Accepted Manuscript

Title: Structural, thermal and rheological properties of

starches isolated from Indian quinoa varieties

Authors: Khan Nadiya Jan, P.S. Panesar, J.C. Rana, Sukhcharn

Singh

PII: S0141-8130(17)30702-X
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.04.027
Reference: BIOMAC 7391

To appear in: International Journal of Biological Macromolecules

Received date: 24-2-2017

Revised date: 5-4-2017
Accepted date: 6-4-2017

Please cite this article as: Khan Nadiya Jan, P.S.Panesar, J.C.Rana,
Sukhcharn Singh, Structural, thermal and rheological properties of starches
isolated from Indian quinoa varieties, International Journal of Biological
Macromoleculeshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.04.027

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. 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.
 1

Structural, thermal and rheological properties of starches isolated from Indian quinoa

varieties

Khan Nadiya Jan1, P.S.Panesar1, J C Rana2 and Sukhcharn Singh1*

1
Department of Food Engineering and Technology, Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering

& Technology, (SLIET), (Deemed - University), Longowal, Sangrur, Punjab, INDIA

2
Head of Division, Plant Breeding, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi,

India

Corresponding author* Email: sukhcharns@yahoo.com

Phone no: 9815980334

Highlights
 Different properties of starches from Indian quinoa varieties were characterized

 Starches exhibited similar shapes, A-type crystal, low breakdown and setback

 Starches differed significantly in amylose, pasting, rheological and thermal properties

 Starches showed unique visco-elastic behaviour (High G'), may be used as thickener

 May be used in biodegradable films and in value added products (noodles)

Abstract

In this study starches isolated from Indian quinoa varieties were examined for

physicochemical, morphological, thermal and rheological properties. Among isolated

starches V1 showed higher starch yield and lower purity (48.45 % and 98.32 %) than V2

(41.28 and 98.53 %). The amylose content was higher for V1 (12.10 %) than V2 (9.46 %).

Swelling powers and solubility of the starches increased with increasing temperature. Peak

viscosity (386.4 RVU) was higher for V1. In contrast V2 showed higher pasting temperature

(72.85oC). Low setback viscosity of the starches suggests that they can be profitably used in
 2

frozen and refrigerated foods. Starch granules from both varieties were irregular, angular and

polygonal in shape. The starch granule size obtained by SEM was 1.23 µm for V1 and 1.19

µm for V2. Both starches showed a typical A-type diffractrometric pattern with varying

crystallinity. Further V1 showed lower transition temperatures (To, Tp and Tc) than V2. FTIR

spectroscopy showed higher intensity and broader shape of V2 at O-H stretch which can be

due to its higher crystallinity. Increased interest is shown in quinoa starch because of its

unique microcrystalline granules. Higher yield and purity values suggest that both varieties

can be exploited for commercial starch utilization.

Keywords: Indian quinoa starch; Structural properties; Thermal properties

1. Introduction

Pseudo-cereals belong to class dicotyledonae and produce seeds having high proportion of

starch Chenopodium quinoa, amaranth and buckwheat are the three most important

pseudocereals. Quinoa has origiAnated from South America, and belongs to the family

Chenopodiaceae and order caryophyllales. Quinoa has grabbed much attention as a new food

source because of its nutritional value and tolerance to stress conditions like drought, frost

and salinity [1]. The production of quinoa was 45,782 tonnes in Bolivia, 800 tonnes in

Ecuador and 44,213 tonnes in Peru [2]. Quinoa has been successfully cultivated in the

drought-prone area of Andhra Pradesh under the “Project Ananta” [3, 4]. There is no

widespread cultivation of quinoa in India hence; FAO data for cultivation of this crop in India

is not available. Quinoa can be termed ‘underutilized’ for India, as despite of its wide

adaptability, and nutritional superiority, its commercial potential has remained untapped [5].

Quinoa grain is a starchy raw material with large content of carbohydrates, consisting of

starch and a small percentage of sugars. Starch is the major component of quinoa, and varies
 3

from 50-62% with a granule diameter of less than 3μm [6, 7]. There is a growing demand of

starch, as the new food processing industries are increasingly dependent on both native and

modified starches for the manufacture of various fabricated foods. This demand has created

interest in finding the new sources of this polysaccharide. Starch has been widely used for

improving moisture retention and maintenance of the quality of stored food products [8].

There have been few studies on the functional and industrial potentials of quinoa starches

from different countries, but there is a complete dearth of such information about Indian

quinoa starch (IQS). The limited publications on quinoa mainly deal with its chemical

composition, granule morphology and pasting properties a systematic documentation of

functional, structural and textural properties of quinoa starches is still to be conducted.

Further the study on amplitude sweep and temperature sweep (rheological properties) is

absconding. Hence, the aim of this study was to characterize the physicochemical,

morphological, thermal and rheological properties of Indian Quinoa Starches. The properties

of the starch were then compared with that of quinoa starch Q-J.Grano (already available in

literature) and denoted as “V3” [9].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Raw material

Two germplasms of Quinoa IC-411824 (V1) and EC-507739 (V2) used in this study were

obtained from the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), located in Shimla.

The seeds were then cultivated at the experimental farm of Sant Longowal Institute of

Engineering and Technology. Both varieties were planted in the month of December and

were harvested manually in the month of April. The quinoa was planted in the holes almost

40 cm deep with a plant spacing of about 35 cm per plant. Both the varieties matured in

almost 140-151 days. The seeds were dried at room temperature and stored in plastic bags
 4

until processing for starch extraction. All the reagents used in the study were obtained from

Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, USA. All measurements were done in triplicates.

2.2 Starch isolation

Starch was isolated from the quinoa varieties by using alkaline steeping method given by

Ahamed et al, (1998) [10] with slight modifications from the standardised procedure (Jan

K.N et al unpublished data). Flour (500 g) was dispersed in a NaOH solution 0.25 g/100 mL

(0.25% w/v) by mixing manually at room temperature for few minutes before steeping. The

flour-to-water ratio used during steeping was 1:6 and the steeping time was 24 h. The slurry

was then centrifuged at 5500 rpm for 15 minutes, supernatant was collected for the recovery

of protein and the residue was subjected to wet milling with addition of de-ionized water. The

resultant slurry was then filtered by passing through a series of BSS sieves (100,200 and 300

mesh size). The material left over the sieves was washed thoroughly with de-ionized water

and filtrate was centrifuged at 6500 rpm for 15 minutes. The top yellow layer was scrapped

off from the residue and the starch was re-suspended in the water, while the supernatant was

collected and combined with the initial one for the protein recovery. Starch was washed

repeatedly (five times) for purification and then dried in hot air oven at 40 °C for 12 h. The

dried starch thus obtained was ground with a lab scale blender (Philips electric appliance

company) and stored under refrigerated conditions in air tight containers for further analysis.

2.3. Physico-chemical properties

2.3.1 Proximate composition

Starch Recovery from both quinoa varieties was expressed as percent yield. Starches were

chemically analyzed for their moisture, ash, lipids, and crude protein contents (N×6.25)

according to the methods described in AOAC (2006) [11]. Purity was expressed as total

starch content (100 – % protein + % fat +% fibre + % ash). The samples were tested in

triplicate.
 5

2.3.2. Color

Hunter colorimeter (Model i5 Green Macbeth, USA) was used for determination of color

values of Quinoa starches. Data was recorded as L*, a* and b* values. More appropriate

color measurement was obtained from the Calculation of hue angle [h°= tan−1 (b*/ a*)] and

Chroma [C*= (a*2+b*2)0.5]. Where h°= tan-1(b*/a*) when a* > 0 and b*> 0; h° = 180 + tan-1

(b*/a*) when a* < 0 and h° = 360 + tan-1 (b*/a*) when a*> 0 and b*< 0.

2.3.3. Amylose

Colorimetric determination of amylose content of native starch samples was done by using

the method described by Morrison and Laignelet (1983) [12]. Urea and DMSO (UDMSO)

solution 10 mL (90% DMSO, 10% 6 M urea in water) was mixed with 70 mg starch sample

and heated for 10 min in boiling water bath with intermittent mixing. The solution was

transferred to oven at 100 °C for 1 h and then cooled to room temperature. The aliquot of 0.5

mL of the solution was taken into volumetric flask containing 25 mL distilled water + 1 ml of

I2-KI (0.2g I2 and 2g KI in 100 mL distilled water) and final volume was made up to 50 mL

with distilled water. Absorbance was measured at 635 nm 15 min after addition of the I2-KI

reagent and UDMSO-I2-KI (except sample) was used as blank. Amylose content was

calculated from the blue value and determined in triplicates. Amylopectin was esimated by

difference (100- amylose %).

Absorbance × 100
Blue value = × 10
2 × g solution × mg starch

% Amylose = Blue value × 28.414

2.3.4. Turbidity

Transmittance of starch sample was measured as described by Perera and Hoover (1999)

[13]. A 1% aqueous starch suspension was made by heating 0.4 g starch in 40 mL of de-

ionized water in a water bath at 90 °C for 1 h with thorough shaking after every 5 min. The

sample were then cooled to room temperature and stored at 4 °C for five days. The
 6

absorbance was measured after every 24 h at 640 nm against a water blank using a

spectrophotometer (Cole-parker, Germany).

2.3.5. Swelling power & solubility

Swelling power (SP) and solubility were determined according to the method of Lin et al.,

(2011) with some modifications [14]. Starch suspension 1%, (0.4g in 40 mL w/v) was taken

in centrifuge tubes and placed on a vortex mixer for 10 seconds. The samples were heated in

a water bath at 55° to 95 °C (at 10 °C intervals) for 30 minutes; and were left for cooling to

room temperature. Samples were then centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 15 min using a REMI PR-

24 centrifuge (VCDL-4890; M/s. Remi Electrotechnik Limited, Maharashtra, India). The

supernatant was dried in a pre-weighed Petri plate to a constant weight at 120 °C. All

measurements were done in triplicates. The SP (g/g) and Solubility (%) were calculated as;

Weigth of dried supernatent

Solubility (%) = × 100
Weight of sample

Weigth of sediment paste × 100

Swelling power (g/g) =
Weight of samlpe × (100 − % Solubilty)

2.3.6. Water binding capacity (WBC)

Water binding capacity (WBC) of samples was determined by the method described by

Yamazaki (1953) with modifications from Medcalf & Gilles, (1965) [15, 16]. Starch samples

5g each was mixed with 75 mL distilled water, centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min and wet

starch was then weighed. Samples were agitated for 1 h prior to centrifugation.

2.4. Pasting properties

Rapid Visco-Analyzer (Tech Master, Pertain Instruments; Newport Scientific Pvt. Ltd.,

Warriewood, Australia) was used to determine the pasting properties of starch. Starch and

distilled water were mixed and stirred in the RVA aluminium sample canisters. A

programmed heating and cooling cycle was used, where the samples were held at 50 °C for 1
 7

min, heated to 95 °C (heating rate 12 oC/min) and held at 95 oC for 2.5 min, before cooling

from 95 to 50 °C at the rate of 12 oC/min and holding at 50 °C for 2 min. Throughout the

analysis paddle rotational speed was constant (160 rpm) except for rapid stirring (960 rpm for

10 s) in the beginning to disperse the samples evenly. Peak viscosity, final viscosity,

breakdown, setback and pasting temperature were measured from the pasting curves using

instrument software [17].

2.5. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

The morphological property of the native starches was observed with a scanning electron

microscope (JEOL, JSM 6610-LV, Tokyo, Japan). Dried samples were mounted on a metal

stub with double-stick adhesive carbon tape and sputtered with gold to make the sample

conductive. An accelerating voltage of 10 kV was used while taking images and the

micrographs were recorded at 10000× magnification [17].

2.6. X-ray diffraction and relative crystallinity

The X-ray patterns of starches were obtained with a target Cu-anode X-ray tube using a

PANalytical, X’Pert’ PRO (MPD-3190 Spectris technologies Pvt. Ltd.) The diffractometer

was operated at 40 mA and 45 kV. The scanning region of the diffraction angle (2θ) was

from 5° to 50° at 0.013° step size with a scan step time of 44 s. This scanning region covers

all the significant diffraction peaks of starch crystallites [18].

2.7. Thermal properties

Thermal characteristics of quinoa starches were tested by Differential Scanning Calorimetry

(DSC) using a Shimadzu calorimeter (model TA-50WSI, Japan). A starch suspension

containing 70% water was prepared in aluminium pans, sealed hermetically and left to

hydrate for 1 h. The sample pans were subjected to scanning at a rate of 10 °C/min from 10

°C to 120 °C. The DSC analyzer was calibrated using indium, and an empty aluminium pan

was used as a reference. Thermal transitions of starch samples To (onset temperature), Tp

 8

(peak of gelatinization temperature) Tc (conclusion temperature) and enthalpy of

gelatinization ( ∆ Hgel) were calculated. The gelatinization temperature range (R) was

calculated as 2 (Tp -To) [19].

2.8. Rheological properties

Native starch suspension 20% (w/w) was subjected to temperature sweep oscillatory test

using a Modular Compact Rheometer (MCR-102, M/s. Anton Paar, Austria), equipped with

parallel plate system (5 cm diameter) and PP50-SN32770 [d=0.5 mm] was used as a probe.

The gap size was set at 500 µm, strain and frequency were set at 0.5% and 1 Hz, respectively.

The starch suspension (20%) was vortexed for 10 min prior to loading on the ram of

rheometer and was then covered with a thin layer of low-density silicon oil (to minimize

evaporation losses). The dynamic rheological properties, such as storage modulus (G’) and

loss modulus (G”) were determined for isolated starches. The starch suspensions were heated

from 45 to 90°C at a scan rate of 2.5 °Cmin−1 [20].

2.9 Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was done by using Statistica-log software package version 7 (M/s.

StatSoft Inc., OK, USA). The significant differences were obtained by a one-way analysis of

variance test (ANOVA) followed by Duncan’s multiple range test (p < 0.05).

3. Result and discussion

3.1. Starch yield and composition

The yield and composition of isolated starch from Indian quinoa varieties is shown in Table1.

The starches were isolated with a yield of 48.52 g/100g for V1 and 41.28 g/100g for V2

having a significant difference, which might be attributed to varietal difference. As observed

in the present investigation the starch isolated from quinoa varieties is higher than that

reported for other pseudocereals like C.album (37.59-47.3 g/100g), Amaranth cholai (31.47

g/100g) [18]. Higher yield results suggest the suitability of both quinoa varieties for starch
 9

isolation. There was no significant difference in the proximate composition (moisture,

protein, fibre and ash content) of isolated starches this may be due to extraction, drying and

storage conditions being same for both. However, a significant difference was observed in the

fat content of the starches with V1 showing higher values than V2, which may be due to the

genetic makeup of the seeds. Lower value of protein for both starches shows the effectiveness

of extraction process for removal of residual protein. Low lipid, fibre and protein content of

starch extracted by alkaline steeping has been reported by other researchers as well [21]. The

purity level of starch in present study was much higher than that of Q-J.Grano [9]. The purity

level of starch was higher for V2 than V1.

3.2. Physico-chemical properties

3.2.1. Color

The color parameters (L*, a*, b*, hue, and chroma) of quinoa starches is shown in Table 1.

The L*, a*, b* values of the starches showed significant differences. Isolated starches were

pure white in color because of higher hue angle and L* values being greater than 90, with V1

being slightly much whiter than V2 [22]. The slight difference in color parameters can be due

to the presence of pigments like carotene and phenolic compounds present in quinoa seed

[23]. Starches from present study are suitable from consumer point of view because of low

chroma and high lightness values.

3.2.2 Amylose content

Table 1 shows the amylose content of quinoa starch varieties. Amylose content varied

significantly from 9.46 % for V2 and 12.10 % for V1 and is consistent with the values of 0.3-

12.1 % reported in literature for quinoa [24]. Similar amylose content range (8.22-9.30 %)

was observed for Q-J.Grano and other quinoa starches [9]. The ratio of Amylose/amylopectin

for V1 and V2 was 1:7.26 and 1:9.5 respectively. The results were also in agreement with the

amylose content range (1.87-19.11 %) for different pseudocereals like amaranth and C.album
 10

[18].Variations in amylose contents can occur because of different botanical sources [25].

Studied starches contained low amylose content and hence could form gels with a lower

retrogradation tendency [26].

3.2.3 Turbidity

The turbidity values of native quinoa starch gels are shown in Fig.1. Turbidity values of both

starch gels increased progressively with increasing storage time at 4 °C which may be due to

leaching of amylose and amylopectin chains from functional zones, which scattered a

significant amount of light [13]. V2 starch showed lower turbidity values (1.382-1.441) than

V1 (1.428-1.474). The lower turbidity values of V1 starch may be due to its lower amylose

content. Turbidity development in starch pastes during storage may be affected by factors like

amylose and amylopectin chain lengths, leached amylose and amylopectin granule swelling

and granule remnants [27].

3.2.4 Swelling power & solubility

Swelling power (SP) and solubility of native quinoa starches at different temperatures (55-95

°C) are shown in fig 2 (a) & 2 (b). Both the starches showed increased SP and solubility with

increase in temperature. The maximum SP observed for V1 and V2 varieties was 12.53 g/g

and 13.89 g/g respectively and can be considered as highly restricted swelling behavior as in

both cases swelling power was below 16 g/g. V2 starch had the higher swelling power and

solubility in comparison to V1 starch. High SP and low water binding capacity of V2 can be

linked to its low amylose content as amylose reinforces internal network within granules thus

restricting swelling. These types of starches are stable against shearing action during cooking

in water [28]. The solubility and swelling power gives the evidence of magnitude of

interaction between starch chains within amorphous and crystalline domains. Solubility of

starches differs due to different chain length distributions [29, 30]. Restricted swelling

behavior shown by both starches is desired for manufacture of products like noodles. The
 11

restricted swelling power and solubility of starches can be due to high linear content and

natural cross-linkages of native starches [31].

3.2.5 Water binding capacity

Water binding capacity of the two starches varied significantly and was higher for V1 (92.15

%) and lower for V2 (88.27 %) as shown in Table 1. These values were within the range of

values reported for other quinoa varieties [24]. WBC has been reported to be affected by

loose association of amylose and amylopectin molecules, with low WBC attributing to the

close association of starch polymers [32, 33].

3.3 Pasting properties of starch

Pasting properties of quinoa starches are summarized in Table 2. There was a significant

difference in pasting properties of quinoa starches. The Peak viscosity (PV), Break down

viscosity (BD), Setback viscosity (SB) and Final viscosity (FV) were higher for V1 starch

compared to V2 starch. PV gives the maximum viscosity attained by starch granules during

heating and also indicates the water binding capacity of starch. High PV (386.4 RVU) of V1

starch correlates well with its higher water binding capacity. Higher values of PV, BD, FV

and SB for high amylose varieties have been observed in other studies as well which may be

due to high amylose content behaving as diluent factor. Further higher blue value (amylose

content) has been associated with higher peak viscosity [34, 35]. This high viscosity and

lower breakdown of both the starches is desirable because of the non-cohesive nature of their

paste being suitable for many industrial and food applications. The pasting temperature (PT)

which is the minimum temperature required to cook the starch was lower for V1 (69.45 °C)

starch than V2 (72.85 °C) starch. Higher PT of V2 starch regardless of its lower amylose than

V1 showed that PT can be probably affected by factors like degree of branching of

amylopectin and higher degree of crystallinity [36, 37]. The PV, BD, FV and SB of the
 12

present starches were almost similar to that observed for quinoa variety Q-J.Grano. But the

PT (62.7 °C) of Q-J.Grano was lower than the values observed in present study [9].

3.4 Scanning electron microscope

The scanning electron micrograph of quinoa starches is shown in Fig 3. It showed that the

starch granules from both quinoa varieties were irregular, angular and polygonal in shape

with almost smooth surfaces and no obvious signs of damage/fissures due to isolation

conditions. According to the micrograph average granule size was 1.23 µm and 1.19 µm for

V1 and V2 respectively. Quinoa starches from different varieties have shown irregular,

polygonal shapes [24, 9]. Being small in size in comparison to corn starch, quinoa starches

can act as carriers for colorants and flavors [38].

3.5 XRD

The X-ray diffractograms of native quinoa starches are presented in Fig. 4. Quinoa starches

from varieties V1 and V2 exhibited a typical ‘A’ type pattern, characterized by strong

intensity peaks around 2θ of 15.41, 17.64, 18.20 and 23.31 Å for V2 and 15.23, 17.19, 18.17,

23.32 Å for V1. The XRD intensities of both starch varieties were almost identical. The

degree of crystallinity ranged from 21.46 % for V1 and 22.19 % for V2. Crystallinity is

affected by short and long-side chain amylopectin and amylose content. In general lower the

amylose content, higher is the degree of crystallinity of starch. Crystallinity values were

lower than that observed for horse chestnut and some pseudocereal starches like C.album and

quinoa [39, 18, 9].

3.6 Thermal properties of starch

The starch gelatinization transition temperatures (To, Tp and Tc) and associated enthalpies of

native quinoa starches are shown in Table 3. V2 starch showed slightly higher To, Tp, Tc

(66.61°, 71.56° and 76.98°C) than V1 (64.32°, 69.36° and 75.78°C). Higher gelatinization

temperature (GT) of V2 can be an indication of higher crystallite size or stability of starch

 13

crystallites in starch of particular variety which makes granule more resistant towards

gelatinization. This high GT of V2 is also justified by its lower breakdown viscosity and

higher PT. The results are in agreement with the findings of Boudries et al, (2009) for

sorghum starch, where higher GT (To, Tp and Tc) values were recorded for starch with

higher crystallinity [22]. ∆H gel which indicates the loss of double helical structure was

higher for V1 which may be due to its high amylose content. Starches from various botanical

sources vary in composition and reveal different transition temperatures and gelatinization

enthalpies [40]. Gelatinization temperature range (R) was higher for V1 (10.08) than V2 (9.9).

Extended temperature range reflects a wide range of crystals stability [41]. The gelatinization

temperature range of both the starches was higher than that observed by Li et al. (2016) for

quinoa seeds from different geographical locations [42].

3.7 Rheo-optic

Rheological properties of starch suspensions as a function of temperature during heating are

shown in Table 4. The storage modulus (G') and loss modulus (G'') increased with increasing

temperature till the deformation occurred which resulted in the decrease in G' and G'' values.

The values of G' and G'' for both starches started increasing gradually at the initial heating

stage. However, sudden increase in G' and G'' was observed in the temperature range of 64 °C

to 66 °C. The G' and G'' for V1 started to increase at 64 °C, where as that of V2 showed an

increase at 66°C. This increase can be due to degree of swelling of starch granules to fill the

entire available volume of the system. The G' and G'' of the starches increased drastically to

maximum at 86.5° and 89.4°C for V1 and V2 respectively followed by a mild drop for some

time. The drop in G' and G'' values may be due to melting of remaining crystallites which

resulted in disrupted granules to become softer. The G' values for both starch gels were

greater than G'' indicating their more elastic behaviour than viscous. The highest value for G'

and G'' peak was observed in V1 followed by V2. Both starch gel systems maintained stability
 14

over longer temperature range which is also justified by their low breakdown viscosity

values. Comparison with the horse chestnut starch showed that quinoa starch was having

higher TG', Gˈ and G'' but tan was lower than that of horse chestnut [39]. The results are in

close proximity with the study of Jan, Saxena, and Singh (2016) for C.album and amaranth

starches [18].

3.8 FTIR

The major functional groups present in extracted quinoa starch were identified using FTIR

spectra as shown in Figure 5. The dominant functional groups present in carbohydrates are

hydroxyl groups responsible for the intra and inter molecular bonding with other hydroxyl

groups [43]. The starch is mainly characterised by the strong absorption bands at 3500-3200

cm-1 (due to O-H stretching) and at 1200-1000 cm-1 (due to C-O-C stretching). The broader

bands were observed for both the starches at 3300-3500 cm-1 attributed to the O-H stretching.

Small peaks at 2928 cm-1 and 2924 cm-1 for V1 and V2 respectively were attributed to the C-H

stretches. The bands at 1456cm-1 and 1416cm-1 for V1 and 1454 cm-1 and 1418cm-1 for V2

were believed to be due to angular deformation of C-H. The bands in the region 800 to 400

cm-1 are due to skeletal mode of pyranose ring [44]. The FTIR spectra comparison showed

that the intensity and shape of the-OH absorption bands was higher for V2 than V1 which

depicts the higher crystallinity of the V2.

Conclusion

Isolated starches showed variation in yield, physicochemical, morphological, structural,

thermal and rheological properties. The yield and amylose content was higher from V1 (48.52

%, 12.10 %) than V2 (41.28 %, 9.46 %). Isolated starches had high L values and hence can be

used in product formulation without any color impartation. Proximate composition showed

non-significant differences (except fat) because of the same isolation procedure. Both the

starches showed low BD viscosity values indicating their high heat stability and resistance to
 15

shear stress. Higher peak, trough, break down, final and setback viscosity of V1 may be due

to its higher amylose content, in contrast its lower pasting temperature may be due to its

lower crystallinity. V1 showed higher turbidity, G' and G'' values than V2. Both varieties can

be exploited for commercial starch production and can be used for various food (thickener,

stabilizer, and weaning foods) and non-food applications (pharmaceuticals, textiles). Both

starches are suited for applications requiring improved binding and reduced breakability due

to small granule diameter. The swelling power of both the starches place them in category of

highly restricted-swelling starch which is desirable for products like noodles and composite

blends.

Acknowledgements

First author is grateful to University Grants Commission for providing financial assistance in

the form of MANF.

References

1. S. E. Jacobsen, A. Mujica, & C. R. Jensen, Food Rev Int, 19 (1-2) (2003) 99-109.

2. FAO STAT. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx FAO Statistics

Division. (2012).

3. Deccan Chronicle. Miracle grain ideal for Andhra Pradesh. Deccan Chronicle.

August 26, 2013.

4. The Times of India. Quinoa holds hopes for dry Anantapur. The Times of India. June

2 2013.

5. A. Bhargava, S. Shukla, S. Rajan, & D. Ohri, Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution,

54(1) (2007) 167-173.

6. M. J. Kozioł, J. Food Composition Analysis 5(1) (1992) 35-68.

 16

7. W. A. Atwell, B. M. Patrick, L. A. Johnson, R. W. Cereal Chemistry, 60(1) (1982) 9-

11.

8. O. K. Abegunde, T. H. Mu, J. W. Chen, F. M. Deng, Food Hydrocolloids. 33 (2013)

169-177.

9. M. E. Steffolani, A. E. León, G. T. Pérez, Starch‐Stärke, 65(11-12) (2013) 976-983.

10. N. T. Ahamed, R. S. Singhal, P. R. Kulkarni, M. Pal, Carbohydrate polymers. 31(1)

(1996) 99-103.

11. AOAC, Official Methods of Analysis, (18th Eds.). Arlington, VA: Association of

Official Analytical Chemists (2006).

12. W. R. Morrison, B. J. Laignelet, Cereal Science, 1(1) (1983) 9-20.

13. C. Perera, R. Hoover Food Chemistry. 64(3) (1999) 361-375.

14. Q. L. Lin, H. X. Xiao, X. J. Fu, T. I. A. N. Wei, L. H. LI, F. X. Yu, Agricultural

Sciences in China, 10(6) (2011) 960-968.

15. W. T. Yamazaki, Cereal Chemistry, 30(3) (1953) 242-246.

16. D. G. Medcalf, K. A. Gilles, Cereal Chemistry, 42(6) (1965) 558-568.

17. K. Gul, C. S. Riar, A. Bala, M. S. Sibian, LWT-Food Science and Technology, 59(1),

(2014) 348-355.

18. R. Jan, D. C. Saxena, S. Singh, LWT-Food Sci Technol. 66 (2016) 267-274.

19. B. R. Krueger, C. A. Knutson, G. E. Inglett, C. E. Walker, Journal of Food

Science 52(3) (1987) 715-718.

20. N. Singh, L. Kaur, K. S. Sandhu, J. Kaur, K. Nishinari, Food hydrocolloids, 20 (4)

(2006) 532-542.

21. B. Belhadi, D. Djabali, R. Souilah, M. Yousfi, B. Nadjemi, Food and Bioproducts

Processing, 91(3) (2013) 225-232.

 17

22. N. Boudries, N. Belhaneche, B. Nadjemi, C. Deroanne, M. Mathlouthi, B. Roger, M.

Sindic, Carbohydrate Polymers, 78(3) (2009) 475-480.

23. S. A. Mir, S. J. D. Bosco, M. Bashir, M. A. Shah, M. M. Mir, International Journal of

Food Properties (2016) (just-accepted).

24. N. Lindeboom, P. R. Chang, K. C. Falk, & R. T. Tyler, Cereal chemistry, 82(2)

(2005) 216-222.

25. S. Srichuwong, T. C. Sunarti, T. Mishima, N. Isono, M. Hisamatsu, Carbohydrate

polymers 60(4) (2005) 529-538.

26. J. N. BeMiller, Starch-based gums. USA: Academic Press. (1993)

27. M. R. Jacobson, M. Obanni, J. N. BeMiller, Cereal Chemistry, 74 (1997) 571–578.

28. F. C. F. Galvez, A. V. Resurreccion, Journal of Sensory Studies, 7(4) (1992) 315-326.

29. H. Liu, L. Ramsden, H. Corke, Carbohydrate polymers, 40(3) (1999) 175-182.

30. L.A. Bello-Perez, S.M.Contreras Ramos, A. Jimenez-Afarican, O. Paredese Lopez,

Acta científica venezolana, 51 (2000) 143-149.

31. T. J. Schoch, E. C. Maywald, Cereal Chemistry, 45(6) (1968) 564-573.

32. P.L. Soni, H.W. Sharma, S.S. Bisen, H.C. Srivastava, M.M. Gharia,

Starch‐Stärke, 39(12) (1987) 411-413.

33. K. Lorenz, Starch‐Stärke, 42(3) (1990). 81-86.

34. T. Noda, Y. Nishiba, T. Sato, I. Suda, Cereal Chemistry, 80(2) (2003) 193-197.

35. O. F. Osundahunsi, T. N. Fagbemi, E. Kesselman, E. Shimoni, J. Agric. Food

Chemistry, 51(8) (2003) 2232-2236.

36. Y. S. Kim, D. P. Wiesenborn, J. H. Lorenzen, P. Berglund,. Cereal Chemistry, 73(3)

(1996) 302-308.

37. Y. Wang, L. Zhang, X. Li, W. Gao, Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology,

54(2) (2011) 243-251.

 18

38. J. Zhao, R. L. Whistler, Food Technology, 48(7) (1994) 104-105

39. S. I. Rafiq, K. Jan, S. Singh, D. C. Saxena, Journal of Food Science and

Technology 52(9) (2015) 5651-5660.

40. N. Singh, J. Singh, L., Kaur, N. S. Sodhi, B. S. Gill, Food Chemistry, 81 (2003) 219-

231.

41. H. Fredriksson, J. Silverio, R. Andersson, A. C. Eliasson, P. Åman, Carbohydrate

polymers, 35(3) (1998) 119-134.

42. G. Li, S. Wang, F. Zhu, Carbohydrate polymers, 137 (2016) 328-338.

43. M. Joshi, P. Aldred, S. McKnight, J. F. Panozzo, S. Kasapis, R. Adhikari, B.

Adhikari, Carbohydrate polymers 92(2) (2013) 1484-1496.

44. A.M. Ogunmolasuyi, E.C. Egwim, M.A. Adewoyin, and O. Awoyinka, Starch-Stärke,

(2016).
 19

1.5

1.48

1.46
Absorbance (640 nm)

1.44

1.42

1.4 V1
V2
1.38

1.36

1.34

1.32
0 24 48 72 96 120
Storage duration (h)

Figure 1
 20

13.89
13
12.53
swelling power (g/g) 11 10.55
9.54
9 8.54

7 7.3
5.42 V2
5 4.95
V1
3 2.1
1.72
1
50 60 70 80 90 100

Temperature oC
a)

8
7.11
7
6.28 6.46
Solubility %

5 4.87
4.69 V2
4 2.8 V1
3 2.72 3.14

2
1.32 1.47
1
50 60 70 80 90 100

b) Temperature oC

Figure 2. a) and 2. b)
 21

Figure 3

3000

2500

2000
Intensity

1500

V1 V2
1000

500

0
5 15 25 35 45 55

2 theta (θ)
 22

Figure 4

Figure 5
 23

Figure captions

Figure 1. Effect of storage duration on turbidity (absorbance at 640 nm) of gelatinized

starches from Indian Quinoa starches stored at 4oC

Figure 2. a) Swelling power and b) solubility index of native Indian Quinoa starches

Figure 3. Scanning electron micrographs (magnification 10,000 X) of native Indian Quinoa

starches

Figure 4. X-ray diffraction patterns of native Indian Quinoa starches

Figure 5. FTIR Spectra of native Indian quinoa starches

Table captions

Table 1 Physico-chemical properties of native starches from Indian quinoa varieties*

 24

Table 1

Varieties
Parameter
V1 V2 V3#

Starch yield (g 100g−1) 48.52±0.48a 41.28±0.31b ND

Purity (%) 98.30±0.10a 98.5± 0.11a 83.49

Moisture 8.49±0.29a 9.20±0.30a 9.29

Fat 0.40±0.11a 0.32±0.12b 2.00

Ash 0.22±0.02a 0.18±0.03a 1.48

Protein 0.95±0.09a 0.89±0.09a 1.13

Fibre 0.13 ±0.03a 0.10±0.05a 0.19

Amylose (%) 12.10±0.13a 9.46±0.02b 9.15

Amylopectin (%) 87.9±0.13a 90.54±0.02b 90.85

Amylose/amylopectin ratio 1:2 1:7.3±0.13a 1:9.5±0.02b 1:9.9

L 97.27±0.15 a 96.8±0.12a ND

Hue angle 126.36±0.15a 125.01±0.12a ND

Chroma 6.12±0.15a 5.70±0.12a ND

Water binding capacity (%) 92.15±0.65a 88.27±0.94b ND

*n=3; Results are expressed as mean values ± SD. Means in a column with different

superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05), ND= Not Determined.

#
Steffolani et al., 2013 (V3= Q-J.Grano)
 25

Table 2 Pasting properties of native Indian quinoa starches*

Table 2

Parameters Varieties

V1 V2 V3#

PT (oC) 69.45±1.83a 72.85±1.11b 62.7

Peak viscosity (RVU) 386.4±11.92a 207.33±29.82b 347.3

Trough viscosity (RVU) 307.8±6.91a 149.16±30.51b ND

Breakdown viscosity (RVU) 78.58±33.40a 58.17±22.68b 61.91

Final viscosity (RVU) 405.75±37.52a 223.67±34.60b 341.8

Setback viscosity (RVU) 97.91±33.59a 74.5±21.47b 56.33

*n=3; Results are expressed as mean values ± SD. Means in a column with different

superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05).

PT = Pasting temperature; Breakdown = (Peak- Trough); and Setback = (Final- Trough),

ND= Not Determined. #Steffolani et al., 2013 (V3= Q-J.Grano)

 26

Table 3 Thermal properties of native Indian quinoa starches as determined by Differential

Scanning Calorimetry*

Table 3

Parameters Varieties

V1 V2 V3#

To (oC) 64.32±0.08a 66.61±0.05b 54.25

Tp (oC) 69.36±0.14 a 71.56±0.06b 61.66

Tc (oC) 75.78±0.35 a 76.98±0.32b ND

∆ Hgel (J/g) 5.10±0.39a 4.34±0.29b 8.45

R (oC) 10.08±0.05a 9.9±0.11a 14.82

*n=3; Results are expressed as mean values ± SD. Means in a column with different

superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05).

#
Steffolani et al., 2013 (V3= Q-J.Grano); R (2 (Tp -To); ND= Not Determined.
 27

Table 4 Rheological characteristics of Indian quinoa starch gels during heating*

Table 4

Parameters Varieties

V1 V2 V3#

T G' (°C) 86.5 ± 1.8a 89.4 ± 1.9b ND

Peak G' (Pa) 38,530 ± 108a 34,400 ± 104b ND

Peak G'' (Pa) 5970 ± 90.35a 5512 ± 80.61b ND

Peak tan δ 0.155 ± 0.15a 0.160 ± 0.16b ND

*n=3; Results are expressed as mean values ± SD. Means in a column with different

superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05). ND= Not Determined.

#
Steffolani et al., 2013 (V3= Q-J.Grano)