DOI : 10.35124/bca.2019.19.S1.2355 Biochem. Cell. Arch. Vol. 19, Supplement 1, pp. 2355-2361, 2019 www.connectjournals.com/bca ISSN 0972-5075

EFFECT OF ON PHYSICAL, FUNCTIONAL AND NUTRITIONAL PROPERTIES OF BIOFORTIFIED (QPM)

Vandana* and Sarita Srivastava Department of Foods & Nutrition, College of Home Science, GBPUA & T, Pantnagar, U.S. Nagar - 263 145, India. email: [email protected] (Received 21 April 2019, Accepted 5 July 2019)

ABSTRACT : Maize (Zea mays) is the third most important food crop after rice and wheat and is a good source of carbohydrate, fat, and some of the important vitamins and minerals. Inspite of its rich nutritional value, it has not been considered as complete food due to lack of two essential amino acids viz. and . However, this problem has been overcome by the development of (QPM) by International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT). QPM is considered a biofortified food because its nutritional profile has been improved using conventional breeding techniques. In the present study the effect of nixtamalization (lime treatment) on physical, functional and nutritional composition of a variety Vivek QPM 9 was studied. It was found that physical parameters viz. thousand kernel weight, thousand kernel volume and bulk porosity decreased in nixtamalized grains. Functional properties of nixtamalized grains such as oil absorption capacity; water absorption capacity and bulk density also decreased significantly. Significant increase in ash content, carbohydrate content and content in nixtamalized grains was observed while fat, fibre and energy value of nixtamalized grains were significantly lower compared to untreated grains. Key words : Quality protein maize, lime treatment, Vivek QPM 9, biofortified maize.

INTRODUCTION began in mid-1960s with the discovery of mutants (opaque In India, maize (Zea mays) is the third important food 2 genes) that produce enhanced levels of lysine and crop after wheat and rice. It is grown in wide range of tryptophan (Mertz et al, 1964). Finally, this mutant gene production environments ranging from the temperate hills through conventional breeding work by scientists from zones in Himachal Pradesh in the north to the semi arid International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre desert in Rajasthan in the west to the humid tropical zones (CIMMYT) led to development of Quality Protein Maize in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in the South. In the (QPM) which has hard endosperm, similar yield to normal country, it accounts for about 9 per cent of total food maize and nutritionally enhanced. In India nine single grain production. Major maize producing states in India cross QPM maize hybrids viz., HQPM 4, HQPM 1, are Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, HQPM 5, HQPM 7, Vivek QPM 9, Shaktiman 1, Maharashtra, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Shaktiman 2, Shaktiman 3 and Shaktiman 4 have been Gujarat. These nine states account for 85 per cent of developed for different agro-climatic conditions (Dass et India’s maize production and 80 per cent of area under al, 2009). cultivation (FICCI, 2014). It is a good source of Nixtamalization or lime treatment refers to a process carbohydrate, fat, protein and some of the important of preparing maize in which the grains are cooked and vitamins and minerals. Since, it is cheaper than wheat soaked in alkaline solution, usually lime solution. The and rice, maize acquires a well deserved reputation as a term ‘nixtamalization’ also refers to the removal of the “poor man’s nutri-” (Prasanna et al, 2001). pericarp from any grain using an alkaline process. The Regardless of its rich nutritional value, it has not been basic process begins by whole grains in water considered as complete food due to lack of two essential with lime and the cooked grains for 12-16h. The amino acids i.e. lysine and tryptophan that are nutritionally steeped grains called ‘nixtamal’ (Sahai et al, 2000). Grains essential for humans. subjected to nixtamalization process have several benefits Generally, efforts to improve protein quality in maize over unprocessed grains for food preparation. They are 2356 Vandana and Sarita Srivastava more easily ground; nutrient values increase; flavour and (2000). aroma are improved and are reduced (Sefa- Chemical analysis Dedeh et al, 2004), calcium content increases and there The nixtamalized and untreated maize grains were is of afflatoxin (Bressani et al, 1990). These sieved using a BSS 60 mesh sieve and evaluated for benefits make nixtamalization a crucial preliminary step chemical constituents. Moisture content of the sample was for further processing of grains into food products. estimated by hot air oven method, protein was determined This research work is aimed at investigating the effect by available nitrogen in the sample by Kel plus (Pelican of soaking and cooking maize in lime solution equipment, India), fat was estimated by soxhlet extraction (nixtamalization) on the physical, functional and in Socs plus (Pelican equipment, India) and the ash content nutritional properties of QPM (Vivek QPM 9). was estimated by dry ashing method whereas fibre content MATERIALS AND METHODS was estimated by acid and alkali method (AOAC, 1995). The research work was carried out in the Department The minerals viz. iron, copper and zinc were estimated of Foods and Nutrition, College of Home Science College, using atomic absorption spectrophotometer and calcium GBPUA & T, Pantnagar, India. Maize variety viz. Vivek by titration method (AOAC, 1995). QPM 9 grains were purchased from Vivekananda Statistical analysis Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Santhan (VPKAS) Almora, The data obtained from experiments were subjected India. to statistical analysis to find out the impact of Nixtamalization of maize grains nixtamalization (lime treatment ) on physical, functional The laboratory process for preparing nixtamalized and nutritional properties of quality protein maize. Paired maize flour was applied as given by Subblakshmi and ‘t’ test was employed for the analysis with triplicate Amutha (2016). A 500 g of whole grains were soaked in number of samples. 1% solution and then cooked for 30 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0 min at 85 C. The nixtamal was steeped overnight at Physical properties 32±10C, followed with washing in excess tap water. The The values of thousand kernel weight (303.21-234.6 grains were spread on tray and dried in a dryer at 600C g) and thousand kernel volume (220-200.33 ml) were until the moisture percentage reached to 9-10% with lower in nixtamalized grains compared to untreated grains constant mixing. The process of lime treatment of maize (Table 1). Decrease in thousand kernel weight and volume grains is shown in Fig. 1. on nixtamalized grains may be attributed due to the loss Determination of physical properties of pericarp that occurs during lime treatment (Gutierrez The thousand kernel weight was determined by et al, 2007). Shobha et al (2014) also reported similar manually counting the kernels and weight was recorded results. They observed thousand kernel weight of untreated in grams. Thousand kernel volume was measured by water and treated grains of QPM as 307g and 277g, respectively displacement method as given by Williams et al (1983). and thousand kernel volume of untreated QPM grains as Hydration capacity and index was measured as given by 380 ml and lime treated QPM grains as 340 ml. Hydration Williams et al (1983), bulk density according to Gupta capacity and hydration index were observed as 0.13 g/ and Das (1977), kernel apparent density according to seed and 0.44, respectively for untreated QPM grains Olajide et al (2000), bulk porosity as given by Mohsenin while hydration capacity and hydration index was 0.11g/ (1980), true density by using toluene displacement method seed and 0.52, respectively for nixtamalized QPM grains as given by Jha (1999) and pericarp colour by Munsell (Table 1). Hydration capacity determines the extent to Soil Colour Chart. which seeds absorb water on soaking. It depends upon Determination of functional properties chemical composition of seed coat and cotyledons (Bewley et al, 2006). Soaking leads to solubilisation of pectic Water absorption capacity (WAC, %) of the flour substances, increased permeability and faster hydration was determined as per method given by Lin et al (1974), of interior starch and protein molecules resulting in oil absorption capacity (OAC, %) according to the method softening and quick cooking of grain. Hydration index of of Sosulski et al (1976). Least gelatinization concentration 0.45 and 0.43 for HQPM 1 and HQPM 7, respectively (LGC, %) was evaluated using method of Coffman and has been reported by Sangeeta and Grewal (2018). Garcia (1977) while gelatinization temperature (GT, °C) as given by Chandra and Samsher (2013) and bulk density Bulk density is the density of a material when packed (g/cc) was calculated by the method given by Jones et al or stacked in bulk. The bulk density of a material mainly Effect of nixtamalization on biofortified maize 2357 compared to untreated flour (176.67 ml/100g) (Table 2). It may be due to lime treatment, the starch hydroxyl sites in the maize might have been saturated resulting in the decreased water absorption (Bryant and Hamaker, 1997). Oil absorption capacity is defined as the difference in weight of flour before and after absorption of oil. It helps in formulations of food (Odoemelam, 2000) and gives an indication of -retaining capacity of flour (Narayana and Narasimga, 1982). Hydrophobic show superior binding of lipids, implying that non-polar side chains bind the paraffin chains of fats (Adejuyitan et al, 2009). The perusal of Table 2 indicates that there was a significant difference in the oil absorption capacity of untreated QPM flour (145 ml/100g) and nixtamalized QPM flour (123.22 ml/100g). Shobha et al Fig. 1 : Nixtamalization (Lime treatment) of maize grains. (2014) reported oil absorption capacity of lime treated QPM flour as 140 per cent and for untreated QPM flour depends upon the solids density and the geometry, size as 180 per cent. and surface properties of the individual particles. True Gelation capacity of flours is influenced by a physical density is defined as the density of the solid material competition for water between protein gelation and starch excluding the volume of any open and closed pores. Table gelatinization (Singh, 2001). The least gelation 1 shows that the bulk density was found to be same viz. concentration was found same i.e. 8% in both untreated 0.83 g/cc for both untreated and nixtamalized QPM grains and nixtamalized QPM flour. while true density of untreated QPM grains and nixtamalized QPM grains was 1.13 g/cc and 1.00 g/cc, Gelatinization temperature is defined as the respectively. Apparent kernel density of untreated QPM temperature at which gelatinization of starch takes place. grains was 1.3 g/cc and for nixtamalized QPM grains The study revealed that non significant difference has been was 1.2 g/cc. Porosity is the volume fraction of the air or found in the gelatinization temperature of untreated QPM the void fraction in the sample. Table 1 reveals that the flour (92.33°C) and nixtamalized QPM flour (90.67°C). bulk porosity values for untreated QPM grains was 35.94 According to Otegbayo et al (2006) lower gelatinization and nixtamalized QPM grains was 30.66. temperature indicates lower cooking temperature. Flours having shorter cooking time would need lesser time for The colour of untreated grains was orange while the cooking. In this way it will reduce energy consumption nixtamalized grains had reddish yellow colour. The change and also processing cost. Sangeeta and Grewal (2018) in colour of the alkali treated flour is due to the fact that observed gelatinization temperature of two QPM varieties the cooking process caused the maize starch gelatinization, i.e. HQPM-1 and HQPM-7 as 95.10 °C. allowing the cooked grains to imbibe lime solution (Samuel et al, 2004). Bulk density is a function of particle size and it is inversely proportional to bulk density (Appiah, 2011). Functional properties The particle size influences the package design and could Functional properties refer to the physico-chemical be used in determining the type of package material properties, which illustrate the interaction of various required. The bulk density of untreated QPM flour has components of food (Kinsella, 1976). To evaluate the been recorded significantly higher (0.79 g/ ml) than that different component of food and its properties for of the nixtamalized QPM flour (0.76 g/ml). industrial processes and product formulations, it is Nutritent composition of untreated QPM and important to determine functional properties. nixtamalized QPM maize Water absorption capacity is an important functional Moisture characteristic in the development of food from cereal grains, since high water absorption capacity may assure Perusal of Table 3 indicates that there was significant product cohesiveness (Shobha et al, 2014). The difference in moisture content of the samples, the untreated significantly lower water absorption capacity of maize grain had moisture content of 10.6 per cent and the nixtamalized QPM samples has been found (150 ml/100g) nixtamalized samples had moisture content of 10.43 per cent. Subblakshmi and Amutha (2016) analyzed 2358 Vandana and Sarita Srivastava Table 1 : Physical characteristics of untreated and nixtamalized grains of respectively has been reported by Panda et al (2010). QPM variety Vivek QPM 9. Crude fat S. Physical property Untreated Nixtamalized No. QPM grains QPM grains A significant decrease in fat content from 3.53 per cent to 2.93 per cent was noticed after the 1. Thousand kernel weight (g) 303.21±4.40 234.6±1.15 nixtamalization process. Shobha et al (2014) also 2. Thousand kernel volume (ml) 220±2.0 200.33±0.6 noticed decrease in fat content from 4.03 to 3.24 g/ 3. Hydration capacity (g) 0.13±0.0 0.11±0.01 100g after the lime treatment and reported that it may 4. Hydration index 0.44±0.02 0.52±0.1 be due to steeping and nixtamalization process which 5. Bulk density (g/cc) 0.83±0.0 0.83±0.0 have contributed to dry matter loss of pericarp and 6. True density 1.13±0.01 1.00±0.03 7. Apparent kernel density (g/cc) 1.3±0.07 1.2±0.05 germ tissues. 8. Bulk porosity 35.94±3.2 30.66±2.6 A 1.31% fat content in raw QPM has been 9. Pericarp colour Orange Reddish yellow reported by Chukwuma et al (2016), 5.12 per cent by

Table 2 : Functional properties of untreated and nixtamalized grains of QPM variety Vivek QPM 9. Functional property Untreated QPM Nixtamalized ‘t’ value flour QPM flour Water absorption capacity (ml/100g) 176.67±5.77 150.0±0.0 7.99* Oil absorption capacity (ml/100g) 145.00±5.00 123.22±5.77 4.91* Least gelation concentration (%) 8 8 ns Gelatinization temperature (°C) 92.33±2.52a 90.67±1.15a 1.89ns Bulk density (g/ml) 0.79±0.00a 0.76±0.00b 27.59* QPM: Quality Protein Maize, *significant at 5%, ns- non significant, mean ± S.D. The values are mean of triplicate observations. conventional maize variety, CO1 and a QPM variety viz. Tiwari et al (2012), 4.85% by Abiose and Ikujenlola HQPM 7 and studied the effect of lime treatment on the (2014), 4.82% by Panda et al (2010), 5.1% by Tekeba et treated maize grains. The untreated maize grains had al (2007), 5.12 per cent by Osei et al (1999), 3.22 per higher moisture content (9.30 g/100g in CO1 and 10.10 cent and 2.48 per cent, respectively in 2 QPM varieties g/100g in HQPM 7) compared to the lime treated samples by Bibat et al (2014). (8.40 g/100g in CO1 and 8.70 g/100g in HQPM 7). Bibat Crude fibre et al (2014) analyzed 2 QPM varieties i.e. SWQ 11 and SWQ 15 and found moisture content of 10.37% and Untreated maize flour showed a value of 2.80 per 8.91%, respectively. Shobha et al (2014) reported 10.21g/ cent while nixtamalized maize flour had 2.25 per cent 100g and 10.16g/100g moisture content of untreated QPM fibre content. A significant reduction in fibre content was and lime treated QPM grains, respectively. observed after nixtamalization (lime cooking). Loss in crude fibre content was attributed due to the loss of Protein pericarp that occurs during lime treatment (Gutierrez et Non significant difference has been found in protein al, 2007; Serna-saldivar et al, 1988). Similarly, content of untreated QPM (8.90 per cent) and Subblakshmi and Amutha (2016) reported that the fibre nixtamalized QPM (8.61 per cent). In untreated Vivek content of untreated HQPM 7 was 2.70 per cent which QPM 9, 8.5 per cent protein content has been reported by reduced to 2.30 per cent after lime treatment also reported Gupta et al (2009). Shobha et al (2014) noticed protein reduction in fibre content (2.41 to 2.0 g/100g) after lime content of 10.64 g/100g in untreated QPM grains and cooking. 10.69 g/100g in lime QPM treated grains. Tiwari et al Total ash (2012) in their study reported 9 per cent protein in QPM. The crude protein content of 9.72% of the QPM has been The ash content gives the approximate amount of recorded by Abiose and Ikujenlola (2014). According to minerals in the flour. The untreated and nixtamalized Akumoa – Boateng (2002) and Nuss and Tanumihardjo maize flour had the ash content of 1.47 and 1.92 per cent, (2011) the crude protein of QPM was not observed to be respectively. There was a significant increase in ash higher than that of common maize, however, it is better content of nixtamalized flour compared to untreated flour. in terms of amino acids composition. Crude protein Similar kind of increase in ash content from 1.17 to 1.34 content of 8.94% and 9.91% in normal maize and QPM, for traditional and commercial nixtamalized flour was Effect of nixtamalization on biofortified maize 2359 Table 3 : Nutritional composition of untreated QPM and nixtamalized QPM maize. Untreated QPM Nixtamalized ‘t’ value grains QPM grains Moisture (%) 10.6±0.0 10.43±0.06 5.0* Total ash (%) 1.47±0.06 1.92±0.07 9.71* Crude protein (%) 8.90±0.25 8.61±0.26 1.99ns Crude fat (%) 3.53±0.06 2.93±0.05 10.21* Crude fibre (%) 2.8±0.05 2.25±0.09 19.1* Carbohydrate (By difference) 72.70±0.36 73.86±0.12 5.73* Energy value (Kcal/100g) 358 ±0.40 356±0.05 7.56* QPM: Quality Protein Maize, *significant at 5%, ns- non significant, mean ± S.D. The values are mean of triplicate observations Table 4 : Mineral composition of untreated QPM and nixtamalized lime treatment. The increase in calcium content after lime QPM maize. treatment occurs due to usage of calcium hydroxide in Untreated QPM Nixtamalized ‘t’ value lime cooking process which penetrate into the maize grains QPM grains kernel. Subblakshmi and Amutha (2016) analyzed Calcium (mg) 13.67±1.53 40±2.0 79.0* conventional maize variety, CO1 and QPM variety viz. Iron (ppm) 35.74±2.89 35.87±2.29 0.51ns HQPM 7 and reported that untreated and lime treated Zinc (ppm) 26.06±0.26 27.2±0.89 3.08ns CO1 maize variety had the calcium content of 8.0 mg/ Copper (ppm) 1.84±0.12 1.87±0.34 0.13ns 100g and 32 mg/100g while untreated and lime treated QPM: Quality Protein Maize, *significant at 5%, ns- non significant, HQPM 7 maize variety had the values of 9.0 mg/100g mean ± S.D. The values are mean of triplicate observations and 31.0 mg/100g, respectively. Shobha et al (2014) reported that untreated and lime treated QPM variety had et al reported by Palacios-Fonseca (2009) and this may calcium content of 48 mg/100g and 136 mg/100g, be caused by calcium retained and absorbed in the kernel respectively. during lime cooking process. Shobha et al (2014) also reported a significant increase in ash content of lime Trace minerals (iron, zinc and copper) treated flour (1.67 g) compared to untreated flour (1.5 The trace minerals viz. iron, zinc and copper content g). Paes and Maga (2004) reported that ash content of in untreated and nixtamalized maize showed non four maize cultivars (Pioneer 3779, Br 451 QPM, BR significant difference. Bressani et al (2004) also observed 473QPM and BR 2121 QPM) ranged between 1.14 to no difference with respect to iron and zinc contents after 1.41 g/100g. nixtamalization process. Subblakshmi and Amutha (2016) Carbohydrate by difference also found non significant difference in iron, zinc and ≤ copper in lime treated and untreated maize flour of maize There was a significant difference (p 0.05) in variety, CO1 and HQPM 7. Carbohydrate content of nixtamalized maize flour (73.85 g) compared to untreated maize flour (72.70). In the present study, effect of nixtamalization on the physical, functional and nutritional properties of QPM Physiological energy (Vivek QPM 9) was studied. Physical parameters such Physiological energy content of untreated maize flour as thousand kernel weight, thousand kernel volume, bulk (358 kcal) was significantly higher (p≤0.05) compared porosity decreased on nixtamalization. There was also to nixtamalized maize flour (356 Kcal). significant reduction in functional properties like water Calcium absorption capacity, oil absorption capacity and bulk There was a significant increase (p≤0.05) in calcium density. Results of nutrient composition showed that non content of nixtamalized maize flour (40 mg) compared to significant difference was observed (p>0.05) in the untreated maize flour (13.67 mg). This may be due to the protein, iron, zinc and copper content of untreated and reduction of phytic acid in lime cooking (Bressani et al, nixtamalized QPM grains. Nixtamalization of grains 2004). Another researcher Palacios- Fonseca et al (2009) resulted in significant decrease in moisture, fat, fiber also reported an increase in calcium content caused by content and energy value in QPM grains and significant the calcium retained and absorbed in the kernel during increase in ash, carbohydrate and calcium content in QPM lime-cooking process. Sergio et al (1991) reported grains. increase of calcium from 11 to 163 mg/100 g after the 2360 Vandana and Sarita Srivastava REFERNCES Gutierrez E, Rojas-molina I, Pons-Hernandez J L, Guzman H, Augus- Angel B, Arenas J, Fernandez P, Palacios-Fonseca A, Herrena Abiose S H and Ikujenlola A V (2014) Comparison of chemical G and Rodriguez M E (2007) Study of calcium ion diffusion in composition, functional properties and amino acids composition nixtamalized quality protein maize as a function of the cooking of quality protein maize and common maize (Zea may L). temperature. Cereal Chem. 84, 186-194. African J. Food Sci. Technol. 5(3), 81-89. Jha S N (1999) Physical and hygroscopic properties of makhana. Adejuyitan J A, Otunola E T, Akanda E A, Bolarinwa I F and J. Agricult. Engineer. Res. 72(2), 145-150. Oladokun F M (2009) Some physicochemical properties of flour obtained from fermentation of tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus) Jones D J, Chinnaswamy R, Tan Y and Hanna M (2000) sourced from a market in Ogbomoso, Nigeria. J. Food Physiochemical properties of ready-to-eat breakfast . Sci. 3(2), 51-55. Cereal Foods World 45(4), 164-168. Akuamoa-Boateng A (2002) Quality protein maize: infant feeding Kinsella J K (1976) Functional properties of protein food: A survey. trials in . Ghana Health Service- Ashanti, Ghana, pp. 1– Critical Rev. Food Sci. Nutrit. 1, 219-229. 45. Lin M J Y, Humbert E S and Sosulski F W (1974) Certain functional Appiah F, Asibuo J Y and Kumah P (2011) Physical and functional properties of sunflower meal products. J. Food Sci. 39(2), 368- properties of bean flours of three cowpea (Vigna unguiculata 370. L. walp) varieties in Ghana. African J. Food Sci. 5(2), 100- Mertz E T, Bates L S and Nelson O E (1964) Mutant gene that changes 104. protein composition and increase lysine content of maize AOAC (1995) Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Official endosperm. Science 145 (3629), 279-280. Analytical Chemists. 17th ed Washington D.C. Mohesenin N N (1980) Physical properties of plant and animal Bewley J D, Black M and Halme P (2006) The Encyclopedia of materials. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Seeds: Science, Technology and Uses. CABI, Wallingford, UK. Inc., pp. 51–87. pp 81. Munsell soil colour charts (1954) Munsell colour Co. Inc., Baltimore Bibat M A D R, Rosario O M, Mopera L E, Collado L S and Flores 2, Maryland, U.S.A. F P (2014) Characterization of alkaline-cooked quality protein Narayana K and Narasimga R N M S (1982) Functional properties maize as raw material for noodle processing. Philippines Sci. of raw and heat processed winged bean flour. J. Food Sci. 47, Letters 7(2), 413-419. 1534-1538. Bressani R, Benavides V, Acevedo, E and Ortiz M A (1990) Changes Nuss E T and Tanumihardjo S A (2010) Maize: A paramount staple in selected nutrient content and in protein quality of common crop in the context of global nutrition. Comprehe. Rev. Food and quality protein maize during preparation. Cereal Sci. 9, 417–436. Chem. 67 (6), 515–518. Odoemelam S A (2000) Chemical composition and functional Bressani R, Turcios J C, Colmenares de Ruiz A S and de Palomo P P properties of conophor nut flour (Tetracarpidium conophorum) (2004) Effect of processing conditions on phytic acid, calcium, flour. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 38, 729-734. iron and zinc contents of lime cooked maize. J. Agricult. Food Olajide J O, Ade-Omowaye B I O and Otunola E T (2000) Some Chem. 52 (5), 1157–1162. physical properties of shea kernel. J. Agricult. Engin. Res. Bryant C M and Hamaker B R (1997) Effect of lime on gelatinization 76(4), 419–421. of corn flour and starch. Cereal Chem. 74(2), 171–175. Osei S A, Dei H K and Tuah A K (1999) Evaluation of quality protein Chandra S and Samsher (2013) Assessment of functional properties maize as a feed ingredient for layer pullet. J. Anim. Feed Sci. of different flours. African J. Agricult. Res. 8(38), 4849-4852. 8(2), 181-189. Chukwuma O E, Taiwo O O and Udouso Victory Boniface U V (2016) Paes M C D and Maga J (2004) Effect of extrusion on essential Effect of the traditional cooking methods ( and ) amino acids profile and colour of whole grains flours of quality on the nutritional profile of quality protein maize. J. Food and protein maize (QPM) and normal maize cultivars. Revista Nutrition Sci. 4(2), 34-40. Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo 3, 10-20. Coffman C V and Garcia V V (1977) Functional properties and amino Palacios-Fonseca A J, Vazquez-Ramos C and Rodrguez-Gracia M E acid content of a protein isolate from mung bean flour. Int. J. (2009) Physiochemical characterizing of industrial and Food Sci. Technol. 12(5), 473-484. traditional nixtamalized corn flours. J. Food Engin. 93, 45-51. Dass S, Kaul J, Manivannan, Singode A and Chikkappa G K (2009) Panda A K, Raju M V L N, Rama Rao S V, Lavanya G, Reddy E P K Single cross hybrid maize – A viable solution in the changing and Sunder G S (2010) Replacement of normal maize with climate scenario. Indian J. Genet.Plant Breed. 69(4), 331-334. quality protein maize on performance, immune response and FICCI. 2014. http://www.ficci.in/spdocument/22966/India-Maize- carcass characteristics of broiler chickens. Asian-Australasian Summit.pdf assessed on 1.Dec.2018. J. Animal Sci. 23(12), 1626-1631. Gupta R K and Das S K (1997) Physical properties of sunflower Prassana B M, Vasal S K, Kassahun B and Singh N N (2001) Quality seeds. J. Agricult. Engin. Res. 66(1), 1-8. protein maize. Curr. Sci. 81(10), 1308-1319. Gupta H S, Agrawal P K, Mahajan V, Bisht G S, Kumar A, Verma Sahai D, Surjewan I, Mua J P, Buendia M O, Rowe M and Jackson P, Srivastava A, Saha S, Babu R, Pant M C and Mani1 V P D S (2000) Dry matter loss during nixtamalization of white (2009) Quality protein maize for nutritional security: rapid corn hybrid: Impact of processing parameters. Cereal Chem. development of short duration hybrids through molecular 77(2), 254-8. marker assisted breeding. Curr. Sci. 96(2), 230-237. Samuel S D, Beatrice C, Esther S D and Emmanuel A (2004) Effect Effect of nixtamalization on biofortified maize 2361 of nixtamalisation on the chemical and functional properties Singh U (2001) Functional properties of grain legume flours. J. Food of maize. Food Chem. 86, 317–324. Sci. Technol. 38, 191-199. Sangeeta and Grewal R B (2018) Pasting properties of maize flour Sosulski F W, Garatt M D and Slinkard A E (1976) Functional from variety HQPM-1 and HQPM-7. J. Pharmacognosy and properties of ten legume flours. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 9, Phytochemistry 7(2), 223-225. 66-69. Sefa-Dedeh S, Cornelius B, Sakyi E D and Afoakwa E O (2004) Subblakshmi B and Amutha S (2016) Effect of alkaline treatment Effects of nixtamalization on the chemical and functional and storage qualities of maize flour. J. Crop and Weed 12(2), properties of maize. Food Chem. 86, 317-24. 14-22. Sergio O, Serna S, Lloyd W, Rooney LW and Greene (1991) Effect Tekeba E, Moudgal R and Alemu Y (2007) Compatibility of quality of lime treatment on the availability of calcium in diets of protein maize and sesame seed meal as a substitute for synthetic and rat growth and balance studies. Cereal Chem. 68(6), amino acids in broiler ration. The Icfai J. Life Sci. India 1(2), 565–570. 16-30. Serna-saldivar S O, Knabe D A, Rooney L W, Tanksley T D and Tiwari M R, Chapagain B P, Shah M K and Shrestha Y K (2013) Sproule A M (1988) Nutritional value of and maize Evaluation of quality protein maize for growth performance of tortillas. J. Cereal Sci. 7, 83–94. crossbred piglets in western hills of Nepal. Global J. Sci. Shobha D, Vijayalakshmi D, Puttaramnaik and Asha K J (2015) Effect Frontier Res. Agricult. Vet. 13(6), 1-6. of maize based composite flour noodles on functional, sensory, Williams P C, Nakoul H and Singh K B (1983) Relationship between nutritional and storage quality. J. Food Sci. Technol. 52(12), cooking time and some physical characteristics of chickpea 8032–8040. (Cicer arietinum L.). J. Food Sci. Agricult. 34(5), 492-496.