| |

Received: 9 May 2022    Revised: 20 August 2022    Accepted: 16 September 2022

DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.3082

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Nutritional and sensory properties of low-­fat milk dessert

enriched with quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Titicaca
protein isolate

Seyed Saeed Sekhavatizadeh1  | Abdolhamid Karimi2 | Saeid Hosseinzadeh3 |

Amir Reza Shaviklo4 | Mohsen Abedi5 | Hamidreza Mahmoodianfard6 |
Mohsen Ghaedmohammadi6

1
Assistant Professor of Fars Agricultural
and Natural Resources Research and Abstract
Education Center, AREEO, Shiraz, Fars,
The purpose of this work was to investigate the potential production of Titicaca quinoa
Iran
2
Assistant Professor of Animal Science
protein isolated (TQPI) to improve the quality of low-­fat desserts. In this study, low-­fat
Research, Fars Agricultural and Natural desserts incorporating TQPI (0, 1%, 3%, and 5%) were produced. The results indicated
Resources Research and Education Center,
Agricultural Research, Education and
that as TQPI increased, protein content, acidity, b*, hardness, and water-­holding ca-
Extension Organization AREEO, Shiraz, pacity (WHC) increased. Dessert containing 5% TQPI exhibited the highest values
Iran
3
of hardness (63.23 ± 1.46  g), adhesiveness (0.88 ± 0.19), gumminess (67.30 ± 1.41 g),
Professor of Food Hygiene, Department
of Food Hygiene and Public Health, School chewiness (11.41 ± 0.46 mJ), protein content (18.09%), b*(20.75), WHC (50.65%), and
of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, acidity (25.9 °D) on the 21st day of the storage time. TQPI (1%) gave a better ef-
Shiraz, Iran
4 fect on taste, texture, and total acceptability in comparison with other fortified des-
Associate Professor of Food Science
and Technology, Department of Animal serts. Electron microscopy shows that the fortified dessert containing 5% TQPI had
Processing, Animal Science Research
a stronger network than the others. It can be concluded that desserts containing 1%
Institute of Iran, Agricultural Research,
Education and Extension Organization TQPI presented a very good response as a potential new dairy product based on sen-
(AREEO), Karaj, Iran
5
sory properties.
Lecturer of Agricultural Education and
Extension Institute, Agricultural Research,
KEYWORDS
Education and Extension Organization
(AREEO), Tehran, Iran amino acid profile, enrichment, Milk dessert, quinoa protein, Titicaca
6
Lecturer of Fars Agricultural and Natural
Resources Research and Education Center,
AREEO, Shiraz, Iran

Correspondence
Seyed Saeed Sekhavatizadeh, Fars
Agricultural and Natural Resources
Research and Education Center, AREEO,
Shiraz, Fars 7155863511, Iran.
Email: s.sekhavati@areeo.ac.ir

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2022 The Authors. Food Science & Nutrition published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Food Sci Nutr. 2022;00:1–11.  |

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fsn3     1
 |
2      SEKHAVATIZADEH et al.
1  |  I NTRO D U C TI O N
Desserts are well known in many cultures of the society as sweet
courses that typically come at the end of a meal. Due to serious health
concerns, the food industry is developing a variety of foods with im-
proved properties and tastes for consumer health and well-­being,
while eating fat, sugar, salt, and certain pressure is being applied to
reduce the number of additives (Jahromi & Niakousari, 2018). One
of the fat-­substituted materials is protein. Studies on the effects of
protein fortification and their concentration on dessert properties
such as texture, appearance, physical and sensory properties during
the storage are of increasing interest (Faturrahman et al., 2015; Grek
et al., 2018; Komatsu et al., 2013; Levin et al., 2016; Nepovinnykh
et al., 2019; Nunes et al., 2003; Pracham & Thaiudom, 2016).
The highly nutritious grain, Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.),
is usually cultivated in the Andean highlands of Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador,
Chile, Argentina, and Colombia. Among the genera, Titicaca is the
species with the highest yield (4.48 t/ha) and the largest cultivation
areas in Iran (Bazile et al.,  2016). The most notable properties of
quinoa grains are their nutritional, phenol, and polyphenol content
(Kibar et al., 2021). The gluten protein is absent in quinoa, while it
contains plenty of polyunsaturated fats and high dietary fiber, which
can be categorized as a low glycemic index food. Quinoa is the most
beneficial food for lactose intolerance, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia
patients (Cao et al., 2021). Quinoa has recently been nominated as a
new protein resource diet with a high protein content and balanced
amino acid. Moreover, the grain contains higher levels of lysine
(5.1%–­6.4%), methionine (0.4%–­1.0%), and cysteine compared to
other regular grains (Shen et al., 2021). The main proteins of quinoa
are 2S albumin and 11S globulin which make up about 35% and 37%
of the total cereal protein, respectively (Kaspchak et al., 2017).
The quinoa protein isolate (QPI) has excellent technological
properties like water–­oil binding, foaming, emulsifying, solubility,
and gelation properties (Shen et al.,  2021). Kaspchak et al.  (2017)
showed that when the QPI is heated to 70–­90°C at pH 3.5, a strong
and stable gel is formed, and the possibility of gel formation is af-
fected by the pH value through changes in secondary structure
and protein solubility. An improved water–­oil-­binding capacity of
QPI compared to some legume proteins was reported by Steffolani
et al. (2016), but its properties vary depending on the genotype of
quinoa. The technological properties of proteins depend on many
factors, including charge, density, water activity, temperature, hy-
drophilic/hydrophobic ratios, ionic power, pH, and environmental
changes (Abugoch et al., 2008). The technological properties of pro-
teins vary depending on the processing conditions. The maximum
solubility of QPI was reached at alkaline pH (10). The QPI is a source
of nutrients that make it suitable as a dietary supplement in func-
tional food (Ghumman et al.,  2021). The protein extraction is pos-
itively influenced by the stirring time. The maximum extractability
power of protein was noted at 120 min. However, limited research
has been conducted on the use of QPI in food products. But the re-
sults of these studies have been satisfied, for example in the research
of Gupta et al. (2021) who reported pasta with QPI had a potential
option for high-­quality low-­cost products with enhanced nutritional
and technological properties (Gupta et al., 2021). Therefore, these
findings led us to study the possibility of using Titicaca quinoa pro-
tein isolated (TQPI) to create a new milk-­based dessert and for the
determination of its nutritional and technological properties. The
objectives of the present paper were to study the effects of adding
different concentrations of TQPI on the microstructural, chemical,
and physical properties of low-­fat desserts.
2  |  M ATE R I A L S A N D M E TH O DS
2.1  |  Materials
Sulfuric acid, boric acid, methyl red, chloroform, methanol, hexane,
hydrochloric acid, NaOH, KH2PO 4, standards including metha-
nol (HPLC grade) sodium acetate, methanol, borate buffer, sodium
hydroxide, and hydrochloric acid were purchased from Merck.
Norovalin, o-­phthalaldehyde (OPA), and 2-­mercaptoethanol (2ME)
were purchased from Sigma Chemical Co. The milk that contained
8.1% nonfat dry matter, 1.5% fat, 3.2% protein, pH 6.6, acidity 16
°D, and density 1.035 g/cm2 was obtained from Pegah Fars Dairy
factory, Shiraz, Fars, Iran. The quinoa with dry matter 25.95%, pro-
tein 17.52%, fat 3.9%, ash 3.67%, and carbohydrate 74.91% was pur-
chased from Laserboresh Co.
2.2  |  TQPI production
To remove lipids from the sample, chloroform:methanol (2:1),
1:10  w/v with shaking for 2  h was employed. This procedure was
repeated three times. Quinoa protein was prepared based on the
method of Elsohaimy et al.  (2015). Briefly, defatted quinoa flour
(50 g) was suspended in 1000 ml of deionized distilled water (1:20
v/v), and the pH was adjusted to 11 using 0.1  N NaOH. To obtain
the maximum degree of solubilization, the pH was kept constant
after stirring the suspension for 24 h. The mixture was centrifuged at
6000 g for 30 min at 20°C through a high-­speed refrigerated centri-
fuge (Sigma 3-­16pk, Sigma). Then HCl 0.1 N was used for adjusting
the pH of the supernatant to 4.5. The suspension was centrifuged at
10,000 g for 45 min at 4°C. Then, it was washed with distilled water.
The precipitate was collected, lyophilized, and stored at 20°C for
further use (Elsohaimy et al., 2015).
2.3  |  Dessert preparation
Four equal parts of the dessert were prepared by the reduced-­f at
milk (1.5% w/w fat). The corresponding milk powder was dissolved
in 0.1  mol L−1 NaCl solution to gain a final concentration of 10%
w/w and stirred at 300 rpm (revolutions per minute) (magnetic
stirrer). To prepare the samples, dry blended sucrose, modified
starch, and (1, 3, and 5% w/w) of TQPI were added to desserts
SEKHAVATIZADEH et al.
separately. The mixture was then added to the rehydrated milk,
before being stirred at room temperature for 30 min. The supple-
mented milk samples consisted of TQPI (1, 3, and 5) % and homog-
enized at 65°C at 100–­150 kg∙cm−2 for 5  min in a homogenizer.
A nonfortified dessert was employed as the control. Then they
were heated at 75°C (for 10  min). The final composition of the
dessert (in 100 g of the product) was as follows: 8 g sucrose and
2  g modified starch. The samples were then mixed for an extra
5 min at 50°C. All treatments were packed in cups (100 g) at 80°C.
Heat seal aluminum foil lids were applied for sealing the dessert
cups. They were stored at 4°C in the refrigerator. Chemical pa-
rameters including titratable acidity, WHC, pH, color, and sensory
properties were evaluated during the storage at 7 days intervals
for 21 days. The aim of this study was to evaluate the nutritional
and chemical properties of the product, therefore, the electron
microscopy and texture analysis were performed on the first and
last days of experiments (Karimi et al., 2021).
2.4  |  Proximate value of TQPI and dessert
Samples of TQ PI and desserts were analyzed for moisture, energy lev-
els, and major nutrient content (fat, ash, protein, and carbohydrates)
using the method described by the Association of Official Analytical
Chemists (AOAC) on the first day of storage (Horwitz,  2010). The
Macro-­Kjeldahl method (6.25 for quinoa flour) (KjelFlex K360,
Büchi, Flawil, Switzerland) was used for protein measurements. A
Soxhlet extractor was used to measure crude fat. Moreover, ash was
determined based on burning at 550 ± 15°C (Mariotti et al., 2008).
The following Equations (1) and (2) were used to calculate the total
carbohydrate and energy values (Bazile et al.,  2016) and (Cardoso
et al., 2019):
Total carbohydrates (g ∕ 100 g) = 100 − (m fat + m ash + m proteins) (1)
Energy (kcal ∕ 100 g) = 4 × (m proteins + m carbohydrates) + 9 × (m fat) (2)
2.5  |  Titratable acidity and pH
A pH meter (Greisinger electronic, Germany) was used to record the
pH of the controls and TQPI desserts. The Dornic Grade (Iranian
National Standard, 2852) was employed to measure the titrable acid-
ity of the samples.
2.6  |  Water-­holding capacity
The WHC was determined according to the method described
by Remeuf et al.  (2003). Approximately 20 g of dessert sample
(New York (NY)) was centrifuged for 10 min at 483 × g and 20°C.
The whey expelled was excluded and weighed (Cao et al.). The
WHC was calculated based on the following Equation 3, (Remeuf
et al., 2003).
|
      3
WHC ( % ) = 100 × (NY − WE) ∕ NY (3)
2.7  |  Amino acid profile analysis of dessert
The following reagents were used to derive the amino acids: 0.01 M
sodium acetate in water (mobile phase A) and methanol (mobile
phase B). The borate buffer (0.5 M; pH: 10.2); for the preparation
of reagent 2 ME / OPA (pH: 9.3): 0.05 g of the OPA was dissolved
in 500 μl of borate buffer (pH: 9.9) with 4.5  μl of methanol, 25 μl
of 2ME, and norovalin reagent: 50 μl of norovalin)concentration
1000 μM) was added to 950 μl of 0.01 M HCl. Amino acid analysis
was performed after the seed sample was hydrolyzed to 6 mol. L−1
HCl and 0.5  g. L−1 of β-­mercaptoethanol in a tube vacuum sealed
at 110°C for 21 h. After cooling, the hydrolysate was centrifuged
at 6000 x g and submitted for 30 min, and the precipitates were
discarded. The sample was neutralized with 3.0  M NaOH. A suc-
cessive sampling of 100 μl of borate buffer and 25 μl of the sample
was then mixed twice for 0.5 min. Then 50 μl of the 2ME/OPA rea-
gent was added. After mixing six times, 100 μl 0.1 N HCl was col-
lected and mixed six times. Then, 50 μl of this solution was added
to 200 μl of mobile phase A, mixed twice, and finally, 20 μl of the
mixture was injected. The 10 μl injection volume was used for the
samples. Separation was performed using a 4 mm x 25 cm guard
column (ProntoSIL (PS) Spheribond 80-­5 ODS 2), AK351, Eclipse
AAA (4.6  x 15 mm); particle size: 5  μm, 40°C, with a flow rate of
1.0 ml.min−1 on Agilent 1100 HPLC series, USA, fluorescence de-
tector (FLD) equipped (excitation: 450 nm, emission: 348 nm). The
amino acid content was given in mg/100 gd. m (Sekhavatizadeh
et al., 2021). The amino acid profile analysis was performed on the
first day of the storage.
2.8  |  Color parameters
Changes in dessert color were measured by the use of a Chroma
Meter CR-­4 00 (Japan). L*, a*, and b* values were expressed as L*
(black to white), a* (green to red), and b* (blue to yellow) (Rahpeyma
& Sekhavatizadeh, 2020).
2.9  |  Texture analysis
The texture analysis [Brookfield CT3 4500 (USA)] of the dessert
was performed on the first and the last days of the preparation.
A TA11/1000 cylindrical probe was employed to perform the tex-
ture profile analysis (TPA). The height and diameter of the samples
were 30 mm and 20 mm, respectively. The penetration of 20 mm
was determined at the following rates: 1 mm/s before the test,
1 mm/s in the test, and 10 mm/s after the test. Texture parameters
were obtained from the device including hardness (average force
of first and second stages) (g), cohesiveness, chewiness (mJ), gum-
miness (g), and adhesiveness (mJ). For each sample, all of these
 |
4      SEKHAVATIZADEH et al.
measurements were repeated at least 3 times at a temperature of
25 ± 3°C (Dokoohaki et al., 2019).
2.10  |  SEM
The lyophilized sample was fixed in an aluminum holder and cov-
ered with gold with a sputter coater (Desk Sputter Coater DSR1,
Nanostructured Coatings Co.) before inspection with a scanning
electron microscope (SEM, TESCAN, VEGA3, Czech Republic).
Next, the sample was observed under an acceleration voltage of
10.0  kV. The working distance between the microscope objec-
tive and the sample surface ranged from 7.03 to 8.91 mm (Karimi
et al., 2021).
2.11  |  Sensory properties
The dessert sensory evaluation was performed by 30 trained
panel participants composed of students and laboratory staff.
The age composition of the panelists was 70% (22–­37) and 30%
(38–­50), whereas the gender composition was 40% male and 60%
female. The methodology was based on a hedonic 5-­p oint scale
(5  = very like, 1  = very disliked). Quality attributes such as color,
odor, taste, overall acceptability, and texture were evaluated.
Panelists felt free to describe the formulations. Green/grassy and
sandy or coarse texture was reported by the panelist. The pres-
ence of granules that remained intact after oral digestion was con-
sidered a sandiness sensation. Freshly cut grass was considered
for grassy substance reference. Twenty grams of dessert samples
was then offered to each expert panelist under white fluorescent
light. Samples were presented in the same location as used for
the sensory panel and in a similar manner regarding lighting, con-
tainers, rinsing water, sample codification, and presentation order.
The samples were served for sensory assessment and consumers
were asked to evaluate the sample without any break. Hedonic
ratings are 1 for the lowest score and 5 for the highest score
(Chiavaro et al.,  2011; Gunness et al.,  2009; Karimi et al.,  2021;
Laguna et al., 2021 & Soukoulis et al., 2010).
2.12  |  Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed with SPSS version 21.0. Titratable acidity, pH,
WHC, texture, color, and sensory properties were analyzed by two-­
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a confidence level (CI) of
0.05 to determine the presence or absence of significant differ-
ences between TQPI % and time factors. Dry matter, protein, fat,
ash, carbohydrate, and energy values were analyzed by one-­way
ANOVA. The means were compared with Duncan’s multiple range
tests and then employed as a post hoc test at a significance level of
0.05. All experiments were completed in triplicate, except for the
amino acid profile.
3  |  R E S U LT S A N D D I S CU S S I O N S
3.1  |  Proximate value of TQPI and dessert
The physicochemical properties of TQPI and desserts were en-
hanced at various TQPI levels (Table 1). The addition of TQPI in-
creased the protein content of the dessert from (13.62 + 0.17) %
in the control sample without TQPI to (18.09 + 0.13) % with the
addition of TQPI (5% w/w) to the dessert formula. Conversely, the
fat content of TQPI-­r ich desserts was significantly lower com-
pared to the control desserts (p  ˂  .05). Samples supplemented
with TQPI showed higher dry matter content compared to the
control desserts. Previous studies have shown similar results
with the addition of cobia, flaxseed, and lupin powder to desserts
(Abugoch et al., 2008).
The energy value obtained with the TQPI-­e nriched dessert
was higher than that of the control dessert (p ≤ .05), which may be
related to the high-­f at content of the dessert. Similar results have
already been achieved by researchers who fortified desserts with
cumin and caraway flowers. Desserts fortified with 5% TQPI had
the highest protein and dry matter content among samples. The
fat content decreased significantly in 3% and 5% TQPI-­fortified
samples. One of the possible reasons for this reduction can be
related to TQPI addition in the formulation. It causes the ratio of
milk (milk component) as a solid form to the total material (dry
matter) decreased.
3.2  |  Titratable acidity and pH
The effects of TQPI content on the pH and acidity of low-­fat dairy
desserts during the storage at 4°C are shown in Table 1. A signifi-
cant decrease in pH was observed in all samples with increasing the
storage time. The pH value of 5% TQPI-­fortified dessert was slightly
lower than those of the others. It may be due to the presence of
TQPI (with pH = 4.84 ± 0.03) in this dessert. Among the other sam-
ples, the pH value of TQPI desserts decreased with the TQPI con-
centration increased. The change in pH over the storage time at 4°C
was similar to those observed by Chavan et al. (2010) and Kaur and
Goswami (2020) (Chavan et al., 2010; Kaur & Goswami, 2020). The
acidity of all TQPI-­fortified desserts increased by increasing the stor-
age period. The highest acidity value belonged to 5% TQPI samples
during the storage. Increment in TQPI levels in dessert may increase
the acidity of dessert and reduce pH throughout the storage period.
In this research, TQPI had acidity (16.33 ± 0.53°D) that had not influ-
enced the acidity of fortified desserts. In the same research, Granato
et al. (2010) found that desserts enriched with soy protein and guava
juice contained organic acids. The organic acid had a significant ef-
fect on the acidity and pH of the product (Granato et al.,  2010).
Statistical analysis showed no significant interaction between the
variables “TQPI %* time” (F9,32  =  0.75; p > .05) and (F9,32  = 0.15;
p > .05) for pH and acidity, respectively. Therefore, the evolution of
pH and acidity during the storage time might depend on the TQPI %.
SEKHAVATIZADEH et al. |
      5

TA B L E 1  Proximate value of TQPI and fortified dessert

Fortified dessert

Parameters TQPI Control 1% 3% 5%

c
Dry matter 98.12 ± 0.27 25.90 ± 0.26d 26.74 ± 0.13c 28.22 ± 0.24b 29.56 ± 0.42a
Proteind 87.80 ± 1.61 13.62 ± 0.17d 14.33 ± 0.11c 15.57 ± 0.20b 18.09 ± 0.13a
d
Fat 0.63 ± 0.01 6.40 ± 0.08a 6.21 ± 0.07ab 6.08 ± 0.11c 5.94 ± 0.15c
Ashd 2.13 ± 0.6 2.62 ± 0.1a 2.60 ± 0.09a 2.54 ± 0.12a 2.43 ± 0.10a
Carbohydratesa 9.22 ± 1.80 77.36 ± 0.18a 76.86 ± 0.27a 75.80 ± 0.42b 73.53 ± 0.37c
Energyb,e 390.37 ± 0.30 421.51 ± 0.78a 420.68 ± 0.04ab 420.23 ± 0.07b 419.98 ± 0.72b
pH (in 1 day) 4.84 ± 0.03 6.68 ± 0.24aA 6.45 ± 0.05abA 6.18 ± 0.05cA 5.93 ± 0.17cA
pH (in 7 day) 6.30 ± 0.15aB 6.20 ± 0.07aB 5.90 ± 0.08bA 5.75 ± 0.14bAB
pH (in 14 day) 6.25 ± 0.23aB 6.00 ± 0.22aBC 5.83 ± 0.22aA 5.83 ± 0.18aA
pH (in 21 day) 6.18 ± 0.12aB 5.90 ± 0.11abC 5.76 ± 0.28bcA 5.42 ± 0.2cB
Acidity (in 1 day) 16.33 ± 0.53 16.30 ± 1.57aD 16.20 ± 1.31aB 15.70 ± 1.47aB 15.90 ± 2.15aC
Acidity (in 7 day) 21.00 ± 1.00aC 21.40 ± 1.44aB 21.60 ± 0.53aAB 21.90 ± 1.82aB
Acidity (in 14 day) 22.90 ± 1.15aAB 23.10 ± 1.15aA 23.30 ± 1.54aA 23.80 ± 2.31aAB
Acidity (in 21 day) 24.80 ± 1.31aA 25.20 ± 1.06aA 25.50 ± 1.32aA 25.90 ± 1.15aA
WHC (in 1 day) 10.39 ± 0.53bD 8.81 ± 0.12cD 9.87 ± 0.20bD 11.16 ± 0.46aB
WHC (in 7 day) 30.86 ± 1.99bB 18.71 ± 0.48aC 32.82 ± 1.04bC 50.55 ± 0.92aA
WHC (in 14 day) 26.23 ± 1.08cC 26.09 ± 0.86cB 39.50 ± 0.71bB 51.62 ± 1.40aA
WHC (in 21day) 33.92 ± 0.82bA 30.41 ± 1.02cA 51.32 ± 0.43aA 50.65 ± 1.08aA

1. Data (mean ± standard deviation) are from three replications.

2. In the TQPI fortified desserts means in the same row with different lowercase letters (a–­c) and in the same column with different uppercase letters
(A–­D) among dessert samples differ significantly (p ≤ .05).
3. Titicaca protein isolated (TQPI); Values are expressed as mean ± SD; dw: Dry weight,
a
Total carbohydrate (g/100 g) = 100− (m fat ± m ash ± m proteins).
b
Energy =4× (% protein ± %carbohydrates) ± 9× (% fat).
c
(g/100 g as fed) was unit of measurement.
d
(g/100 g dw) was unit of measurement.
e
(kcal/100 g dw) was unit of measurement.

3.3  |  Water-­holding capacity
Table 1 shows the change in WHC during 21 days of the storage. The
WHC for all desserts increased during the storage. It is due to dry mat-
ter increased during the storage (Table 1) (Ünal et al., 2003). Desserts
fortified with 5% TQPI had the highest WHC content. On the other
hand, control desserts showed the lowest consistency which leads
to lower WHC (p ≤ .05) compared to other desserts. Other studies
have reported that the addition of protein results in finer networks,
denser cross-­links, smaller pores, less shedding, and increased WHC
(Amatayakul et al., 2006). Moreover, since heat is used in the dessert
production process, it can affect the texture of the product and its
syneresis. Whey protein contains intramolecular disulfide bridges that
stabilize its structure. The sulfhydryl groups of β-­lactoglobulins are ac-
tivated during the denaturation of proteins, the process tends to the
formation of sulfhydryl disulfide interactions which occur between
themselves and other proteins. As a result of those reactions, the rheo-
logical properties of coagulated milk gels seemed to affected by whey
protein (Isleten & Karagul-­Yuceer., 2006). Additionally, there were sig-
nificant differences for the interaction term “time*TQPI %” in the WHC
values (F9,32 = 141.29; p ≤ .05), indicating that the evolution of WHC
values in the dessert with time might depend on the applied TQPI %.
3.4  |  Amino acid profile analysis of dessert
The amino acid profile of TQPI-­fortified desserts is presented in
Table 2. Tryptophan (1.87–­2 .87 g/100 g) is a vital amino acid, which
is taking part in protein synthesis and functions as a precursor of
biologically active components such as serotonin, melatonin, qui-
nolinic acid, kynurenic acid, tryptamine, and coenzyme (Kałużna-­
Czaplińska et al., 2019). Glutamic acid (0.41–­1.26 g/100 g) may be
significant for human health because glutamic acid is essential for
the normal functioning of the human body as a protein ingredi-
ent and neurotransmitter (Asif et al., 2021). In the same research
on dark chocolate fortified with QPI, the addition of quinoa has
been observed to increase the number of amino acids, especially
some essential amino acids (Schumacher et al., 2010). But protein
insertion has limitations. The limitations of adding protein–­herbal
components are sensory characteristics, color, and leading to pH
 |
6      SEKHAVATIZADEH et al.

reduction at the levels of 5.42 ± 0.2 and 5.76 ± 0.28 in 3% and 5% color parameter measurements that consist of L* (F3,40  = 1.98;
TQPI-­fortified samples (Grek et al., 2018). p > .05), a* (F3,40  =  6.0; p ≤ .05), and b* (F3,40  = 5.03; p ≤ .05),
indicating that the change in dessert color with the storage time
might depend on the applied TQPI %, except L*. The data pre-
3.5  |  Color parameters sented in Table  3 show the color attributes of the fortified des-
serts. Regarding the surface color, it was clear that the addition
According to the statistical analysis, there were significant dif- of TQPI decreased the color characteristics (L* and a*) as TQPI
ferences for the interaction “time*TQPI %” corresponding to the levels increased but the redness (b*) value increased. These re-
sults also showed that the highest increase in redness (a*) was
TA B L E 2  Amino acid profile of fortified dessert with TQPI found in dessert samples fortified with TQPI at levels 5% from the
control. These results were in agreement with those reported by
Fortified dessert with TQPI
Amino acid Mohamed et al.  (2014) and Friedeck et al.  (2003) who reported
(g/100 g) Control 1% 3% 5% that L* and b* parameters decreased during the storage time
Aspartic acid 0.19 0.41 0.47 0.52 (Friedeck et al., 2003; Mohamed et al., 2014). Drake et al. (2000)
Glutamic acid 0.41 0.83 1.08 1.26 also reported that the brightness value (L*) of soybean yogurt was
Serine 0.31 0.40 0.44 0.48 lower than that of milk yogurt. In this study, brightness (L*) and
Tyrosine 0.28 0.41 0.48 0.51 redness values (a*) decreased over time for desserts enhanced

Arginine 0.39 0.46 0.49 0.58 with a TQPI of 1%–­5%.

Methionine 0.39 0.37 0.42 0.49

Tryptophan 1.87 2.28 2.68 2.87
3.6  |  Texture analysis
Valine 0.22 0.30 0.33 0.46
Isoleucine 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.41
There were significant differences for the interaction “time*TQPI
Lysine 0.61 0.57 0.60 0.81
%” corresponding to the texture parameter measurements
Phenylalanine 0.33 0.36 0.43 0.51 that consist of hardness (F3,16  =  177.71; p ≤ .05); adhesiveness
Leucine 0.34 0.47 0.56 0.68 (F3,16 = 9.0; p ≤ .05); cohesiveness (F3,16 = 42; p ≤ .05); springiness
Histidine 0.53 0.51 0.59 0.68 (F3,16 = 5; p ≤ .05); gumminess (F3,16 = 94; p ≤ .05); and chewiness
Glycine 0.28 0.33 0.32 0.37 (F3,16  =  6; p ≤ .05), indicating that the change in dessert texture
Threonine 0.23 0.39 0.47 0.54 parameters with the storage time might depend on the applied
Alanine 0.21 0.34 0.31 0.33 TQPI %. As indicated in Table 4, hardness, adhesiveness, springi-
ness, gumminess, and chewiness increased but cohesiveness and
1. Data are from one replication.
springiness decreased as TQPI increased in the samples and at the
Titicaca quinoa protein isolated (TQPI).

TA B L E 3  Color parameters of fortified dessert with TQPI

Color parameters Day Control 1% 3% 5%

L* 1 55.50 ± 1.29aA 39.50 ± 0.58bC 37.25 ± 2.06bB 27.00 ± 4.16cA

7 54.75 ± 2.36aA 46.25 ± 3.86bB 34.00 ± 1.41cB 27.50 ± 1.29cA
14 56.50 ± 4.65aA 49.75 ± 1.50aAB 36.75 ± 3.50cB 24.75 ± 1.50dAB
21 59.25 ± 1.71aA 53.00 ± 2.16bA 43.00 ± 1.83cA 21.75 ± 1.50 dB
a* 1 0.75 ± 0.5aA 0.50 ± 0.57bA −1.50 ± 1.29bA −1.25 ± 0.95aA
7 −0.50 ± 1.0abB −0.75 ± 0.5bB −1.25 ± 0.5bA −1.75 ± 0.5aA
14 −0.50 ± 0.05aB −0.75 ± 1.5abB −1.50 ± 0.57abA −2.25 ± 0.5bAB
21 −0.75 ± 0.5aB −1.00 ± 0.81aB −1.50 ± 1.5aA −3.25 ± 0.95 bB
b* 1 9.00 ± 0.82aC 12.75 ± 2.5bC 18.75 ± 5.25aA 18.00 ± 1.83aB
7 16.25 ± 2.22aB 17.25 ± 1.26aB 18.25 ± 1.50aA 17.75 ± 1.26aB
14 17.50 ± 1.29bBA 20.25 ± 0.96aA 18.75 ± 0.96baA 18.5 ± 0.58bB
21 19.25 ± 0.50bA 20.00 ± 0.82baA 20.25 ± 0.50baA 20.75 ± 0.96aA

1-­Data (mean ± standard deviation) are from three replications.

2-­Means in the same row with different lowercase letters (a–­c) and means in the same column with different uppercase letters (A–­C) among dessert
samples differ significantly (p ≤ .05).
Titicaca quinoa protein isolated (TQPI).
SEKHAVATIZADEH et al.       7|

end of the storage time for each sample separately. Because TQPI
(>80% protein) was used in this research, it is likely that the dif-
ferences in texture parameters among the dessert samples were
attributable to the highest protein levels in the TQPI-­fortified des-
serts. Similar comments were made by a sensory panelist of yo-
gurt containing a 5% soy protein concentrate. In general, increased
protein content results in increased hardness and water-­holding
capacity (WHC) due to the large number of proteins participating
in the protein network. During dessert preparation, the use of heat
in the presence of milk base and protein may cause the unfolding
of whey proteins and denature them irreversibly. In these condi-
tions, whey protein eventually aggregates with themselves and
with casein (Lesme et al.,  2020). Syneresis corresponds to serum
release from the gel matrix that influences the textural properties
of yogurts (Delİkanli Kiyak & Özcan, 2014).
3.7  |  SEM
The SEM micrographs were obtained from desserts fortified with
different concentrations of TQPI (Figure  1). They showed that the
composition of the dessert gel was influenced by the TQPI con-
centration. A denser structure and fewer cavities and pores were
observed when TQPI concentration increased as compared to the
control. The reason for this finding may be related to the contribu-
tion of TQPI to enhance the formation of linking between the protein
elements. These results were supported by increased WHC during
the storage time in this study. These results could be compared with
those of Remeuf et al. (2003) who observed that WPC contributed
to urge the level of bridging between protein elements in yogurt
(Remeuf et al., 2003). Moreover, the addition of TQPI also increased
the levels of the total solid (TS) of fortified desserts. Interactions be-
tween the milk proteins were increased due to the enhancement of
milk total solids and the formation of a stronger gel (Puvanenthiran
et al., 2014). This increase can cause the formation of gel networks
through cross-­linking during the milk fermentation. Similarly, Akalin
et al. (2012) observed that as the ratio of whey protein increased, the
networks have become finer, the size of the aggregate decreased,
the interconnected networks have become denser, and the pores
have become smaller (Akalin et al., 2012).
3.8  |  Sensory properties
There were significant differences for the interaction “time*TQPI
%” corresponding to the sensory parameter measurements that
consist of color (F9,464  = 1.39; p ≤ .05); flavor (F9,464  = 5.31;
p ≤ .05); odor (F9,464 = 3.0; p ≤ .05); texture (F9,464 = 3.0; p ≤ .05);
and total acceptability (F9,464  = 1.08; p > .05), indicating that
the change in dessert texture parameters with the storage time
might depend on the applied TQPI %, except of total acceptability.
Differences in the flavor, odor, texture, color, and total accept-
ability of samples in each desert were observed during the storage
(Figure 2). Among the samples, by increasing the amount of TQPI,
the amount of color, odor, taste, texture, and total acceptability
components decreased. However, no significant difference was
observed between C and 1% TQPI samples in taste, texture, and
total acceptability score.
The odor score was almost constant during the storage period,
except for the 5% of TQPI sample. A significant decrease was seen
in the 5% TQPI sample at the end of the storage time. The taste, tex-
ture, and the total acceptability scores of C and the 1% samples were
constant during the storage period, but the 3% and 5% TQPI sample
scores nearly decreased. The color score decreased during the stor-
age period in all samples. Among the samples, the lowest color score
belonged to the 5% TQPI sample on the 21st day.

TA B L E 4  Texture parameters of TQPI dessert

Texture parameters Day Control 1% 3% 5%

Hardness (g) 1 18.43 ± 0.6f 37.8 ± 1.01c 50.4 ± 0.85b 53.50 ± 0.92a

21 24.93 ± 1.51e 53.43 ± 0.81c 57.73 ± 2.10 63.23 ± 1.46d
Adhesiveness (mJ) 1 0.35 ± 0.01d 0.74 ± 0.01c 1.10 ± 0.10a 1.32 ± 0.29ab
21 0.63 ± 0.12c 0.67 ± 0.02c 0.65 ± 0.06c 0.88 ± 0.19bc
Cohesiveness 1 1.04 ± 0.01a 0.57 ± 0.03b 0.56 ± 0.02b 0.44 ± 0.04c
21 0.55 ± 0.04b 0.61 ± 0.02b 0.64 ± 0.06b 0.64 ± 0.14b
Springiness (mm) 1 8.34 ± 0.12a 7.32 ± 0.14b 7.61 ± 0.39b 7.78 ± 0.41b
21 6.00 ± 0.22c 5.84 ± 0.49c 5.08 ± 0.09d 5.00 ± 0.13d
Gumminess (g) 1 17.77 ± 0.15 h 20.32 ± 0.35 g 27.70 ± 0.70f 49.09 ± 1.17e
21 52.49 ± 1.32d 55.27 ± 1.36c 60.70 ± 0.79b 67.30 ± 1.41a
Chewiness (mJ) 1 1.44 ± 0.04a 1.45 ± 0.23b 2.05 ± 0.16b 3.67 ± 0.26b
21 7.96 ± 0.16c 8.41 ± 0.16c 9.87 ± 0.53b 11.41 ± 0.46a

1-­Data (mean ± standard deviation) are from three replications.

2-­Means with different lowercase letters in the same column and row (a–­h) among dessert samples differ significantly (p ≤ .05).
3. Titicaca quinoa protein isolated (TQPI).
8     | SEKHAVATIZADEH et al.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

(e) (f) (g) (h)

F I G U R E 1  Scan electron microscopy images of TQPI fortified dessert samples. (a) Control; (b)1% TQPI; (c) 3% TQPI; (d)5% TQPI in first
day of production, (e) Control; (f)1% TQPI; (g) 3% TQPI; (h)5% TQPI in 21th day of production

(a) (b)
6.00 abc abc a 6.00 a ab ab
cd abc bcd a b
a de e
ef e c c b
5.00 fg 5.00 cd d d
gh d
hi i e e
4.00 4.00 ef
f
3.00 g
3.00
2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00 0.00
1D 7D 14D 21D 1D 7D 14D 21D
C 1% 3% 5% C 1% 3% 5%
(c) (d)
6.00 a a a 6.00 a aa
a a a a a a
b a ab bcd a ab
5.00 c c 5.00 c
c c c
d d d d
4.00 e e 4.00 e
e
3.00 3.00

2.00 2.00
1.00 1.00
0.00
0.00
1D 7D 14D 21D
1D 7D 14D 21D
C 1% 3% 5% C 1% 3% 5%
(e)
6.00 a ab ababc
ab bc abab
ab cd d
5.00 d
e ef fg g
4.00

3.00

2.00
F I G U R E 2  Sensory attributes of
1.00
dessert samples supplemented with
0.00 Titicaca quinoa protein isolated. Odor
1D 7D 14D 21D
(a); color (b); taste (c); texture(d); total
C 1% 3% 5% acceptability(e)
SEKHAVATIZADEH et al.
The green/grassy and sandy or coarse textures were detected
in the 5% and 3% TQPI desserts. These results are in agreement
with Shaviklo et al. (2011) who reported that one of the most ob-
jectionable defects in soy protein-­fortified ice cream which can be
detected easily and affect texture was green/grassy and sandy.
Repeated homogenization can reduce this problem (Shaviklo
et al.,  2011). The sensory analysis also revealed that the TQPI-­
fortified desserts exhibited highest thickness/texture and were
darkest in color, which is in agreement with instrumental anal-
ysis. These results of this study are in agreement with Friedeck
et al. (2003) (Friedeck et al., 2003). Moreover, a different color was
noticed for desserts containing 5% added TQPI by both sensory
measurements and instrumental analysis, indicating that desserts
with TQPI were less white in comparison to that of a typical low-­f at
dessert. These changes may be related to Maillard browning during
the storage that caused an increase in dark color in all samples
during the storage time (Drake et al., 2000).
4  |   CO N C LU S I O N
From the results of this study, we can conclude as follows that
the incorporation of TQPI in low-­f at dairy desserts increased the
acidity and decreased the pH of low-­f at dairy desserts over the
storage period. The acidity slightly increased and pH decreased
as the TQPI level increased in the dessert at the end of the stor-
age time. TQPI, in high concentration (5  g/100 g), decreased the
sensory score of the fortified dessert during the storage period.
Moreover, the change in dessert sensory parameters with the
storage time might depend on the applied TQPI %, except for
the total acceptability. In this regard, desserts supplemented
with TQPI have proven to be an excellent source of protein,
including abundant essential amino acids, especially glutamic acid
and tryptophan. The change in dessert texture, color, and WHC
parameters with the storage time might depend on the applied
TQPI %, except for pH, acidity, and L* color parameter. From the
results, we can conclude that adding up to 5 g/100 g of TQPI to
the dessert  increased the protein content, acidity, b*, hardness,
adhesiveness, springiness, gumminess, chewiness, and WHC.
However, L*, a*, cohesiveness, springiness, and pH were de-
creased. TQPI-­fortified desserts exhibited highest thickness/tex-
ture and were darkest in color. Electron microscopy provided the
formation evidence of a strong network in a TQPI-­fortified des-
sert, while the control dessert had a loose network. Thus, TQPI
supplementation could be a potential option to produce high-­
quality, low-­cost, and low-­f at desserts with enhanced nutritional
and technological properties.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
The authors thank the Head of the Fars Agriculture Research and
Education Center for his support and encouragement in carrying out
the work.
|
      9
F U N D I N G I N FO R M AT I O N
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen-
cies in the public, commercial, or not-­for-­profit sectors.
C O N FL I C T O F I N T E R E S T
The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.
DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
Data available on request from the authors
E T H I C A L A P P R OVA L
This study does not involve any human or animal testing
I N FO R M E D C O N S E N T
Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants
ORCID
Seyed Saeed Sekhavatizadeh  https://orcid.
org/0000-0003-1055-646X
REFERENCES
Abugoch, L. E., Romero, N., Tapia, C. A., Silva, J., & Rivera, M. (2008).
Study of some physicochemical and functional properties of quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) protein isolates. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry, 56(12), 4745–­4750.
Akalin, A. S., Unal, G., Dinkci, N., & Hayaloglu, A. A. (2012).
Microstructural, textural, and sensory characteristics of probiotic
yogurts fortified with sodium calcium caseinate or whey protein
concentrate. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(7), 3617–­3628.
Amatayakul, T., Sherkat, F., & Shah, N. (2006). Physical characteristics
of set yoghurt made with altered casein to whey protein ratios
and EPS-­producing starter cultures at 9 and 14% total solids. Food
Hydrocolloids, 20(2–­3), 314–­324.
Asif, A. H. M., Deb, G. K., Habib, M. R., Harun-­u r-­R ashid, M., Sarker, M.
A. H., Shahjadee, U. F., Lisa, S. A., Ahmed, S., Ekeberg, D., Vargas-­
Bello-­Pérez, E., & Research, A. (2021). Variations in fatty acid
and amino acid profiles of doi and rasomalai made from buffalo
milk. Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research, 8(3),
511–­520.
Bazile, D., Pulvento, C., Verniau, A., Al-­Nusairi, M. S., Ba, D., Breidy, J.,
Hassan, L., Mohammed, M. I., Mambetov, O., & Otambekova, M.
(2016). Worldwide evaluations of quinoa: Preliminary results from
post international year of quinoa FAO projects in nine countries.
Frontiers in Plant Science, 7(850), 1–­18.
Cao, H., Sun, R., Shi, J., Li, M., Guan, X., Liu, J., Huang, K., & Zhang, Y.
(2021). Effect of ultrasonic on the structure and quality char-
acteristics of quinoa protein oxidation aggregates. Ultrasonics
Sonochemistry, 77, 105685.
Cardoso, R. V., Fernandes, Â., Heleno, S. A., Rodrigues, P., Gonzaléz-­
Paramás, A. M., Barros, L., & Ferreira, I. C. (2019). Physicochemical
characterization and microbiology of wheat and rye flours. Food
Chemistry, 280, 123–­129.
Chavan, R., Prajapati, P., Jana, A., Hingu, M., Chavan, S., & Khedkar, C.
(2010). Influence of storage period and temperature on physico-­
chemical properties and microbial quality of dietetic and dia-
betic rosogolla. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 23(4),
628–­6 31.
Chiavaro, E., Mahesar, S. A., Bendini, A., Foroni, E., Valli, E., & Cerretani, L.
(2011). Biochemical, microbiological and sensory characteristics of
 |
10      SEKHAVATIZADEH et al.
probiotic yogurt containing various prebiotic compounds. Volume
XXIII Number 2 2011, 23, 153–­164.
Delİkanli Kiyak, B., & Özcan, T. (2014). Effects of various whey pro-
teins on the physicochemical and textural properties of set type
nonfat yoghurt. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 67(4),
495–­5 03.
Dokoohaki, Z. N., Sekhavatizadeh, S. S., & Hosseinzadeh, S. (2019). Dairy
dessert containing microencapsulated lactobacillus rhamnosus
(ATCC 53103) with quince seed mucilage as a coating material. LWT,
115, 108429.
Drake, M., Chen, X., Tamarapu, S., & Leenanon, B. (2000). Soy pro-
tein fortification affects sensory, chemical, and microbiologi-
cal properties of dairy yogurts. Journal of Food Science, 65(7),
1244–­1 247.
Elsohaimy, S., Refaay, T., & Zaytoun, M. (2015). Physicochemical and
functional properties of quinoa protein isolate. Annals of Agricultural
Sciences, 60(2), 297–­3 05.
Faturrahman, F., Rohyati, I. S., & Sukiman, D. (2015). Improved of growth
rate of abalone Haliotis asinine fed pudding probiotic-­enriched pro-
tein. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 23, 315–­322.
Friedeck, K. G., Aragul-­Yuceer, Y., & Drake, M. (2003). Soy protein forti-
fication of a low-­fat dairy-­based ice cream. Journal of Food Science,
68(9), 2651–­2657.
Ghumman, A., Mudgal, S., Singh, N., Ranjan, B., Kaur, A., & Rana, J. C.
(2021). Physicochemical, functional and structural characteristics
of grains, flour and protein isolates of Indian quinoa lines. Food
Research International, 140, 109982.
Granato, D., Ribeiro, J. C. B., Castro, I. A., & Masson, M. L. (2010).
Sensory evaluation and physicochemical optimisation of soy-­based
desserts using response surface methodology. Food Chemistry,
121(3), 899–­906.
Grek, O., Chubenko, L., & Mikhalevich, A. (2018). Technological aspects
of production of frozen dessert with protein-­herbal component.
Journal Food and Environment Safety, 2, 197–­204.
Gunness, P., Kravchuk, O., Nottingham, S. M., D'Arcy, B. R., & Gidley,
M. J. (2009). Sensory analysis of individual strawberry fruit and
comparison with instrumental analysis. Postharvest Biology and
Technology, 52(2), 164–­172.
Gupta, A., Sharma, S., & Reddy Surasani, V. K. (2021). Quinoa protein
isolate supplemented pasta: Nutritional, physical, textural and mor-
phological characterization. LWT, 135, 110045.
Horwitz, W. (2010). Official methods of analysis of AOAC international.
Volume I, agricultural chemicals, contaminants, drugs/edited by
William Horwitz. Gaithersburg (Maryland).
Isleten, M., & Karagul-­Yuceer, Y. (2006). Effects of dried dairy ingredi-
ents on physical and sensory properties of nonfat yogurt. Journal of
Dairy Science, 89(8), 2865–­2872.
Jahromi, M., & Niakousari, M. (2018). Development and characterisa-
tion of a sugar-­free milk-­based dessert formulation with fig (Ficus
carica L.) and carboxymethylcellulose. International Journal of Dairy
Technology, 71(3), 801–­8 09.
Kałużna-­C zaplińska, J., Gątarek, P., Chirumbolo, S., Chartrand, M. S.,
& Bjørklund, G. (2019). How important is tryptophan in human
health? Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 59(1),
72–­8 8.
Karimi, M., Sekhavatizadeh, S. S., & Hosseinzadeh, S. (2021). Milk dessert
containing lactobacillus reuteri (ATCC 23272) encapsulated with
sodium alginate, Ferula Assa-­foetida and Zedo (Amygdalus sco-
paria) gum as three layers of wall materials. Food and Bioproducts
Processing, 127, 244–­254.
Kaspchak, E., Oliveira, M. A. S. d., Simas, F. F., Franco, C. R. C., Silveira,
J. L. M., Mafra, M. R., & Igarashi-­Mafra, L. (2017). Determination of
heat-­set gelation capacity of a quinoa protein isolate (Chenopodium
quinoa) by dynamic oscillatory rheological analysis. Food Chemistry,
232, 263–­271.
Kaur, G., & Goswami, T. K. (2020). Effect of stevia level on chemical,
microbiological, and sensory properties of dairy dessert (rasgulla)
at different storage periods and temperatures. Journal of Food
Processing and Preservation, 44(1), e14293.
Kibar, H., Sönmez, F., & Temel, S. (2021). Effect of storage conditions
on nutritional quality and color characteristics of quinoa varieties.
Journal of Stored Products Research, 91, 101761.
Komatsu, T. R., Buriti, F. C. A., da Silva, R. C., Lobo, A. R., Colli, C., Gioielli,
L. A., & Saad, S. M. I. (2013). Nutrition claims for functional guava
mousses produced with milk fat substitution by inulin and/or whey
protein concentrate based on heterogeneous food legislations.
LWT -­Food Science and Technology, 50(2), 755–­765.
Laguna, L., Rizo, A., Pineda, D., Pérez, S., Gamero, A., & Tárrega, A.
(2021). Food matrix impact on oral structure breakdown and sand-
iness perception of semisolid systems including resistant starch.
Food Hydrocolloids, 112, 106376.
Lesme, H., Rannou, C., Famelart, M.-­H., Bouhallab, S., & Prost, C. (2020).
Yogurts enriched with milk proteins: Texture properties, aroma re-
lease and sensory perception. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
98, 140–­149.
Levin, M. A., Burrington, K. J., & Hartel, R. W. (2016). Whey protein
phospholipid concentrate and delactosed permeate: Applications
in caramel, ice cream, and cake. Journal of Dairy Science, 99(9),
6948–­6960.
Mariotti, F., Tomé, D., & Mirand, P. P. (2008). Converting nitrogen into
protein—­Beyond 6.25 and Jones' factors. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition, 48(2), 177–­184.
Mohamed, G., Sulieman, A., Soliman, N., & Bassiuny, S. (2014).
Fortification of biscuits with fish protein concentrate. World Journal
of Dairy Food Science, 9(2), 242–­249.
Nepovinnykh, N. V., Kliukina, O. N., Ptichkina, N. M., & Bostan, A. (2019).
Hydrogel based dessert of low calorie content. Food Hydrocolloids,
86, 184–­192.
Nunes, M. C., Batista, P., Raymundo, A., Alves, M. M., & Sousa, I. (2003).
Vegetable proteins and milk puddings. Colloids and Surfaces B:
Biointerfaces, 31(1), 21–­29.
Pracham, S., & Thaiudom, S. (2016). The effect of protein content in jas-
mine rice flour on textural and rheological properties of jasmine
rice pudding. International Food Research Journal, 23(4), 1379–­1388.
Puvanenthiran, A., Stevovitch-­Rykner, C., McCann, T. H., & Day, L. (2014).
Synergistic effect of milk solids and carrot cell wall particles on the
rheology and texture of yoghurt gels. Food Research International,
62, 701–­708.
Rahpeyma, E., & Sekhavatizadeh, S. S. (2020). Effects of encapsulated
green coffee extract and canola oil on liquid kashk quality. Foods
and Raw Materials, 8(1), 40–­51.
Remeuf, F., Mohammed, S., Sodini, I., & Tissier, J. (2003). Preliminary ob-
servations on the effects of milk fortification and heating on mi-
crostructure and physical properties of stirred yogurt. International
Dairy Journal, 13(9), 773–­782.
Schumacher, A. B., Brandelli, A., Macedo, F. C., Pieta, L., Klug, T. V., & de
Jong, E. V. (2010). Chemical and sensory evaluation of dark choco-
late with addition of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 47(2), 202–­206.
Sekhavatizadeh, S. S., Hosseinzadeh, S., & Mohebbi, G. (2021).
Nutritional, antioxidant properties and polyphenol content of qui-
noa (Chenopodium quinoa willd) cultivated in Iran. Future of Food:
Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society, 9(2), 1–­12.
Shaviklo, G. R., Thorkelsson, G., Sveinsdottir, K., & Rafipour, F. (2011).
Chemical properties and sensory quality of ice cream fortified with
fish protein. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 91(7),
1199–­1204.
Shen, Y., Tang, X., & Li, Y. (2021). Drying methods affect physicochemical
and functional properties of quinoa protein isolate. Food Chemistry,
339, 127823.
SEKHAVATIZADEH et al. |
      11

Soukoulis, C., Lyroni, E., & Tzia, C. (2010). Sensory profiling and hedonic
judgement of probiotic ice cream as a function of hydrocolloids, yo- How to cite this article: Sekhavatizadeh, S. S., Karimi, A.,
gurt and milk fat content. LWT-­Food Science and Technology, 43(9),
Hosseinzadeh, S., Shaviklo, A. R., Abedi, M.,
1351–­1358.
Steffolani, M. E., Villacorta, P., Morales-­Soriano, E. R., Repo-­C arrasco, R., Mahmoodianfard, H., & Ghaedmohammadi, M. (2022).
León, A. E., & Pérez, G. T. (2016). Physicochemical and functional Nutritional and sensory properties of low-­fat milk dessert
characterization of protein isolated from different quinoa varieties enriched with quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Titicaca
(Chenopodium quinoa willd.). Cereal Chemistry, 93(3), 275–­281.
protein isolate. Food Science & Nutrition, 00, 1–11. https://
Ünal, B., Metin, S., & Işıklı, N. D. (2003). Use of response surface method-
ology to describe the combined effect of storage time, locust bean doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.3082
gum and dry matter of milk on the physical properties of low-­fat set
yoghurt. International Dairy Journal, 13(11), 909–­916.