Available online freely at www.isisn.org Bioscience Research Print ISSN: 1811-9506 Online ISSN: 2218-3973 Journal by Innovative Scientific Information & Services Network RESEARCH ARTICLE BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH, 2018 15(4):3307-3315. OPEN ACCESS Possibility of using quinoa seeds (chenopodium quinoa) in meat products and its impact on nutritional and organoleptic characteristics Ahmed Adel Baioumy 1, 2*, Irina Vladimirovna Bobreneva 1, Antonina Anatolievna Tvorogova 3 and Tatiana Vladimirovna Shobanova 3 1 Department of technology and biotechnology of food products of animal origin, Moscow State University of Food Production (MGUPP), Moscow, Russian Federation, Russia 2 Department of Food Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt. 3 All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Refrigeration Industry-Branch of V. M. Gorbatov Research Center for Food Systems RAS 12, Kostyakova str., Moscow, 127422, Russia *Correspondence: ahmedadel35@yahoo.com Accepted: 16 Oct. 2018 Published online: 05Dec. 2018 The nutritional and organoleptic characteristics of low-fat beef burger manufactured with different levels of quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa) as a partial fat substitute were studied. Chemical composition, cooking yield, ph and sensory evaluation were determined. Five levels of added beef fat (15%, 12.5%, 10%, 7.5%, and 5%) and five levels of quinoa seeds as a fat substitute (0%, 2.5%, 5 %, 7.5%, and 10%) were used. Increasing the level of added quinoa caused an increase in protein, fiber and ash contents, and a decrease in fat content. Cooking yield increased by the increasing of quinoa level. The sensory properties and overall acceptability were improved by using 5% and 7.5% of quinoa and no differences noticed between the overall acceptability of the control treatment and other treatments. The caloric value was also decreased by decreasing of added fat and replacing it with quinoa seeds which have low caloric content when compared with animal fat. Keywords: Low Fat, Beef Burger, Quinoa seeds, Dietary Fibers INTRODUCTION Generally, traditional meat products contain up to 30% fat (Woo et al., 1995). The fat plays important roles in meat product processing such as, stabilizing meat emulsions, reducing cooking loss, improving water holding capacity and providing flavor, juiciness, and desirable mouth feel. However, animal fat provides high amounts of saturated fatty acids and cholesterol (Ozvural&Vural, 2008; Pappa, et al., 2000). So that high animal fat intake is associated with obesity, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases and coronary heart diseases (Moon et al., 2008). Hence, the reduction of fat in meat products and the substitution of animal fat with vegetable oils and non-meat ingredients such as dietary fiber, isolated soy protein, and carrageenan should result in healthier products. Following increased consumers demand for fast food such as beef burger, many efforts have been made to improve the quality and stability of burgers (Besbes et al., 2008; Sanchez-Zapata et al., 2010). In burgers, quality deterioration is often caused by oxidation reactions and the subsequent decomposition of oxidation products during storage. The presence of high amount of animal fat in beef burger increases the chance of accelerating lipid oxidation, which subsequently increases the number of lipid hydroperoxides, leading to decreased shelf life (Kerler&Grosch, 1986). The
development of lipid oxidation in meat products during their processing, distribution and storage adversely affects critical quality attributes such as flavor, color and nutritional value and has a major negative economic impact (McBride et al., 2007). For several years now, the use of natural antioxidants in foods has been increasing as a result of consumer demand. Consumers are becoming more health conscious and concerned about what ingredients are added to their foods. Natural products are perceived as more safe and healthier than synthetic ones (Ahnet al., 2002; Johnston et al., 2005; Bobreneva and Baioumy, 2018). Out of about 250 000 identified plants found in the world 30 000 are edible, but only 30 species feed the world. Wheat, maize and rice alone provide 50% of the world s calories (FAO, 1998). There is however an increasing interest in socalled minor crops, as they may promote sustainability and agro diversity in farming systems. Also consumer interest has increased as these crops are often perceived as healthy by the Western consumer, and minor seed crops can be devoid of peptides that cannot be tolerated by individuals suffering from the coeliac disease (Bergamo et al., 2011). Such crop as quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) was the most important seed crop in South America in the pre-columbian times. It was of such importance to Inca people that it was considered sacred and called the mother grain. Quinoa seeds have desirable nutritional properties, with considerably higher levels of minerals and some vitamins than conventional cereals, as well as high-lysine protein with good digestibility (Ranhotraet al., 1993; Repo-Carrasco et al., 2003). Quinoa also has a wide genetic variability and can thus be adapted to very different environmental conditions, including European countries (Jacobsen et al., 2003). Due to these factors, FAO has declared it as one of humanity s most promising crops, and it has been considered as a potential crop for NASA s Controlled Ecological Life Support System (CELSS) (FAO, 2011). Quinoa has been used for a variety of products, including gluten-free baked goods, pasta, infant food, extrudates and other processed foods (Repo-Carrasco et al., 2003). Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) is a dicotyledonous plant native to the Andean highland region in South America. Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the quinoa plant and its seeds. It grows 1-3 m tall, and produces starchy seeds that have a composition similar to cereal grains (Jacobsen et al., 2003). Quinoa is a domesticated species, and has been cultivated in the Andes for more than 5000 years. Quinoa has a wide genetic variability, with cultivars adapted to very different environmental conditions ranging from a cold highland climate to subtropical conditions (Jacobsen, 2003). Some cultivars also show good tolerance for adverse conditions including drought, frost, soil salinity and hale (Jacobsen, 2003). Because of its adaptability, quinoa has a potential for cultivation outside the Andean region. In the past decades, field trials have been conducted in various European countries, Kenya, United States and Asia. (Jacobsen, 2003). Bioavailability of amino acids or protein digestibility in quinoa varies based on the kind of quinoa consumed, and it considerably increases with cooking. Comai (2007) reported that quinoa did not only have rich protein content but also had a sufficiently high concentration of amino acid composition and tryptophan, which is generally the second limiting amino acid. In addition, it contains a high amount of non-protein tryptophan that can be absorbed more easily and helps to increase the usability of this amino acid in the brain, thus having influence on serotonin neurotransmitter synthesis (Comai, 2007). Quinoa seeds are perispermic: they consist of a central perisperm that is surrounded by a peripheral embryo (Figure 3). The endosperm is a 1-2 cell layer thick cap covering the micropyle. The storage reserves are strictly compartmentalised (Prego et al., 1998). The central perisperm acts as starch storage, while lipid and protein bodies are found in the embryonic tissues and endosperm. It is stated that quinoa may benefit high-risk group consumers, such as children, the elderly, high-performance sports people, individuals with lactose intolerance, women prone to osteoporosis, people with anemia, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity, and celiac disease due to its properties including a high nutritional value, therapeutic features, and gluten-free content. These features are considered to be linked with the existence of the fiber, minerals, vitamins, fatty acids, antioxidants, and especially phytochemicals in quinoa, and they provide quinoa a big advantage over other crops in terms of human nutrition and health maintenance (Repo-Carrasco-Valencia et al., 2010; Bhargavaet al., 2006). Bioscience Research, 2018 volume 15(4): 3307-3315 3308
Figure1. Quinoa plant (Chenopodium quinoa) Figure. 2 Quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa) Bioscience Research, 2018 volume 15(4): 3307-3315 3309
Figure 3. Quinoa seed structure showing (Adapted from Prego et al., 1998). The main objective of this research was studying the possibility of using different concentrations of quinoa seeds as a partial fat substitute and studying the impact of that on the chemical, nutritional and sensory characteristics of beef burger. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was conducted in Russian Federation at the Department of technology and biotechnology of food products of animal origin, Moscow State University of Food Production (MGUPP). Materials: Quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa) was obtained from the local market in Moscow, Russian Federation, and It was washed and sorted and then been well crushed to get a flour which will be then used in the manufacture of the beef burgers. Fresh lean beef and other additives (soy flour, skimmed milk, spices mixture and salt) were obtained from the local market in Moscow, Russian Federation. Lean beef cuts were obtained from boneless rounds and trimmed from all subcutaneous and intermuscular fat as well as thick and visible connective tissue. Methods: Formulation of beef burger: The lean meat and fat were separately ground in a meat grinder. The fat content of the lean meat and fat was determined prior to the manufacture of burgers. The lean meat contained (4% fat) and beef fat contained (89 % ether extract), five treatments were formulated according to (Table 1). The control burgers were formulated to contain 65% lean meat and 15% beef fat. Different levels of quinoa (2.5 %, 5.0 %, 7.5 % and 10.0%) were used to replace equal amounts of added beef fat. Appropriate amounts of each formulation were mixed by hand, subjected to final grinding (0.5 cm plate) and processed into burgers (60 g weight and 10 cm diameter). Burgers were placed on plastic foam trays, wrapped with polyethylene film and kept frozen at -18 C until further analysis. Chemical composition Moisture, ash, crude protein, fat and crude fiber contents were determined according to the methods described in the AOAC (2000) methods. Bioscience Research, 2018 volume 15(4): 3307-3315 3310
Table (1): Beef burger formulations containing Quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa) Components % Control Q1 (2.5%) Q2 (5%) Q3 (7.5%) Q4 (10%) Lean meat 65 65 65 65 65 Beef fat 15 12.5 10 7.5 5 Quinoa - 2.5 5 7.5 10 Soy flour 10 10 10 10 10 Onion 5 5 5 5 5 Salt 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Skimmed milk 1 1 1 1 1 Spices mixture 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Starch 1 1 1 1 1 Control: treatment without quinoa, Q1: (2.5% quinoa), Q2: (5% quinoa), Q3: (7.5% quinoa) and Q4: (10% quinoa). Caloric values: Total calorie (Kcal) for uncooked burgers were calculated on the basis of 100 g sample using the next values for fat (9 Kcal/g), protein (4.02 Kcal/g) and carbohydrates (3.87 Kcal/g) as described by Mansour and Khalil ( 1997). Physicochemical Properties: The ph values of beef burger samples were measured by homogenizing 10gm of sample with 100 ml of distilled water for 30 sec. The ph of the prepared sample was measured using a ph meter (Jenway 3510 ph meter) at 20 ºC according to the method described by Fernández-López et al., (2006). Cooking procedure: Frozen burgers were cooked in a preheated (148ºC) electric grill which was standardized for temperature. The burgers were cooked for 6 minutes, then turned and cooked for 4 minutes on the other side. The burgers were weighed before and after cooking to determine percentage cooking yield according to Ali et al., (2011) as follows: Cooking yield (%) = (Weight of cooked burger/weight of uncooked burger) 100 Sensory evaluation: Sensory evaluation of cooked burgers was performed according to Watts et al., (1989). Five burgers from each formulation were cooked as previously described, and maintained warm in an oven until testing within 3 8 min. (10) Experienced panelists were recruited from the staff and students from the Department of Technology and Biotechnology of Food Products of Animal Origin, Moscow State University of Food Production, Moscow, Russian Federation. Panelists were chosen on the basis of previous experience in consuming traditional burgers. Furthermore, a preparatory session was held prior to testing, so that each panel could thoroughly discuss and clarify each attribute to be evaluated in burger. Rectangular pieces approximately (1.5:2 cm) were cut from the center of burgers, and were served at room temperature. Each panelist evaluated three replicates of all formulas; the sample presentation order was randomized for each panelist. Tap water was provided between samples to cleanse the palate. Panelists were asked to evaluate different treatments and requested to score their quality attributes: color, odor, taste, texture and overall acceptability on a 10 points scale was used for each factor as follows. 9-10= Excellent 7-8=Very good 5-6 = Good 3-4 = Not good 1-2 = Very bad RESULTSAND DISCUSSION The proximate chemical composition of quinoa seeds: Grains play an important role in human diet by meeting approximately half of an individual's need Bioscience Research, 2018 volume 15(4): 3307-3315 3311
for energy and protein intake. Wheat, corn, rice, barley, oat, rye, and sorghum are the most crucial foods in the world in human and animal diets. A comparison of the nutritional values of these grains in relation to quinoa is given in Table 2 (USDA, 2015). Quinoa's superiority over other grains results from its richer protein, lipid, and ash content. Protein content in the dry matter of quinoa seeds varies between 13.8% and 16.5%; however, it is reported as 15% on average. The total protein content of quinoa is higher than that of rice, barley, corn, rye, and sorghum, and is close to wheat (USDA, 2015). Quinoa, which provides a protein value similar to casein in milk, contains essential amino acids (Vega-Galvez et al., 2010). With its values close to those specified by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), its perfect amino acid balance and rich content with thionic amino acids and lysines, quinoa is one of the few plants that provide all the amino acids necessary for human life, and contrary to grain proteins poor in especially lysines, quinoa proteins are accepted as high-quality proteins. Chemical composition of burgers formulas: The chemical composition of beef burgers is presented in Table (3). The difference in the composition of the different treatments is attributed only to the added amount of quinoa seeds because the main recipe of treatments was the same. Moisture content was not affected by the substitution of fat with quinoa seeds because they have similar moisture content. The presence of quinoa increased slightly the protein content than the control sample. However, this increasing was noticeable when the highest protein content (17.26 %) was recorded for treatment Q4 (10 % quinoa). fiber content was increased depending on the increasing of added quinoa and this is due to the considerable fiber content of quinoa. Substitution of fat with quinoa seeds flour caused a decrease in fat content and caloric value of beef burger. Table (2): proximate composition of Quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa) (g/100g) compared to some of other grains. Product Moisture Ash Lipid Protein Carbohydrate Fiber Quinoa 6.60 2.70 5.90 15.60 61.60 7.6 Rice 13.0 1.20 2.20 7.70 73.70 2.20 Barley 12.10 2.30 2.10 11.10 62.70 9.70 Wheat 12.60 1.70 1.80 11.30 59.40 13.20 Corn 11.30 1.30 3.80 8.80 65.0 9.80 (USDA, 2015) Table (3): Chemical composition of burgers formulas prepared with different concentrations of Quinoa seeds (Chenopodium quinoa) (g/100 g wet basis) Energy Treatments Moisture Protein Fat Ash Fiber Carbohydrates Kcal/100g Control 61.20 15.17 17.61 2.12 1.44 2.46 228.99 Q 1 (2.5%) 60.62 16.12 15.51 2.18 1.63 3.94 219.64 Q 2 (5%) 60.60 16.48 13.41 2.25 1.83 5.43 207.95 Q 3 (7.5%) 60.53 16.87 11.31 2.33 2.04 6.92 196.38 Q 4 (10%) 60.51 17.26 9.21 2.37 2.21 8.44 184.93 Control: treatment without quinoa, Q1: (2.5% quinoa), Q2: (5% quinoa), Q3: (7.5% quinoa) and Q4: (10% quinoa). Bioscience Research, 2018 volume 15(4): 3307-3315 3312
The fat content ranged from 17.61% in control treatment to 9.21% in treatment Q4 (10 % quinoa). And caloric value decreased from 228.99 to 184.93 Kcal/100g. Cooking characteristics and Physicochemical Properties The ph value is considered an important characteristic because of its influence on shelf-life, color, water holding capacity and texture of meat and meat products (Clarke et al., 1988). Data in Table (4) shows that ph value was increased because of adding quinoa. Cooking loss percent was decreased and cooking yield percent was increased by increasing the concentration of added quinoa seeds. These results confirmed that addition of quinoa improves the quality attributes of beef burger. Sensory evaluation As in all food products, organoleptic tests are generally the final guide to the quality from the consumer s point of view. The organoleptic evaluation was carried out in order to evaluate the taste, odor, color, texture and overall acceptability of beef burger affected by different concentrations of quinoa seeds. Data in table (5) shows that there was a significant difference in taste between control samples and samples prepared with 2.5%, 5%, and 7.5% quinoa and these treatments had a score higher than the control treatment at the same time there weren't significant differences between the control treatment and the 10 % quinoa treatment. Table (4): Effect of substituting fat with various levels of quinoa seeds on ph, and cooking yield of beef burger. Treatments Cooking Yield % ph Control 74.94 ± 0.03 6.26 ± 0.01 Q 1 (2.5%) 77.85 ± 0.05 6.48 ± 0.02 Q 2 (5%) 77. 67 ± 0.04 6.61 ± 0.01 Q 3 (7.5%) 82.88 ± 0.03 6.89 ± 0.03 Q 4 (10%) 38. 57 ± 0.02 6.98 ± 0.02 Control: treatment without quinoa, Q1: (2.5% quinoa), Q2: (5% quinoa), Q3: (7.5% quinoa) and Q4: (10% quinoa). Table (5): Effect of replacing animal fat with various levels of quinoa seeds on sensory properties of cooked beef burger. Treatments Taste Odor Color Texture Overall Acceptability Control 8.5 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.8 Q 1 (2.5%) 9.0 8.5 8.5 9.0 9.0 Q 2 (5%) 9.0 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.0 Q 3 (7.5%) 9.0 8.0 8.5 9.5 9.0 Q 4 (10%) 8.5 8.0 8.3 8.5 8.5 Control: treatment without quinoa, Q1: (2.5% quinoa), Q2: (5% quinoa), Q3: (7.5% quinoa) and Q4: (10% quinoa). Bioscience Research, 2018 volume 15(4): 3307-3315 3313
As for the odor parameter, there weren't any significant differences between the control treatment and other treatments unless 2.5% quinoa seeds treatment. Color and texture also were evaluated by the panelists and there weren't any significant differences in color between the control treatment and quinoa treatments and there were significant differences in texture among the control treatment and (2.5%, 5% and 7.5%) quinoa treatments. In general, there weren't any significant differences among the control treatment and other treatments in the overall acceptability unless the last treatment 10 % quinoa it had the minimum score by the team of panelists. CONCLUSION The use of quinoa has a prospective effect as a functional ingredient to develop the cooking properties of the beef burger. As well as increasing the water holding capacity, addition of quinoa increased the fiber and protein content which is an additional nutritional benefit for the consumers if an increase in dietary fiber is normally recommended. In addition, decreasing the fat level will help to reduce the risk of heart disease and obesity. Quinoa seeds may be attractive to some meat producer as a positive cheap alternative to conventional fillers in meat products. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declared that present study was performed in absence of any conflict of interest. ACKNOWLEGEMENT This study was a part of Ph.D. Thesis and was financially supported by the Grants 15.7579.2017/БЧ of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (identification number 15.7579.2017/8.9). AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS All authors contributed equally in all parts of this study. Copyrights: 2017 @ author (s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. REFERENCES Ahn J., Grün I. U. & Fernando L. N. 2002.Antioxidant properties of natural plant extracts containing polyphenolic compounds in cooked ground beef. Journal of Food Science, 67, 1364 1369. Ali R. F. M., El - Anany A. M. &Gaafr A. M. 2011.Effect of Potato Flakes as Fat Replacer on the Quality Attributes of Low-Fat Beef Patties. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology 3(3): 173-180. AOAC. 2000. Official methods of analysis of AOAC (Vol. 41, 17 th ed.).washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Bergamo, P., Maurano, F., Mazzarella, G., Iaquinto, G., Vocca, I., Rivelli, A.R., DeFalco, E., Gianfrani, C., Rossi, M., 2011.Immunological evaluation of the alcohol-soluble protein fraction from glutenfree grains in relation to celiac disease. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 55, 1266 70. Besbes S., Attia H., Deroanne C., Makni S. &Blecker C. 2008. Partial replacement of meat by pea fibre and wheat fibre: Effect on the chemical composition, cooking characteristics and sensory properties of beef burgers. Journal of Food Quality, 31, 480 489. Bhargava, A., Shukla, S., Ohri, D., 2006.Chenopodium quinoa-an indian perspective. Industrial Crops Prod. 23, 73-87. Bobreneva I. V. and Baioumy A. A., 2018.Effect of using tiger nuts (Cyperusesculentus) on nutritional and organoleptic characteristics of beef burger. Bioscience Research 15(3): 1424-1432. Clarke A. D., Sofos J. N., & Schmidt G. R. 1988. Effect of algin/calcium binder levels on various characteristics of structured beef. J. Food Sci., 53: 711-713. Comai, S., 2007.The content of proteic and nonproteic (free and protein-bound) tryptophan in quinoa and cereal flours. Food Chem. 100 (4), 1350-1355. FAO, 1998.The State of the World s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO, 2011.Dietary protein quality evaluation in Bioscience Research, 2018 volume 15(4): 3307-3315 3314
human nutrition - Report of an FAO expert consultation. FAO Food and nutrition paper 92. Auckland, New Zealand. Fernández-López J., Jiménez S., Sayas-Barberá E., Sendra E., & Pérez-Alvarez J. A. 2006. Quality characteristics of ostrich (Struthiocamelus) burgers. Meat Sci., 73: 295-303. Jacobsen, S. E., 2003. The Worldwide Potential for Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Rev. Int. 19, 167 177. Jacobsen, S.E., Mujica, A., Ortiz, R., 2003. The Global Potential for Quinoa and Other Andean Crops. Food Rev. Int. 19, 139 148. Johnston J. E., Sepe H. A., Miano C. L., Brannan R. G. &Alderton A. L. 2005. Honey inhibits lipid oxidation in ready-to-eat ground beef patties. Meat Science, 70, 627 631. Kerler J. &Grosch W. 1986.Odorants contributing to warmer-over flavor (WOF) of refrigerated cooked beef. Journal of Food Science, 61, 1271 1274. Mansour E. H. & Khalil A. H. 1997. Characteristics of Low-fat beef burger as influenced by various types of wheat fibers. Food Res. Int., 30: 199-205. McBride N. T. M., Hogan A. A. & Kerry J. P. 2007. Comparative addition of rosemary extract and additives on sensory and antioxidant properties of retail packaged beef. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 42, 1201 1207. Moon S. S., Jin S. K., Hah K. H. & Kim I. S. 2008. Effects of replacing back fat with fat replacers and olive oil on the quality characteristics and lipid oxidation of low-fat sausage during storage. Food Science and Biotechnology, 17(2), 396 401. Ozvural E. B.,&Vural H. 2008. Utilization of interesterified oil blends in the production of frankfurters. Meat Science, 78(3), 211 216. Pappa I. C., Bloukas J. G. & Arvanitoyannis I. S. 2000. Optimization of salt, olive oil and pectin level for low-fat frankfurters produced by replacing pork back fat with olive oil. Meat Science, 56(1), 81 88. Prego, I., Maldonado, S., Otegui, M., 1998.Seed structure and localization of reserves in Chenopodium quinoa. Ann. Bot. 481 488. Ranhotra, G., Gelroth, J., Glaser, B., Lorenz, K., Johnson, D., 1993. Composition and protein nutritional quality of quinoa.cereal Chem. 70, 303-303. Repo-Carrasco, R., Espinoza, C., Jacobsen, S.- E., 2003.Nutritional Value and Use of the Andean Crops Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and Kañiwa (Chenopodiumpallidicaule). Food Rev. Int. 19, 179 189. Repo-Carrasco-Valencia, R., Hellstrӧm, J.K., Pihlava, J.M., Mattila, P.H., 2010.Flavonoids and other phenolic compounds in Andean indigenous grains: quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa), kaniwa (Chenopodiumpallidicaule) and kiwicha (Amaranthuscaudatus). Food Chem. 120 (1), 128-133. Sánchez-Zapata E., Muñoz C. M., Fuentes E.,Fernández-López J., Sendra E., Sayas E., Navarro C. & Pérez-Alvarez J. A. 2010. Effect of tiger nut fibre on quality characteristics of pork burger. Meat Science, 85, 70 76. USDA, 2015.United States Department of Agriculture. National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release, 28 (Basic Reports). Vega-Galvez, A., Miranda, M., Vergara, J., Uribe, E., Puente, L., Martinez, E.A., 2010.Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.), an ancient Andean grain: a review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 90 (15), 2541-2547. Watts B. M., Yamaki G. L., Jeffery L. E. & Elias L. G. 1989. Basic sensory methods for food evaluation.1st ed., the International Development Research Center Pub., Ottawa, Canada. Bioscience Research, 2018 volume 15(4): 3307-3315 3315