Comparative Analysis of Proximate Compositions, Physical Properties, and Sensory Attributes of Kersting’s Groundnut (<i>Macrotyloma geocarpum</i> (Harms) Maréchal & Baudet) Accessions

Fassinou, Finagnon Toyi Kevin; Agoyi, Eric Etchikinto; Affonfere, Marius; Sacla Aide, Edmond; Assogbadjo, Achille Ephrem; Chadare, Flora Josiane

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6372248

Journal of Food Quality

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 6372248 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6372248

Comparative Analysis of Proximate Compositions, Physical Properties, and Sensory Attributes of Kersting’s Groundnut (Macrotyloma geocarpum (Harms) Maréchal & Baudet) Accessions

Finagnon Toyi Kevin Fassinou,^1,2Eric Etchikinto Agoyi,³Marius Affonfere,^1,2Edmond Sacla Aide,^4,5Achille Ephrem Assogbadjo,^3,4and Flora Josiane Chadare^1,2

Academic Editor: Ivan Luzardo-Ocampo

Received11 Nov 2022

Revised22 Mar 2023

Accepted24 Mar 2023

Published19 Apr 2023

Abstract

Kersting’s groundnut (Macrotyloma geocarpum, Harms) is a legume crop with nutritional potential in West Africa where it is widely consumed due to its palatability. The present study investigated the physical characteristics, nutritional composition, and organoleptic properties of five Kersting’s groundnut accessions selected based on their yield performance, stability, and seed color. Physical characteristics (seed size, length, and thickness) were determined using a Vernier Caliper while a laboratory weighing scale was used to determine 100-seed weight. Protein and fat contents were analyzed using micro-Kjeldahl and Soxhlet systems, respectively. Dietary fiber content was determined using the AOAC method while carbohydrate content was determined using the method of difference. Amino acids were hydrolyzed and determined using the liquid chromatography method. Ten trained panelists participated in testing the cookability of the samples while 30 untrained panelists were involved in the acceptability test. Results showed that accessions ranged between 8.1 ± 0.1 and 9.3 ± 0.2 mm for seed length, 5.7 ± 0.4 and 6.0 ± 0.2 mm for the width, and 4.0 ± 0.0 and 4.9 ± 0.4 mm for thickness. The 100-seed weight ranged from 11.7 ± 0.8 to 16.7 ± 1.6 g. Protein, fat, and carbohydrate contents ranged from 20.5 ± 0.2 to 22.0 ± 0.2, 1.2 ± 0.0 to 2.3 ± 0.0, and 56.5 ± 0.0 to 59.4 ± 0.1 (g/100 g dw), respectively. The lowest and highest cooking times were 78 and 124 minutes, respectively. All accessions recorded good sensory acceptability (>50%) except the accession BUR 16 which was liked only by 23.3%. Overall, accession OUA had the highest protein, medium cooking time, and highest overall acceptability score (>70%), hence recommended for wide production. Future studies need to be performed on the antinutritional content of this accession and to find out the effect of cooking on the nutritional value of derived meals and starch modification.

1. Introduction

Protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) remains a public health problem, especially in the African countries [1]. In these countries, legumes are the main source of dietary protein because of the prohibitive cost of animal protein that makes it unaffordable to most rural populations [2]. Legumes are vital protein sources, containing up to 20–40 grams of dietary proteins per 100 grams of dry matter. In tropical African countries, the most commonly consumed legumes include cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.), bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.), and Kersting’s groundnut (Macrotyloma geocarpum (Harms) Maréchal & Baudet) [3, 4]. They provide essential proteins, vitamins, and dietary fiber for consumers. Kersting’s groundnut is an important African indigenous leguminous crop grown on a small scale in West Africa [5]. It originated in West Africa and is widely consumed in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Togo [6]. The seed coat color is the main criterion used to distinguish landraces of Kersting’s groundnut [7]. In West Africa, based on the seed coat color, Agoyi et al. [8] reported 17 different morphotypes. In Benin, based on the seed coat colors, three landraces are commonly observed via the white or cream landrace, locally named as “doyiwe” the black landrace “doyi wiwi” and the brown/red landrace “doyi vovo” [6]. Although cowpea and bambara groundnut seeds are widely consumed, Kersting’s groundnut seeds are preferred to them because of their palatable taste [9]. It has a high economic value with a significant contribution to the income and livelihood of resource-limited farmers [3, 4]. The monthly quantity of seeds sold per woman varies from 51.25 to 400 kg (125 kg on average) producing in average a profit of 20–160 $ in Dantokpa market in Benin [6, 10]. Nevertheless, the nutritional value of Kersting’s groundnut is poorly documented and the few available reports indicate that Kersting’s groundnut grains contain 21.3% of protein, 6.2% of fiber, 61.53–73.3% of carbohydrates, and 3.2% of ash [11]. Arginine, an amino acid for pediatric growth, is the most concentrated amino acid in the seed (9.3 g/100 g of protein) followed by phenylalanine (3.2 g/100 g) and histidine (2.1 g/100 g) of protein [12]. These essential amino acids are necessary for maintaining body muscle and growth. Despite the high income generated from the sale of Kersting’s groundnut and its nutritional values as well as its well appreciated organoleptic characteristics, it remains a neglected and underutilized crop species in Benin [3, 4, 8]. The underlying reasons include its low yield, high labor requirement, long cooking time, and nonavailability of improved varieties [8, 13] and the lack of information on its nutritional values. Accordingly, the legume-breeding program at the Laboratory of Applied Ecology, University of Abomey-Calavi, conducted research to assess yield performances and stability across the major growing areas of Benin. Following these trials, five (5) landraces were selected based on their yield performance, seed coat color, and stability across environments from the breeding program. However, in order to achieve a sustainable breeding program with high yielding cultivars, genetic resistance to major biotic and abiotic stress [14], the good quality of grains regarding their nutritional and technological quality [15], and sensorial characteristics [16] are important elements that need to be considered. Sensory evaluation of accessions provided valuable information to support adoption and marketability, in the sense of desirable product characteristics for which consumers would be willing to pay more [16]. The nutritional content allowed the selection of health-promoting accessions [17]. In this regard, the present study investigated the nutritional composition and physical and organoleptic characteristics of five Kersting’s groundnut accessions. This study contributed to the promotion of Kersting’s groundnut accessions with better nutritional contents and easy cooking technology.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selected Kersting’s Groundnut Seeds

The five Kersting’s groundnut seed lots used in this study were accessions BUR 7, BUR 14, BUR 16 collected in Burkina Faso, ADC, and OUA collected in Benin. These accessions were selected based on yield performance and stability, from a wide germplasm collection followed by multilocation evaluations across growing areas in Benin. BUR 14 and BUR 7 have cream seed coat with a black eye, BUR 16 has black seed coat while ADC and OUA have cream seed coat and eye (Figure 1) [18]. After harvesting and sun drying, the pods were shelled and seeds packaged in sealed paper bags and stored at room temperature until analyses.

2.2. Determination of Physical Seed Characteristics

2.2.1. Length, Width, and Thickness of Seeds

Hundred randomly selected seeds from each accession were used to measure the three main dimensions that are in the three mutually perpendicular directions: the length (L), the width (W), and the thickness (T). They were measured using a Vernier Caliper reading to 0.01 mm, as applied by Wani et al. [19]. The geometric mean diameter (Dm) of each accession was calculated using the approach of Mohsenin [20].

2.2.2. Hundred Seed Weight and Hundred Seed Volume

Three seed lots, each of one hundred seeds, were manually counted from each accession; these samples were weighed on a digital weighing balance with accuracy up to 0.001 mg and recorded as 100-seed weights. The seeds volume (Vm) was calculated using the formula of Mohsenin [20].where .

2.2.3. Hydration Capacity and Hydration Index

One hundred grams of each accession were weighed and transferred to a measuring cylinder, along with 100 ml of water. The cylinder was covered with aluminum foil and left at room temperature (28 ± 2°C). The seeds were left to soak for 24 hours and drained, and their superfluous water was removed using a tissue paper. Thereafter, the swollen seeds were weighed. Hydration capacity per seed and hydration index were calculated using the following formulae applied by Adebowale and Oshodi [21]:

2.2.4. Cookability of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed

The cookability of the accessions was determined with selected panelists who were previously trained on the evaluation of the texture of cooked Kersting’s groundnut seeds.

2.2.5. Panelists Selection and Training on Evaluation of Cooked Seed Texture

The cooking time of each Kersting’s groundnut accession was determined using the subjective finger pressing method, as applied by Kinyanjui et al. [22] with some modifications. As this method is subjective and then requires trained panel to obtain reliable results [23], a quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) was used for this purpose [24]. Ten (10) consumers of Kersting’s groundnut seed were selected and trained on the evaluation of cooked seeds texture. Six men and four women from four ethnic groups (Fon, Idatcha, Nago, and Mahi) were selected. They were students aged 24.8 ± 2.3 years old and had participated at least once in a sensory evaluation in the past. During the training, they defined the cooked Kersting’s groundnut seed as follows: “A seed that can break under a gentle pressure using fingers and thumb and no hard material will be found in the cotyledon.” To prevent bias and to consider the means of panelists, unstructured line scales were used to define the score of texture intensity, as recommended by Murray et al. [25]. The panel was trained over eight (08) hours to master the scoring scheme. The lowest and highest scores were defined for the uncooked and well-cooked Kersting’s groundnut seed. The lowest score 0 was “dry Kersting’s groundnut seed” and the highest score 10 was “soft seed.” The middle (score 5) corresponds to the state where the cooked seed may be acceptable and the texture value 6 is a state where the cooking is acceptable for consumption. During the training, the cooked seeds were subjected to sensory triangle tests and intensity scales to make sure that the panelists were able to detect a difference.

2.2.6. Cooking Time Determination for Cooked Kersting’s Groundnut Seed

Cooking test was done weighing one hundred (100) grams of seeds of each accession. Each seed lot was put in an aluminum sauce pan with two liters of distilled water. This was placed to boil on a gas cooker. Boiling was continued for ninety minutes after which little samples were picked using a spatula every 10 min and tested for softness by pressing between fingers and thumb by the panelists. Each panelist received 10 boiled seeds, and the test was duplicated during two consecutive days for each accession. Cooking was said complete when the panelists scored at least 5 for the pressure exerted on the cooked seed. Thereafter, the cooking time was defined as the period of time the seeds achieved the desirable softness. Cooking time was reported in minutes.

2.3. Nutritional Characteristics of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed

Seed lot of each Kersting’s groundnut accession was cleaned, which involved removal of foreign matter, broken seeds, and immature seeds. There were ground in laboratory condition using the laboratory mill 3600 and sieved with 500 μm sieve. Flour obtained was packaged in polyethylene bag and stored at 4°C until analysis.

2.3.1. Seed Dry Matter

Dry matter was determined according to the AOAC [26] method. Five grams of samples were used for the determination of dry matter by weighing in a crucible and drying in an oven at 105°C for 72 hours. The dry matter content was calculated using the following formulae:where TMS is the dry matter content, P₁ is the crucible weight, P₂ is the weight (sample + crucible) after drying, and P_e is the weight of sample.

2.3.2. Ash Content of Kersting’s Groundnut Seeds

The ash content was determined according to the AOAC [26] method. A clean porcelain crucible was oven-dried at 105°C for 1 hour and weighed. Kersting’s groundnut seeds were ground using the laboratory mill 3600. Five grams’ samples were weighed and placed in a muffle furnace at 550°C for 8 hours. It was cooled in a desiccator before recording the weight of the porcelain crucible. The ash content was computed using the following formulae:where ASH is the ash content, P₁ is the porcelain weight, P₂ is the weight (sample + crucible) after drying in the furnace at 550°C for 8 hours, and P₀ is the weight of the sample.

2.3.3. Protein Content of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed

The micro-Kjeldahl method applied by Akintomide and Antai [27] was used for protein content determination. Five grams’ samples were placed into the micro-Kjeldahl flask, and one Kjeldahl catalyst tablet with 10 ml of concentrated H₂SO₄ was added. Digestion was performed for 4 hours after which a clear colorless solution was found in the tube. The digest was carefully transferred into a 100 ml volumetric flask, thoroughly rinsing the digestion tube with distilled water, and the volume of the flask was made up to the mark with distilled water. Five-millimeter portion of the digest was then pipetted to Kjeldahl apparatus, and 5 ml of 40% (w/v) NaOH was added. The mixture was then steam-distilled, and the released ammonia was collected into a 50 ml conical flask containing 10 ml of 2% boric acid plus mixed methyl red-methylene blue indicator solution. The green colored solution was then titrated using 0.01 N HCl solution. At the endpoint, the green color turns to a wine color, which indicates that all the nitrogen trapped as ammonium borate has been removed as ammonium chloride. The percentage of nitrogen was calculated using % N = (Titre value atomic mass of nitrogen normality of HCl used 4) where % N is the percentage of nitrogen. The protein is determined by multiplying the percentage of nitrogen by a constant factor of 6.25 [28].

2.3.4. Fat Content of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed

Fat content was determined using the Soxhlet system according to the AOAC [28] method as applied by Akintomide and Antai [27]. Samples of 1 g were placed into a fat-free extraction thimble, which was plugged lightly with cotton wool. The thimble was placed in the extractor and fitted up with a reflux condenser and a 250 ml Soxhlet flask, which had been previously dried in an oven, cooled in the desiccator, and weighed. The Soxhlet flask was then filled to ¾ of its capacity with petroleum ether and the Soxhlet flask extractor and condenser set was placed on the heater. The heater was put on for six hours with constant running water from the tap for condensation of ether vapor. The ether was left to siphon over several times at least 10–12 times until it was short of siphoning. After this, the remaining ether content of the extractor was carefully drained into the ether stock bottle. The thimble-containing the sample was then removed and dried on a clock glass on the benchtop. The extractor flask with condenser was replaced, and the distillation continued until the flask was practically dried. The flask, which now contained the fat or oil, was detached; it was dried to a constant weight in the oven [28]. The fat content was determined using FAT content = [(W1 − Wo)/Weight of sample taken] where the initial weight of the dry Soxhlet flask is Wo and the final weight of the oven-dried flask + oil/fat is W1.

2.3.5. Dietary Fiber and Carbohydrate Contents of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed

The dietary fiber content was assessed according to the AOAC [26] method, while the carbohydrate content was determined by the difference method. Percentages of moisture, fat, protein, ash, and dietary fiber content were subtracted from 100% as applied by Ijarotimi and Keshinro [29].

2.3.6. Determination of Amino Acid Profile

Amino acid profile of Kersting’s groundnut seed was determined using liquid chromatography method as applied by Imbuhila [30]. A sample of 100 mg was weighed in duplicate from each accession. Each was transferred into a 5 ml vial tube and 2 ml of 6 N HCl was added and the content was completely closed. The samples were hydrolyzed for 24 hours at 110°C. The hydrolysates were evaporated to dryness under a vacuum. Thereafter, the hydrolysates were reconstituted in 1 ml 90 : 10 water : acetonitrile solution. There were vortexed for 30 seconds and then centrifuged at 14,000 rpm, and the supernatant was transferred to another vial. Serial dilutions of the authentic standards amino acids (1–105 µg/µl) were analyzed using liquid chromatography to generate linear calibration curves (peak area vs. concentration) used for external quantification. The samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography to determine the amino acids and their concentration in each sample. ACE5 C-18 column (250 × 108 4.6 mm, 5 μm particle size) was used at 40°C. The flow rate and injection volume were 0.5 mL/min and 3 μL, respectively. The solvent system used as mobile phase consisted of two eluents: water and 0.01% acetonitrile acid. The amino acids were identified and quantified by comparing with the retention times and peak areas of standards.

2.4. Acceptability Test of Cooked Kersting’s Groundnut Seed

Thirty students from the University of Abomey-Calavi who were willing to taste and assess Kersting’s groundnut were selected on a voluntary basis for the acceptability test. This test was performed at the “Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie et d’Evaluation Sensorielle (LAPESA)” at the Faculty of Agronomic Sciences (FSA) using individually partitioned booth. The acceptability of each accession was assessed after their cooking times have been determined. Each panelist received 25 g of the cooked Kersting’s groundnut on a white tray, with a glass of water for rinsing the mouth between two samples. The cooked samples were coded and submitted to evaluation using a 7 hedonic scale test as follows: 7 = liked extremely, 6 = liked very much, 5 = liked, 4 = neither liked nor disliked, 3 = disliked, 2 = disliked very much, and 1 = disliked extremely. The firmness, taste, Kersting’s groundnut aroma, color intensity, and overall acceptability were evaluated for each accession [31, 32]. Since aroma is lost over time [31, 33] and legume texture becomes hard over time after cooking, these were evaluated immediately after cooking when samples were still warm.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed in R Statistical Software [34] at 5% significance level. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were used to summarize physical and physicochemical characteristics of Kersting’s groundnut. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test whether there was a significant difference between accessions for their physical characteristics, proximate parameters, and amino acid contents. The Anova linear model is presented as follows:here Error term i.i.d N (0, ) with the residual variance, is the effect of accession i, is the number of replicates in accession group (i, j), and

The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to test the effect of accession on the physical and physicochemical characteristics where the assumptions for normality were not met. When a significant difference was detected, Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used to evaluate the difference between pairs of accessions. Prediction of cooking time to textural intensity scale 6 (acceptable texture for consumption) was carried out using a linear regression (Table 1). Pearson correlation test was performed in the packages Harrell [35] and Wei and Simko [36] to highlight the relationship between accession’s cooking time, physical parameters (length, width, thickness, and hundred seed weight), and proximate parameters (carbohydrate, fat, protein, ash, dietary fiber, and dry matter).

3. Results

3.1. Physical Characteristics of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions

Generally, there was no significant difference among accessions for width, thickness, seed volume, geometric mean diameter, and hydration index (Table 2). However, significant differences were found in accessions regarding their seed length, 100-seed weight, and hydration capacity. The accessions BUR 14, BUR 7, OUA, and ADC have the lowest seed length (from 8.1 ± 0.1 to 8.6 ± 0.3 mm) while the accession BUR 16 had the highest seed length (9.3 ± 0.2 m). BUR 14 had the highest 100-seed weight (16.7 ± 1.6 g) while ADC exhibited the lowest 100-seed weight (11.7 ± 0.8 g). Accessions BUR 14, BUR 16, and BUR 7 had 0.14 ± 0.00 g/seed while ADC and OUA had 0.10 ± 0.00 g/seed as hydration capacities (Table 2).

3.2. Cooking Time of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions

The texture of the selected Kersting’s groundnut accessions varied across the accessions and according to the cooking time (Figure 2). Accession BUR 7 had the lowest trend of texture change in function of the cooking time, which means that it had high texture than the other accessions. The accessions BUR 16 following by BUR 14 had the highest trend of texture change in function of the cooking time. At ninety minutes cooking time, the texture of the accession BUR 16 was 6.27, which is higher than the acceptable texture (score 6) for consumption according to the panelists. These values indicate that BUR 16 cooks in less than 90 minutes. Accessions BUR 7, ADC, OUA, and BUR 14 after being cooked for 90 minutes had texture scores of 4.33, 5.59, 5.58, and 5.40, respectively, values lower than 6. Using the linear regression equation of texture for each accession as a function of the cooking time (Table 1), the cooking times needed for accessions BUR 16, BUR 14, ADC, OUA, and BUR 7 to reach an acceptable texture for consumption (score 6) were 78.0, 100.5, 104.5, 105.3, and 124.0 minutes, respectively.

3.3. Proximate Composition of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions

There was a significant difference among accessions for all proximate parameters (Table 3). The protein content ranged from 20.5 ± 0.2 g/100 g dw (ADC) to 22.0 ± 0.2 g/100 g dw (OUA). Accession BUR 16 had the highest fat content (2.3 ± 0.0 g/100 g dw), and the accession ADC had the lowest fat content (1.2 ± 0.0 g/100 g dw). The carbohydrate contents varied from 56.5 ± 0.0 g/100 g dw (BUR 7) to 59.4 ± 0.1 g/100 g dw (BUR 14). The accession ADC had the highest dietary fiber content (7.6 ± 0.4 g/100 g dw) while OUA had the lowest dietary fiber content (4.3 ± 1.0 g/100 g dw). The highest ash content was 3.9 ± 0.0 g/100 g dw for BUR 7 while the lowest ash content was 3.1 ± 0.1 g/100 g dw for OUA.

3.4. Amino Acids Composition of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions

Amino acids composition varied significantly among accessions (Table 4). Concentration of methionine ranged between 0.19 ± 0.00 and 0.41 ± 0.02 g/100 g dw of protein. Concentrations of valine and histidine ranged between 0.92 ± 0.01–1.32 ± 0.03 g/100 g dw protein and 0.38 ± 0.01–0.64 ± 0.0103 g/100 g dw protein, respectively, while phenylalanine varied between 0.73 ± 0.02 and 1.91 ± 0.02 g/100 g dw protein. ADC had the highest leucine content but generally poor in other amino acids. BUR 7 had the highest methionine and valine contents while OUA had the highest lysine and phenylalanine contents. Overall, the accession OUA had the best amino acid profile, ranking top in 6 out of 8 essential amino acids analyzed. Across accessions leucine was in higher concentration (1.84 ± 0.02 g/100 g dw of protein) followed by lysine (1.64 ± 0.02 g/100 g dw of protein), while arginine had the lowest concentration (0.24 ± 0.03 g/100 g dw of protein).

3.5. Relationship between Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions, Cooking Time, and Their Physical and Nutritional Proprieties

There was no significant correlation between the cooking time and the physical and nutritional composition of Kersting’s groundnut seed at 5% (Table 5). Otherwise, at 10% significance level, the cooking time was negatively correlated with seed width and length. Although there were not significant, cooking time was also positively correlated with the thickness, ash, dry matter, and dietary fiber content of Kersting’s groundnut and negatively correlated with its fat and protein content (Table 6). These results indicate that accessions with high thickness and high dietary fiber content could take longer to cook whereas the accessions with high width, length, fat, and protein content could cook faster.

3.6. Acceptability of Selected Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions

Thirty students aged of 28 ± 5.6 years old evaluated the acceptability of Kersting’s groundnut seeds. Sixty percent were man and forty percent were women. They are from six ethnic groups mainly Fon, Idatcha, Nago, Mahi, Minan, and Adja. In general, more than 50% of the panelists liked the accessions ADC, OUA, BUR 7, and BUR 14 for their texture, aroma, color, and taste after cooking (Table 7). Texture after cooking of the accession BUR 14 was the most appreciated (76.7% of the panelists). The texture after cooking of OUA was appreciated by 63.3% of the panelists. Based on aroma and taste, the accessions OUA and BUR 7 were the most appreciated while color intensity of ADC (66.7%) and OUA (66.7%) appeared to be more appreciated than that of BUR 14 (63.3%) and BUR 7 (53.3%). Overall, up to 50% of the panelist appreciated the accessions ADC, OUA, BUR 7, and BUR 14 (Figure 3). BUR 7 was the most appreciated accession (70%) followed by OUA (66.7%), BUR 14 (60%), and ADC (56.7%). Accession BUR 16 appeared the most disliked. It was disliked by 46.7% of the panelists, 30% were indifferent and only 23.3% liked it (Figure 3). The black seed color appeared to be the main reason for its rejection (63%), followed by the aroma (53.3%) and taste (40%).

4. Discussion

4.1. Physical Characteristics and Correlation with Nutritional Composition and Cookability of the Seeds

The width, thickness, and length of the five selected accessions varied from 5.8 to 6.0 mm, 4.4 to 4.9 mm, and 8.1 to 9.3 mm, respectively. These values are within the range reported on 297 accessions of Kersting’s groundnut by Akohoue et al. [37]. The authors found that the width, thickness, and length of the accessions varied from 4.7 to 8.80 mm, 3.5 to 6.23 mm, and 6.9 to 9.3 mm, respectively. Otherwise, the 100-seed weight of the five selected accessions ranged from 11.7 to 16.7 g while the seed grains found by the aforementioned authors ranged between 7.10 and 16.3 g. The seed weight of the accessions used in the present study especially BUR_14 is much heavier than that investigated by Akohoue et al. [37]. It comes out that the physical characteristics mainly width and thickness, length, and 100-seed weight of these selected accessions are similar to those already consumed across climatic areas of Benin and Togo. Consequently, the physical characteristics will not be a challenge for the acceptability of these accessions.

Even though there was no significant correlation between the physical characteristic, proximate composition, and cookability of the accessions at 5%, some results are in line with the studies of Kaur et al. [38] and Singh et al. [39]. Accession BUR_14 had the highest seed volume, indicating that it has a higher carbohydrate content and lowest dietary fiber content correlation also reported by Kaur et al. [38]. Carbohydrate content of seed is negatively correlated with protein, dietary fiber, and fat content, and this is consistent with results reported by Singh et al. [39]. Thickness is positively correlated with cooking time, indicating that thicker grains require a longer cooking time. Similar results were found by Erkskine et al. [40]. In opposite, accession BUR_7 which had the highest hydration capacity (0.15 g/seed) and hydration index (1.01) should have a higher permeability of the seed coat and softer cotyledons than lower cooking time [39]. These results mean that they may have a strong correlation between physical characteristics, proximate composition, and cookability of Kersting’s groundnut. However, correlation was not significant in this study.

4.2. Nutritional Potential of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions and Implication for Their Promotion

The protein content found in the present study ranged from 20.5 ± 0.2 to 22.0 ± 0.2 g/100 g dw. These values are consistent with observations made by Ajayi and Oyetayo [12] and Adu-gyamfi et al. [13]. However, the accessions used in our study exhibit higher protein content than those analyzed by Abiola and Oyetayo, [41]. As for carbohydrate contents, they ranged between 56.5 ± 0.0 to 59.4 ± 0.1 g/100 g dw, values that are higher than those observed by Adu-gyamfi et al. [13] which is 49.6 g/100 g dw and lower than those of Ajayi and Oyetayo [12], 61.53–73.3 g/100 g dw. These discrepancies could be explained by the genetic background of each accession and the environmental conditions where they were grown [42–45]. However, taking into account protein and carbohydrate contents of the five Kersting’s groundnut accessions, they can be consumed as alternative legume protein sources as cowpea grains which have similar protein and carbohydrate contents (22.2 g/100 g and 59.3 ± 2.3 g/100 g, respectively) [46]. Protein content of these Kersting’s groundnut accessions can be used to enhance the protein content of the diet to address the protein malnutrition that remains a challenge in rural areas among the low-income groups [47]. Therefore, the production of these accessions could be promoted in the areas where the population cannot afford the animal protein source.

Similar to organisms that have different amino acids, Kersting’s groundnuts have several amino acids arranged in different sequence and combinations. Of the 20 amino acids that are the basic components of the body’s proteins, ten are considered to be essential, as they cannot be synthesized endogenously via metabolic pathways and thus must be provided by dietary sources [48]. Eight of these essential amino acids were analyzed and found in the accessions used in the present study (arginine, histidine, leucine, lysine, methionine, tryptophan, phenylalanine, and valine). These essential amino acids have a growing interest in the medical field for use in preventing or even treating chronic metabolic disorders [49]. The accession OUA had the highest amino acid contents compared to other accessions. The amino acid contents of the five accessions were lower than those found in Kersting’s groundnut accessions by Adu-gyamfi et al. [13]. These amino acid contents were lower than the required amount for legume (in g/100 g protein 5.0 for valine, 7.0 for leucine, 5.5 for lysine, and 1.0 for tryptophan) according to data reported by Hussain and Basahy [50]. Overall, the accession OUA had higher protein content and amino acid profile compared to the other accessions and therefore could be promoted as alternative nutritious accessions. However, further breeding efforts are needed to improve the nutritional value of this accession. However, the nutritional value of legumes grains is not only the key parameter in term of plant breeding; their technological is also of interest.

Cooking is the most widely used processing method for legumes. In this process, the legume seeds are boiled in hot water until they become soft. This improves protein and amino acid digestibility [51]; it causes considerable losses of them and modifies the starch structure of legume. Protein and amino acid solubilities significantly decreased (up to 50%) during cooking due to thermal modification and loss of soluble fractions in the cooking water [52]. Future studies are needed to access the effective protein and amino acid contents of accessions as consumed by consumers for their better selection. Moreover, cooking legume seeds causes a significant decrease in resistant starch (RS) (by 61–71%) and slowly digestible starch (SDS) (by 56–84%) [53] and this reduction increases with cooking time. RS in the diet has been shown to exert positive effects on a human body as it stimulates the growth of beneficial microflora and reduces postprandial blood level of glucose and blood level of cholesterol [54]. The SDS is used for the treatment of type II diabetes because it affects the sensation of satiety through the metabolic response, namely, the postprandial low level of glucose and insulin in blood [55]. Therefore, the decrease in SR and SDS may have an impact on consumer’s health, and the phenomenon is strongly correlated with the amylose content of legumes [56]. It will be important to conduct future studies in order to investigate the starch quality of the accessions. Furthermore, since the solids reduction of legumes increases with cooking time and a long cooking time is a limitation for legume selection, their cookability appears important.

4.3. Cookability of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions

Cooking time is an important and key quality parameter in food legumes. First, the cooking softens the grains and facilitates palatability, increases protein digestibility and bioavailability in grain legumes, and destroys antinutritional factors [57]. The cooking time varied across accessions, and the lowest and highest cooking times recorded were 78.0 and 124.0 minutes for the accessions BUR 16 and BUR 7, respectively. However, to the best of our knowledge, only one study assessed the cooking time of Kersting’s groundnut [58]. This study reported that the cream Kersting’s groundnut seed usually consumed in Benin has a cooking time of 392.25 ± 18.82 minutes using similar cooking equipment. Comparing this value with the range of 78–124 minutes found in this study, it turns out that the accessions used in the present study have shorter cooking times and probably could be more acceptable by the consumers. Accordingly, using BUR 16, BUR 14, ADC, OUA, and BUR 7 accessions, consumers will reduce their usual cooking time by 80.11%, 74.38%, 73.36%, 73.15%, and 68.38%, respectively. In addition, these cooking times are lower than the cooking time of bambara groundnuts (3-4 hours) and cowpea bean (2.4 hours) reported by Mubaiwa et al. [59], two commonly consumed legumes in Africa. Although cooking improves the nutritional quality of the legume seed, prolonged cooking results in a decrease in protein quality and digestibility and loss of nutrients such as vitamins and minerals [60, 61]. Therefore, a short cooking time is then desirable as it preserves the protein quality and digestibility of nutrients but also reduces energy used in cooking and saves labor cost [42]. In this context, soft cooking cultivars of Kersting’s groundnut could make them preferable by the consumers. Otherwise, the cooking time has a negative correlation with their width, length, fat, and protein content. Thus, Kersting’s groundnut accessions with high width and length (accessions BUR 16 and BUR 14) and fat and protein content (accessions OUA and BUR 16) could be interesting in the case of cooking time reduction. Accordingly, about the modern trend towards convenience foods with reduced cooking time [42], these accessions BUR 16 and BUR 14 could be interesting for their high length and width while the accession OUA and BUR 16 could be interesting for their protein and fat content. This result indicates that the black Kersting’s groundnut seed (BUR 16) would be the first preference of consumers, as it would involve lesser fuel and time consumption. Nevertheless, these correlations are not significant and need to be investigated by future studies because cooking time is not the only parameter, which makes the product acceptable to consumers.

4.4. Acceptability of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions

The accession BUR 16 suggested as the best in terms of cooking time has recorded the lowest overall acceptability. This result is due to its black color disliked by 63% of the panelists. Assogba et al. [6] found that the color after cooking is the most sensitive sensorial attribute that influences Kersting’s groundnut acceptability. Color plays a major role in the initial acceptability of a product [62, 63]. According to Barbut [64], the visual appearance and color are important factors in consumer selection of food, and if the color does not meet expectations, they react negatively to the product. Consequently, Kersting’s groundnut black-seeded landraces are scare and produced only by a few households particularly for its contribution to dietary diversity and medicinal purposes, and it is used for cultural rituals [10]. Apart from the color of accession BUR 16 that was much disliked, its texture, aroma, and taste were also disliked by the panelists. This result underlined that the BUR 16 color influences negatively the acceptability of other sensorial attributes [6]. In this study, we recommend a paradigm change, toward research of new processing schemes for the black and red Kersting’s accessions, in order to optimize their consumption while reducing on refusal due to color and aroma. Otherwise, the accessions OUA and BUR 7 were the most accepted due certainly to their taste, liked by up to 70% of the panelists and aroma liked by up to 60% of the panelists, which are important influential attributes for food acceptability [65]. In addition, according to the panelists, the accession OUA has similar characteristics with the local Kersting’s groundnut usually consumed while the accession BUR 7 is very similar to cowpea grain especially due to it black eyes. Thereby, the consumers could promote the accessions OUA and BUR 7 for crops production as they have the best acceptability. Nevertheless, given that Kersting’s groundnut got much higher market value than cowpea, it would be useful for breeding efforts to give priority to varieties with cream seed coat without black eyes, as these later would be seen as cowpea and thus would fail to fetch true price.

5. Conclusion and Perspectives

The present study explored physical, nutritional, and organoleptic characteristics of five selected Kersting’s groundnut accessions. The cooking time of these accessions was lower than the cooking time of the cream Kersting’s groundnut seed usually consumed in Benin and the accessions BUR 16 and BUR 14 recorded the lowest cooking time. The accessions BUR 7 and OUA recorded the best acceptability level. It is worth noting that the accessions BUR 16 and BUR 14, which recorded the short cooking times, were not the most accepted probably due to their color. The accession OUA could be promoted for production based on its higher protein content, best amino acid profiles, its medium cooking time, and good acceptability level. However, further studies need to be conducted on the improvement of protein content especially the amino acid profiles as well as the profiling of their antinutritional composition.

Appendix

Table 1 presents the linear regression equations for the five accessions’ textures according to cooking time. The normality of the model was determined and all these equation’ residuals were normally distributed . In addition, all the adjusted R-squared were higher than 95%, indicating that these equations explain more than 95% of the variability in Kersting’s groundnut seed texture.

Data Availability

The dataset used to support the findings of this article are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO-WOTRO) (grant no. W08.270.344).

References

S. A. O. Adeyeye, O. T. Bolaji, T. A. Abegunde, and T. O. Adesina, “Processing and utilization of snail meat in alleviating protein malnutrition in Africa: a review,” Nutrition & Food Science, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1085–1097, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Chickwendu, “Chemical composition of four varieties of grounbean (Kerstingiella geocarpa),” Jornal of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 79–84, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Achigan-Dako and S. Vodouhè, “Macrotyloma geocarpum (harms) maréchal and Baudet,” Plant Resources of Tropical Africa, vol. 1, pp. 111–114, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Dansi, R. Vodouh, P. Azokpota et al., “Diversity of the neglected and underutilized crop species of importance in Benin,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2012, Article ID 932947, 20 pages, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. L. Loko, J. Akohonwe, J. Toffa et al., “Farmers knowledge, perceptions and management of Kersting’ s groundnut (Macrotyloma geocarpum Harms) insect pests in Benin,” The Journal of Basic and Applied Zoology, vol. 40, no. 41, pp. 1–11, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Assogba, E. B. K. Ewedje, A. Dansi et al., “Indigenous knowledge and agro-morphological evaluation of the minor crop Kersting ’ s groundnut ( Macrotyloma ´ chal et Baudet ) cultivars of Benin geocarpum ( Harms ) Mare,” Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 493–509, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Coulibaly, C. O. A. Agossou, M. Sawadogo, and E. G. Achigan-dako, “Farmers’ preferences for genetic resources of kersting ’ s groundnut [ macrotyloma geocarpum systems of Burkina Faso and Ghana,” Agronomy, vol. 10, no. 371, pp. 1–20, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. E. Agoyi, N. Sognigbe, M. Kafoutchoni, M. Ayena, and F. A. K. Sodedji, “Kersting ’ s groundnut [macrotyloma geocarpum (harms) maréchal & Baudet] crop attracts more field pests and diseases than reported before,” Agricultural Research & Technology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1–5, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. T. Ayenan and V. A. Ezin, “Potential of kersting’ s groundnut [macrotyloma geocarpum (harms) maréchal & Baudet] and prospects for its promotion,” Agriculture & Food Security, vol. 9, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Akohoué, J. Sibiya, and E. G. Achigan-Dako, “On-farm practices, mapping, and uses of genetic resources of Kersting’ s groundnut [Macrotyloma geocarpum (Harms) Maréchal et Baudet] across ecological zones in Benin and Togo,” Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, vol. 7, pp. 1–20, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. O. Aremu, S. S. Audu, and L. Gav, “Comparative review of crude protein and amino acid composition of some leguminous seeds grown in Nigeria,” International Journal of Sciences, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1–10, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. B. Ajayi and F. L. Oyetayo, “Short communication potentials of,” Journl of Medecinal Food, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 184–187, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Adu-gyamfi, I. K. Dzomeku, and J. Lardi, “Evaluation of growth and yield potential of genotypes of kersting’ s groundnut (macrotyloma geocarpum harms) in Northern Ghana,” International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 509–515, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
V. Moda-cirino, A. C. Gerage, C. R. Riede et al., “Plant breeding at instituto agronômico do paraná – iapar,” Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology, vol. 2, pp. 25–30, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
D. A. Animasaun, S. Oyedeji, Y. K. Azeez, O. T. Mustapha, and M. A. Azeez, “Genetic variability study among ten cultivars of cowpea (vigna unguiculata L . Walp) using morpho-agronomic traits and nutritional composition,” The Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 119–130, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
R. C. V. Carneiro, S. E. Duncan, S. F. O. Keefe, Y. Yin, and C. L. Neill, “Sensory and consumer studies in plant breeding: a guidance for edamame development in the U . S,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 4, pp. 1–10, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. O. Hansson, P. Åman, W. Becker et al., “Breeding for public health: a strategy,” Trends in Food Science & Technology, vol. 80, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Y. Chodaton, E. E. Agoyi, and T. A. Houndété, “Genetics & genomic Sciences morphological variation among and discriminating traits of kersting’ s groundnut acces- sions,” Journal of Genetics & Genomic Sciences, vol. 6, no. 31, pp. 1–11, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. A. Wani, D. S. Sogi, and B. S. Gill, “Physical and cooking characteristics of black gram (Phaseolus mungoo L .) cultivars grown in India,” International Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 48, pp. 2557–2563, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Mohsenin, Physical Properties of Plant and Animal Materials Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, Inc, New York, NY, USA, 1970.
Y. A. Adebowale and A. A. Oshodi, “Food Chemistry Variability in the physicochemical , nutritional and antinutritional attributes of six Mucuna species,” Food Chemistry, vol. 89, pp. 37–48, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. K. Kinyanjui, D. M. Njoroge, A. O. Makokha, S. Christiaens, D. S. Ndaka, and M. Hendrickx, “Hydration properties and texture fingerprints of easy- and hard-to-cook bean varieties,” Food Science & Nutrition Published, vol. 9, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. N. Wafula, I. Wainaina, C. Buve et al., “Application of near-infrared spectroscopy to predict the cooking times of aged common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L),” Journal of Food Engineering Journal, vol. 284, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Stone and J. L. Sidel, Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (The QDA Method), Sensory Evaluation Practices, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 2004.
J. M. Murray, C. M. Delahunty, and I. A. Baxter, “Descriptive sensory analysis: past, present and future,” Food Research International, vol. 34, pp. 461–471, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
Aoac, (Association of Official Analytical Chemists), Methods of Analysis for Nutrition Labeling, Association of Official Analytical Chemist Arlington, Gaithersburg, 1993.
M. J. Akintomide and S. P. Antai, “Inorganic nitrogen supplementation and micro-fungal,” Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 820–832, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
Aoac, Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemist Arlington, VA, USA, 1990.
O. S. Ijarotimi and O. O. Keshinro, “Formulation and nutritional quality of infant formula produced from germinated popcorn, Bambara groundnut and african locust bean flour,” Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 1358–1388, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Imbuhila, Influence of Cowpea Plant and Seed Characteristics and Packaging Material in Storage on Cowpea Weevil (Callosobruchus Maculatus) Infestation, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Juja, Kenya, 2020.
A. V. Mkanda, A. Minnaar, and H. L. Kock, “Relating consumer preferences to sensory and physicochemical properties of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris),” Journal of the Science OfFood and Agriculture, vol. 2879, pp. 2868–2879, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. N. Onwuka and O. Okala, “Effects of selected salts on the cooking time, protein content and sensory properties of African yam beans and cowpeas,” Food Service Technology, vol. 3, pp. 3–7, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Yeung, J. D. Ehlers, R. D. Waniska, J. N. Alviola, and L. W. Rooney, “Field Crops Research Rapid screening methods to evaluate cowpea cooking characteristics,” Field Crops Research, vol. 112, pp. 245–252, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R Core Team 2020R, A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, R Core Team, Vienna, Austria, 2020.
J. F. Harrell, “Hmisc: harrell miscellaneous. R package version 4.6–0,” 2021, https://cran.r-project.org/package=Hmisc.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Wei and V. Simko, “R package “corrplot”: visualization of a correlation matrix (Version 0.90),” 2021, https://github.com/taiyun/corrplot.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Akohoue, E. G. Achigan-Dako, M. Coulibaly, and J. Sibiya, “Correlations, path coefficient analysis and phenotypic diversity of a West African germplasm of Kersting ’ s groundnut [Macrotyloma geocarpum (Harms) Mare Baudet],” Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, vol. 1, Article ID 0123456789, 18 pages, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kaur, N. Singh, and N. S. Sodhi, “Physicochemical, cooking , textural and roasting characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L .) cultivars,” Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 69, pp. 511–517, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Singh, M. Kaur, K. S. Sandhu, and N. S. Sodhi, “Physicochemical, cooking and textural characteristics of some Indian black gram (Phaseolus mungo L) varieties,” Journal of the Science OfFood and Agriculture, vol. 982, pp. 977–982, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Erkskine, P. C. Williams, and H. Nakkoul, “Genetic and environmental variation in the seed size, protein, yield, and cooking quality of lentils,” Field Crops Research, vol. 12, pp. 153–161, 1985.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Abiola and V. O. Oyetayo, “Effect of liquid and solid fermentation on mineral and amino acid contents of kersting ’ s groundnut (macrotyloma geocarpum),” Journal of Scientific Research & Reports, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1–12, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Appiah, J. Y. Asibuo, and P. Kumah, “Physicochemical and functional properties of bean flours of three cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L . Walp) varieties in Ghana,” African Journal of Food Science, vol. 5, pp. 100–104, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
A. T. Asare, R. Agbemafle, G. E. Adukpo, E. Diabor, and K. A. Adamtey, “Assessment of functional properties and nutritional composition of some cowpea (vigna unguiculata l.) genotypes in Ghana,” Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 465–469, 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Muranaka, M. Shono, T. Myoda et al., “Genetic diversity of physical, nutritional and functional properties of cowpea grain and relationships among the traits,” Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 67–76, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. S. Nielsen, W. E. Brandt, and B. B. Singh, “Genetic variability for nutritional composition and cooking time of improved cowpea lines,” Crop Science, vol. 33, pp. 469–472, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Mamiro, A. Mbwaga, D. Mamiro, A. Mwanri, and J. Kinabo, “Nutritional quality and utilization of local and improved cowpea varieties in some regions in Tanzania,” African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 4490–4506, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
E. W. Santos, D. C. Oliveira, G. B. Silva et al., “Hematological alterations in protein malnutrition,” Nutrition Reviews, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 909–919, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Martínez, X. Li, G. Liu, P. Bin, and W. Yan, “The role of methionine on metabolism, oxidative stress, and diseases,” Amino Acids, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 2091–2098, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Jayathilake, R. Visvanathan, A. Deen et al., “Cowpea: an overview on its nutritional facts and health benefits,” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 98, no. 13, pp. 4793–4806, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
M. A. Hussain and A. Y. Basahy, “Nutrient composition and amino acid pattern of cowpea (Kgm unguiculata (L .) Walp , Fabaceae) grown in the G i z a area of Saudi Arabia,” International Journal of Food Sciences & Nutrition, vol. 49, pp. 117–124, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Gu, A. Bk, H. Wu et al., “Impact of processing and storage on protein digestibility and bioavailability of legumes,” Food Reviews International, vol. 28, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. A. Habiba, “Changes in anti-nutrients , protein solubility , digestibility , and HCl-extractability of ash and phosphorus in vegetable peas as affected by cooking methods,” Food Chemistry, vol. 77, pp. 187–192, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Piecyk, R. Wołosiak, B. Dru, and E. Worobiej, “Chemical composition and starch digestibility in flours from Polish processed legume seeds,” Food Chemistry, vol. 135, pp. 1057–1064, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. G. Sajilata, R. S. Singhal, and P. R. Kulkarni, “Resistant starch A review,” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, vol. 5, pp. 1–17, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
D. J. A. Jenkins, C. W. C. Kendall, L. S. A. Augustin et al., “Glycemic index: overview of implications in health and disease 1 – 4,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 76, pp. 266–273, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
B. S. Yadav, A. Sharma, and R. B. Yadav, “Resistant starch content of conventionally boiled and pressure-cooked cereals , legumes and tubers,” Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 84–88, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
Icrisat, Uses of Tropical Grain Legumes: Proceedings of a Consultants Meeting, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Center, Patancheru A.P. India, 1991.
P. S. Ayedegue, Amélioration du procédé de transformation de la lentille de terre (Macrotyloma geocarpum) au Benin, Université Nationale d’Agriculture, Ketou, Benin, 2021.
J. Mubaiwa, V. Fogliano, C. Chidewe, and A. R. Linnemann, “Hard-to-cook phenomenon in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc.) processing: Options to improve its role in providing food security,” Food Reviews International, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 167–194, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Deol and K. Bains, “Effect of household cooking methods on nutritional and anti nutritional factors in green cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) pods,” Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 579–581, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Khatoon and J. Prakash, “Nutritional quality of microwave-cooked and pressure-cooked legumes,” International Journal Of Food Sciences and Nutrition, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 441–448, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. T. Claybon and S. A. Barringer, “Consumer acceptability of color in processed tomato products by African-American, Latino and prototypical consumers,” Jornal of Food Quality, vol. 25, pp. 487–498, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Y. T. Putra, E. K. B. Susiloningsih, and M. A. Susanti, “Physicochemical and sensory properties of pedada fruit (sonneratia caseolaris) bar physicochemical and sensory properties of pedada fruit (sonneratia caseolaris) bar,” Journal of Physics, vol. 1569, pp. 1–8, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Barbut, “Effect of retail lights on acceptability of salami,” Meat Science, vol. 66, pp. 219–223, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Boateng, E. Nortey, A. N. Ohemeng et al., “Sensory attributes and acceptability of complementary foods forti fi ed with Moringa oleifera leaf powder,” Nutrition & Food Science, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 393–406, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Finagnon Toyi Kevin Fassinou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

751

Downloads

361

Citations