UEF//eRepository
DSpace https://erepo.uef.fi
Rinnakkaistallenteet Terveystieteiden tiedekunta
2020
Potential of quinoa in the development of fermented spoonable vegan products
Väkeväinen, Kati
Elsevier BV
Tieteelliset aikakauslehtiartikkelit
© Elsevier Ltd.
CC BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108912
https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/7982
Downloaded from University of Eastern Finland's eRepository
Journal Pre-proof
Potential of quinoa in the development of fermented spoonable vegan products Kati Väkeväinen, Fanny Ludena-Urquizo, Essi Korkala, Anja Lapveteläinen, Sirpa Peräniemi, Atte von Wright, Carme Plumed-Ferrer
PII: S0023-6438(19)31254-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108912 Reference: YFSTL 108912
To appear in: LWT - Food Science and Technology Received Date: 20 June 2019
Revised Date: 25 November 2019 Accepted Date: 1 December 2019
Please cite this article as: Väkeväinen, K., Ludena-Urquizo, F., Korkala, E., Lapveteläinen, A.,
Peräniemi, S., von Wright, A., Plumed-Ferrer, C., Potential of quinoa in the development of fermented spoonable vegan products, LWT - Food Science and Technology (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lwt.2019.108912.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1
Title: Potential of quinoa in the development of fermented spoonable vegan products 1
Author names and affiliations: Kati Väkeväinen a, Fanny Ludena-Urquizo b, Essi Korkala a, 2
Anja Lapveteläinen a, Sirpa Peräniemi c, Atte von Wright a, Carme Plumed-Ferrer a 3
a University of Eastern Finland, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, P.O. Box 1627, 4
Kuopio FI-70210, Finland 5
b Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Department of Food Technology, Faculty of Food 6
Engineering, Lima, Peru 7
c University of Eastern Finland, School of Pharmacy, P.O. Box 1627, Kuopio FI-70210, Finland 8
Abbreviated running headline: Potential of quinoa 9
Corresponding author: Kati Väkeväinen, MSc, University of Eastern Finland, Institute of 10
Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, P.O. Box 1627, Kuopio FI-70210, Finland, 11
kati.vakevainen@uef.fi, +358505692912 12
13
2 Abstract:
14
The aim of this work was to study the potential of two quinoa varieties, Pasankalla (PK), and 15
Rosada de Huancayo (RH), in developing fermented spoonable vegan products. The quinoa 16
flours were fermented by a candidate probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum Q823. Then, two 17
experimental products were developed by flavoring fermented PK flours with date (QD) and 18
fermented RH flour with bilberry and banana (QBB). The nutritional composition, storage time, 19
and sensory properties (the check-all-that-apply method) of QD and QBB were assessed in 20
relation to four commercial vegan fermented snack products. The functionality of L. plantarum 21
Q823 fermentation was demonstrated by high viable lactic acid bacteria counts (log cfu -1 9) of 22
QD and QBB during the 28-day storage compared to commercial products (log cfu -1 <1–
23
8.2±0.04) at the time of purchase. The nutritional composition of QD and QBB was equal or 24
superior to commercial products. Consumers (n=66) regarded quinoa products as “novel”, 25
“healthy”, and “high in fiber”. However, the quinoa products were also characterized to have an 26
unpleasant aftertaste and “sandy” mouthfeel. To conclude, quinoa has potential in fermented 27
spoonable vegan products, as clearly demonstrated by the successful fermentation process and 28
high lactic acid bacteria viable counts required for probiotic products.
29
Key words: quinoa, sensory evaluation, vegan, fermentation, Lactobacillus plantarum 30
31
3 1 Introduction
32
The consumer demand for healthy, low-processed vegan food options suitable for a variety of 33
diets is constantly growing. From 2016 to 2017 there was a 20% increase in vegan dairy 34
alternatives and a 56% in yogurt-type products (Plant Based Foods Association & The Good 35
Food Institute, 2017). Nowadays, soy dominates the vegan spoonable product market, but other 36
healthy, high in protein alternatives are needed to diversify product variety and meet the 37
requirements of people allergic to milk and soy (Zeiger et al., 1999; Jeske, Zannini, & Arendt, 38
2017).
39
Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is an Andean, gluten-free pseudocereal (Repo-Carrasco, 40
Espinoza, & Jacobsen, 2006) that is known for its nutritional and health benefits (Navruz-Varli 41
& Sanlier, 2016). The protein content of quinoa is high (13.1–16.7% of edible matter), 42
comparable to milk and soy, and quinoa contains the essential amino acids lysine, methionine, 43
and threonine, which are generally low in vegan protein sources (Stikic et al., 2012; Vilcacundo 44
& Hernández-Ledesma, 2017). The well-balanced amino acid profile of quinoa makes it a 45
potential ingredient for nutritious snacks. In addition, quinoa has a high fiber content (7.0–11.7%
46
of edible matter) (Vilcacundo & Hernández-Ledesma, 2017).
47
Fermentation improves the microbial quality, storage time, nutritional value, and sensory 48
properties of foods (Blandino, Al-Aseeri, Pandiella, Cantero, & Webb, 2003), and it clearly has 49
positive health effects (Rizzello et al., 2016). Fermentation can be used to change the earthy and 50
raw notes of cereals into a more dairy-like and pleasant sourness (Nionelli et al., 2014). Lactic 51
acid bacteria (LAB) act as probiotics, synthesize amino acids, improve the availability of B- 52
group vitamins, and degrade antinutrients, leading to an increased availability of iron, zinc and 53
calcium from the food matrix (Blandino et al., 2003). Although some fermented quinoa-based 54
4
beverages have been developed (Ludeña Urquizo et al., 2017; Jeske, Zannini, Lynch, Coffey, &
55
Arendt, 2018; Lorusso, Coda, Montemurro, & Rizzello, 2018; Zannini, Jeske, Lynch, & Arendt, 56
2018), according to our knowledge, a comparison of the sensory perceptions of developed 57
quinoa products and commercial vegan spoonable products has not yet been performed on the 58
target consumers.
59
Product development processes benefit from rapid sensory methods. The check-all-that-apply 60
(CATA) consumer method has been applied to milk-based yogurts and drinks (Cadena et al., 61
2014; Oliveira et al., 2017) and shown to provide results comparable to traditional descriptive 62
analysis (Cruz et al., 2013). In addition, CATA can be combined with hedonic measurement to 63
provide data for product liking. In this study, CATA was used to assess the perception of sensory 64
and other properties of vegan spoonable products among vegetable product users. The ‘other’
65
properties covered terms related to the nutritional properties, novelty of usage of the products.
66
The aim of this work was to study the potential of quinoa in the development of fermented 67
spoonable vegan snack products. The criteria for experimental products were set as follows:
68
targeted protein content ≥2 g 100 g-1, a small number of raw materials, suitability for gluten- and 69
dairy-free diets, and acceptable sensory properties amongst target consumers. In addition, the 70
manufacturing process was targeted to be simple enough to scale up.
71
2 Materials and methods 72
2.1 Procurement of raw materials 73
Two quinoa varieties – dark brown Pasankalla (PK) and white Rosada de Huancayo (RH) variety 74
– were obtained from the Cereal Center of National Agrarian La Molina University (Peru). The 75
saponin contents of PK (0.0%) and RH (0.66%) have previously been reported to be very low 76
(Ludeña Urquizo et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the quinoa grains were repeatedly washed until the 77
5
water became foamless to discard saponins, which may cause a bitter flavor (Agza, Bekele, &
78
Shiferaw, 2018). After washing step, grains were dried at 60°C for 8 h, milled and the resulting 79
quinoa flours were stored at 4 °C.
80
2.2 Bacterial strains and culture conditions 81
Lactobacillus plantarum Q823, a candidate probiotic previously isolated from quinoa (Vera- 82
Pingitore et al., 2016), was used to ferment the experimental quinoa products. L. plantarum 83
Q823 was grown in de Mann, Rogosa, and Sharpe broth (MRS; Lab M, Bury, Lancashire, UK) 84
and was incubated at 30°C for 16 h prior to inoculation.
85
2.3 Manufacturing process 86
The manufacturing process included the preparation of fermented quinoa bases and jam 87
supplements (Fig. 1). The quinoa flour was mixed with water (20% w/v) and gelatinized for 10 88
min (80ºC PK or 60ºC RH) according to the method of Lindeboom, Chang, Falk and Tyler 89
(2005). Potato starch (5% w/v), corn starch (5% w/v), and xanthan (0.5% w/v) were pretested as 90
stabilizers to prevent syneresis during storage. Based on the results, potato starch was added to 91
the gelatinized mixture of PK, and xanthan was added to the gelatinized mixture of RH. The 92
mixture was cooled to room temperature and inoculated by L. plantarum Q823. A ratio of 1%
93
(v/v) of inoculum-quinoa base was chosen, since this inoculum produced LAB viable counts 94
above the minimum recommendation (log cfu ml-1 6 based on a daily dose of 100 ml) for a 95
probiotic product (Lorusso et al., 2018). Mixtures were fermented at 30°C for approximately 6–8 96
h until pH<4 was reached and then cooled to 6°C.
97
Date and apple jam supplements were pretested for PK; bilberry, banana, and mango jam 98
supplements were pretested for RH. Based on the results, date was utilized for PK and bilberry 99
and banana for RH. Jam supplements were prepared by mixing and heating the main ingredients 100
6
to 60°C, adding the stabilizer, pasteurizing (97°C for 7 min), and cooling to 6°C. The 101
percentages of ingredients can be seen in Fig. 2.
102
To obtain the experimental quinoa products, 85% of the fermented quinoa base was mixed with 103
15% of the jam supplement, leading to a 17% quinoa content in the final product. Fermented PK 104
quinoa base was mixed with date jam supplement (QD), and fermented RH quinoa base was 105
mixed with bilberry banana jam supplement (QBB) (Fig. 2).
106
2.4 Commercial vegan products used for comparison 107
In addition to QD and QBB, four commercial fermented vegan snack products were analyzed for 108
comparison: soy-based spoonable product Alpro® bilberry (Alpro, Belgium, later referred to as 109
SB) and the oat-based products YOSA® plum (Bioferme Oy, Finland, OP), YOSA® Break fig 110
apple (Bioferme Oy, Finland, OFA) and Oatly® bilberry vanilla (Oatly AB, Sweden, OBV) (Fig.
111
2). The commercial products were selected for their similar flavoring to the experimental quinoa 112
products. All commercial products were purchased from local supermarkets (Kuopio, Finland).
113
2.5 Nutritional composition 114
The nutritional composition (fat, protein, carbohydrates, ash, and moisture) of the products was 115
determined using standard methods (AOAC, 2005) in triplicate. The total carbohydrate content 116
was calculated by subtracting the percentage sum of moisture, protein, fat, and ash from 100%.
117
The energy content (kcal 100 g-1) was calculated from fat, protein, and carbohydrate results using 118
coefficient 4 for carbohydrates and protein and 9 for fat. All results were expressed as fresh 119
matter.
120
In addition, mineral content (n=1) and crude fiber (n=1) were preliminarily determined. The 121
content of sodium (Na), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), 122
manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn) were determined using inductively 123
7
coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) equipment (NexION 350D ICP-MS spectrometer, 124
PerkinElmer Inc.) using kinetic energy discrimination (KED) method (Pruszkowski & Bosnak, 125
2015). Crude fiber analysis was performed at the Savonia University of Applied Sciences, 126
Kuopio, Finland, using the enzymatic-gravimetric method (AOAC, 1990).
127
2.6 Viable cell counts, pH, titratable acidity, and viscosity during 28-day storage 128
The viable cell counts, pH, titratable acidity and viscosity of QBB and QD at 6°C were 129
determined in triplicate at time points 0, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days (Ludeña Urquizo et al., 2017).
130
LAB viable counts (log cfu g-1), total aerobic mesophilic microbes (30°C, 48 h, Plate Count 131
Agar, LabM), yeasts and molds (30°C, 72 h, Oxytetracycline Glucose Yeast Extract Agar, 132
LabM), and coliforms (37°C, 24 h, Violet Red Bile Agar, LabM) were determined. In addition, 133
pH, total titratable acidity (TTA), and viscosity (spindle 6, Rotary Viscometer PCR-RVI3,127 134
Model 20, UK) were measured. LAB viable counts, pH, TTA, and viscosity of commercial 135
products were measured at the time of purchase for comparison (n=2).
136
2.7 Sensory evaluation 137
CATA was used to assess the sensory properties and acceptance of experimental quinoa products 138
in relation to four commercial vegan spoonable products amongst target consumers (Ares &
139
Jaeger, 2015). Respondents were recruited from Kuopio area (Finland) by distributing a research 140
call in print and electronic versions. All respondents had to consume vegan yogurt-type products 141
at least once in two weeks as a part of their normal diet. The exclusion criteria were the 142
following: pregnancy, breastfeeding, daily smoking, celiac disease, and allergy to soy, nuts, and 143
cereals. Altogether, 66 respondents (58 females and 8 males) aged 18–61 years participated in 144
the sensory evaluation. Appendix A displays their background information.
145
8
Prior to sensory evaluation, the microbiological safety of QBB and QD was ensured by 146
cultivating total mesophilic microbes, coliforms, and yeast and molds as described in Section 147
2.5. In addition, the viability of L. plantarum Q823 was verified on MRS Agar. Only products 148
containing no coliforms or yeasts and molds and log cfu g-1 ≥9 LAB viable counts were accepted 149
for sensory evaluation.
150
Vegan spoonable products were stored for a maximum of 7 days at 6°C prior to sensory 151
evaluation. They were served as 50 g samples in transparent plastic cups covered with a lid and 152
taken to room temperature 15 min prior to evaluation. The samples were coded with random 153
three-digit-numbers and presented to respondents in randomized order. The evaluations were 154
performed in individual booths in the sensory evaluation laboratory (ISO, 2007) of the 155
University of Eastern Finland (UEF). The respondents were asked to rinse their mouth with 156
filtered tap water between the samples. Sensory evaluation sessions were designed, and data 157
were collected with EyeQuestion software (Elst, The Netherlands, version 4.5.6). The study was 158
conducted according to the ethical principles of UEF. All respondents gave written consent.
159
The final list of 44 CATA terms was the consensus of the in-house sensory evaluation panel 160
(n=5). CATA terms were collected during product development and were also obtained from the 161
literature (Cruz et al., 2013; Cadena et al., 2014; Nionelli et al., 2014). The final questionnaire 162
was piloted with target consumers (n=5) before the start of actual data collection.
163
With CATA evaluation, respondents were asked to evaluate the appeal of each sample prior to 164
tasting with a 9-point scale (1 = not appealing at all; 9 = very appealing) and overall liking after 165
tasting (1 = I do not like at all; 9 = I like very much). In addition, respondents were asked to 166
choose all the CATA terms from a given list that applied for each sample. CATA terms were 167
grouped in categories: “taste” (20 terms), “mouthfeel” (14) and “other properties” (10) (Table 2).
168
9
The list of “taste” properties also included several flavor terms, as there is no word for flavor in 169
everyday Finnish. The list of “other properties” included characteristics describing the perception 170
of usability, nutritional quality, and novelty of the products. The order of terms under each 171
category was randomized separately for each respondent. In the end, respondents could give 172
voluntary written comments regarding the evaluated products.
173
2.8 Statistical analyses 174
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for nutritional composition data (IBM SPSS 175
Statistics, Version 23, Armonk, New York, United States). Tukey’s test (p<0.05) was utilized for 176
posthoc comparison of means. All results were expressed as fresh matter. ANOVA combined 177
with Tukey’s test was also applied to storage time determination, considering storage time and 178
microorganisms as independent variables (Oliveira et al., 2017). CATA data were analyzed with 179
IBM SPSS Statistics and EyeOpenR (Version 4.5.6, Elst, The Netherlands). Since appeal and 180
liking scores did not follow a normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test), the Friedman test (p<0.05) 181
was applied to analyze the statistically significant differences among products. CATA data was 182
analyzed with Cochran and McNemar tests. The data for “taste” and “mouthfeel” terms was 183
visualized with correspondence analysis (CA) (Ares & Jaeger, 2015).
184
3 Results and discussion 185
3.1 Nutritional composition 186
The nutritional composition of QBB and QD was comparable to commercial vegan spoonable 187
products (Table 1). The protein content of experimental quinoa products varied between 2.2 and 188
2.7 g 100 g-1; that of oat products was 1–1.4 g 100 g-1; that of soy product 3.4 g100 g-1. The fat 189
content of QBB and QD were low (0.1 and 0.2–0.4 g 100 g-1, respectively), while it was highest 190
in OBV (2.2 g 100 g-1). QBB and QD had the highest carbohydrate content (25.6 g 100 g-1 and 191
10
24.8 g 100 g-1, respectively). According to preliminary results, high levels of magnesium, 192
potassium, and phosphorus were observed in QBB and QD. The highest amount of Na was found 193
in SB (107.8 mg 100 g-1).
194
The nutritional composition of QBB and QD confirmed the results obtained with quinoa seeds 195
(Stikic et al., 2012; Ludeña Urquizo et al., 2017), while taking into consideration that QBB and 196
QD contained 17% quinoa. The goal of developing experimental quinoa products with ≥2 g 100 197
g-1 protein was achieved. In the future, the amino acid profiles of QBB and QD need to be 198
analyzed to verify the potential of QBB and QD as a source of essential amino acids, such as 199
lysine (Stikic et al., 2012). The fat content of QBB and QD remained low, since no raw materials 200
with high fat content were used. Regarding commercial products, the compositional results were 201
mainly in line with the values reported by manufacturers, demonstrating the reliability of the 202
methods used (Table 1, Appendix B).
203
The mineral content of QBB and QD were in accordance with previous results obtained with 204
quinoa as an ingredient in bread formulations (Stikic et al., 2012). It is of the utmost importance 205
that in quinoa, calcium, magnesium, and potassium are in bioavailable forms (Vilcacundo &
206
Hernández-Ledesma, 2017).
207
3.2 Viable cell counts, pH, titratable acidity, and viscosity during 28-day storage 208
During the 28-daystorage, TTA values of experimental quinoa products increased and their pH 209
decreased slightly (average pH of 3.4±0,03 and 3.6±0.04 for QBB and QD, respectively) (Table 210
2). QBB had the lowest viscosity of all tested products (Table 2). QBB and QD LAB viable 211
counts (log cfu g -1 9) remained stable (p>0.05) during the 28-day storage (Table 2). The counts 212
of total mesophilic microbes followed the LAB counts. No coliforms were detected in quinoa 213
11
products. For yeast and mold, no growth was observed for QD, whereas some was observed for 214
QBB after 7 days of storage.
215
Low pH is needed to ensure the microbiological safety of QBB and QD. However, pH>3.55 has 216
been found to correlate positively with higher acceptance of final products (Salmerón, Thomas, 217
& Pandiella, 2015). Since higher viscosity has a positive impact on the mouthfeel of fermented 218
quinoa products (Zannini et al., 2018), one of our aims was to develop spoonable products.
219
According to the viscosity measurements and CATA evaluations, this goal was achieved with 220
QD.
221
In this study, gelatinization at 60°C or 80°C was used to achieve an optimal consistency of 222
quinoa bases (Lindeboom et al., 2005). In future product refinements, yeast and mold can be 223
eliminated in QBB by pasteurization (72°C, 15s) prior to fermentation, if the use of preservatives 224
is not desired (Lorusso et al., 2018). Viscosity, pH, TTA, and the viability of candidate probiotic 225
L. plantarum Q823 were similar to previous research (Ludeña Urquizo et al., 2017; Jeske et al., 226
2018; Lorusso et al., 2018). Stable and high viable counts of LAB indicate that QBB and QD are 227
suitable matrixes for the L. plantarum Q823 strain and that these experimental products are in the 228
range of having probiotic activities. These results clearly demonstrate that the fermentation 229
process was successful, and the experimental quinoa products had optimal growth conditions for 230
L. plantarum Q823 with levels more than log 9 cfu/g during the 28-day storage.
231
3.3 Sensory evaluation 232
Before tasting, average appeal ranged from 3.4±1.8 to 4.3±2.2 (QD and QBB, respectively) to 233
7.7±1.3 (SB). A similar trend in liking resulted after tasting: QD and QBB were, on average, the 234
least liked, and SB was the most liked (2.8±1.9 and 3.5±1.9 vs. 7.6±1.5, respectively).
235
Previously, the overall liking of unfermented quinoa milk has been reported as 4.4 and liking of 236
12
flavor as 4.0 on a 9-point scale (Pineli et al., 2015), which correlates well the results obtained 237
with QBB and QD.
238
Correspondence analysis was used to visualize the positioning of used CATA sensory terms and 239
vegan products (Fig. 3). The six products were separated, and products with similar CATA terms 240
were positioned close to each other. Clustering analysis performed upon CA positioned QBB and 241
QD in the same cluster, with sensory profiles not overlapping with any other product.
242
From 44 CATA terms, only the term “high in protein” did not differ significantly in the 243
frequencies between the products (Cochran’s Q test) (Table 3). This implies that CATA was able 244
to detect differences in respondents’ perceptions. Regarding sensory properties, both QBB and 245
QD were classified by ≥50% (n=66) of respondents as “sandy” and having an unpleasant 246
aftertaste. In addition, QBB was considered “berry-like”, “sour”, “pungent”, and “fluid”, while 247
QD was associated with the terms “spicy”, “cereal flavor”, “dense”, “thick”, and “mouth- 248
coating”. Regarding other properties, QBB and QD were classified by ≥50% of respondents as 249
“novel” (Table 3). In addition, QBB and QD were perceived as “healthy” and “high in fiber”.
250
Although QBB and QD differed in terms of their flavoring (banana bilberry vs. date), 251
correspondence analysis grouped them into the same cluster. This indicates that the natural flavor 252
of quinoa dominated in the experimental products (Agza et al., 2018). Based on the recognition 253
of CATA terms, low liking of QBB was most probably due to a perceived pungent and sour 254
taste (Table 3), confirming the results on yogurt, beverages (Farah, Araujo, & Melo, 2017), and 255
quinoa-based products (Bianchi, Rossi, Gomes, & Sivieri, 2015; Ramos Diaz et al., 2015; Agza 256
et al., 2018; Lorusso et al., 2018). Also, nutty and beany flavors have been stated to decrease the 257
liking of quinoa (Mäkinen, Uniacke-Lowe, O’Mahony, & Arendt, 2015; Lorusso et al., 2018).
258
13
The saponins present in quinoa have been suggested to decrease the acceptance of quinoa, 259
regardless of extensive washing steps at the beginning of the manufacturing process (Agza et al., 260
2018). The quinoa varieties used in this study are reported to contain only little or not at all 261
saponins (Ludeña Urquizo et al., 2017). Therefore, the sour and pungent taste observed in QBB 262
and QD was most likely due to other compounds than saponins. Quinoa also contains phenolic 263
compounds, such as 4-hydroxibenzoic acid and succinic acid (Pellegrini et al., 2018), and L.
264
plantarum Q823 produces lactic and acetic acids (Ludeña Urquizo et al., 2017). All of these 265
compounds may play a role in the sour and pungent taste observed in QBB and QD and can be 266
solved with a further formulation of the final recipes.
267
There are thousands of different quinoa varieties (FAO, 2011), which differ significantly in 268
aroma, taste, and texture (Wu, Ross, Morris, & Murphy, 2017). Thus, it is necessary to seek 269
other quinoa varieties for optimizing the sensory properties of quinoa products.
270
The aim to produce quinoa products with only a small number of ingredients was achieved, as 271
demonstrated by the short ingredient list of QBB and QD compared to those of commercial 272
products and especially that of SB (Fig. 2). The analyzed commercial products thus deviated 273
from quinoa products in regard to containing flavors and other additives. This was a conscious 274
decision that enabled us to focus on the sensory properties of fermented quinoa and gain an 275
understanding of the realistic potential of QBB and QD in comparison with commercial products 276
amongst target consumers. Due to the lack of comparable quinoa products in the Finnish market, 277
it was necessary to use commercial soy and oat products as a comparison to discover which 278
properties of QBB and QD should still be improved. Simple flavoring was used in QBB and QD 279
to better find comparable products in the market and to mask the different natural flavors of 280
quinoa, oat, and soy. However, flavoring agents and sweeteners used to enhance the taste and 281
14
mouthfeel of commercial products probably gave them an advantage in comparison to the 282
developed experimental products.
283
The liking of milk substitutes is low, and consumers tend to prefer familiar products over 284
unfamiliar ones (Fenko, Backhaus, & van Hoof, 2015). Replicating CATA in Peru, where quinoa 285
is part of the daily diet, could bring new insights to the sensory perception of QBB and QD.
286
Consumer acceptance of new and unfamiliar foods usually takes time but liking can be increased 287
by repeated exposure (Song, Chung, Cho, Shin, & Harmayani, 2019). Therefore, it is important 288
to introduce quinoa products to Western countries. Also, since QBB and QD were perceived as 289
“healthy” and “high in fiber” by consumers, awareness of the beneficial nutritional quality of 290
QBB and QD during tasting could enhance their acceptance (Suzuki & Park, 2018).
291
4 Conclusions 292
The aim of this work was to study the potential of quinoa in the development of fermented 293
spoonable vegan snack products. It is possible to manufacture this type of quinoa product, as 294
demonstrated by high viable LAB counts and stable products during the observed 28-day 295
storage. The goal to develop gluten- and dairy-free experimental products using only a small 296
number of raw materials was achieved. In addition, the products contained ≥ 2 g 100 g-1 of 297
protein and had promising nutritional compositions. The experimental quinoa products were 298
perceived as “healthy” and “high in fiber”, and QD had the desired spoonable texture. However, 299
the sensory properties of QD and QBB should still be refined to better appeal to target 300
consumers. In this respect, the CATA method provided valuable insights from the target 301
consumers for further improvements. PK and RH varieties were selected in this study based on 302
their excellent nutritional quality. Since there are thousands of different quinoa varieties, there is 303
15
still enormous potential for further product development to obtain products with desired sensory 304
properties. To conclude, quinoa is a potential raw material for healthy vegan products.
305
Acknowledgments:
306
We are grateful to Riitta Venäläinen and Sonja Holopainen for their technical assistance.
307
Funding: This work was supported by the Finnish Food Research Foundation, Helsinki, Finland, 308
CONCYTECT-Perú and Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI), Helsinki, Finland and 309
Regional Council of North Savo MAALi ERDF projects A72184 and A72185 for ICP-MS 310
analyses, Finland. The funding sources had no role in the study design; in the collection analysis 311
and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for 312
publication.
313
Declarations of interest: None.
314
Author Contributions 315
KV, EK, FL, CP, AW, AL and SP contributed to (1) the concept design of the study. KV, EK, 316
FL and SP contributed to the acquisition of the data. KV, EK, AL and SP contributed to the 317
analysis and all authors for the interpretation of the data. KV contributed by (2) drafting the 318
article and all authors revised it critically for important intellectual content. All authors (3) gave 319
final approval for the version to be submitted.
320
16 References
321
Agza, B., Bekele, R., & Shiferaw, L. (2018). Quinoa (Chenopodium Quinoa, Wild.): As a 322
potential ingredient of injera in Ethiopia. Journal of Cereal Science, 82, 170-174.
323
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2018.06.009 324
AOAC (2005). Official Methods of Analysis (15th ed.). Arlington, VA, USA: AOAC Intl.
325
AOAC (1990). Official Methods of Analysis (18th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC Intl.
326
Ares, G. & Jaeger, S. R. (2015). Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions with consumers in 327
practice: Experimental considerations and impact on outcome. In J. Delarue, J. B. Lawlor, &
328
M. Rogeaux. Rapid Sensory Profiling Techniques and Related Methods - Applications in 329
New Product Development and Consumer Research (1st ed., pp. 227-245). Cambridge:
330
Woodhead Publishing.
331
Bianchi, F., Rossi, E., Gomes, R., & Sivieri, K. (2015). Potentially synbiotic fermented beverage 332
with aqueous extracts of quinoa (Chenopodium Quinoa Willd) and soy. Food Science and 333
Technology International, 21(6), 403-415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013214540672 334
Blandino, A., Al-Aseeri, M. E., Pandiella, S. S., Cantero, D., & Webb, C. (2003). Cereal-based 335
fermented foods and beverages. Food Research International, 36(6), 527-543.
336
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(03)00009-7 337
Cadena, R. S., Caimi, D., Jaunarena, I., Lorenzo, I., Vidal, L., Ares, G., Deliza, R., & Giménez, 338
A. (2014). Comparison of rapid sensory characterization methodologies for the development 339
of functional yogurts. Food Research International, 64, 446-455.
340
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.07.027 341
Cruz, A. G., Cadena, R. S., Castro, W. F., Esmerino, E. A., Rodrigues, J. B., Gaze, L., Faria, J.
342
A. F., Freitas, M. Q., Deliza, R., & Bolini, H. M. A. (2013). Consumer perception of 343
17
probiotic yogurt: Performance of check all that apply (CATA), projective mapping, sorting 344
and intensity scale. Food Research International, 54(1), 601-610.
345
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.07.056 346
FAO (2011). Quinoa: An ancient crop to contribute to world food security. Av. Dag 347
Hammarskjöld 3241, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile: Food and Agriculture Organization of the 348
United Nations, Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean.
349
Farah, J. S., Araujo, C. B., & Melo, L. (2017). Analysis of yoghurts', whey-based beverages' and 350
fermented milks' labels and differences on their sensory profiles and acceptance.
351
International Dairy Journal, 68, 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2016.12.008 352
Fenko, A., Backhaus, B. W., & van Hoof, J. J. (2015). The influence of product- and person- 353
related factors on consumer hedonic responses to soy products. Food Quality and 354
Preference, 41, 30-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.009 355
ISO (2007). ISO 8589:2007 (E). Sensory analysis – General guidance for the design of test 356
rooms. Geneva, Switzerland: The International Organization of Standardization.
357
Jeske, S., Zannini, E., & Arendt, E. K. (2017). Evaluation of physicochemical and glycaemic 358
properties of commercial plant-based milk substitutes. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 359
72, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-016-0583-0 360
Jeske, S., Zannini, E., Lynch, K. M., Coffey, A., & Arendt, E. K. (2018). Polyol-producing lactic 361
acid bacteria isolated from sourdough and their application to reduce sugar in a quinoa- 362
based milk substitute. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 286, 31-36.
363
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.07.013 364
Lindeboom, N., Chang, P. R., Falk, K. C., & Tyler, R. T. (2005). Characteristics of starch from 365
eight quinoa lines. Cereal Chemistry, 82, 216-222. https://doi.org/10.1094/CC-82-0216 366
18
Lorusso, A., Coda, R., Montemurro, M., & Rizzello, C. (2018). Use of selected lactic acid 367
bacteria and quinoa flour for manufacturing novel yogurt-like beverages. Foods, 7, 51.
368
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods7040051 369
Ludeña Urquizo, F. E., García Torres, S. M., Tolonen, T., Jaakkola, M., Pena-Niebuhr, M. G., 370
von Wright, A., Repo-Carrasco-Valencia, R., Korhonen, H., & Plumed-Ferrer, C. (2017).
371
Development of a fermented quinoa-based beverage. Food Science & Nutrition, 5(3), 602- 372
608. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.436 373
Mäkinen, O. E., Uniacke-Lowe, T., O’Mahony, J. A., & Arendt, E. K. (2015). Physicochemical 374
and acid gelation properties of commercial UHT-treated plant-based milk substitutes and 375
lactose free bovine milk. Food Chemistry, 168, 630-638.
376
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.07.036 377
Navruz-Varli, S. & Sanlier, N. (2016). Nutritional and health benefits of quinoa (Chenopodium 378
Quinoa Willd.). Journal of Cereal Science, 69, 371-376.
379
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2016.05.004 380
Nionelli, L., Coda, R., José, C. A., Poutanen, K., Gobbetti, M., & Rizzello, C. G. (2014).
381
Manufacture and characterization of a yogurt-like beverage made with oat flakes fermented 382
by selected lactic acid bacteria. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 185, 17-26.
383
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.05.004 384
Oliveira, D., Vidal, L., Ares, G., Walter, E. H. M., Rosenthal, A., & Deliza, R. (2017). Sensory, 385
microbiological and physicochemical screening of probiotic cultures for the development of 386
non-fermented probiotic milk. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 79, 234-241.
387
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.01.020 388
19
Pellegrini, M., Lucas-Gonzales, R., Ricci, A., Fontecha, J., Fernández-López, J., Pérez-Álvarez, 389
J. A., & Viuda-Martos, M. (2018). Chemical, fatty acid, polyphenolic profile, techno- 390
functional and antioxidant properties of flours obtained from quinoa (Chenopodium Quinoa 391
Willd) Seeds. Industrial Crops and Products, 111, 38-46.
392
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.10.006 393
Pineli, L. d. L. d. O., Botelho, R. B. A., Zandonadi, R. P., Solorzano, J. L., de Oliveira, G. T., 394
Reis, C. E. G., & Teixeira, D. d. S. (2015). Low glycemic index and increased protein 395
content in a novel quinoa milk. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 63(2), 1261-1267.
396
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.03.094 397
Plant Based Foods Association & The Good Food Institute (2017). Plant based foods sales 398
experience 8.1 percent growth over past year.
399
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/09/prweb14683840.htm Accessed 3 June 2019.
400
Pruszkowski, E. & Bosnak, C. (2015). Analysis of plant materials for toxic and nutritional 401
elements with the NexION ICP-MS. (Application Brief). Shelton, CT: Perkin Elmers.
402
Ramos Diaz, J. M., Suuronen, J., Deegan, K. C., Serimaa, R., Tuorila, H., & Jouppila, K. (2015).
403
Physical and sensory characteristics of corn-based extruded snacks containing amaranth, 404
quinoa and kañiwa flour. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 64(2), 1047-1056.
405
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.07.011 406
Repo-Carrasco, R., Espinoza, C., & Jacobsen, S. E. (2006). Nutritional value and use of the 407
andean crops quinoa (Chenopodium Quinoa) and kañiwa (Chenopodium Pallidicaule). Food 408
reviews international, 19, 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1081/FRI-120018884 409
Rizzello, C. G., Tagliazucchi, D., Babini, E., Sefora Rutella, G., Taneyo Saa, D. L., & Gianotti, 410
A. (2016). Bioactive peptides from vegetable food matrices: research trends and novel 411
20
biotechnologies for synthesis and recovery. Journal of Functional Foods, 27, 549-569.
412
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2016.09.023 413
Salmerón, I., Thomas, K., & Pandiella, S. S. (2015). Effect of potentially probiotic lactic acid 414
bacteria on the physicochemical composition and acceptance of fermented cereal beverages.
415
Journal of Functional Foods, 15, 106-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2015.03.012 416
Song, R., Chung, S., Cho, S. A., Shin, H. W., & Harmayani, E. (2019). Learning to know what 417
you like: A case study of repeated exposure to ethnic flavors. Food Quality and Preference, 418
71, 452-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.021 419
Stikic, R., Glamoclija, D., Demin, M., Vucelic-Radovic, B., Jovanovic, Z., Milojkovic-Opsenica, 420
D., Jacobsen, S., & Milovanovic, M. (2012). Agronomical and nutritional evaluation of 421
quinoa seeds (Chenopodium Quinoa Willd.) as an ingredient in bread formulations. Journal 422
of Cereal Science, 55(2), 132-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2011.10.010 423
Suzuki, S. & Park, J. (2018). Consumer evaluation of healthy, unpleasant-tasting food and the 424
post-taste effect of positive information. Food Quality and Preference, 66, 107-110.
425
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.01.006 426
Vera-Pingitore, E., Jimenez, M. E., Dallagnol, A., Belfiore, C., Fontana, C., Fontana, P., von 427
Wright, A., Vignolo, G., & Plumed-Ferrer, C. (2016). Screening and characterization of 428
potential probiotic and starter bacteria for plant fermentations. LWT - Food Science and 429
Technology, 71, 288-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.03.046 430
Vilcacundo, R. & Hernández-Ledesma, B. (2017). Nutritional and biological value of quinoa 431
(Chenopodium Quinoa Willd.). Current Opinion in Food Science, 14, 1-6.
432
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2016.11.007 433
21
Wu, G., Ross, C. F., Morris, C. F., & Murphy, K. M. (2017). Lexicon development, consumer 434
acceptance, and drivers of liking of quinoa varieties. Journal of Food Science, 82(4), 993- 435
1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13677 436
Zannini, E., Jeske, S., Lynch, K. M., & Arendt, E. K. (2018). Development of novel quinoa- 437
based yoghurt fermented with dextran producer Weissella cibaria MG1. International 438
Journal of Food Microbiology, 268, 19-26.
439
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.01.001 440
Zeiger, R. S., Sampson, H. A., Bock, S. A., Burks, A. W., Harden, K., Noone, S., Martin, D., 441
Leung, S., & Wilson, G. (1999). Soy allergy in infants and children with IgE-associated 442
cow’s milk allergy. The Journal of Pediatrics, 134(5), 614-622.
443
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(99)70249-0 444
445
22 Tables:
446
Table 1 Nutritional composition (g 100 g-1) and essential minerals (average±sd) of the 447
experimental quinoa products and commercial vegan spoonable products analyzed 448
Table 2 The microbial counts (log cfu g-1), pH, total titratable acidity (TTA, ml of 0.1 M NaOH 449
10g-1) and viscosity (Pas) of experimental quinoa products during 28-day storage 450
Table 3 Percentage of respondents (n=66) who selected each of the terms in the check-all-that- 451
apply (CATA) to describe the experimental quinoa products and commercial vegan spoonable 452
products. The highest (≥50%) percentages of chosen CATA terms for each product are bolded 453
Figures:
454
Figure 1 The manufacturing process of the experimental quinoa products 455
Figure 2 The experimental quinoa products and commercial vegan spoonable products and their 456
ingredients. OFA: Yosa Break fig apple, OP: Yosa plum, QD: Quinoa date, OBV: Oatly bilberry 457
vanilla, SB: Alpro bilberry, and QBB: Quinoa bilberry banana 458
Figure 3 Correspondence analysis (CA) map of the CATA sensory terms in the first two 459
dimensions (n=66). CATA terms are marked with and evaluated experimental quinoa products 460
and commercial vegan spoonable products are marked with . Cochran’s test was applied prior 461
to CA. Products are bolded. OBV: Oatly bilberry vanilla, OFA: Yosa Break fig apple, OP: Yosa 462
plum, SB: Alpro bilberry, QBB: Quinoa bilberry banana and QD: Quinoa date 463
Appendices:
464
Appendix A Background information of the respondents (n=66) 465
Appendix B Average of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) viable counts (log cfu g-1), pH, total titratable 466
acidity (TTA, ml of 0.1 M NaOH 10g-1) and viscosity (Pas) of commercial vegan spoonable 467
23
products obtained in this study and their nutritional composition (g 100 g-1) according to package 468
information 469
QBB QD pH
Day 0 3.5±0.04 Aac 3.7±0.04 Ba
Day 7 3.5±0.02 Aac 3.6±0.04 Ba
Day 14 3.4±0.02 Aab 3.6±0.07 Bab
Day 21 3.4±0.01 Aad 3.5±0.04 Bb
Day 28 3.4±0.04 Abd 3.5±0.03 Bb
TTA
Day 0 12.2±0.95 Aa 12.7±0.15 Ba
Day 7 11.9±0.32 Aa 13.1±0.40 Ba
Day 14 12.9±0.14 Aac 14.5±1.51 Aa
Day 21 14.1±4.81 Abc 15.7±1.73 Aa
Day 28 14.6±1.14 Ab 15.7±1.20 Aa
Viscosity
Day 0 10.0±0.65 Aa 18.6±0.79 Ba
Day 7 10.3±0.16 Aa 19.4±0.02 Ba
Day 14 9.8±0.37 Aa 19.2±0.12 Ba
Day 21 9.9±0.40 Aa 19.5±0.17 Ba
Day 28 9.8±0.36 Aa 18.4±0.64 Ba
Lactic acid bacteria
Day 0 8.8±0.25 Aa 9.2±0.07 Aa
Day 7 8.8±0.10 Aa 9.1±0.12 Ba
Day 14 8.6±0.08 Aa 9.1±0.02 Ba
Day 21 8.5±0.01 Aa 8.9±0.01 Ba
Day 28 8.7±0.19 Aa 9.1±0.49 Aa
Aerobic mesophiles
Day 0 8.9±0.49 Aa 9.2±0.06 Aa
Day 7 8.8±0.18 Aa 9.1±0.12 Ba
Day 14 8.6±0.27 Aa 9.1±0.06 Ba
Day 21 8.7±0.22 Aa 9.0±0.05 Aab
Day 28 8.6±0.27 Aa 8.9±0.08 Ab
Yeasts and molds
Day 0 - -
Day 7 >4 -
Day 14 >4 -
Day 21 >4 -
Day 28 5.4±0.12 -
Coliforms
Day 0 - -
Day 7 - -
Day 14 - -
Day 21 - -
Day 28 - -
Data are means of three independent experiments ± standard deviations (n=3).
QBB: Quinoa bilberry banana and QD: Quinoa date.
Significantly different values within different starter candidates are shown within a row with different uppercase superscript letters (Tukey's test, p < 0.05). Significantly different values
obtained within different time points are shown within a column with different lowercase superscript letters (paired T-test, p < 0.05).
– Microbial growth not detected.
Product SB OBV OFA OP QBB QD Moisture1 81.2±0.05 A 79.6±0.02 B 83.2±0.08 C 81.3±0.02 D 71.6±0.07 E 71.4±0.08 F Energy [kcal 100 g-1]1 73.0±0.07 A 91.3±0.23 B 70.8±4.77 A 75.5±0.73 A 113.2±0.94 C 113.7±0.37 C Ash1 0.8±0.01 A 0.3±0.00 B 0.3±0.01 C 0.2±0.01 D 0.4±0.02 E 0.7±0.01 F Protein1 3.4±0.02 A 1.2±0.00 B 1.4±0.01 A 1.0±0.01 A 2.2±0.02 A 2.7±0.03 A Fat1 0.1±0.05 A 2.2±0.04 B 1.0±0.97 C 0.3±0.14 D 0.2±0.13 E 0.4±0.07 F Carbohydrates1 14.6±0.09 A 16.6±0.04 B 14.1±0.99 A 17.1±0.13 B 25.6±0.07 C 24.8±0.14 C Sugar (mono- and
disaccharides)
9.4 3 8.5 3 6.0 3 7.9 3 8.0 4 8.0 4
Fiber2 2.6 1.5 1.8 0.9 22 3.4
Na [mg 100 g-1]2 107.8 7.7 1.1 20.5 9.5 16.3
Mg [mg 100 g-1]2 21.8 4.5 1.7 13.1 38.5 47.2
K [mg 100 g-1]2 156.2 40.6 56.1 54.8 122.6 248.4
Ca [mg 100 g-1]2 125.2 95.0 8.0 4.5 31.8 49.8
P [mg 100 g-1]2 73.8 49.6 20.8 44.3 87.9 103.8
Mn [mg 100 g-1]2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4
Fe [mg 100 g-1]2 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.4 0.8 1.0
Cu [mg 100 g-1]2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2
Zn [mg 100 g-1]2 1.7 1.6 0.1 2.0 4.3 4.1
Products with different letters are significantly different according to Tukey’s test (p<0.05).
SB: Alpro bilberry, OBV: Oatly bilberry vanilla, OFA: Yosa Break fig apple, OP: Yosa plum, QBB: Quinoa bilberry banana and QD: Quinoa date.
1 Results are means of triplicates.
2 Preliminary results, analyses were performed once.
3 The value reported by the manufacturer.
4 Estimated value based on the recipe.
Taste terms
SB OBV OFA OP QBB QD
sour*** 7.6 CD 13.6 C 3.0 D 19.7 BC 53.0 A 28.8 B
sweet** 87.9 A 33.3 C 30.3 CD 62.1 B 16.7 D 15.2 D
cereal flavor*** 0.0 E 15.2 D 71.2 A 37.9 BC 31.8 CD 53.0 AB
tasteless*** 0.0 B 36.4 A 43.9 A 3.0 B 4.5 B 6.1 B
berry-like*** 100.0 A 45.5 B 4.5 D 25.8 C 51.5 B 3.0 D
fruity*** 10.6 C 1.5 C 45.5 B 72.7 A 3.0 C 7.6 C
spicy*** 7.6B C 3.0 C 1.6 B 9.1B C 18.2 B 56.1 A
date*** 1.5 C 0.0 C 13.6 AB 3.0B C 0.0 C 19.7 A
off-flavor*** 12.1 B 43.9 A 13.6 B 18. 2B 51.5 A 45.5 A
pungent*** 1.5 C 9.1 BC 1.5 C 18.2 B 53 A 39.4 A
artificial* 30.3 A 36.4 A 13.6 B 33.3 A 37.9 A 28.8 A
earthy*** 0.0 B 6.1 B 4.5 B 0.0 B 37.9 A 43.9 A
fresh*** 34.8 AB 16.7 CD 15.2 CD 43.9 A 18.2 BC 4.5 D
musty*** 3.0 B 36.4 A 27.3 A 12.1 B 39.4 A 39.4 A
soy flavor*** 37.9 A 50.0 A 12.1 B 6.1 BC 6.1 BC 0.0 C
vanilla*** 12.1 B 30.3 A 47.0 A 10.6 B 0.0 C 6.1 BC
plum*** 0.0 D 7.6 CD 13.6 BC 24.2 B 4.5 CD 47.0 A
fig*** 1.5 B 1.5 B 37.9 A 3.0 B 0.0 B 21.2 A
pleasant aftertaste***
56.1 A 12.1 B 19.7 B 43.9 A 9.1 B 9.1 B unpleasant
aftertaste***
3.0 D 33.3 B 16.7 C 10.6 CD 59.1 A 54.5 A Mouthfeel terms
fluid*** 16.7 B 1.5 C 0.0 C 3.0 C 84.8 A 4.5 C
dense*** 18.2 C 25.8 BC 43.9 A 40.9 AB 16.7 C 57.6 A
thick*** 19.7 C 36.4 B 87.9 A 48.5 B 0.0 D 50.0 B
smooth*** 69.7 A 81.8 A 3.0 C 12.1 B 6.1 BC 6.1 BC
soft*** 84.8 A 84.8 A 27.3 C 47.0 B 1.5 D 22.7 C
sandy*** 0.0 C 3.0 C 21.2 B 6.1 C 81.8 A 78.8 A
lumpy*** 1.5 CD 0.0 D 77.3 A 13.6 B 6.1 BCD 10.6 BC
pieces in the mix***
56.1 BC 3.0 D 87.9 A 71.2 B 47.0 B 13.6 D
slimy*** 1.5 B 1.5 B 4.5 B 48.5 A 0.0 B 42.4 A
sticky*** 0.0 D 4.5 CD 13.6 BC 21.2 AB 4.5 CD 30.3 A
slick*** 33.3 AB 42.4 A 6.1 C 33.3 AB 16.7 BC 4.5 C
mouth-coating*** 15.2 CD 12.1 D 28.8 C 30.3 BC 48.5 AB 54.5 A astringent*** 1.5 CD 6.1 BCD 0.0 D 9.1 BC 28.8 A 13.6 B
spoonable*** 78.8 A 84.8 A 80.3 A 72.7 A 22.7 C 54.5 B
Other terms
healthy*** 28.8 CD 27.3 D 60.6 A 43.9 BC 40.9 BCD 45.5 AB I would eat as
treat***
56.1 A 21.2 BC 12.1 CD 31.8 B 3.0 D 4.5 D
novel*** 6.1 D 37.9 BC 34.8 C 27.3 C 63.6 A 54.5A B
traditional*** 59.1 A 21.2 B 6.1 C 22.7 B 3.0 C 1.5 C
natural*** 25.8 B 13.6 B 45.5 A 22.7 B 12.1 B 19.7 B
high in proteinns 15.2 A 19.7 A 16.7 A 3.0 A 12.1 A 12.1 A high in fiber*** 3.0 C 9.1 C 60.6 A 27.3 B 37.9 B 68.2 A I would eat as 80.3 A 45.5 B 47.0 B 66.7 A 15.2 C 21.2 C
snack***
I would eat as breakfast***
66.7 A 37.9 B 39.4 B 37.9 B 13.6 C 15.2 C suitable for
seasonal flavor***
7.6 B 9.1 B 22.7 A 28.8 A 1.5 B 25.8 A
SB: Alpro bilberry, OBV: Oatly bilberry vanilla, OFA: Yosa Break fig apple, OP: Yosa plum, QBB: Quinoa bilberry banana and QD: Quinoa date.
Percentage values with different superscript letters are significantly different according to the McNemar test (p<0,05)
*** Indicates significant differences at p<0,001, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 (Cochran’s Q test).
ns Indicates no significant differences (p>0.05) according to Cochran’s Q test.
Highlights:
Quinoa proved to be a potential ingredient for spoonable snack products.
L. plantarum Q823 maintained high viable counts throughout the 28-day storage.
The experimental quinoa products had competitive nutritional compositions.
Target consumers perceived the quinoa products as novel, healthy and high in fiber.
Title of the manuscript: Potential of quinoa in the development of fermented spoonable vegan products
CRediT author statement
Kati Väkeväinen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Original draft, Writing – Review and Editing, Visualization, Funding acquisition; Fanny Ludena-Urquizo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review and Edition, Funding acquisition; Essi Korkala: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review and Editing; Anja Lapveteläinen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – Review and Editing, Supervision; Sirpa Peräniemi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review and Editing; Atte von Wright: Conceptualization, Writing – Review and Editing, Supervision; Carme Plumed-Ferrer: Conceptualization, Writing – Review and Editing, Supervision, Project administration
