Meat Science 172 (2021) 108305

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Effects of replacing soy protein and bread crumb with quinoa and T
buckwheat flour in functional beef burger formulation
Fereshte Bahmanyar, Seyede Marzieh Hosseini, Leila Mirmoghtadaie , Saeedeh Shojaee-Aliabadi
⁎ ⁎

Department of Food Science and Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid
Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study investigated the physicochemical, nutritional and sensorial characteristics of beef burgers formulated
Quinoa with quinoa flour (QF) and buckwheat flour (BWF) as replacers of the mixture of soy protein powder (SP) and
Buckwheat bread crumb (BC). Six treatments were formulated in two groups (15% and 30% of added flour as Groups A and
Functional beef burger B, respectively). The oil absorption and water holding capacity were higher (P < 0.05) in Soy protein burgers
Gluten free
(SPB) than in other burgers. The mineral content of magnesium, phosphorus, iron and zinc was higher in the
Shelf life
quinoa burgers (QB) than in the other formulations for both A and B groups. Also, the result of sensory eva-
luation revealed increases (P < 0.05) in overall acceptability and taste attributes of QB and BWB (Buckwheat
Burger) in both groups. The shelf life results showed significant differences between SPB and treated samples
(QB and BWB). Therefore, these new beef burger formulations might be a viable option in improvement of
nutritional, durability and sensory properties.

1. Introduction
In recent years, consumers demand for ready meals has increased
due to changes in human lifestyle (Curtis, McCluskey, & Wahl, 2007).
Beef burgers are considered as one of the most popular meat products
which are widely used as a ready meal (Heck et al., 2017). However,
higher levels of fat, cholesterol and sodium in burgers have resulted in
increased prevalence of chronic diseases, including colon cancer, obe-
sity, cardiovascular diseases and several other disorders (Aleson-
Carbonell, Fernández-López, Pérez-Alvarez, & Kuri, 2005; Selani et al.,
2016). In addition, soy, which is often used in these products, is one of
the most important allergic compounds that belongs to “big 8” allergens
group in the World Health Organization list (do Prado et al., 2019).
Furthermore, raising consumer awareness of healthy diets and in-
creasing their demands for using healthier products have led to pro-
duction of new meat products with potential health benefits by com-
bining functional ingredients or replacing soy protein with less
allergenic ingredients (Angiolillo, Conte, & Del Nobile, 2015; do Prado
et al., 2019; López-Vargas, Fernández-López, Pérez-Álvarez, & Viuda-
Martos, 2014).
Recently, the pseudo-cereals including quinoa and buckwheat have
attracted much attention in human food because of excellent nutritional
ingredients (Alvarez-Jubete, Wijngaard, Arendt, & Gallagher, 2010).
Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) is a pseudo-cereal of
Chenopodiacee family which has been cultivated and consumed since
5000 years ago in indigenous Andean region populations (Pellegrini
et al., 2018). The quinoa seed is a good source of starch, protein, fat,
dietary fiber, minerals, polyphenols and vitamins (Li & Zhu, 2017). The
protein quality of quinoa seed is high due to the high amount of his-
tidine and lysine amino acid (Lorusso et al., 2017). Also, quinoa con-
tains high level of calcium, magnesium, iron, copper, zinc, α- carotene
and niacin (Vega-Gálvez et al., 2010). However, it does not contain
gluten and it is known as a valuable dietary source of digestible protein
for people with gluten sensitivity and celiac disease (Li & Zhu, 2017;
Pellegrini et al., 2018). Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) also
is a pseudo-cereal, which belongs to the Polygonaceae family. Buck-
wheat has high amount of dietary fiber, flavonoids (such as rutin and
quercetin) and essential minerals (Cai, Corke, Wang, & Li, 2016; Park
et al., 2016). Buckwheat grain has been characterized by the high
content of good quality protein. Lysine and arginine are dominant es-
sential amino acids in buckwheat protein (Cai et al., 2016). Moreover,
buckwheat contains a high amount of several vitamins such as B1, C,
and E (Park et al., 2016). Therefore, buckwheat protein can be used as a
suitable source of dietary protein for people with gluten sensitivity and
celiac patients (Cai et al., 2016).
Therefore, quinoa and buckwheat may be suitable substitutes for
soy protein and bread crumb in processed meat products because of
having less allergenic compounds and high nutritional value. Thus, the

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: mirmoghtadaie@sbmu.ac.ir (L. Mirmoghtadaie), s_shojaee@sbmu.ac.ir (S. Shojaee-Aliabadi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108305
Received 18 January 2020; Received in revised form 7 August 2020; Accepted 1 September 2020
Available online 05 September 2020
0309-1740/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Bahmanyar, et al. Meat Science 172 (2021) 108305

aim of this study is to evaluate the physicochemical, nutritional and Table 1

sensorial characterization of beef burgers containing quinoa and/or Formulation of beef burgers with addition of quinoa and buckwheat flour (%).
buckwheat flour as replacements of both soy protein and bread crumb Ingredient Group A Group B
in a conventional formulation.
SPB15 QB15 BWB15 SPB30 QB30 BWB30

2. Materials and methods Beef meat 60 60 60 30 30 30

Water 20 20 20 35 35 35
2.1. Quinoa and buckwheat flour preparation Soy protein powder 6 0 0 12 0 0
Bread crumb 9 0 0 18 0 0
Quinoa flour 0 15 0 0 30 0
The quinoa and buckwheat seeds were purchased from a local Buckwheat flour 0 0 15 0 0 30
market (OAB food, Tehran, Iran) and were milled by electric grinding Onion powder 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
mill (Quadrumat Junior, Brabender, Germany) to obtain fine flour. Salt 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
The flour was stored under refrigeration (4 ± 1 °C). According to Spices 1 1 1 1 1 1
the methods described in 2.2, 2.3, 2.6 and 2.12, the antioxidant ac-
Group A: 15% flour group, and group B: 30% flour group of whole batter
tivity, total phenolic content, proximate composition and pH of dif-
weight.
ferent flour were measured. Each analysis was performed in triplicate. SPB15: burger containing 15% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB15: burger
containing 15% quinoa flour, BWB15: burger containing 15% buckwheat flour.
2.2. Determination of antioxidant activity of flour SPB30: burger containing 30% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB30: burger
containing 30% quinoa flour, BWB30: burger containing 30% buckwheat flour.
The antioxidant activity was determined by 2, 2-diphenyl-1-pi-
crylhydrazyl (DPPH) as a free radical. Ten ml methanol 80% were 2.5. Storage of the samples and frying procedure
added to 1 g of flour and were shaken for 30 mins at room temperature.
Then, the sample was centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 15 min and 100 μl of The burgers were packed in polyethylene packages and stored under
supernatant was added to 3.9 ml DPPH (0.0025% w/v, methanol as −18 °C, for further analyses. The samples were stored up to 120 days
solvent). The solution was kept at room temperature for 1 h. The ab- with 30 days intervals (1, 30, 60, 90, and 120 days) for analysis of
sorbance of the solution was recorded at 517 nm (PERKIN ELMER, thiobarbituric acid value, microbiological analysis and pH.
Lambda 2). Methanol was used as blank. The antioxidant activity was Some analyses were conducted on both raw and fried burgers. The
calculated using the following Eq. (1) (Tamsen, Shekarchizadeh, & burgers were fried in low refined sunflower oil at 150 °C for 8 min to get
Soltanizadeh, 2018). an internal temperature about 72 °C. After frying the samples, they
were cooled for about 30 min at room temperature until the frying
%Antioxidant activity = (Absblank –Abssample)/Absblank × 100 (1) properties and texture analysis were measured under the same condi-
tions (Selani, Shirado, Margiotta, Rasera, et al., 2016).
2.3. Determination of total phenolic content
2.6. Proximate composition
The total phenolic content (TPC) of flour was determined using the
Folin_Ciocalteau reagent according to Vollmannova et al. (2013) with
Moisture, lipid (Soxhlet), protein (Kjeldahl) and ash were de-
some modifications. One gram of flour was mixed with 10 ml methanol
termined in raw burgers in triplicate, according to AOAC (2005)
by stirrer for 1 h at 300 rpm and then filtered. 0.5 ml of extract, 0.5 ml
(Horwitz & Latimer, 2005). The percentage of carbohydrates was cal-
Folin-Ciocalteau reagent and 7 ml distilled water were added to a 10 ml
culated as the difference to 100 of the sum of the percentages of
tube and was kept at room temperature for 8 min. Then, 1.5 ml sodium
moisture, fat, protein and ash.
carbonate 2% were added to the tube and diluted with distilled water to
10 ml. The solution was mixed and incubated at room temperature for
2 h in a dark place and the absorbance was recorded at 765 nm with a 2.7. Water holding capacity (WHC)
spectrophotometer (PERKIN ELMER, Lambda 2). Gallic acid was used
to draw standard curve and the final results were expressed as mg gallic The WHC of raw burgers was analyzed by the method described by
acid equivalents/g of flour (R2 = 0.998). Savadkoohi, Hoogenkamp, Shamsi, and Farahnaky (2014). For eva-
luation of WHC, ten grams of beef burger was weighed in centrifuge
2.4. Beef burger preparation tubes and centrifuged at 12,000 g for 30 min at 4 °C. The WHC was
expressed as a percentage of bound water,according to Eq. (2).
Fresh beef was purchased from a local slaughterhouse (Tehran,
Iran). The fat was removed from the meat and lean beef was ground WHC (%) = (W1/W2) × 100 (2)
through 5 mm plate meat grinder. The other ingredients were also
purchased from the local market. Where W1 is the weight of sample after centrifugation and W2 is the
Six formulations were prepared in two groups and each group in- weight of sample prior to centrifugation.
cluded three formulations. Groups A and B contained 15% and 30%
flour, respectively. In each group, soy protein burger (SPB) as control
2.8. Frying properties
sample was prepared with soy protein powder and bread crumb. The
other two formulations were quinoa burger (QB) and buckwheat burger
Beef burgers were fried according to the procedures previously de-
(BWB), where soy protein powder and bread crumb were replaced by
scribed. Frying yield Eq. (3) and moisture retention Eq. (4) were ob-
quinoa and buckwheat flour (Table 1). In order to prepare sample,
tained according to Selani et al. (2016). The oil absorption of fried
onion powder, salt and spices were mixed with ground beef. Then,
products was calculated by determination of fat content in the products
hydrated flour was added and kneaded by hand for 5 min and then the
before and after frying (Modi, Mahendrakar, Rao, & Sachindra, 2004).
90 g portions were manually shaped using a burger mold to obtain
burgers 10 cm diameter and 1 cm thickness. Each formulation was Frying yield (%) = (Fried weight/Raw weight) × 100 (3)
prepared in triplicate.

2
F. Bahmanyar, et al.
Moisture retention (%)
= (Fried weight ×%Moisture in fried burger/Raw weight × %
Moisture in raw burger) × 100
2.9. Determination of mineral contents
Mineral contents of burgers were determined according to Gök,
Akkaya, Obuz, and Bulut (2011). The sample was dried in an oven,
then, 10 ml pure HNO3 was added to the 0.5 g dried sample. The so-
lution was heated in acid until dissolved completely and the solution
was filtered on filter paper. The filtered solution was diluted to 50 ml
with water and mineral contents were determined with an ICP-OES
(SPECTRO ARCOS ICP-OES, Germany).
2.10. Texture analysis
Texture profile analysis (TPA) in fried samples was determined
using a Texture Analyzer TA-XT plus (Stable Micro Systems, United
Kingdom). The TPA was performed with a 75 mm cylindrical plate
probe (speed: 5 mm/s; distance: 80 mm; Loud Cell: 50 Kg) on cylind-
rical samples with 40 mm diameter. Samples were compressed to 50%
of their original height at a constant speed of 5 mm/s. Hardness (N),
springiness (mm), cohesiveness (A2/A1; A1 being the total energy re-
quired for the first compression and A2 the total energy required for the
second compression) and chewiness (N × mm) were recorded
(Carvalho et al., 2019).
2.11. Sensory evaluation
Sensory evaluation of six treatments was carried out by thirty pa-
nelists from Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran,
Iran. Each panelist tested one replicate of all formulations. In order to
eliminate the day effect, sensory evaluation was performed in one
session. Panelists were requested to test the samples with different
formulations and evaluated the sensory properties in fried burgers
(texture, color, odor, taste and overall acceptability) using a 5-point
hedonic scale (1 = not acceptable, 5 = excellent) (Zamuz et al., 2018).
Also, mineral water (bottled water) was provided to clean the mouth
between samples.
Burger samples were fried according to the method described in 2.5
and were served in random order at a temperature of approximately
40 °C.
2.12. pH measurement
The pH of raw samples were determined after blending 5 g of the
sample with 45 ml of distilled water using a pH meter (827pH Lab
Metrohm, Swiss made) during 120 days storage at thirty-day intervals
(Choe, Kim, Lee, Kim, & Kim, 2013).
Table 2
Chemical compositions (g/100 g), pH, antioxidant activity (%) and total phenolic content (TPC) (mg GAE/g) of flours.
Properties / Flour SP
d c
Moisture 7.97 ± 0.07
Protein 49.44 ± 0.2a
Fat 3.79 ± 0.09b
Ash 6.16 ± 0.1a
Carbohydrate 32.64 ± 0.09d
pH 6.55 ± 0.05b
DPPH (%) 27.91 ± 3.54b
TPC 1.35 ± 0.07b
Means in a same row with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncan test.
SP: Soy Protein Powder, BC: Bread Crumb, QF: Quinoa Flour, BWF: BuckWheat Flour.
Meat Science 172 (2021) 108305
2.13. Microbiological analysis
The microbial total count of raw burgers during the storage time
(4) was performed as described by Mizi et al. (2018). Briefly, ten grams of
burgers were thoroughly mixed with 90 ml of peptone water (0.1%) for
2 min under aseptic conditions. Suitable decimal dilutions were then
prepared. One ml of each suitable dilution was pour-plated (duplicate)
in the Plate Count Agar (PCA) media and was incubated at 37 ± 2 °C
for 48 h. The results of total count were expressed as log10 cfu/g.
2.14. Lipid oxidation analysis
Lipid oxidation was determined in the raw beef burger by mea-
suring the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) during
120 days storage. TBARS were determined using method described by
Soltanizadeh and Ghiasi-Esfahani (2015) and results were reported as
mg of malondialdehyde (MDA) per kg of the sample.
2.15. Statistical analysis
Statistical data analysis was carried out using SPSS statistics 24. Six
formulations were prepared in triplicate and each test was performed in
triplicate for all of the samples and mean values ± standard errors were
reported for each formulation. Experimental data were compared by
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In addition, the Duncan's test
(P < 0.05) was used to determine the significant difference between
mean values in A and B groups. The general linear model (GLM) pro-
cedures were carried out to evaluate storage time data. In the GLM
analysis, formulation and storage time were considered as main effects
and their interactions were investigated for response variables pH,
microbial total plate count and TBA. The significant differences be-
tween mean values in A and B groups was done with LSD test.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Chemical analysis of flour
Table 2 shows the results of chemical composition, pH, antioxidant
activity and total phenolic content of SP, BC, QF and BWF. There were
significant differences in chemical composition and pH of SP, BC, QF
and BWF. As expected, the protein content of SP was higher (P < 0.05)
than QF, BWF and BC due to use of soy protein instead of soy flour. The
ash content of SP also was significantly higher and the carbohydrate
was significantly lower than other flours. The highest amount of car-
bohydrate and lowest content of fat and ash was related to BC. Among
the various samples examined, QF showed higher fat content compared
to other flours and BWF presented the highest moisture content and the
lowest protein content. The results of flour proximate compositions in
this study were in agreement with the amounts previously reported by
Ahamed, Singhal, Kulkarni, and Pal (1998) and Cai et al. (2016). In
addition, the results showed higher antioxidant activity and total
BC QF BWF
b
9.59 ± 0.35 11.58 ± 0.2 13.02 ± 0.04a
10.30 ± .42c 14.12 ± 0.06b 9.39 ± 0.04d
0.46 ± 0.06d 7.28 ± 0.06a 3.44 ± 0.02c
0.53 ± 0.1d 2.0 ± 0.06b 1.40 ± 00c
79.12 ± 0.74a 64.92 ± 0.06c 72.78 ± 0.02b
6.20 ± 0.04d 6.37 ± 0.01c 6.92 ± 0.03a
21.64 ± 1.31c 31.33 ± 2.15b 61.12 ± 3.06a
0.99 ± 0.13c 1.44 ± 0.04b 2.14 ± 0.07a
3
F. Bahmanyar, et al. Meat Science 172 (2021) 108305

Table 3
Proximate compositions (g/100 g) and WHC (%) of raw beef burgers treated with soya protein, quinoa and buckwheat flours.
Treatment Moisture Protein Fat Ash Carbohydrate WHC (%)

a a b a c
Group A SPB15 64.56 ± 0.33 17.48 ± .012 2.20 ± .037 2.79 ± 0.10 12.82 ± 0.02 98.82 ± 0.04 a
QB15 64.61 ± 0.12a 16.32 ± 0.12b 2.41 ± 0.05a 2.47 ± 0.08b 14.16 ± 0.09b 90.64 ± 0.75b
BWB15 65.02 ± 0.35a 15.34 ± 0.13c 1.87 ± 0.06c 2.36 ± 0.07b 14.98 ± 0.23a 89.19 ± 0.52b
Group B SPB30 58.05 ± 0.16a 14.80 ± 0.12a 2.36 ± 0.06b 3.22 ± 0.00a 21.63 ± 0.00b 99.75 ± 0.07a
QB30 58.23 ± 0.10a 10.70 ± 0.12b 2.56 ± 0.06a 2.48 ± 0.04b 25.94 ± 1.24a 86.84 ± 0.76b
BWB30 58.75 ± 0.40a 9.8 ± 0.13c 2.25 ± 0.06b 2.41 ± 0.29b 26.94 ± 0.53a 79.12 ± 0.34c

Means in a same column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncan test.
Group A: 15% flour group and group B: 30% flour group of whole batter weight.
SPB15: burger containing 15% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB15: burger containing 15% quinoa flour, BWB15: burger containing 15% buckwheat flour.
SPB30: burger containing 30% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB30: burger containing 30% quinoa flour, BWB30: burger containing 30% buckwheat flour.

phenolic compounds in BWF compared to other flours, while lower
antioxidant activity and total phenolic were observed in BC. Also,
Zhang et al. (2012) reported that buckwheat is rich in antioxidant
components because of high levels of polyphenolic components. There
were no significant differences in antioxidant activity and total phenolic
of QF and SP.
3.2. Proximate analysis and WHC of burgers
Table 3 indicates the results of chemical analysis and WHC of raw
burgers. There were no significant differences between moisture per-
cent among the different burger formulations. Protein and ash content
were higher (P < 0.05) in SPB than in other formulations because of
the high amounts of protein and ash in SP, while its carbohydrate
content was lower than in other treatments for both groups A and B.
The low amount of protein in BWF lead to a significant decrease, and
the high level of fat in QF lead to fat increase if compared with other
formulations. Similarly, do Prado et al. (2019) observed that the protein
content of burgers prepared using whole sorghum flour as soy protein
replacer, was lower than in control samples. Lower carbohydrate con-
tent, higher protein and ash values were also reported for the control
treatment. WHC in control treatment was significantly higher than in
other treatments, according to the high protein content of SPB. Water
holding capacity is the ratio of remained moisture of the burgers to the
initial moisture; thus WHC has inverse relationship with moisture loss
(Savadkoohi et al., 2014).
3.3. Frying properties
the frying process, the extent of water evaporation and fat migration
into hamburgers affect the acceptance of the final product (Sánchez-
Zapata et al., 2010). Alakali, Irtwange, and Mzer (2010) and Sánchez-
Zapata et al. (2010) reported that the moisture retention and fat ab-
sorption of meat products are determined by the ability of the protein
matrix to retain water and bind fat. Therefore, in the present study the
higher moisture retention and oil absorption of control sample (SPB)
can be due to high level of protein content and its ability to keep
moisture and fat in the burger matrix. In the present study, the frying
yield of SPB30 was significantly higher compared to two other samples
in group B. Sheridan and Shilton (2002) reported that the loss of
moisture and fat during cooking lead to loss of burger yield. Therefore,
the higher frying yield of SPB30 can be due to the high oil absorption
and water retention capacity of soy that is related to its high protein
content.
In group A, the frying yield increased in SPB but the increase was
not significant; therefore the replacement did not cause significant
differences in frying yield of different treatments. The expected increase
in frying yield due to increased moisture retention and oil absorption in
SPB15 was not observed. This result may be due to the soft and brittle
texture of SPB15 which caused the separation of a few very small parts
from the burger during frying and thus the reduction of burger weight.
In the same way, Carvalho et al. (2019) did not observe significant
difference in cooking loss of beef burgers with adding hydrated wheat
fiber. Also, Raúl et al. (2018) reported that the addition of wheat fiber
up to 3% did not make significant differences in cooking loss of fish
burgers. Also, there were no significant differences in frying yield and
moisture retention between the SPB and BWB.

Table 4 shows the results of frying yield, moisture retention and oil 3.4. Determination of mineral contents
absorption of fried beef burgers. The moisture retention of SPB was
higher than QB in both groups of A and B. Moreover, the oil absorption Table 5 shows the mineral content of beef burgers. Magnesium,
of SPB during frying was increased (P < 0.05) in both groups. During phosphorus, iron and zinc in QB were higher (P < 0.05) than in other
formulations in groups A and B. Copper in BWB15 and BWB30 sig-
Table 4
nificantly increased. The obtained results of mineral content of burgers
Frying properties of beef burgers.
in present study are consistent with the results reported by Jancurová,
Treatment Frying yield (%) Moisture retention Oil absorption (%) Minarovičová, and Dandar (2009). These authors noted that quinoa
(%) seed is a suitable source of minerals and the level of calcium, magne-
Group A SPB15 83.77 ± 0.54a 70.82 ± 0.16a 61.92 ± 0.06a
sium, iron, and zinc in quinoa are higher than in other common cereals,
QB15 82.79 ± 1.46a 67.15 ± 1.19b 52.15 ± 0.06c particularly the iron content. Furthermore, Ruales and Nair (1993) re-
BWB15 83.60 ± 0.18a 68.48 ± 0.48ab 58.59 ± 0.06b ported that quinoa contains high concentration of potassium and
Group B SPB30 86.46 ± 1.37a 64.48 ± 0.67a 68.81 ± 0.14a phosphorus. Moreover, previous studies show that, minerals including
QB30 80.86 ± 0.85b 61.54 ± 0.31b 55.94 ± 0.08c
manganese, iron, copper, potassium and magnesium have a protective
BWB30 81.61 ± 0.41b 62.36 ± 0.99ab 60.34 ± 0.10b
effect on coronary heart diseases (Gök et al., 2011). Also in this context,
Means in a same column with different letters are significantly different Gök et al. (2011) reported that the addition of ground poppy seed at
(P < 0.05) by Duncan test. two levels of 10% and 20%, as a fat replacer, increased total mineral
Group A: 15% flour group and group B: 30% flour group of whole batter weight. content of meat burgers significantly. Also, adding ground poppy seed
SPB15: burger containing 15% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB15: burger at the percentage of 5 had a significant effect on calcium, magnesium,
containing 15% quinoa flour, BWB15: burger containing 15% buckwheat flour. manganese, and zinc content.
SPB30: burger containing 30% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB30: burger
containing 30% quinoa flour, BWB30: burger containing 30% buckwheat flour.

4
F. Bahmanyar, et al. Meat Science 172 (2021) 108305

Table 5
Mineral contents of beef burgers with different formulation (mg/kg).
Treatment Ca Mg P K Fe Zn Cu Mn

a c c a c c b
Group A SPB15 1085.12 943.48 3678.32 8167.00 25.11 78.02 29.09 9.15a
QB15 909.22b 1182.04a 4526.65a 7580.11b 61.44a 87.24a 14.48c 8.48a
BWB15 756.39c 1071.24b 3858.51b 7567.27c 45.38b 83.26b 82.01a 5.38b
Group B SPB30 1132.18a 987.13c 2750.84c 6585.42a 22.19c 45.40c 21.11b 12.71a
QB30 690.18b 1309.48a 3234.41a 4925.13b 55.20a 49.00a 14.12c 10.14b
BWB30 669.10c 1135.16b 2880.01b 4044.44c 38.30b 47.14b 42.54a 9.50c

Means in a same column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncan test.
Group A: 15% flour group and group B: 30% flour group of whole batter weight.
SPB15: burger containing 15% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB15: burger containing 15% quinoa flour, BWB15: burger containing 15% buckwheat flour.
SPB30: burger containing 30% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB30: burger containing 30% quinoa flour, BWB30: burger containing 30% buckwheat flour.

Table 6
Texture profile analysis of fried beef burgers.
Treatment Hardness(N) Springiness (mm) Cohesiveness Chewiness (N× mm)

b c c
Group A SPB15 222.52 ± 4.26 0.59 ± 0.01 0.44 ± 0.04 57.53 ± 4.82b
QB15 251.02 ± 21.90b 0.86 ± 0.02a 0.70 ± 0.08a 151.78 ± 22.57a
BWB15 346.30 ± 12.00a 0.80 ± 0.01b 0.56 ± 0.02b 156.53 ± 10.11a
Group B SPB30 276.07 ± 17.80c 0.67 ± 0.06b 0.40 ± 0.09b 72.62 ± 11.98c
QB30 366.90 ± 37.27b 0.99 ± 0.04a 0.77 ± 0.03a 280.32 ± 25.39b
BWB30 442.55 ± 15.55a 0.98 ± 0.03a 0.81 ± 0.03a 352.18 ± 2.93a

Means in a same column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncan test.
Group A: 15% flour group and group B: 30% flour group of whole batter weight.
SPB15: burger containing 15% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB15: burger containing 15% quinoa flour, BWB15: burger containing 15% buckwheat flour.
SPB30: burger containing 30% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB30: burger containing 30% quinoa flour, BWB30: burger containing 30% buckwheat flour.

3.5. Texture profile analyses (TPA) of beef burgers
Table 6 reports the texture properties of fried burgers. There were
significant differences in texture parameters. The results showed that
texture parameters of control samples decreased (P < 0.05) with the
exception of SPB15 hardness (decreased but not significantly) in both
groups of A and B; these results could be related to the higher protein
content of SPB than those of BWB and QB. The higher level of protein in
control sample caused an increase in WHC and oil absorption of burger
during the frying process which eventually led to reduction in hardness
in the control sample. Ruiz-Capillas, Triki, Herrero, Rodriguez-Salas,
and Jiménez-Colmenero (2012) reported that reduction of fat content
resulted in increased hardness and chewiness of dry fermented sausages
containing Konjac gel as a pork backfat replacer. In addition, these
reductions in control samples in comparison with QB and BWB treat-
ments may be due to the high level of charged amino acids in QF and
BWF compared to SP and BC that can link with lysine, glutamic acid
and aspartic acid of meat myofibrillar proteins by non-covalent bonds
resulted in an increase of hardness, Springiness, cohesiveness, and
chewiness (Cai et al., 2016; Tamsen et al., 2018; Valencia, Serrano,
Jiménez-Moreno, Lázaro, & Mateos, 2009).
In group A, there was no significant difference in chewiness of QB
and BWB, but the hardness of BWB was significantly higher than QB. As
the protein is the main ingredient in the meat products, interactions
between protein and carbohydrate can play main role in the functional
characteristic of end product (Basanta et al., 2018). It seems that higher
carbohydrate content of BWB15 than QB15 resulted in the formation of
a gel network that made the texture harder. In this view, Soltanizadeh
and Ghiasi-Esfahani (2015) reported that the addition of Aloe vera in
burger caused a sharp rise in polysaccharides and the formation of a gel
network, leading to the increases in the compression force and hardness
of the burgers.
In group B, no significant differences were observed in springiness
and cohesiveness of QB and BWB. BWB was significantly harder and
chewiness than QB that may be due to the low WHC in BWB30.
Akwetey and Knipe (2012) analyzed the texture profile of beef burgers
containing Gari (Gari is a cassava root-based cooked product). The
authors reported that increasing the Gari level led to an increase in
WHC and a decrease in textural properties including hardness,
springiness, gumminess, chewiness and cohesiveness.
3.6. Sensory evaluation
Table 7 shows sensory attributes of fried burgers with different

Table 7
Sensory properties of beef burgers.
Treatment Taste Odor Color Texture Overall acceptability

Group A SPB15 2.80 ± 0.87b 3.13 ± 0.64b 3.80 ± 1.08a 3.27 ± 1.03a 3.00 ± 0.78b
QB15 4.40 ± 1.12a 3.93 ± 1.10a 4.13 ± 0.92a 4.00 ± 1.34a 3.33 ± 0.82a
BWB15 4.40 ± 1.12a 3.80 ± 0.86a 3.93 ± 1.10a 4.07 ± 1.22a 3.13 ± 0.99a
Group B SPB30 2.60 ± 0.91b 3.27 ± 0.8b 3.53 ± 1.2a 2.93 ± 1.16a 2.86 ± 0.86b
QB30 3.87 ± 0.92a 3.73 ± 0.88ab 4.20 ± 0.94a 3.60 ± 1.12a 3.93 ± 0.59a
BWB30 3.33 ± 0.72a 4.07 ± 1.16a 4.33 ± 0.98a 3.47 ± 1.19a 3.73 ± 0.80a

Means in a same column with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncan test.
Group A: 15% flour group and group B: 30% flour group of whole batter weight.
SPB15: burger containing 15% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB15: burger containing 15% quinoa flour, BWB15: burger containing 15% buckwheat flour.
SPB30: burger containing 30% soy protein and breadcrumbs, QB30: burger containing 30% quinoa flour, BWB30: burger containing 30% buckwheat flour.

5
F. Bahmanyar, et al. Meat Science 172 (2021) 108305

formulations. The scores of sensory attributes (taste, odor, overall ac-
ceptability) of the fried burgers were lower in SPB than other samples in
groups A and B. Moreover, there were no significant differences in
overall acceptability and taste parameters of the QB and BWB in groups
A and B, but overall acceptability and taste of these formulations were
higher (P < 0.05) than SPB. Also, significant difference was observed
in odor between QB15 and BWB15 with the SPB15. Based on the sen-
sorial results, there were no significant differences in the texture and
color of different formulations, whereas the results of TPA reported in
Table 6, showed significant differences between samples; these incon-
sistencies can be due to different temperatures of the test conditions. In
sensory evaluation, samples were served at a temperature of approxi-
mately 40 °C but, texture profile analysis with Texture Analyzer was
measured at room temperature. Al Juhaimi, Ghafoor, Hawashin,
Alsawmahi, and Babiker (2015) reported that the sensory character-
istics (appearance, juiciness, flavor, taste and overall acceptability) of
patties formulated with Moringa seed flour were decreased with in-
creasing flour levels but it was not significant. Finally, in the present
study, replacing SP with QF and BWF in the two groups could improve
overall acceptability and taste of sensory attributes. Also, the highest
scores in overall acceptability were related to QB and BWB of B group
which contained high flour percent and low beef meat levels.
3.7. pH measurement
Moreover, in group A there was no significant difference between QB15
and BWB15 up to 90 days, however, significant difference was observed
between QB15 and BWB15 with the SPB. Also, Lawrie (1985) reported
that, the pH of pork sausages formulated with soy flour was decreased
in the first 14 days of storage time. In group B, the pH reduction of BWB
was not significant during storage time but, the pH value of SPB was
significantly reduced after day 90. In the same vein, Garrido, Auqui,
Martí, and Linares (2011) reported no significant differences in pH
values of pork burgers containing two different red grape pomace ex-
tracts and noted that these results were most likely due to the effect of
the type of burger or the storage time. Also, in the present study, the pH
values for BWB were significantly higher at the end of storage time for
both groups. This result could be related to the higher pH values of the
BWF and also the higher content of total phenol in BWF, with potential
antimicrobial activities, that could change pH value. In addition, it
seems that acid producing bacteria can grow in all treatments which
produced more acid in SPB samples. This may be due to the lower
amount of antimicrobial compounds such as total phenolic in SPB
treatment. High amount of polyphenols in QF and BWF compared to SP
that could probably postpone microbial growth of burgers.
There was a significant interaction between the storage time and the
treatment in group A, the pH value decreased with increasing in storage
time. In group B, There was not a significant interaction between the
storage time and the treatment as the main effects.

Fig.1. shows the pH values of beef burgers. In group A, the pH va- 3.8. Microbiological analysis
lues were decreased during storage time, but it was not significant,
except SPB15 in which pH was significantly reduced at day 90. The changes in total plate count of burgers during storage are
summarized in Fig.2. Microbial count in both groups of A and B showed
a) a progressive increase throughout the storage, which ranged between
6.3 4.88 and 5.64 log10 cfu/g for group A and ranged between 4.53 and
QB15 BWB15 SPB15 5.57 log10 cfu/g for group B. The obtained data about SPB showed a
6.2
significant increase in total plate count of bacteria. Microbial count in
6.1 BWB was significantly lower compared to other samples. This result
aA could be related to the total phenol content of BWF, with potential
6 aA aA
abA aA
aA antimicrobial activities that could affect the total microbial count.
These results are in line with the study of Alakali et al. (2010) who
5.9 aA
bA
pH

bA abA
5.8
aA
bA observed a significant linear increase in total plate count of beef patties
bA
bB formulated with Bambara groundnut seed flour and control sample
5.7 cB
during storage. Also they observed microorganisms' growth was sig-
5.6 nificantly higher in control treatment than burgers treated with Bam-
5.5 bara groundnut probably due to the different pH of treatments. In the
0 30 60 90 120 present study, the difference in bacterial growth of different formula-
Storage time (days) tions during storage period could be related to the type and amount of
used flours which likely caused changes in pH, nutrient and water ac-
tivity of samples.
There was a significant interaction between the storage period and
b)
the formulation as the main effects in groups of A and B; the microbial
6.3
aA
QB30 BWB30 SPB30 total counts increased with an increment of the storage period.
aA
6.2 aA aA
6.1
bA aA 3.9. Lipid oxidation analysis
abA aA
aA bA
bA
6 bA bB Lipid oxidation of burgers during 120 days is summarized in Fig.3.
bB
5.9 bC According to statistical analysis, a significant difference was observed
pH

among treatments on all days (from day 1 until the end of storage time)
5.8
except days 60 and 90 for group B. Lipid oxidation of SPB was sig-
5.7 nificantly higher than that of the other two treatments from day 1 until
5.6 the end of storage period in both groups. The high value of TBA in
control sample from the beginning of storage time may be due to low
5.5
0 30 60 90 120
antioxidant activity and total phenolic of BC which was used in control
sample. TBARS values in BWB were significantly lower compared to
Storage time (days)
other treatments at the end of storage for both groups. This result is
Fig. 1. pH of group A (a) and group B (b) burgers. Different small letters among probably due to the high antioxidant activity and total phenolic in BWF.
treatments, in the same storage day, differ significantly (P < 0.05) by Duncan Total phenolic content of BWF, with potential antioxidant activity could
test. Capital letters among days, in storage period, differ significantly affect TBA value. Rutin, quercitrin, and quercetin were the main phe-
(P < 0.05) by GLM test. nolic compounds of buckwheat extract which showed antioxidant

6
F. Bahmanyar, et al. Meat Science 172 (2021) 108305

a) a)
5.9
QB15 BWB15 SPB15 2
QB15 BWB15 SPB15
5.7 aE 1.8 aB
Total plate count (logcfu/g)

TBA (mg MDA/Kg sample)

aD 1.6
bE aA
5.5 aC bD aA aA
1.4 aA
bC cE
5.3 aB 1.2 bB
bB cD
cC
1
5.1 aA bA bA cA
bA cB 0.8 bA bA cA
4.9 cA
cA 0.6
cA
4.7 0.4 cA
0.2
4.5
0 30 60 90 120 0
0 30 60 90 120
Storage time (days)
Storage time (days)

b)
b)
5.9
QB30 BWB30 SPB30 2
QB30 BWB30 SPB30 aA
Total plate count (logcfu/g)

5.7 1.8

TBA (mg MDA/Kg sample)

aE aA
1.6
5.5 aD bE
aC 1.4 aA
5.3 bD aA bB
aB cE 1.2 aA
bC bA
5.1 cD 1
aA bB cC bA cB
0.8 bA bB
4.9 bA
cB 0.6 bA
cA
4.7 bA 0.4 cA
4.5
cA 0.2
0 30 60 90 120 0
Storage time (days) 0 30 60 90 120
Storage time (days)
Fig. 2. Total plate count (log cfu/g) of group A (a) and group B (b) burgers.
Different small letters among treatments, in the same storage day, differ sig- Fig. 3. MDA content (mg/kg) of group A (a) and group B (b) burgers. Different
nificantly (P < 0.05) by Duncan test. Capital letters among days, in storage small letters among treatments, in the same storage day, differ significantly
period, differ significantly (P < 0.05) by GLM test. (P < 0.05) by Duncan test. Capital letters among days, in storage period, differ
significantly (P < 0.05) by GLM test.

activities (Zhang et al., 2012).

Moreover, lipid oxidation increased for all samples during storage,
but their differences were not significant at all days except at the end of
storage period, that SPB15, QB15, QB30 and BWB30 treatment showed
a significant increase of TBARS values at the day 120. Lorenzo et al.
(2018) analyzed effect of pitanga leaf extracts on lipid and protein
oxidation of pork burger during shelf-life. These authors reported that,
the TBARS values for all treatments increased (P < 0.001) during
18 days storage. Moreover, from day 7 until the end of storage time,
lipid oxidation in the control treatment was significantly higher than
other treatments.
A significant interaction was observed between the storage time and
formulation in that, with increase in storage time the TBARS values
increased in both groups of A and B.
reformulated burgers can be used as replacers of soy protein and bread
crumb in the beef burger formulations. Overall, based on improvement
of nutritional, durability and sensory properties of burgers, quinoa and
buckwheat flour can be used as replacements of soy protein and bread
crumb in the beef burger formulation. However, it is recommended
studies should be performed to eliminate the restrictions of low
moisture retention and WHC in reformulated.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgement

4. Conclusion
This research highlighted the properties of new meat products
contained pseudo-cereals as high quality plant protein. The replace-
ment of soy protein and bread crumb by quinoa and buckwheat flours
in burgers was found to be effective on beef burgers characteristics. The
obtained results showed that the quinoa and buckwheat burgers,
especially the former, had lower oil absorption compared to control
sample. However, the moisture retention and WHC were higher in
burgers prepared using soy protein and bread crumb. Although the
burgers with soy protein and bread crumb had higher protein and ash
contents and lower carbohydrate content, the quinoa and buckwheat
burgers showed higher content of several mineral, sensory acceptance
and shelf life stability than the control sample. In this respect, the
The authors appreciate the staff of Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and
Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of medical sciences for
their sincere cooperation.
References
Ahamed, N. T., Singhal, R. S., Kulkarni, P. R., & Pal, M. (1998). A lesser-known grain,
Chenopodium quinoa: Review of the chemical composition of its edible parts. Food
and Nutrition Bulletin, 19(1), 61–70.
Akwetey, W., & Knipe, C. (2012). Sensory attributes and texture profile of beef burgers
with gari. Meat Science, 92(4), 745–748.
Al Juhaimi, F., Ghafoor, K., Hawashin, M., Alsawmahi, O., & Babiker, E. (2015). Effects of
different levels of Moringa ( Moringa oleifera ) seed flour on quality attributes of beef
burgers. 14.
Alakali, J., Irtwange, S., & Mzer, M. (2010). Quality evaluation of beef patties formulated
with bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranean L.) seed flour. Meat Science, 85(2),

7
F. Bahmanyar, et al.
215–223.
Aleson-Carbonell, L., Fernández-López, J., Pérez-Alvarez, J. A., & Kuri, V. (2005).
Characteristics of beef burger as influenced by various types of lemon albedo.
Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 6(2), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ifset.2005.01.002.
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Wijngaard, H., Arendt, E., & Gallagher, E. (2010). Polyphenol com-
position and in vitro antioxidant activity of amaranth, quinoa buckwheat and wheat
as affected by sprouting and baking. Food Chemistry, 119(2), 770–778.
Angiolillo, L., Conte, A., & Del Nobile, M. A. (2015). Technological strategies to produce
functional meat burgers. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 62(1), 697–703.
Basanta, M. F., Rizzo, S. A., Szerman, N., Vaudagna, S. R., Descalzo, A. M., Gerschenson,
L. N., ... Rojas, A. M. (2018). Plum (Prunus salicina) peel and pulp microparticles as
natural antioxidant additives in breast chicken patties. Food Research International,
106, 1086–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.12.011.
Cai, Y. Z., Corke, H., Wang, D., & Li, W. D. (2016). Buckwheat: Overview. In C. Wrigley,
H. Corke, K. Seetharaman, & J. Faubion (Eds.). Encyclopedia of food grains (pp. 307–
315). (2nd ed.). Oxford: Academic Press.
Carvalho, L. T., Pires, M. A., Baldin, J. C., Munekata, P. E. S., de Carvalho, F. A. L.,
Rodrigues, I., ... Trindade, M. A. (2019). Partial replacement of meat and fat with
hydrated wheat fiber in beef burgers decreases caloric value without reducing the
feeling of satiety after consumption. Meat Science, 147, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.meatsci.2018.08.010.
Choe, J.-H., Kim, H.-Y., Lee, J.-M., Kim, Y.-J., & Kim, C.-J. (2013). Quality of frankfurter-
type sausages with added pig skin and wheat fiber mixture as fat replacers. Meat
Science, 93(4), 849–854.
Curtis, K. R., McCluskey, J. J., & Wahl, T. I. (2007). Consumer preferences for western-
style convenience foods in China. China Economic Review, 18(1), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chieco.2006.10.001.
do Prado, M. E. A., Queiroz, V. A. V., Correia, V. T. D. V., Neves, E. O., Roncheti, E. F. S.,
Gonçalves, A. C. A., ... de Oliveira, F. C. E. (2019). Physicochemical and sensorial
characteristics of beef burgers with added tannin and tannin-free whole sorghum
flours as isolated soy protein replacer. Meat Science, 150, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.meatsci.2018.12.006.
Garrido, M. D., Auqui, M., Martí, N., & Linares, M. B. (2011). Effect of two different red
grape pomace extracts obtained under different extraction systems on meat quality of
pork burgers. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 44(10), 2238–2243.
Gök, V., Akkaya, L., Obuz, E., & Bulut, S. (2011). Effect of ground poppy seed as a fat
replacer on meat burgers. Meat Science, 89(4), 400–404.
Heck, R. T., Vendruscolo, R. G., de Araújo Etchepare, M., Cichoski, A. J., de Menezes, C.
R., Barin, J. S., ... Campagnol, P. C. B. (2017). Is it possible to produce a low-fat
burger with a healthy n− 6/n− 3 PUFA ratio without affecting the technological and
sensory properties? Meat Science, 130, 16–25.
Horwitz, W., & Latimer, G. (2005). Official methods of analysis of AOAC international (18th
ed.). Gaithersburg. Md: AOAC International.
Jancurová, M., Minarovičová, L., & Dandar, A. (2009). Quinoa–a rewiev. Czech Journal of
Food Sciences, 27(2), 71–79.
Lawrie, R. (1985). Meat science (4 ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Li, G., & Zhu, F. (2017). Quinoa starch: Structures, properties, and applications.
Carbohydrate Polymers, 181, 851–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.11.
067.
López-Vargas, J. H., Fernández-López, J., Pérez-Álvarez, J.Á., & Viuda-Martos, M. (2014).
Quality characteristics of pork burger added with albedo-fiber powder obtained from
yellow passion fruit (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa) co-products. Meat Science,
97(2), 270–276.
Lorenzo, J. M., Vargas, F. C., Strozzi, I., Pateiro, M., Furtado, M. M., Sant’Ana, A. S., ... do
Amaral Sobral, P. J. (2018). Influence of Pitanga leaf extracts on lipid and protein
oxidation of pork burger during shelf-life. Food Research International, 114, 47–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.07.046.
Lorusso, A., Verni, M., Montemurro, M., Coda, R., Gobbetti, M., & Rizzello, C. G. (2017).
Use of fermented quinoa flour for pasta making and evaluation of the technological
and nutritional features. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 78, 215–221. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.12.046.
Mizi, L., Cofrades, S., Bou, R., Pintado, T., López-Caballero, M., Zaidi, F., & Jiménez-
Colmenero, F. (2018). Antimicrobial and antioxidant effects of combined high
Meat Science 172 (2021) 108305
pressure processing and sage in beef burgers during prolonged chilled storage.
Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 51, 32–40.
Modi, V., Mahendrakar, N., Rao, D. N., & Sachindra, N. (2004). Quality of buffalo meat
burger containing legume flours as binders. Meat Science, 66(1), 143–149.
Park, W., Kim, J.-H., Ju, M.-G., Yeon, S.-J., Hong, G.-E., & Lee, C.-H. (2016).
Physicochemical and textural properties of pork patties as affected by buckwheat and
fermented buckwheat. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 53(1), 658–666.
Pellegrini, M., Lucas-Gonzales, R., Ricci, A., Fontecha, J., Fernández-López, J., Pérez-
Álvarez, J. A., & Viuda-Martos, M. (2018). Chemical, fatty acid, polyphenolic profile,
techno-functional and antioxidant properties of flours obtained from quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd) seeds. Industrial Crops and Products, 111, 38–46.
Raúl, L. J., Araújo, I. B. D., Barbosa, R. C., Maciel, M. I. S., Shinohara, N. K. S., &
Campagnoli de Oliveira Filho, P. R. (2018). Manufacture of Biquara (Haemulon
Plumierii-Lacepède, 1801) Fishburger with addition of wheat bran. Journal of Aquatic
Food Product Technology, 27(5), 544–556.
Ruales, J., & Nair, B. M. (1993). Content of fat, vitamins and minerals in quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa, Willd) seeds. Food Chemistry, 48(2), 131–136. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0308-8146(93)90047-J.
Ruiz-Capillas, C., Triki, M., Herrero, A. M., Rodriguez-Salas, L., & Jiménez-Colmenero, F.
(2012). Konjac gel as pork backfat replacer in dry fermented sausages: Processing and
quality characteristics. Meat Science, 92(2), 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meatsci.2012.04.028.
Sánchez-Zapata, E., Muñoz, C. M., Fuentes, E., Fernández-López, J., Sendra, E., Sayas, E.,
... Pérez-Alvarez, J. A. (2010). Effect of tiger nut fibre on quality characteristics of
pork burger. Meat Science, 85(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.12.
006.
Savadkoohi, S., Hoogenkamp, H., Shamsi, K., & Farahnaky, A. (2014). Color, sensory and
textural attributes of beef frankfurter, beef ham and meat-free sausage containing
tomato pomace. Meat Science, 97(4), 410–418.
Selani, M. M., Shirado, G. A., Margiotta, G. B., Saldaña, E., Spada, F. P., Piedade, S. M., ...
Canniatti-Brazaca, S. G. (2016). Effects of pineapple byproduct and canola oil as fat
replacers on physicochemical and sensory qualities of low-fat beef burger. Meat
Science, 112, 69–76.
Selani, M.m., Shirado, G. A. N., Margiotta, G. B., Rasera, M. L., Marabesi, A. C., Piedade,
S. M. S., ... Canniatti-Brazaca, S. G. (2016). Pineapple by-product and canola oil as
partial fat replacers in low-fat beef burger: Effects on oxidative stability, cholesterol
content and fatty acid profile. Meat Science, 115, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meatsci.2016.01.002.
Sheridan, P. S., & Shilton, N. C. (2002). Analysis of yield while cooking beefburger patties
using far infrared radiation. Journal of Food Engineering, 51(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0260-8774(01)00029-2.
Soltanizadeh, N., & Ghiasi-Esfahani, H. (2015). Qualitative improvement of low meat beef
burger using Aloe vera. Meat Science, 99, 75–80.
Tamsen, M., Shekarchizadeh, H., & Soltanizadeh, N. (2018). Evaluation of wheat flour
substitution with amaranth flour on chicken nugget properties. LWT, 91, 580–587.
Valencia, D., Serrano, M., Jiménez-Moreno, E., Lázaro, R., & Mateos, G. (2009). Ileal
digestibility of amino acids of pea protein concentrate and soya protein sources in
broiler chicks. Livestock Science, 121(1), 21–27.
Vega-Gálvez, A., Miranda, M., Vergara, J., Uribe, E., Puente, L., & Martínez, E. A. (2010).
Nutrition facts and functional potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.), an
ancient Andean grain: A review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 90(15),
2541–2547.
Vollmannova, A., Margitanova, E., Tóth, T., Timoracka, M., Urminska, D., Bojňanská, T.,
& Čičová, I. (2013). Cultivar influence on total polyphenol and rutin contents and
total antioxidant capacity in buckwheat, amaranth, and quinoa seeds. Czech Journal
of Food Sciences, 31(6), 589–595.
Zamuz, S., López-Pedrouso, M., Barba, F. J., Lorenzo, J. M., Domínguez, H., & Franco, D.
(2018). Application of hull, bur and leaf chestnut extracts on the shelf-life of beef
patties stored under MAP: Evaluation of their impact on physicochemical properties,
lipid oxidation, antioxidant, and antimicrobial potential. Food Research International,
112, 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.06.053.
Zhang, Z.-L., Zhou, M.-L., Tang, Y., Li, F.-L., Tang, Y.-X., Shao, J.-R., ... Wu, Y.-M. (2012).
Bioactive compounds in functional buckwheat food. Food Research International,
49(1), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.07.035.