Food and Humanity 2 (2024) 100246

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food and Humanity

journal homepage: www.editorialmanager.com/foohum/journal_overview.html

Effect of different processes on physicochemical, antinutritional and

textural properties of quinoa seeds and flour
Chandni Dularia a, *, 1, B. Sashikala Vadakkoot b, Shamim Hossain a
a
Dairy Technology Division, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana, India
b
Department of Grain Science and Technology, CSIR-Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysuru, Karnataka, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, different process treatments such as dry steaming, dry roasting, abrasion, washing with centrifu­
Quinoa gation, washing with steaming and germination were given to the quinoa seeds for the reduction of the bitter
Abrasion compounds. The physical, chemical, antinutritional, colour, hardness and microstructure of processed quinoa
Steaming
and compared with wheat. Quinoa seed showed smaller size but similar true density compared to wheat.
Roasting
Saponin
Abrasion process made the quinoa seed color lighter than other treatments thus making it most acceptable
Textural properties whereas washed and steamed quinoa seed showed hardness value nearest to wheat. The range of protein, fat and
ash content in quinoa flour was higher compared to wheat flour. Amylose content range in quinoa flour was
lower compared to wheat flour. Antinutrients such as saponin, phenolic and phytic acid were higher in quinoa
flour compared to wheat flour. Overall, the abrasion pre-processing gave the most desired attributes for further
processing compared to wheat.

1. Introduction useful in removing the bitter compounds (El Hazzam et al., 2022). Other
processes like steaming roasting and germination were also used to
Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) is a pseudo-cereal belongs to decrease antinutrients like saponins, phytates, polyphenols. Processing
Amaranthaceae family, Chenopodiaceae sub-family. It is an annual dicot (polishing and milling) and cooking (boiling and steaming) have notable
plant which have approximately 250 species worldwide (Sezgin & effects on quinoa’s nutritional content. Polishing reduces saponin but
Sanlier, 2019; Vega-Gálvez et al., 2010). The edible part of quinoa plant leads to substantial mineral and phenolic compound losses. While,
are the seeds. They are found in different variety of colours from white to milling results in the most significant degradation, including over 50%
black but generally they are mostly light yellow in colour (Repo-­ loss in minerals, 60% in protein, and complete loss of phenolic com­
Carrasco-Valencia & Serna, 2011). Quinoa belongs to the native of An­ pounds. Choosing polished quinoa and steaming over semolina and
dean Region, from Colombia to Argentina. Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador boiling, respectively, are recommended trade-offs for optimal nutri­
are the primary producers of quinoa. Recently, it was reported that tional benefits (Mhada et al., 2020). Nickel et al. (2016) studied different
quinoa is nowadays cultivated in South America, California, China, processing forms (washing, washing followed by hydration, cooking
Europe, Canada, India, Finland, and the UK (FAO, 2011; Li & Zhu, (with or without pressure), and toasting) had effect on phenolic com­
2017). Quinoa consists of antinutritional components such as saponins pounds, antioxidant capacity, and saponin content in quinoa. Cooking
which are the bitter tasting compounds located in the pericarp (seed under pressure resulted in the highest phenolic compounds, while
coat) (Suárez-Estrella et al., 2018). Saponins are the triterpenoid toasting caused the greatest loss; saponin levels remained unchanged
glucoside compounds which if ingested in large quantities are toxic to after cooking but increased after hydration, with cooking under pressure
human body (Soetan et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2020). Saponins are enhancing the functional properties of quinoa grains.
removed by washing of grains with running water or alkaline water but Wheat is an important cereal which is used widely in bakery sector
it causes pollution in rivers and lakes due to large amount of water use. and also in the Indian diet. Moreover, people nowadays are more health
Hence, abrasion process was adopted for preventing pollution and also conscious therefore for celiac disease people gluten free foods are

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chandnidularia@gmail.com (C. Dularia).
1
ORCID: 0000-0002-4193-4534

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foohum.2024.100246
Received 14 September 2023; Received in revised form 23 January 2024; Accepted 25 January 2024
Available online 28 January 2024
2949-8244/© 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
C. Dularia et al. Food and Humanity 2 (2024) 100246

recommended. As quinoa is gluten free in nature and also helps in Table 1

preventing the risk of diabetes so, consumers are more attracted towards Different types of processing of quinoa.
such products. As, quinoa is bitter tasting naturally so, pre-treatments Sample / Treatments Preparation process
like washing, steaming, roasting, germination, abrasion and combina­
Raw control (RC) • Raw quinoa seeds were cleaned and stored in dry place.
tion of two or more treatments are applied to decrease the bitterness and Dry steamed (DS) • Raw quinoa grains were steamed at atmospheric pressure
increase the acceptability by consumers. Apart from bitterness, the (open steam) for 15 min and spread as thin layer on wire
darker colour and higher hardness in comparison with wheat are the mesh.
causes of unacceptability of quinoa. So, in this research the main ob­ • They were kept in oven for overnight for drying.
Dry roasted (DR) Raw quinoa grains were roasted for 3 min in pan and then
jectives were to study the difference in physical, chemical parameters of cooled at room temperature.
quinoa seeds and wheat grain & flour and to study the effect of pro­ Abraded (A) • Raw quinoa grains were abraded at 1000 rpm for 2 min in
cessing (dry steaming, dry roasting, abrasion, germination or various abrasion machine.
combinations of methods like washing-centrifugation and washing- Washed centrifuged • Raw quinoa was washed and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for
(WC) 15 min
steaming) on colour, functional and structural attributes of quinoa
• The supernatant containing saponin is drained off, the
seeds, wheat grain and their flour samples. seeds blotted with filter paper to remove excess water.
The objective of this research is to develop quinoa-based products for • Then it was dried in hot air oven at 105◦ C for overnight
incorporation into Indian cuisine, specifically focusing on widely (approx. 16 h).
accepted items like roti/chapati. The study aims to investigate various Washed steamed Raw quinoa was washed well and the water is drained off.
(WS) Then steamed at atmospheric pressure for 15 min
processing methods not only to reduce saponin content in quinoa but Spread on filter paper to dry at room temperature and then
also to discern the effects of different processing parameters on the in hot air oven at 105 ◦ C for overnight (approx. 16 h).
quality of the final products. Various processing techniques, including Germinated (G) • Raw quinoa was soaked for 180 min. Then excess water
washing, dry steaming, dry roasting, abrasion, germination, and com­ was drained off and spread on trays layered with wet
filter sheet for 10-11 h for germination.
binations such as washing-centrifugation and washing-steaming, were
• After germination the seeds were dried in hot air oven for
employed to achieve this objective. The exploration of diverse processes at 105◦ C for 7-8 h.
is crucial for optimizing the integration of quinoa into traditional Indian Wheat (W) • Raw unprocessed wheat grain was cleaned
foods, considering factors such as taste, texture, and nutritional profile.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Quinoa seeds and wheat grains required for the study were procured
from a local market of Mysore, Karnataka. Care was taken to purchase
the grains from a single batch. They were cleaned and kept in a cool and
dry place prior to use.

2.2. Pre-treatment of quinoa and wheat

Quinoa seeds were cleaned, de-stoned mechanically using a de-

stoner to separate the seeds from husk, stalks, other grains based on
the particle size and weight. The clean quinoa seeds thus obtained were
taken for further processing like washing, soaking, steaming, roasting,
physical abrasion and germination.
Wheat seeds were cleaned, de-stoned mechanically using de-stoner Fig. 1. Quinoa seeds treated with different pre-processing techniques.
to separate the seeds from husk, stalks, other grains based on the par­
ticle size and weight. 2.4.2. Thickness
The thickness of the unprocessed quinoa seeds (control) and wheat
2.3. Processing of quinoa seed and preparation of flour grains were measured using a digital Vernier Calipers (Mitutoyo, Japan)
having a least count of 0.05 mm. 30 grains were randomly selected and
Processing of Quinoa Seeds: Different processes (Table 1) were their thicknesses were measured. The average three replicates of 30
tried on quinoa seeds for removal of saponins as well as to obtain grains each are calculated and reported.
properties similar to that of wheat. (Figure 1).
Flour preparation: Five hundred grams of the processed quinoa 2.4.3. Bulk density
grains and wheat seeds were powdered to obtain flour (− 60 B.S.S sieve) The bulk density is the ratio of the weight of sample to its total
using a laboratory mill (IKA), to be used for chemical analysis and volume. An empty measuring cylinder (100 ml) was taken and filled
product formulation. with samples of both seeds and flour of quinoa and wheat up to the
100 ml mark and tapped gently 20 times. The samples were weighed and
2.4. Physical characterization of seeds and flour the bulk density was expressed as g/100 ml.
Mass of sample
The physical properties of seeds/grains and flour assume importance Bulk density =
Volume of cylinder
in designing of storage structures, milling machineries etc.
2.4.4. True density
2.4.1. 1000 kernel weight The true density defined as the ratio of mass of the sample to its true
One thousand kernel weight of unprocessed quinoa seeds (control) volume, was determined using the toluene displacement method in
and wheat grain samples was determined as per the method described by order avoid absorption of water during experiment. Five milliliter of
Abdellatif (2018).

2
C. Dularia et al. Food and Humanity 2 (2024) 100246

toluene was placed in a 10 ml graduated cylinder and 3 g samples of r = amount of sample weighed (mg).
unprocessed quinoa seeds (control) and wheat grains were immersed in
toluene. The amount displaced toluene was recorded from the graduated 2.5.3. Antinutritional properties of flour
scale of the measuring cylinder. Saponin content: The total saponin content in quinoa seeds and wheat
grain flour samples were determined by Lozano et al. (2012).
Weight of seeds
True density = Polyphenol content: The total polyphenolic compounds present in the
Volume of displaced toluene
quinoa seeds and wheat grain flour samples were determined and
expressed as tannic acid as per the method of Alvarez-Jubete et al.
2.4.5. Angle of repose
(2010).
The angle made by a pile (cone) of sample with the horizontal is
Phytic acid content: The phytic acid content in quinoa seeds and
known as angle of repose. It is important in the filling of a flat storage
wheat grain flour samples were determined by the method of Maldo­
facility when seeds/grains are not piled at a uniform bed depth but
nado-Alvarado et al. (2023).
rather is peaked. A rectangular box of known dimensions made out of
transparent material was taken. The top of the box is open with a vertical
2.6. Functional properties of flour
wall having a sliding door. Samples of unprocessed quinoa seeds (con­
trol) and wheat grains were filled to the brim and care was taken to see
2.6.1. Water absorption index (WAI) and water solubility index (WSI)
that the top surface is flat and in line with the maximum dimensions of
The WAI and WSI also called functional properties in the floury
the box. Then the sliding door was removed quickly. Sample fall into the
samples, such being related by their behaviour and possible uses of such
container below the box and by noting down the dimensions of seeds/
materials. These properties were measured each at 30◦ C and 97◦ C in
grain heap against the box, the angle of the grain heap with the hori­
quinoa and wheat flour, using the method reported by AACC (2009).
zontal was calculated trigonometrically.
2.7. Textural properties of seeds
2.4.6. Hydration properties
Unprocessed quinoa seeds (control) were soaked in distilled water
The hardness of the samples of quinoa seeds and wheat grains is
for pre-determined intervals ranging from 15 min-2 h. At the end of the
another important grain property affecting the milling quality. The
soak period, the mixture of grains and water were passed through a
samples were brought to same moisture level and the hardness of the
sieve. The surface moisture of soaked sample was blotted off using filter
quinoa was tested using Universal Texture Measuring Instrument
paper and transferred to pre-weighed aluminium moisture cups. They
(LLOYD instruments, UK United Kingdom). The quinoa seed was kept
were weighed again to determine the water uptake and kept in hot air
between the plunger and plate, and it was compressed at a cross head
oven for 16 h at 105oC. Moisture cups were removed from oven and kept
speed of 30.0 mm/min with a load cell of 500 N for quinoa. The hard­
in desiccators and their weights noted down after they attained room
ness of the product was measured from the resultant graph and average
temperature. The soak water was collected in pre-weighed petri plates. It
value of 10 grains is reported.
was evaporated to dryness in a water bath and kept in hot air oven at
105oC for 2 h to remove residual moisture. The dishes were removed
2.8. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) morphological characteristics
from oven and kept in desiccators and weights noted down after they
attained room temperature. From the weight difference obtained,
The Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) enables the investigation
amount of dispersed solids leached out from quinoa, was calculated.
of specimen with a resolution down to the nanometre scale. The Scan­
ning Electron Microscopy (SEM - Model 435 VP, Leo Electron Micro­
2.4.7. Colour analysis
scopy Ltd., Cambridge, UK) was used to study the changes in
The values of seeds of quinoa and wheat grain surface colour were
microstructure of raw and processed quinoa seeds/flour along with
measured in terms of colour difference (ΔE), lightness (L*) and colour
wheat grain/flour. Samples were loaded on to an aluminium stub using
(+ a*: red, - a*: green, + b*: yellow, - b*: blue) using Hunter Lab Colour
double-sided adhesive tape and coated with gold / in sputter coater. An
Measuring system (Colour measuring Labscan XE system, USA Unites
acceleration potential of 20 kV was used for scanning the microphoto­
States of America).
graphs. The topographical features of the samples were viewed in
scanning electron microscope and selected regions of samples depicting
2.5. Chemical properties of flour morphological features were photographed. The images were analysed
using ImageJ 1.52a (Wayne Rasband, National Institutes of Health,
2.5.1. Proximate composition USA).
Proximal analysis of quinoa and wheat flour was carried out ac­
cording to the methods of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 2.9. Statistical analysis
(AOAC, 2002). Moisture, ash, and fat were assayed through number
methods: 934.01, 923.03, and 920.39 respectively. The Nitrogen con­ Statistical analysis was carried out by one-way ANOVA using IBM
tent was determined by method 984.13; the protein content was SPSS statistics 20, IBM for analyzing the difference between treatments.
calculated by N × 6.25 and the carbohydrate level was determined. Post-hoc analysis was carried out using Tukey`s HSD technique. Level of
significance was kept at 5%.
2.5.2. Amylose content
Total amylose of flour samples was determined as per the method 3. Result and discussion
described by Das et al. (2013). The amylose content of sample (%) was
calculated as follows: 3.1. Physical characterization of seeds and flour
R a 1
Amylose content(%dry basis) = × × × 100
A r 5 Physical properties of seeds help in the identification of the dissim­
ilarities between the different varieties of the same species as well as it
Where, also helps in the comparative study with other grains. Seed size and
R = reading of sample. 1000 kernel weight can vary from one crop to another, between varieties
A = reading of standard amylose solution. of same crop and even from year to year or from field to field of same
a = amount of standard amylose weighed (mg). variety. It was estimated that 1000 kernel weight (W1000), thickness,

3
C. Dularia et al. Food and Humanity 2 (2024) 100246

bulk density, true density and angle of repose were 1.94 g, 1.09 mm, determined by the water activity difference and the composition dif­
688.43 g/L, 1344.32 g/L and was 40.4◦ , respectively. For wheat, it was ference of the seed (Miano et al., 2017).
estimated to be 48.88 g, 2.77 mm, 890.53 g/L, 1369.28 g/L and 35.17◦ Water uptake significantly (P < 0.05) increased from 0–60 min of
respectively (Table 2). Wheat grain had significantly (P < 0.05) higher soaking as it was attributed to capillary action of the seed coat, pericarp
thickness and non-significantly (P > 0.05) true density than quinoa seed that helps in acceleration of the water uptake. Another factor that is
so, 1000 kernel weight was significantly (P < 0.05) higher than quinoa. responsible for the rapid initial water uptake could be due to the water
As the thickness and size (visually) of quinoa seed was significantly sorbed in the void spaces between hull and the kernel of grain (Miano
(P < 0.05) lower than wheat grain so, it entraps more occulated air in et al., 2017). After 60 min there was non-significant (P > 0.05) differ­
between seeds. As a result, the bulk density of quinoa seed was signifi­ ence during 75–90 min. The reason for such difference in water uptake
cantly (P < 0.05) lower than wheat grain. Frictional properties (angle of may be due to the decrease in water activity difference between outer
repose) of quinoa seed were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than wheat and internal structure of the seed (Miano et al., 2017). As the time
grain. Higher angle of repose is desirable for transportation of seed/ increased from 105–120 min, there was non-significant (P > 0.05) dif­
grain in conveyor belt, a greater number of seeds can be transported if ference observed. This may be due to the attainment of equilibrium
the seed has more friction with the belt material. Angle of repose varies stage through capillary action of water that showed no further increase
with the surface material like higher values of the angle of repose in the water uptake.
(21–25◦ ) were obtained on wood, and the angle of repose for galvanised Most of the water solubles component found in quinoa seeds are the
iron were 18–24◦ (Vilche et al., 2003). So, during analysis of angle of saponins and soluble protein. Saponins are the bitter tasting steroid or
repose, wood surface was used. triterpenoid compounds that are considered toxic in nature. Quinoa seed
Contreras-Jiménez et al. (2019) reported that the 1000 grains weight also contain saponin in the seed coat portion as well as bran layer which
(W1000), thickness, bulk density of quinoa grain was of about 4.13 could be reduced by washing and other processes. Lim et al. (2020)
± 0.03 g, 1.11 ± 0.01 mm, 790 ± 52 kg/m3, respectively. According to investigated and revealed that quinoa seeds exhibited a total saponin
Vilche et al. (2003), W1000 and bulk density, true density of quinoa seeds content of 1.26% (1.26 g 100 g− 1), a value lower than observed in other
from 2.5 ± 0.05 to 3.11 ± 0.05 g and 667 to 747 kg/m3, 928 to components of the quinoa plant, with the exception of quinoa leaves
1188 kg/m3, respectively. These variations could be due to the variety, (0.97 g 100 g− 1). Notably, quinoa root (QR) exhibited the highest total
size as well as the moisture content of the seeds. saponin content at 13.39 g 100 g− 1, followed by quinoa bran (QB),
quinoa stem (QS), quinoa seed pericarp (QP), and quinoa leaves (QL).
3.2. Hydration properties The water-soluble fractions are mainly present in perisperm portion
of quinoa seed. So, during soaking of seeds the water is absorbed by
Hydration properties plays an important role during processing of seeds and water-soluble components present in outer portion of seed
seeds/grains like soaking, germination, dehulling, extraction of princi­ (like perisperm) dispersed out in the water. In this study, the rate of
ple compounds as well as removal of antinutritional components (Miano dispersion of water-soluble component of seed to water had been studied
& Augusto, 2018). Hydration of grains helps in softening of grains with time (Figure 2 (B)). Primarily, within 15 mins most of the loosely
structure and reduction in the cooking time prior to cooking (Miano bound water-soluble components comes out of the seed perisperm. After
et al., 2018). Soaking is a water diffusive process in grains that takes initial movement of water-soluble components, the rate of diffusion
place at a very slow rate (Alvarez-Ramírez et al., 2019). The water up­ decreased. During, 30–45 min and 60–105 min there was no significant
take of the grains gives the knowledge about the biochemical activation (P > 0.05) change in water-soluble component. At time interval,
and also increase the breathing rate for embryo growth (Bewley & Black, 15–30 min, 45–60 min and 105–120 min the change was significant
2014). (P < 0.05). This decrease in rate of diffusion may be attributed to the
Hydration kinetics behaviour is reliant on the grain structure and decrease in capillary action and decrease in water-soluble component
composition. Generally, the first structure that comes in contact with content of seed with time.
water in cereal grains is the bran portion while in legume grains the seed
coat. From Figure 2 (A) it depicts that at initial stage from 0–15 min 3.3. Colour analysis of seed
there was significant (P < 0.05) increase in the moisture % due to more
permeability of water through bran. The bran portion of cereal grains is Hunter lab scale measurement gives three values namely L*, a* and
more permeable to water than inner seed structure so, the water crosses b*. L* scale gives the indication regarding light vs. dark where a low
through the bran and reaches to inner portion of the seed (Miano & number (0− 50) indicates dark and a high number (51− 100) indicates
Augusto, 2015). During the period of 15–105 min, the hydration rate light. a* scale gives red vs. green where a positive number indicates red
was slow as, the moisture uptake rate was controlled by the capillary and a negative number indicates green and lastly b* scale gives yellow
force created by the inner porous structure. The space between the tissue vs. blue where a positive number indicates yellow and a negative
in the seed makes the capillary (Miano et al., 2017). During the uptake number indicates blue.
time of more than 105 min the moisture % was almost constant From Table 3, RC was showing significantly (P < 0.05) lower L*
(P > 0.05), as the grain has absorbed maximum water by the internal value as compared to W due to the presence of bran layer and husk in
structure of grains and reached to its equilibrium moisture content. quinoa. Among the processed quinoa seeds, A showed significantly
Water uptake pathway and hydration kinetics behaviour is also (P < 0.05) higher L* value because abrasion leads to removal of bran,
husk layer and also the saponin content (Arya & Pegu, 2019). G showed
Table 2 significantly (P < 0.05) lower L* value compared to RC and A as it was
Physical properties of Quinoa and Wheat. soaked for 3 h that leads to decrease in soluble saponin content as well as
Parameters Quinoa Wheat after germination husk is also loosen. After germination the quinoa seeds
were exposed to drying condition at 105◦ C for 8 h, this drying of seeds at
1000 Kernel weight (g) 1.94 ± 0.36b 48.88 ± 0.70a
Thickness (mm) 1.09 ± 0.09b 2.77 ± 0.26a
such high temperature causes protein denaturation, changes in solubil­
Bulk density (g/L) 688.43 ± 24.80b 890.53 ± 30.13a ity, and reaction of released amino acids with sugars to form melanoi­
True density (g/L) 1344.32 ± 34.24a 1369.28 ± 66.37a dins by way of Maillard reaction gives darker colour. L* value of WC was
Angle of repose (◦ degree) 40.4 ± 0.17a 35.17 ± 0.29b found significantly (P < 0.05) lower compared to G as WC was not
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. a-b show significanct dif­ soaked, it was washed and then centrifuged. And lastly it was also
ference (P < 0.05). n = 3 for 1000 kernel weight, bulk density, true density and subjected to drying conditions that leads to the development of mela­
angle of repose; n = 30 for thickness. noidins via Maillard reaction, hence it developed darker colour. L* value

4
C. Dularia et al. Food and Humanity 2 (2024) 100246

Fig. 2. (A) Hydration curve and water uptake pathways of quinoa seed; moisture content (%); water uptake (g); a-f different superscripts show significant difference
(P < 0.05) with time. n = 3. (B) Rate of dispersion of water-soluble components of quinoa seed. a-d different superscripts show significant difference (P < 0.05) with
time. n = 3.

Table 3
Proximal and colour analysis of raw and processed quinoa flour and raw wheat flour.
Sample Moisture (%) Ash (%) Fat (%) Protein (%) Carbohydrate (%) L* a* b*
cd ab ab a cd b de
RC 8.95 ± 0.03 2.98 ± 0.00 5.77 ± 0.54 17.96 ± 0.25 64.31 ± 0.50 56.76 ± 0.07 6.25 ± 0.02 27.43 ± 0.14c
DS 8.28 ± 0.17de 3.22 ± 0.46a 8.60 ± 1.48a 16.92 ± 0.13cd 62.96 ± 1.53cd 52.80 ± 0.02g 7.14 ± 0.01ab 28.68 ± 0.02ab
DR 8.31 ± 0.31de 2.75 ± 0.46ab 7.08 ± 1.01ab 16.43 ± 0.13de 65.40 ± 1.59bc 54.82 ± 0.11e 7.05 ± 0.03bc 29.13 ± 0.04a
A 11.52 ± 0.06a 2.11 ± 0.28bcd 6.69 ± 1.26ab 17.53 ± 0.12ab 62.13 ± 0.97d 58.33 ± 0.11a 5.29 ± 0.01f 23.53 ± 0.04d
WC 9.67 ± 0.30bc 1.57 ± 0.47cd 7.30 ± 0.37ab 16.49 ± 0.12de 64.94 ± 0.04cd 55.32 ± 0.13d 6.59 ± 0.03cd 27.39 ± 0.10c
WS 7.67 ± 0.41e 2.41 ± 0.11abc 4.55 ± 1.79b 17.16 ± 0.26bc 68.18 ± 1.45b 54.26 ± 0.43f 5.77 ± 0.05e 19.42 ± 0.29e
G 11.64 ± 0.17a 1.97 ± 0.54bcd 6.41 ± 0.52ab 16.15 ± 0.25e 63.82 ± 0.35cd 56.23 ± 0.10c 6.73 ± 0.01bcd 28.18 ± 0.01b
W 10.31 ± 0.42b 1.15 ± 0.27d 4.12 ± 1.59b 12.39 ± 0.25f 72.02 ± 0.71a 57.96 ± 0.04a 7.60 ± 0.51a 19.85 ± 0.36e

Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, a-g show significant difference (P < 0.05) among samples. n = 3

of DR was also found significantly (P < 0.05) lower but was significantly with each other while A, WC and WS the DS showed very close value of
(P < 0.05) higher than WS as the drying time exposure of DR was a* compared to wheat and was significantly (P < 0.05) highest among
minimum as compared to WS. The L* value was found significantly all the other processed quinoa seeds i.e., DR, G, WC, RC, WS, A. Simi­
(P < 0.05) least of DS because during this process they were not sub­ larly, b* value also showed all the positive values that indicates yel­
jected to washing and direct steaming was done followed by drying that lowness in all the processed quinoa seeds. a* value was found
leads to melanoidin development hence the colour is darker compared to significantly (P < 0.05) highest in DR followed by DS, G, RC, A, WS.
WS which was first washed and steamed followed by drying that Compared to W the closest value of b* was of WS, G, WC, DR, WS, DS.
enhanced the removal of soluble saponin content (Vega-Gálvez et al.,
2010).
Quinoa seed redness depends on the betacyanin pigment that is 3.4. Chemical properties of flour
mainly present in the upper layer of quinoa seed. W was having signif­
icantly (P < 0.05) high a* value as compared with RC because of the 3.4.1. Proximal analysis
presence of anthocyanin pigment that is responsible for red colour in The proximate analysis of the raw and processed quinoa and wheat
wheat. DS, DR and G were showing non-significant (P < 0.05) value flour were determined, and the obtained results are shown in Table 3.
The data indicated that control RC flour was having significantly

5
C. Dularia et al. Food and Humanity 2 (2024) 100246

(P < 0.05) high protein, fat and ash content while low carbohydrates also showed non-significant (P < 0.05) value with each other. Sample G
and moisture content compared to the wheat flour. The results of present showed significantly (P < 0.05) least amylose content among processed
study showed that protein, fat, ash, carbohydrate and moisture content quinoa flour sample. It was reported by Steffolani et al. (2013) and
of raw quinoa flour was 17.96%, 5.77, 2.98%, 64.31% and 8.95%, Lindeboom et al. (2005) that the amylose fraction in quinoa is lower (i.
respectively. While compared to wheat flour the protein, fat, ash, car­ e., ranges from 3–20%) than that of wheat that contain between
bohydrate and moisture content was 12.39%, 4.12, 1.15%, 74.02% and 21–27.6% (Lee & Won, 2000; Sestili et al., 2010).
10.31%, respectively. It was reported that most of the pseudo cereals
such as amaranth and quinoa have high amount of protein, fat and ash 3.4.3. Saponin content
compared with wheat (Omary et al., 2012). Abdellatif (2018) reported Saponin are the bitter, antinutrient components that are present in
the composition of quinoa flour that comprised of protein (14.73%), outside covering that is pericarp of quinoa seeds. High saponin content
ether extract (6.51), ash (2.83%) and carbohydrate (60.28%). in quinoa seeds leads to high foaming in water (Jancurová et al., 2009).
Among processed quinoa flour, A and G sample were showing non- They are present at levels of 0.1–5% (Valencia-Chamorro, 2016). They
significant (P < 0.05) value with each other and highest moisture con­ are called as antinutrient compounds as they form insoluble complexes
tent compared to other samples. Abrasion in sample A leads to removal with the minerals like iron and zinc because of which they are not
of bran, husk layer and also the saponin content that makes the seeds to absorbed by the body. Saponin content is given in Table 4 that shows
absorb more surrounding moisture from environment before milling that control sample RC of quinoa have significantly (P < 0.05) high
(Arya & Pegu, 2019). While during germination process in sample G, the saponin content compared to sample W i.e., wheat flour. The control
husk gets loosen due to which the moisture is incorporated inside the sample of quinoa flour was not given any treatment hence, it was having
seed before milling. Similarly, DS and DR were also showing highest saponin content.
non-significant (P < 0.05) value with each other. While WS was In processed quinoa flour sample, DR and G sample showed non-
showing significantly (P < 0.05) least value of moisture content significant (P < 0.05) value with the control RC sample. While DS and
compared to other processed quinoa flour samples. WC also showed non-significant (P < 0.05) value with each other.
Processed quinoa flour displayed that, DS was having significantly Roasting and germination processes doesn’t contribute much in
(P < 0.05) highest ash, fat and protein content compared to other pro­ reducing the saponin content compared to steaming, abrasion and
cessed quinoa flour samples and with control RC sample. In sample DR, washing treatment. Sample WS showed significantly (P < 0.05) least
A, WS and G had non-significant (P < 0.05) values of ash content with saponin content among processed quinoa flour sample which was very
each other while, WC was having least ash content compared to other near to the value of wheat flour. Washing and steaming are the pre­
samples. Fat content showed that in sample DR, A, WC and G was having conditioning or desaponification treatments given to quinoa seed before
non-significant (P < 0.05) values but least fat content value in WS milling that lowers its amount by removing through solubilizing the
sample which was non-significant (P < 0.05) with the wheat flour. saponins present in the pericarp layer.
Protein content in sample DR and WC was non-significant (P < 0.05)
with each other. Similarly, A and WS also showed non-significant 3.4.4. Polyphenol content
(P < 0.05) values of protein content with each other. Sample G was Polyphenols are widely present in the foods of plant origin that oc­
having significantly (P < 0.05) least value of protein content compared curs as bioactive secondary plant metabolites. Flavonoids, phenolic
to other samples. WS sample was having significantly (P < 0.05) highest acids and tannins are the three main types of polyphenols that act as
carbohydrate content. DS, WC and G sample was showing non- powerful antioxidants in vitro. These components have many potential
significant (P < 0.05) value with each other and also with sample RC. beneficial health effects such as anti-aging, anti-carcinogenic, apoptotic,
While sample A was having lowest carbohydrate content, compared to antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activities, improvement of endo­
other samples. thelial function and cardiovascular protection. They also contribute in
the inhibition of angiogenesis and cell proliferation (Han et al., 2007).
3.4.2. Amylose content Tannins present in the quinoa can interact to form complex with
Amylose content helps in determining the degree of translucency of dietary proteins and digestive enzymes (Ahamed et al., 1998). Tannins
the endosperm that depicts the term ‘waxy’. It also helps in giving in­ constitute 0.051% of quinoa seeds on dry matter basis (Gorinstein et al.,
formation about the effect of amylose content on the cooking, eating 2008). During the desaponification process such as abrasion, dehulling
qualities of grains and starch properties. Amylose content is displayed in and washing (Ahamed et al., 1998). Table 4 displays the phenolic con­
Table 4 that shows that control sample RC of quinoa have significantly tent (mg/g of tannic acid) of samples. all the samples were
(P < 0.05) low amylose content compared to sample W i.e., wheat flour. non-significant (P < 0.05) with each other. On comparison of raw RC
In processed quinoa flour sample, A sample showed non-significant quinoa flour with wheat (W) sample that showed significantly
(P < 0.05) value with the control RC sample. While DS, DR and WC (P < 0.05) high phenolic content. Among processed quinoa flour, DS
sample was significantly (P < 0.05) highest in phenolic content value
while WC showed significantly (p < 0.05) least and very close value
Table 4 with W.
Amylose, saponin, phenolic and phytic content of raw and processed quinoa
flour and raw wheat flour. 3.4.5. Phytic content
Sample Amylose Saponin Phenolic Phytic acid (mg/ Phytic acid is present in outer pericarp layer as well as some amount
content (%) content (g/ content (mg/ g of tannic acid) is present in endosperm part of quinoa seed (Vega-Gálvez et al., 2010).
100 g) g) In quinoa the phytic acid concentration ranges between 1.05–1.35%
RC 5.28 ± 0.03b 5.07 ± 0.04a 0.51 ± 0.00a 1.51 ± 0.00a (Kozioł, 1992). Phytates are the antinutrients that are capable of forming
DS 4.95 ± 0.03c 4.05 ± 0.07c 0.34 ± 0.00b 1.28 ± 0.00g complexes with calcium, zinc, iron and magnesium (Ahamed et al.,
DR 4.89 ± 0.03c 4.98 ± 0.01a 0.27 ± 0.00d 1.15 ± 0.00h 1998). In the present study it can be depicted from the results in Table 4
A 5.19 ± 0.05b 4.69 ± 0.00b 0.27 ± 0.00e 1.33 ± 0.00e
WC 4.98 ± 0.06c 4.11 ± 0.03c 0.19 ± 0.00g 1.43 ± 0.00b
that all the samples were non-significant (P < 0.05) with each other and
WS 5.22 ± 0.06b 2.90 ± 0.01d 0.22 ± 0.00f 1.41 ± 0.00c were in the range as reported with previous studies. Comparatively,
G 4.65 ± 0.03d 5.02 ± 0.00a 0.29 ± 0.00c 1.30 ± 0.00f phytic acid content was significantly (P < 0.05) high in control RC
W 7.91 ± 0.03a 2.01 ± 0.00e 0.14 ± 0.00h 1.38 ± 0.00d quinoa flour sample compared to the W. Among processed quinoa flour,
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. a-h
show significant differ­ WC sample was significantly (P < 0.05) highest in phytic content value
ence (P < 0.05) among samples. n = 3 while DR showed significantly (p < 0.05) least and even lesser than

6
C. Dularia et al. Food and Humanity 2 (2024) 100246

sample W. DR showed that small cracks were developed during dry roasting process
and the surface became coarser. G (Figure 3(h)) showed that during
3.5. Textural properties of seed germination the embryo unwinds and the radicle of average length of
1651.14 µm was developed by breaking the endosperm layer while the
The hardness value of grains is an important property of grains, average diameter was 1978.64 µm. DS (Figure 3(i)) showed that the
especially for milling industry. It was observed that the hardness of outer layer was rough with cracks and after steaming the starch granules
quinoa seeds ranged from 259 to 420 N (Table 5). RC was having could be seen as well as an air chamber of an average diameter of
significantly (P < 0.05) high hardness value compared to W because of 348.03 µm. A (Figure 3(j)) was subjected to abrasion that led to removal
lower moisture content in RC. Among processed quinoa seeds the of upper perisperm layer, with husk and some amount of seed coat. Air
hardness was significantly (P < 0.05) highest for DR because dry chamber of oval shape with an average diameter of 379.87 µm can be
roasting resulted into removal of moisture from the seed. The hardness observed.
of DS, WC, A and G were non-significantly (P > 0.05) different from The surface of raw quinoa flour (RC) in Figure 3(k)) shows large
each other. DS was steamed and then dried so the moisture content was aggregation that are formed by the grouping of clusters of finer particles
lesser than WC. A and G had similar hardness, but the reason is different. containing irregular polygon-shaped starch structure. While in Figure 3
In the case of A, the bran and husk portion were removed while in the (l)) wheat (W) flour sample shows that the starch granules are damaged
case of G, the seeds were intact with bran and husk as well as they were due to excessive crushing that led to finer particle size. Crushed starch
soaked and then germinated. Hence, they contain more moisture granules are agglomerated with each other.
resulting in softness of seed. WS showed least value of hardness because
it had undergone washing as well as steaming that caused an increase in 4. Conclusion
moisture content which tends to softening of seed. Wu (2016) calculated
that the hardness of cooked quinoa seeds of different varieties was in the This study compared the physical properties of quinoa seeds with
range of 20.2–34.7 kg (198.09–340.29 N). wheat grains, highlighting the smaller size and reduced thickness of
quinoa seeds. Bulk density and 1000 kernel weight of quinoa were lower
than wheat due to increased air entrapment between seeds. Quinoa
3.6. SEM Analysis of seeds and flour
exhibited desirable frictional properties for grain conveying, with a
higher angle of repose. The hydration kinetics of quinoa seeds indicated
Scanning electron micrograph showed wide variation in the micro­
an increase in moisture content, water uptake, and water-solubles over
structure of different raw and processed quinoa seed along with flour.
time until reaching equilibrium. Various processing methods, including
Images were analysed using ImageJ software. Figure 3(a) showed the
dry steaming, dry roasting, abrasion, germination, and combinations
whole quinoa seed structure which was spherical with diameter of
like washing-centrifugation and washing-steaming, were applied,
1891.66 µm (X = 1907.143 µm, Y=1876.190 µm) having rough surface.
revealing that the abrasion process resulted in a darker seed colour,
The surface of quinoa seed could be deeply studied in Figure 3(b) and
comparable to wheat. The abraded quinoa had lower a* and b* values,
(c). In Figure 3(b) it could be observed that the surface of quinoa seed
indicating less redness and yellowness in seed colour, making it visually
having pericarp layer which was not smooth on the surface and they had
acceptable. Seed hardness, crucial for milling and bakery processes, was
polygonal shaped cells with diameter of 50.09 µm which were arranged
lowest in washed and steamed quinoa, making it more acceptable due to
together to form a layer. Similarly, in Figure 3(c) the pericarp layer
increased moisture post-steaming. Quinoa flour exhibited higher pro­
consists of dense, compact layer of an average thickness of 20.92 µm.
tein, fat, and ash content but lower amylose compared to wheat flour.
Wheat structure was comparatively studied with quinoa seed in Figure 3
Antinutrients (saponin, phenolic, and phytic acid) were higher in quinoa
(d) and (e). Figure 3(d) showed the cross-sectional part of wheat
flour but decreased after treatment. Microstructure analysis revealed
showing oval shaped with diameter of 3678.057 µm horizontally and
smaller, non-smooth quinoa seeds with a dense pericarp layer compared
2095.852 µm vertically, which depicts that the size of wheat was larger
to wheat. Raw quinoa flour had large aggregations, while wheat flour
compared to quinoa. The outer surface of wheat was smoother compared
showed damaged starch granules. Abrasion removed the upper peri­
to quinoa and the shape was not spherical but oval with a crease in the
sperm layer, resulting in a smoother seed surface, resembling wheat. The
middle was observed. In Figure 3(e), the pericarp layer of wheat was
study concludes that the abrasion process is more acceptable, providing
shown which are arranged by different layers of average thickness
comparable properties to wheat grain. This information is vital for
6.81 µm and collectively with an average thickness of 60.98 µm.
optimizing quinoa processing and integration into various food
WC (Figure 3(f)) showed that the surface was disrupted after
applications.
washing and centrifugation treatment. It may be due to removal of the
compounds from the surface as well as the impact forces taking place on
the surface during the centrifugation process. DR (Figure 3(g)) was Funding
subjected to high heat treatment in dry conditions. The micrograph of
No funding.
Table 5
Hardness of differently processed quinoa seeds and CRediT authorship contribution statement
wheat.
Dularia Chandni: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Sample Hardness (N)
Visualization, Writing – original draft. Hossain Shamim: Software,
RC 285.80 ± 118.81ab Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
DS 312.72 ± 179.85ab
DR 416.53 ± 155.78a
editing. Vadakkoot B. Sashikala: Conceptualization, Funding acquisi­
A 274.60 ± 114.83ab tion, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation.
WC 307.38 ± 197.62ab
WS 259.94 ± 100.73b
G 265.43 ± 103.66ab Declaration of Competing Interest
W 178.62 ± 32.71b

Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. ab The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
show significant difference (P < 0.05) among samples. interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
n = 7. the work reported in this paper.

7
C. Dularia et al. Food and Humanity 2 (2024) 100246

Fig. 3. SEM image of (a) RC seed at 100X; (b) RC pericarp layer at 1000X; (c) RC outer layer at 2000X; (d) Cross-section of W at 75X; (e) Pericarp layer of W at
1000X; (f) WC at 150X; (g) DR at 500X; (h) G at 100X; (i) DS at 500X; (j) A at 150X; k) Raw Quinoa Flour at 2000X; l) Wheat Flour at 1000X.

Data Availability Bewley, J. D., & Black, M. (2014). Physiology and biochemistry of seeds in relation to
germination: 1 development, germination, and growth. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New
York: Springer,.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Contreras-Jiménez, B., Torres-Vargas, O. L., & Rodríguez-García, M. E. (2019).
corresponding author, [Dularia, C.] upon reasonable request. Physicochemical characterization of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) flour and isolated
starch. Food Chemistry, Article 124982.
Das, D. K., Dutta, H., & Mahanta, C. L. (2013). Development of a rice starch-based
Acknowledgement coating with antioxidant and microbe-barrier properties and study of its effect on
tomatoes stored at room temperature. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 50(1),
The authors thank Director, CSIR-CFTRI for the funding of the 272–278.
El Hazzam, K., Mhada, M., Metougui, M. L., El Kacimi, K., Sobeh, M., Taourirte, M., &
project. Also, I would like to thank all staff, research fellows in the Yasri, A. (2022). Box–Behnken Design: Wet Process Optimization for saponins
Department of Grain Science and Technology, CSIR-CFTRI for their help. removal from Chenopodium quinoa seeds and the study of its effect on nutritional
My heartfelt gratitude to Sri. Anbalagan K., Sri. Harish Raj V. and Sri. properties. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9, Article 906592.
FAO, Food and Agricultural Organization (2011). FAOSTAT. 〈http://www.fao.
Lokesha C., staff members of Central Instrument Facilities and Services org/faostat/en/#search/quinoa〉.
(CIFS) for providing instrument facilities during my work. Gorinstein, S., Lojek, A., Číž, M., Pawelzik, E., Delgado-Licon, E., Medina, O. J.,
Salas, I. S., & Goshev, I. (2008). Comparison of composition and antioxidant capacity
of some cereals and pseudocereals. International Journal of Food Science & Technology,
Discloser statement 43(4), 629–637.
Han, X., Shen, T., & Lou, H. (2007). Dietary polyphenols and their biological significance.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 8(9), 950–988.
Jancurová, M., Minarovičová, L., & Dandar, A. (2009). Quinoa–a rewiev. Czech Journal of
Food Sciences, 27(2), 71–79.
References Kozioł, M. J. (1992). Chemical composition and nutritional evaluation of quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 5(1), 35–68.
AACC (2009). Approved Methods of Analysis (11th ed.) Method 56–20. Hydration Lee, D.R. S., & Won, J. (2000). Cereal carbohydrates. Handbook of Cereal Science and
Capacity of Pregelatinized Cereal Products. St. Paul, MN, U.S.A: AACC International Technology, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, 385–416.
Press. Li, G., & Zhu, F. (2017). Amylopectin molecular structure in relation to physicochemical
Abdellatif, A. S. A. (2018). Chemical and technological evaluation of quinoa properties of quinoa starch. Carbohydrate Polymers, 164, 396–402.
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) cultivated in Egypt. Acta Scientific Nutritional Health, 2 Lim, J. G., Park, H. M., & Yoon, K. S. (2020). Analysis of saponin composition and
(7), 42–53. comparison of the antioxidant activity of various parts of the quinoa plant
Ahamed, N. T., Singhal, R. S., Kulkarni, P. R., & Pal, M. (1998). A lesser-known grain, (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Science & Nutrition, 8(1), 694–702.
Chenopodium quinoa: Review of the chemical composition of its edible parts. Food Lindeboom, N., Chang, P. R., Falk, K. C., & Tyler, R. T. (2005). Characteristics of starch
and Nutrition Bulletin, 19(1), 61–70. from eight quinoa lines. Cereal Chemistry, 82(2), 216–222.
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Wijngaard, H., Arendt, E. K., & Gallagher, E. (2010). Polyphenol Lozano, M., Tícona, E., Carrasco, C., Flores, Y., & Almanza, G. R. (2012). Cuantificación
composition and in vitro antioxidant activity of amaranth, quinoa buckwheat and de saponinas en residuos de quinua real Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Revista
wheat as affected by sprouting and baking. Food Chemistry, 119(2), 770–778. Boliviana Délelő tt Química, 29(2), 131–138.
Alvarez-Ramírez, J., Vernon-Carter, E. J., Carrillo-Navas, H., & Meraz, M. (2019). Impact Maldonado-Alvarado, P., Pavón-Vargas, D. J., Abarca-Robles, J., Valencia-Chamorro, S.,
of soaking time at room temperature on the physicochemical properties of maize and & Haros, C. M. (2023). Effect of germination on the nutritional properties, phytic
potato starch granules. Starch-Stärke, 71(3-4), 1800126. acid content, and phytase activity of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). Foods, 12
Arya, S.S., & Pegu, K. (2019). Quinoa. In Whole Grains (pp. 151–172). CRC Press. (2), 389.
AOAC. (2002). In W. Horwitz (Ed.), Official methods of analysis (17th ed.). Washington, D. Mhada, M., Metougui, M. L., El Hazzam, K., El Kacimi, K., & Yasri, A. (2020). Variations
C., USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. of saponins, minerals and total phenolic compounds due to processing and cooking
of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) seeds. Foods, 9(5), 660.

8
C. Dularia et al. Food and Humanity 2 (2024) 100246

Miano, A. C., & Augusto, P. E. D. (2015). From the sigmoidal to the downward concave Sezgin, A. C., & Sanlier, N. (2019). A new generation plant for the conventional cuisine:
shape behavior during the hydration of grains: Effect of the initial moisture content Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Trends in Food Science &. Technology, 86,
on Adzuki beans (Vigna angularis). Food and Bioproducts Processing, 96, 43–51. 51–58.
Miano, A. C., & Augusto, P. E. D. (2018). The hydration of grains: A critical review from Soetan, K. O., Ajibade, T. O., & Akinrinde, A. S. (2014). Saponins; a ubiquitous
description of phenomena to process improvements. Comprehensive Reviews in Food phytochemical: a review of its biochemical, physiological and pharmacological
Science and Food Safety, 17(2), 352–370. effects. Recent Progress in Medicinal. Plants, 43, 1–24.
Miano, A. C., Ibarz, A., & Augusto, P. E. D. (2017). Ultrasound technology enhances the Steffolani, M. E., León, A. E., & Pérez, G. T. (2013). Study of the physicochemical and
hydration of corn kernels without affecting their starch properties. Journal of Food functional characterization of quinoa and kañiwa starches. Starch-Stärke, 65(11-12),
Engineering, 197, 34–43. 976–983.
Nguyen, L. T., Farcas, A. C., Socaci, S. A., Tofana, M., Diaconeasa, Z. M., Pop, O. L., & Suárez-Estrella, D., Torri, L., Pagani, M. A., & Marti, A. (2018). Quinoa bitterness: Causes
Salanta, L. C. (2020). An overview of Saponins–a bioactive group. Bulletin. UASVM and solutions for improving product acceptability. Journal of the Science of Food and
Food Science and Technology, 77(1), 25–36. Agriculture, 98(11), 4033–4041.
Nickel, J., Spanier, L. P., Botelho, F. T., Gularte, M. A., & Helbig, E. (2016). Effect of Valencia-Chamorro, S.A. (2016). Quinoa: overview. Encyclopedia of Food Grains,
different types of processing on the total phenolic compound content, antioxidant Elsevier. 341–348.
capacity, and saponin content of Chenopodium quinoa Willd grains. Food Chemistry, Vega-Gálvez, A., Miranda, M., Vergara, J., Uribe, E., Puente, L., & Martínez, E. A. (2010).
209, 139–143. Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), an
Omary, M. B., Fong, C., Rothschild, J., & Finney, P. (2012). Effects of germination on the ancient andean grain: A review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 90(15),
nutritional profile of gluten-free cereals and pseudocereals: a review. Cereal 2541–2547.
Chemistry, 89(1), 1–14. Vilche, C., Gely, M., & Santalla, E. (2003). Physical properties of quinoa seeds. Biosystems
Repo-Carrasco-Valencia, R. A. M., & Serna, L. A. (2011). Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa, Engineering, 86(1), 59–65.
Willd.) as a source of dietary fiber and other functional components. Food Science and Wu, G. (2016). Quinoa Seed Quality and Sensory Evaluation (Ph.D. dissertation). School of
Technology, 31(1), 225–230. food science. Washington, USA: Washington State University.
Sestili, F., Janni, M., Doherty, A., Botticella, E., D’Ovidio, R., Masci, S., Jones, H. D., &
Lafiandra, D. (2010). Increasing the amylose content of durum wheat through
silencing of the SBEIIagenes. BMC Plant Biology, 10(1), 144.