IJFS#945_bozza


	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 280 

PAPER 
 
 
 
 
 

THE INFLUENCE OF QUINOA (CHENOPODIUM 
QUINOA WILLD.) FLOUR ON THE 

PHYSICOCHEMICAL, TEXTURAL AND SENSORIAL 
PROPERTIES OF BEEF MEATBALL 

 
 
 
 

A. BAĞDATLI 
Department of Food Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Yunusemre, 45140 Manisa, Turkey 

Corresponding author: +90 2362012266; Fax: +90 2362412143 
E-mail address: aytunga.bagdatli@cbu.edu.tr 

 
 
 
 
 

ABSTRACT 
 
In this study, beef meatballs were produced by using different percentages of quinoa flour 
as functional ingredient. The effects of quinoa flour levels on physicochemical, textural, 
sensorial properties of meatballs were examined. Quinoa level had significant effect on fat 
and moisture contents (p<0.0001). The protein content was improved by adding quinoa 
flour. Cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess, redness(a*), yellowness(b*) values were 
significantly affected by addition of quinoa flour. According to sensorial analysis, meatball 
samples had high acceptability and favorable scores. Consequently, quinoa flour has high 
potential as gluten-free ingredient for use in meatball production in addition to nutritional 
value and health benefits. 
 
 
 
 
 

Keywords: beef, meatball, quinoa flour 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 281 

1. INTRODUCTION 
 
Celiac disease is one of the most common lifelong disorders worldwide with as estimated 
mean prevalence of 1% of the general population. The only acceptable treatment to date 
for celiac disease is the strict elimination of gluten from the diet. Gluten-containing wheat 
proteins and/or starches are often added to many commercial products such as ready 
meals, convenience food products (meatball etc.), some medicines for technological 
reasons, to act as fillers, thickeners, binders and stabilizers (ALVAREZ- JUBETE et al., 
2010). 
The increasing consumer demand for foods that combine extra benefits in addition to 
common nutrients imposes on the food industry. Therefore, it is needed to advance the 
new ingredients and formulations, particularly for the production of functional foods. 
Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) is a gluten-free pseudo-cereal that contains a high 
amount of fibre, high biological-value proteins and essential fatty acids (ω-3 and ω-6). It is 
consumed in the raw or processed as flakes and flour (BRITO et al., 2015).  
Quinoa, is a good source of minerals, vitamins and natural antioxidants like vitamin E. 
The most important characteristic of this pseudocereal is the high amount and quality of 
its protein. Studies have been carried out to investigate the use of quinoa as a food 
ingredient to increase the protein level and for taste improvement (SCHUMACHER et al., 
2010). 
Currently, natural extracts, vegetable and fish oils can be used in order to develop the 
functional properties of meat products (BILEK and TURHAN, 2009). Non-meat 
ingredients such as bean flour, corn flour, oat flour have been used to binding and 
extending in comminuted meat products in previous studies. However, quinoa flour have 
not been used in meatballs before.  
In this study, the effects of quinoa flour on the properties of beef meatballs were 
presented. The results of chemical composition, pH, cooking yield, Texture Profile 
Analysis, sensory analysis and Hunter (L*, a*, b*) were obtained. 
 
 
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
2.1. Preparation of meatballs 
 
Meatballs were prepared in duplicate according to the following traditional recipe. Quinoa 
flour was provided from a local market in Manisa. Medium-fat (max. 15% fat) ground beef 
meat were purchased from a local butcher shop in Manisa 20 kg of ground beef were used 
in each batch. Ingredients were as follows; 2% salt, 3% ground onion, 2% red pepper, 0.3% 
black pepper, 3% cumin, 0.8% garlic powder. In the first batch (control) 5% bread crumbs 
was added; in the second batch 2.5% quinoa flour was added; in the third batch 5% quinoa 
flour was added, in the fourth batch 7.5% quinoa flour was added to the formulation. 
Therefore, four different quinoa flour levels (0%, 2.5%, 5% and 7.5%) were used in 
meatball preparation. All ingredients were mixed at Research Laboratories of Manisa Celal 
Bayar University-Food Engineering Department. Each batch was kneaded for 15 min by 
hand to obtain homogenous dough. The doughs were stored in a refrigerator (+4˚C) for 12 
hours and then shaped in to ball with a diameter of 3 cm and a weight of 20 g. The 
meatballs were cooked for 20 min in a preheated hot air oven at 180˚C. For every 
treatment two replicates were maintained. 
 
 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 282 

2.2. Cooking yield 
 
Cooking yield was determined by measuring the difference in the sample weight before 
and after cooking and was calculated according to following equation (ULU, 2006). 
 

𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 % =  
𝐶𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (%)
𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑘𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (%)

 𝑥 100 

 
 
2.3. Proximate analysis 
 
Ash, moisture, protein and fat contents were determined according to AOAC methods 
(AOAC, 2000). Protein content was measured by the Kjeldahl method (Nx6.25). Fat was 
determined extracting samples in a Soxhlet apparatus using diethyl ether as a solvent. 
Moisture content was measured by the weight difference before and after oven drying at 
105°C. Ash was determined after incineration in a furnace at 500°C. Carbohydrate content 
was calculated by computing the difference. 
 
2.4. pH 
 
10 g meatball and 100 mL distilled water were blended for two minutes to obtain pH value 
by using pH meter (HANNA INSTRUMENTS MODEL HI 221, USA) (AOAC, 1984).  
 
2.5. Color  
 
The color of the surface of meatball samples was measured with a colorimeter (Minolta 
CR-300) on three different points using D-65 illuminant. The L*, a*, b* values were 
recorded.  
 
2.6. TPA (Texture profile analysis) 
 
Texture profile analyses (TPA) of cooked beef meatballs were determined by using TA.XT 
Plus Texture Analyzer (Godalming, England). Six cores (diameter 25 mm) were taken from 
random cooked beef meatballs per treatment. 50 kg of load cell was applied. P/25 
cylindrical probe was used. The pretest speed was considered as 1mm/s with 2 mm/s of 
test and posttest speed. Double compression was applied with 50% of compression rate. 
The results of hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, chewiness and gumminess were 
achieved (BRUNA et al. 2000). 
 
2.7. Sensory analysis 

 
The sensory attributes (color, taste, odor, texture, appearance and overall acceptability) of 
cooked meatball samples were evaluated by 12 well trained panelists from the staff 
members of Manisa Celal Bayar University using a 9-point Hedonic scale. The analysis 
was performed in the Food Engineering Research Laboratory under white fluorescent 
lights. The samples were scored on scale of 1-9. The results between 1-3 are considered as 
unacceptable; 4-5 are acceptable; 6-7 are good; 8-9 are excellent. 
 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 283 

2.8. Trial plan and statistical analysis 
 

The data obtained from two replications were processed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) 
using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (SAS Institute, 2001). PROC GLM procedure was 
done. The level of statistical significance is p≤0.05. 
 
 
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
Table 1 presents the results of moisture, ash, fat, protein and carbohydrate contents of 
quinoa flour and bread crumbs. The moisture content for quinoa flour and bread crumbs 
were found as 13.77 and 7.73, respectively. The results show that quinoa flour is good 
source of protein and carbohydrate. The similar results of quinoa flour composition were 
obtained in previous studies by OSHODI et al. (1999), ALVAREZ-JUBETE et al. (2009), 
OGUNBELLE (2003). 
 
 
Table 1. Chemical composition of quinoa flour and bread crumbs (%). 
 

Component Quinoa flour Bread crumbs 
Moisture (%) 13.77±0.80  7.73±0.15 
Ash (%)  2.46±0.06  1.28±0.04 
Fat (%)  4.93±0.15  2.69±1.09 
Protein (%) 13.60±0.22 10.75±0.71 
Carbohydrate (by difference)  65.26±0.67 77.56±0.57 

 
All the values indicate mean ± SD. 
 
 
Mean percent of moisture, fat, protein, ash, cooking yield and pH values of raw meatballs 
with quinoa flour are given in Table 2. Meatballs had moisture contents ranging from 
44.06% to 52.50%. The maximum content moisture content was determined in meatballs 
with the addition of 7.5% quinoa. The quinoa level used in meatball production had very 
significant effect on moisture content of meatball samples (p<0.05). The moisture contents 
increased by the percentage of quinoa flour was increased. In fact, the increase of the 
moisture content with the increase of quinoa flour percentage is related to the water 
holding capacity of quinoa flour. OSHODI et al. (1999) reported that the water absorption 
capacity for quinoa is 147%. According to OGUNGBENLE (2003), the water absorption 
capacity for quinoa seed is 14%. It is higher than soy flour, pumpkin seed and pigeon pea 
flour. The present findings of moisture contents are agreeing with the findings of BILEK 
and TURHAN (2009) and TURHAN et al. (2005). 
Fat contents of meatballs having 0% (control), 2.5%, 5% and 7.5% quinoa flour were found 
as 12.66%, 12.09%, 9.86% and 9.80%, respectively. The amount of quinoa flour affected the 
fat content of meatball samples significantly (p<0.05). When the quinoa flour was 
increased, the fat content was decreased. The decrease of fat content with the increase of 
quinoa flour percentage is related to the composition of the flour. And also, 
OGUNGBENLE (2003) was determined that the oil absorption capacity of the quinoa flour 
(46.0%) was lower than wheat flour (84.2%). This is consistent with the findings of 
YıLMAZ (2005) who reported wheat bran addition at the level of 20% resulted in a 
significant (p<0.05) reduction in the fat content of meatballs. On the contrary, MODI et al. 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 284 

(2009) reported that the fat content of uncooked kofta did not affected by different levels of 
carrageenan and out flour (p>0.05). 
Protein contents of meatballs with 0% (control), 2.5%, 5% and 7.5% quinoa flour were 
found as 33.38%, 33.81%, 34.36% and 38.49%, respectively. Analysis of variance showed 
that the differences of protein amounts of the meatballs were non significant (p>0.05). 
Similarly, SERDAROĞLU and DEĞIRMENCIOĞLU (2004) determined that the protein 
content of uncooked meatballs did not affected by corn flour addition (p>0.05). Also, 
AUKKANIT et al. (2015) found that protein contents in corn silk added low fat meatballs 
have not significant difference(p>0.05). 
 
 
Table 2. Moisture, fat, protein, ash contents and pH, cooking yield (%) and Lab values of beef meatballs 
formulated with different percentages of quinoa flour. 
 

 
a-dMean in the same row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05). 
 
 
The ash contents of meatball samples formulated with quinoa flour were presented in 
Table 2. The highest ash content was observed in 7.5% quinoa flour added meatballs as 
4.39%. The percentage of quinoa affected the ash content of meatball samples significantly 
(p<0.05). Similar results of ash contents were obtained by several researchers (BILEK and 
TURHAN, 2009; AUKKANIT et al., 2015; YILMAZ, 2005). Utilization of quinoa flour 
affected the pH values of the samples non-significantly (p>0.05). The pH values ranging 
from 5.57 to 5.59. This is similar with the data of BAUGREET et al. (2016) who reported 
that there was no treatment effect or interaction between treatments among pH values. 
Also, BILEK and TURHAN (2009) found that the pH values of raw and cooked beef patties 
enhanced with flaxseed flour at different levels (3%, 6%, 9%, 12% and 15%) were not 
significantly different between treatments.  
From the perspective of meatball production process, cooking yield is the most important 
factor to guess the characteristic of final products during cooking considering non-meat 
ingredients (AUKKANIT et al., 2015). It was determined that cooking yield values did not 
affected by the quinoa flour percentage significantly (p<0.05). Cooking yield value 
decreased with the increase of quinoa flour percentage. The maximum value was obtained 
in control samples and the minimum value was found in 7.5% quinoa flour added 
samples. Similarly, AUKKANIT et al. (2015) found that cooking yields of low fat meatballs 
decreased with the addition of corn silk powder (1-4%). Also, SERDAROĞLU et al. (2005) 
observed that cooking yields ranged between 85.2% and 93.2% for meatballs having 

Parameters Control (0) 
Quinoa flour level (%) 

2.5 5 7.5 
Moisture (%) 44.06 d 46.45 c 48.93 b  52.50 a 
Fat (%) 12.66 a 12.09 b  9.86 c  9.80 c 
Protein (%) 33.38 b  33.81 ab  34.36 ab 38.49 a 
Ash (%)  2.60 d  3.23 c  3.89 b  4.39 a 
pH  5.57 a  5.59 a  5.59 a  5.59 a 
Cooking yield (%)  70.49 a 68.44 b 66.39 c 66.32 c 
L* 44.32 a 43.06 a 43.87 a 45.38 a 
a*  9.91 c 14.00 a 10.94 b 11.50 b 
b* 11.03 a 10.20 b  9.94 b 10.44 ab 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 285 

blackeye bean flour and lentil flour resulted in the maximum cooking yield values 
(p<0.05). 
The color (L*, a*, b*) values were given in Table 2. The redness and yellowness values 
were significantly (p<0.05) affected by quinoa flour percentage. The lightness of meatballs 
was measured by Hunter-L. Amount of quinoa had no significant effect on lightness (L*) 
values (p>0.05). The maximum L* values were displayed for 7.5% addition of quinoa flour, 
which means that the addition of quinoa flour resulted in a lighter-colored product. 
YıLMAZ and DAĞLıOĞLU (2003) found similar results with oat bran added meatballs. a* 
(redness) values were also different (p<0.05) for different amount of quinoa flour. 
Therefore, a* values were higher in the samples with quinoa flour than in the control. The 
highest a* value was for the samples with 2.5% quinoa. Also, the lowest redness value was 
determined in control group samples. Similarly, BILEK and TURHAN (2009) reported that 
redness values were the lowest in the uncooked control beef patties (20% fat) when 
compared with different amounts of flaxseed flour added samples (p<0.05). 
All values for yellowness were higher in control samples than in the samples formulated 
with quinoa flour. Quinoa addition appears to decrease product yellowness. TURHAN et 
al. (2005) obtained similar results of yellowness values in low-fat beef burgers produced 
with hazelnut pellicle. 
 
 
Table 3. Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) of cooked beef meatballs formulated with different levels of quinoa 
flour. 
 

Parameters Control (0) 
Quinoa flour level (%) 

2.5 5 7.5 
Hardness (N)  46.382 a 46.460 a  51.356 a 56.359 a 
Cohesiveness  0.466 c  0.494 bc  0.499 b  0.638 a 
Springiness 75.143 b 78.512 a 72.795 c 68.016 d 
Chewiness (N) 15.853 a 20.130 a 23.632 a 20.768 a 
Gumminess (N) 21.614 b 22.951 b 25.627 b 35.957 a 

 
a-dMean in the same row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05). 
 
 
TPA parameters of meatball samples were given in Table 3. The maximum hardness value 
was detected in samples of 7.5% quinoa flour and the minimum value was obtained in 
control samples. The differences of hardness values of the meatballs were nonsignificant 
(p>0.05). Table 3 indicates that increasing quinoa flour level increased hardness. Similar 
results of hardness values were found by SARıÇOBAN et al. (2009) and ULU (2006). Also, 
AUKKANIT et al. (2015) observed that corn silk powder did not affect the hardness values 
significantly. 
Cohesiveness is defined as the degree to which the sample can be deformed before it 
breaks. Results of statistical analysis demonstrated that the amount of quinoa flour 
affected the cohesiveness values significantly (p<0.05). When the quinoa flour was 
increased, the cohesiveness values were increased.  
Springiness can be defined as the rate at which the deformed beef meatball springs back 
after the compression (BAUGREET et al., 2016) Quinoa level had a very significant 
(p<0.05) effect on springiness of meatballs. The minimum springiness value was 
determined in the samples with 7.5% quinoa flour. On the other hand, the maximum 
springiness value was found in the samples with 2.5% quinoa flour. Similarly, ULU (2006) 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 286 

determined that guar gum significantly affected the springiness of cooked meatballs 
produced with 15% and 10% fat levels. 
In this study, chewiness values of meatball samples varied between 15.853 N to 23.632 N. 
Quinoa flour level did not affect the chewiness values significantly (p>0.05). Meatballs 
with 5% quinoa flour had the maximum chewiness value and the control meatballs had 
the lowest chewiness value. AL-JUAHIMI et al. (2016) reported that the chewiness of 
uncooked meatballs increased with increment of moringa seed flour. 
The amount of quinoa flour displayed a significant (p<0.05) effect on the gumminess 
values of meatball samples. When the amount of quinoa flour in meatball formulation 
increased, the gumminess values were increased. All gumminess values were higher in the 
samples with quinoa flour than in the control groups. The highest gumminess value was 
found in the samples with 7.5% quinoa flour. Consistent results of gumminess values were 
determined by AUKKANIT et al. (2015). They observed that gumminess increased as the 
increment of corn silk powder amount.  
Duncan’s multiple range test results for sensory scores of meatball samples were given in 
Table 4. All values for color (sensorial) were lower (p<0.05) in the samples with quinoa 
flour than the control samples. 
 
 
Table 4. Sensorial Characteristics of cooked beef meatballs formulated with different levels of quinoa flour. 
 

Sensory scores Control (0) 
Quinoa flour level (%) 

2.5 5 7.5 
Color 7.85 a 7.13 b  7.07 b 6.83 c 
Taste 7.78 b 8.28 a  8.40 a 7.07 c 
Odor  8.00 a 8.34 a  8.00 a 5.36 b 
Appearance 8.58 a 7.46 c 7.83b 6.69 d 
Texture  7.61 a 7.57 a 7.93 a 6.75 b 
Overall acceptability 8.00 a 8.00 a 7.93 a 6.75 b 

 
a-dMean in the same row with different letters are significantly different (p<0.05). 
 
 
Quinoa flour level had a significant effect on scores of taste (p<0.05). The highest score of 
taste was determined in meatball samples with 5% quinoa flour. A significant correlation 
(r =+ 0.88, p<0.05) was found between taste and odor scores. 
The quinoa flour amount affected the odor significantly (p<0.05). The lowest odor score 
was found in meatball samples with 7.5% quinoa flour. On the contrary, SERDAROĞLU et 
al. (2005) reported that no differences in flavor scores were observed among treatments 
containing legume flours (p>0.05). A significant correlation (r =+ 0.74, p<0.05) was found 
between odor and appearance scores.  
The mean values of appearance scores were shown in Table 4. The amount of quinoa flour 
affected the appearance scores significantly (p<0.05). The highest score was determined in 
the control samples and the lowest appearance score was found in samples with 7.5% 
quinoa flour. The present findings are agreeing with the findings of TURHAN et al. (2005) 
who reported that increasing the pellicle level resulted in beef burgers with decreased 
appearance scores. Also, SERDAROĞLU and DEĞIRMENCIOĞLU (2004) determined that 
adding corn flour (4%), affected the appearance scores (p<0.05) significantly; meatballs 
with 4% corn flour had lower appearance scores. In this study, a significant correlation (r 
=+ 0.91, p<0.05) was found between appearance and color scores. 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 287 

Quinoa flour level had significant effect on the texture scores (p<0.05). The meatball 
samples with 5% quinoa flour had the highest texture score and the lowest score was 
determined in the samples with 7.5% quinoa flour. Similarly, AUKKANIT et al. (2015) 
concluded that meatballs with 4% corn silk powder had the lowest texture scores 
compared with control and the meatballs with 1%, 2%, 3% of corn silk powder. Also, a 
significant correlation (r =+ 0.90, p<0.05) was determined between texture and taste scores. 
On the other hand, a significant correlation (r =+ 0.81, p<0.05) was found between texture 
and odor scores. 
The overall acceptability score was shown in Table 4. The quinoa level affected the overall 
acceptance scores significantly (p<0.05). The maximum score was observed in the control 
and samples with 2.5% quinoa flour (8.00). On the other hand, the lowest score was found 
in the samples with 7.5% quinoa flour (6.75). The scores of overall ACCEPTABILITY 
decreased as the quinoa flour was increased. Similar results were found by TURHAN et al. 
(2005). A significant correlation (r =+ 0.92, p<0.05) was found between acceptability and 
odor scores. Also, a significant correlation (r =+ 0.86, p<0.05) was obtained between 
acceptability and taste scores.  
In this study, 2.5% and 5% of quinoa flour is considered optimum for use an enhancer to 
the functional properties in beef meatballs. Similarly, SARıÇOBAN et al. (2009) concluded 
that patties enriched with <7.55% wheat bran were determined as more suitable with 
respect to sensorial overall quality. 
 
 
4. CONCLUSIONS 
 
In conclusion, the addition of quinoa flour had significant and variable effects on 
moisture, fat, ash, cooking yield, cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess values and all 
sensorial characteristics (color, taste, odor, appearance, texture and overall acceptability) 
of beef meatballs. The addition of quinoa flour improve the protein content compared to 
control. Considering sensorial analysis, all meatball samples had high acceptability and 
favorable scores (5.36 and above). In this study, it is found that when the functional 
properties of beef meatballs are considered, the samples with 2.5% and 5% of quinoa flour 
give the best results. It is concluded that, in addition to its nutritional value and health 
benefits of quinoa flour, it has high potential as gluten-free ingredient to use in meatball 
production instead of bread crumbs. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Al-Juhaimi F., Ghafoor K., Hawashin M.D., Alsawmahi O.N. and Babiker E.E. 2016. Effects of different levels of Moringa 
(Moringa oleifera) seed flour on quality attributes of beef burgers. CyTA–J. Food 14(1):1-9. doi: 
10.1080/19476337.2015.1034784. 
 
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Arendt E.K. and Gallagher E. 2009. Nutritive value and chemical composition of pseudocereals as 
gluten-free ingredients. International J. of Food Sci. and Nutrition. 60(4):240-257. 
 
Alvarez-Jubete, L., Arendt E.K. and Gallagher E. 2010. Nutritive value of pseudocereals and their increasing use as 
functional gluten-free ingredients. Trends in Food Sci. Technol. 1(2):106-113. 
 
AOAC. 1984. “Official Methods of Analysis” Centennial ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, 
DC. USA. 
 
AOAC. 2000. “Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International” 17th ed. USA. 
 
Aukkanit N., Kemngoen T. and Ponharn N. 2015. Utilization of Corn Silk in Low Fat Meatballs and Its Characteristics. 
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sci. 197:1403-1410. 
 



	

Ital. J. Food Sci., vol. 30, 2018 - 288 

Baugreet S., Kerry J.P., Botineştean C., Allen P. and Hamill R.M. 2016. Development of novel fortified beef patties with 
added functional protein ingredients for the elderly. Meat Sci. 122:40-47. 
 
Bilek A.E. and Turhan S. 2009. Enhancement of the nutritional status of beef patties by adding flaxseed flour. Meat Sci. 
82:472-477. 
 
Brito I.L., Souza E.L., Felex S.S.S., Madruga M.S., Yamashita F. and Magnani M. 2015. Nutritional and sensory 
characteristics of gluten-free quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd)-based cookies development using an experimental 
mixture design. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2(9):58-66. 
 
Bruna J.M., Fernandez M., Hierro E.M., Ordonez J.A. and de la Hoz L. 2000. Combined use of Pronase E and fungal 
extract (Penicillium aurantiogriseum) to potantiate the sensory characteristics of dry fermented sausages. Meat Sci. 54:135-
145. 
 
Modi V.K., Yashoda K.P. and Naveen S.K. 2009. Effect of carrageenan and oat flour on quality characteristics of meat. 
International J. Food Prop.12:228-242. 
 
Ogungbenle H.N. 2003. Nutritional evaluation and functional properties of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) flour. 
International J. of Food Sci. and Nutrition. 54:153-158. 
 
Oshodi A.A., Ogungbenle H.N. and Oladimeji M.O. 1999. Chemical composition, nutritionally valuable minerals and 
functional properties of benniseed (Sesaum radiatum), pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoides) and quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) 
flours. International J. of Food Sci. and Nutrition. 50:325-331. 
 
Sarıçoban C., Yılmaz M.T. and Karakaya M. 2009. Response surface methodology study on the optimisation of effects of 
fat, wheat bran and salt on chemical, textural and sensory properties of patties. Meat Sci. 83(4):610-619. 
 
Schumacher A.B., Brandelli A., Macedo F.C., Pieta L., Klug T.V. and de Jong E.V. 2010. Chemical and sensory evaluation 
of dark chocolate with addition of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). J Food Sci. Technol. 47(2):202-206. 
 
Serdaroglu M. and Değirmencioglu O. 2004. Effects of fat level (5%, 10%, 20%) and corn flour (0%, 2%, 4%) on some 
properties of Turkish type meatballs (koefte). Meat Sci. 68:291-296. 
 
Serdaroğlu M., Yıldız-Turp G. and Abrodimov K. 2005. Quality of low-fat meatballs containing Legume flours as 
extenders. Meat Sci. 70:99-105. 
 
Turhan S., Sagir I. and Ustun N.S. 2005. Utilization of hazelnut pellicle in low-fat beef burgers. Meat Sci. 71:312-316. 
 
Ulu H. 2006. Effects of carrageenam and guar gum on the cooking and textural properties of low fat meatballs. Food 
Chemistry 95:600-605. 
 
Yılmaz I. 2005. Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of low fat meatballs with added wheat bran. J. Food Eng. 
69:369-373. 
 
Yılmaz İ. and Dağlıoğlu O. 2003. The effect of replacing fat with oat bran on fatty acid composition and physicochemical 
properties of meatballs. Meat Sci. 65:819-823. 
 
 
 

Paper Received June 26, 2017 Accepted December 13, 2017