agriculture

Article
Nutritional and Functional Properties of Quinoa (Chenopodium
quinoa Willd.) Chimborazo Ecotype: Insights into
Chemical Composition
Paola Arguello-Hernández 1,2 , Iván Samaniego 3 , Alex Leguizamo 4 , María Josefa Bernalte-García 2
and María Concepción Ayuso-Yuste 2, *

1 Faculty of Animal Sciences, Grupo de Investigación y Desarrollo en Agroindustria (IDEA), Escuela Superior
Politécnica de Chimborazo (ESPOCH), Panamericana Sur Km 1.5, Riobamba 060155, Ecuador;
[email protected]
2 Agricultural Engineering School, Universidad de Extremadura, Avda. Adolfo Suárez s/n,
06007 Badajoz, Spain; [email protected]
3 Department of Nutrition and Quality, National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIAP), Panamericana Sur
Km. 1, Mejía 170516, Ecuador; [email protected]
4 European Committee for Training and Agriculture (Comité Europeo Para la Formación y la Agricultura,
CEFA), Guayas 22-46 y Venezuela, Lago Agrio 210105, Ecuador; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Quinoa is known for its high nutritional value and adaptability; however, there is a lack
of data about the chemical composition of quinoa produced in Ecuador, especially the Chimborazo
ecotype. Our research aims to evaluate the nutritional components of Chimborazo quinoa. This
knowledge (chemical composition) can help to improve cultivation and farmers’ understanding.
Samples were collected from 49 plots at four altitude ranges (3000–3200; 3201–3300; 3301–3400;
3401–3533) m.a.s.l. Each sample of 2 kg quinoa was cleaned, dried (32 ◦ C/15 h), and stored at −20 ◦ C
before analyzing water activity, proximate composition, mineral content, antioxidant activity, and
functional compounds. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and mean comparison, Pearson
Citation: Arguello-Hernández, P.;
correlation, and principal component analysis. The Chimborazo ecotype shows protein content
Samaniego, I.; Leguizamo, A.;
comparable to or exceeding other global quinoa cultivars. Statistical analysis revealed that altitude
Bernalte-García, M.J.; Ayuso-Yuste,
had a minimal influence on quinoa’s chemical composition, resulting in overlapping altitude-based
M.C. Nutritional and Functional
clusters. Complex relationships between quinoa variables were identified, which varied with altitude.
Properties of Quinoa (Chenopodium
quinoa Willd.) Chimborazo Ecotype:
These findings suggest that cultivation of high-quality quinoa across a range of altitudes is feasible
Insights into Chemical Composition. without compromising its intrinsic quality. Moreover, the extensive and diverse results from our
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396. https:// study provide a solid foundation for further plant breeding and the development of specialized
doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030396 quinoa varieties.

Academic Editors: Hongju He, Said A.

Keywords: quinoa ecotype Chimborazo; chemical composition; altitude
Saleh and Chen Xiangning

Received: 24 January 2024

Revised: 23 February 2024
Accepted: 27 February 2024 1. Introduction
Published: 1 March 2024
Quinoa is a grain native to the Andean region of South America and has been culti-
vated for thousands of years by Indigenous communities [1]. Of the original producing
countries, only Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador appear among the 10 main exporting countries
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. of this Andean grain [2]. Although this crop was originally grown in South America, its use
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. has now spread throughout the world. This diversification of cultivation areas in different
This article is an open access article continents is based on extensive research carried out worldwide on its high nutritional,
distributed under the terms and functional, and nutraceutical value and its adaptability to different climates and soils [3].
conditions of the Creative Commons The recent surge in popularity of quinoa has made it one of the most sought after crops
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// globally and it is now being used as a substitute for rice or couscous in many dishes around
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the world.
4.0/).

Agriculture 2024, 14, 396. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14030396 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture

Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 2 of 17

Quinoa production in Ecuador has increased dramatically over the past decade, with
hundreds of thousands of small-scale farmers now growing quinoa on their land. This
has allowed them to benefit from rising demand both domestically and internationally,
providing additional income that can be used to improve their lives or reinvest into their
farms [4]. Finally, quinoa provides environmental benefits as well, as it requires minimal
inputs (water and fertilizer) compared to other crops such as corn or rice, and it helps
to reduce the impact on natural resources while still providing essential nutrients [5].
Additionally, quinoa’s drought tolerance makes it particularly suitable for arid climates
like those found throughout much of Ecuador. With all of these advantages combined,
quinoa is an important asset to many communities across Ecuador—not just providing
nourishment but also offering economic and environmental benefits too.
There is extensive research on the chemical composition of quinoa; these studies
have been conducted on the chemical composition of quinoa from different countries.
Although the quinoa crop is important in Ecuador, there is not much research on this crop
in the country [6]. Research has shown that quinoa is a good source of essential amino
acids, dietary fiber, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and phytochemicals [7–12]. The grain
contains all nine essential amino acids, making it a complete protein source [7,13]. In terms
of macronutrients, quinoa provides values, expressed in weight, in the range of 11–19%
proteins, as well as 5–9% fat, and 46–77% complex carbohydrates, such as starch and dietary
fiber [7,9,12,14]. In terms of micronutrients, quinoa is rich in many vitamins and minerals
including iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. It also contains B vitamins
like folate (B9), niacin (B3), and riboflavin (B2) [15]. Furthermore, research indicates that
quinoa may be a good source of antioxidants such as flavonoids and phenolic compounds,
which can help to protect against oxidative damage [16–19]. Overall, research suggests
that quinoa is an excellent source of nutritive components, with significant amounts of
essential fats, proteins, and micronutrients with potential health benefits, while being
gluten-free [13,20].
The composition of different types of quinoas can vary widely, depending on the
variety, growing conditions, and processing methods used [21]. For example, some ecotypes
are higher in protein content than others. In addition, some ecotypes may have higher levels
of minerals such as iron or zinc compared to other varieties. The study by García-Parra et al.
highlights the influence of altitude on different aspects of quinoa grain production [22].
According to their findings, both altitude and variety acted as important factors that
impacted the grains’ protein content, with the highest values at 2648 m.a.s.l. The study links
the altitudinal gradient to changes in temperature and chlorophyll fluorescence dynamics,
revealing a higher level of physiological stress in quinoa plants grown in temperate and
warm climates compared to cold climates; however, this research was performed at altitudes
much lower than those of our study. González et al. in 2012 observed clear differences
in yield and in some grain quality parameters due to environmental factors related to
altitude. They considered it is necessary to study quinoa cultivars in relation to the agro-
environmental conditions in which they were grown to ensure good yields and quality
grains [23].
One of the quinoa ecotypes is Chimborazo, which is a traditional landrace grown on
the slopes of the Chimborazo volcano at altitudes ranging from 2780 to more than 3500 m
above sea level (m.a.s.l.). This ecotype is considered one of the most important crops of this
area; its agronomic and phenotypic traits are detailed following the research guidelines
established by FAO [24]. It is known for its long lifecycle. During flowering, the panicle
color varies between green and purple, while at physiological maturity it displays a mixture
of purple, pink, and yellow colors. The panicle shape can be glomerular, amorphous, or
present intermediate forms, with an average length of 21 cm, and the diameter ranges from
13 to 80 cm. The seed yield per plant ranges from 0.6 to 14 g. The grains are small, with
a diameter falling within the range of 1.5 to 2.3 mm, and the weight of 1000 grains varies
between 3 g and 3.3 g. They have a high saponin content, resulting in a bitter taste. The
pericarp is cream-colored, and the episperm is white [6,25].
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 3 of 17

Research on quinoa Chimborazo has been conducted in order to understand its agro-
nomic characteristics and its potential as an alternative crop for marginal areas. Several
studies on this topic were developed in the work of the nongovernmental organizations
“European Committee for Training and Agriculture”, the Instituto Nacional de Investi-
gaciones Agropecuarias del Ecuador (INIAP), and the Escuela Superior Politécnica de
Chimborazo (ESPOCH) with quinoa farmers in Chimborazo province. These experiences
are reported in the paper Quinoa in Ecuador: Recent Advances under Global Expansion
by Hinojosa [4]. However, there is no information about the chemical composition of
quinoa Chimborazo. It is essential to study the chemical variation of this ecotype, as
producing and marketing organizations often combine grains from different altitudes to
form commercial batches.
In this context, the present research aims to evaluate the main nutritional and func-
tional components of the Chimborazo ecotype quinoa as a quality tool for improving the
crop, because it allows farmers to understand the nutritional content and quality of their
production. This information is a crucial step towards enhancing the quality and produc-
tivity of this ancestral crop. By understanding the nutritional and functional components
of this ecotype, farmers can adjust their farming practices and increase the crop’s yield
without losing its unique genetic traits. This project could be a starting point for a plant
breeding program that focuses on improving the Chimborazo ecotype while still preserving
its ancestral characteristics. Additionally, the cultivation of Chimborazo quinoa has several
environmental benefits, such as erosion control and minimal water and fertilizer inputs,
highlighting that a significant proportion of the production of this ecotype is organic. By
improving this ecotype, farmers can further enhance its environmental benefits and pro-
mote sustainable agriculture practices. Therefore, it is essential to focus on improving the
Chimborazo ecotype rather than replacing it with other varieties.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Plant Material and Sampling
Samples of Chimborazo ecotype quinoa were obtained directly from 49 quinoa fields
belonging to organic producer members of the Sumak Tarpuey, MAQUITA, and COPRO-
BICH organizations. These samples were taken from different altitudes, which had been
divided into four ranges and came from three different cantons: 80% of the random samples
corresponded to Colta, the canton of the province of Chimborazo with the highest produc-
tion of quinoa, and the remaining 20% to the cantons of Guamote and Riobamba (Table 1).
Quinoa samples of the Chimborazo ecotype were collected in August and September 2021.
The general climatic conditions during the growing season were 86.24% average relative
humidity, average temperatures between 16.09 ◦ C and 7.03 ◦ C, and a daily corrected precip-
itation rate of 4.88 mm. The sampling plan was developed in accordance with Regulation
(EC) No. 401/2006. Each sample, composed of at least 2 kg, was taken using a systematic
methodology: samples were collected from different areas of the quinoa field to ensure its
representativeness, and the geographic coordinates of each sampling site were recorded.

Table 1. Distribution of 49 quinoa samples.

Canton
Altitude (m.a.s.l. *) Total Samples
Colta Guamote Riobamba
by Altitude
3000–3200 7 2 9
3201–3300 11 1 12
3301–3400 12 3 15
3401–3533 9 2 2 13
Total samples by Canton 39 5 5 49
* m.a.s.l: meters above sea level.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 4 of 17

2.2. Sample Preparation

The quinoa samples were prepared at the laboratory; they were manually threshed
and winnowed to remove impurities, and then were dried at 32 ◦ C ± −2.5 ◦ C for 15 h to
facilitate polishing. Afterward, the samples were subjected to a milling and sieving process
(Ultra Centrifugal mill Rescht ZM 200, Hann, Germany), until a particle size smaller than
1 mm was obtained, and they were stored in Ziploc bags at freezing temperature (−20 ◦ C)
for further analysis.

2.3. Water Activity and Proximate Composition

Moisture content was determined in quinoa grains after threshing and winnowing
(Mo) and in milled quinoa samples (Mf) by the gravimetric method described in the AOAC
945.38 method [26]. For this determination, 2 g of the sample was weighed in aluminum
capsules and immediately subjected to a drying process in a Lab-Line Imperial V convection
oven (Vernon Hills, IL, USA) at a temperature of 105 ◦ C for 16 h. Subsequently, it was
transferred to a desiccator and cooled for 2 h. Finally, each capsule with the dried sample
was weighed, and the moisture content was determined by the difference in weight. The
results were expressed as a percentage of moisture in each sample. Water activity (aw) of
the quinoa was evaluated using a water activity meter (Aqualab, 3TE, Decagon, Pullman,
WA, USA). All analyses were performed in triplicate (n = 3).
All chemical reagents used in the different determinations were of analytical grade,
and three analyses were carried out for each sample and determination (n = 3). Crude
protein content was determined using the AOAC 922.23 [26] methodology. For this, 1 g
of the sample was weighed into a 250 mL digestion tube. Two copper catalyst tablets
(3.5 g K2 SO4 and 0.4 g CuSO4 5H2 O) and 15 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid were added
to the tube. The tubes were immediately placed in a digestion block and heated to 400 ◦ C
for 1 h. Afterwards, the tubes were cooled for 1 h and placed in an automatic Protein
Analyzer, FOSS Kjeltec Model 8400 (Hillerod, Denmark), where distillation and titration
were carried out. The protein content was calculated by multiplying the nitrogen content
by a conversion factor of 6.25. The results were expressed as grams of protein per 100 g dry
basis (db).
Fat content was measured using the Soxhlet extraction method as specified in AOAC
2003.06 [26]. A 0.5 g sample was weighed into stainless steel cups and covered with cotton.
Subsequently, the cups were placed in the FOSS SoxtecTM 2043 equipment (Hillerod,
Denmark). Once the heater reached 130 ◦ C, the cups were immersed for 10 min, and
immediately refluxing for fat extraction began for 30 min. After this time, a 10-min hexane
recovery process was initiated. The cups were then removed from the equipment and
placed in a 105 ◦ C oven for 1 h to completely evaporate the hexane. Finally, the cups were
cooled, weighed, and placed in a desiccator. The results were expressed as grams of fat per
100 g db.
The crude fiber determination was conducted following the AOAC 978.10 method [26].
For this purpose, 1 g of sample was weighed into porous glass crucibles (100 µm) and
placed in the FOSS Fibertec 8000 equipment (Hillerod, Denmark). Once the heater reached
120 ◦ C, the samples underwent acid digestion (1.25% v/v sulfuric acid solution) and
alkaline digestion (1.25% p/v sodium hydroxide solution) for 1 h each. After this period,
the samples were subjected to a washing process with distilled water. Subsequently, the
crucibles with the digested samples were removed from the equipment and placed in a
Lab-Line Imperial V convection oven (Vernon Hills, IL, USA) at 105 ◦ C for 1 h, followed
by a calcination process at 500 ◦ C for 8 h. Finally, the crucibles were placed in a desiccator,
cooled, and the weights of the dried and calcined samples were recorded. The results were
expressed in grams of fiber per 100 g db.
The ash content was determined following the AOAC 923.03 [26] method. For this
purpose, 1 g of sample was weighed into 25 mL porcelain crucibles and subjected to
a calcination process at a temperature of 500 ◦ C in a Thermolyne 48000 muffle furnace
(Dubuque, IA, USA) for 12 h. The calcined samples were cooled for 1 h and transferred
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 5 of 17

to a desiccator. Finally, the weight of each crucible was taken, and the ash content was
calculated by the difference in weight. The results were expressed in grams of ash per
100 g db.
Non-nitrogenous extract (NNE) was calculated by subtracting the sum of crude protein,
crude fat, crude fiber, and ash from the total dry basis content of the sample. The results
were expressed in grams of NNE per 100 g db [27].

2.4. Analysis of Mineral Content

Macro and microminerals were determined by Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry.
After obtaining the ashes, 10 mL of bidistilled water and 5 mL of hydrochloric acid (35% v/v)
were added to the crucible. The mixture was digested on a hot plate at 100 ◦ C for 30–60 min
until the ash was completely dissolved. It was transferred to a 100 mL volumetric flask and
diluted with bidistilled water. Finally, the macronutrient and micronutrient contents, with
the exception of phosphorus content, were determined in triplicate (n = 3) in a Shimadzu
model 7000 atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Kyoto, Japan) [28]. Phosphorus was
determined colorimetrically with ammonium molybdate and ammonium vanadate [29].
The results were reported in mg per 100 g db.

2.5. Antioxidant Activity and Functional Compounds

For the extraction of antioxidant compounds, 0.3 g of dry quinoa sample was weighed
into 15 mL polyethylene centrifuge tubes. Then, 5 mL of the extraction solution (methanol/
water/formic acid 70/30/0.1 v/v/v) was added, and the mixture was homogenized by
vortexing using a Mistral 4600 vortex mixer (Melrose Park, IL, USA) for 5 min. Afterward,
it was subjected to a 10-min ultrasonic bath in a Cole-Parmer 8892-MTH ultrasonic cleaner
(Niles, IL, USA) and finally centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 10 min. The supernatant (extract)
was transferred to a 25 mL amber volumetric flask. This process was repeated four times to
ensure complete extraction of the antioxidant compounds. The extraction was performed
in triplicate (n = 3), and the same extraction process was performed for the quantification
of antioxidant capacity [30].

2.5.1. Determination of Total Phenolic Content

Total phenolic content (TPC) was quantified using UV-visible spectrophotometry
following the method described by [31]. To perform the analysis, an aliquot of 1 mL of the
quinoa sample extract was transferred to a 15 mL test tube, followed by the addition of
6 mL of distilled water and 1 mL of Folin–Ciocalteu reagent. The solution was allowed to
rest for 3 min before adding 2 mL of 20% (w/v) sodium carbonate. The resulting solution
was heated in a water bath at 40 ◦ C for 2 min to develop a blue chromophore, which was
measured for its absorbance using a Shimadzu model 2600 spectrophotometer (Kyoto,
Japan) at 760 nm. In each of the three extracts, two measurements were made using the
mean value so that there were three replicates of this parameter (n = 3). A calibration line
was constructed using the same procedure with gallic acid. The quantification of the total
phenolic content was reported in milligrams of gallic acid equivalent per gram of quinoa
on a dry basis (mg GAE g−1 ).

2.5.2. Determination of Total Flavonoid Content

Total flavonoid content (TFC) was determined using the method described by [30].
A 1 mL aliquot of the quinoa extract was mixed with 4 mL of distilled water in a 15 mL
tube and homogenized. Subsequently, 0.3 mL of 5% (w/v) sodium nitrite and 0.3 mL of
10% (w/v) aluminum chloride were added sequentially, and the sample was allowed to
rest for 5 min after each addition. Finally, 2 mL of 1N NaOH was added and made up to
10 mL with distilled water. The resulting, pink-colored chromophore was measured for
its absorbance at 490 nm using a Shimadzu model 2600 spectrophotometer (Kyoto, Japan)
(n = 3). A calibration curve was generated using different concentrations of catechin. The
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 6 of 17

data were expressed as mg of catechin equivalents per gram of quinoa on a dry basis (mg
of Catechin equivalent g−1 db).

2.5.3. Determination of Antioxidant Activity by the ABTS Method

The antioxidant capacity was evaluated in triplicate by the 2,2-azinobis (3-ethyl-
benzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) cation decoloration method (ABTS*+), following the
methodology described by [32]. First, a solution of ABTS*+ (7 mM) was mixed with
potassium persulfate (2.45 mM) in a 1:1 ratio and allowed to rest in an amber bottle
overnight. The following day, the absorbance at 734 nm of the prepared ABTS*+ working
solution was measured and then diluted with phosphate buffer to obtain an absorbance
of 1.1. An aliquot of the quinoa extract was then added to the ABTS*+ working solution
in a 15 mL test tube and allowed to rest for 45 min. The final absorbance of the reaction
was then determined using a Shimadzu model 2600 spectrophotometer (Kyoto, Japan)
at 734 nm. A calibration curve was performed with different concentrations of Trolox
(6-Hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid), and the results were expressed
as micromolar Trolox equivalent per gram on a dry basis (µmol Trolox equivalent g−1 db).

2.5.4. Determination of Antioxidant Capacity by the FRAP Method

The antioxidant capacity was also determined in triplicate, using the iron reduc-
tion/antioxidant power (FRAP) method proposed by [33]. To carry out the analysis, an
aliquot of the quinoa extract was added to a 15 mL test tube, followed by the addition of
phosphate buffer pH 6.6 and 1% potassium ferrocyanide solution. The solution was then
shaken and immediately incubated in a bath at 50 ◦ C for 20 min. After incubation, 10%
trichloroacetic acid was added, and the mixture was homogenized in a vortex. Water and
1% FeCl3 were then added. The solution was left to rest for 30 min in the dark. During
this time, a green complex (ferrous chloride-potassium ferrocyanide) was formed, and
the absorbance was determined using a Shimadzu model 2600 spectrophotometer (Kyoto,
Japan) at 700 nm. A calibration curve was performed with different concentrations of
Trolox, and the results were expressed as micromolar Trolox equivalent per gram on a dry
basis (µmol Trolox equivalent g−1 db).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and when signifi-
cant differences were detected, for each height and among altitudes, means were compared
using HSD Tukey’s tests with a 95% confidence level. Pearson correlation was used to
determine the relationship between the different variables. The data analysis was carried
out with IBM SPSS Statistics 19 software (SSPS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to assess the relationships between
variables and samples, using MultBiplot software 2023.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Water Activity and Proximate Composition
In Table 2, the water activity, proximal components, mineral components, antioxidant
compounds, and antioxidant capacity of the quinoa ecotype Chimborazo are shown. The data
are the mean value of each parameter within each altitude (3000–3200; 3201–3300; 3301–3400;
3401–3533 m.a.s.l.) Within each specific altitude range, noticeable differences resulted, imply-
ing significant variations in the data, as can be seen in Supplementary Tables S1–S3, where
the values of all of these parameters for the 49 quinoa samples are shown.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 7 of 17

Table 2. Proximal composition, aw, antioxidant activity, antioxidant compounds, and mineral content
of quinoa grain samples collected at different locations. (For each altitude range, mean values and
Standard Deviation).

Altitude /Components 1 (3000–3200 m.a.s.l) 2 (3201–3300 m.a.s.l) 3 (3301–3400 m.a.s.l) 4 (3401–3533 m.a.s.l)
Initial Moisture * 15.22 ± 0.45 a 15.1 ± 0.7 ab 15.08 ± 0.79 ab 14.75 ± 0.53 b
Final Moisture ** 7.16 ± 0.73 7.3 ± 1.2 7.42 ± 1.09 6.98 ± 0.85
Water Activity ** 0.36 ± 0.03 0.36 ± 0.04 0.35 ± 0.06 0.34 ± 0.05
Crude Protein ** 16.29 ± 1.12 16.1 ± 0.85 15.72 ± 1.0 16.18 ± 0.93
Fat ** 4.99 ± 0.86 ab 4.63 ± 0.91 b 5.35 ± 0.78 a 4.91 ± 0.69 ab
Ash ** 2.79 ± 0.65 2.93 ± 0.42 2.98 ± 0.34 2.86 ± 0.32
Crude Fiber ** 7.32 ± 0.56 ab 7.18 ± 0.45 b 7.53 ± 0.49 a 7.1 ± 0.53 b
Non-Nitrogenous
68.62 ± 1.64 69.16 ± 1.35 68.42 ± 1.4 68.94 ± 1.03
Extract **
Ca ** 47.79 ± 8.04 b 50.75 ± 7.36 ab 54.19 ± 7.05 a 50.19 ± 6.75 ab
P ** 536.06 ± 80.81 b 553.7 ± 51.31 ab 537.32 ± 46.58 ab 570.49 ± 43.49 a
Mg ** 195.89 ± 13.77 b 206.62 ± 20.02 a 200.45 ± 16.19 ab 202.03 ± 16.48 ab
K ** 779.16 ± 56.04 ab 751.73 ± 76.31 ab 790.82 ± 37.06 a 758.82 ± 53.11 b
Na ** 2.05 ± 0.55 b 2.13 ± 0.69 b 2.71 ± 0.79 a 2.34 ± 0.61 ab
Cu ** 0.39 ± 0.1 0.36 ± 0.18 0.31 ± 0.12 0.36 ± 0.16
Fe ** 4.16 ± 0.58 a 4.38 ± 0.73 a 3.69 ± 0.63 b 4.11 ± 0.57 a
Mn ** 0.83 ± 0.25 a 0.72 ± 0.13 ab 0.7 ± 0.19 b 0.66 ± 0.14 b
Zn ** 3.13 ± 0.26 3.15 ± 0.47 3.18 ± 0.35 3.3 ± 0.3
TPC ** 1.91 ± 0.1 1.89 ± 0.14 1.86 ± 0.1 1.86 ± 0.15
TFC ** 1.26 ± 0.25 ab 1.16 ± 0.18 bc 1.29 ± 0.23 a 1.12 ± 0.19 c
AA ABTS ** 39.41 ± 2.44 39.95 ± 4.11 39.48 ± 2.01 38.98 ± 2.77
AA FRAP ** 19.22 ± 4.98 a 17.49 ± 3.64 ab 18.71 ± 4.1 a 15.85 ± 2.87 b
Mean values ± Standard Deviation (n = 3). Values in the same row followed by different letters differ at a
significance level of 0.05, according to Tukey’s test. m.a.s.l: meters above sea level. (*) Expressed on a wet basis
(wb); (**) Expressed on a dry basis (db). aw: water activity; Ash (g 100 g−1 ); Fat (g 100 g−1 ); Crude Protein
(g 100 g−1 ); Crude Fiber (g 100 g−1 ); NNE: Non-Nitrogenous Extract (g 100 g−1 ); AA ABTS: Antioxidant Activity
(µmol Trolox equivalent g−1 ); AA FRAP: Antioxidant Activity (µmol Trolox equivalent g−1 ); TPC: Total Phenolic
Compounds (mg of gallic acid equivalent g−1 ); TFC: Total Flavonoid Compounds (mg of Catechin equivalent
g−1 ); Mineral content expressed on mg 100 g−1 .

The results of water activity and proximal composition analyses of the quinoa samples
for each altitude are shown in Supplementary Table S1. The consistency between the initial
(fresh) and final (dehydrated) moisture content and water activity values indicates that the
processing method successfully eliminated moisture from the samples. The final moisture
content ranged from 5.34% to 9.40%, which is consistent with other authors’ findings [34,35],
who reported ranges of 5.27–8.64% and 6.1–8.3%, respectively. However, these values are
lower than those reported by [36], ranging from 10.09% to 12.23%, and by [11], ranging
from 10.21% to 11.71%. The variation of this parameter in different studies where samples
were obtained from commercial sites is not only attributed to the type of thermal treatment,
but also to the packaging material used to store the product and the storage duration [37].
As for the moisture content of freshly harvested quinoa dried in the field, only one study
reports this parameter [14], which was lower (13.42 ± 0.3%) than the values found in our
study, which ranged from 13.71% to 16.14%. Moisture and aw are critical in maintaining
the freshness and quality of quinoa, especially for freshly harvested grain that has not been
processed or stored. Excess moisture in quinoa (aw > 0.7) can cause spoilage and even pose
food safety risks by providing a breeding ground for harmful microorganisms.
Quinoa is renowned for its exceptional protein content, offering a perfect balance of
amino acids and enriched with thionic amino acids and lysine, positioning it as a high-
quality protein source surpassing other grains with lysine limitations [38]. The present
study revealed that the crude protein content of the Chimborazo ecotype quinoa can vary
considerably, ranging from 13.86 g 100 g−1 to 17.97 g 100 g−1 on a dry weight basis. The
lowest value corresponds to sample 26 at altitude 2, while the highest value belongs to
sample 41 at altitude 4. Out of the samples analyzed, 32% exhibited a high protein content
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 8 of 17

(between 16.75 g 100 g−1 and 17.97 g 100 g−1 ), 41% had a moderate content (between
>15.24 g 100 g−1 and <16.75 g 100 g−1 ), and the remaining 27% had a low content (between
>13.86 g 100 g−1 and <15.24 g 100 g−1 ).
The protein content in quinoa grains depends not only on the variety, but also on
cultural practices and geographical factors, such as chemical composition of the soil,
climate, or water availability [22,23]. These factors can interact in complex ways, making it
challenging to identify the exact cause of variations in the protein content of quinoa ecotype
Chimborazo.
Studies carried out with other varieties in different countries have found a protein
content slightly higher than that of our work. For example, Rodríguez Gómez et al. studied
the nutritional characterization of six quinoa cultivars (Pasto, Atlas, Marisma, Jessie, Roja,
Pot_4) grown in southern Europe and they obtained values between 17.64% and 21.03% [11].
In a study that analyzed quinoa cultivars from Spain and the Andean region, a protein
content ranging from 14.6% to 17.9% was reported [34]. In another investigation that
evaluated the impact of agroecological conditions on the nutritional profile of three quinoa
cultivars in different locations (Spain, Peru, and Chile), the protein content ranged from
14% to 17% [39].
There are also numerous studies, with various quinoa cultivars, in which protein
contents have been found to be in the medium and low ranges, or even lower than those
found in our work, for the Chimborazo ecotype. Thus, in a study conducted in the central
region of Colombia, the physiological performance of seven quinoa cultivars was evaluated
at three altitude gradients (cold, temperate, and warm climates), and protein values ranged
from 12% to 17% [22]. In contrast to our results, these studies observed that the reduction
in the altitudinal gradient had a positive association with the protein content in the grain
(p < 0.001). In another preliminary study carried out in Egypt to evaluate new quinoa
genotypes in sandy soils, three new accessions had a protein content ranging from 10.83%
to 13.77% [12]. Präger et al. studied four quinoa cultivars in southwestern Germany, finding
that protein values ranged from 11.9% to 16.1% [21]. In the study conducted by González
et al., ten quinoa cultivars from the Andean highlands (Bolivia/Argentina) and northwest
Argentina were analyzed, and the protein contents ranged from 9.15% to 15.53% [23].
Fat values found in this study range from 3.43 g 100 g−1 to 6.94 g 100 g−1 , with an av-
erage of 5 g 100 g−1 . The minimum value in our samples is below those found by [21,34,35],
which reported minimum values of 5.5%, 5%, and 4.54%, respectively. Another study that
analyzed samples from the same lot located in Argentina found a value of 2.3% fat [40]. In
a review about chemical composition of quinoa with studies prior to the year 2000 [41], it
was reported that the fat content in quinoa seeds ranges between 1.8% and 9.5%. When
compared to widely consumed cereals internationally, the values of Chimborazo ecotype
quinoa are higher than those of wheat [42–44] and rice [45–48]. It is important to highlight
that several investigations have reported that the fat in quinoa is mostly composed of
unsaturated fatty acids, which are beneficial for health [35,49]. These fatty acids, such as
omega-3 and omega-6, are essential for a balanced diet and can help to prevent cardiovas-
cular disease and other health problems. However, it is important to remember that the fat
content in quinoa can vary depending on the variety and growing conditions [34].
Regarding the ash content in the Chimborazo ecotype quinoa, values ranged from
1.18 g 100 g−1 to 3.55 g 100 g−1 , with an average of 2.90 g 100 g−1 . The distribution of the
values was 5% in the range of 1.18–2.08 g 100 g−1 , 46% in the range of >2.08–2.98 g 100 g−1 ,
and 49% in the range of >2.98–3.55 g 100 g−1 . Similar results (2.55–3.93%) were reported [11]
in six cultivars of quinoa (‘Pasto’, ‘Atlas’, ‘Marisma’, ‘Jessie, Roja’, ‘Pot_4’) cultivated in
Southern Europe, while in another study [50] the measured ash content values ranged from
4.94% to 18.04% for the cultivars ‘Inia431-Altiplano’, ‘White’, ‘Titicaca’, ‘Illpa Inia’, and
‘Carmen’, cultivated in Turkey. The discussion suggests that this variability is due to factors
inherent to the quinoa varieties themselves as well as to external factors such as cultivation
conditions, soil quality, and environmental influences.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 9 of 17

The crude fiber content of quinoa ecotype Chimborazo was found to range from 7.30
to 8.49 g 100 g−1 , with an average of 7.30 g 100 g−1 . Most of the data (52%) fell within
the range of >6.87 g 100 g−1 to 7.68 g 100 g−1 , while 26% of the data were in the range
of >7.68 g 100 g−1 to 8.49 g 100 g−1 . The remaining 22% of the data fell in the range from
7.30 g 100 g−1 to 6.87 g 100 g−1 . Significant differences in crude fiber content were observed
between altitudes, being higher at altitudes 3 and 1. Values were statistically similar at
altitudes 1, 2, and 4, revealing that there is a complex relationship between altitude and
quinoa composition.
Finally, the non-nitrogenous extract (NNE) in quinoa refers to digestible carbohydrates,
primarily starch and sugars. The NNE content in the samples of quinoa analyzed in this
study ranged from 65.42 g 100 g−1 to 71.39 g 100 g−1 , with an average of 68.78 g 100 g−1 .
Most of the samples (52%) fell within the range of >67.36 g 100 g−1 to 69.41 g 100 g−1 ,
while 33% of the data was between >69.41 g 100 g−1 to 71.39 g 100 g−1 , and the remaining
14% was in the range from 65.42 g 100 g−1 to 67.36 g 100 g−1 . Other authors [10] studied
the chemical composition of several quinoa grains in different colors (black, red, and
white) from different origins, and the carbohydrate content fluctuated between 75.3 and
77.0%, while in a study of six quinoa genotypes (‘Ancovinto’, ‘Cancosa’, ‘Cáhuil’, ‘Faro’,
‘Regalona’, and ‘Villarica’) cultivated in Chile, they found values of carbohydrates between
44.46 and 58.72% [51]. The carbohydrate profile of quinoa, with its high-quality starch
and dietary fiber, highlights its nutritional value and its ability to support healthy diets
and prevent type 2 diabetes. This combination can help manage postprandial glycemia,
positioning quinoa as a key functional food [52]. Additionally, quinoa contains a high
amount of essential fatty acids, minerals, vitamins, dietary fibers, and carbohydrates,
having beneficial hypoglycemic effects while being gluten-free [20].

3.2. Mineral Content

The content of nine minerals in the Chimborazo quinoa ecotype reported in mg 100 g−1 db
is shown in Supplementary Table S2. Mineral composition in quinoa grains depends on soil
characteristics and agronomical practices [38,53]. Potassium showed the highest values,
ranging from 615.42 to 865.01 mg 100 g−1 db, followed by phosphorus (415.60 to 645.77 mg
100 g−1 db), magnesium (162.39 to 251.61 mg 100 g−1 db), calcium (33.42 to 66.37 mg
100 g−1 db), iron (2.76 to 5.63 mg 100 g−1 db), zinc (2.00 to 4.11 mg 100 g−1 db), sodium
(1.05 to 3.96 mg 100 g−1 db), manganese (0.42 to 1.08 mg 100 g−1 db), and copper (0.11
to 0.77 mg 100 g−1 db). These results are consistent with other publications that revised
several studies conducted on quinoa grains from different countries around the world,
which reported a wide range of mineral (K, P, Mg, Ca, Fe, Zn, Na, Mn) content in the
grain [38,54]. Similarly, when examining the same minerals in the cultivars ‘Regalona’,
‘Salcedo-INIA’, and ‘Titicaca’, cultivated in three different countries (Spain, Chile, and Peru),
these studies found that both location and cultivar influenced mineral composition [39].
With regard to copper, this mineral was the least abundant in quinoa grain from Chile
(variety not mentioned) with a value of 0.20 mg 100 g−1 db [14], which is similar to our data.
In another study, six quinoa ecotypes from three geographical areas of Chile were analyzed,
and copper content values ranging from 0.75 to 1.52 mg 100 g−1 db were found [55]. The
Chimborazo ecotype displayed detectable values in all nine minerals analyzed, in contrast
to samples from other studies mentioned above that either showed lower concentrations or
no detection. Although the values of some minerals were higher and others were lower, the
overall results suggest that the Chimborazo quinoa ecotype is a valuable source of minerals
for human consumption.

3.3. Antioxidant Activity and Functional Compounds

The analysis of antioxidant activity and functional compounds (Supplementary Table S3)
in quinoa Chimborazo ecotype revealed a total phenolic content (TPC) ranging from 1.64
to 2.14 mg GAE g−1 db, and a total flavonoid content (TFC) between 0.85 and 1.71 mg
catechin equivalent g−1 db. Similar findings were reported by others, such as Cañarejo-
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 10 of 17

Antama [56] in their comparison of nutritional and nutraceutical properties of quinoa

(INIAP-Tunkahuan and red quinoa seeds purchased in Ecuador) cultivated in Mexico and
Ecuador. They found TPC values ranging from 1.55 to 2.42 mg GAE g−1 db and TFC
between 1.18 and 2.15 mg quercetin g−1 db. Another study [16] reported a TPC value of
2.18 ± 0.45 mg GAE g−1 for 13 quinoa varieties available in the UK, which came from
many countries, including Ecuador. In contrast, other authors [55] found lower values,
TPC of 0.04 to 0.17 mg GAE g−1 and 0.08 to 0.14 mg quercetin g−1 db, in six ecotypes of
quinoa grains cultivated in Chile. However, another study [57] using the INIAP-Tunkahuan,
the same cultivar as [56], reported a higher TPC value (11.10 mg GAE g−1 db) and TFC
value (0.95 mg catechin g−1 db) in the same range as the ecotype Chimborazo quinoa in
our study.
The ABTS and FRAP methods were used to measure antioxidant capacity, with val-
ues ranging from 34.46 to 46.20 and from 12.45 to 29.39 µmol Trolox equivalent g−1 db,
respectively. To compare these values with other studies, a conversion was necessary.
The quinoa ecotype Chimborazo exhibited higher antioxidant capacity values compared
to those reported in other studies. Using the ABTS method, Pellegrini’s results ranged
from 15.5 to 31.08 µmol Trolox equivalent g−1 db [35], and Villacrés reported a value of
31.99 µmol Trolox equivalent g−1 db for a variety of quinoa from Ecuador [57]. Using the
FRAP method, Reguera reported values of less than 10 µmol Trolox equivalent g−1 db [39],
and Pellegrini found values ranging from 9.47 to 18.26 µmol Trolox equivalent g−1 db [35].
These variations in the antioxidant compounds and antioxidant capacity could be
attributed to differences in the genetic makeup, geographical location, and environmental
factors of the quinoa plants. Additionally, postharvest processing also affected the quinoa
quality; the impact of air-drying temperature on the nutritional and functional properties
of quinoa was shown where a decrease in TPC was observed with increased drying tem-
perature [14]. These studies found values of TPC of 0.15 mg GAE g−1 db in fresh quinoa
and 0.02 mg GAE g−1 db in quinoa dried at 80 ◦ C. However, in a study about TPC and
antioxidant activity of red and yellow quinoa seeds as affected by baking and cooking
conditions, it was found that, in most cases, cooking did not cause any significant changes
in these three parameters [58]. The importance of analyzing the antioxidant compounds in
quinoa lies in their potential health benefits. Proper post-harvest handling and processing
techniques are essential.

3.4. Correlations
Figures 1 and 2 display the Pearson’s correlation coefficients for all variables: water
activity (aw), humidity, proximal analysis, antioxidant capacity, antioxidant compounds, and
mineral content, at four different altitudes. The correlation between the different variables
changed with altitude, not following a clear trend. The different quinoa quality parameters
were related, but the correlations found were not always the same at the different altitude
ranges. Crop factors other than altitude should influence the quality characteristics [59–61],
making the understanding of the relationships between these variables complex and intricate.
Figure 1 shows the correlations between the water activity, humidity, and proximal
analysis with the other variables. High positive correlation between fat, ABTS, and Na
was observed at altitude 1 and 2. Protein was negatively correlated with TPC, TFC, and
Mn at altitudes 1, 2, and 3, and positively with Fe at the same altitudes. Some proximal
components in quinoa exhibited a strong correlation with antioxidant compounds and
antioxidant capacity; this correlation was not consistently observed across all altitudes.
Fiber positively correlated with ABTS at altitudes 2, 3, and 4, with FRAP (altitudes 1 and
2), and with TFC (altitudes 1, 2, and 3). Certain proximal components (protein, fat, fiber,
ash) were highly correlated with mineral content, particularly Ca, P, Mg, K, Na, and Cu,
however, the correlation patterns vary at the different altitudes.
Agriculture 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 11 of 17

AA AA
Altitude Components TPC TFC Ca P Mg K Na Cu Fe Mn Zn
ABTS FRAP
aw * **
Mo * ** ** 1.00

Mf * ** ** * *
Ash ** * ** ** *
1 0.80
Fat ** * ** ** *
Prot ** * ** ** ** * **
Fib * ** * ** **
0.60
NNE ** ** * **
aw * * ** * **
Mo * ** **
0.40
Mf ** ** ** ** **
Ash ** ** ** * ** * *
2
Fat ** ** * ** *
0.20
Prot ** * ** ** * *
Fib ** * * ** * * * *
NNE * * * ** ** * * 0.00
aw * ** ** ** * * **
Mo ** ** * * ** ** **
Mf ** * ** * ** * * -0.20

Ash * * ** **
3
Fat * * *
Prot * * * ** * ** * * -0.40

Fib * * ** * *
NNE
-0.60
aw * ** ** *
Mo * ** ** * ** **
Mf ** ** * * **
-0.80
Ash ** ** * **
4
Fat ** ** * **
Prot ** ** * *
-1.00
Fib * * ** * **
NNE ** ** ** ** ** *
AA AA
TPC TFC Ca P Mg K Na Cu Fe Mn Zn
ABTS FRAP

Figure
Figure 1.1. Pearson
Pearson correlation
correlation coefficients
coefficients between
between the the proximal
proximal composition
composition and other chemical
and other chemical
composition variables studied of quinoa samples collected from four different altitudes. ** Signifi-
composition variables studied of quinoa samples collected from four different altitudes. ** Significant
cant correlation at the 0.01 level (bilateral). * Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (bilateral). Mo:
correlation at the 0.01 level (bilateral). * Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (bilateral). Mo:
expressed on a wet basis (wb); Mf, Ash, Fat, Prot, Fib, and NNE: expressed on a dry basis (db). aw:
expressed
water on aMo:
activity. wet initial
basis (wb); Mf, Ash,
moisture (g 100Fat,g−1Prot,
). Mf:Fib,
finaland NNE: expressed
moisture (g 100 g−1).onAsha dry basis
(g 100 g−1(db).
). Fataw:
(g
water activity. Mo: initial moisture (g 100 g −1 ). Mf: final moisture (g 100 g −1 ). Ash (g 100 g−1 ). Fat
100 g ). Prot: crude protein (g 100 g ). Fib: crude fiber (g 100 g ). NNF: non-nitrogenous extract (g
−1 −1 −1

(g 100
100 ).−AA
g−1g 1 ). Prot: crude protein (g 100 g−1 ). Fib: crude fiber (g 100 g−1
ABTS: antioxidant activity (µmol Trolox equivalent −).1 ).AA NNF:
FRAP:non-nitrogenous extract
antioxidant activity
(µmol
(g 100 g − 1
Trolox equivalent
). AA g ). TPC: total
−1
ABTS: antioxidant phenolic
activity (µmolcompounds
Trolox equivalent −
(mg of GAE 1
g ). acid g ). TFC:
−1
AA FRAP: total fla-
antioxidant
vonoid
activitycompounds
(µmol Trolox (mgequivalent g−equivalent
of Catechin 1 ). TPC: total
g−1). Mineral
phenoliccontent expressed
compounds (mgon ofmg g−1. g−1 ).
100acid
GAE
TFC: total flavonoid compounds (mg of Catechin equivalent g−1 ). Mineral content expressed on
mg 100 g−1 .
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396
x FOR PEER REVIEW 1212of
of 19
17

AA AA
Altitude Components TPC TFC Ca P Mg K Na Cu Fe Mn Zn
ABTS FRAP

AA ABTS - *
1.00
AA FRAP - ** * ** * ** *
1 0.80
TPC * - ** **

TFC - 0.60

AA ABTS - ** ** * * ** * *
0.40
AA FRAP ** - * ** ** ** * * ** *
2 0.20
TPC ** - * ** ** * *

TFC * * * - ** ** * ** 0.00

AA ABTS - ** ** **
-0.20
AA FRAP - ** ** ** ** **
3
TPC ** ** - ** * * * -0.40

TFC ** ** - ** * * -0.60

AA ABTS - * * * * *
-0.80
AA FRAP - **
4
TPC * - ** ** ** -1.00

TFC ** - *

Figure 2. Pearson correlation coefficients between antioxidant activity and antioxidant components
Figure 2. Pearson correlation coefficients between antioxidant activity and antioxidant components
and other chemical composition variables studied of quinoa samples collected from four different
and other chemical composition variables studied of quinoa samples collected from four different
altitudes. ** Significant correlation at the 0.01 level (bilateral). * Significant correlation at the 0.05
altitudes.
level ** Significant
(bilateral). - Not correlation
applied. AAat the 0.01antioxidant
ABTS: level (bilateral). * Significant
activity correlation
(µmol Trolox at the 0.05
equivalent g−1).level
AA
(bilateral).—Not applied. AA ABTS: antioxidant activity (µmol Trolox equivalent g −1 ). AA FRAP:
FRAP: antioxidant activity (µmol Trolox equivalent g ). TPC: total phenolic compounds (mg of
−1

antioxidant
GAE acid g−1activity
). TFC:(µmol Trolox equivalent
total flavonoid compoundsg−1 ).(mg
TPC:oftotal phenolic
Catechin compounds
equivalent g−1). (mg of GAE
Mineral acid
content
− 1
expressed
g ). TFC:on mgflavonoid
total − 1
100 g . compounds (mg of Catechin equivalent g ). Mineral content expressed
−1

on mg 100 g−1 .
Figure 1 shows the correlations between the water activity, humidity, and proximal
In Figure
analysis with the2, the antioxidant
other variables.capacity and antioxidant
High positive correlationcomponents
between fat,were ABTS, compared
and Na
among
was themselves
observed and with
at altitude the mineral
1 and 2. Protein content at four different
was negatively altitudes.
correlated withTheTPC, correlations
TFC, and
between
Mn ABTS and
at altitudes 1, 2, FRAP
and 3,were not alwayswith
and positively significant
Fe at thewith each
same other orSome
altitudes. with proximal
phenolic
and flavonoid compounds, which could be due to the fact that
components in quinoa exhibited a strong correlation with antioxidant compounds and different compounds
are evaluated
antioxidant in each this
capacity; of the methods.was
correlation Thenot antioxidant capacity
consistently measured
observed acrossby allABTS was
altitudes.
correlated with TPC at all altitudes, and with TFC at altitudes 2 and 3. When
Fiber positively correlated with ABTS at altitudes 2, 3, and 4, with FRAP (altitudes 1 and the antioxidant
capacity
2), was TFC
and with measured by FRAP,
(altitudes 1, 2, It
andshowed a positive
3). Certain correlation
proximal with TFC
components only at altitude
(protein, fat, fiber,2.
ash) were highly correlated with mineral content, particularly Ca, P, Mg, K, Na, and(2,
On the other hand, TPC showed a positive correlation with TFC at three of the altitudes 3,
Cu,
and 4). In the
however, the correlation
study conducted by vary
patterns Park at
et al.,
the which investigated
different altitudes. the antioxidant properties
of quinoa cultivated in Korea compared to quinoa imported
In Figure 2, the antioxidant capacity and antioxidant components from the USA andcompared
were Peru [62],
a high correlation between TFC and antioxidant activity was observed,
among themselves and with the mineral content at four different altitudes. The correla- aligning with
our findings at altitude 2. They reported a low correlation between TPC and antioxidant
tions between ABTS and FRAP were not always significant with each other or with
activity, which does not agree with our observations. This discrepancy highlights the
phenolic and flavonoid compounds, which could be due to the fact that different com-
complex nature of quinoa’s antioxidant properties and suggests that environmental factors,
pounds are evaluated in each of the methods. The antioxidant capacity measured by
such as altitude, may significantly influence these characteristics.
ABTS was correlated with TPC at all altitudes, and with TFC at altitudes 2 and 3. When
Regarding correlation with minerals, the antioxidant capacity measured by FRAP
the antioxidant capacity was measured by FRAP, It showed a positive correlation with
exhibited more correlations, compared to ABTS method and TPC and TFC.
TFC only at altitude 2. On the other hand, TPC showed a positive correlation with TFC at
As can be seen, there are complex relationships between the different variables studied
three of the altitudes (2, 3, and 4). In the study conducted by Park et al., which investi-
for quinoa, which can vary depending on the altitude. Further research is needed to
gated the antioxidant properties of quinoa cultivated in Korea compared to quinoa im-
understand the underlying mechanisms behind these complex relationships. Our findings
ported from the USA and Peru [62], a high correlation between TFC and antioxidant ac-
could be useful in developing strategies to optimize the growth and nutritional content of
tivity was observed, aligning with our findings at altitude 2. They reported a low corre-
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 13 of 17

quinoa at different altitudes. For example, there seems to be a relationship between protein
and Fe content at most altitudes, so it could be interesting to study how iron fertilization
affects protein content in quinoa ecotype Chimborazo.

3.5. Principal Component Analysis

Figure 3 presents the principal component biplot generated from the chemical compo-
sition data of the 49 samples. Variables with loadings lower than 0.1 (Cu, P, Ca, Ash, Mf,
aw, Mo, NNE) were excluded from the analysis. PC1 explains 26.5% of the data variability,
and PC2 explains 17.05%. The variables with the loadings > |0.3| in PC1 are crude fiber
(−0.76), TFC (−0.73), ABTS (−0.63), K (−0.6), TPC (−0.53), crude protein (0.62), Fe (0.53),
Agriculture 2024, 14, x FOR PEER and Zn (0.46). Conversely, the variables with the loadings > |0.3| in PC2 are FRAP
REVIEW (−0.75),
15 of 19
Na (−0.67), Mn (−0.61), fat (−0.53), Mg (0.47), and Fe (0.33).

Figure 3. Principal component analysis of chemical composition of quinoa taken from four differ-
Figure 3. Principal component analysis of chemical composition of quinoa taken from four different
ent altitude ranges. Inverted triangles correspond to the centroids of each altitude range. The colors
altitude
of the ranges.
centroids,Inverted
the circlestriangles correspond
and the samples to the
for each centroids
altitude of each
range are: altitude
1-blue, 2-green,range.
3-gray The
and colors
of the centroids, the circles and the samples for each altitude range are: 1-blue, 2-green, 3-gray and
4-red.
4-red.
4. Conclusions
The results of this study show that quinoa Chimborazo ecotype is a valuable Andean
landrace, with proximate composition, mineral content, and antioxidant capacity com-
parable to other quinoa varieties cultivated in other regions. According to our results, al-
titude explains only a part of the total variability of the samples. Regardless of the height
at which the quinoa crop is grown, similar quality characteristics have been found in this
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 14 of 17

When we observe the plane defined by PC1 and PC2, in which all the samples are
included, the variables fiber, ABTS, TPC, TFC, and K are very closely related to each other,
since they appear close. On the opposite side of this axis, protein and Fe are also remarkably
close to each other, confirming what was mentioned in the correlations section. Finally, fat,
FRAP, and Na are closely related variables.
However, there were no differences observed in the chemical composition of the
49 samples collected from four different altitude ranges. The clusters formed for each
altitude overlap, indicating a significant variability in the chemical composition of quinoa,
which is not dependent on the altitude of cultivation. The ANOVA and Pearson correlation
analysis also supports these findings, suggesting that the altitude does not significantly
impact the chemical composition of quinoa.
The overlap of altitude-based clusters and the minimal influence of altitude on the
chemical composition of Chimborazo quinoa ecotype suggest that cultivating high-quality
quinoa at various altitudes is feasible, without compromising its quality. This implies
a valuable opportunity for farmers to explore different geographic locations for quinoa
cultivation, in areas where other crops are not viable. Furthermore, the fact that the results
are so diverse is a strength of the Chimborazo ecotype because it could allow for plant
breeding and the development of selected varieties.

4. Conclusions
The results of this study show that quinoa Chimborazo ecotype is a valuable Andean
landrace, with proximate composition, mineral content, and antioxidant capacity compara-
ble to other quinoa varieties cultivated in other regions. According to our results, altitude
explains only a part of the total variability of the samples. Regardless of the height at
which the quinoa crop is grown, similar quality characteristics have been found in this
landrace, confirming that even under the harsh growing conditions, this ecotype is capable
of producing a good quality grain. Therefore, this study can be a starting point to initiate a
process of crop improvement using quinoa samples with higher protein content. Farmers
could select seeds for sowing, and/or genetic breeding could also be carried out in order to
obtain a Chimborazo quinoa variety with higher quality and crop yield. Cultivation under
traditional conditions could improve the economy of local communities, and the high nutri-
tional quality of this ecotype could be the basis for the creation of a protected geographical
designation, which would be a guarantee for marketing a product with environmental and
social sustainability.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture14030396/s1, Supplementary Table S1. aw, initial and final
moisture, and proximal composition of the studied samples by their altitude. Supplementary Table S2.
Mineral composition of the studied samples by altitude range. Supplementary Table S3. Antioxidant
activity and antioxidant compounds expressed on a dry basis.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.A.-H., I.S., M.J.B.-G. and M.C.A.-Y.; methodology,
P.A.-H., I.S. and A.L.; investigation, P.A.-H., I.S., M.J.B.-G. and M.C.A.-Y.; resources, I.S., A.L.,
M.J.B.-G. and M.C.A.-Y.; data curation, P.A.-H.; writing—original draft preparation, P.A.-H., M.J.B.-G.
and M.C.A.-Y.; writing—review & editing, P.A.-H., I.S., M.J.B.-G. and M.C.A.-Y.; visualization, P.A.-H.,
M.J.B.-G. and M.C.A.-Y.; supervision, I.S., M.J.B.-G. and M.C.A.-Y.; funding acquisition, P.A.-H., I.S.
and A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the Value Chains Program [FOOD/2016/380-060], im-
plemented by the European Committee for Training and Agriculture (CEFA) and funded by the
European Union.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data are contained within the article and supplementary tables.
Acknowledgments: We would like to express our gratitude to the organizations Sumak Tarpuey,
MAQUITA, and COPROBICH, and their organic producer members, for providing samples of the
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 15 of 17

Chimborazo ecotype quinoa for this study. We also extend our thanks to INIAP, Department of
Nutrition and Quality, for the facilities provided in their laboratories, which were fundamental in
conducting our analyses. Special thanks to Galo Morocho for his invaluable assistance in collection
of samples.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Alandia, G.; Rodriguez, J.P.; Jacobsen, S.-E.; Bazile, D.; Condori, B. Global Expansion of Quinoa and Challenges for the Andean
Region. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 26, 100429. [CrossRef]
2. FAO; FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Data. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#data/TM (accessed on
3 March 2023).
3. Pulvento, C.; Bazile, D. Worldwide Evaluations of Quinoa—Biodiversity and Food Security under Climate Change Pressures:
Advances and Perspectives. Plants 2023, 12, 868. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Hinojosa, L.; Leguizamo, A.; Carpio, C.; Muñoz, D.; Mestanza, C.; Ochoa, J.; Castillo, C.; Murillo, A.; Villacréz, E.; Monar, C.; et al.
Quinoa in Ecuador: Recent Advances under Global Expansion. Plants 2021, 10, 298. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Lotfalian Dehkordi, A.; Forootan, M. Estimation of Energy Flow and Environmental Impacts of Quinoa Cultivation through Life
Cycle Assessment Methodology. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 21836–21846. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Basantes-Morales, E.R.; Alconada, M.M.; Pantoja, J.L. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Production in the Andean Region:
Challenges and Potentials. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2019, 36, 1–18. [CrossRef]
7. Vilcacundo, R.; Hernández-Ledesma, B. Nutritional and Biological Value of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Curr. Opin. Food
Sci. 2017, 14, 1–6. [CrossRef]
8. Hussain, M.I.; Farooq, M.; Syed, Q.A.; Ishaq, A.; Al-Ghamdi, A.A.; Hatamleh, A.A. Botany, Nutritional Value, Phytochemical
Composition and Biological Activities of Quinoa. Plants 2021, 10, 2258. [CrossRef]
9. Pereira, E.; Encina-Zelada, C.; Barros, L.; Gonzales-Barron, U.; Cadavez, V.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Chemical and Nutritional Character-
ization of Chenopodium quinoa Willd (Quinoa) Grains: A Good Alternative to Nutritious Food. Food Chem. 2019, 280, 110–114.
[CrossRef]
10. Pereira, E.; Cadavez, V.; Barros, L.; Encina-Zelada, C.; Stojković, D.; Sokovic, M.; Calhelha, R.C.; Gonzales-Barron, U.; Ferreira,
I.C.F.R. Chenopodium quinoa Willd. (Quinoa) Grains: A Good Source of Phenolic Compounds. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109574.
[CrossRef]
11. Rodríguez Gómez, M.J.; Prieto, J.; Cruz Sobrado, V.; Calvo Magro, P. Nutritional Characterization of Six Quinoa (Chenopodium
quinoa Willd) Varieties Cultivated in Southern Europe. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2021, 99, 103876. [CrossRef]
12. Shams, A. Preliminary Evaluation of New Quinoa Genotypes under Sandy Soil Conditions in Egypt. Agric. Sci. 2018, 9, 1444–1456.
[CrossRef]
13. Gordillo-Bastidas, E.; Díaz-Rizzolo, D. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd), from Nutritional Value to Potential Health Benefits:
An Integrative Review. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 6, 3. [CrossRef]
14. Miranda, M.; Vega-Gálvez, A.; López, J.; Parada, G.; Sanders, M.; Aranda, M.; Uribe, E.; Di Scala, K. Impact of Air-Drying
Temperature on Nutritional Properties, Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Capacity of Quinoa Seeds (Chenopodium quinoa
Willd.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2010, 32, 258–263. [CrossRef]
15. Wu, G. Nutritional Properties of Quinoa. In Quinoa: Improvement and Sustainable Production; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 193–210. [CrossRef]
16. Li, L.; Lietz, G.; Seal, C.J. Phenolic, Apparent Antioxidant and Nutritional Composition of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.)
Seeds. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 3245–3254. [CrossRef]
17. Enciso-Roca, E.C.; Aguilar-Felices, E.J.; Tinco-Jayo, J.A.; Arroyo-Acevedo, J.L.; Herrera-Calderon, O. Biomolecules with Antioxi-
dant Capacity from the Seeds and Sprouts of 20 Varieties of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. (Quinoa). Plants 2021, 10, 2417. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
18. Macavilca, E.A. Assessment of Total Antioxidant Capacity of Altiplano Colored Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) by Visible
and near-Infrared Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy and Chemometrics. LWT 2020, 134, 110182. [CrossRef]
19. AL-Sayed, M.A.; Zidan, S.; Abdelaleem, M.A. Nutritional Applications of Quinoa Seeds (Chenopodium quinoa W.) and Their Effect
on Diabetic Rats. Int. J. Pharm. Res. Allied Sci. 2019, 8, 23–36.
20. Angeli, V.; Miguel Silva, P.; Crispim Massuela, D.; Khan, M.W.; Hamar, A.; Khajehei, F.; Graeff-Hönninger, S.; Piatti, C. Quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): An Overview of the Potentials of the “Golden Grain” and Socio-Economic and Environmental
Aspects of Its Cultivation and Marketization. Foods 2020, 9, 216. [CrossRef]
21. Präger, A.; Munz, S.; Nkebiwe, P.M.; Mast, B.; Graeff-Hönninger, S. Yield and Quality Characteristics of Different Quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Cultivars Grown under Field Conditions in Southwestern Germany. Agronomy 2018, 8, 197.
[CrossRef]
22. García-Parra, M.; Roa-Acosta, D.; Bravo-Gómez, J.E. Effect of the Altitude Gradient on the Physiological Performance of Quinoa
in the Central Region of Colombia. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2112. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 16 of 17

23. Gonzalez, J.A.; Konishi, Y.; Bruno, M.; Valoy, M.; Prado, F.E. Interrelationships among Seed Yield, Total Protein and Amino Acid
Composition of Ten Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) Cultivars from Two Different Agroecological Regions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012,
92, 1222–1229. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Bioversity International; FAO; PROINPA; INIAF; IFAD. Descriptors for Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) and Wild Relatives;
Bioversity International, FAO, PROINPA, INIAF, IFAD: Rome, Italy, 2013.
25. Castro-Albán, H.A.; Castro-Gómez, R.D.P.; Alvarado-Capó, Y. Morphoagronomic variability of native quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa
Willd.) Chimborazo type in Ecuador. Agron. Mesoam. 2023, 34, 53229. [CrossRef]
26. Horwitz, W.; Latimer, G.W. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 18th ed.; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD,
USA, 2005.
27. Vidueiros, S.M.; Curti, R.N.; Dyner, L.M.; Binaghi, M.J.; Peterson, G.; Bertero, H.D.; Pallaro, A.N. Diversity and Interrelationships
in Nutritional Traits in Cultivated Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) from Northwest Argentina. J. Cereal Sci. 2015, 62, 87–93.
[CrossRef]
28. Oliveira, S.R.; Gomes Neto, J.A.; Nóbrega, J.A.; Jones, B.T. Determination of Macro- and Micronutrients in Plant Leaves by
High-Resolution Continuum Source Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry Combining Instrumental and Sample Preparation
Strategies. Spectrochim. Acta Part B At. Spectrosc. 2010, 65, 316–320. [CrossRef]
29. Kaflé, B.P. Chemical Analysis and Material Characterization by Spectrophotometry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019.
30. Viera, W.; Shinohara, T.; Samaniego, I.; Sanada, A.; Terada, N.; Ron, L.; Suárez-Tapia, A.; Koshio, K. Phytochemical Composition
and Antioxidant Activity of Passiflora spp. Germplasm Grown in Ecuador. Plants 2022, 11, 328. [CrossRef]
31. Espín, S.; Samaniego, I. Manual Para el Análisis de Parámetros Químicos Asociados a la Calidad del Cacao; INIAP, Estación Experimental
Santa Catalina, Departamento de Nutrición y Calidad: Quito, Ecuador, 2016.
32. Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.; Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant Activity Applying an Improved ABTS
Radical Cation Decolorization Assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1999, 26, 1231–1237. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Babu, D.; Gurumurthy, P.; Borra, S.K.; Cherian, K.M. Antioxidant and Free Radical Scavenging Activity of Triphala Determined
by Using Different In Vitro Models. J. Med. Plants Res. 2013, 7, 2898–2905.
34. Pedrali, D.; Giupponi, L.; De la Peña-Armada, R.; Villanueva-Suárez, M.J.; Mateos-Aparicio, I. The Quinoa Variety Influences the
Nutritional and Antioxidant Profile Rather than the Geographic Factors. Food Chem. 2023, 402, 133531. [CrossRef]
35. Pellegrini, M.; Lucas-Gonzales, R.; Ricci, A.; Fontecha, J.; Fernández-López, J.; Pérez-Álvarez, J.A.; Viuda-Martos, M. Chemical,
Fatty Acid, Polyphenolic Profile, Techno-Functional and Antioxidant Properties of Flours Obtained from Quinoa (Chenopodium
quinoa Willd) Seeds. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 111, 38–46. [CrossRef]
36. Valdez-Arana, J.-C.; Steffolani, M.E.; Repo-Carrasco-Valencia, R.; Pérez, G.T.; Condezo-Hoyos, L. Physicochemical and Functional
Properties of Isolated Starch and Their Correlation with Flour from the Andean Peruvian Quinoa Varieties. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.
2020, 147, 997–1007. [CrossRef]
37. Bakhtavar, M.A.; Afzal, I. Climate Smart Dry Chain Technology for Safe Storage of Quinoa Seeds. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12554.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Vega-Gálvez, A.; Miranda, M.; Vergara, J.; Uribe, E.; Puente, L.; Martínez, E.A. Nutrition Facts and Functional Potential of Quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), an Ancient Andean Grain: A Review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 2541–2547. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Reguera, M.; Conesa, C.M.; Gil-Gómez, A.; Haros, C.M.; Pérez-Casas, M.Á.; Briones-Labarca, V.; Bolaños, L.; Bonilla, I.; Álvarez,
R.; Pinto, K.; et al. The Impact of Different Agroecological Conditions on the Nutritional Composition of Quinoa Seeds. PeerJ
2018, 6, e4442. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Mezzatesta, P.; Farah, S.; Di Fabio, A.; Emilia, R. Variation of the Nutritional Composition of Quinoa According to the Processing
Used. Proceedings 2020, 53, 4. [CrossRef]
41. Abugoch James, L.E. Chapter 1 Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): Composition, Chemistry, Nutritional, and Functional
Properties. In Advances in Food and Nutrition Research; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; Volume 58, pp. 1–31.
[CrossRef]
42. Manai–Djebali, H.; Oueslati, I.; Nouairi, I.; Taamalli, A.; Nait-Mohamed, S.; Mliki, A.; Ghorbel, A. Chemical Composition of
Durum Wheat Kernels: Impact of the Growing Location. Euro-Mediterr. J. Environ. Integr. 2021, 6, 26. [CrossRef]
43. Rachon, L.; Palys, E.; Szumilo, G. Comparison of the Chemical Composition of Spring Durum Wheat Grain (Triticum durum) and
Common Wheat Grain (Triticum Aestivum ssp. Vulgare). J. Elem. 2012, 17, 105–114. [CrossRef]
44. Narducci, V.; Finotti, E.; Galli, V.; Carcea, M. Lipids and Fatty Acids in Italian Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Cultivars.
Foods 2019, 8, 223. [CrossRef]
45. Verma, D.K.; Srivastav, P.P. Proximate Composition, Mineral Content and Fatty Acids Analyses of Aromatic and Non-Aromatic
Indian Rice. Rice Sci. 2017, 24, 21–31. [CrossRef]
46. Oko, A.O.; Ubi, B.E.; Efisue, A.A.; Dambaba, N. Comparative Analysis of the Chemical Nutrient Composition of Selected Local
and Newly Introduced Rice Varieties Grown in Ebonyi State of Nigeria. Int. J. Agric. For. 2012, 2, 16–23. [CrossRef]
47. Lee, H.-H.; Kim, H.-Y.; Koh, H.-J.; Ryu, S.-N. Varietal Difference of Chemical Composition in Pigmented Rice Varieties. Korean J.
Crop Sci. 2006, 51, 113–118.
48. Oko, A.O.; Onyekwere, S.C. Studies on the Proximate Chemical Composition, and Mineral Element Contents of Five New
Lowland Rice Varieties Planed in Ebonyi State. Int. J. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2010, 6, 949–956.
Agriculture 2024, 14, 396 17 of 17

49. Matías, J.; Rodríguez, M.J.; Granado-Rodríguez, S.; Cruz, V.; Calvo, P.; Reguera, M. Changes in Quinoa Seed Fatty Acid Profile
Under Heat Stress Field Conditions. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 820010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Ayasan, T. Determination of Nutritional Value of Some Quinoa Varieties. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2020, 44, 950–954. [CrossRef]
51. Miranda, M.; Vega-Gálvez, A.; Martinez, E.; López, J.; Rodríguez, M.J.; Henríquez, K.; Fuentes, F. Genetic Diversity and
Comparison of Physicochemical and Nutritional Characteristics of Six Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Genotypes Cultivated
in Chile. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 32, 835–843. [CrossRef]
52. Díaz-Rizzolo, D.A.; Acar-Denizli, N.; Kostov, B.; Roura, E.; Sisó-Almirall, A.; Delicado, P.; Gomis, R. Glycaemia Fluctuations
Improvement in Old-Age Prediabetic Subjects Consuming a Quinoa-Based Diet: A Pilot Study. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2331. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
53. Prado, F.E.; Fernández-Turiel, J.L.; Tsarouchi, M.; Psaras, G.K.; González, J.A. Variation of Seed Mineral Concentrations in Seven
Quinoa Cultivars Grown in Two Agroecological Sites. Cereal Chem. 2014, 91, 453–459. [CrossRef]
54. Chaudhary, N.; Walia, S.; Kumar, R. Functional Composition, Physiological Effect and Agronomy of Future Food Quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): A Review. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2023, 118, 105192. [CrossRef]
55. Miranda, M.; Vega-Gálvez, A.; Quispe-Fuentes, I.; Rodríguez, M.J.; Maureira, H.; Martínez, E.A. Nutritional Aspects of Six Quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Ecotypes from Three Geographical Areas of Chile. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 72, 175–181. [CrossRef]
56. Cañarejo-Antamba, M.A.; Bañuelos-Taváres, O.; Reyes-Trejo, B.; Espinosa-Solares, T.; Joshi, V.; Guerra-Ramírez, D.; Cañarejo-
Antamba, M.A.; Bañuelos-Taváres, O.; Reyes-Trejo, B.; Espinosa-Solares, T.; et al. Comparison of Nutritional and Nutraceutical
Properties of Chenopodium quinoa Cultivated in Mexico and Ecuador. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 81, 507–517. [CrossRef]
57. Villacrés, E.; Quelal, M.; Galarza, S.; Iza, D.; Silva, E. Nutritional Value and Bioactive Compounds of Leaves and Grains from
Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Plants 2022, 11, 213. [CrossRef]
58. Gu, R.; Chang, X.; Bai, G.; Li, X.; Di, Y.; Liu, X.; Sun, L.; Wang, Y. Effects of Household Cooking Methods on Changes of Tissue
Structure, Phenolic Antioxidant Capacity and Active Component Bioaccessibility of Quinoa. Food Chem. 2021, 350, 129138.
[CrossRef]
59. Bertero, H.D.; De La Vega, A.J.; Correa, G.; Jacobsen, S.E.; Mujica, A. Genotype and Genotype-by-Environment Interaction
Effects for Grain Yield and Grain Size of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as Revealed by Pattern Analysis of International
Multi-Environment Trials. Field Crops Res. 2004, 89, 299–318. [CrossRef]
60. Soliman, D.; Attaya, A.; Kamel, A.; ElSarag, E. Response of Quinoa Yield and Seed Chemical Composation to Organic Fertilization
and Nitrogen Levels Under El-Arish Region. Sinai J. Appl. Sci. 2019, 8, 101–112. [CrossRef]
61. Wieme, R.A.; Carpenter-Boggs, L.A.; Crowder, D.W.; Murphy, K.M.; Reganold, J.P. Agronomic and Economic Performance of
Organic Forage, Quinoa, and Grain Crop Rotations in the Palouse Region of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Agric. Syst. 2020,
177, 102709. [CrossRef]
62. Park, J.H.; Lee, Y.J.; Kim, Y.H.; Yoon, K.S. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activities of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Seeds
Cultivated in Korea. Prev. Nutr. Food Sci. 2017, 22, 195–202. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.