen analyzer coupled with a thermo-conductivity detector

(LECO Corporation Joseph MI USA) The factor of 625 was used to calculate the protein

content from the nitrogen content (Approved Method 46-3001 AACCI 2012) Protein and ash

were calculated on a dry weight basis

Cooking protocol

The cooking protocol of quinoa was modified from a rice cooking method (Champagne

et al 1998) Five grams of quinoa seed were soaked for 20 min in 10 mL deionized water in a

flask Soaking is required to remove the bitter saponins (Pappier et al 2008) and enhance

cooking quality (Mohapatra and Bal 2006) The mixture was then boiled for 2 min and the flask

was set in boiling water for 18 min The flask was covered to prevent water loss

Cooking quality

Two grams of quinoa seed were cooked in 20 mL deionized water for 20 min and extra

water was removed Cooking time was determined when the middle white part of the seed

completely disappeared (Mohapatra and Bal 2006) The water uptake ratio was calculated from

the seed weight ratio before and after cooking Cooking volume was the seed volume after

cooking Cooking loss was the total of soluble and insoluble matter in the cooking water

(Rousset et al 1995) Three mL of cooking water of each sample was placed on an aluminum

pan and dried at 130 ordmC overnight The weight of dry solids in the pan was used to calculate the

cooking loss

Texture profile analysis (TPA)

53

Texture profile analysis (TPA) was used to determine the texture of cooked quinoa

according to a modified method for cooked rice texture (Champagne et al 1999) Two grams of

cooked quinoa were arranged on the texture analyzer platform as close to one layer as possible

A stainless steel plate (50 mm times 40 mm times 10 mm) compressed the cooked quinoa from 5 mm to

01 mm at 5 mmsec The compression was conducted twice The texture analyzer generated a

graph with time as the x-axis and force as the y-axis Six parameters were calculated from the

graph (Epstein et al 2002) Hardness is the height of the first peak adhesiveness is the area 3

cohesiveness is area 2 divided by area 1 springiness is distance 1 divided by distance 2

gumminess is hardness multiplied by cohesiveness chewiness is gumminess multiplied by

springiness In the present study no significant differences or correlations were obtained for

springiness As such this parameter will not be included except to describe the overall result (see

below)

Flour viscosity

Quinoa flour pasting viscosity was determined using the Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA)

RVA-4 (Newport Scientific Pty Ltd Narrabeen Australia) Quinoa flour (43 g) was added to

25 mL deionized water in an aluminum cylinder container The contents were immediately

mixed and heated following the instrument program The temperature was increased from 50 ordmC

to 93 ordmC in 8 min at a constant rate was held at 95 ordmC from 8 to 24 min cooled to 50 ordmC from 24

to 28 min and held at 50 ordmC from 29 to 40 min The program generated a graph with time against

shear force (Figure 1) expressed in RVU (cP = RVU times 12)

Two peaks representing peak viscosity and final viscosity are normally included in the

RVA graph Peak time was the time to reach the first peak Holding strength or trough is the

54

minimum viscosity after the first peak Breakdown is the viscosity difference between peak and

minimum viscosity Setback is the viscosity difference between final and minimum viscosity

Pasting temperature and the time to reach the peak were also recorded

Thermal properties using Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)

Thermal properties of quinoa flour were determined by Differential Scanning

Calorimetry (DSC) Tzero Q2000 (TA instruments New Castle DE USA) The protocol was a

modification of the method of Abugoch et al (2009) Quinoa flour (02 g) was added to 200 μL

deionized water and mixed on a vortex mixer for 10 s to form a slurry Ten to twelve milligrams

of slurry was added to an aluminum pan by pipette The pan was sealed and placed at the center

of DSC platform An empty pan was used as reference The temperature was increased from 25

ordmC to 120 ordmC at 10 ordmCmin then equilibrated to 25 ordmC Gelatinization temperature and enthalpy

were determined from the graph

Statistical analysis

All experiments were repeated three times The hypothesis tests of normality and equal

variance multiple comparisons (Fisherrsquos LSD) and correlation studies were conducted by SAS

92 (SAS Institute Cary NC) A P-value of 005 is considered as the level of statistical

significance unless otherwise specified

Results

Seed characteristics and flour composition

Quinoa seed characteristics and composition are shown in Table 2 Quinoa seeds were

small compared to cereals such as rice wheat and maize Diameters of quinoa seed mostly

ranged between 19 to 22 mm except for lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo which was significantly smaller (15

55

mm) Seed hardness was significantly different among varieties ranging from 583 k g in

lsquoCol6197rsquo to 1096 kg in lsquoOro de Vallersquo Bulk seed density of quinoa varied from 063 kgL in

lsquoBlancarsquo to 081 kgL in lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo Varieties from White Mountain farm and the WSU

Organic Farm were lower in bulk density most of which were below 07 kgL The commercial

and Port Townsend samples were higher in density most of which were around 075 kgL

Thousand-seed weights of quinoa were particularly low ranging from 18 g in lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo

to 41g in lsquoRed Commercialrsquo Seed coat proportion was also significantly different among

varieties Three layers are shown in the seed coat (Figure 2) The varieties lsquoBlackrsquo and lsquoBlancarsquo

had the thickest seed coat (38 and 97 μm respectively) with coat proportions of 40 and 45

respectively lsquoYellow Commercialrsquo and lsquo1ESPrsquo had the thinnest seed coats (15 and 16 μm

respectively) with the coat proportion of 07 and 05 respectively The difference was

almost ten-fold among the varieties

Protein and ash content of quinoa flour

Protein content varied from 113 in lsquo1ESPrsquo to 170 in lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and

lsquoOro de Vallersquo also had high protein contents of 160 and 156 respectively Ash content

ranged from 12 in the Commercial Yellow seed to 40 in lsquoQQ63rsquo comparable to that in rice

flour (Champagne 2004)

Texture of cooked quinoa

The hardness of cooked quinoa ranged from 20 g for lsquo49ALCrsquo and lsquoCol6197rsquo to 347

kg for lsquoBlackrsquo (Table 3) lsquoOro de Vallersquo and lsquoBlancarsquo were relatively hard varieties with TPA

hardness of 285 kg and 306 kg respectively whereas lsquo1ESPrsquo lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo and lsquoQQ63rsquo

were softer with a hardness of 245 kg 293 kg and 297 kg respectively

56

Adhesiveness is the extent to which seeds stick to each other the probe and the stage

lsquo49ALCrsquo lsquo1ESPrsquo lsquoCol6197rsquo and lsquoQQ63rsquo were significantly stickier with adhesiveness value

of -029 kgs -027 kgs -023 kgs and -020 kgs respectively All other varieties exhibited

lower adhesiveness with values less than 010 kgs Visual examination of the cooked samples

showed that with the more adhesive varieties the seeds stuck together as with sticky rice while

for other varieties the grains were separated

Cohesiveness of cooked lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquoOro de Vallersquo was

significantly higher with values from 068 to 071 respectively while those of lsquo49ALCrsquo lsquo1ESPrsquo

and lsquoCol6197rsquo were lower at 054 056 and 053 respectively Springiness is the recovery

from crushing or the elastic recovery (Tsuji 1981 Seguchi et al 1998) Cooked quinoa of all

varieties exhibited excellent elastic recovery properties with springiness values approximating

10

Gumminess is the combination of hardness and cohesiveness Chewiness is gumminess

multiplied by springiness As springiness values were all close to 10 gumminess and chewiness

of cooked quinoa were very similar in value lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoBlancarsquo and lsquoCahuilrsquo were highest in

gumminess and chewiness 24 kg 22 kg and 23 kg respectively while lsquo1ESPrsquo lsquo49ALCrsquo and

lsquoCol6197rsquo were lowest at 14 kg 11 kg and 11 kg respectively The difference among varieties

was greater than three-fold

Cooking quality

Cooking quality of quinoa is shown in Table 4 Cooking time varied from 119 min in

lsquoCol6197rsquo to 192 min in lsquoBlackrsquo cultivar and was significantly correlated with all TPA texture

parameters Longer cooking time also correlated with higher protein content (r = 052 P = 007)

57

Water uptake ratio varied from 25 to 4 fold in lsquoQQ63rsquo and lsquoCol6197rsquo respectively Water

uptake ratio was negatively correlated to seed hardness (r = 052 P = 004) Harder seeds tended

to absorb less water during cooking Cooking volume ranged from 107 mL to 137 mL and did

not significantly correlate with other properties Cooking loss ranged from 035 to 176 and

differed among varieties but was not correlated with water uptake ratio cooking time or cooking

volume

Quinoa flour pasting properties by RVA

Pasting viscosity of quinoa whole seed flour was determined using the Rapid Visco

Analyzer (RVA) The results are shown in Table 5 Peak viscosity differed among varieties

Varieties could be categorized into three groups based on peak viscosity The peak viscosity of

lsquoQQ63rsquo lsquoCol6197rsquo lsquo1ESPrsquo lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo lsquoYellow Commercialrsquo lsquoCopacabanarsquo and lsquoRed

Commercialrsquo varied from 144 to 197 RVU The peak viscosity of lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoBlackrsquo lsquo49ALCrsquo

and lsquoCahuilrsquo ranged from 98 to 116 RVU while those of lsquoOro de Vallersquo and lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo

were 59 and 66 RVU respectively

Trough viscosity namely the minimum viscosity after the first peak showed more than a

three-fold difference among varieties As in the case of peak viscosity the trough of different

varieties can be categorized into the same three groups

Breakdown is the difference between the peak and minimum viscosity lsquoQQ63rsquo lsquo1ESPrsquo

and lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo showed large breakdowns of 51 51 and 62 RVU respectively

Breakdown of lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo lsquoOro de Vallersquo and the Commercial Yellow seed were lower at

12 10 and 11 RVU respectively Breakdown of the other varieties ranged from 18 to 36 RVU

58

The final viscosity of the Commercial Yellow seed was 203 RVU the highest among all

varieties Final viscosity of lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquoOro de Vallersquo

ranged from 56 to 82 RVU and was lower than that of other varieties which ranged from 106 to

190 RVU

Setback is the difference between final and trough viscosity Setback of lsquoRed

Commercialrsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo and lsquoBlackrsquo were all negative -62 -11 and -6 RVU respectively which

indicated that the final viscosity of these cultivars was lower than their trough viscosity Setback

of lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquoOro de Vallersquo were slightly positive at 2 2 and 6 RVU

respectively while those of other cultivars were much greater between 42 and 73 RVU Peak

time which is the time to reach the first peak ranged from 93 to 115 min The pasting

temperature was 93 ordmC and not different among the varieties

Thermal properties of quinoa flour using DSC

Thermal properties of quinoa flour were determined using DSC Gelatinization

temperatures (To onset temperature Tp peak temperature Tc conclusion temperature) and

gelatinization enthalpies are shown in Table 6 To of lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoCherry

Vanillarsquo and lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo were not different from each other and ranged from 645 ordmC to

659 ordmC To of lsquoOro de Vallersquo lsquoCopacabanarsquo lsquoCol6197rsquo and lsquoQQ63rsquo ranged from 605 ordmC to

631 ordmC while other varieties were lower and ranged from 544 ordmC to 589 ordmC Tp ranged from

675 ordmC in the Commercial Yellow seed to 752 ordmC in lsquoCahuilrsquo Tc ranged from 780 ordmC in lsquoRed

Commercialrsquo to 850ordmC in the lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo Enthalpy of quinoa flour differed among

varieties The range was from 11 Jg in lsquoYellow Commercialrsquo to 18 Jg in lsquoBlancarsquo

Correlations between physical-chemical properties and cooked quinoa texture

59

A summary of correlation coefficients between quinoa physical-chemical properties and

TPA texture profile parameters of cooked quinoa are shown in Table 7 Seed hardness was found

to be positively related to the TPA hardness gumminess and chewiness of cooked quinoa (P lt

009) Seed bulk density was negatively correlated to hardness cohesiveness gumminess and

chewiness while seed coat proportion was positively correlated to those parameters Protein

content of quinoa exhibited a positive relationship with TPA hardness (P = 008) and

adhesiveness cohesiveness gumminess and chewiness No significant correlation was observed

between the seed size 1000 seed weight ash content and the texture properties of cooked

quinoa

Cooking time of quinoa was highly positively correlated with all of the TPA texture

profile parameters Water uptake ratio during cooking was found to be significantly associated

with hardness gumminess and chewiness of cooked quinoa while cooking volume also showed

a modest correlation to hardness (r = -047 P = 010) Cooking loss was not correlated with any

texture parameter

Flour pasting viscosity was significantly correlated with texture of cooked quinoa Peak

viscosity and breakdown exhibited negative correlations with the hardness gumminess and

chewiness of cooked quinoa (P lt 010) Breakdown was also negatively associated with the

cohesiveness (r = -051 P lt 010) Final viscosity and setback were found to be negatively

correlated to hardness cohesiveness gumminess and chewiness while setback also exhibited a

significant correlation to adhesiveness (r = -064 P = 002)

60

Considering thermal properties To exhibited strong positive correlations with all texture

parameters Tp was found to be moderately related to cohesiveness (r = 050 P = 008) Neither

Tc nor enthalpy was significantly correlated to the TPA parameters of cooked quinoa

Discussion


Harder seed yielded harder gummier and chewier TPA texture after cooking The

varieties with lower seed bulk density or thicker seed coat yielded a firmer more cohesive

gummier and chewier texture Likely the condensed cells and non-starch polysaccharides of the

seed coat are a barrier between starch granules in the middle perisperm and water molecules

outside the seed

Seed composition

Higher protein appeared to contribute to a firmer more adhesive gummier and chewier

texture of cooked quinoa as evidenced by the TPA parameters Protein has been reported to play

a significant role in the texture of cooked rice and noodles (Ramesh et al 2000 Martin and

Fitzgerald 2002 Saleh and Meullenet 2007 Xie et al 2008 Hou et al 2013) According to the

previous studies proteins affect the food texture through three major routes (1) binding of water

(Saleh and Meullenet 2007) (2) interacting reversibly with starch bodies (Chrastil 1993) and (3)

forming networks via disulphide bonds which restrict starch granule swelling and water

hydration (Saleh and Meullenet 2007)

Cooking quality

Cooking time was found to be a key factor for cooked quinoa texture as it was closely

associated with most texture attributes Other cooking qualities such as the water uptake ratio

61

cooking volume and cooking loss were not significantly correlated to texture In the study of

rice the cooking time of rice positively correlated with hardness negatively with cohesiveness

and not significantly with adhesiveness (Mohapatra and Bal 2006) The higher water uptake ratio

and volume expansion ratio were negatively associated with softer more adhesive and more

cohesive texture This result agrees with the study on cooked rice Rousset et al (1995) study

indicated that longer cooking time greater water uptake and cooking loss related to the softer

less crunchy and more pasty texture

Flour pasting properties

The varieties with a higher peak viscosity in flour had a softer less gummy and less

chewy texture after cooking The cultivars with higher final peak viscosity yielded a softer less

cohesive less gummy and chewy texture The varieties with a greater breakdown such as

lsquoQQ63rsquo lsquo1ESPrsquo and lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo were softer in TPA parameter Breakdown has been

reported to negatively correlate with the proportion of long chain amylopectin (Han and

Hamaker 2001) Long chain amylopectin may form intra- or inter-molecular interactions with

protein and lipids and result in a firmer or harder texture (Ong and Blanshard 1995)

Quinoa varieties with a lower setback were harder after cooking compared to those with a

higher setback In rice conversely setback was positively correlated with amylose content

(Varavinit et al 2003) which would positively influence the hardness of cooked rice (Ong and

Blanshard 1995 Champagne et al 1999) Unlike rice and many other cereals where the amylose

content is approximately 25-29 the amylose proportion in quinoa starch is lower on the order

of 11 (Ahamed et al 1996) Amylose may play a different role in cooked quinoa hardness

compared to other cereals

62

Starch viscosity has been reported to significantly affect the texture of cooked rice

Champagne et al (1999) used the RVA measurements to predict TPA of cooked rice and found

that adhesiveness strongly correlated to RVA parameters Harder rice was correlated with lower

peak viscosity and positive setback while stickier rice had a higher peak viscosity breakdown

and lower setback (Ramesh et al 2000) The difference between quinoa and rice seed structure

and starch composition and the difference of texture determining methods may contribute to the

different trends in correlation

Thermal properties

The gelatinization temperature of quinoa flour ranged from 55 ordmC to 85 ordmC lower than

that of whole rice flour which was 70 ordmC to 103 ordmC (Marshall 1994) This result agrees with the

previous study on quinoa flour (Ando et al 2002) The quinoa varieties with higher To exhibited

a firmer more adhesive more cohesive gummier and chewier texture Higher Tp was associated

with increased cohesiveness The enthalpy of quinoa flour ranged from 11 to 18 Jg about one-

tenth that of whole rice flour (141 ndash 151 Jg) (Marshall 1994) indicating that it takes less

energy to cook quinoa than cook rice

Thermal properties of quinoa flour were generally correlated with flour pasting

properties Higher To and Tp were correlated with lower flour peak viscosity and lower trough

The result is comparable to the previous study of Sandhu and Singh (2007) who found that

gelatinization temperature and enthalpy of corn starch strongly influenced the peak breakdown

final and setback viscosity The thermal properties of quinoa flour were not correlated with

breakdown and setback likely was due to other composition factors in the flour such as protein

and fiber

63

Conclusions

The texture of cooked quinoa varied markedly among the different varieties indicating

that genetics management or geographic origin may all be important considerations for quinoa

quality As such differences in seed morphology and chemical composition appear to contribute

to quinoa processing parameters and cooked texture Harder seed yielded a firmer gummier and

chewier texture both lower seed density and high seed coat proportion related to a firmer more

cohesive gummier and chewier texture Seed size and weight appeared to be largely unrelated to

the texture of the cooked quinoa Protein content was a key factor apparently influencing texture

Higher protein content was related to harder more adhesive and cohesive gummier and chewier

texture Cooking time and water uptake ratio significantly affected the texture of cooked quinoa

whereas cooking volume moderately affected the hardness cooking loss was not correlated with

texture RVA peak viscosity was negatively correlated with the hardness gumminess and

chewiness breakdown was also negatively correlated with those TPA parameters Final viscosity

and setback were negatively correlated with the hardness cohesiveness gumminess and

chewiness Setback was correlated with the adhesiveness as well Gelatinization temperature To

affected all the texture profile parameters positively Tp slightly related to the cohesiveness

while Tc and enthalpy were not correlated with the texture

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by funding from the USDA Organic Research and Extension

Initiative project number NIFA GRANT11083982 The authors acknowledge Stacey Sykes and

Alecia Kiszonas for editing support

Author Contributions

64

G Wu and CF Morris designed the study together G Wu collected test data and drafted the

manuscript CF Morris and KM Murphy edited the manuscript KM Murphy provided

samples and project oversight

65

References

AACC International 2012 Approved Methods of Analysis Method 08-0101 Ash - Basic

method Approved April 13 1961 Method 44-1502 Moisture ndash Air-Oven Methods (130ordmC)

Approved October 30 1975 Method 46-3001 Crude protein ndash Combustion method

Approved November 8 1995 Reapproved November 3 1999 Available online only

AACCI St Paul MN



Food Chem 564745-50

Abugoch LEJ 2009 Chapter 1 Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Adv Food Nutr Res

581-31


flour proteins (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) during storage Int J Food Sci Tech 442013-20

Ahamed NT Singhal RS Kulkami PR Palb M 1996 Physicochemical and functional properties

of Chenopodium quinoa starch Carbohydr Polym 3199-103

Alvarez-Jubete L Arendt EK Gallagher E 2010 Nutritive value of pseudocereals and their

increasing use as functional gluten-free ingredients Trends in Food Sci Tech 21(2)106-13

Ando H Chen YC Tang H Shimizu M Watanabe K Mitsunaga T 2002 Food components in

fractions of quinoa seed Food Sci Technol Res 8(1)80-4

66

Baik BK Lee MR 2003 Effects of starch amylose content of wheat on textural properties of

white salted noodles Cereal Chem 80304-9

BeMiller JN Huber KC 2008 Carbohydrates In Damdaran S Parkin KL Fennema OR editors

Food chemistry Boca Raton CRC Press p 121

Champagne ET Lyon BG Min BK Vinyard BT Bett KL Barton IIFE Webb BD Kohlwey DE

1998 Effects of postharvest processing on texture profile analysis of cooked rice Cereal

Chem 75(2)181-6



measurements Cereal Chem 76(5)764-71

Champagne ET 2004 The rice grain and its gross composition In Champagne ET editor Rice

chemistry and technology St Paul Minn American Association of Cereal Chemists p 88

Chrastil J 1993 Enzyme activities in preharvest rice grains J Agric Food Chem 41(12)2245-8

Cortez G Repo-Carrasco R Rosell CM 2009 Breadmaking use of andean crops quinoa kantildeiwa

kiwicha and tarwi Cereal Chem 86(4)386-92

Del Castillo V Lescano G Armada M 2009 Foods formulation for people with celiac disease

based on quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) cereal flours and starches mixtures Archivos

Latinoamericanos De Nutricion 59(3)332-36

67

Demirkesen I Mert B Sumnu G Sahin S 2010 Rheological properties of gluten-free bread

formulations J Food Eng 96(2)295-303

Epstein J Morris CF Huber KC 2002 Instrumental texture of white salted noodles prepared

from recombinant inbred lines of wheat differing in the three granule bound starch synthase

(Waxy) genes J Cereal Sci 3551-63

Fitzgerald MA Martin M Ward RM Park WD Shead HJ 2003 Viscosity of rice flour a

rheological and biological study J Agric Food Chem 51(8) 2295-9

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2013 The international year of

quinoa Available from httpwwwfaoorgquinoa-2013en Accessed 2013 February 20

Han XZ Hamaker BR 2001 Amylopectin fine structure and rice starch paste breakdown J

Cereal Sci 34(3)279-84

Hou GG Saini R Ng PKW 2013 Relationship between physicochemical properties of wheat

flour wheat protein composition and textural properties of cooked chinese white salted

noodles Cereal Chem 90(5)419-29

Jancurovaacute M Minarovicova L Dandar A 2009 Quinoa ndash a review Czech J Food Sci 27(2)71-9

Juliano BO Villareal RM Bantildeos L 1987 Varietal differences in physicochemical properties of

waxy rice starch Starch - Staumlrke 39(9)298-301

68

Limpisut P Jindal VK 2002 Comparison of rice flour pasting properties using brabender

viscoamylograph and rapid visco analyser for evaluating cooked rice texture Starch - Staumlrke

54(8)350-7


lines Cereal Chem 82(2)216-22

Marshall WE 1994 Starch gelatinization in brown and milled rice a study using differential

scanning calorimetry In Marshall WE Wadsworth IJ editors Rice science and technology

New York NY Marcel Dekker Inc p 222

Martin M Fitzgerald MA 2002 Proteins in rice grains influence cooking properties J Cereal Sci

36(3)285-94

Mohapatra D Bal S 2006 Cooking quality and instrumental textural attributes of cooked rice

for different milling fractions J Food Eng 73(3)253-9


amylose and the fine stucture of amylopectin J Cereal Sci 21(3)251-60

Pappier U Fernandez Pinto V Larumbe G Vaamonde G 2008 Effect of processing for saponin

removal on fungal contamination of quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Int J Food

Microbiol 125(2)153-7

Perdon AA Juliano BO 1975 Gel and molecular properties of waxy rice starch Starch - Staumlrke

27(3)69-71

69

Ramesh M Bhattacharya KR Mitchell JR 2000 Developments in understanding the basis of

cooked-rice texture Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 40(6)449-60

Rousset S Pons B Pilandon C 1995 Sensory texture profile grain physico-chemical

characteristics and instrumental measurements of cooked rice J Texture Stud 26(2)119-35



Ruales J de Grijalva Y Lopez-Jaramillo P Nair BM 2002 The nutritional quality of an infant


undernourished children Int J Food Sci Nutr 53(2)143-54

Saleh MI Meullenet JF 2007 Effect of protein disruption using proteolytic treatment on cooked

rice texture properties J Texture Stud 38(4)423-37

Sandhu KS Singh N 2007 Some properties of corn starches II Physicochemical gelatinization

retrogradation pasting and gel textural properties Food Chem 101(4)1499-507

Schumacher A Brandelli A Macedo F Pieta L Klug T Jong E 2010 Chemical and sensory

evaluation of dark chocolate with addition of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) J Food

Sci Tech 47(2)202-6

Seguchi M Hayashi M Kanenaga K Ishihara C Noguchi S1998 Springiness of pancake and

its relation to binding of prime starch to tailings in stored wheat flour Cereal Chem

75(1)37-42

70

Tang H 2004 Relationship between functionality and structure in barley starches Carbohydr

Polym 57(2)145-52

Tang H Mitsunaga T Kawamura Y 2005 Functionality of starch granules in milling fractions

of normal wheat grain Carbohyd Polym 59(1)11-7

Tsuji S 1981 Texture measurement of cooked rice kernels using the multiple-point mensuration

method 1 J Texture Stud 12(2)93-105

Vaclavik VA Christian EW 2003 Evaluation of food quality In Vaclavik V Christian EW

editors Essentials of food science New York NY Kluwer AcademicPlnum Publishers p 4

Varavinit S Shobsngob S Varanyanond W Chinachoti P Naivikul O 2003 Effect of amylose

content on gelatinization retrogradation and pasting properties of flours from different

cultivars of thai rice Starch - Staumlrke 55(9)410-5

Xie L Chen N Duan B Zhu Z Liao X 2008 Impact of proteins on pasting and cooking

properties of waxy and non-waxy rice J Cereal Sci 47(2)372-9

Zeng M Morris CF Batey IL Wrigley CW 1997 Sources of variation for starch gelatinization

pasting and gelation properties in wheat Cereal Chem 7463-71

71

Table 1-Varieties of quinoa used in the experiment

Variety Original Seed Source Location

Black White Mountain Farm White Mountain Farm Colorado US

Blanca White Mountain Farm White Mountain Farm Colorado US

Cahuil White Mountain Farm White Mountain Farm Colorado US

Cherry Vanilla Wild Garden Seeds Philomath Oregon WSUa Organic Farm Pullman Washington US

Oro de Valle Wild Garden Seeds Philomath Oregon WSUa Organic Farm Pullman Washington US

49ALC USDA Port Townsend Washington US

1ESP USDA Port Townsend Washington US

Copacabana USDA Port Townsend Washington US

Col6197 USDA Port Townsend Washington US

Japanese Strain USDA Port Townsend Washington US

QQ63 USDA Port Townsend Washington US

Yellow Commercial Multi Organics company Bolivia

Red Commercial Multi Organics company Bolivia a WSU - Washington State University

72

Table 2-Seed characteristics and compositiona

Variety Diameter (mm)

Hardness (kg)

Bulk Density (gmL)

Seed Coat Proportion ()

Protein ()

Ash ()

Black 21bc 994b 0584d 37bc 143d 215hi

Blanca 22ab 608l 0672c 89a 135e 284ef

Cahuil 21abc 772e 0757a 49b 170a 260fg

Cherry Vanilla 19e 850d 0717b 41b 160b 239gh

Oro de Valle 19e 1096a 0715b 43b 156b 305de

49ALC 19de 935c 0669c 26cd 127g 348bc

1ESP 19e 664h 0672c 10f 113i 248gh

Copacabana 20cd 643i 0671c 44b 129g 361b

Col6197 19e 583m 0657c 24de 118h 291ef

Japanese Strain 15f 618k 0610d 21def 148cd 324cd

QQ63 19e 672g 0661c 45b 135f 401a

Yellow Commercial

21abc 622j 0663c 14ef 146c 198i

Red Commercial 22a 706f 0730ab 26cd 145cd 226hi a Mean values with different letters within a column are significantly different (P lt 005)

73

Table 3-Texture profile analysis (TPA)a of cooked quinoa

Variety Hardness (kg)

Adhesiveness (kgs)

Cohesiveness Gumminess (kg)

Chewiness (kg)

Black 347a -004a 069ab 24a 24a

Blanca 306bcd -003a 071a 22abc 22abc

Cahuil 327abc -003a 071a 23ab 23ab

Cherry Vanilla 278de -002a 071a 20cd 20cd

Oro de Valle 285d -001a 068ab 19cd 19cd

49ALC 209f -029c 054d 11ef 11ef

1ESP 245e -027bc 056d 14e 14e

Copacabana 305bcd -010a 068ab 21bcd 21bcd

Col6197 202f -023bc 053d 11ef 11ef

Japanese Strain 293d -008a 066bc 19cd 19cd

QQ63 297cd -020b 062c 19d 19d

Yellow Commercial 306bcd -003a 069ab 21abc 21bc

Red Commercial 338ab -005a 068ab 23ab 23ab a Mean values with different letters within a column are significantly different (P lt 005)

74

Table 4-Cooking qualitya of quinoa

Variety Optimal Cooking Time (min)

Water uptake ()

Cooking Volume (mL)

Cooking Loss ()

Black 192a 297c 109c 065f

Blanca 183abc 344b 130ab 067f

Cahuil 169de 357ab 137a 102c

Cherry Vanilla 165ef 291c 107c 102c

Oro de Valle 173cde 238d 109c 102c

49ALC 136h 359ab 126b 043g

1ESP 153g 373ab 132ab 035h

Copacabana 157fg 379ab 127b 175a

Col6197 119i 397a 126b 176a

Japanese Strain 166def 371ab 116c 106b

QQ63 177bc 244d 126b 067f

Yellow Commercial 187ab 372ab 129ab 076d

Red Commercial 155fg 276cd 132ab 071e a Mean values with different letters within a column are significantly different (P lt 005)

75

Table 5-Pasting properties of quinoa flour by RVAa

Variety Peak Viscosity (RVU)

Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)

Final Viscosity (RVU)

Setback (RVU)

Peak Time (min)

Black 102g 81e 21e 75g -6f 102e

Blanca 98g 80e 18e 82g 2e 99f

Cahuil 116f 85e 31d 74g -11f 104de

Cherry Vanilla

66h 54g 12f 57h 2e 97fg

Oro de Valle

59h 50g 10f 56h 6e 93h

49ALC 107fg 71f 36c 132e 62b 97fg

1ESP 161cd 110c 51b 174c 64b 98fg

Copacabana 175b 141b 34cd 190b 49c 106cd

Col6197 155de 133b 22e 177bc 44cd 108bc

Japanese Strain

172bc 109c 62a 159d 50c 96gh

QQ63 144e 94d 51b 167cd 73a 97fg

Yellow Commercial

172bc 162a 11f 203a 41d 109b

Red Commercial

197a 168a 29d 106f -62g 115a

a Mean values with different letters within a column are significantly different (P lt 005)

76

Table 6-Thermal properties of quinoa flour by Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)a

Gelatinization Temperature (ordmC)

Variety To Tp Tc Enthalpy (Jg)

Black 656a 725c 818abcd 15abc

Blanca 658a 743ab 819abcd 18a

Cahuil 659a 752a 839ab 16ab

Cherry Vanilla 649ab 741ab 823abc 12c

Oro de Valle 631bc 719cd 809abcde 12bc

49ALC 579e 714d 810bcde 15abc

1ESP 544f 690f 785de 15abc

Copacabana 630c 715cd 802cde 14abc

Col6197 605d 689f 785de 15abc

Japanese Strain 645abc 740b 850a 12c

QQ63 630c 702e 784de 13bc

Yellow Commercial 570e 676g 790cde 11c

Red Commercial 589de 693ef 780e 12c a Mean values with different letters within a column are significantly different (P lt 005)

77

Table 7-Correlation coefficients between quinoa seed characteristics composition and processing parameters and TPA texture of cooked quinoaa

Hardness Adhesiveness Cohesiveness Gumminess Chewiness

Seed Hardness 051 002ns 028ns 049 049

Bulk Density -055 -044ns -063 -060 -060

Seed Coat Proportion 074 038ns 055 072 072

Protein 050 077 075 057 057

Cooking Time 077 062 074 076 076

Water Uptake Ratio -058 -025ns -046ns -056 -056

Cooking Volume -048 -014ns -032ns -046ns -046ns

Peak Viscosity -051 -014ns -041ns -053 -054

Breakdown -048 -047ns -051 -053 -053

Final Viscosity -069 -043ns -060 -070 -070

Setback -058 -064 -059 -060 -060

To 059 054 061 061 061

Tp 042ns 041ns 050 045ns 046ns a ns non-significant difference P lt 010 P lt 005 P lt 001

78

Figure 1-Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA) graph of lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquoRed Commercialrsquo

quinoa flours ( lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo lsquoRed Commercialrsquo Temperature)

Time (min)

0 10 20 30 40

Vis

cosi

ty (R

VU

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pera

ture

(degC

)

50

100

150

200

79

Figure 2-Seed coat image by SEM

(1 whole seed section P-perisperm C-cotyledon 2 three layers of quinoa seed coat

3 seed coat of lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo 382 microm 4 seed coat of lsquo1ESPrsquo 95microm)

4 3

2 1

P

C C

80

Chapter 4 Quinoa Starch Characteristics and Their Correlation with

Texture of Cooked Quinoa

ABSTRACT

Starch composition and physical properties strongly influence the functionality and end-

quality of cereals Here correlations between starch characteristics and seed quality cooking

properties and texture were investigated Starch characteristics differed among the eleven

experimental varieties and two commercial quinoa tested The total starch content of seed ranged

from 532 to 751 g 100 g Total starch amylose content ranged from 27 to 169 and the

degree of amylose-lipid complex ranged from 34 to 433 The quinoa samples with higher

amylose tended to yield harder stickier more cohesive more gummy and more chewy texture

after cooking With higher degree of amylose-lipid complex or amylose leaching the cooked

quinoa tended to be softer and less chewy Higher starch enthalpy correlated with firmer more

adhesive more cohesive and more chewy texture Indicating that varieties with different starch

properties should be utilized in different end-products

Keywords quinoa starch texture cooked quinoa

Practical Application The research provided the starch characteristics of different quinoa

varieties showing correlations between starch and cooked quinoa texture These results can help

breeders and food manufacturers to better understand quinoa starch properties and the use of

cultivars for different food product applications

81

Introduction

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) is a pseudocereal from the Andean mountains in

South America Quinoa is garnering greater attention worldwide because of its high protein

content and balanced essential amino acids As in other crops starch is one of the major

components of quinoa seed Starch content structure molecular composition pasting thermal

properties and other characteristics may influence the cooking quality and texture of cooked

quinoa

The total starch content of quinoa seed has been reported to range from 32 to 69

(Abugoch 2009) Starch granules are small (1-2μm) compared to those of rice and barley (Tari et

al 2003) Amylose content of quinoa starch was reported to range from 35 to 225 (Abugoch

2009) generally lower than that of other crops Amylose content exhibited significant influence

on the texture of cooked quinoa (Ong and Blanshard 1995) Similarly cooked rice texture was

correlated to starch amylose and chain length (Ong and Blanshard 1995 Ramesh et al 1999)

and leaching of amylose and amylopectin during cooking (Patindol et al 2010) However

amylose-lipid complex and amylose leaching properties have not been studied in quinoa cultivars

with diverse genetic backgrounds Perdon et al (1999) indicated that starch retrogradation was

positively correlated with firmness and stickiness of cooked milled rice during storage and

similar correlations would be anticipated for quinoa

Starch swelling power and water solubility influenced wheat and rice noodle quality and

texture (Crosbie 1991 McCormick et al 1991 Konik et al 1993 Ross et al 1997 Bhattacharya

et al 1999) whereas the role of starch swelling powerwater solubility in the texture of cooked

quinoa has not been reported

82

The texture of rice starch gels has been studied Gel texture was influenced by treatment

temperature incorporation of glucomannan and sugar concentration (Charoenrein et al 2011

Jiang et al 2011 Sun et al 2014) The texture of quinoa starch gel however has not been

reported

Gelatinization temperature enthalpy and pasting properties of starch were correlated

with the texture of cooked rice (Ong and Blanshard 1995 Champagne et al 1999 Limpisut and

Jindal 2002) The correlations between starch thermal properties pasting properties and cooked

quinoa texture however have also not been reported

Starch is an important component of grains and exhibits significant influence on the

texture of cooked rice noodles and other foods The texture of cooked quinoa has been studied

previously (Wu et al 2014) however the correlation of starch and cooked quinoa texture

nevertheless remained unclear The objectives of the present study were to understand 1) the

starch characteristics of different quinoa varieties and 2) the correlations between the starch

characteristics and the texture of cooked quinoa


Starch isolation

Eleven varieties and two commercial quinoa samples were included in this study (Table

1) Quinoa starch was isolated using a method modified from Lindeboom et al (2005) and Qian

et al (1999) Two hundred grams of seed were steeped in 1000 mL NaOH (03 wv) overnight

at 4 degC and rinsed with distilled water three times to remove the saponins The rinsed quinoa

was ground in a Waring blender (Conair Corp Stamford CT USA) for 15 min The slurry

was screened through a series of sieves US No 40 100 and 200 mesh sieves with openings of

83

425 150 and 74 μm respectively Distilled water was added and stirred to speed up the

filtration Filter residue was discarded whereas the filtrate was centrifuged under 2000 times g for 20

min The supernatant was decanted and the top brown layer of sediment (protein and lipids) was

gently scraped loose and discarded The remaining pellet was resuspended in distilled water and

centrifuged again This resuspension-centrifuge process was repeated three times or until the

brown topmost layer was all removed The white starch pellet was then dispersed in 95 ethanol

and centrifuged under 2000 times g for 10 min The supernatant was discarded and the starch pellet

was air-dried and gently ground using a mortar and pestle

α-amylase activity

The activity of α-amylase was determined using a Megazyme Kit (Megazyme

International Ireland Co Wicklow Ireland)

Apparent total amylose content degree of amylose-lipid complex

Apparent amylose content was determined using a cold NaOH method (Mahmood et al

2007) with modification Sample of 10 mg was weighed into a 20 mL microcentrifuge tube To

the sample was added 150 μL of 95 ethanol and 900 μL of 1M NaOH mixed vigorously and

kept on a shaker overnight at room temperature The starch solution of 200 μL was removed and

combined with 1 mL of 005 M citric acid 800 μL iodine solution (02 g I2 2 g KI in 250 mL

distilled water) and 10 mL distilled water reaching a final volume of 12 mL The solution was

chilled in a refrigerator for 20 min The absorbance at 620nm was determined using a

spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Biospec-1601 DNAProteinEnzyme Analyzer Shimadzu corp

Kyoto Japan) A standard curve was created using a dilution series of amylose amylopectin

84

proportions of 010 19 28 37 46 and 55 respectively (Sigma-Aldrich Co LLC St Louis

MO USA)

Total amylose content was determined using the same method for apparent amylose

except that lipids in the starch samples were removed in advance The starch was defatted using

hexane and ultrasonic treatment as follows One gram of starch was dissolved in 15 mL hexane

and set in an ultrasonic water bath for 2 hours The suspension was then centrifuged at 1000 times g

for 1 min The supernatant was discarded and the procedure was repeated a second time The

sample was then dried in a fume hood overnight

Degree of amylose-lipid complex = [total amylose ndash apparent amylose] total amylose times 100

Amylose leaching properties

Amylose leaching was determined using the modified method of Hoover and Ratnayake

(2002) Starch (025 g) was mixed with 5 mL distilled water and heated at 60 degC for 30 min

then cooled in ice water and centrifuged at 2000 times g for 10 min Supernatant of 1 mL was added

to 800 μL iodine solution and 102 mL distilled water to achieve the same volume of 12 mL as

in the apparent amylose test The solution was chilled in a refrigerator for 20 min and the

absorbance at 620 nm was determined The amylose leaching was expressed as mg of amylose

leached from 100 g of starch

Starch pasting properties

Starch pasting properties were determined using the Rapid Visco Analyzer RVA-4

(Newport Scientific Pty Ltd Narrabeen Australia) Starch (3 g) was added to 25 mL distilled

water mixed and heated in the RVA using the following procedure The initial temperature was

50 ordmC and increased to 93 ordmC within 8 min at a constant rate held at 95 ordmC from 8 min to 24 min

85

cooled to 50 ordmC from 24 min to 28 min and held at 50 ordmC from 29 min to 40 min The result was

expressed in RVU units (RVU = cP12)

Starch gel texture

Starch gel texture was determined using a TA-XT2i Texture Analyzer (Texture

Technologies Corp Hamilton MA USA) The starch gels were prepared in the RVA using the

same procedure as for pasting properties Then the starch gels were stored at 4 degC for 24 hours

The testing procedure followed the method of Jiang et al (2011) with modification The gel

cylinder (3 cm high and 35 cm diameter) was compressed using a TA-25 cylinder probe at the

speed of pre-test 20 mms test 05 mms and post-test 05 mms to 10 mm deformation Two

compressions were conducted with an interval time of 20 s Hardness springiness and

cohesiveness were obtained from the TPA (Texture Profile Analysis) graph (x-axis distance and

y-axis force) Hardness (g) was expressed by the maximum force of the first peak springiness

was the ratio of distance (time) to peak 2 to distance to peak 1 cohesiveness was the ratio of the

second positive area under the compression curve to that of the first positive area

Freeze-thaw stability

Freeze-thaw stability was determined using the modified method from Lindeboom et al

(2005) and Charoenrein et al (2005) Starch slurry was cooked using the RVA with 125 g

starch and 25 mL distilled water The starch suspensions were heated at 60 degC from 0 ndash 2 min

the temperature was increased to 105 degC from 3 ndash 8 min with a constant rate and held at 105 degC

from 9 - 11 min The cooked samples were stored at -18 degC for 20 hours and then kept at room

temperature for 4 hours Water was decanted and the weight difference was determined The

86

freeze-thaw cycle was repeated five times The freeze-thaw stability was expressed as water loss

after each freeze-thaw cycle

Starch thermal properties

Thermal properties of starch were determined using Differential Scanning Calorimetry

(DSC) (Lindeboom et al 2005) Starch samples of 10 mg were weighed into aluminum pans

(Perkin-Elmer Kit No 219-0062) with 20 μL distilled water The pans were sealed and the

suspensions were incubated at room temperature (25 degC) for 2 hours to achieve equilibrium The

pans were then scanned at 10 degCmin from 25 degC to 120 degC The onset temperature (To) peak

temperature (Tp) and completion temperature (Tc) were the temperature to start the peak reach

the peak and complete the peak respectively Additionally enthalpy of gelatinization was

determined by the area under the peak

Swelling power and solubility

Swelling power and water solubility of starch were obtained at 93 degC (Vandeputte et al

2003) Starch samples of 05 g were added to 12 mL distilled water and mixed vigorously The

suspensions were immediately set in a water bath with a rotating rack at 93 degC for 30 min The

suspensions were then cooled in ice water for 2 min and centrifuged at 3000 g for 15 min The

supernatant was carefully removed with a pipette and the weight of wet sediment was recorded

The removed supernatants were dried in a 105 degC oven over night The weight of dry sediment

was recorded The swelling power and water solubility were expressed using the following

equations

Swelling power = wet sediment weight [dry sample weight times (1 ndash water solubility))

Water solubility = dry sediment weight dry sample weight times 100

87

Swelling power is expressed as a unitless ratio


All experiments were repeated three times Multiple comparisons were conducted using

Fisherrsquos LSD in SAS 92 (SAS Inst Cary NC USA) Correlations were calculated using

PROC CORR code in SAS 92 A P value of 005 was considered as the level of significance

unless otherwise specified

Results

Starch content and composition

Total starch content of quinoa seeds on a dry basis ranged from 532 g 100 g in the

variety lsquoBlackrsquo to 751 g 100 g in a commercial sample named lsquoYellow Commercialrsquo (Table 2)

Varieties lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquoOro de Vallersquo were lower in total

starch content all below 60 g100 g The Port Townsend seeds and commercial seeds contained

higher levels of starch mostly over 70 g100 g

Apparent amylose contents ranged from 27 in lsquo49ALCrsquo to 169 in lsquoCahuilrsquo all

lower than the corn starch standard which was 264 Varieties lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoBlackrsquo and lsquoYellow

Commercialrsquo contained higher apparent amylose 147 to 169 It is worth noting that

lsquo49ALCrsquo contained the lowest apparent and total amylose contents 27 and 47 respectively

Total amylose of the other varieties ranged from 111 in lsquoQQ63rsquo to 173 in lsquoCahuilrsquo

The degree of amylose-lipid complex differed among the samples ranging from 34 in

lsquoCahuilrsquo to 43 in lsquo49ALCrsquo and lsquoCol6197rsquo Statistically however only lsquo49ALCrsquo and

lsquoCol6197rsquo were significantly higher than lsquoCahuilrsquo in degree of amylose-lipid complex

Starch properties

88

Amylose leaching property exhibited great differences among samples (Table 3)

lsquo49ALCrsquo and lsquo1ESPrsquo showed the highest amylose leaching at 862 and 716 mg 100 g starch

respectively lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoJapanese Stainrsquo and lsquoRed Commercialrsquo were the lowest with amylose

leaching less than 100 mg 100 g starch lsquoBlackrsquo and lsquoBlancarsquo were relatively low as well with

210 and 171 mg amylose leaching 100 g starch The other varieties were intermediate and

ranged from 349 to 552 mg 100 g starch

Water solubility of quinoa starch ranged from 07 to 45 all lower than that of corn

starch which was 79 lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo lsquoQQ63rsquo lsquoCommercial Yellowrsquo and lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo

were the highest in water solubility 26 to 45 The starch water solubility in the other varieties

was between 10 and 19

Swelling power of quinoa starch ranged from 170 to 282 all higher than that of corn

starch (89) lsquo49ALCrsquo and lsquo1ESPrsquo showed the highest swelling powers 282 and 276

respectively lsquoYellow Commercialrsquo and lsquoRed Commercialrsquo showed relatively lower swelling

power 188 and 196 respectively The remaining varieties did not exhibit differences in

swelling power with values between 253 and 263

α-Amylase activity

Activity of α-amylase in quinoa flour separated the samples to three groups (Table 3)

lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquoOro de Vallersquo showed high α-amylase activity from

086 CU to 116 CU (Ceralpha Unit) lsquoBlackrsquo lsquo49ALCrsquo and lsquoCopacabanarsquo were lower in α-

amylase activity 043 031 and 020 CU respectively The other varieties and commercial

samples exhibited particularly low α-amylase activities with the values lower than 01 CU

Starch gel texture

89

Texture of starch gels included hardness springiness and cohesiveness (Table 4)

Hardness of starch gel of lsquoCahuilrsquo and lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo represented the highest and the lowest

values 900 and 201 g respectively Hardness of the other varieties ranged from 333 g in

lsquo49ALCrsquo to 725 g in lsquoBlackrsquo

lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo and lsquoYellow Commercialrsquo exhibited the highest and lowest springiness

values of the starch gels 092 and 071 respectively Springiness of other starch samples ranged

from 075 to 085 and were not significantly different from each other

Cohesiveness of starch gels ranged from 053 to 089 The starch gels of lsquoJapanese

Strainrsquo lsquoCol6197rsquo and lsquoCopacabanarsquo were more cohesive at 089 083 and 078 respectively

The starch gels of lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquo1ESPrsquo were moderately cohesive

with the cohesiveness of 072 ndash 073 Other varieties exhibited less cohesive starch gels lsquoQQ63rsquo

and commercial samples showed the least cohesive starch gels 053 ndash 057 For comparison the

hardness springiness and cohesiveness of the corn starch gel was 721 084 and 073

respectively These values were among the upper-to-middle range of those counterpart values of

the texture of quinoa starch gels


Thermal properties of quinoa starch include gelatinization temperature and enthalpy

(Table 5) Onset temperature To of quinoa starch ranged from 515 ordmC in lsquoYellow Commercialrsquo to

586 ordmC in lsquoBlancarsquo Peak temperature Tp ranged from 595 ordmC in lsquoRed Commercialrsquo to 654 ordmC

in lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo Conclusion temperature ranged from 697 ordmC in lsquoCol6197rsquo to 788 ordmC in

lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo The commercial samples exhibited lower gelatinization temperatures To Tp

90

and Tc of the corn starch were 560 626 and 743 ordmC respectively They were within the ranges

of those values of the quinoa starches

Enthalpy refers to the energy required during starch gelatinization The enthalpy of

quinoa starch ranged from 99 to 116 Jg Starch from lsquoCahuilrsquo exhibited the highest enthalpy

116 Jg higher than that of lsquo49ALCrsquo and lsquoQQ63rsquo However enthalpies of other samples were

not significantly different Corn starch enthalpy was 105 Jg comparable to those of quinoa

starches


Starch viscosity was investigated using the RVA (Table 6) Peak viscosity of quinoa

starches ranged from 193 to 344 RVU Varieties lsquoBlancarsquo and lsquoCahuilrsquo showed the highest peak

viscosities 344 and 342 RVU respectively lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo and lsquoQQ63rsquo were lowest in starch

peak viscosity 193 and 213 RVU respectively The peak viscosity of corn starch was 255 RVU

falling within the middle range of quinoa peak viscosities

The tough is the minimum viscosity after the first peak The trrough of quinoa starch

ranged from 137 to 301 RVU The starches of lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and

lsquoOro de Vallersquo showed highest trough values from 252 to 301 RVU lsquo49ALCrsquo lsquo1ESPrsquo

lsquoCopacabanarsquo lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo and lsquoQQ63rsquo were lowest in trough ranging from 137 to 186

RVU The trough of corn starch was 131 RVU lower than that of all quinoa starches

Starch breakdown of lsquo49ALCrsquo was 119 RVU higher than that of other samples except

corn starch which was 124 RVU lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo and lsquoOro de Vallersquo showed the lowest

breakdowns 12 and 17 RVU respectively Breakdown of the other samples ranged from 39 to

97 RVU

91

Final viscosity of lsquoCahuilrsquo starch was 405 RVU significantly higher than that of other

varieties At the other extreme final viscosity of lsquo49ALCrsquo starch was 225 RVU significantly

lower than that of the other varieties The final viscosity of corn starch was 283 RVU close to

that of lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo and lsquoQQ63rsquo but lower than that of the other quinoa samples

The highest setback was observed with lsquo1ESPrsquo starch (140 RVU) At the other extreme

the setback of lsquoOro de Vallersquo was 53 RVU which was lower than the other quinoa samples

Additionally setbacks of lsquoBlancarsquo lsquo49ALCrsquo and lsquoJapanese stainrsquo starches were also among the

lower range varying from 82 RVU to 88 RVU The remaining varieties exhibited higher setback

from 101 RVA to 127 RVU Setback of corn starch was 152 RVU significantly higher than all

the other quinoa starches

RVA peak times of quinoa starches varied significantly among the samples lsquoJapanese

Strainrsquo lsquoBlancarsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo and lsquoOro de Vallersquo required longer time to reach the peak viscosity

with peak times of 105 to 113 min Other varieties showed shorter peak times between 79 to

99 min The starch of lsquo49ALCrsquo however only needed 64 min to reach peak viscosity shorter

than those of other quinoa samples The peak time of corn starch was 73 min shorter than those

of quinoa starches except lsquo49ALCrsquo

Freeze-thaw stability of starch

Freeze-thaw stability of starches was expressed as the water loss () of each freeze-thaw

cycle Quinoa starch samples and corn starch showed similar trends in freeze-thaw stability

Most water loss occurred after cycles 1 and 2 Starch gels on average (excluding lsquo49ALCrsquo) lost a

cumulative total of 522 ndash 689 of water after cycle 2 and a total of 745 ndash 823 after cycle 5

Furthermore the starch gels of lsquoQQ63rsquo and lsquo1ESPrsquo lost the least water indicating higher freeze-

92

thaw stability Conversely the starch gel of lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo lost the most water in every cycle

indicating the lowest degree of freeze-thaw stability

lsquo49ALCrsquo and lsquo1ESPrsquo starches exhibited freeze-thaw behavior that was different

compared to the other samples After freezing the samples of lsquo49ALCrsquo and lsquo1ESPrsquo produced

gels that were less rigid more viscous than the other samples Further they did not lose as much

water after the first cycle The sample of lsquo1ESPrsquo however turned into a solid gel from cycle 2 to

5 And the water loss of the lsquo1ESPrsquo gel was close to that of other samples during cycles 2 and 5

Correlations between starch properties and the texture of cooked quinoa

Correlations between starch properties and texture of cooked quinoa were examined

(Table 7) using texture profile analysis (TPA) of cooked quinoa of Wu et al (2014) Total starch

content was moderately correlated with adhesiveness of cooked quinoa (r = -048 P = 009) but

was not significantly correlated with any of the other texture parameters Conversely apparent

amylose content was highly correlated with all texture parameters (067 le r le 072) Total

amylose content also exhibited significant correlations with all texture parameters (056 le r le

061) Furthermore the degree of amylose-lipid complex was negatively correlated with all

texture parameters (-070 le r le -060) and amylose leaching proportion was highly correlated

with the texture of cooked quinoa (-084 le r le -074)

Water solubility and swelling power of starch were not observed to correlate well with

any of the texture parameters Higher α-amylase activity tended to yield more adhesive (r = 055)

and more cohesive (r = 051 P = 007) texture However α-amylase activity was not correlated

with the hardness gumminess or chewiness of cooked quinoa

93

Some texture parameters of starch gels were associated with the texture parameters of

cooked quinoa The hardness of starch gels was not correlated with the hardness of cooked

quinoa but was weakly correlated with adhesiveness (r = 059) Weakly positive correlations

were found between starch gel hardness and cooked quinoa cohesiveness gumminess and

chewiness (049 le r le 051 P le 010) Springiness and cohesiveness of starch gels were not

correlated with the measured textural properties of cooked quinoa

Onset gelatinization temperature (To) of starch exhibited weak correlations with

adhesiveness (r = 049 P = 009) and cohesiveness (r = 051 P = 007) but was not correlated

with the other texture parameters Peak gelatinization temperature (Tp) of starch was correlated

with cohesiveness (r = 056) and hardness adhesiveness gumminess and chewiness (047 le r le

056 P le 010) No correlation was found with conclusion temperature (Tc) and texture Starch

enthalpy did correlate with the texture parameters (r = 064 in hardness 069 le r le 072 in other

texture parameters)

Starch viscosity measurements were variably correlated with the texture of cooked

quinoa Peak viscosity correlated adhesiveness (r = 054 P = 006) and cohesiveness (r = 047 P

= 010) but not with the other texture parameters Trough was more highly correlated with

adhesiveness cohesiveness gumminess and chewiness (r = 077 in adhesiveness 055 le r le

063 in other texture parameters)

It is interesting to note that starch breakdown only correlated with adhesiveness of

cooked quinoa (r = -060) and not with any other texture parameter Setback was not correlated

with any texture parameter These two RVA parameters breakdown and setback are usually

considered to be important indexes of end-use quality In quinoa however breakdown and

94

setback of starch apparently are not predictive of cooked quinoa texture In addition final

viscosity was also correlated with adhesiveness (r = 068) and cohesiveness (r = 058) and

correlated moderately with gumminess and chewiness (r = 053 P = 006) Peak time was

correlated with adhesiveness (r = 077) cohesiveness (r = 068) gumminess (r = 060) and

chewiness (r = 060) and to a lesser extent with hardness (r = 053 P = 006)

Correlations between starch properties and seed DSC RVA characteristics

Total starch content correlated with seed hardness (r = -073) seed coat proportion (r = -

071) and starch viscosities (peak viscosity trough and final viscosity) (-068 lt r lt -060) and

also to a lesser extent with seed density (r = 054 P = 006) and starch thermal properties (To

Tp and enthalpy) (-051 lt r lt -049 008 lt P lt009) (Table 8)

Water solubility of starch was correlated with starch viscosity such as peak viscosity (r =

-049 P = 009) and breakdown (r = -048 P = 010) Swelling power was only correlated with

peak time (r = -054 P = 006) (data not shown)

Apparent amylose content was correlated with protein content (r = 058) and optimal

cooking time (r = 056) but total amylose content did not show either of these correlations Both

apparent and total amylose contents were correlated with starch gel hardness starch enthalpy

and starch viscosity such as trough breakdown final viscosity and peak time

The degree of amylose-lipid complex exhibited negative correlations with seed protein

content (r = -07) and optimal cooking time of quinoa seed (r = -067) Moreover amylose

leaching was negatively correlated with protein content (r = -062) starch gel hardness (r = --

064) starch Tp (r = -058) and enthalpy (r = -064) optimal cooking time (r = -055) and starch

viscosities such as breakdown (r = 062) and peak time (r = -081) Additionally α-amylase

95

activity was correlated with protein content (r = 066) seed density (r = -072) seed coat

proportion (r = 055) starch To (r = 061) and starch viscosities such as peak viscosity (r =

070) trough (r = 072) and final viscosity (r = 061)

Discussion


Total starch content does influence the functional and processing properties of cereals

The total starch content of quinoa was reported to be between 32 and 69 (Abugoch 2009)

Among our varieties most of the Port Townsend varieties and commercial quinoa contained

more than 69 starch It is interesting to note that the Port Townsend samples lsquo49ALCrsquo lsquo1ESPrsquo

lsquoCol6197rsquo and lsquoQQ63rsquo were also more sticky or more adhesive after cooking than other

varieties These varieties may exhibit better performance in extrusion products or in beverages

which require high viscosity

Amylose content affects texture and gelation properties The proportion of amylose and

amylopectin impacts the functionality of cereals in this study both apparent and total amylose

contents were determined Total amylose includes those amylose molecules that are complexed

with lipids

Amylose content of quinoa was reported to range from 35 to 225 dry basis

(Abugoch 2009) generally lower than that of common cereals which is around 25 Overall

both apparent and total amylose contents of the quinoa in the present study fell within the range

which has been reported lsquo49ALCrsquo was an exception showing significantly lower apparent and

total amylose contents of 27 and 47 respectively Thus this variety is close to be being a

lsquowaxyrsquo which refers to the cereal starches that are comprised of mostly amylopectin (99) and

96

little amylose (~1) As the waxy wheat showed an excellent expansion during extrusion

(Kowalski et al 2014) lsquo49ALCrsquo is a promising variety to produce breakfast cereal or extruded

snacks

The degree of amylose-lipid complex showed great variability among the samples 34 ndash

433 whereas the value in wheat flour was reported to be 32 (Bhatnagar and Hanna 1994) or

13 to 23 (Zeng et al 1997) Degree of amylose-lipid complex showed significant and

negative correlations with all texture parameters such as hardness adhesiveness cohesiveness

gumminess and chewiness

The effect of amylose-lipid complex on product texture has been reported in previous

studies The degree of amylose-lipid complex correlated with the texture (hardness and

crispness) and quality (radial expansion) of corn-based snack (Thachil et al 2014) Wokadala et

al (2012) indicated that amylose-lipid complexes played a significant role in starch biphasic

pasting

Starch properties

Amylose leaching was also highly variable among the quinoa varieties 35 ndash 862 mg

100g starch Vandeputte et al (2003) studied amylose leaching of waxy and normal rice

starches The amylose leaching values at 65 ordmC were below 1 of starch comparable with those

in quinoa starch Pronounced increase of amylose leaching was observed at the temperatures

higher than 95 ordmC Patindol et al (2010) found that both amylose and amylopectin leached out

during cooking rice The proportion of the leached amylose and amylopectin influenced the

texture of cooked rice We found similar results indicating correlations between amylose

leaching and texture of cooked quinoa

97

Water solubility of quinoa starch was significantly lower than that of corn starch whereas

swelling power of quinoa starch was higher than that of corn starch Both water solubility and

swelling power were determined at 95 ordmC Lindeboom et al (2005) determined swelling power

and solubility of quinoa starch among eight varieties at 65 75 85 and 95 ordmC The water

solubility at 95 ordmC ranged from 01 to 47 which was lower than the corn starch standard of

100 The swelling power at 95 ordmC ranged from 164 to 526 lower than the corn starch

standard of 549 The quinoa starch in this study showed a narrower range of swelling power

170 to 282

α-Amylase activity

The quinoa in this study had significantly different α-amylase activity (003 ndash 116 CU)

Previous studies reported low α-amylase activity in quinoa compared to oat (Maumlkinen et al

2013) and traditional malting cereals (Hager et al 2014) Moreover the activity of α-amylase

indicates the degree of seed germination and the availability of sugars for fermentation In the

study of Hager et al (2014) α-amylase activity increased from 0 to 35 CU during 72 h

germination

Texture of starch gel

Starch gel texture has been previously studied on corn and rice starches but not on

quinoa starch Hardness of rice starch gel was reported to be 339 g by Charoenrein et al (2011)

and 116 g by Jiang et al (2011) Hardness of corn starch was reported to be around 100 g in the

study of Sun et al (2014) much lower than the standard corn starch hardness in this study 721

g Compared to those of rice and corn starch quinoa starch gel exhibited harder texture which

may be caused by either genetic variation or different processing procedures to form the gel

98

Additionally springiness and cohesiveness of rice starch gel were reported as 085 and 055

respectively (Jiang et al 2011) Quinoa starch gel exhibited comparable springiness and higher

cohesiveness than those of rice starch gel

Thermal properties of quinoa starch

The thermal properties of quinoa starch in this study were comparable to those of rice

starch (Cai et al 2014) The study of Lindeboom et al (2005) however found lower

gelatinization temperatures and higher enthalpies compared to the present study which may be

due to varietal difference

Furthermore correlation between thermal properties of quinoa starch and flour (Wu et al

2014) was investigated Gelatinization temperatures To Tp and Tc of starch and whole seed

flour were highly correlated especially To and Tp exhibited high r of 088 The enthalpy of

starch and flour however was not significantly correlated In this case quinoa flour can be used

to estimate quinoa starch gelatinization temperatures but not the enthalpy Additionally since

flour is easier to prepare compared to starch further studies can be conducted with a larger

number of quinoa samples to model the prediction of starch thermal properties using flour

thermal properties


Viscosity and pasting properties of starch play a significant role in the functionality of

cereals Jane et al (1999) studied the pasting properties of starch from cereals such as maize

rice wheat barley amaranth and millet The peak viscosities ranged from 58 RVU in barley to

219 RVU in sweet rice lower than those of most quinoa starches except lsquoJapanese Strainrsquo and

lsquoQQ63rsquo Final viscosities ranged from 54 RVU in barley to 208 RVU in cattail millet all lower

99

than those of the quinoa starches in the present study Setback of cereal starches mostly ranged

from 6 RVU in waxy amaranth to 74 RVU in non-waxy maize lower than those of most quinoa

starches except lsquoOre de Vallersquo Cattail millet starch exhibited the setback of 208 RVU higher

than those of quinoa starches

The relationships between RVA pasting parameters of quinoa starch and flour were

studied by Wu et al (2014) Final viscosity of starch and flour was correlated negatively (r = -

063 P = 002) The other RVA parameters did not exhibit significant correlation between starch

and flour RVA In other words RVA of quinoa flour cannot be used to predict RVA of quinoa

starch In addition to starch the fiber and protein in whole quinoa flour may influence the

viscosity As quinoa is normally utilized as whole grain or whole grain flour instead of refined

flour the flour RVA should be a better indication on the end-use functionality


Quinoa starches in the present study did not show high stability during freeze and thaw

cycles Praznik et al (1999) studied freeze-thaw stability of various cereal starches Similar to

the present study Praznik et al concluded quinoa starches exhibited low freeze-thaw stability

Conversely Ahamed et al (1996) found quinoa starch exhibited excellent freeze-thaw stability

Unfortunately the variety was not indicated Overall it is reasonable to assert that for some

quinoa cultivars the starch may have better freeze-thaw stability than in other cultivars

However most quinoa varieties in published studies did not show good freeze-thaw stability

Correlations between starch characteristics and texture of cooked quinoa

The quinoa starch characteristics correlated with the texture of cooked quinoa in some

aspects Total starch content however did not show any strong correlations with TPA

100

parameters as was initially expected Since quinoa is consumed as whole grain or whole flour

fiber and bran may exhibit more influence on the texture than anticipated from the impact of

starch alone

The quinoa varieties with higher apparent and total amylose contents tended to yield a

harder stickier more cohesive more gummy and chewy texture Similar correlations are found

with cooked rice noodle and corn-based extrusion snacks The hardness of cooked rice was

positively correlated with amylose content and negatively correlated with adhesiveness (Yu et al

2009) Epstein et al (2002) reported that full waxy noodles were softer thicker less adhesive

and chewy and more cohesive and springy compared to normal noodles and partial waxy

noodles Increased amylose content in a corn-based extrusion snack resulted in higher amylose-

lipid formation and softer texture (Thachil et al 2014)

Higher levels of amylose-lipid complex in starch were associated with softer less

adhesive less cohesive and less gummy and less chewy cooked quinoa The correlation between

the degree of amylose-lipid complex and texture of cooked rice or quinoa has not been

previously reported Kaur and Singh (2000) however found that amylose-lipid complex

increased with longer cooking time of rice flour Additionally cooking time is a key factor to

determine texture ndash the longer a cereal is cooked the softer less sticky less cohesive and less

gummy and chewy the texture

Correlations were found between amylose leaching and cooked quinoa TPA parameters

especially hardness gumminess and chewiness with r of -082 Increased amylose leaching

yielded a softer gel made from potato starch (Hoover et al 1994) However the correlations of

101

amylose leaching and α-amylase activity with texture of end product for quinoa have not been

reported previously

Swelling power and water solubility were reported to influence the texture of wheat and

rice noodle (Crosbie 1991 McCormick et al 1991 Konik et al 1993 Ross et al 1997

Bhattacharya et al 1999) However in the present report no correlation was found between

swelling power water solubility and the texture of cooked quinoa Additionally the study of

Ong and Blanshard (1995) indicated a positive correlation between enthalpy and the texture of

cooked rice Similar results were found in this study

RVA is a fast and reliable way to predict flour functionality and end-use properties

Pasting properties of rice flour have been used to predict texture of cooked rice (Champagne et

al 1999 Limpisut and Jindal 2002) In our previous study cooked quinoa texture correlated

negatively with the final viscosity and setback of quinoa flour (Wu et al 2014) In this study

texture correlated with trough breakdown final viscosity and peak time of quinoa starch

However RVA of quinoa flour and starch did not correlate with each other Flour RVA might be

a convenient way to predict cooked quinoa texture


Quinoa with higher total starch tended to have a thinner seed coat This makes sense

because starch protein lipids and fiber are the major components of seed An increase in one

component will result in a proportional decrease in the other component contents

Additionally the starch RVA parameters (except peak viscosity) can be used to estimate

apparent or total amylose content based on their correlations Further studies should be

conducted with a larger sample size of quinoa and a more accurate prediction model can be built

102

The samples with lower protein or those requiring shorter cooking time tended to contain

higher levels of amylose-lipid complex Additionally amylose-lipid complex was reported to

influence the texture of extrusion products (Bhatnagar and Hanna 1994 Thachil et al 2014) For

this reason protein and optimal cooking time are promising indicators of the behavior of quinoa

during extrusion

Conclusions

In summary starch content composition and characteristics were significantly different

among quinoa varieties Amylose content degree of amylose-lipid complex and amylose

leaching property of quinoa starch exhibited great variances and strong correlations with texture

of cooked quinoa Additionally starch gel texture pasting properties and thermal properties

were different among varieties and different from those of rice and corn starches Enthalpy

RVA trough final viscosity and peak time exhibited significant correlations with cooked quinoa

texture Overall starch characteristics greatly influenced the texture of cooked quinoa

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by the USDA Organic Research and Extension Initiative

(NIFAGRANT11083982) The authors acknowledge Girish Ganjyal and Shyam Sablani for

using the Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) thanks to Stacey Sykes for editing support


G Wu and CF Morris designed the study together and established the starch isolation

protocol G Wu collected test data and drafted the manuscript CF Morris and KM Murphy

edited the manuscript KM Murphy provided quinoa samples

103

References


581-31


of Chenopodium quinoa starch Carbohydr Polym 31(1)99-103

Araujo-Farro PC Podadera G Sobral PJA Menegalli FC 2010 Development of films based on

quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) starch Carbohydr Polym 81(4)839-48

Bhatnagar S Hanna MA 1994 Amylose-lipid complex formation during single-screw extrusion

of various corn starches Cereal Chem 71(6)582-6

Bhattacharya M Zee SY Corke H 1999 Physicochemical properties related to quality of rice


Cai J Yang Y Man J Huang J Wang Z Zhang C Gu M Liu Q Wei C 2014 Structural and

functional properties of alkali-treated high-amylose rice starch Food Chem 145245-53






104

Charoenrein S Tatirat O Rengsutthi K Thongngam M 2011 Effect of konjac glucomannan on

syneresis textural properties and the microstructure of frozen rice starch gels Carbohydr

Polym 83(1)291-6

Crosbie GB 1991 The relationship between starch swelling properties paste viscosity and

boiled noodle quality in wheat flours J Cereal Sci 13(2)145-50

De Pilli T Derossi A Talja R Jouppila K Severini C 2012 Starchndashlipid complex formation

during extrusion-cooking of model system (rice starch and oleic acid) and real food (rice

starch and pistachio nut flour) Eur Food Res Technol 234(3)517-25



(waxy) genes J Cereal Sci 35(1) 51-63

Hager AS Maumlkinen OE Arendt EK 2014 Amylolytic activities and starch reserve mobilization

during the germination of quinoa Eur Food Res Technol 239(4)621-7

Hoover R Ratnayake WS 2002 Starch characteristics of black bean chick pea lentil navy bean

and pinto bean cultivars grown in Canada Food Chem 78(4)489-98

Hoover R Vasanthan T Senanayake NJ Martin AM 1994 The effects of defatting and heat-

moisture treatment on the retrogradation of starch gels from wheat oat potato and lentil

Carbohydr Res 261(1)13-24

105

Jane J Chen Y Lee L McPherson A Wong K Radosavljevic M Kasemsuwan T 1999 Effects

of amylopectin branch chain length and amylose content on the gelatinization and pasting

properties of starch 1 Cereal Chem 76(5)629-37

Jiang Q Xu X Jin Z Tian Y Hu X Bai Y 2011 Physico-chemical properties of rice starch

gels Effect of different heat treatments J Food Eng 107(3)353-7

Kaur K Singh N 2000 Amylose-lipid complex formation during cooking of rice flour Food

Chem 71(4)511-7

Konik CM Miskelly DM Gras PW 1993 Starch swelling power grain hardness and protein

relationship to sensory properties of japanese noodles Starch - Staumlrke 45(4)139-44

Kowalski R Morris C Ganjyal G 2015 Extrusion characteristics thermal and rheological

properties of soft white wheat flour in comparison with regular wheat flour Cereal Chem

92(2)145-53

Limpisut P Jindal VK 2002 Comparison of rice flour pasting properties using Brabender

Viscoamylograph and Rapid Visco Analyser for evaluating cooked rice texture Starch‐

Staumlrke 54(8)350-7



Mahmood T Turner MA Stoddard FL 2007 Comparison of methods for colorimetric amylose

determination in cereal grains Starch‐Staumlrke 59(8)357-65

106

Maumlkinen OE Zannini E Arendt EK 2013 Germination of oat and quinoa and evaluation of the

malts as gluten free baking ingredients Plant Foods Hum Nutr 68(1)90-5

Matos M Timgren A Sjoo M Dejmek P Rayner M 2013 Preparation and encapsulation

properties of double Pickering emulsions stabilized by quinoa starch granules Colloids and

Surfaces A 423147-53

McCormick K Panozzo J Hong S 1991 A swelling power test for selecting potential noodle

quality wheats Aust J Agric Res 42(3)317-23


amylose and the fine structure of amylopectin J Cereal Sci 21(3)251-60

Ong MH Blanshard JMV 1995 Texture determinants of cooked parboiled rice II

Physicochemical properties and leaching behaviour of rice J Cereal Sci 21(3)261-9

Pagno CH Costa TMH de Menezes EW Benvenutti EV Hertz PF Matte CR Tosati JV

Monteiro AR Rios AO Flores SH 2015 Development of active biofilms of quinoa

(Chenopodium quinoa W) starch containing gold nanoparticles and evaluation of

antimicrobial activity Food Chem 173755-62

Patindol J Gu X Wang YJ 2010 Chemometric analysis of cooked rice texture in relation to

starch fine structure and leaching characteristics Starch - Staumlrke 62(3-4)188-97


of cooked milled rice during storage J Food Sci 64(5)828-32

107

Praznik W Mundigler N Kogler A Pelzl B Huber A Wollendorfer M 1999 Molecular

background of technological properties of selected starches Starch‐Staumlrke 51(6) 197-211

Qian J Kuhn M 1999 Characterization of Amaranthus cruentus and Chenopodium quinoa

starch Starch‐Staumlrke 51(4)116-20

Ramesh M Zakiuddin Ali S Bhattacharya KR 1999 Structure of rice starch and its relation to

cooked-rice texture Carbohydr Polym 38(4)337-47

Rayner M Sjoumlouml M Timgren A Dejmek P 2012 Quinoa starch granules as stabilizing particles

for production of Pickering emulsions Faraday Discuss 158(1)139-55

Ross AS Quail KJ Crosbie GB 1997 Physicochemical properties of Australian flours

influencing the texture of yellow alkaline noodles Cereal Chem 74(6)814-20

Sun Q Xing Y Qiu C Xiong L 2014 The pasting and gel textural properties of corn starch in

glucose fructose and maltose syrup PloS one 9(4)e95862

Thachil MT Chouksey MK Gudipati V 2014 Amylose-lipid complex formation during

extrusion cooking effect of added lipid type and amylose level on corn-based puffed snacks

Int J Food Sci Tech 49(2)309-16

Vandeputte GE Derycke V Geeroms J Delcour JA 2003 Rice starches II Structural aspects

provide insight into swelling and pasting properties J Cereal Sci 38(1)53-9

Wokadala OC Ray SS Emmambux MN 2012 Occurrence of amylosendashlipid complexes in teff

and maize starch biphasic pastes Carbohydr Polym 90(1)616-22

108

Wu G Morris C F Murphy K M 2014 Evaluation of texture differences among varieties of

cooked quinoa J Food Sci 79(11)2337-45

Yu S Ma Y Sun DW 2009 Impact of amylose content on starch retrogradation and texture of

cooked milled rice during storage J Cereal Sci 50(2)139-44


pasting and gelation properties in wheat Cereal Chem 74(1)63-71

109

Table 1-Quinoa varieties tested


Black White Mountain Farm White Mountain Farm Colo USA

Blanca White Mountain Farm White Mountain Farm Colo USA

Cahuil White Mountain Farm White Mountain Farm Colo USA

Cherry Vanilla Wild Garden Seeds Philomath Oregon

WSUa Organic Farm Pullman Wash USA

Oro de Valle Wild Garden Seeds Philomath Oregon


49ALC USDA Port Townsend Wash USA

1ESP USDA Port Townsend Wash USA

Copacabana USDA Port Townsend Wash USA

Col6197 USDA Port Townsend Wash USA

Japanese Strain USDA Port Townsend Wash USA

QQ63 USDA Port Townsend Wash USA


Red Commercial Multi Organics company Bolivia a WSU Washington State Univ

110

Table 2-Starch content and composition

Variety Total starch

(g 100 g)

Apparent amylose

()

Total

amylose ()

Degree of amylose

lipid complex ()

Black 532f 153a 159ab 96bc

Blanca 595de 102cd 163a 361ab

Cahuil 622d 169a 173a 34c

Cherry Vanilla

590de 105cd 116bc 164abc

Oro de Valle 573ef 114bcd 166a 300abc

49ALC 674c 27e 47d 426a

1ESP 705bc 86d 152abc 389ab

Copacabana 734ab 120bc 153abc 222abc

Col6197 725ab 102cd 140abc 433a

Japanese Strain

723ab 116bcd 165ab 305abc

QQ63 713abc 84d 111c 241abc

Yellow Commercial

751a 147ab 150abc 118abc

Red Commercial

691bc 100cd 164a 375ab

Corn starch - 264 - -

111

Table 3-Starch properties and α-amylase activity

Variety Amylose leaching (mg 100 g starch)

Water solubility ()

Swelling power

α-Amylase activity (CU)

Black 210ef 16de 260bcd 043d

Blanca 171efg 10de 260bcd 086c

Cahuil 97fg 16cde 253cd 106b

Cherry Vanilla 394d 15de 253cd 116a

Oro de Valle 420d 16de 245d 103b

49ALC 862a 07e 282a 031e

1ESP 716b 13de 276ab 003g

Copacabana 438cd 14de 263bc 020f

Col6197 552c 19cd 257cd 009g

Japanese Strain 31fg 45a 170f 005g

QQ63 315de 26bc 262bc 008g

Yellow Commercial

349d 32b 188e 005g

Red Commercial 35g 26bc 196e 003g

Corn starch - 79 89 -

112

Table 4-Texture of starch gel

Variety Hardness (g) Springiness Cohesiveness

Black 725ab 082ab 064cd

Blanca 649abc 083ab 072bc

Cahuil 900a 085ab 072bc

Cherry Vanilla 607abc 078bc 072bc

Oro de Valle 448abc 078bc 064cd

49ALC 333bc 081bc 061cd

1ESP 341bc 081bc 073bc

Copacabana 402bc 084ab 078ab

Col6197 534abc 083ab 083ab

Japanese Strain 765ab 092a 089a

QQ63 201c 078bc 053d

Yellow Commercial 436bc 071c 057d

Red Commercial 519abc 075bc 055d

Corn starch 721 084 073

113

Table 5-Thermal properties of starch

Variety Gelatinization temperature Enthalpy (Jg)

To (ordmC) Tp (ordmC) Tc (ordmC)

Black 560b 639bc 761bc 112abc

Blanca 586a 652ab 754bcd 113abc

Cahuil 582a 648ab 755bcd 116a

Cherry Vanilla 563b 627cd 747bcd 111abc

Oro de Valle 562b 623d 739cd 106abc

49ALC 524ef 598f 747bcd 101bc

1ESP 530de 608ef 738cd 103abc

Copacabana 565b 622d 731de 106abc

Col6197 540cd 598f 697f 105abc

Japanese Strain 579a 654a 788a 104abc

QQ63 545c 616de 766ab 99c

Yellow Commercial 515f 599f 708ef 107abc

Red Commercial 520ef 595f 700 f 116ab

Corn starch 560 626 743 105

114

Table 6-Pasting properties of starch

Variety Peak viscosity

(RVU)a

Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)

Final viscosity

(RVU)

Setback

(RVU)

Peak time

(min)

Black 293abc 252abc 41efg 363ab 111abcd 92e

Blanca 344a 301a 42defg 384ab 82de 111ab

Cahuil 342ab 297a 45def 405a 108abcd 106bc

Cherry Vanilla 313abc 263abc 50de 369ab 106abcd 99d

Oro de Valle 294abc 277ab 17fg 330abc 53e 105c

49ALC 256cde 137f 119a 225d 88cde 64i

1ESP 269bcd 172ef 97ab 313bc 140a 79h

Copacabana 258cde 186def 72bcd 308bc 122abc 81gh

Col6197 270bcd 231bcd 39efg 347ab 116abcd 86fg

Japanese Strain 193e 181def 12g 264cd 83de 113a

QQ63 213de 152f 60cde 254cd 101bcd 88ef

Yellow Commercial

290abc 223cde 67bcde 350ab 127ab 93de

Red Commercial 327abc 242bc 85bc 366ab 125ab 92ef

Corn 255 131 124 283 152 73 aRVU = cP12

115

Table 7-Correlation coefficients between starch properties and texture of cooked quinoaa


Total starch content

-032ns -048 -043ns -039ns -039ns

Apparent amylose content

069 072 069 072 072

Actual amylose content

061 062 056 061 061

Degree of amylose-lipid complex

-065 -060 -070 -070 -070

Amylose leaching

-082 -075 -074 -082 -082

α-Amylase activity

018ns 055 051 032ns 032ns

Starch gel hardness

042ns 059 051 049 049

DSC

To 034ns 049 051 041ns 041ns

Tp 047 052 056 052 052

ΔH 064 072 069 070 070

RVA

Peak viscosity 031ns 054 047 041ns 041ns

Trough 044ns 077 063 055 055

Breakdown -034ns -060 -044ns -038ns -038ns

Final viscosity 045ns 068 058 053 053

Peak time 053 077 068 060 060

ns non-significant difference P lt 010 P lt 005 P lt 001 aTPA is the Texture Profile Analysis of cooked quinoa data were presented in Wu et al (2014)

116

Table 8-Correlations between starch properties and seed DSC RVA characteristicsa

Total

starch content

Water solubility


Total amylose content


Amylose leaching

α-Amylase activity

Protein -047ns 023ns 058 031ns -069 -062 066

Seed hardness

-073 -041ns -003ns -021ns -020ns 019ns 053

Bulk density

054 049 -020ns -015ns 031ns 019ns -072

Seed coat proportion

-071 -041ns 027ns 021ns -028ns -038ns 055

Starch gel hardness

-045ns 017 ns 065 053 -044ns -064 046ns

Starch DSC

To -049 -004ns 041ns 043ns -033ns -049 061

Tp -050 010ns 047ns 045ns -042ns -058 052

Enthalpy -051 -011ns 059 055 -041ns -064 049

Starch viscosity

Peak viscosity

-066 -049 028ns 027ns -020ns -023ns 070

Trough -068 -017ns 056 057 -031ns -052 072

Breakdown

022ns -048 -061 -067 027ns 062 -025ns

Final viscosity

-060 -022ns 063 060 -037ns -046ns 061

Peak time -032ns 045ns 058 072 -029ns -081 043ns

117

Cooking quality

Optimal cooking time

-043ns 019ns 056 040ns -067 -055 029ns

ns non-significant difference P lt 010 P lt 005 P lt 001 aSeed characteristics data were presented in Wu et al (2014)

118

Chapter 5 Quinoa Seed Quality Response to Sodium Chloride and

Sodium Sulfate Salinity

Submitted to the Frontiers in Plant Science

Research Topic Protein crops Food and feed for the future

Abstract

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) is an Andean grain with an edible seed that both contains

high protein content and provides high quality protein with a balanced amino acid profile

Quinoa is a halophyte adapted to harsh environments with highly saline soil In this study four

quinoa varieties were grown under six salinity treatments and two levels of fertilization and then

evaluated for quinoa seed quality characteristics including protein content seed hardness and

seed density Concentrations of 8 16 and 32 dS m-1 of NaCl and Na2SO4 as well as a no-salt

control were applied to the soil medium across low (1 g N 029 g P 029 g K per pot) and high

(3 g N 085 g P 086 g K per pot) fertilizer treatments Seed protein content differed across soil

salinity treatments varieties and fertilization levels Protein content of quinoa grown under

salinized soil ranged from 130 to 167 comparable to that from normal conditions NaCl

and Na2SO4 exhibited different impacts on protein content Whereas the different concentrations

of NaCl did not show differential effects on protein content the seed from 32 dS m-1 Na2SO4

contained the highest protein content Seed hardness differed among varieties and was

moderately influenced by salinity level (P = 009) Seed density was affected significantly by

119

variety and Na2SO4 concentration but was unaffected by NaCl concentration The plants from 8

dS m-1 Na2SO4 soil had lower density (066 gcm3) than those from 16 dS m-1 and 32 dS m-1

Na2SO4 074 and 072gcm3 respectively This paper identifies changes in critical seed quality

traits of quinoa as influenced by soil salinity and fertility and offers insights into variety

response and choice across different abiotic stresses in the field environment

Key words quinoa soil salinity protein content hardness density

120

Introduction

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) has garnered much attention in recent years

because it is an excellent source of plant-based protein and is highly tolerance of soil salinity

Because soil salinity affects between 20 to 50 of irrigated arable land worldwide (Pitman and

Lauchli 2002) the question of how salinity affects seed quality in a halophytic crop like quinoa

needs to be addressed Protein content in most quinoa accessions has been reported to range from

12 to 17 depending on variety environment and inputs (Rojas et al 2015) This range

tends to be higher than the protein content of wheat barley and rice which were reported to be

105- 14 8-14 and 6-7 respectively (Shih 2006 Orth and Shellenberger1988 Cai et

al 2013) Additionally quinoa has a well-balanced complement of essential amino acids

Specifically quinoa is rich in lysine which is considered the first limiting essential amino acid in

cereals (Taylor and Parker 2002) Protein quality such as Protein Efficiency Ratio is similar to

that of casein (Ranhotra et al 1993) Furthermore with a lack of gluten protein quinoa can be

safely consumed by gluten sensitiveintolerant population (Zevallos et al 2014)

Quinoa shows exceptional adaption to harsh environments such as drought and salinity

(Gonzaacutelez et al 2015) Soil salinity reduces crop yields and is a worldwide problem In the

United States approximately 54 million acres of cropland in forty-eight States were occupied by

saline soils while another 762 million acres are at risk of becoming saline (USDA 2011) The

salinity issue leads producers to grow more salt-tolerant crops such as quinoa

Many studies have focused on quinoarsquos tolerance to soil salinity with a particular

emphasis on plant physiology (Ruiz-Carrasco et al 2011 Adolf et al 2012 Cocozza et al

121

2013 Shabala et al 2013) and agronomic characteristics such as germination rate plant height

and yield (Prado et al 2000 Chilo et al 2009 Peterson and Murphy 2015 Razzaghi et al

2012) For instance Razzaghi et al (2012) showed that the seed number per m2 and seed yield

did not decrease as salinity increased from 20 to 40 dS m-1 in the variety Titicaca Ruiz-Carrasco

et al (2011) reported that under 300 mM NaCl germination and shoot length were significantly

reduced whereas root length was inhibited in variety BO78 variety PRJ biomass was less

affected and exhibited the greatest increase in proline concentration Jacobsen et al (2000)

suggested that stomatal conductance leaf area and plant height were the characters in quinoa

most sensitive to salinity Wilson et al (2002) examined salinity stress of salt mixtures of

MgSO4 Na2SO4 NaCl and CaCl2 (3 ndash 19 dS m-1) No significant reduction in plant height and

fresh weight were observed In a comparison of the effects of NaCl and Na2SO4 on seed yield

quinoa exhibited greater tolerance to Na2SO4 than to NaCl (Peterson and Murphy 2015)

Few studies have focused on the influence of salinity on seed quality in quinoa Karyotis

et al (2003) conducted a field experiment in Greece (80 m above sea level latitude 397degN)

With the exception of Chilean variety lsquoNo 407rsquo seven other varieties exhibited significant

increases in protein (13 to 33) under saline-sodic soil with electrical conductivity (EC) of

65 dS m-1 Mineral contents of phosphorous iron copper and boron did not decrease under

saline conditions Koyro and Eisa (2008) found a significant increase in protein and a decrease in

total carbohydrates under high salinity (500 mM) Pulvento et al (2012) indicated that fiber and

saponin contents increased under saline conditions with well watersea water ratio of 11

compared to those under normal soil

122

Protein is one of the most important nutritional components of quinoa seed The content

and quality of protein contribute to the nutritional value of quinoa Additionally seed hardness is

an important trait in crops such as wheat and soybeans For instance kernel hardness highly

influences wheat end-use quality (Morris 2002) and correlates with other seed quality

parameters such as ash content semolina yield and flour protein content (Hruškovaacute and Švec

2009) Hardness of soybean influenced water absorption seed coat permeability cookability

and overall texture (Zhang et al 2008) Quinoa seed hardness was correlated with the texture of

cooked quinoa influencing hardness chewiness and gumminess and potentially consumer

experience (Wu et al 2014) Furthermore seed density is also a quality index and is negatively

correlated with the texture of cooked quinoa such as hardness cohesiveness chewiness and

gumminess (Wu et al 2014)

Chilean lowland varieties have been shown to be the most well-adapted to temperate

latitudes (Bertero 2003) and therefore they have been extensively utilized in quinoa breeding

programs in both Colorado State University and Washington State University (Peterson and

Murphy 2015) For these reasons Chilean lowland varieties were evaluated in the present study

The objectives of this study were to 1) examine the effect of soil salinity on the protein content

seed hardness and density of quinoa varieties 2) determine the effect of different levels of two

agronomically important soil salts NaCl and Na2SO4 on seed quality and 3) test the influence

of fertilization levels on salinity tolerance of quinoa The present study illustrates the different

influence of NaCl and Na2SO4 on quinoa seed quality and provides better guidance for variety

selection and agronomic planning in highly saline environments


123

Genetic material

Quinoa germplasms were obtained from Dr David Brenner at the USDA-ARS North

Central Regional Plant Introduction Station in Ames Iowa The four quinoa varieties CO407D

(PI 596293) UDEC-1 (PI 634923) Baer (PI 634918) and QQ065 (PI 614880) were originally

sourced from lowland Chile CO407D was released by Colorado State University in 1987

UDEC-1 Baer and QQ065 were varieties from northern central and southern locations in Chile

with latitudes of 3463deg S 3870deg S and 4250deg S respectively

Experimental design

A controlled environment greenhouse study was conducted using a split-split-plot

randomized complete block design with three replicates per treatment Factors included four

quinoa varieties two fertility levels and seven salinity treatments (three concentration levels

each of NaCl and Na2SO4) Three subsamples each representing a single plant were evaluated

for each treatment combination Quinoa variety was treated as the main plot salinity level as the

sub-plot and fertilization as the sub-sub-plot Salinity levels included 8 16 and 32 dS m-1 of

NaCl and Na2SO4 The details of controlling salinity levels were described by Peterson and

Murphy (2015) In brief fertilization was provided by a mixture of alfalfa meal

monoammonium phosphate and feather meal Low fertilization level referred to 1 g of N 029 g

of P and 029 g of K in each pot and high fertilization level referred to 3 g of N 086 g of P and

086 g of K in each pot Each pot contained about 1 L of Sunshine Mix 1 (Sun Gro Horticulture

Bellevue WA) (dry density of 100 gL water holding capacity of ca 480 gL potting mix) The

124

entire experiment was conducted twice with the planting dates of September 10th 2011 and

October 7th 2011

Seed quality tests

Protein content of quinoa was determined using the Dumas combustion nitrogen method

(LECO Corp Joseph Mich USA) (AACCI Method 46-3001) A factor of 625 was used to

convert nitrogen to protein Seed hardness was determined using the Texture Analyzer (TA-

XT2i) (Texture Technologies Corp Scarsdale NY) and a modified rice kernel hardness method

(Krishnamurthy and Giroux 2001) A single quinoa kernel was compressed until the point of

fracture using a 1 cm2 cylinder probe traveling at 5 mms Repeat measurements were taken on 9

random kernels The seed hardness was recorded as the average peak force (Kg) of the repeated

measures

Seed density was determined using a pycnometer (Pentapyc 5200e Quantachrome

Instruments Boynton Beach FL) Quinoa seed was placed in a closed micro container and

compressed nitrogen was suffused in the container Pressure in the container was recorded both

with and without nitrogen The volume of the quinoa sample was calculated by comparing the

standard pressure obtained with a stainless steel ball Density was the seed weight divided by the

displaced volume Seed density was collected on only the second greenhouse experiment


Data were analyzed using the PROC GLM procedure in SAS (SAS Institute Cary NC)

Greenhouse experiment repetition was treated as a random factor in protein content and seed

hardness analysis Variety salinity and fertilization were treated as fixed factors Fisherrsquos LSD

125

Test was used to access multiple comparisons Pearson correlation coefficients between protein

hardness and density were obtained via PROC CORR procedure in SAS using the treatment

means

Results

Protein

Variety salinity and fertilization all exhibited highly significant effects on protein

content (P lt 0001) (Table 1) The greatest contribution to variation in seed protein was due to

fertilization (F = 40247) In contrast salinity alone had a relatively minor effect and the

varieties responded similarly to salinity as evidenced by a non-significant interaction The

interactions however were found in variety x fertilization as well as in salinity x fertilization

both of which were addressed in later paragraphs It is worth noting that the two experiments

produced different seed protein contents (F = 4809 P lt0001) experiment x variety interaction

was observed (F = 1494 P lt0001) (data not shown) Upon closer examination this interaction

was caused by variety QQ065 which produced an overall mean protein content of 129 in

experiment 1 and 149 in experiment 2 Protein contents of the other three varieties were

essentially consistent across the two experiments

Across all salinity and fertilization treatments the variety protein means ranged from

130 to 167 (data not shown) As expected high fertilization resulted in an increase in

protein content across all varieties The mean protein contents under high and low fertilization

were 158 and 136 respectively (Table 2) The means of Baer and CO407D were the

126

highest 151 and 149 respectively QQ065 contained 141 protein significantly lower

than the other varieties

Even though salinity effects were relatively smaller than fertilization and variety effects

salinity still had a significant effect on protein content (Table 1) The two types of salt exhibited

different impacts on protein (Table 2) Protein content did not differ according to different

concentrations of NaCl with means (across varieties and fertilization levels) from 147 to

149 Seed from 32 dS m-1 Na2SO4 however contained higher protein (152) than that from

8 dS m-1 and 16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 (144 and 142 respectively)

A significant interaction of salinity x fertilization was detected indicating that salinity

differentially impacted seed protein content under high and low fertilization level (Figure 1)

Within the high fertilizer treatment protein content in the seed from 32dS m-1 Na2SO4 was

significantly higher (167) than all other samples which did not differ from each other (~13)

Within the low fertilizer treatment protein content of seeds from 8 dS m-1 and 16 dS m-1

Na2SO4 were significantly lower than those from the NaCl treatments and 32dS m-1 Na2SO4

The significant interaction between variety and fertilization (Table 1) was due to the

different response of QQ065 Protein mean of QQ065 from high fertilization was 144 lower

than the other varieties CO407D UDEC-1 and Baer exhibited a decline of 16 - 18 in

protein under low fertilization while QQ065 dropped only 5

Hardness

Variety exhibited the greatest influence on seed hardness (F = 21059 P lt0001)

whereas fertilization did not show any significant effect (Table 1) Salinity exhibited a moderate

127

effect (F = 200 P = 009) Varieties responded consistently to salinity under various fertilization

levels since neither variety x salinity nor salinity x fertilization interaction was significant

However a variety x fertilization interaction was observed which will be discussed in a later

paragraph Similar to the situation in protein content experiment repetition exhibited a

significant influence on seed hardness Whereas the hardness of CO407D was consistent across

the two greenhouse experiments the hardness of other three varieties all decreased by 8 to 9

Mean hardness was significantly different among varieties CO407D had the hardest

seeds with hardness mean of 100 kg (Table 3) UDEC-1 was softer at 94 kg whereas Baer and

QQ065 were the softest and with similar hardness means of 77 kg and 74 kg respectively

Salinity exhibited a moderate impact on seed hardness (P = 009) The highest hardness

mean was observed under 16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 whereas the lowest was under 8 dS m-1 NaCl with

means of 89 and 83 kg respectively

A significant fertilization x variety interaction was found for seed hardness The hardness

of UDEC-1 and Baer did not differ across fertilization level whereas CO407D was harder under

low fertilization and QQ065 was harder under high fertilization

Seed density

Variety and salinity both significantly affected seed density whereas fertilization did not

show a significant influence (Table 1) The greatest contribution to variation in seed density was

due to variety (F = 2282) Salinity exhibited a relatively smaller effect yet still significant (F =

282 P lt005) Neither variety x salinity interaction nor salinity x fertilization interaction was

observed which indicated that varieties similarly responded to salinity under high and low

128

fertilization levels An interaction of variety x fertilization was found and the details were

presented later

Across all salinity and fertilization treatments CO407D had the highest mean density

080 gcm3 followed by Baer with 069 gcm3 (Table 4) UDEC-1 and QQ065 had the lowest and

similar densities (~065 gcm3)

With regard to salinity effect the Na2SO4 treatments exhibited differential influence on

seed density Density means did not significantly change due to the increased concentration of

NaCl ranging from 068 to 071 gcm3 (Table 4) The samples from 8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 soil had

lower density (066 gcm3) than those from 16 dS m-1 and 32 dS m-1 Na2SO4 074 and

072gcm3 respectively

A significant variety x fertilization interaction was found With closer examination

UDEC-1 and Baer yielded higher density seeds under high fertilization whereas CO407D and

QQ065 did not differ in density between fertilization treatments

Correlations of protein hardness and density

Correlation coefficients among seed protein content hardness and density are shown in

Table 5 No significant correlation was detected between protein content and seed hardness

However both protein content and hardness were correlated with seed density The overall

correlation coefficient was low (r = 019 P = 003) between density and protein A marginally

significant correlation was found between density and protein content of the seeds from NaCl

salinized soil under low fertilization No correlation was found between density and protein

content of the seeds from NaCl salinized soil under high fertilization or Na2SO4 salinized soil

129

The overall correlation coefficient was 038 (P lt 00001) between density and hardness

The low fertilization samples from both NaCl and Na2SO4 soil showed significant correlations

between density and hardness with coefficients of 051 and 047 (both P lt 0005) The high

fertility quinoa did not exhibit any correlation between density and hardness

Correlation with yield leaf greenness index plant height and seed minerals contents

Correlation between seed quality and yield leaf greenness index plant height and seed

mineral concentration were obtained using data from Peterson and Murphy (2015) (Table 6)

Seed hardness significantly correlated with yield and plant height (r = 035 and 031

respectively) Protein content and density however did not correlate with yield leaf greenness

or plant height Correlations were found between quality indices and the concentration of

different minerals Protein was negatively correlated with Cu and Mg (r = -052 and -050

respectively) Hardness was negatively correlated with Cu P and Zn (r = -037 -056 -029

respectively) but was positively correlated with Mn (r = 057) Density was negatively

correlated with Cu (r = -035)

Discussion

Protein

Although salinity exhibited a significant effect on seed protein content the impact was

relatively minor compared to fertilization and variety effects In another words over a wide

range of saline soil quinoa can grow and yield seeds with stable protein content

130

Protein content of quinoa growing under salinized soil ranged from 127 to 167 (data

not shown) within the general range of protein content under non-saline conditions which was

12 to 17 (Rojas et al 2015) Saline soil did not cause a significant decrease in seed protein

It is interesting to notice that the samples from 32 dS m-1 Na2SO4 tended to contain the highest

protein especially in variety QQ065 The studies of Koyro and Eisa (2008) and Karyotis et al

(2003) also indicated that protein content significantly increased under high salinity (NaCl)

whereas total carbohydrates decreased In contrast Ruffino et al (2009) found that quinoa

protein decreased under 250 mM NaCl salinity in a growth chamber experiment It is reasonable

to conclude that salinity exhibits contrasting effects on different quinoa genotypes QQ065 and

CO407D both significantly increased in protein under 32 dS m-1 Na2SO4 however the yield

decline was 519 and 245 respectively (Peterson and Murphy 2015) This result indicted

that CO407D was the variety most optimally adapted to severe sodic saline soil tested in this

study

Na2SO4 level exhibited a significant influence on protein content whereas NaCl level did

not In the study of Koyro and Eisa (2008) however seed protein of the quinoa variety Hualhuas

(origin from Peru) increased under the highest salinity level of 500 mM NaCl compared to lower

NaCl levels (0 ndash 400 mM) This disagreement of NaCl influence may be due to diversity of

genotypes It is worth noting that quinoa protein contents in this paper were primarily above 13

based on wet weight (as-is-moisture of approximately ~8 -10) even under saline soil and low

fertilization level This protein content is generally equal to or higher than that of other crops

such as barley and rice (Wu 2015) In conclusion quinoa maintained high and stable protein

content under salinity stress

131

Hardness

Quinoa seed hardness was only moderately affected by salinity (P = 009) indicating that

quinoa primarily maintained seed texture when growing under a wide range of saline soil

CO407D exhibited the hardest seed (100 kg) whereas Baer and QQ065 were relatively soft (74

ndash 77 kg) A previous study indicated a hardness range of 58 ndash 109 kg among 11 quinoa

varieties and 2 commercial samples (Wu et al 2014) The commercial samples had hardness

values of 62 kg and 71 kg Since commercial samples generally maintain stable quality and

indicate an acceptable level for consumers seed hardness around 7 kg as in Baer and QQ065

should be considered as acceptable quality The hardness of CO407D was close to that of the

colored variety lsquoBlackrsquo (100 kg) which had a thicker seed coat than that of the yellow seeded

varieties It was reported that a thicker seed coat is related to harder texture (Fraczek et al 2005)

Even though the greenhouse is a highly controlled environment and the two experiments

were conducted in similar seasons (planted in September and October respectively) seed protein

and hardness were still different across the two experiments However ANOVA indicated

modest-to-no significant interactions with salinity and fertilization such that responses to salinity

and fertilization were consistent with little or no change in rank order Even though experiment x

variety was significant the F-values were relatively low compared to the major effects such as

variety and fertilization and neither of them was crossing interaction This is a particularly

noteworthy result for breeders farmers and processors

Density

132

The range of seed density under salinity 055 ndash 089 gcm3 was comparable to the

density range of 13 quinoa samples (058 ndash 076 gcm3 ) (Wu et al 2014) Generally CO407D

had higher seed density (071 ndash 089 gcm3) which indicated that seed density in this variety was

affected by salinity stress In contrast the density of QQ065 did not change according to salinity

type or concentration which indicated a stable quality under saline soil

Correlations

The correlation between seed hardness and density was only significant under low fertilization

but not under high fertilization The high fertilization level in the greenhouse experiment

exceeded the amount of fertilizer that would normally be applied in field environments whereas

the low fertilization level is closer to the field situation Therefore correlation between hardness

and density may still exist in field trials

Conclusions

Under saline soil conditions quinoa did not show any marked decrease in seed quality

such as protein content hardness and density Protein content even increased under high Na2SO4

concentration (32 dS m-1) Varieties exhibited great differential reactions to fertilization and

salinity levels QQ065 maintained a similar level of hardness and density whereas seed of

CO407D was both harder and higher density under salinity stress If only seed quality is

considered then QQ065 is the most well-adapted variety in this study

The influences of NaCl and Na2SO4 were different The higher concentration of Na2SO4

tended to increase protein content and seed density whereas NaCl concentration did not exhibit

any significant difference on those quality indexes

133

Acknowledgement

The research was funded by USDA Organic Research and Extension Initiative project

number NIFAGRANT11083982 The authors acknowledge Alecia Kiszonas for assisting in the

data analysis

Author contributions

Peterson AJ set up the experiment design in the greenhouse and grew harvested and

processed quinoa samples Wu G collected seed quality data such as protein content seed

hardness and density Peterson AJ and Wu G together processed the data Wu G also drafted the

manuscript Murphy KM and Morris CF edited the manuscript

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared to have no conflict of interest

134

References

AACC International Approved Methods of Analysis Method 46-3001 Crude protein ndash

Combustion method Approved November 8 1995 Reapproved November 3 1999

Availablenline only AACCI St Paul MN

Adolf VI Shabala S Andersen MN Razzaghi F Jacobsen SE 2012 Varietal differences of

quinoas tolerance to saline conditions Plant Soil 357 117ndash29

Bertero HD 2003 Response of developmental processes to temperature and photoperiod in

quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Food Rev Int 19 87ndash97

Cai S Yu G Chen X Huang Y Jiang X Zhang G Jin X 2013 Grain protein content variation

and its association analysis in barley BMC Plant Boil 13 35

Chilo G Molina MV Carabajal R Ochoa M 2009 Temperature and salinity effects on

germination and seedling growth on two varieties of Chenopodium quinoa Agri-Scientia 26

15ndash22

Cocozza C Pulvento C Lavini A Riccardi M dAndria R Tognetti R 2013 Effects of

increasing salinity stress and decreasing water availability on ecophysiological traits of

quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) grown in a mediterranean-type agroecosystem J Agron

Crop Sci 199 229ndash40

Fraczek J Hebda T Slipek Z Kurpaska S 2005 Effect of seed coat thickness on seed hardness

Can Biosyst Eng 47 41ndash5

135

Gonzaacutelez JA Eisa SSS Hussin SAES Prado FE 2015 Quinoa an Incan crop to face global

changes in agriculture In Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors Quinoa Improvement and

Sustainable Production Hoboken NJ John Wiley Sons p 7ndash11

Hruškovaacute M Švec I 2009 Wheat hardness in relation to other quality factors Czech J Food Sci

27 240ndash8

Jacobsen S Quispe H Mujica A 2000 Quinoa an alternative crop for saline soils in the Andes

in Scientist and Farmer Partners in Research for the 21st Century (Program Report 1999-

2000) ed International Potato Center (Peru) 403ndash8

Jancurovaacute M Minarovicovaacute L Dandar A 2009 Quinoandasha review Czech J Food Sci 27 71ndash9

Karyotis T Iliadis C Noulas C Mitsibonas T 2003 Preliminary research on seed production

and nutrient content for certain quinoa varieties in a salinendashsodic soil J Agron Crop Sci 189

402ndash8

Koyro HW Eisa S 2008 Effect of salinity on composition viability and germination of seeds of

Chenopodium quinoa Willd Plant Soil 302 79-90

Krishnamurthy K Giroux MJ 2001 Expression of wheat puroindoline genes in transgenic rice

enhances grain softness Nat Biotechnol 19 162ndash6

Morris CF 2002 Puroindolines the molecular genetic basis of wheat grain hardness Plant mol

Biol 48 633ndash47

136

Orth RA Shellenberger JA 1988 Chapter 1 Origin production and utilization of wheat In

Pomeranz Y editor Wheat Chemistry and Technology 3th edition St Paul MN American

Association of Cereal Chemists Inc p 11ndash2

Peterson A Murphy K 2015 Tolerance of lowland quinoa cultivars to sodium chloride and

sodium sulfate salinity Crop Sci 55 331ndash8

Pitman MG Laumluchli A 2002 Global impact of salinity and agricultural ecosystems In Laumluchli

A Luumlttge U editors Netherlands Springer p 3ndash20

Prado FE Boero C Gallardo M Gonzaacutelez JA 2000 Effect of NaCl on germination growth and

soluble sugar content in Chenopodium quinoa Willd seeds Bot Bull Acad Sinica 41 27ndash34

Pulvento C Riccardi M Lavini A Iafelice G Marconi E dAndria R 2012 Yield and quality

characteristics of quinoa grown in open field under different saline and non-saline irrigation

regimes J Agron Crop Sci 198 254ndash63

Ranhotra G Gelroth J Glaser B Lorenz K Johnson D 1993 Composition and protein

nutritional quality of quinoa Cereal Chem 70 303ndash5

Razzaghi F Ahmadi SH Jacobsen SE Jensen CR Andersen MN 2012 Effects of salinity and

soilndashdrying on radiation use efficiency water productivity and yield of quinoa (Chenopodium

quinoa Willd) J Agron Crop Sci 198 173ndash84



137


FAO amp CIRAD p 67-8

Ruffino A Rosa M Hilal M Gonzaacutelez J Prado F 2010 The role of cotyledon metabolism in the

establishment of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa)seedlings growing under salinity Plant Soil

326 213ndash24

Ruiz-Carrasco K Antognoni F Coulibaly A K Lizardi S Covarrubias A Martiacutenez E A

Shabala S Hariadi Y Jacobsen SE 2013 Genotypic difference in salinity tolerance in quinoa is

determined by differential control of xylem Na+ loading and stomatal density J Plant Physiol

170 906ndash14

Shih FF 2006 Chapter 6 Rice protein In Champagne ET editor Rice Chemistry and

Technology 3rd edition St Paul MN American Association of Cereal Chemists Inc p

143-4




USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) 2011 Soil and water resources conservation

act (RCA) P 31 Access from

httpwwwnrcsusdagovInternetFSE_DOCUMENTSstelprdb1044939pdf

Wilson C Read J Abo-Kassem E 2002 Effect of mixed-salt salinity on growth and ion

relations of a quinoa and a wheat variety J Plant Nutri 25 2689ndash704

138


cooked quinoa J Food Sci 79 2337ndash45

Wu G 2015 Chapter 11 Nutritional properties of quinoa In Murphy KM Matanguihan J

editors Quinoa Improvement and Sustainable Production Hoboken NJ John Wiley amp

Sons Inc p 193-205

Zhang B Chen P Chen CY Wang D Shi A Hou A Ishibashi T 2008 Quantitative trait loci

mapping of seed hardness in soybean Crop Sci 48 1341ndash9

Zevallos VF Herencia LI Chang F Donnelly S Ellis HJ Ciclitira PJ 2014 Gastrointestinal

effects of eating quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) in celiac patients Am J Gastroenterol

109 270ndash8

Zurita-Silva A 2011 Variation in salinity tolerance of four lowland genotypes of quinoa

(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) as assessed by growth physiological traits and sodium

transporter gene expression Plant Physiol Bioch 49 1333ndash41

139

Table 1-Analysis of variance with F-values for protein content hardness and density of quinoa seed

Effect F-values

Protein Hardness Density

Model 524 360 245

Variety 2463 21059 2282

Salinity 975 200dagger 282

Fertilization 40247 107 260

Variety x Salinity 096 098 036

Variety x Fertilization 2062 1094 460

Salinity x Fertilization 339 139 071

Variety x Salinity x Fertilization 083 161dagger 155

dagger Significant at the 010 probability level Significant at the lt005 probability level Significant at the 001 probability level Significant at the lt0001 probability level

140

Table 2-Salinity variety and fertilization effects on quinoa seed protein content ()

Salinity Protein content ()

Variety Protein content ()

Fertilization Protein content ()

8 dS m-1 NaCl 147bc1 CO407D 149ab High 158a

16 dS m-1 NaCl 148ab UDEC-1 147b Low 136b

32 dS m-1 NaCl 149ab Baer 151a

8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 144cd QQ065 141c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 142d

32 dS m-1 Na2SO4 152a 1Different letters in a given column indicate significant differences (P lt 005)

141

Table 3-Salinity variety and fertilization effects on quinoa seed hardness (kg)

Salinity Hardness (kg)1 Variety Hardness (kg)

8 dS m-1 NaCl 83 CO407D 100a2

16 dS m-1 NaCl 87 UDEC-1 94b

32 dS m-1 NaCl 85 Baer 77c

8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 87 QQ065 74c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 89

32 dS m-1 Na2SO4 88 1Hardness was significant at the 009 probability level 2Different letters in a given column indicate significant differences (P lt 005)

142

Table 4-Salinity variety and fertilization effects on quinoa seed density (g cm3)

Salinity density (g cm3) Variety density (g cm3)

8 dS m-1 NaCl 069bc1 CO407D 080a

16 dS m-1 NaCl 068bc UDEC-1 066bc

32 dS m-1 NaCl 071abc Baer 069b

8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 066c QQ065 065c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 074a

32 dS m-1 Na2SO4 072ab 1Different letters in a given column indicate significant differences (P lt 005)

143

Table 5-Correlation coefficients of protein hardness and density of quinoa seed

Correlation All NaCl Na2SO4

High fertilization

Low fertilization

High fertilization

Low fertilization

Protein -Density 019 013ns 029dagger 026ns 019ns

Hardness - Density 038 027ns 051 022ns 047

ns Not significant dagger Significant at the 010 probability level Significant at the lt005 probability level Significant at the lt0001 probability level

144

Table 6-Correlation coefficients of quinoa seed quality and agronomic performance and seed mineral content


Yield 004 035 006

Plant Height -004 031 011

Cu -052 -037 -035

Mg -050 004 0

Mn -006 057 025dagger

P -001 -056 -015

Zn -004 -029 -028dagger


145

Figure 1-Protein content () of quinoa in response to combined fertility and salinity treatments

146

Chapter 6 Lexicon development and consumer acceptance

of cooked quinoa

ABSTRACT

Quinoa is becoming increasingly popular with an expanding number of varieties being

commercially available In order to compare the sensory properties of these quinoa varieties a

common sensory lexicon needs to be developed Thus the objective of this study was to develop

a lexicon of cooked quinoa and examine consumer acceptance of various varieties A trained

panel (n = 9) developed appropriate aroma tasteflavor texture and color descriptors to describe

cooked quinoa and evaluated 21 quinoa varieties Additionally texture of the cooked quinoa was

determined using a texture analyzer Results indicated panelists using this developed lexicon

could distinguish among these quinoa varieties showing significant differences in aromas

tasteflavors and textures Specifically quinoa variety effects were observed for the aromas of

caramel nutty buttery grassy earthy and woody tasteflavor of sweet bitter grain-like nutty

earthy and toasty and texture of firm cohesive pasty adhesive crunchy chewy astringent and

moist The varieties lsquoQQ74rsquo lsquoLinaresrsquo and lsquoCO407Drsquo exhibited adhesive texture that has not

been seen in any commercialized quinoa Subsequent consumer evaluation (n = 102) on 6

selected samples found that the lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo was the most accepted overall while the least

accepted was lsquoQQ74rsquo Partial least squares analysis on the consumer and trained panel data

indicated that overall consumer liking was driven by higher intensities of grassy aroma and firm

and crunchy texture The attributes of pasty moist and adhesive were less accepted by

consumers This overall liking was highly correlated with consumer liking of texture (r = 096)

147

tasteflavor (r = 095) and appearance (r = 091) of cooked quinoa From the present study the

quinoa lexicon and key drivers of consumer acceptance can be utilized in the industry to evaluate

quinoa product quality and processing procedures

Keywords quinoa lexicon sensory evaluation

Practical application The lexicon of cooked quinoa can be used by breeders to screen quinoa

varieties Furthermore the lexicon will useful in the food industry to evaluate quinoa ingredients

from multiple farms harvest years processing procedures and product development

148

Introduction

Quinoa is classified as a pseudocereal like amaranth and buckwheat With its high

protein content and balanced essential amino acid profile quinoa is becoming popular

worldwide From 1992 to 2012 quinoa exports increased dramatically from 600 tons to 37000

tons (Furche et al 2015) Quinoa price in retail stores increased from $9kg in 2013 to $13kg -

$20kg in 2015 (Arco 2015) Quinoa has been incorporated into numerous products including

bread cookies pasta cakes and chocolates (Pop et al 2014 Alencar et al 2015 Casas Moreno

et al 2015 Wang et al 2015) Some of these products are gluten-free foods thus targeting the

gluten-sensitive market segment (Wang et al 2015)

Popularity of quinoa inspired US researchers to breed varieties that are compatible with

local weather and soil conditions which greatly differ from quinoarsquos original land the Andean

mountain region Since 2010 Washington State University has been breeding quinoa in the

Pacific Northwest region of United States Of the quinoa varieties evaluated in the breeding

program agronomic attributes of interest include high yield consistent performance over years

and tolerance to drought salinity heat and diseases (Peterson and Murphy 2013 Peterson

2013) However beyond agronomic attributes the grain sensory profiles of these quinoa

varieties are also important to assist in breeding decisions as well as screening

genotypescultivars for various food applications

In order to provide a complete descriptive profile of the cooked quinoa a trained sensory

evaluation should be used along with a complete lexicon of the sensory attributes of importance

Currently no quinoa lexicon is available and descriptions of quinoa sensory properties are

149

limited From currently published research papers attributes describing quinoa taste have been

limited to bitter sweet earthy and nutty (Koziol 1991 Lorenz and Coulter 1991 Repo-Carrasco

et al 2003 Stikic et al 2012 Foumlste M et al 2014) and texture of cooked quinoa has been

described as creamy smooth and crunchy (Abugoch 2009) Thus to address the lack of quinoa

lexicon one objective of this study is to develop a lexicon describing the sensory properties of

quinoa

Beyond developing a lexicon to describe quinoa consumer preference of the different

quinoa varieties is also of great interest Most previous sensory studies in quinoa focused on

acceptance of quinoa-containing products while consumer acceptance on plain grain of quinoa

varieties has not been studied Because of the lack of cooked quinoa studies with consumers rice

may be considered as a model to study quinoa because of their similar cooking process Tomlins

et al (2005) found consumer preference of rice was driven by the attributes of uniform clean

bright translucent and cream with consumers not liking the brown color of cooked rice and

unshelled paddy in raw rice In another study Suwannaporn et al (2008) found consumer

acceptance of rice products was significantly influenced by convenience grain variety and

traditionnaturalness

This study presenting a quinoa lexicon along with consumer acceptance of quinoa

varieties provides critical information for both the breeding programs and food industry

researchers Given the predicted importance of texture in consumer acceptance of quinoa texture

analysis was conducted to evaluate the parameters of hardness adhesiveness cohesiveness

chewiness and gumminess in quinoa samples

150

This lexicon describing the sensory attributes of cooked quinoa will be a useful tool to

evaluate quinoa varieties compare samples from different farms harvest years seed quality and

cleaning processing procedures Finally the sensory attributes driving consumersrsquo liking can be

utilized to evaluate optimal quinoa quality and target different consumers based on preference

Materials and methods

Quinoa samples

The present study included twenty-one quinoa samples harvested in 2014 which included

sixteen varieties from Finnriver Organic Farm (Finnriver WA) and five commercial samples

from Bolivia and Peru (Table 1)

Quinoa preparation

Following harvest the samples from Finnriver Farm were cleaned in a Clipper Office

Tester (Seedburo Des Plainies IL USA) to separate mixed weed seeds and threshed materials

Furthermore the samples were soaked for 30 min rubbed manually under running water and

dried at 43 ordmC until the moisture reached lt 11 Generally a moisture of 12 - 14 is

considered safe for grain storage (Hoseney 1989)

To prepare quinoa samples for sensory evaluation samples were soaked for 30 min and

mixed with water at a 12 ratio These mixtures were brought to a boil and simmered for 20 min

Following cooking the quinoa was cooled to room temperature Samples of cooked quinoa (10

g) were served in 30 mL plastic containers with lids (SOLO Lakeforest IL USA) Quinoa

151

samples were cooked and placed in covered cups within 2 h before evaluation Unsalted

crackers plastic cups used as cuspidors and napkins were provided to each panelist

Trained sensory evaluation panel

This project was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Washington State

University Sensory panelists (n = 9) were recruited via email announcements Panelists were

selected based on their interest in quinoa and availability All participants signed the Informed

Consent Form They received non-monetary incentives for each training session and a large non-

monetary reward at the completion of the formal evaluation

Demographic information was collected using a questionnaire Panelists included 4

females and 5 males ranging in age from 21 to 60 (mean age of 35) Regarding quinoa

consumption frequency four panelists frequently consumed quinoa (few times per month to

everyday) whereas five panelists rarely consumed quinoa As quinoa is a novel crop to most of

the world this was expected Since rice is a comparable model of quinoa frequency of rice

consumption was also considered with all panelists being frequent rice consumers

Sensory training and lexicon development

The training consisted of 12 sessions of 15 hours totaling 18 hours In the early stages

of the panel training attribute terms and references were discussed Panelists were first presented

with samples in covered plastic containers The samples widely varied in their sensory attributes

and included the varieties of lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoBolivian Redrsquo and lsquoBolivian Whitersquo The panelists

developed terms to describe the appearance aroma flavor taste and texture of the samples

Additionally the same samples were evaluated by an experienced sensory evaluation panel with

152

terms collected from this set of evaluators Terms were collected from panelists professionals

and literature describing rice (Meilgaard et al 2007 Limpawattana and Shewfelt 2010) The

term list was presented and discussed with panelist consensus being used to determine which

sensory terms appeared in the final lexicon

The final lexicon and associated definitions are presented in Table 2 This lexicon

included the sensory attributes of color (black red yellow) aroma (caramel grain-like bean-

like nutty buttery starchy grassygreen earthymusty woody) tasteflavor (sweet bitter grain-

like bean-like nutty earthy and toasted) and texture (soft-firm separate-cohesive pasty

adhesivenesssticky crunchycrumblycrisp chewygummy astringent and waterymoist)

References standards for each attribute were introduced The references were discussed and

modified until the panelists were in agreement Panelists reviewed the reference standards at the

beginning of each training session Since aroma varies over time all aroma references were

prepared 1-2 h before training During training three to four quinoa samples were evaluated and

discussed in each session The ability to detect attribute differences and the reproducibility of

panelists were both monitored and visualized using spider graphs and line graphs Using this

feedback panelists were calibrated paying extra attention to those attributes that were outside of

the panel standard deviation Practice sessions were continued until the panelists accurately and

consistently assessed varietal differences of quinoa

The protocols applied to evaluate samples and references were consistent among

panelists At the start of the evaluation the sample cup was shaken to allow the aroma to

accumulate in the headspace Panelists then lifted the cover and immediately took three short

sharp sniffs to evaluate the aroma Panelists then determined the color and its intensity Finally

153

panelists used the spoon to place the sample in-mouth and evaluate the tasteflavor and texture

Between each sample panelists rinsed their palate using water and unsalted crackers A 15-cm

line scale with 15-cm indentations on each end was used to determine the intensity of attributes

The values of 15 and 135 represented the extremely low and high intensity respectively Using

the lexicon panelists were trained to sense and quantify the attributes of cooked quinoa on

aroma color tasteflavor and texture

Following the development of the lexicon formal evaluations were conducted in the

sensory booths under white lights Compusensereg Five (Guelph Ontario Canada) provided scales

and programs for evaluation and collected results Panelists followed the protocol and used the

lexicon and 15-cm scales to evaluate the sensory attributes of the cooked quinoa samples

Twenty-one quinoa samples were tested in duplicate Panelists attended one session per day and

four sessions in total During each session panelists evaluated 10 or 11 samples with a 30 s

break after each sample and a 10 min break after the fifth sample Each variety was assigned

with a random three-digit code and the serving order was randomized

Consumer acceptance panel

From the 21 samples evaluated by the trained panelists six were selected for consumer

evaluation These six samples selected were diverse in color tasteflavor and texture as defined

by the trained panel results Consumers (n = 102) were recruited from Pullman WA Of the

consumers 49 were male and 52 were female with age ranging from 19 to 64 (mean age of 33)

The consumers showed different familiarity with quinoa with 29 indicating that they were

154

familiar with quinoa 40 having tried quinoa a few times and 32 having never tried quinoa

before All consumers had consumed rice before

The project was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Washington State

University Each consumer signed an Informed Consent Form and received a non-monetary

incentive at the end of evaluation The evaluation was conducted in the sensory booths under

white light Six quinoa samples were assigned with three-digit code and randomly presented to

each consumer using monadic presentation Quinoa samples were cooked and distributed in

evaluation cups and lidded (~10 gcup) the day before stored at 4 degC overnight and placed at

room temperature (25 degC) for 1 h prior to evaluation

During evaluation consumers followed the protocol instructions and indicated the degree

of acceptance of aroma color appearance tasteflavor texture and overall liking using a 7-point

hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely 7 = like extremely) provided by Compusensereg Five

(Guelph Ontario Canada) A comments section was provided at the end of each sample

evaluation to gather additional opinions and information Between samples panelists took a 30 s

break and cleansed their palates using unsalted crackers and water

Texture Profile Analysis by instrument (TPA)

The texture of 21 cooked quinoa samples were conducted using a TA-XT2i Texture

Analyzer (Texture Technologies Corp Hamilton MA USA) (Wu et al 2014) Samples were

cooked using the same procedure as in the trained panel evaluation and cooled to room

temperature prior to evaluation


155

Sample characteristics and trained panel results were analyzed using three-way ANOVA

and mean separation (Fisherrsquos LSD) PCA was performed on the trained panel data Using

trained panel data and consumer evaluation data partial least square regression analysis was

performed Additionally correlations between instrument tests and panel evaluation on texture

and tasteflavor were determined XLSTAT 2013 (Addinsoft Paris France) was used for all data

analysis

Results and Discussion

Lexicon Development

A lexicon was created to describe the sensory attributes of cooked quinoa (Table 2) A

total of 27 attributes were included in the lexicon based on color (black red yellow) aroma

(caramel grain-like bean-like nutty buttery starchy grassygreen earthymusty and woody)

tasteflavor (sweet bitter grain-like bean-like nutty earthy and toasted) and texture (firm

cohesive pasty adhesivenesssticky crunchy chewygummy astringent and waterymoist)

Rice is considered as a good model of quinoa lexicon developments since both products

have common preparation methods The lexicon for cooked rice has been developed for the

aroma tasteflavor and texture properties of rice (Lyon et al 1999 Meullenet et al 2000

Limpawattana and Shewfelt 2010) Many attributes from these previously developed rice

lexicons can be applied to cooked quinoa For instance rice aroma and flavor notes such as

starchy woody grain nutty buttery earthy sweet bitter and astringent are also present in

quinoa Hence those notes were also included in the lexicon of cooked quinoa in present study

with quinoa varieties showing differences in these attributes

156

This present lexicon presents some sensory attributes not found to be significantly

different among the quinoa varieties These attributes include grain-like bean-like and starchy

aroma bean-like flavor and chewy texture Even though the trained panel did not detect

differences in this study future studies may find differences among other quinoa varieties for

these attributes so they were kept in the lexicon For instance the flavoraroma notes of

lsquorancidoxidizedrsquo lsquosourrsquo lsquometallicrsquo may also be present in other quinoa varieties or have these

attributes develop during storage as has been shown in rice (Meullenet et al 2000)

The lexicon also expanded the vocabularies to describe quinoa This lexicon is a

valuable tool with multiple practical applications such as describing and screening quinoa

varieties in breeding and evaluating post-harvest process and cooking methods

Lexicon Application Evaluation of the 21 quinoa samples

The effects of panelist replicate and quinoa variety on aroma tasteflavor and texture of

cooked quinoa were evaluated (n = 9) (Table 3) The quinoa variety exhibited significant

influences on most attributes listed in the lexicon (P lt 005) except for grain-like bean-like and

starchy aroma and bean-like flavor Generally quinoa variety effects were greater in the

perceived texture of cooked quinoa than in the aroma and flavor attributes however bitterness

was also highly significant among varieties Although panelists were trained over 18 h and

references were used for calibration significant panelist effects were still observed Based on the

inherent variation of human subjects such panelist effects commonly occur in sensory evaluation

of a complex product (Muntildeoz 2003) In future studies increased training and practice to further

clarify attribute definitions may reduce panelist effects (Muntildeoz 2003)

157

Examining the details of aroma attributes quinoa variety effect significantly influenced

the aroma attributes of caramel nutty buttery grassy earthy and woody (Figure 1) Principal

Components Analysis (PCA) was performed in order to visualize differences among the

varieties For aroma the first two components described 669 of the variation among quinoa

samples PC1 was primarily defined by the grassy and woody aromas while PC2 was primarily

described by more starchy and grain-like aromas The proximity of the attributes to a specific

quinoa sample reflected its degree of association For instance lsquoCalifornia Tricolorrsquo was most

commonly described by earthy woody grassy bean-like and nutty aroma lsquoTemukorsquo exhibited

sweet and grain-like aroma Yellowwhite quinoa such as lsquoTiticacarsquo lsquoRed Headrsquo lsquoQuF9P39-51rsquo

and lsquoPeruvian Whitersquo showed significantly more nutty (6) aroma compared to brown and red

quinoa varieties (48 ndash 51) (Table 1S) lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo and lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo exhibited more

grassy aroma (47 ndash 49) compared to lsquoTiticacarsquo lsquoLinaresrsquo and lsquoNL-6rsquo (38 ndash 39) lsquoBlackrsquo

showed the most earthy aroma (54) among all varieties

PCA was also performed to show how the varieties differed in their flavortaste

properties (Figure 2) The first two components described 646 of the varietal differences The

lsquoBlackrsquo variety was found to have more bitter and earthy flavors lsquoPeruvian Whitersquo was most

commonly described by sweet and nutty flavor and lack of earthy flavors lsquoTemukorsquo was mostly

defined by its bitter taste and lack of sweetness nutty grain-like and toasty flavors Overall

sweet and bitter taste and grain-like nutty earthy and toasty flavor exhibited significant

difference among quinoa varieties (plt005) The lsquoQuF9P39-51rsquo lsquoKaslaearsquo lsquoBolivian Whitersquo

and lsquoPeruvian Whitersquo were assigned the highest values in sweet taste (46 ndash 47) significantly

sweeter than lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo lsquoTemukorsquo lsquoQQ74rsquo lsquoLinaresrsquo and lsquoCalifornia Tricolorrsquo

158

(36 ndash 40)(Table 4) lsquoTemukorsquo and lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo were the most bitter samples (56 and 52

respectively) It is worth noting that the commercial samples were assigned the lowest bitterness

scores ranging from 22 ndash 27 significantly lower than the field trial varieties (34 ndash 56) Similar

to earthy aroma lsquoBlackrsquo also exhibited the earthiest flavor (52) Additionally lsquoCahuilrsquo and

lsquoCalifornia Tricolorrsquo showed high scores in earthy flavor (both 48) Toasty flavor varied from

38 in lsquoLinaresrsquo and lsquoQuF9P1-20rsquo to 51 in lsquoCahuilrsquo

Quinoa bitterness is caused by saponin compounds present on the seed coat It has been

reported that saponin can be removed by abrasion pearling and rinsing (Taylor and Parker

2002) However in the present study despite two cleaning process steps (airscreen and rinsing)

there was still bitter flavor remained Besides processing genetic background can also affect

saponin content Some sweet quinoa varieties (lsquoSajamarsquo lsquoKurmirsquo lsquoAynoqrsquoarsquo lsquoKrsquoosuntildearsquo and

lsquoBlanquitarsquo in Bolivia and lsquoBlancade Juninrsquo in Peru) have been developed with total seed

saponin content lower than 110 mg100 g (Quiroga et al 2015) However these varieties are not

adapted to the growing conditions in the Pacific Northwest (Peterson and Murphy 2015) The

quinoa varieties in WSU breeding program are primarily from Chilean lowland and those

varieties are more highly adapted to temperate areas In this case sweet quinoa varieties from

Bolivia and Peru were not included in this study However in 2015 a saponin-free quinoa

variety lsquoJessiersquo was grown in different locations of Washington State with a comparable yield

to bitter varieties The sensory evaluation of this new variety lsquoJessiersquo would be meaningful

Earthy which may be referred to as moldy and musty is caused by geosmin (a bicyclic

alcohol with formula C12H22O) which produced by actinobacteria (Gerber 1968) Samples with a

dark color (lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoCalifornia Tricolorrsquo and lsquoCahuilrsquo) tended to exhibit more earthy aroma and

159

flavor Possibly the pericarpseed coat composition of dark quinoa favors the actinobacteria-

producing geosmin

Overall texture attributes of cooked quinoa exhibited greater differences in values

(Figure 3) Among commercial quinoa varieties the red quinoa was firmer more gummy and

more chewy in texture compared to the yellowwhite commercial quinoa Several WSU field trial

varieties (lsquoQQ74rsquo lsquoLinaresrsquo and CO407D) exhibited greater variation in adhesiveness The first

two PCA factors explained 817 of the variation among samples lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo was most

accurately described by firm and crunchy texture and a lack of pasty sticky and cohesive

texture In contrast lsquoLinaresrsquo lsquoCO407Daversquo and lsquoQQ74rsquo were mostly described as pasty sticky

and cohesive yet lacking in firmness and crunchiness Mixed color or red color samples

(lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoCahuilrsquo and lsquoCalifornia Tricolorrsquo) tended to be both firmer and

crunchier compared to the samples with light color However some yellow samples such as

lsquoTiticacarsquo and lsquoKU-2rsquo also had hard texture The varieties lsquoQQ74rsquo lsquoLinaresrsquo and lsquoCO407Daversquo

had the softest texture and also exhibited the least crunchy but the most pasty sticky and moist

texture Additionally compared to field trial varieties commercial samples tended to be lower in

intensity for the attributes of cohesiveness pastiness adhesiveness and astringency Moreover

astringent is the dry and puckering mouth feeling which is caused by the combination of tannins

and salivary proteins The differences found in this study among quinoa varieties may be caused

by processing protocols (removal of tannins to various degrees) or diverse genetic backgrounds

Consumer acceptance

160

Consumers evaluated six selected quinoa samples including the field trial varieties of

lsquoBlackrsquo lsquoTiticacarsquo lsquoQQ74rsquo and the commercial samples of lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo lsquoBolivian Redrsquo and

lsquoBolivian Whitersquo The selected samples were diverse in color texture and included both WSU

field trial varieties and commercial quinoa Among the field trial varieties the lsquoBlackrsquo variety

exhibited more grassy aroma earthy flavor and chewy texture lsquoTiticacarsquo had more caramel

aroma and lsquoQQ74rsquo was more adhesive than the other samples

The quinoa varieties varied significantly in consumer acceptance of color appearance

taste flavor texture and overall acceptance (P lt 0001) (Table 5) Overall lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo was

more accepted by consumers compared to lsquoTiticacarsquo and lsquoQQ74rsquo lsquoBlackrsquo received a similar

level of acceptance with all the commercial samples and the acceptance of lsquoTiticacarsquo did not

differ from lsquoBolivian Redrsquo and lsquoBolivian Whitersquo In aroma acceptance no significant difference

was found among the varieties In color lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo and lsquoBolivian Redrsquo received

significantly higher scores In appearance lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo was rated higher than all other

varieties except lsquoBolivian Redrsquo while lsquoQQ74rsquo gained the lowest rate Additionally lsquoQQ74rsquo was

less accepted in tasteflavor than all commercial samples but did not differ from other field trial

varieties lsquoBlackrsquo and lsquoTiticacarsquo Furthermore the texture of lsquoQQ74rsquo was the least accepted and

other varieties did not show any significant differences

However low acceptance in adhesive texture of cooked quinoa does not indicate the

adhesive quinoa varieties will not have market potential Adhesiveness in cooked rice is

correlated with high amylopectin and low amylose (Mossman et al 1983 Sowbhagya et al

1987) Hence adhesive quinoa may also contain low amylose Additionally previous studies

found waxy cereal or starch (0 amylose and 100 amylopectin) exhibited excellent

161

performance in extrusion Kowalski et al (2014) found that waxy wheat extrudates exhibited

nearly twice the expansion ratio as that of normal wheat Koumlksel et al (2004) found hulless waxy

barley to be promising for extrusion using low shear screw configuration Van Soest et al (1996)

reported high elongation (500) in extruded maize starch Consequently the adhesive quinoa

varieties have great potential to apply in extruded or other puffed foods

Consumer preference of the sensory attributes was analyzed using Partial Least Square

Regression (PLS) (Figure 4) The attributes presented by lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo including lsquograssyrsquo

aroma lsquograinyrsquo flavors and lsquofirmrsquo and lsquocrunchyrsquo textures were preferred among consumers The

less preferred attributes included lsquopastyrsquo lsquowaterymoistrsquo lsquoadhesiversquo and lsquocohesiversquo all attributes

used to describe the lsquoQQ74rsquo variety Overall acceptance was driven by crunchy texture (r =

090) but negatively correlated with lsquocohesiversquo lsquopastyrsquo and lsquoadhesiversquo texture (r = -096 -087

and -089 respectively) Specifically aroma acceptance of cooked quinoa was negatively

correlated with lsquowoodyrsquo (r = -083) Texture acceptance was positively correlated with lsquofirmrsquo(r =

084) and lsquocrunchyrsquo (r = 094) but was negatively correlated with lsquocohesiversquo (r = -096) lsquopastyrsquo

(r = -095) lsquoadhesiversquo (r = -096) and lsquomoistrsquo (r = -085) Even though lsquoearthyrsquo is a common

attribute in foods such as mushroom and beets this study on quinoa indicated that earthy aroma

and flavor were not the attributes driving consumersrsquo liking of cooked quinoa Color and

appearance did not exhibit significant correlation with color intensity of cooked quinoa

however the varieties with red or dark colors (lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo lsquoBolivian Redrsquo and lsquoBlackrsquo)

were more highly accepted by consumers compared to samples with light color (lsquoTiticacarsquo

lsquoBolivian Whitersquo lsquoQQ74rsquo) In sum consumers preferred cooked quinoa with grassy aroma firm

and crunchy texture and lack of woody aroma and low cohesive pasty or adhesive texture

162

The variety lsquoBlackrsquo was accepted at a similar level as commercial samples in aroma

tasteflavor texture and overall evaluation With a closer examination of the consumer

demographic consumers who were more familiar with quinoa rated the lsquoBlackrsquo quinoa variety

with higher scores (average of 7) compared to those panelists less familiar with quinoa who

assigned lower average scores (59) (Figure 1S) This tricolor quinoa (browndark mixture) is not

as common as red and yellowwhite quinoa in the US market However the potential of tricolor

quinoa may be great due to the relative high consumer acceptance as well as high gain yield in

the field

Instrumental Texture Profile Analysis (TPA)

The physical properties of cooked quinoa were determined using the texture analyzer

(Table 6) Samples differed in all six texture parameters lsquoNL-6rsquo lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo lsquoBolivian Redrsquo

and lsquoCalifornia Tricolorrsquo exhibited the hardest texture while lsquoTemukorsquo lsquoQQ74rsquo lsquoIslugarsquo

lsquoLinaresrsquo and lsquoCO407Daversquo displayed the lowest hardness values Consistent with trained panel

evaluation lsquoQQ74rsquo lsquoLinaresrsquo and lsquoCO407Daversquo were more adhesive than all other varieties

lsquoTiticacarsquo was the springiest variety while lsquoKaslaearsquo and lsquoQuF9P1-20rsquo were the least springy

varieties The commercial samples with the exception of lsquoPeruvian Whitersquo exhibited a more

gummy texture lsquoTiticacarsquo and lsquoBolivian Whitersquo were the chewiest samples In contrast varieties

of lsquoTemukorsquo lsquoQQ74rsquo lsquoIslugarsquo lsquoLinaresrsquo lsquoQuF9P1-20rsquo and lsquoCO407Daversquo showed the least

gummy and chewy texture The result was comparable to an earlier study (Wu et al 2014)

Similarly quinoa varieties with darker color (orangeredbrowndark) tended to yield harder

texture compared to the varieties with light color (whiteyellow) which is caused by the thicker

seed coat in dark colored quinoa In this study adhesive quinoa varieties lsquoQQ74rsquo lsquoLinaresrsquo and

163

lsquoCO407Daversquo were found to have higher adhesiveness values (-17 kgs to -13 kgs) compared

to other varieties previously reported (-029 kgs to 0) (Wu et al 2014)

Correlations of instrumental tests and trained panel evaluations of texture were

significant for hardness and adhesiveness (r = 070 and -063 respectively) (Table 7) Since

adhesiveness was calculated from the first negative peak area of the TPA graph a negative

correlation coefficient was observed but still indicating a high level of agreement between

instrumental and panel tests Springiness tested by TPA was not correlated with texture

attributes

Cohesiveness from the instrumental test was negatively correlated with cohesiveness

from the trained panel texture evaluation (r = -066) Instrumental cohesiveness also exhibited

positive correlations with the trained panel evaluation of firmness and crunchiness (r = 080 and

076 respectively) and negative correlations with pastiness adhesiveness moistness (r = -072

-075 and -082 respectively) Upon a closer examination of the definitions in the instrumental

test cohesiveness was defined as lsquohow well the product withstands a second deformation relative

to its resistance under the first deformationrsquo and is calculated as the ratio of second peak area to

first peak area (Wiles et al 2004) In the sensory lexicon cohesiveness was defined as lsquodegree

to which a substance is compressed between the teeth before it breaksrsquo (Szczesniak 2002) These

differential definitions or explanations of these attributes may have caused the different results

Additionally the gumminess and chewiness from the instrumental evaluation were not

significantly correlated with their counterpart notes from the trained panel evaluations but

correlated with other sensory attributes evaluated by the trained panel Instrumental gumminess

164

was positively correlated with firm and crunchy textures(r = 079 and 078 respectively) but

negatively correlated with cohesive pasty adhesive and moist (r = -067 -068 -075 and -

078 respectively) Additionally a positive correlation was found between instrumental

chewiness and firmness from the panel evaluation (r = 057) whereas negative correlations were

found between instrumental chewiness and panel evaluated cohesiveness pastiness

adhesiveness and moistness (r = -043 -045 -055 and -052 respectively) In the instrumental

texture profile gumminess is calculated by hardness multiplied by cohesiveness and chewiness

is calculated by gumminess multiplied by springiness (Epstein et al 2002) Hence gumminess

was significantly correlated with hardness and cohesiveness and chewiness was significantly

correlated with gumminess In another study of Lyon et al (2000) pasty and adhesive were

expressed as lsquoinitial starchy coatingrsquo and lsquoself-adhesivenessrsquo respectively in cooked rice and

were both negatively correlated with instrumental hardness Generally the instrument test is

more accurate and stable but the parameter or sensory attributes were relatively limited Sensory

panels are able to use various vocabularies to describe the food however accuracy and precision

of panel evaluations were lower than for the instrument Consequently both tools can be

important in sensory evaluation depending on the objectives and resources availability

Future Studies

A lexicon of cooked quinoa was firstly developed in this paper Further discussion and

improvement of the lexicon are necessary and require cooperation with industry and chefs The

lexicon is not only useful in categorizing varieties but also can be used to evaluate post-harvest

practice cooking protocols and other quinoa foodsdishes Additionally quinoa seed quality

varies among years and locations and sensory properties also change over different

165

environments To validate the sensory profile of varieties especially adhesiveness evaluation

should be repeated on the samples from other years and locations Finally multiple dishes food

types should be included in future consumer evaluation studies to identify the best application of

different varieties

Conclusion

A lexicon of cooked quinoa was developed based on aroma tastefavor texture and

color Using the lexicon the trained panel conducted descriptive analysis evaluation on 16

quinoa varieties from field trials and 5 commercial samples Many sensory attributes exhibited

significant differences among quinoa samples especially texture attributes

Consumer evaluations (n = 102) were conducted on six selected samples with diverse

color texture and origin Commercial samples and the variety lsquoBlackrsquo were better accepted by

consumers The adhesive variety lsquoQQ74rsquo was the least accepted quinoa variety in the plain

cooked quinoa dish However because of its cohesive texture lsquoQQ74rsquo shows possible

application in other dishes and foods such as quinoa sushi and extruded snacks Furtherly Partial

Least Square Regression indicated the consumerrsquos preferred attributes were grassy aroma and

firm and crunchy texture while the attributes of pasty adhesive and cohesive were not liked by

consumers

Correlations of panel evaluation and instrumental test were observed in hardness and

adhesiveness However chewiness and gumminess were not significant correlated between panel

test and instrumental test Further training should be addressed to clarify the definitions of

sensory attributes With the assistance and calibration from instruments such as the texture

166

analyzer and electronic tongue panel training can be more efficient and panelists can be more

accurate at evaluation

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by the USDA Organic Research and Extension Initiative

(NIFAGRANT11083982) The authors acknowledge Washington State University Sensory

Facility and their technicians Beata Vixie and Karen Weller The authors also acknowledge

Sergio Nunez de Arco and Sarah Connolly to provide commercial samples Thanks to Raymond

Kinney Max Wood and Hanna Walters who managed the plants harvested the seeds and

collected the data of yield and 1000-seed weight on field trial quinoa varieties Thanks also go to

the USDA-ARS Western Wheat Quality Lab which provided equipment for protein and ash tests

and the texture analyzer


CF Ross and G Wu together designed the study G Wu conducted panel training

collected and processed data and drafted the manuscript KM Murphyrsquos research group provided

the quinoa samples and assisted cleaning process CF Ross CF Morris and KM Murphy edited

the manuscript

167

References

Abugoch LEJ 2009 Chapter 1 quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Adv Food Nutr Res

581ndash31

Arco SND Quinoas Calling In Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors Quinoa improvement

and sustainable production Hoboken NJ John Wiley amp Sons Inc p 211

Casas Moreno MM Barreto-Palacios V Gonzalez-Carrascosa R Iborra-Bernad C Andres-Bello

A Martiacutenez-Monzoacute J Garciacutea-Segovia P 2015 Evaluation of textural and sensory properties

on typical spanish small cakes designed using alternative flours J Culinary Sci Technol 13

19-28



(Waxy) genes J Cereal Sci 35 51-63

Foumlste M Nordlohne SD Elgeti D Linden MH Heinz V Jekle M Becker T Impact of quinoa

bran on gluten-free dough and bread characteristics Eur Food Res Technol 2014 239 767-

75

Furche C Salcedo S Krivonos E Rabczuk P Jara B Fernaacutendez D Correa F 2015 Chapter 41

International quinoa trade In Bazile D Bertero D Nieto C editors State of the art report

on quinoa in 2013 Rome FAO amp CIRAD p 317 ndash 20

Gerber NN1968 Geosmin from microorganisms is trans-1 10-dimethyl-trans-9-decalol

Tetrahedron Lett 9 2971-4

168

Koumlksel H Ryu GH Basman A Demiralp H Ng PK 2004 Effects of extrusion variables on the

properties of waxy hulless barley extrudates FoodNahrung 48 19-24

Kowalski RJ Morris CF Ganjyal GM 2015 Waxy soft white wheat extrusion characteristics

and thermal and rheological propertiesCereal Chem 92 145-53

Koziol MJ 1991 Afrosimetric estimation of threshold saponin concentration for bitterness in

quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) J Sci Food Agr 54 211-9

Limpawattana M Shewfelt R 2010 Flavor lexicon for sensory descriptive profiling of different

rice types J Food Sci 75 199-205

Lorenz K Coulter L Quinoa flour in baked products Plant Food Hum Nutr 1991 41 213-23

Lyon BG Champagne ET Vinyard BT Windham WR Barton FE Webb BD McKenzie KS

1999 Effects of degree of milling drying condition and final moisture content on sensory

texture of cooked rice Cereal Chem 76 56-62

Lyon BG Champagne ET Vinyard BT Windham WR 2000 Sensory and instrumental

relationships of texture of cooked rice from selected cultivars and postharvest handling

practices Cereal Chem 77 64-9

Meilgaad MC Civille GV Carr BT 2007 Chapter 11 The spectrum descriptive analysis

method In Meilgaad MC Civille GV Carr BT Sensory evaluation techniques Boca Raton

FL CRC Press p 225 ndash 32

169

Meullenet JF Marks BP Hankins JA Griffin VK Daniels MJ 2000 Sensory quality of cooked

long-grain rice as affected by rough rice moisture content storage temperature and storage

duration Cereal Chem 77 259 ndash 63

Mossman AP Fellers DA Suzuki H 1983 Rice stickiness I Determination of rice stickiness

with an Instron tester Cereal Chem 60 286ndash92

Muntildeoz AM 2003 Training time in descriptive analysis In Moskowitz HR Muntildeoz AM and

Gacula MC editors Viewpoints and controversies in sensory science and consumer product

testing Trumbull Food amp Nutrition Press Inc p 351 ndash 6

Peterson AJ Murphy KM 2015 Quinoa cultivation for temperate North America

considerations and areas for investigation In Murphy KM Matanguihan J editors Quinoa


Palmer GH 1994 Chapter 5 Storage In Hoseney RC editor Cereal science and technology

2nd edition St Paul MN American Association of Cereal Chemisty Inc p 107

Pop A Muste S Man S Mureșan C 2014 Improvement of tagliatelle quality by addition of red

quinoa flour Bulletin UASVM Food Sci Tech 71 225-6

Pulvento C Riccardia M Biondib S Orsinic F Jacobsend SE Ragabe R DrsquoAndriaa R Lavinia

A 2015 Chapter 613 Quinoa in Italy research and perspectives In Bazile D Bertero D

Nieto C editors State of the art report on quinoa in 2013 Rome FAO amp CIRAD p 460


Chapter 31 Traditional processes and technological innovations in quinoa harvesting

170

processing and industrialization In Bazile D Bertero D Nieto C editors State of the art

report of quinoa in the world in 2013 Rome FAO amp CIRAD p 231

Repo-Carrasco R Espinoza C Jacobsen SE 2003 Nutritional value and use of the Andean

crops quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and kantildeiwa (Chenopodium pallidicaule) Food Rev Int

19 179-89


Bazile D 2015 Chapter 15 Quinoa genetic resources and ex situ conservation In Bazile

D Bertero D Nieto C editors State of the art report on quinoa in 2013 Rome FAO amp

CIRAD p 67

Sowbhagya CM Ramesh BS Bhattacharya KR 1987 The relationship between cooked-rice

texture and physicochemical characteristics of rice J Cereal Sci 5 287ndash97

Suwannaporn P Linnemann A and Chaveesuk R 2008 Consumer preference mapping for rice

product concepts Brit Food J 110 595-606


Milovanovic M 2012 Agronomical and nutritional evaluation of quinoa seeds

(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) as an ingredient in bread formulations J Cereal Sci 55 132-8

Szczesniak AS 2002 Texture is a sensory property Food Qual Prefer 13 215-25

Taylor JRN Parker ML 2002 Chapter 3 Quinoa In Belton PS JRN Taylor editors


Science Business Media p 108 ndash 10

171

Tomlins KI Manful JT Larwer P and Hammond L 2005 Urban consumer preferences and

sensory evaluation of locally produced and imported rice in West Africa Food Qual Prefer

16 79-89

Van Soest JJG De Wit D Vliegenthart JFG 1996 Mechanical properties of thermoplastic waxy

maize starch J Appl Polym Sci 61 1927-37

Wang S Opassathavorn A Zhu F 2015 Influence of quinoa flour on quality characteristics of

cookie bread and Chinese steamed bread J Texture Stud 46 281-92

Wiles JL Green BW Bryant R 2004 Texture profile analysis and composition of a minced

catfish product J Texture Stud 35 325-37


cooked quinoa J Food Sci 79 2337-45

172

Table 1-Quinoa samples

Varietya Color Source

Titicaca Yellowwhite Denmark

Black Blackbrown mixture White Mountain Farm Colorado USA

KU-2 Yellowwhite Washington USA

Cahuil Brownorange mixture White Mountain Farm Colorado USA

Red Head Yellowwhite Wild Garden Seed Oregon USA

Cherry Vanilla Yellowwhite Wild Garden Seed Oregon USA

Temuko Yellowwhite Washington USA

QuF9P39-51 Yellowwhite Washington USA

Kaslaea Yellowwhite MN USA

QQ74 Yellowwhite Chile

Isluga Yellowwhite Chile

Linares Yellowwhite Washington USA

Puno Yellowwhite Denmark


NL-6 Yellowwhite Washington USA

CO407Dave Yellowwhite White Mountain Farm Colorado USA

Bolivian White White Bolivia

Bolivian Red Red Bolivia

California Tricolor

Blackbrown mixture California USA

Peruvian Red Red Peru

Peruvian White White Peru aThe first 16 varieties (Tititcaca ndash CO407Dave) were grown in Chimacum WA

173

Table 2-Lexicon of cooked quinoa as developed by the trained panelists (n = 9)

Attribute Intensitya Reference Definition

Aroma

Caramel 10 1 piece of caramel candy (Kraft) (81 g) in 100 mL water

Aromatics associated with caramel tastes

Grain-like 10 Cooked brown rice (15 g) (Great Value)

Rice like wheaty sorghum like

Bean-like 8 Cooked red bean (10 g) (Great Value)

Aromatics associated with cooked beans or bean protein

Nutty 10 Dry roasted peanuts (10 g) (Planters)c

Aromatics associated with roasted nuts

Buttery 10 Unsalted butter (1cm1cm01cm) (Tillamook)c

Aromatics associated with natural fresh butter

Starchy 10 Wheat flour water (11 ww) (Great Value)c

Aromatics associated with the starch

Grassygreen 9 Fresh cut grass collected 1 h before usingc

Aromatics associated with grass

Earthymusty 8 Sliced raw button mushrooms (fresh cut)c

Aromatic reminiscent of decaying vegetative matters and damp black soil root like

Woody 7 Toothpicks (20)c Aromatics reminiscent of dry cut wood cardboard

TasteFlavor

Sweet 3 9 2 and 5 (ww) sucrose solution (CampH pure cane sugar)b

Basic taste sensation elicited by sugar

Bitter 5 8 mgL quinine sulfate acid (Sigma)

Basic taste sensation elicited by caffeine

174

Grain-like 10 Cooked brown rice (Great Value)

Tasted associated with cooked grain such as rice

Bean-like 10 Cooked red beans (Great Value)

Beans bean protein

Nutty 10 Dry roasted peanut (Planters)c Taste associated with roasted nuts

Earthy 7 Sliced raw button mushrooms (fresh)

Taste associated with decaying vegetative matters and damp black soil

Toasted 10 Toasted English muffin (at 6 of a toaster) (Franze Original English Muffin)

Taste associated with toast

Texturee

Soft - Firm 3

7

Firm tofu (Azumaya)b

Brown rice (Great Value)

Force required to compress a substance between molar teeth (in the case of solids) or between tongue and palate (in the case of semi-solids)d

Separate - Cohesive

15

7

Cracker (Premium unsalted cracker)

Cake (Sponge cake Walmart Bakery)

Degree to which a substance is compressed between the teeth before it breaks

Pasty

10 Mashed potato (Great Value Mashed Potatoes powder)

Smooth creamy pulpy slippery

Adhesiveness sticky

10

3

Sticky rice (Koda Farms Premium Sweet Rice)


Force required to remove the material that adheres to the mouth (the palate and teeth) during the normal eating process

Crunchy 13 Thick cut potato chip (Tostitos Restaurant Style

Force with which a sample crumbles cracks or shatters

175

Tortilla Chips)b

Chewygummy

15

7

Gummy Bear (Haribo Gold-Bears mixed flavor)


Length of time (in sec) required to masticate the sample at a constant rate of force application to reduce it to a consistency suitable for swallowing

Astringent 12

6

Tannic acid (2gL)

Tannic acid (1gL) (Sigma)

Puckering or tingling sensation elicited by grape juice

Waterymoist 10

3

Salad tomato (Natural Sweet Cherubs)


Degree of wet or dry

Color

Red 4 9

N-W8M Board Walke

N-W16N Ballet Barree

Yellow 3 10

15B-2U Sandy Toese 15B-7

N Summer Harveste

Black 3 10

N-C32N Strong Influencee N-C4M Trench Coate

aReference intensities were based on a 15-cm scale with 0 = extremely low and 15 = extremely high bMeilgaad et al (2007) cLimpawattana and Shewfelt (2010) dTexture definitions in Szczesniak (2002) were used eAce Hardware color chip

176

Table 3-Significance and F-value of the effects of panelist replicate and quinoa variety on aroma flavor and texture of cooked quinoa as determined using a trained panel (n = 9)

Attribute Panelist Replicate Quinoa Variety PanelistVariety

Aroma

Caramel 26548 093 317 174

Grain-like 7338 000 125 151

Bean-like 7525 029 129 135

Nutty 6274 011 322 118

Buttery 21346 003 301 104

Starchy 12094 1102 094 135

Grassy 17058 379dagger 282 162

Earthy 12946 239 330 198

Woody 13178 039 269 131

TasteFlavor

Sweet 6745 430 220 137

Bitter 9368 1290 2059 236

Grain-like 7681 392 222 206

Bean-like 7039 122 142 141

Nutty 7209 007 169 153

Earthy 9313 131 330 177

Toasted 10975 015 373 184

Texture

Firm 1803 022 1587 141

Cohesive 14750 011 656 208

Pasty 3919 2620 1832 205

Adhesive 2439 287dagger 5740 183

177

Crunchy 13649 001 1871 167

Chewy 3170 870 150dagger 167

Astringent 10183 544 791 252

Waterymoist 10281 369dagger 1809 164

daggerP lt 010 P lt 005 P lt 001 P lt 0001

178

Table 4-Mean separation of significant tasteflavor attributes of cooked quinoa determined by the trained panel Different letters within a column indicate attribute intensities were different among quinoa samples at P lt 005 as determined using Fisherrsquos LSD

Variety Sweet Bitter Grain-like Nutty Earthy Toasty

Titicaca 40cdef1 39bcde 73abc 51abcdef 44bcdef 47abcd

Black 36f 42bcd 69bcde 49def 52a 46abcd

KU2 41bcdef 38cde 73abc 52abcdef 40fg 44bcdefg

Cahuil 41abcdef 44b 70bcde 50abcdef 48abc 51a

Red Head 42abcd 43bc 72abcd 51abcdef 42defg 44bcdefg

Cherry Vanilla 40def 52a 66e 48ef 44bcdef 40fghi

Temuko 36ef 56a 68cde 47f 43cdef 40ghi

QuF9P39-51 47a 34e 73abc 48def 40efg 46abcde

Kaslaea 47ab 39bcde 70bcde 55ab 44bcdef 45bcdefg

QQ74 40def 38cde 66e 50abcdef 45bcde 42defghi

Isluga 41bcdef 41bcd 69cde 55a 46bcd 47abcd

Linares 39def 40bcd 65e 49cdef 43def 38i

Puno 44abcd 39bcde 72abcd 51abcdef 45bcde 43cdefghi

QuF9P1-20 42abcdef 43bc 69bcde 53abcd 45bcde 38i

NL-6 38def 37de 72abcd 55a 45bcd 44bcdefgh

CO 407 Dave 41bcdef 40bcd 67de 51abcdef 41defg 39hi

Bolivian White 47ab 22f 69bcde 50bcdef 42def 41efghi

Bolivian Red 42abcde 24f 72abcd 53abcdef 43cdef 46bcde

California Tricolor 40def 27f 74ab 53abcde 48ab 48ab

Peruvian Red 43abcd 25f 75a 48ef 45bcde 47abc

Peruvian White 46abc 26f 70bcde 55abc 37g 45bcdef

179

Table 5-Mean separation of consumer preference Different letters within a column indicate consumer evaluation scores were different among quinoa samples at P lt 005

Samples Aroma Color Appearance TasteFlavor Texture Overall

Black 56a 63b 61bc 61abc 65a 63ab

QQ74 61a 56c 53d 56c 53b 53c

Titicaca 60a 57bc 56cd 58bc 63a 59bc

Peruvian Red 60a 72a 70a 65a 68a 67a

Bolivian Red 60a 69a 66ab 64ab 67a 64ab

Bolivian White 57a 59bc 58c 62ab 63a 62ab

180

Table 6-Hardness adhesiveness cohesiveness springiness gumminess and chewiness of the cooked quinoa samples as determined using Texture Profile Analysis (TPA)

Variety Hardness

(kg)

Adhesiveness

(kgs)

Cohesiveness Springiness Gumminess

(kg)

Chewiness

(kg)

Titicaca 505abc1 -02ab 08abc 15a 384bc 599a

Black 545ab -01a 07bcd 10abc 404abc 404ab

KU-2 490abcd -01a 07bcd 09abc 363bcd 332abc

Cahuil 464bcde -01a 07bcd 08abc 344cd 281bc

Red Head 412defg -03ab 06ef 09abc 246ef 225bc

Cherry Vanilla 391efgh -02ab 05fgh 08abc 208fg 178bc

Temuko 328gh -09c 04hi 08abc 147g 120c

QuF9P39-51 451cde -02ab 07de 10abc 297de 272bc

Kaslaea 493abcd -02ab 07bcd 06c 359cd 227bc

QQ74 312h -17e 04i 09abc 132g 119c

Isluga 362fgh -05b 05ghi 08abc 171fg 137bc

Linares 337gh -16de 05ghi 09abc 159g 146bc

Puno 504abc -01a 06ef 10abc 301de 301bc

QuF9P1-20 438cdef -02ab 06fg 05c 242ef 137bc

NL-6 555a -01a 07cde 09abc 376bcd 350abc

CO407Dave 357fgh -13d 04hi 09abc 160g 141bc

Bolivian White 441cdef -01ab 05fg 14ab 242ef 340abc

Bolivian Red 572a -01ab 08ab 14ab 440ab 593a

California Tricolor

572a -01a 08a 08bc 477a 361abc

Peruvian Red 568a 00a 08ab 08abc 439ab 342abc

Peruvian White 459bcde -01a 08abc 11abc 347cd 394abc

181

Table 7-Correlation of trained panel texture evaluation data and instrumental TPA over the 21 quinoa varieties

Variables Hardness Adhesiveness Cohesiveness Gumminess Chewiness Firm 070 059 080 079 057 Cohesive -060 -051 -066 -067 -043 Pasty -060 -070 -072 -068 -045 Adhesive -067 -063 -075 -075 -055 Crunchy 072 054 076 078 055 Moist -066 -066 -082 -078 -052


182

Figure 1-Principal component Analysis (PCA) biplot of aroma evaluations by the trained sensory panel (n = 9) of the 21 varieties of cooked quinoa Attributes with significantly differed among samples

Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil Red Head

Cherry Vanilla

Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white Kaslaea

QQ74

Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20 NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white

Bolivia red California Tricolor

Caramel Grain-like

Bean-like Nutty

Buttery Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

-25

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35 4

F2 (2

455

)

F1 (4234 )

183

Figure 2-Principal component Analysis (PCA) biplot of tasteflavor evaluations by the trained sensory panel (n = 9) of the 21 varieties of cooked quinoa Attributes with significantly differed among samples

Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil

Red Head Cherry Vanilla

Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white

Bolivia red

California Tricolor

Sweet

Bitter Grain-like

Bean-like

Nutty

Earthy

Toasted

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

F2 (3

073

)

F1 (3391 )

184

Figure 3-Principal component Analysis (PCA) biplot of texturemouthfeel evaluations by the trained sensory panel (n = 9) of the 21 varieties of cooked quinoa Attributes with significantly differed among samples

Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy Astringent

Moist

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

25

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

F2 (2

212

)

F1 (5959 )

185

Figure 4-Partial Least Squares (PLS) biplot correlating aroma color appearance tasteflavor texture and overall attributes evaluated by the trained panel (n = 9) to the consumer panel (n = 102) for 6 cooked quinoa samples (Consumer acceptances are in bold italics)

Grainy aroma

Beany aroma

Nutty aroma

Buttery

Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

Sweet

Bitter grainy flavor

Beany flavor

Earthy flavor Nutty flavor

Toasty

Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy

Astringent

Waterymoist

Aroma

Color Appearance TasteFlavor

Texture Overall

Black

Bolivia red

QQ74

Bolivia white

Commercial Red

Titicaca

-1

-075

-05

-025

0

025

05

075

1

-1 -075 -05 -025 0 025 05 075 1

t2

t1

186

Supplementary tables

Table 1S-Mean separation of significant aroma attributes of cooked quinoa determined by the trained panel (n = 9) Different letters within a column indicate attribute intensities were different among quinoa samples at P lt 005 as determined using Fisherrsquos LSD

Variety Caramel Nutty Buttery Green Earthy Woody

Titicaca 59a1 60a 45abc 39fg 42defgh 37cdef

Black 46g 50efg 38ef 47abc 54a 46a

KU2 50efg 51defg 41cdef 40efg 38h 35ef

Cahuil 56abc 53bcdefg 43abcd 49a 48b 39bcde

Red Head 55abcd 60a 45abc 44bcde 46bcd 41bc

Cherry Vanilla 52cdef 54bcdef 43abcde 43bcdef 46bcdef 37bcdef

Temuko 55abcd 56abcde 44abc 40defg 41efgh 37bcdef

QuF9P39-51 58ab 60a 46ab 42bcdefg 44bcdefg 36def

Kaslaea 53bcde 55abcde 42abcde 41defg 40gh 37bcdef

QQ74 50efg 48fg 39def 42defg 45bcdef 38bcdef

Isluga 52cdef 57abc 43abcd 43bcdefg 46bcde 39bcde

Linares 52cdef 54bcdef 42bcde 38g 44bcdefg 37cdef

Puno 56abc 56abcde 46ab 42cdefg 46bcdef 38bcdef

QuF9P1-20 53bcdef 58ab 44abcd 42cdefg 44bcdefg 40bcd

NL-6 57abc 53bcdefg 44abcd 39fg 44bcdefg 35def

CO 407 Dave 51def 54abcde 46ab 40efg 42defgh 34f

Bolivian White 53bcde 57abcd 46ab 43bcdef 43cdefgh 39bcd

Bolivian Red 52cdef 51defg 42bcde 43bcdefg 44bcdefg 37bcdef

California Tricolor 54abcde 51cdefg 38ef 44abcd 48bc 41ab

Peruvian Red 48fg 48g 36f 47ab 46bcdef 38bcdef

Peruvian White 54abcde 60a 48a 45abcd 41fgh 40bc

187

Table 2S-Mean separation of significant texture attributes of cooked quinoa determined by the trained panel Different letters within a column indicate attribute intensities were different among quinoa samples at P lt 005 as determined using Fisherrsquos LSD

Variety Firm Cohesive Pasty Adhesive Crunchy Astringent Moist

Titicaca 70ab 63efgh 37ghi 37ghi 56bc 47d 38hij

Black 71ab 63efgh 32i 38ghi 58b 55abc 35jk

KU2 66bcd 64efg 38fghi 37ghi 49de 46de 38hij

Cahuil 68abc 61fghi 37ghi 36hi 56bc 55ab 37ij

Red Head 57fgh 68bcde 46cde 49d 45ef 55ab 48de

Cherry Vanilla 56gh 65cdef 49c 44def 43fg 55ab 49de

Temuko 49ij 70abcd 56b 57c 39gh 59a 51cd

QuF9P39-51 61defg 65def 47cd 40efgh 48def 48cd 42fgh

Kaslaea 60defg 62fghi 40defgh 40fgh 51cd 51bcd 42gh

QQ74 44j 70abc 60ab 81ab 37hi 46def 57ab

Isluga 52hi 66cdef 43cdef 55c 44efg 50bcd 48de

Linares 45j 75a 65a 86a 33i 47d 61a

Puno 58efgh 60fghij 41defg 43efg 52cd 47d 47def

QuF9P1-20 52hi 65def 43cdefg 46de 44fg 55ab 47defg

NL-6 64cde 61fghi 40efgh 41efgh 51cd 46de 46efg

CO 407 Dave 45j 72ab 59ab 80b 35hi 47d 55bc

Bolivian White 56gh 61fghi 38fghi 41efgh 50de 34g 48de

Bolivian Red 62cdef 59hij 34hi 36hi 56bc 38g 42fgh

California Tricolor 68abc 56j 32i 33i 60ab 39efg 39hij

Peruvian Red 74a 57ij 35hi 33i 64a 39fg 31k

Peruvian White 60defg 59ghij 38fghi 37hi 48def 34g 40hi

188

Figure-1S Demographic influence on preference of variety lsquoBlackrsquo

75a

66ab 61bc

54c

61bc

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

75 50 25 None Other

Liking score of lsquoBlackrsquo

Proportion of organic food consumption

52b

64a 65a 69a 70a

57ab 59ab

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Everyday 4-5 timesper week

2-3 timesper week

Once aweek

A fewtimes per

month

Aboutevery 6months

Other


Frequency of rice consumption

189

Chapter 7 Conclusions

Quinoa quality is a complex topic with seed composition influencing sensory and

physical properties This dissertation evaluated the seed characteristics composition flour

properties and cooking quality of 13 quinoa samples Differences in seed morphology and

composition contributed to the texture of cooked quinoa The seeds with higher raw seed

hardness lower bulk density or higher seed coat proportion yielded a firmer gummier and

chewier texture after cooking Higher protein content correlated with harder more adhesive

more cohesive gummier and chewier texture of cooked quinoa Additionally flour peak

viscosity breakdown final viscosity and setback exhibited influence on different texture

parameters Cooking time and water uptake ratio also significantly influence the texture whereas

cooking loss did not show any correlation with texture Starch characteristics also significantly

differed among quinoa varieties (Chapter 3) Amylose content ranged from 27 to 169

among 13 quinoa samples The quinoa samples with higher amylose proportion or higher starch

enthalpy tended to yield harder stickier more cohesive and chewier quinoa These studies on

seed quality seed characteristics compositions and cooking quality provided useful information

to food industry professionals to use in the development of quinoa products using appropriate

quinoa varieties Indices such protein content and flour viscosity (RVA) can be quickly

determined and exhibited strong correlations with cooked quinoa texture Furthur study should

develop a prediction model using protein content or RVA parameters to predict the texture of

cooked quinoa In this way food manufactures can quickly predict the texture or functionality of

quinoa varieties and then determine their specific application Moreover many of the test

methods were using the methods used in rice such as kernel hardness texture of cooked quinoa

190

thermal properties (DSC) and cooking qualities Such methods should be standardized in near

future as those defined by AACC (American Association of Cereal Chemists) The development

of standard methods allows for easier comparisons among different studies In Chapter 4 the

seed quality response to soil salinity and fertilization was studied Quinoa protein content

increased under high Na2SO4 concentration (32 dS m-1) The variety lsquoQQ065rsquo maintained similar


variety among four varieties The variety can be applied in salinity affected areas Future studies

can be applied on salinity drought influence on quinoa amino acids profile starch composition

fiber content and saponins content

Sensory evaluation of cooked quinoa was further examined in Chapter 5 Using a trained

panel the lexicon for cooked quinoa was developed Using this lexicon the sensory profiles of

16 field trial varieties and 5 commercial quinoa samples were generated Varietal differences

were observed in the aromas of caramel nutty buttery grassy earthy and woody tasteflavor of

sweet bitter grain-like nutty earthy and toasty and texture of firm cohesive pasty adhesive

crunchy chewy astringent and moist Subsequent consumer evaluation on 6 selected quinoa

samples indicated lsquoPeruvian Redrsquo was the most accepted overall whereas a sticky variety lsquoQQ74rsquo

was the least accepted Partial least square analysis using trained panel data and consumer

acceptance data indicated that overall consumer liking was driven by grassy aroma and firm and

crunchy texture The lexicon and the attributes driving consumer-liking can be utilized by

breeders and farmers to evaluate their quinoa varieties and products The information is also

useful to the food industry to evaluate ingredients from different locations and years improve

processing procedures and develop products

191

Overall the dissertation provided significant information of quinoa seed quality and

sensory characteristics among different varieties including both commercialized samples and

field trial samples not yet available in market Several quinoa varieties increasingly grown in

US were included in the studies The variety lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquoTiticacarsquo are among the

varieties gaining the best yields in US Their seed characteristics and sensory attributes

described in this dissertation should be helpful for industry professionals in their research and

product development Varieties include lsquoTiticacarsquo lsquoCherry Vanillarsquo and lsquoBlackrsquo Additionally

important tools were developed in quinoa evaluation including texture analysis using TPA and

the lexicon of cooked quinoa

As with any set of studies other research questions arise to be addressed in future

research First saponins the compounds introducing bitter taste in quinoa require further study

Sweet quinoa varieties (saponins content lt 011) should be bred and adapted to the US

Although many consumers may like the bitter taste and especially the potential health benefits of

saponins it is important to provide consumers choices of both bitter and non-bitter quinoa types

To assist the breeding of sweet quinoa genetic markers can be developed and associated with the

phenotype of saponin content As for the methods testing saponin content the foam method is

quick but not accurate whereas the GC method is accurate but requires long sample preparation

time and high capital investment An accurate more affordable and more efficient method such

as one using a spectrophotometer should be developed

Second one important nutritional value of quinoa is the balanced essential amino acids

The essential amino acids profiles change according to environment (drought and saline soil)

quinoa variety and processing (cleaning milling and cooking) and these changes should be

192

further studied It is important to prove quinoa seed maintains the rich essential amino acids even

growing under marginal conditions or being subjected to cleaning processes such as abrasion

and washing

Third betalains are the compounds contributing to the color of quinoa seed and providing

potential health benefits Betalain content type (relate to diverse colors) and their genetic loci in

quinoa can be further investigated Color diversity is one of the attractive properties in quinoa

seeds However the commercialized quinoa samples are in white or red color while more quinoa

varieties present orange purple brown and gray colors More choices of quinoa colorstypes

may attract more consumers

Finally sensory evaluation of quinoa varieties should be applied to the samples from

multiple years and locations since environment can significantly influence the sensory attributes

Also in addition to plain cooked quinoa more quinoa dishes can be involved in consumer

acceptance studies as different quinoa varieties may be suitable for various dishes


ii




_________________________________



_________________________________

Kevin M Murphy PhD

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT






















iv


Abstract


May 2016

















v












vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv-v



CHAPTERS

1 Introduction 1

References 6


References 26

Tables 41

Figures44


Abstract 46

Introduction 48


Results 54

Discussion 60

vii

Conclusion 63

References 65

Tables 71

Figures78



Abstract 80

Introduction 81


Results 87

Discussion 95

Conclusion 102

References 103

Tables 109



Abstract 118

Introduction 120


Results 125

Discussion 123

viii

Conclusion 132

References 134

Tables 139

Figure 145


Abstract 146

Introduction 148



Conclusion 165

References 167

Tables 172

Figures183

7 Conclusions 189

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

CHAPTER 2


protein) 41



CHAPTER 3









CHAPTER 4






x




CHAPTER 5


seed 139






mineral content144

CHAPTER 6










xi




180









xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

CHAPTER 2



CHAPTER 3


flours 78


CHAPTER 5



CHAPTER 6







xiii








xiv

Dedication



1













Acro 2015)









2






















3






















4






















5




6

References












237-43



35




7
















P39 ndash 109




8






9


Introduction


















10




Quinoa varieties




Pinto 2015)






Adaptation








11









farmers













12






















13






















14






















15














content







16














Saponins







17























18






















19

















Health benefits





20






















21






















22





















23






















24


sensory scores




















25











26

References



2013-20



Food Chem 56(12) 4745-50





56(15) 6185-205









167-73

27




73






101









28



101-7














Intern Med 163(3) 286-92



29




Chem 49(3)1069-86



34






Food Chem 157 174-8



87 ndash 97




30









34







293-328




31



62(1) 185-93



71-7



22(2) 131-9






Google Patents






32













328-38





4) 89-99



33




















34




















471-5

35



225-30



2) 179-89



54(2) 165-76




13







36







FAO amp CIRAD p 67













37











Nutr 70(3) 238-49










38


132-8




Chem 162 54-62



Chem 166 380-8


Patents









39










65





p193 ndash 205






40



41



Histidine 258 18

Isoleucine 433 25

Leucine 736 55

Lysine 525 51



Threonine 439 27

Tryptophan 385 7

Valine 506 32


42



Thianmin (B1) 029-038 15


Niacin (B3) 106-152 20


Folate (B9) 0781 04



Β-Carotene 039 NR


43


Whole graina RDI b

K 8257 NR

Mg 4526 400

Ca 1213 1000

P 3595 1000

Fe 95 18

Mn 37 NR

Cu 07 2

Zn 08 15

Na 13 NR


44


45



46


Cooked Quinoa




ABSTRACT















47










purposes




processors

48

Introduction





















49







been studied















50























51























52







Cooking protocol






Cooking quality








cooking loss


53












below)

Flour viscosity










54


















Results





55























56












10







Cooking quality




57






volume
















58




190 RVU



















59









quinoa





texture parameter







60




Discussion






outside the seed

Seed composition









Cooking quality



61























62








Thermal properties














and fiber

63

Conclusions

















Acknowledgements





64




65

References





AACCI St Paul MN



Food Chem 564745-50


581-31









66







Chem 75(2)181-6












67


















68



54(8)350-7







36(3)285-94









27(3)69-71

69
















Sci Tech 47(2)202-6



75(1)37-42

70


Polym 57(2)145-52














71
















72



Hardness (kg)

Bulk Density (gmL)


Protein ()

Ash ()

Black 21bc 994b 0584d 37bc 143d 215hi

Blanca 22ab 608l 0672c 89a 135e 284ef




49ALC 19de 935c 0669c 26cd 127g 348bc

1ESP 19e 664h 0672c 10f 113i 248gh


Col6197 19e 583m 0657c 24de 118h 291ef


QQ63 19e 672g 0661c 45b 135f 401a

Yellow Commercial

21abc 622j 0663c 14ef 146c 198i


73



Adhesiveness (kgs)


Chewiness (kg)

Black 347a -004a 069ab 24a 24a





49ALC 209f -029c 054d 11ef 11ef

1ESP 245e -027bc 056d 14e 14e


Col6197 202f -023bc 053d 11ef 11ef


QQ63 297cd -020b 062c 19d 19d



74



Water uptake ()

Cooking Volume (mL)

Cooking Loss ()

Black 192a 297c 109c 065f





49ALC 136h 359ab 126b 043g

1ESP 153g 373ab 132ab 035h


Col6197 119i 397a 126b 176a


QQ63 177bc 244d 126b 067f



75



Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)


Setback (RVU)

Peak Time (min)

Black 102g 81e 21e 75g -6f 102e


Cahuil 116f 85e 31d 74g -11f 104de

Cherry Vanilla

66h 54g 12f 57h 2e 97fg

Oro de Valle

59h 50g 10f 56h 6e 93h

49ALC 107fg 71f 36c 132e 62b 97fg

1ESP 161cd 110c 51b 174c 64b 98fg


Col6197 155de 133b 22e 177bc 44cd 108bc

Japanese Strain

172bc 109c 62a 159d 50c 96gh

QQ63 144e 94d 51b 167cd 73a 97fg

Yellow Commercial

172bc 162a 11f 203a 41d 109b

Red Commercial

197a 168a 29d 106f -62g 115a


76










1ESP 544f 690f 785de 15abc


Col6197 605d 689f 785de 15abc


QQ63 630c 702e 784de 13bc



77




Bulk Density -055 -044ns -063 -060 -060


Protein 050 077 075 057 057

Cooking Time 077 062 074 076 076




Breakdown -048 -047ns -051 -053 -053


Setback -058 -064 -059 -060 -060

To 059 054 061 061 061


78



Time (min)

0 10 20 30 40

Vis

cosi

ty (R

VU

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pera

ture

(degC

)

50

100

150

200

79




4 3

2 1

P

C C

80



ABSTRACT

















81

Introduction






quinoa
















82




reported












Starch isolation







83









α-amylase activity













84


MO USA)





















85



Starch gel texture



















86




















equations



87







Results















Starch properties

88
















α-Amylase activity






Starch gel texture

89






















90







starches















97 RVU

91























92






















93













texture parameters)










94























95




Discussion












with lipids







96



snacks










pasting

Starch properties









97








170 to 282

α-Amylase activity






germination








98
















thermal properties







99























100



starch alone



















101


reported previously





















102





during extrusion

Conclusions








Acknowledgments








103

References


581-31
















104



Polym 83(1)291-6
















105







Chem 71(4)511-7





92(2)145-53








106




















107




















108







109


















110



(g 100 g)

Apparent amylose

()

Total

amylose ()

Degree of amylose

lipid complex ()




Cherry Vanilla

590de 105cd 116bc 164abc


49ALC 674c 27e 47d 426a



Col6197 725ab 102cd 140abc 433a

Japanese Strain


QQ63 713abc 84d 111c 241abc

Yellow Commercial

751a 147ab 150abc 118abc

Red Commercial

691bc 100cd 164a 375ab


111



Water solubility ()

Swelling power







49ALC 862a 07e 282a 031e

1ESP 716b 13de 276ab 003g


Col6197 552c 19cd 257cd 009g


QQ63 315de 26bc 262bc 008g

Yellow Commercial

349d 32b 188e 005g



112








49ALC 333bc 081bc 061cd



Col6197 534abc 083ab 083ab


QQ63 201c 078bc 053d




113









49ALC 524ef 598f 747bcd 101bc



Col6197 540cd 598f 697f 105abc


QQ63 545c 616de 766ab 99c



Corn starch 560 626 743 105

114



(RVU)a

Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)

Final viscosity

(RVU)

Setback

(RVU)

Peak time

(min)






49ALC 256cde 137f 119a 225d 88cde 64i

1ESP 269bcd 172ef 97ab 313bc 140a 79h





Yellow Commercial



Corn 255 131 124 283 152 73 aRVU = cP12

115




-032ns -048 -043ns -039ns -039ns


069 072 069 072 072


061 062 056 061 061


-065 -060 -070 -070 -070

Amylose leaching

-082 -075 -074 -082 -082

α-Amylase activity

018ns 055 051 032ns 032ns

Starch gel hardness

042ns 059 051 049 049

DSC

To 034ns 049 051 041ns 041ns

Tp 047 052 056 052 052

ΔH 064 072 069 070 070

RVA


Trough 044ns 077 063 055 055



Peak time 053 077 068 060 060


116


Total

starch content

Water solubility




Amylose leaching

α-Amylase activity

Protein -047ns 023ns 058 031ns -069 -062 066

Seed hardness

-073 -041ns -003ns -021ns -020ns 019ns 053

Bulk density

054 049 -020ns -015ns 031ns 019ns -072


-071 -041ns 027ns 021ns -028ns -038ns 055

Starch gel hardness

-045ns 017 ns 065 053 -044ns -064 046ns

Starch DSC

To -049 -004ns 041ns 043ns -033ns -049 061

Tp -050 010ns 047ns 045ns -042ns -058 052

Enthalpy -051 -011ns 059 055 -041ns -064 049

Starch viscosity

Peak viscosity

-066 -049 028ns 027ns -020ns -023ns 070

Trough -068 -017ns 056 057 -031ns -052 072

Breakdown

022ns -048 -061 -067 027ns 062 -025ns

Final viscosity

-060 -022ns 063 060 -037ns -046ns 061


117

Cooking quality


-043ns 019ns 056 040ns -067 -055 029ns


118





Abstract















119







120

Introduction





















121






















122























123

Genetic material







Experimental design













124


October 7th 2011

Seed quality tests








measures











125



means

Results

Protein
















126



















Hardness



127
















Seed density






128


presented later




















129















Discussion

Protein




130













study










131

Hardness



















Density

132






Correlations






Conclusions










133

Acknowledgement



data analysis








134

References












15ndash22







135





27 240ndash8







402ndash8






Biol 48 633ndash47

136




















137





326 213ndash24




170 906ndash14



143-4









138





Sons Inc p 193-205





109 270ndash8




139


Effect F-values


Model 524 360 245

Variety 2463 21059 2282








140








8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 144cd QQ065 141c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 142d


141



8 dS m-1 NaCl 83 CO407D 100a2



8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 87 QQ065 74c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 89


142






8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 066c QQ065 065c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 074a


143



High fertilization

Low fertilization

High fertilization

Low fertilization




144



Yield 004 035 006


Cu -052 -037 -035

Mg -050 004 0

Mn -006 057 025dagger

P -001 -056 -015

Zn -004 -029 -028dagger


145


146


of cooked quinoa

ABSTRACT



















147








148

Introduction





















149






quinoa
















150






Quinoa samples




Quinoa preparation










151






















152























153





















154






















155






analysis


Lexicon Development














156






















157























158























159


producing geosmin


















Consumer acceptance

160























161























162








the field















163








attributes














164

















Future Studies






165




different varieties

Conclusion












consumers





166



Acknowledgements













the manuscript

167

References


581ndash31






19-28






75






168



















169





















170





19 179-89




CIRAD p 67












171



16 79-89









172





















California Tricolor




173



Aroma


















TasteFlavor





174




Beans bean protein






Texturee

Soft - Firm 3

7




Separate - Cohesive

15

7




Pasty



Adhesiveness sticky

10

3






175

Tortilla Chips)b

Chewygummy

15

7




Astringent 12

6

Tannic acid (2gL)



Waterymoist 10

3




Color

Red 4 9

N-W8M Board Walke


Yellow 3 10


N Summer Harveste

Black 3 10



176



Aroma

Caramel 26548 093 317 174

Grain-like 7338 000 125 151

Bean-like 7525 029 129 135

Nutty 6274 011 322 118

Buttery 21346 003 301 104

Starchy 12094 1102 094 135


Earthy 12946 239 330 198

Woody 13178 039 269 131

TasteFlavor

Sweet 6745 430 220 137

Bitter 9368 1290 2059 236

Grain-like 7681 392 222 206

Bean-like 7039 122 142 141

Nutty 7209 007 169 153

Earthy 9313 131 330 177

Toasted 10975 015 373 184

Texture

Firm 1803 022 1587 141

Cohesive 14750 011 656 208

Pasty 3919 2620 1832 205


177

Crunchy 13649 001 1871 167

Chewy 3170 870 150dagger 167

Astringent 10183 544 791 252



178
























179




QQ74 61a 56c 53d 56c 53b 53c





180


Variety Hardness

(kg)

Adhesiveness

(kgs)


(kg)

Chewiness

(kg)










QQ74 312h -17e 04i 09abc 132g 119c









California Tricolor

572a -01a 08a 08bc 477a 361abc



181




182


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil Red Head

Cherry Vanilla

Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red


QQ74

Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20 NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Caramel Grain-like

Bean-like Nutty

Buttery Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

-25

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35 4

F2 (2

455

)

F1 (4234 )

183


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white

Bolivia red

California Tricolor

Sweet

Bitter Grain-like

Bean-like

Nutty

Earthy

Toasted

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

F2 (3

073

)

F1 (3391 )

184


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy Astringent

Moist

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

25

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

F2 (2

212

)

F1 (5959 )

185


Grainy aroma

Beany aroma

Nutty aroma

Buttery

Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

Sweet


Beany flavor


Toasty

Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy

Astringent

Waterymoist

Aroma


Texture Overall

Black

Bolivia red

QQ74

Bolivia white

Commercial Red

Titicaca

-1

-075

-05

-025

0

025

05

075

1

-1 -075 -05 -025 0 025 05 075 1

t2

t1

186

























187
























188


75a

66ab 61bc

54c

61bc

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

75 50 25 None Other



52b

64a 65a 69a 70a

57ab 59ab

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


2-3 timesper week

Once aweek

A fewtimes per

month

Aboutevery 6months

Other



189























190























191























192



and washing











ii




_________________________________



_________________________________

Kevin M Murphy PhD

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT






















iv


Abstract


May 2016

















v












vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv-v



CHAPTERS

1 Introduction 1

References 6


References 26

Tables 41

Figures44


Abstract 46

Introduction 48


Results 54

Discussion 60

vii

Conclusion 63

References 65

Tables 71

Figures78



Abstract 80

Introduction 81


Results 87

Discussion 95

Conclusion 102

References 103

Tables 109



Abstract 118

Introduction 120


Results 125

Discussion 123

viii

Conclusion 132

References 134

Tables 139

Figure 145


Abstract 146

Introduction 148



Conclusion 165

References 167

Tables 172

Figures183

7 Conclusions 189

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

CHAPTER 2


protein) 41



CHAPTER 3









CHAPTER 4






x




CHAPTER 5


seed 139






mineral content144

CHAPTER 6










xi




180









xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

CHAPTER 2



CHAPTER 3


flours 78


CHAPTER 5



CHAPTER 6







xiii








xiv

Dedication



1













Acro 2015)









2






















3






















4






















5




6

References












237-43



35




7
















P39 ndash 109




8






9


Introduction


















10




Quinoa varieties




Pinto 2015)






Adaptation








11









farmers













12






















13






















14






















15














content







16














Saponins







17























18






















19

















Health benefits





20






















21






















22





















23






















24


sensory scores




















25











26

References



2013-20



Food Chem 56(12) 4745-50





56(15) 6185-205









167-73

27




73






101









28



101-7














Intern Med 163(3) 286-92



29




Chem 49(3)1069-86



34






Food Chem 157 174-8



87 ndash 97




30









34







293-328




31



62(1) 185-93



71-7



22(2) 131-9






Google Patents






32













328-38





4) 89-99



33




















34




















471-5

35



225-30



2) 179-89



54(2) 165-76




13







36







FAO amp CIRAD p 67













37











Nutr 70(3) 238-49










38


132-8




Chem 162 54-62



Chem 166 380-8


Patents









39










65





p193 ndash 205






40



41



Histidine 258 18

Isoleucine 433 25

Leucine 736 55

Lysine 525 51



Threonine 439 27

Tryptophan 385 7

Valine 506 32


42



Thianmin (B1) 029-038 15


Niacin (B3) 106-152 20


Folate (B9) 0781 04



Β-Carotene 039 NR


43


Whole graina RDI b

K 8257 NR

Mg 4526 400

Ca 1213 1000

P 3595 1000

Fe 95 18

Mn 37 NR

Cu 07 2

Zn 08 15

Na 13 NR


44


45



46


Cooked Quinoa




ABSTRACT















47










purposes




processors

48

Introduction





















49







been studied















50























51























52







Cooking protocol






Cooking quality








cooking loss


53












below)

Flour viscosity










54


















Results





55























56












10







Cooking quality




57






volume
















58




190 RVU



















59









quinoa





texture parameter







60




Discussion






outside the seed

Seed composition









Cooking quality



61























62








Thermal properties














and fiber

63

Conclusions

















Acknowledgements





64




65

References





AACCI St Paul MN



Food Chem 564745-50


581-31









66







Chem 75(2)181-6












67


















68



54(8)350-7







36(3)285-94









27(3)69-71

69
















Sci Tech 47(2)202-6



75(1)37-42

70


Polym 57(2)145-52














71
















72



Hardness (kg)

Bulk Density (gmL)


Protein ()

Ash ()

Black 21bc 994b 0584d 37bc 143d 215hi

Blanca 22ab 608l 0672c 89a 135e 284ef




49ALC 19de 935c 0669c 26cd 127g 348bc

1ESP 19e 664h 0672c 10f 113i 248gh


Col6197 19e 583m 0657c 24de 118h 291ef


QQ63 19e 672g 0661c 45b 135f 401a

Yellow Commercial

21abc 622j 0663c 14ef 146c 198i


73



Adhesiveness (kgs)


Chewiness (kg)

Black 347a -004a 069ab 24a 24a





49ALC 209f -029c 054d 11ef 11ef

1ESP 245e -027bc 056d 14e 14e


Col6197 202f -023bc 053d 11ef 11ef


QQ63 297cd -020b 062c 19d 19d



74



Water uptake ()

Cooking Volume (mL)

Cooking Loss ()

Black 192a 297c 109c 065f





49ALC 136h 359ab 126b 043g

1ESP 153g 373ab 132ab 035h


Col6197 119i 397a 126b 176a


QQ63 177bc 244d 126b 067f



75



Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)


Setback (RVU)

Peak Time (min)

Black 102g 81e 21e 75g -6f 102e


Cahuil 116f 85e 31d 74g -11f 104de

Cherry Vanilla

66h 54g 12f 57h 2e 97fg

Oro de Valle

59h 50g 10f 56h 6e 93h

49ALC 107fg 71f 36c 132e 62b 97fg

1ESP 161cd 110c 51b 174c 64b 98fg


Col6197 155de 133b 22e 177bc 44cd 108bc

Japanese Strain

172bc 109c 62a 159d 50c 96gh

QQ63 144e 94d 51b 167cd 73a 97fg

Yellow Commercial

172bc 162a 11f 203a 41d 109b

Red Commercial

197a 168a 29d 106f -62g 115a


76










1ESP 544f 690f 785de 15abc


Col6197 605d 689f 785de 15abc


QQ63 630c 702e 784de 13bc



77




Bulk Density -055 -044ns -063 -060 -060


Protein 050 077 075 057 057

Cooking Time 077 062 074 076 076




Breakdown -048 -047ns -051 -053 -053


Setback -058 -064 -059 -060 -060

To 059 054 061 061 061


78



Time (min)

0 10 20 30 40

Vis

cosi

ty (R

VU

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pera

ture

(degC

)

50

100

150

200

79




4 3

2 1

P

C C

80



ABSTRACT

















81

Introduction






quinoa
















82




reported












Starch isolation







83









α-amylase activity













84


MO USA)





















85



Starch gel texture



















86




















equations



87







Results















Starch properties

88
















α-Amylase activity






Starch gel texture

89






















90







starches















97 RVU

91























92






















93













texture parameters)










94























95




Discussion












with lipids







96



snacks










pasting

Starch properties









97








170 to 282

α-Amylase activity






germination








98
















thermal properties







99























100



starch alone



















101


reported previously





















102





during extrusion

Conclusions








Acknowledgments








103

References


581-31
















104



Polym 83(1)291-6
















105







Chem 71(4)511-7





92(2)145-53








106




















107




















108







109


















110



(g 100 g)

Apparent amylose

()

Total

amylose ()

Degree of amylose

lipid complex ()




Cherry Vanilla

590de 105cd 116bc 164abc


49ALC 674c 27e 47d 426a



Col6197 725ab 102cd 140abc 433a

Japanese Strain


QQ63 713abc 84d 111c 241abc

Yellow Commercial

751a 147ab 150abc 118abc

Red Commercial

691bc 100cd 164a 375ab


111



Water solubility ()

Swelling power







49ALC 862a 07e 282a 031e

1ESP 716b 13de 276ab 003g


Col6197 552c 19cd 257cd 009g


QQ63 315de 26bc 262bc 008g

Yellow Commercial

349d 32b 188e 005g



112








49ALC 333bc 081bc 061cd



Col6197 534abc 083ab 083ab


QQ63 201c 078bc 053d




113









49ALC 524ef 598f 747bcd 101bc



Col6197 540cd 598f 697f 105abc


QQ63 545c 616de 766ab 99c



Corn starch 560 626 743 105

114



(RVU)a

Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)

Final viscosity

(RVU)

Setback

(RVU)

Peak time

(min)






49ALC 256cde 137f 119a 225d 88cde 64i

1ESP 269bcd 172ef 97ab 313bc 140a 79h





Yellow Commercial



Corn 255 131 124 283 152 73 aRVU = cP12

115




-032ns -048 -043ns -039ns -039ns


069 072 069 072 072


061 062 056 061 061


-065 -060 -070 -070 -070

Amylose leaching

-082 -075 -074 -082 -082

α-Amylase activity

018ns 055 051 032ns 032ns

Starch gel hardness

042ns 059 051 049 049

DSC

To 034ns 049 051 041ns 041ns

Tp 047 052 056 052 052

ΔH 064 072 069 070 070

RVA


Trough 044ns 077 063 055 055



Peak time 053 077 068 060 060


116


Total

starch content

Water solubility




Amylose leaching

α-Amylase activity

Protein -047ns 023ns 058 031ns -069 -062 066

Seed hardness

-073 -041ns -003ns -021ns -020ns 019ns 053

Bulk density

054 049 -020ns -015ns 031ns 019ns -072


-071 -041ns 027ns 021ns -028ns -038ns 055

Starch gel hardness

-045ns 017 ns 065 053 -044ns -064 046ns

Starch DSC

To -049 -004ns 041ns 043ns -033ns -049 061

Tp -050 010ns 047ns 045ns -042ns -058 052

Enthalpy -051 -011ns 059 055 -041ns -064 049

Starch viscosity

Peak viscosity

-066 -049 028ns 027ns -020ns -023ns 070

Trough -068 -017ns 056 057 -031ns -052 072

Breakdown

022ns -048 -061 -067 027ns 062 -025ns

Final viscosity

-060 -022ns 063 060 -037ns -046ns 061


117

Cooking quality


-043ns 019ns 056 040ns -067 -055 029ns


118





Abstract















119







120

Introduction





















121






















122























123

Genetic material







Experimental design













124


October 7th 2011

Seed quality tests








measures











125



means

Results

Protein
















126



















Hardness



127
















Seed density






128


presented later




















129















Discussion

Protein




130













study










131

Hardness



















Density

132






Correlations






Conclusions










133

Acknowledgement



data analysis








134

References












15ndash22







135





27 240ndash8







402ndash8






Biol 48 633ndash47

136




















137





326 213ndash24




170 906ndash14



143-4









138





Sons Inc p 193-205





109 270ndash8




139


Effect F-values


Model 524 360 245

Variety 2463 21059 2282








140








8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 144cd QQ065 141c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 142d


141



8 dS m-1 NaCl 83 CO407D 100a2



8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 87 QQ065 74c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 89


142






8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 066c QQ065 065c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 074a


143



High fertilization

Low fertilization

High fertilization

Low fertilization




144



Yield 004 035 006


Cu -052 -037 -035

Mg -050 004 0

Mn -006 057 025dagger

P -001 -056 -015

Zn -004 -029 -028dagger


145


146


of cooked quinoa

ABSTRACT



















147








148

Introduction





















149






quinoa
















150






Quinoa samples




Quinoa preparation










151






















152























153





















154






















155






analysis


Lexicon Development














156






















157























158























159


producing geosmin


















Consumer acceptance

160























161























162








the field















163








attributes














164

















Future Studies






165




different varieties

Conclusion












consumers





166



Acknowledgements













the manuscript

167

References


581ndash31






19-28






75






168



















169





















170





19 179-89




CIRAD p 67












171



16 79-89









172





















California Tricolor




173



Aroma


















TasteFlavor





174




Beans bean protein






Texturee

Soft - Firm 3

7




Separate - Cohesive

15

7




Pasty



Adhesiveness sticky

10

3






175

Tortilla Chips)b

Chewygummy

15

7




Astringent 12

6

Tannic acid (2gL)



Waterymoist 10

3




Color

Red 4 9

N-W8M Board Walke


Yellow 3 10


N Summer Harveste

Black 3 10



176



Aroma

Caramel 26548 093 317 174

Grain-like 7338 000 125 151

Bean-like 7525 029 129 135

Nutty 6274 011 322 118

Buttery 21346 003 301 104

Starchy 12094 1102 094 135


Earthy 12946 239 330 198

Woody 13178 039 269 131

TasteFlavor

Sweet 6745 430 220 137

Bitter 9368 1290 2059 236

Grain-like 7681 392 222 206

Bean-like 7039 122 142 141

Nutty 7209 007 169 153

Earthy 9313 131 330 177

Toasted 10975 015 373 184

Texture

Firm 1803 022 1587 141

Cohesive 14750 011 656 208

Pasty 3919 2620 1832 205


177

Crunchy 13649 001 1871 167

Chewy 3170 870 150dagger 167

Astringent 10183 544 791 252



178
























179




QQ74 61a 56c 53d 56c 53b 53c





180


Variety Hardness

(kg)

Adhesiveness

(kgs)


(kg)

Chewiness

(kg)










QQ74 312h -17e 04i 09abc 132g 119c









California Tricolor

572a -01a 08a 08bc 477a 361abc



181




182


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil Red Head

Cherry Vanilla

Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red


QQ74

Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20 NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Caramel Grain-like

Bean-like Nutty

Buttery Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

-25

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35 4

F2 (2

455

)

F1 (4234 )

183


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white

Bolivia red

California Tricolor

Sweet

Bitter Grain-like

Bean-like

Nutty

Earthy

Toasted

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

F2 (3

073

)

F1 (3391 )

184


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy Astringent

Moist

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

25

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

F2 (2

212

)

F1 (5959 )

185


Grainy aroma

Beany aroma

Nutty aroma

Buttery

Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

Sweet


Beany flavor


Toasty

Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy

Astringent

Waterymoist

Aroma


Texture Overall

Black

Bolivia red

QQ74

Bolivia white

Commercial Red

Titicaca

-1

-075

-05

-025

0

025

05

075

1

-1 -075 -05 -025 0 025 05 075 1

t2

t1

186

























187
























188


75a

66ab 61bc

54c

61bc

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

75 50 25 None Other



52b

64a 65a 69a 70a

57ab 59ab

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


2-3 timesper week

Once aweek

A fewtimes per

month

Aboutevery 6months

Other



189























190























191























192



and washing











iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT






















iv


Abstract


May 2016

















v












vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv-v



CHAPTERS

1 Introduction 1

References 6


References 26

Tables 41

Figures44


Abstract 46

Introduction 48


Results 54

Discussion 60

vii

Conclusion 63

References 65

Tables 71

Figures78



Abstract 80

Introduction 81


Results 87

Discussion 95

Conclusion 102

References 103

Tables 109



Abstract 118

Introduction 120


Results 125

Discussion 123

viii

Conclusion 132

References 134

Tables 139

Figure 145


Abstract 146

Introduction 148



Conclusion 165

References 167

Tables 172

Figures183

7 Conclusions 189

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

CHAPTER 2


protein) 41



CHAPTER 3









CHAPTER 4






x




CHAPTER 5


seed 139






mineral content144

CHAPTER 6










xi




180









xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

CHAPTER 2



CHAPTER 3


flours 78


CHAPTER 5



CHAPTER 6







xiii








xiv

Dedication



1













Acro 2015)









2






















3






















4






















5




6

References












237-43



35




7
















P39 ndash 109




8






9


Introduction


















10




Quinoa varieties




Pinto 2015)






Adaptation








11









farmers













12






















13






















14






















15














content







16














Saponins







17























18






















19

















Health benefits





20






















21






















22





















23






















24


sensory scores




















25











26

References



2013-20



Food Chem 56(12) 4745-50





56(15) 6185-205









167-73

27




73






101









28



101-7














Intern Med 163(3) 286-92



29




Chem 49(3)1069-86



34






Food Chem 157 174-8



87 ndash 97




30









34







293-328




31



62(1) 185-93



71-7



22(2) 131-9






Google Patents






32













328-38





4) 89-99



33




















34




















471-5

35



225-30



2) 179-89



54(2) 165-76




13







36







FAO amp CIRAD p 67













37











Nutr 70(3) 238-49










38


132-8




Chem 162 54-62



Chem 166 380-8


Patents









39










65





p193 ndash 205






40



41



Histidine 258 18

Isoleucine 433 25

Leucine 736 55

Lysine 525 51



Threonine 439 27

Tryptophan 385 7

Valine 506 32


42



Thianmin (B1) 029-038 15


Niacin (B3) 106-152 20


Folate (B9) 0781 04



Β-Carotene 039 NR


43


Whole graina RDI b

K 8257 NR

Mg 4526 400

Ca 1213 1000

P 3595 1000

Fe 95 18

Mn 37 NR

Cu 07 2

Zn 08 15

Na 13 NR


44


45



46


Cooked Quinoa




ABSTRACT















47










purposes




processors

48

Introduction





















49







been studied















50























51























52







Cooking protocol






Cooking quality








cooking loss


53












below)

Flour viscosity










54


















Results





55























56












10







Cooking quality




57






volume
















58




190 RVU



















59









quinoa





texture parameter







60




Discussion






outside the seed

Seed composition









Cooking quality



61























62








Thermal properties














and fiber

63

Conclusions

















Acknowledgements





64




65

References





AACCI St Paul MN



Food Chem 564745-50


581-31









66







Chem 75(2)181-6












67


















68



54(8)350-7







36(3)285-94









27(3)69-71

69
















Sci Tech 47(2)202-6



75(1)37-42

70


Polym 57(2)145-52














71
















72



Hardness (kg)

Bulk Density (gmL)


Protein ()

Ash ()

Black 21bc 994b 0584d 37bc 143d 215hi

Blanca 22ab 608l 0672c 89a 135e 284ef




49ALC 19de 935c 0669c 26cd 127g 348bc

1ESP 19e 664h 0672c 10f 113i 248gh


Col6197 19e 583m 0657c 24de 118h 291ef


QQ63 19e 672g 0661c 45b 135f 401a

Yellow Commercial

21abc 622j 0663c 14ef 146c 198i


73



Adhesiveness (kgs)


Chewiness (kg)

Black 347a -004a 069ab 24a 24a





49ALC 209f -029c 054d 11ef 11ef

1ESP 245e -027bc 056d 14e 14e


Col6197 202f -023bc 053d 11ef 11ef


QQ63 297cd -020b 062c 19d 19d



74



Water uptake ()

Cooking Volume (mL)

Cooking Loss ()

Black 192a 297c 109c 065f





49ALC 136h 359ab 126b 043g

1ESP 153g 373ab 132ab 035h


Col6197 119i 397a 126b 176a


QQ63 177bc 244d 126b 067f



75



Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)


Setback (RVU)

Peak Time (min)

Black 102g 81e 21e 75g -6f 102e


Cahuil 116f 85e 31d 74g -11f 104de

Cherry Vanilla

66h 54g 12f 57h 2e 97fg

Oro de Valle

59h 50g 10f 56h 6e 93h

49ALC 107fg 71f 36c 132e 62b 97fg

1ESP 161cd 110c 51b 174c 64b 98fg


Col6197 155de 133b 22e 177bc 44cd 108bc

Japanese Strain

172bc 109c 62a 159d 50c 96gh

QQ63 144e 94d 51b 167cd 73a 97fg

Yellow Commercial

172bc 162a 11f 203a 41d 109b

Red Commercial

197a 168a 29d 106f -62g 115a


76










1ESP 544f 690f 785de 15abc


Col6197 605d 689f 785de 15abc


QQ63 630c 702e 784de 13bc



77




Bulk Density -055 -044ns -063 -060 -060


Protein 050 077 075 057 057

Cooking Time 077 062 074 076 076




Breakdown -048 -047ns -051 -053 -053


Setback -058 -064 -059 -060 -060

To 059 054 061 061 061


78



Time (min)

0 10 20 30 40

Vis

cosi

ty (R

VU

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pera

ture

(degC

)

50

100

150

200

79




4 3

2 1

P

C C

80



ABSTRACT

















81

Introduction






quinoa
















82




reported












Starch isolation







83









α-amylase activity













84


MO USA)





















85



Starch gel texture



















86




















equations



87







Results















Starch properties

88
















α-Amylase activity






Starch gel texture

89






















90







starches















97 RVU

91























92






















93













texture parameters)










94























95




Discussion












with lipids







96



snacks










pasting

Starch properties









97








170 to 282

α-Amylase activity






germination








98
















thermal properties







99























100



starch alone



















101


reported previously





















102





during extrusion

Conclusions








Acknowledgments








103

References


581-31
















104



Polym 83(1)291-6
















105







Chem 71(4)511-7





92(2)145-53








106




















107




















108







109


















110



(g 100 g)

Apparent amylose

()

Total

amylose ()

Degree of amylose

lipid complex ()




Cherry Vanilla

590de 105cd 116bc 164abc


49ALC 674c 27e 47d 426a



Col6197 725ab 102cd 140abc 433a

Japanese Strain


QQ63 713abc 84d 111c 241abc

Yellow Commercial

751a 147ab 150abc 118abc

Red Commercial

691bc 100cd 164a 375ab


111



Water solubility ()

Swelling power







49ALC 862a 07e 282a 031e

1ESP 716b 13de 276ab 003g


Col6197 552c 19cd 257cd 009g


QQ63 315de 26bc 262bc 008g

Yellow Commercial

349d 32b 188e 005g



112








49ALC 333bc 081bc 061cd



Col6197 534abc 083ab 083ab


QQ63 201c 078bc 053d




113









49ALC 524ef 598f 747bcd 101bc



Col6197 540cd 598f 697f 105abc


QQ63 545c 616de 766ab 99c



Corn starch 560 626 743 105

114



(RVU)a

Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)

Final viscosity

(RVU)

Setback

(RVU)

Peak time

(min)






49ALC 256cde 137f 119a 225d 88cde 64i

1ESP 269bcd 172ef 97ab 313bc 140a 79h





Yellow Commercial



Corn 255 131 124 283 152 73 aRVU = cP12

115




-032ns -048 -043ns -039ns -039ns


069 072 069 072 072


061 062 056 061 061


-065 -060 -070 -070 -070

Amylose leaching

-082 -075 -074 -082 -082

α-Amylase activity

018ns 055 051 032ns 032ns

Starch gel hardness

042ns 059 051 049 049

DSC

To 034ns 049 051 041ns 041ns

Tp 047 052 056 052 052

ΔH 064 072 069 070 070

RVA


Trough 044ns 077 063 055 055



Peak time 053 077 068 060 060


116


Total

starch content

Water solubility




Amylose leaching

α-Amylase activity

Protein -047ns 023ns 058 031ns -069 -062 066

Seed hardness

-073 -041ns -003ns -021ns -020ns 019ns 053

Bulk density

054 049 -020ns -015ns 031ns 019ns -072


-071 -041ns 027ns 021ns -028ns -038ns 055

Starch gel hardness

-045ns 017 ns 065 053 -044ns -064 046ns

Starch DSC

To -049 -004ns 041ns 043ns -033ns -049 061

Tp -050 010ns 047ns 045ns -042ns -058 052

Enthalpy -051 -011ns 059 055 -041ns -064 049

Starch viscosity

Peak viscosity

-066 -049 028ns 027ns -020ns -023ns 070

Trough -068 -017ns 056 057 -031ns -052 072

Breakdown

022ns -048 -061 -067 027ns 062 -025ns

Final viscosity

-060 -022ns 063 060 -037ns -046ns 061


117

Cooking quality


-043ns 019ns 056 040ns -067 -055 029ns


118





Abstract















119







120

Introduction





















121






















122























123

Genetic material







Experimental design













124


October 7th 2011

Seed quality tests








measures











125



means

Results

Protein
















126



















Hardness



127
















Seed density






128


presented later




















129















Discussion

Protein




130













study










131

Hardness



















Density

132






Correlations






Conclusions










133

Acknowledgement



data analysis








134

References












15ndash22







135





27 240ndash8







402ndash8






Biol 48 633ndash47

136




















137





326 213ndash24




170 906ndash14



143-4









138





Sons Inc p 193-205





109 270ndash8




139


Effect F-values


Model 524 360 245

Variety 2463 21059 2282








140








8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 144cd QQ065 141c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 142d


141



8 dS m-1 NaCl 83 CO407D 100a2



8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 87 QQ065 74c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 89


142






8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 066c QQ065 065c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 074a


143



High fertilization

Low fertilization

High fertilization

Low fertilization




144



Yield 004 035 006


Cu -052 -037 -035

Mg -050 004 0

Mn -006 057 025dagger

P -001 -056 -015

Zn -004 -029 -028dagger


145


146


of cooked quinoa

ABSTRACT



















147








148

Introduction





















149






quinoa
















150






Quinoa samples




Quinoa preparation










151






















152























153





















154






















155






analysis


Lexicon Development














156






















157























158























159


producing geosmin


















Consumer acceptance

160























161























162








the field















163








attributes














164

















Future Studies






165




different varieties

Conclusion












consumers





166



Acknowledgements













the manuscript

167

References


581ndash31






19-28






75






168



















169





















170





19 179-89




CIRAD p 67












171



16 79-89









172





















California Tricolor




173



Aroma


















TasteFlavor





174




Beans bean protein






Texturee

Soft - Firm 3

7




Separate - Cohesive

15

7




Pasty



Adhesiveness sticky

10

3






175

Tortilla Chips)b

Chewygummy

15

7




Astringent 12

6

Tannic acid (2gL)



Waterymoist 10

3




Color

Red 4 9

N-W8M Board Walke


Yellow 3 10


N Summer Harveste

Black 3 10



176



Aroma

Caramel 26548 093 317 174

Grain-like 7338 000 125 151

Bean-like 7525 029 129 135

Nutty 6274 011 322 118

Buttery 21346 003 301 104

Starchy 12094 1102 094 135


Earthy 12946 239 330 198

Woody 13178 039 269 131

TasteFlavor

Sweet 6745 430 220 137

Bitter 9368 1290 2059 236

Grain-like 7681 392 222 206

Bean-like 7039 122 142 141

Nutty 7209 007 169 153

Earthy 9313 131 330 177

Toasted 10975 015 373 184

Texture

Firm 1803 022 1587 141

Cohesive 14750 011 656 208

Pasty 3919 2620 1832 205


177

Crunchy 13649 001 1871 167

Chewy 3170 870 150dagger 167

Astringent 10183 544 791 252



178
























179




QQ74 61a 56c 53d 56c 53b 53c





180


Variety Hardness

(kg)

Adhesiveness

(kgs)


(kg)

Chewiness

(kg)










QQ74 312h -17e 04i 09abc 132g 119c









California Tricolor

572a -01a 08a 08bc 477a 361abc



181




182


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil Red Head

Cherry Vanilla

Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red


QQ74

Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20 NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Caramel Grain-like

Bean-like Nutty

Buttery Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

-25

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35 4

F2 (2

455

)

F1 (4234 )

183


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white

Bolivia red

California Tricolor

Sweet

Bitter Grain-like

Bean-like

Nutty

Earthy

Toasted

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

F2 (3

073

)

F1 (3391 )

184


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy Astringent

Moist

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

25

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

F2 (2

212

)

F1 (5959 )

185


Grainy aroma

Beany aroma

Nutty aroma

Buttery

Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

Sweet


Beany flavor


Toasty

Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy

Astringent

Waterymoist

Aroma


Texture Overall

Black

Bolivia red

QQ74

Bolivia white

Commercial Red

Titicaca

-1

-075

-05

-025

0

025

05

075

1

-1 -075 -05 -025 0 025 05 075 1

t2

t1

186

























187
























188


75a

66ab 61bc

54c

61bc

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

75 50 25 None Other



52b

64a 65a 69a 70a

57ab 59ab

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


2-3 timesper week

Once aweek

A fewtimes per

month

Aboutevery 6months

Other



189























190























191























192



and washing











iv


Abstract


May 2016

















v












vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv-v



CHAPTERS

1 Introduction 1

References 6


References 26

Tables 41

Figures44


Abstract 46

Introduction 48


Results 54

Discussion 60

vii

Conclusion 63

References 65

Tables 71

Figures78



Abstract 80

Introduction 81


Results 87

Discussion 95

Conclusion 102

References 103

Tables 109



Abstract 118

Introduction 120


Results 125

Discussion 123

viii

Conclusion 132

References 134

Tables 139

Figure 145


Abstract 146

Introduction 148



Conclusion 165

References 167

Tables 172

Figures183

7 Conclusions 189

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

CHAPTER 2


protein) 41



CHAPTER 3









CHAPTER 4






x




CHAPTER 5


seed 139






mineral content144

CHAPTER 6










xi




180









xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

CHAPTER 2



CHAPTER 3


flours 78


CHAPTER 5



CHAPTER 6







xiii








xiv

Dedication



1













Acro 2015)









2






















3






















4






















5




6

References












237-43



35




7
















P39 ndash 109




8






9


Introduction


















10




Quinoa varieties




Pinto 2015)






Adaptation








11









farmers













12






















13






















14






















15














content







16














Saponins







17























18






















19

















Health benefits





20






















21






















22





















23






















24


sensory scores




















25











26

References



2013-20



Food Chem 56(12) 4745-50





56(15) 6185-205









167-73

27




73






101









28



101-7














Intern Med 163(3) 286-92



29




Chem 49(3)1069-86



34






Food Chem 157 174-8



87 ndash 97




30









34







293-328




31



62(1) 185-93



71-7



22(2) 131-9






Google Patents






32













328-38





4) 89-99



33




















34




















471-5

35



225-30



2) 179-89



54(2) 165-76




13







36







FAO amp CIRAD p 67













37











Nutr 70(3) 238-49










38


132-8




Chem 162 54-62



Chem 166 380-8


Patents









39










65





p193 ndash 205






40



41



Histidine 258 18

Isoleucine 433 25

Leucine 736 55

Lysine 525 51



Threonine 439 27

Tryptophan 385 7

Valine 506 32


42



Thianmin (B1) 029-038 15


Niacin (B3) 106-152 20


Folate (B9) 0781 04



Β-Carotene 039 NR


43


Whole graina RDI b

K 8257 NR

Mg 4526 400

Ca 1213 1000

P 3595 1000

Fe 95 18

Mn 37 NR

Cu 07 2

Zn 08 15

Na 13 NR


44


45



46


Cooked Quinoa




ABSTRACT















47










purposes




processors

48

Introduction





















49







been studied















50























51























52







Cooking protocol






Cooking quality








cooking loss


53












below)

Flour viscosity










54


















Results





55























56












10







Cooking quality




57






volume
















58




190 RVU



















59









quinoa





texture parameter







60




Discussion






outside the seed

Seed composition









Cooking quality



61























62








Thermal properties














and fiber

63

Conclusions

















Acknowledgements





64




65

References





AACCI St Paul MN



Food Chem 564745-50


581-31









66







Chem 75(2)181-6












67


















68



54(8)350-7







36(3)285-94









27(3)69-71

69
















Sci Tech 47(2)202-6



75(1)37-42

70


Polym 57(2)145-52














71
















72



Hardness (kg)

Bulk Density (gmL)


Protein ()

Ash ()

Black 21bc 994b 0584d 37bc 143d 215hi

Blanca 22ab 608l 0672c 89a 135e 284ef




49ALC 19de 935c 0669c 26cd 127g 348bc

1ESP 19e 664h 0672c 10f 113i 248gh


Col6197 19e 583m 0657c 24de 118h 291ef


QQ63 19e 672g 0661c 45b 135f 401a

Yellow Commercial

21abc 622j 0663c 14ef 146c 198i


73



Adhesiveness (kgs)


Chewiness (kg)

Black 347a -004a 069ab 24a 24a





49ALC 209f -029c 054d 11ef 11ef

1ESP 245e -027bc 056d 14e 14e


Col6197 202f -023bc 053d 11ef 11ef


QQ63 297cd -020b 062c 19d 19d



74



Water uptake ()

Cooking Volume (mL)

Cooking Loss ()

Black 192a 297c 109c 065f





49ALC 136h 359ab 126b 043g

1ESP 153g 373ab 132ab 035h


Col6197 119i 397a 126b 176a


QQ63 177bc 244d 126b 067f



75



Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)


Setback (RVU)

Peak Time (min)

Black 102g 81e 21e 75g -6f 102e


Cahuil 116f 85e 31d 74g -11f 104de

Cherry Vanilla

66h 54g 12f 57h 2e 97fg

Oro de Valle

59h 50g 10f 56h 6e 93h

49ALC 107fg 71f 36c 132e 62b 97fg

1ESP 161cd 110c 51b 174c 64b 98fg


Col6197 155de 133b 22e 177bc 44cd 108bc

Japanese Strain

172bc 109c 62a 159d 50c 96gh

QQ63 144e 94d 51b 167cd 73a 97fg

Yellow Commercial

172bc 162a 11f 203a 41d 109b

Red Commercial

197a 168a 29d 106f -62g 115a


76










1ESP 544f 690f 785de 15abc


Col6197 605d 689f 785de 15abc


QQ63 630c 702e 784de 13bc



77




Bulk Density -055 -044ns -063 -060 -060


Protein 050 077 075 057 057

Cooking Time 077 062 074 076 076




Breakdown -048 -047ns -051 -053 -053


Setback -058 -064 -059 -060 -060

To 059 054 061 061 061


78



Time (min)

0 10 20 30 40

Vis

cosi

ty (R

VU

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pera

ture

(degC

)

50

100

150

200

79




4 3

2 1

P

C C

80



ABSTRACT

















81

Introduction






quinoa
















82




reported












Starch isolation







83









α-amylase activity













84


MO USA)





















85



Starch gel texture



















86




















equations



87







Results















Starch properties

88
















α-Amylase activity






Starch gel texture

89






















90







starches















97 RVU

91























92






















93













texture parameters)










94























95




Discussion












with lipids







96



snacks










pasting

Starch properties









97








170 to 282

α-Amylase activity






germination








98
















thermal properties







99























100



starch alone



















101


reported previously





















102





during extrusion

Conclusions








Acknowledgments








103

References


581-31
















104



Polym 83(1)291-6
















105







Chem 71(4)511-7





92(2)145-53








106




















107




















108







109


















110



(g 100 g)

Apparent amylose

()

Total

amylose ()

Degree of amylose

lipid complex ()




Cherry Vanilla

590de 105cd 116bc 164abc


49ALC 674c 27e 47d 426a



Col6197 725ab 102cd 140abc 433a

Japanese Strain


QQ63 713abc 84d 111c 241abc

Yellow Commercial

751a 147ab 150abc 118abc

Red Commercial

691bc 100cd 164a 375ab


111



Water solubility ()

Swelling power







49ALC 862a 07e 282a 031e

1ESP 716b 13de 276ab 003g


Col6197 552c 19cd 257cd 009g


QQ63 315de 26bc 262bc 008g

Yellow Commercial

349d 32b 188e 005g



112








49ALC 333bc 081bc 061cd



Col6197 534abc 083ab 083ab


QQ63 201c 078bc 053d




113









49ALC 524ef 598f 747bcd 101bc



Col6197 540cd 598f 697f 105abc


QQ63 545c 616de 766ab 99c



Corn starch 560 626 743 105

114



(RVU)a

Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)

Final viscosity

(RVU)

Setback

(RVU)

Peak time

(min)






49ALC 256cde 137f 119a 225d 88cde 64i

1ESP 269bcd 172ef 97ab 313bc 140a 79h





Yellow Commercial



Corn 255 131 124 283 152 73 aRVU = cP12

115




-032ns -048 -043ns -039ns -039ns


069 072 069 072 072


061 062 056 061 061


-065 -060 -070 -070 -070

Amylose leaching

-082 -075 -074 -082 -082

α-Amylase activity

018ns 055 051 032ns 032ns

Starch gel hardness

042ns 059 051 049 049

DSC

To 034ns 049 051 041ns 041ns

Tp 047 052 056 052 052

ΔH 064 072 069 070 070

RVA


Trough 044ns 077 063 055 055



Peak time 053 077 068 060 060


116


Total

starch content

Water solubility




Amylose leaching

α-Amylase activity

Protein -047ns 023ns 058 031ns -069 -062 066

Seed hardness

-073 -041ns -003ns -021ns -020ns 019ns 053

Bulk density

054 049 -020ns -015ns 031ns 019ns -072


-071 -041ns 027ns 021ns -028ns -038ns 055

Starch gel hardness

-045ns 017 ns 065 053 -044ns -064 046ns

Starch DSC

To -049 -004ns 041ns 043ns -033ns -049 061

Tp -050 010ns 047ns 045ns -042ns -058 052

Enthalpy -051 -011ns 059 055 -041ns -064 049

Starch viscosity

Peak viscosity

-066 -049 028ns 027ns -020ns -023ns 070

Trough -068 -017ns 056 057 -031ns -052 072

Breakdown

022ns -048 -061 -067 027ns 062 -025ns

Final viscosity

-060 -022ns 063 060 -037ns -046ns 061


117

Cooking quality


-043ns 019ns 056 040ns -067 -055 029ns


118





Abstract















119







120

Introduction





















121






















122























123

Genetic material







Experimental design













124


October 7th 2011

Seed quality tests








measures











125



means

Results

Protein
















126



















Hardness



127
















Seed density






128


presented later




















129















Discussion

Protein




130













study










131

Hardness



















Density

132






Correlations






Conclusions










133

Acknowledgement



data analysis








134

References












15ndash22







135





27 240ndash8







402ndash8






Biol 48 633ndash47

136




















137





326 213ndash24




170 906ndash14



143-4









138





Sons Inc p 193-205





109 270ndash8




139


Effect F-values


Model 524 360 245

Variety 2463 21059 2282








140








8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 144cd QQ065 141c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 142d


141



8 dS m-1 NaCl 83 CO407D 100a2



8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 87 QQ065 74c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 89


142






8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 066c QQ065 065c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 074a


143



High fertilization

Low fertilization

High fertilization

Low fertilization




144



Yield 004 035 006


Cu -052 -037 -035

Mg -050 004 0

Mn -006 057 025dagger

P -001 -056 -015

Zn -004 -029 -028dagger


145


146


of cooked quinoa

ABSTRACT



















147








148

Introduction





















149






quinoa
















150






Quinoa samples




Quinoa preparation










151






















152























153





















154






















155






analysis


Lexicon Development














156






















157























158























159


producing geosmin


















Consumer acceptance

160























161























162








the field















163








attributes














164

















Future Studies






165




different varieties

Conclusion












consumers





166



Acknowledgements













the manuscript

167

References


581ndash31






19-28






75






168



















169





















170





19 179-89




CIRAD p 67












171



16 79-89









172





















California Tricolor




173



Aroma


















TasteFlavor





174




Beans bean protein






Texturee

Soft - Firm 3

7




Separate - Cohesive

15

7




Pasty



Adhesiveness sticky

10

3






175

Tortilla Chips)b

Chewygummy

15

7




Astringent 12

6

Tannic acid (2gL)



Waterymoist 10

3




Color

Red 4 9

N-W8M Board Walke


Yellow 3 10


N Summer Harveste

Black 3 10



176



Aroma

Caramel 26548 093 317 174

Grain-like 7338 000 125 151

Bean-like 7525 029 129 135

Nutty 6274 011 322 118

Buttery 21346 003 301 104

Starchy 12094 1102 094 135


Earthy 12946 239 330 198

Woody 13178 039 269 131

TasteFlavor

Sweet 6745 430 220 137

Bitter 9368 1290 2059 236

Grain-like 7681 392 222 206

Bean-like 7039 122 142 141

Nutty 7209 007 169 153

Earthy 9313 131 330 177

Toasted 10975 015 373 184

Texture

Firm 1803 022 1587 141

Cohesive 14750 011 656 208

Pasty 3919 2620 1832 205


177

Crunchy 13649 001 1871 167

Chewy 3170 870 150dagger 167

Astringent 10183 544 791 252



178
























179




QQ74 61a 56c 53d 56c 53b 53c





180


Variety Hardness

(kg)

Adhesiveness

(kgs)


(kg)

Chewiness

(kg)










QQ74 312h -17e 04i 09abc 132g 119c









California Tricolor

572a -01a 08a 08bc 477a 361abc



181




182


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil Red Head

Cherry Vanilla

Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red


QQ74

Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20 NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Caramel Grain-like

Bean-like Nutty

Buttery Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

-25

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35 4

F2 (2

455

)

F1 (4234 )

183


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white

Bolivia red

California Tricolor

Sweet

Bitter Grain-like

Bean-like

Nutty

Earthy

Toasted

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

F2 (3

073

)

F1 (3391 )

184


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy Astringent

Moist

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

25

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

F2 (2

212

)

F1 (5959 )

185


Grainy aroma

Beany aroma

Nutty aroma

Buttery

Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

Sweet


Beany flavor


Toasty

Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy

Astringent

Waterymoist

Aroma


Texture Overall

Black

Bolivia red

QQ74

Bolivia white

Commercial Red

Titicaca

-1

-075

-05

-025

0

025

05

075

1

-1 -075 -05 -025 0 025 05 075 1

t2

t1

186

























187
























188


75a

66ab 61bc

54c

61bc

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

75 50 25 None Other



52b

64a 65a 69a 70a

57ab 59ab

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


2-3 timesper week

Once aweek

A fewtimes per

month

Aboutevery 6months

Other



189























190























191























192



and washing











v












vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv-v



CHAPTERS

1 Introduction 1

References 6


References 26

Tables 41

Figures44


Abstract 46

Introduction 48


Results 54

Discussion 60

vii

Conclusion 63

References 65

Tables 71

Figures78



Abstract 80

Introduction 81


Results 87

Discussion 95

Conclusion 102

References 103

Tables 109



Abstract 118

Introduction 120


Results 125

Discussion 123

viii

Conclusion 132

References 134

Tables 139

Figure 145


Abstract 146

Introduction 148



Conclusion 165

References 167

Tables 172

Figures183

7 Conclusions 189

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

CHAPTER 2


protein) 41



CHAPTER 3









CHAPTER 4






x




CHAPTER 5


seed 139






mineral content144

CHAPTER 6










xi




180









xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

CHAPTER 2



CHAPTER 3


flours 78


CHAPTER 5



CHAPTER 6







xiii








xiv

Dedication



1













Acro 2015)









2






















3






















4






















5




6

References












237-43



35




7
















P39 ndash 109




8






9


Introduction


















10




Quinoa varieties




Pinto 2015)






Adaptation








11









farmers













12






















13






















14






















15














content







16














Saponins







17























18






















19

















Health benefits





20






















21






















22





















23






















24


sensory scores




















25











26

References



2013-20



Food Chem 56(12) 4745-50





56(15) 6185-205









167-73

27




73






101









28



101-7














Intern Med 163(3) 286-92



29




Chem 49(3)1069-86



34






Food Chem 157 174-8



87 ndash 97




30









34







293-328




31



62(1) 185-93



71-7



22(2) 131-9






Google Patents






32













328-38





4) 89-99



33




















34




















471-5

35



225-30



2) 179-89



54(2) 165-76




13







36







FAO amp CIRAD p 67













37











Nutr 70(3) 238-49










38


132-8




Chem 162 54-62



Chem 166 380-8


Patents









39










65





p193 ndash 205






40



41



Histidine 258 18

Isoleucine 433 25

Leucine 736 55

Lysine 525 51



Threonine 439 27

Tryptophan 385 7

Valine 506 32


42



Thianmin (B1) 029-038 15


Niacin (B3) 106-152 20


Folate (B9) 0781 04



Β-Carotene 039 NR


43


Whole graina RDI b

K 8257 NR

Mg 4526 400

Ca 1213 1000

P 3595 1000

Fe 95 18

Mn 37 NR

Cu 07 2

Zn 08 15

Na 13 NR


44


45



46


Cooked Quinoa




ABSTRACT















47










purposes




processors

48

Introduction





















49







been studied















50























51























52







Cooking protocol






Cooking quality








cooking loss


53












below)

Flour viscosity










54


















Results





55























56












10







Cooking quality




57






volume
















58




190 RVU



















59









quinoa





texture parameter







60




Discussion






outside the seed

Seed composition









Cooking quality



61























62








Thermal properties














and fiber

63

Conclusions

















Acknowledgements





64




65

References





AACCI St Paul MN



Food Chem 564745-50


581-31









66







Chem 75(2)181-6












67


















68



54(8)350-7







36(3)285-94









27(3)69-71

69
















Sci Tech 47(2)202-6



75(1)37-42

70


Polym 57(2)145-52














71
















72



Hardness (kg)

Bulk Density (gmL)


Protein ()

Ash ()

Black 21bc 994b 0584d 37bc 143d 215hi

Blanca 22ab 608l 0672c 89a 135e 284ef




49ALC 19de 935c 0669c 26cd 127g 348bc

1ESP 19e 664h 0672c 10f 113i 248gh


Col6197 19e 583m 0657c 24de 118h 291ef


QQ63 19e 672g 0661c 45b 135f 401a

Yellow Commercial

21abc 622j 0663c 14ef 146c 198i


73



Adhesiveness (kgs)


Chewiness (kg)

Black 347a -004a 069ab 24a 24a





49ALC 209f -029c 054d 11ef 11ef

1ESP 245e -027bc 056d 14e 14e


Col6197 202f -023bc 053d 11ef 11ef


QQ63 297cd -020b 062c 19d 19d



74



Water uptake ()

Cooking Volume (mL)

Cooking Loss ()

Black 192a 297c 109c 065f





49ALC 136h 359ab 126b 043g

1ESP 153g 373ab 132ab 035h


Col6197 119i 397a 126b 176a


QQ63 177bc 244d 126b 067f



75



Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)


Setback (RVU)

Peak Time (min)

Black 102g 81e 21e 75g -6f 102e


Cahuil 116f 85e 31d 74g -11f 104de

Cherry Vanilla

66h 54g 12f 57h 2e 97fg

Oro de Valle

59h 50g 10f 56h 6e 93h

49ALC 107fg 71f 36c 132e 62b 97fg

1ESP 161cd 110c 51b 174c 64b 98fg


Col6197 155de 133b 22e 177bc 44cd 108bc

Japanese Strain

172bc 109c 62a 159d 50c 96gh

QQ63 144e 94d 51b 167cd 73a 97fg

Yellow Commercial

172bc 162a 11f 203a 41d 109b

Red Commercial

197a 168a 29d 106f -62g 115a


76










1ESP 544f 690f 785de 15abc


Col6197 605d 689f 785de 15abc


QQ63 630c 702e 784de 13bc



77




Bulk Density -055 -044ns -063 -060 -060


Protein 050 077 075 057 057

Cooking Time 077 062 074 076 076




Breakdown -048 -047ns -051 -053 -053


Setback -058 -064 -059 -060 -060

To 059 054 061 061 061


78



Time (min)

0 10 20 30 40

Vis

cosi

ty (R

VU

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pera

ture

(degC

)

50

100

150

200

79




4 3

2 1

P

C C

80



ABSTRACT

















81

Introduction






quinoa
















82




reported












Starch isolation







83









α-amylase activity













84


MO USA)





















85



Starch gel texture



















86




















equations



87







Results















Starch properties

88
















α-Amylase activity






Starch gel texture

89






















90







starches















97 RVU

91























92






















93













texture parameters)










94























95




Discussion












with lipids







96



snacks










pasting

Starch properties









97








170 to 282

α-Amylase activity






germination








98
















thermal properties







99























100



starch alone



















101


reported previously





















102





during extrusion

Conclusions








Acknowledgments








103

References


581-31
















104



Polym 83(1)291-6
















105







Chem 71(4)511-7





92(2)145-53








106




















107




















108







109


















110



(g 100 g)

Apparent amylose

()

Total

amylose ()

Degree of amylose

lipid complex ()




Cherry Vanilla

590de 105cd 116bc 164abc


49ALC 674c 27e 47d 426a



Col6197 725ab 102cd 140abc 433a

Japanese Strain


QQ63 713abc 84d 111c 241abc

Yellow Commercial

751a 147ab 150abc 118abc

Red Commercial

691bc 100cd 164a 375ab


111



Water solubility ()

Swelling power







49ALC 862a 07e 282a 031e

1ESP 716b 13de 276ab 003g


Col6197 552c 19cd 257cd 009g


QQ63 315de 26bc 262bc 008g

Yellow Commercial

349d 32b 188e 005g



112








49ALC 333bc 081bc 061cd



Col6197 534abc 083ab 083ab


QQ63 201c 078bc 053d




113









49ALC 524ef 598f 747bcd 101bc



Col6197 540cd 598f 697f 105abc


QQ63 545c 616de 766ab 99c



Corn starch 560 626 743 105

114



(RVU)a

Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)

Final viscosity

(RVU)

Setback

(RVU)

Peak time

(min)






49ALC 256cde 137f 119a 225d 88cde 64i

1ESP 269bcd 172ef 97ab 313bc 140a 79h





Yellow Commercial



Corn 255 131 124 283 152 73 aRVU = cP12

115




-032ns -048 -043ns -039ns -039ns


069 072 069 072 072


061 062 056 061 061


-065 -060 -070 -070 -070

Amylose leaching

-082 -075 -074 -082 -082

α-Amylase activity

018ns 055 051 032ns 032ns

Starch gel hardness

042ns 059 051 049 049

DSC

To 034ns 049 051 041ns 041ns

Tp 047 052 056 052 052

ΔH 064 072 069 070 070

RVA


Trough 044ns 077 063 055 055



Peak time 053 077 068 060 060


116


Total

starch content

Water solubility




Amylose leaching

α-Amylase activity

Protein -047ns 023ns 058 031ns -069 -062 066

Seed hardness

-073 -041ns -003ns -021ns -020ns 019ns 053

Bulk density

054 049 -020ns -015ns 031ns 019ns -072


-071 -041ns 027ns 021ns -028ns -038ns 055

Starch gel hardness

-045ns 017 ns 065 053 -044ns -064 046ns

Starch DSC

To -049 -004ns 041ns 043ns -033ns -049 061

Tp -050 010ns 047ns 045ns -042ns -058 052

Enthalpy -051 -011ns 059 055 -041ns -064 049

Starch viscosity

Peak viscosity

-066 -049 028ns 027ns -020ns -023ns 070

Trough -068 -017ns 056 057 -031ns -052 072

Breakdown

022ns -048 -061 -067 027ns 062 -025ns

Final viscosity

-060 -022ns 063 060 -037ns -046ns 061


117

Cooking quality


-043ns 019ns 056 040ns -067 -055 029ns


118





Abstract















119







120

Introduction





















121






















122























123

Genetic material







Experimental design













124


October 7th 2011

Seed quality tests








measures











125



means

Results

Protein
















126



















Hardness



127
















Seed density






128


presented later




















129















Discussion

Protein




130













study










131

Hardness



















Density

132






Correlations






Conclusions










133

Acknowledgement



data analysis








134

References












15ndash22







135





27 240ndash8







402ndash8






Biol 48 633ndash47

136




















137





326 213ndash24




170 906ndash14



143-4









138





Sons Inc p 193-205





109 270ndash8




139


Effect F-values


Model 524 360 245

Variety 2463 21059 2282








140








8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 144cd QQ065 141c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 142d


141



8 dS m-1 NaCl 83 CO407D 100a2



8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 87 QQ065 74c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 89


142






8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 066c QQ065 065c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 074a


143



High fertilization

Low fertilization

High fertilization

Low fertilization




144



Yield 004 035 006


Cu -052 -037 -035

Mg -050 004 0

Mn -006 057 025dagger

P -001 -056 -015

Zn -004 -029 -028dagger


145


146


of cooked quinoa

ABSTRACT



















147








148

Introduction





















149






quinoa
















150






Quinoa samples




Quinoa preparation










151






















152























153





















154






















155






analysis


Lexicon Development














156






















157























158























159


producing geosmin


















Consumer acceptance

160























161























162








the field















163








attributes














164

















Future Studies






165




different varieties

Conclusion












consumers





166



Acknowledgements













the manuscript

167

References


581ndash31






19-28






75






168



















169





















170





19 179-89




CIRAD p 67












171



16 79-89









172





















California Tricolor




173



Aroma


















TasteFlavor





174




Beans bean protein






Texturee

Soft - Firm 3

7




Separate - Cohesive

15

7




Pasty



Adhesiveness sticky

10

3






175

Tortilla Chips)b

Chewygummy

15

7




Astringent 12

6

Tannic acid (2gL)



Waterymoist 10

3




Color

Red 4 9

N-W8M Board Walke


Yellow 3 10


N Summer Harveste

Black 3 10



176



Aroma

Caramel 26548 093 317 174

Grain-like 7338 000 125 151

Bean-like 7525 029 129 135

Nutty 6274 011 322 118

Buttery 21346 003 301 104

Starchy 12094 1102 094 135


Earthy 12946 239 330 198

Woody 13178 039 269 131

TasteFlavor

Sweet 6745 430 220 137

Bitter 9368 1290 2059 236

Grain-like 7681 392 222 206

Bean-like 7039 122 142 141

Nutty 7209 007 169 153

Earthy 9313 131 330 177

Toasted 10975 015 373 184

Texture

Firm 1803 022 1587 141

Cohesive 14750 011 656 208

Pasty 3919 2620 1832 205


177

Crunchy 13649 001 1871 167

Chewy 3170 870 150dagger 167

Astringent 10183 544 791 252



178
























179




QQ74 61a 56c 53d 56c 53b 53c





180


Variety Hardness

(kg)

Adhesiveness

(kgs)


(kg)

Chewiness

(kg)










QQ74 312h -17e 04i 09abc 132g 119c









California Tricolor

572a -01a 08a 08bc 477a 361abc



181




182


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil Red Head

Cherry Vanilla

Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red


QQ74

Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20 NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Caramel Grain-like

Bean-like Nutty

Buttery Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

-25

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35 4

F2 (2

455

)

F1 (4234 )

183


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white

Bolivia red

California Tricolor

Sweet

Bitter Grain-like

Bean-like

Nutty

Earthy

Toasted

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

F2 (3

073

)

F1 (3391 )

184


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy Astringent

Moist

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

25

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

F2 (2

212

)

F1 (5959 )

185


Grainy aroma

Beany aroma

Nutty aroma

Buttery

Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

Sweet


Beany flavor


Toasty

Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy

Astringent

Waterymoist

Aroma


Texture Overall

Black

Bolivia red

QQ74

Bolivia white

Commercial Red

Titicaca

-1

-075

-05

-025

0

025

05

075

1

-1 -075 -05 -025 0 025 05 075 1

t2

t1

186

























187
























188


75a

66ab 61bc

54c

61bc

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

75 50 25 None Other



52b

64a 65a 69a 70a

57ab 59ab

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


2-3 timesper week

Once aweek

A fewtimes per

month

Aboutevery 6months

Other



189























190























191























192



and washing











vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv-v



CHAPTERS

1 Introduction 1

References 6


References 26

Tables 41

Figures44


Abstract 46

Introduction 48


Results 54

Discussion 60

vii

Conclusion 63

References 65

Tables 71

Figures78



Abstract 80

Introduction 81


Results 87

Discussion 95

Conclusion 102

References 103

Tables 109



Abstract 118

Introduction 120


Results 125

Discussion 123

viii

Conclusion 132

References 134

Tables 139

Figure 145


Abstract 146

Introduction 148



Conclusion 165

References 167

Tables 172

Figures183

7 Conclusions 189

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Page

CHAPTER 2


protein) 41



CHAPTER 3









CHAPTER 4






x




CHAPTER 5


seed 139






mineral content144

CHAPTER 6










xi




180









xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

CHAPTER 2



CHAPTER 3


flours 78


CHAPTER 5



CHAPTER 6







xiii








xiv

Dedication



1













Acro 2015)









2






















3






















4






















5




6

References












237-43



35




7
















P39 ndash 109




8






9


Introduction


















10




Quinoa varieties




Pinto 2015)






Adaptation








11









farmers













12






















13






















14






















15














content







16














Saponins







17























18






















19

















Health benefits





20






















21






















22





















23






















24


sensory scores




















25











26

References



2013-20



Food Chem 56(12) 4745-50





56(15) 6185-205









167-73

27




73






101









28



101-7














Intern Med 163(3) 286-92



29




Chem 49(3)1069-86



34






Food Chem 157 174-8



87 ndash 97




30









34







293-328




31



62(1) 185-93



71-7



22(2) 131-9






Google Patents






32













328-38





4) 89-99



33




















34




















471-5

35



225-30



2) 179-89



54(2) 165-76




13







36







FAO amp CIRAD p 67













37











Nutr 70(3) 238-49










38


132-8




Chem 162 54-62



Chem 166 380-8


Patents









39










65





p193 ndash 205






40



41



Histidine 258 18

Isoleucine 433 25

Leucine 736 55

Lysine 525 51



Threonine 439 27

Tryptophan 385 7

Valine 506 32


42



Thianmin (B1) 029-038 15


Niacin (B3) 106-152 20


Folate (B9) 0781 04



Β-Carotene 039 NR


43


Whole graina RDI b

K 8257 NR

Mg 4526 400

Ca 1213 1000

P 3595 1000

Fe 95 18

Mn 37 NR

Cu 07 2

Zn 08 15

Na 13 NR


44


45



46


Cooked Quinoa




ABSTRACT















47










purposes




processors

48

Introduction





















49







been studied















50























51























52







Cooking protocol






Cooking quality








cooking loss


53












below)

Flour viscosity










54


















Results





55























56












10







Cooking quality




57






volume
















58




190 RVU



















59









quinoa





texture parameter







60




Discussion






outside the seed

Seed composition









Cooking quality



61























62








Thermal properties














and fiber

63

Conclusions

















Acknowledgements





64




65

References





AACCI St Paul MN



Food Chem 564745-50


581-31









66







Chem 75(2)181-6












67


















68



54(8)350-7







36(3)285-94









27(3)69-71

69
















Sci Tech 47(2)202-6



75(1)37-42

70


Polym 57(2)145-52














71
















72



Hardness (kg)

Bulk Density (gmL)


Protein ()

Ash ()

Black 21bc 994b 0584d 37bc 143d 215hi

Blanca 22ab 608l 0672c 89a 135e 284ef




49ALC 19de 935c 0669c 26cd 127g 348bc

1ESP 19e 664h 0672c 10f 113i 248gh


Col6197 19e 583m 0657c 24de 118h 291ef


QQ63 19e 672g 0661c 45b 135f 401a

Yellow Commercial

21abc 622j 0663c 14ef 146c 198i


73



Adhesiveness (kgs)


Chewiness (kg)

Black 347a -004a 069ab 24a 24a





49ALC 209f -029c 054d 11ef 11ef

1ESP 245e -027bc 056d 14e 14e


Col6197 202f -023bc 053d 11ef 11ef


QQ63 297cd -020b 062c 19d 19d



74



Water uptake ()

Cooking Volume (mL)

Cooking Loss ()

Black 192a 297c 109c 065f





49ALC 136h 359ab 126b 043g

1ESP 153g 373ab 132ab 035h


Col6197 119i 397a 126b 176a


QQ63 177bc 244d 126b 067f



75



Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)


Setback (RVU)

Peak Time (min)

Black 102g 81e 21e 75g -6f 102e


Cahuil 116f 85e 31d 74g -11f 104de

Cherry Vanilla

66h 54g 12f 57h 2e 97fg

Oro de Valle

59h 50g 10f 56h 6e 93h

49ALC 107fg 71f 36c 132e 62b 97fg

1ESP 161cd 110c 51b 174c 64b 98fg


Col6197 155de 133b 22e 177bc 44cd 108bc

Japanese Strain

172bc 109c 62a 159d 50c 96gh

QQ63 144e 94d 51b 167cd 73a 97fg

Yellow Commercial

172bc 162a 11f 203a 41d 109b

Red Commercial

197a 168a 29d 106f -62g 115a


76










1ESP 544f 690f 785de 15abc


Col6197 605d 689f 785de 15abc


QQ63 630c 702e 784de 13bc



77




Bulk Density -055 -044ns -063 -060 -060


Protein 050 077 075 057 057

Cooking Time 077 062 074 076 076




Breakdown -048 -047ns -051 -053 -053


Setback -058 -064 -059 -060 -060

To 059 054 061 061 061


78



Time (min)

0 10 20 30 40

Vis

cosi

ty (R

VU

)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Tem

pera

ture

(degC

)

50

100

150

200

79




4 3

2 1

P

C C

80



ABSTRACT

















81

Introduction






quinoa
















82




reported












Starch isolation







83









α-amylase activity













84


MO USA)





















85



Starch gel texture



















86




















equations



87







Results















Starch properties

88
















α-Amylase activity






Starch gel texture

89






















90







starches















97 RVU

91























92






















93













texture parameters)










94























95




Discussion












with lipids







96



snacks










pasting

Starch properties









97








170 to 282

α-Amylase activity






germination








98
















thermal properties







99























100



starch alone



















101


reported previously





















102





during extrusion

Conclusions








Acknowledgments








103

References


581-31
















104



Polym 83(1)291-6
















105







Chem 71(4)511-7





92(2)145-53








106




















107




















108







109


















110



(g 100 g)

Apparent amylose

()

Total

amylose ()

Degree of amylose

lipid complex ()




Cherry Vanilla

590de 105cd 116bc 164abc


49ALC 674c 27e 47d 426a



Col6197 725ab 102cd 140abc 433a

Japanese Strain


QQ63 713abc 84d 111c 241abc

Yellow Commercial

751a 147ab 150abc 118abc

Red Commercial

691bc 100cd 164a 375ab


111



Water solubility ()

Swelling power







49ALC 862a 07e 282a 031e

1ESP 716b 13de 276ab 003g


Col6197 552c 19cd 257cd 009g


QQ63 315de 26bc 262bc 008g

Yellow Commercial

349d 32b 188e 005g



112








49ALC 333bc 081bc 061cd



Col6197 534abc 083ab 083ab


QQ63 201c 078bc 053d




113









49ALC 524ef 598f 747bcd 101bc



Col6197 540cd 598f 697f 105abc


QQ63 545c 616de 766ab 99c



Corn starch 560 626 743 105

114



(RVU)a

Trough

(RVU)

Breakdown

(RVU)

Final viscosity

(RVU)

Setback

(RVU)

Peak time

(min)






49ALC 256cde 137f 119a 225d 88cde 64i

1ESP 269bcd 172ef 97ab 313bc 140a 79h





Yellow Commercial



Corn 255 131 124 283 152 73 aRVU = cP12

115




-032ns -048 -043ns -039ns -039ns


069 072 069 072 072


061 062 056 061 061


-065 -060 -070 -070 -070

Amylose leaching

-082 -075 -074 -082 -082

α-Amylase activity

018ns 055 051 032ns 032ns

Starch gel hardness

042ns 059 051 049 049

DSC

To 034ns 049 051 041ns 041ns

Tp 047 052 056 052 052

ΔH 064 072 069 070 070

RVA


Trough 044ns 077 063 055 055



Peak time 053 077 068 060 060


116


Total

starch content

Water solubility




Amylose leaching

α-Amylase activity

Protein -047ns 023ns 058 031ns -069 -062 066

Seed hardness

-073 -041ns -003ns -021ns -020ns 019ns 053

Bulk density

054 049 -020ns -015ns 031ns 019ns -072


-071 -041ns 027ns 021ns -028ns -038ns 055

Starch gel hardness

-045ns 017 ns 065 053 -044ns -064 046ns

Starch DSC

To -049 -004ns 041ns 043ns -033ns -049 061

Tp -050 010ns 047ns 045ns -042ns -058 052

Enthalpy -051 -011ns 059 055 -041ns -064 049

Starch viscosity

Peak viscosity

-066 -049 028ns 027ns -020ns -023ns 070

Trough -068 -017ns 056 057 -031ns -052 072

Breakdown

022ns -048 -061 -067 027ns 062 -025ns

Final viscosity

-060 -022ns 063 060 -037ns -046ns 061


117

Cooking quality


-043ns 019ns 056 040ns -067 -055 029ns


118





Abstract















119







120

Introduction





















121






















122























123

Genetic material







Experimental design













124


October 7th 2011

Seed quality tests








measures











125



means

Results

Protein
















126



















Hardness



127
















Seed density






128


presented later




















129















Discussion

Protein




130













study










131

Hardness



















Density

132






Correlations






Conclusions










133

Acknowledgement



data analysis








134

References












15ndash22







135





27 240ndash8







402ndash8






Biol 48 633ndash47

136




















137





326 213ndash24




170 906ndash14



143-4









138





Sons Inc p 193-205





109 270ndash8




139


Effect F-values


Model 524 360 245

Variety 2463 21059 2282








140








8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 144cd QQ065 141c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 142d


141



8 dS m-1 NaCl 83 CO407D 100a2



8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 87 QQ065 74c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 89


142






8 dS m-1 Na2SO4 066c QQ065 065c

16 dS m-1 Na2SO4 074a


143



High fertilization

Low fertilization

High fertilization

Low fertilization




144



Yield 004 035 006


Cu -052 -037 -035

Mg -050 004 0

Mn -006 057 025dagger

P -001 -056 -015

Zn -004 -029 -028dagger


145


146


of cooked quinoa

ABSTRACT



















147








148

Introduction





















149






quinoa
















150






Quinoa samples




Quinoa preparation










151






















152























153





















154






















155






analysis


Lexicon Development














156






















157























158























159


producing geosmin


















Consumer acceptance

160























161























162








the field















163








attributes














164

















Future Studies






165




different varieties

Conclusion












consumers





166



Acknowledgements













the manuscript

167

References


581ndash31






19-28






75






168



















169





















170





19 179-89




CIRAD p 67












171



16 79-89









172





















California Tricolor




173



Aroma


















TasteFlavor





174




Beans bean protein






Texturee

Soft - Firm 3

7




Separate - Cohesive

15

7




Pasty



Adhesiveness sticky

10

3






175

Tortilla Chips)b

Chewygummy

15

7




Astringent 12

6

Tannic acid (2gL)



Waterymoist 10

3




Color

Red 4 9

N-W8M Board Walke


Yellow 3 10


N Summer Harveste

Black 3 10



176



Aroma

Caramel 26548 093 317 174

Grain-like 7338 000 125 151

Bean-like 7525 029 129 135

Nutty 6274 011 322 118

Buttery 21346 003 301 104

Starchy 12094 1102 094 135


Earthy 12946 239 330 198

Woody 13178 039 269 131

TasteFlavor

Sweet 6745 430 220 137

Bitter 9368 1290 2059 236

Grain-like 7681 392 222 206

Bean-like 7039 122 142 141

Nutty 7209 007 169 153

Earthy 9313 131 330 177

Toasted 10975 015 373 184

Texture

Firm 1803 022 1587 141

Cohesive 14750 011 656 208

Pasty 3919 2620 1832 205


177

Crunchy 13649 001 1871 167

Chewy 3170 870 150dagger 167

Astringent 10183 544 791 252



178
























179




QQ74 61a 56c 53d 56c 53b 53c





180


Variety Hardness

(kg)

Adhesiveness

(kgs)


(kg)

Chewiness

(kg)










QQ74 312h -17e 04i 09abc 132g 119c









California Tricolor

572a -01a 08a 08bc 477a 361abc



181




182


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil Red Head

Cherry Vanilla

Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red


QQ74

Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20 NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Caramel Grain-like

Bean-like Nutty

Buttery Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

-25

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35 4

F2 (2

455

)

F1 (4234 )

183


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white

Bolivia red

California Tricolor

Sweet

Bitter Grain-like

Bean-like

Nutty

Earthy

Toasted

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

F2 (3

073

)

F1 (3391 )

184


Titicaca

Black

KU2

Cahuil


Temuko

QuF9P39-51

Commercial Red

Peruvian white

Kaslaea

QQ74 Isluga

Linares

Puno

QuF9P1-20

NL-6

CO 407 Dave

Bolivia white


Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy Astringent

Moist

-2

-15

-1

-05

0

05

1

15

2

25

-3 -25 -2 -15 -1 -05 0 05 1 15 2 25 3 35

F2 (2

212

)

F1 (5959 )

185


Grainy aroma

Beany aroma

Nutty aroma

Buttery

Starchy

Grassy

Earthy

Woody

Sweet


Beany flavor


Toasty

Firm Cohesive

Pasty

Adhesive

Crunchy

Chewy

Astringent

Waterymoist

Aroma


Texture Overall

Black

Bolivia red

QQ74

Bolivia white

Commercial Red

Titicaca

-1

-075

-05

-025

0

025

05

075

1

-1 -075 -05 -025 0 025 05 075 1

t2

t1

186

























187
























188


75a

66ab 61bc

54c

61bc

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

75 50 25 None Other



52b

64a 65a 69a 70a

57ab 59ab

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


2-3 timesper week

Once aweek

A fewtimes per

month

Aboutevery 6months

Other



189























190























191























192



and washing











Date post:	14-Nov-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

By GEYANG WU A dissertation submitted in partial ...

Documents