MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169375422 · doi:10.3390/plants10061133

How Does Mechanical Pearling Affect Quinoa Nutrients and Saponin Contents?

2021· article· en· W3169375422 on OpenAlex
Sifeddine Rafik, Mohamed Elhadi Rahmani, Juan Pablo Rodríguez, Said Andam, Amine Ezzariai, Mohamed El Gharous, Salwa Karboune, Redouane Choukr‐Allah, Abdelaziz Hirich

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaponinChenopodium quinoaNutrientAbiotic componentBranBiologyAgronomyFood scienceEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agriculture is facing many challenges, such as climate change, drought, and salinity, which call for urgent interventions for fast adaptation and crop diversification. The introduction of high-value and stress tolerant crops such as quinoa would be a judicious solution to overcome constraints related to abiotic stress and to increase land productivity and farmers' incomes. The implementation of quinoa in Morocco has not been supported by a full valorization program to control the quality of quinoa seeds. The novelty of this work is to assess the pearling operation as an efficient method of saponins removal as well as the determination of total residual saponins. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of several pearling durations on nutrient and saponin content of quinoa seeds of three tested varieties (Puno, Titicaca, and ICBA-Q5). Five pearling durations were tested (0, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 min) using a locally manufactured pearling machine. The results indicated that a pearling duration of two minutes was enough to reduce total saponin content from 0.49% to 0.09% for Puno variety, from 0.37% to 0.07% for Titicaca variety, and from 0.57% to 0.1% for ICBA-Q5 variety. Our results showed that pearling slightly reduced protein, total fat, and moisture contents for all varieties except for Puno, where total fat content slightly increased with the pearling. Puno variety had the highest seed content in terms of protein and total fat; the ICBA-Q5 variety had the lowest. Titicaca had the highest bran content in terms of protein and total fat, ICBA-Q5 had the highest bran content in terms of ash and the lowest bran content in terms of protein and total fat, and Puno had the lowest bran content in terms of ash. Pearling had no significant effect on macronutrient contents in the processed seed, but it resulted in a very highly significant difference for most of them in the bran except for Mg and S. Regarding seed content in terms of micro-nutrients, statistical analysis showed significant differences between varieties in terms of Zn, Cu, and Mn contents, but no significant difference was recorded for Fe or B. Pearling had no significant effect on seed micronutrient contents. Therefore, to retain maximum nutritional content in the quinoa and maintain quinoa integrity, it is necessary to limit the pearling duration of quinoa to two minutes, which is enough to reduce saponin content below the Codex Standard threshold (0.12%).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it