Hindawi Journal of Food Quality Volume 2023, Article ID 6372248, 13 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6372248 Research Article Comparative Analysis of Proximate Compositions, Physical Properties, and Sensory Attributes of Kersting’s Groundnut (Macrotyloma geocarpum (Harms) Maréchal & Baudet) Accessions Finagnon Toyi Kevin Fassinou ,1,2 Eric Etchikinto Agoyi ,3 Marius Afonfere ,1,2 Edmond Sacla Aide ,4,5 Achille Ephrem Assogbadjo ,3,4 and Flora Josiane Chadare 1,2 1 Université Nationale d’Agriculture, Laboratoire de Sciences et Technologie des Aliments et Bioressources et de Nutrition Humaine, Ecole des Sciences et Techniques de Conservation et de Transformation des Produits Agricoles, Centre Universitaire de Sakété, Porto•Novo, Benin 2 Université d’Abomey•Calavi, Laboratoire de Sciences des Aliments, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Cotonou, Benin 3 Université d’Abomey•Calavi, Laboratory of Applied Ecology, Faculty of Agronomic Sciences, Cotonou, Benin 4 Université d’Abomey•Calavi, Laboratoire de Biomathématiques et d’Estimation Forestière, Faculty of Agronomic Sciences, Cotonou, Benin 5 Hasselt University, Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics, Data Science Institute, Hasselt, Belgium Correspondence should e addressed to Flora Josiane Chadare; fchadare@gmail.com Received 11 November 2022; Revised 22 March 2023; Accepted 24 March 2023; Published 19 April 2023 Academic Editor: Ivan Luzardo•Ocampo Copyright © 2023 Finagnon Toyi Kevin Fassinou et al. Tis is an open access article distri uted under the Creative Commons Attri ution License, which permits unrestricted use, distri ution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Kersting’s groundnut (Macrotyloma geocarpum, Harms) is a legume crop with nutritional potential in West Africa where it is widely consumed due to its palata ility. Te present study investigated the physical characteristics, nutritional composition, and organoleptic properties of fve Kersting’s groundnut accessions selected ased on their yield performance, sta ility, and seed color. Physical characteristics (seed size, length, and thickness) were determined using a Vernier Caliper while a la oratory weighing scale was used to determine 100•seed weight. Protein and fat contents were analyzed using micro•Kjeldahl and Soxhlet systems, respectively. Dietary f er content was determined using the AOAC method while car ohydrate content was determined using the method of diference. Amino acids were hydrolyzed and determined using the liquid chromatography method. Ten trained panelists participated in testing the cooka ility of the samples while 30 untrained panelists were involved in the accepta ility test. Results showed that accessions ranged etween 8.1 ± 0.1 and 9.3 ± 0.2 mm for seed length, 5.7 ± 0.4 and 6.0 ± 0.2 mm for the width, and 4.0 ± 0.0 and 4.9 ± 0.4 mm for thickness. Te 100•seed weight ranged from 11.7 ± 0.8 to 16.7 ± 1.6 g. Protein, fat, and car• ohydrate contents ranged from 20.5 ± 0.2 to 22.0 ± 0.2, 1.2 ± 0.0 to 2.3 ± 0.0, and 56.5 ± 0.0 to 59.4 ± 0.1 (g/100 g dw), respectively. Te lowest and highest cooking times were 78 and 124 minutes, respectively. All accessions recorded good sensory accepta ility (>50%) except the accession BUR 16 which was liked only y 23.3%. Overall, accession OUA had the highest protein, medium cooking time, and highest overall accepta ility score (>70%), hence recommended for wide production. Future studies need to e performed on the antinutritional content of this accession and to fnd out the efect of cooking on the nutritional value of derived meals and starch modifcation. 2 1. Introduction Protein•energy malnutrition (PEM) remains a pu lic health pro lem, especially in the African countries [1]. In these countries, legumes are the main source of dietary protein ecause of the prohi itive cost of animal protein that makes it unaforda le to most rural populations [2]. Legumes are vital protein sources, containing up to 20–40 grams of di• etary proteins per 100 grams of dry matter. In tropical Af• rican countries, the most commonly consumed legumes include cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.), am ara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.), and Kersting’s groundnut (Macro• tyloma geocarpum (Harms) Maréchal & Baudet) [3, 4]. Tey provide essential proteins, vitamins, and dietary f er for consumers. Kersting’s groundnut is an important African indigenous leguminous crop grown on a small scale in West Africa [5]. It originated in West Africa and is widely con• sumed in Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Togo [6]. Te seed coat color is the main criterion used to distinguish landraces of Kersting’s groundnut [7]. In West Africa, ased on the seed coat color, Agoyi et al. [8] reported 17 diferent morphotypes. In Benin, ased on the seed coat colors, three landraces are commonly o served via the white or cream landrace, locally named as “doyiwe” the lack landrace “doyi wiwi” and the rown/red landrace “doyi vovo” [6]. Although cowpea and am ara groundnut seeds are widely consumed, Kersting’s groundnut seeds are pre• ferred to them ecause of their palata le taste [9]. It has a high economic value with a signifcant contri ution to the income and livelihood of resource•limited farmers [3, 4]. Te monthly quantity of seeds sold per woman varies from 51.25 to 400 kg (125 kg on average) producing in average a proft of 20–160 $ in Dantokpa market in Benin [6, 10]. Nevertheless, the nutritional value of Kersting’s groundnut is poorly documented and the few availa le reports indicate that Kersting’s groundnut grains contain 21.3% of protein, 6.2% of f er, 61.53–73.3% of car ohydrates, and 3.2% of ash [11]. Arginine, an amino acid for pediatric growth, is the most concentrated amino acid in the seed (9.3 g/100 g of protein) followed y phenylalanine (3.2 g/100 g) and histi• dine (2.1 g/100 g) of protein [12]. Tese essential amino acids are necessary for maintaining ody muscle and growth. Despite the high income generated from the sale of Ker• sting’s groundnut and its nutritional values as well as its well appreciated organoleptic characteristics, it remains a neglected and underutilized crop species in Benin [3, 4, 8]. Te underlying reasons include its low yield, high la or requirement, long cooking time, and nonavaila ility of improved varieties [8, 13] and the lack of information on its nutritional values. Accordingly, the legume• reeding pro• gram at the La oratory of Applied Ecology, University of A omey•Calavi, conducted research to assess yield perfor• mances and sta ility across the major growing areas of Benin. Following these trials, fve (5) landraces were selected ased on their yield performance, seed coat color, and sta ility across environments from the reeding program. However, in order to achieve a sustaina le reeding program with high yielding cultivars, genetic resistance to major Journal of Food Quality iotic and a iotic stress [14], the good quality of grains regarding their nutritional and technological quality [15], and sensorial characteristics [16] are important elements that need to e considered. Sensory evaluation of accessions provided valua le information to support adoption and marketa ility, in the sense of desira le product character• istics for which consumers would e willing to pay more [16]. Te nutritional content allowed the selection of health• promoting accessions [17]. In this regard, the present study investigated the nutritional composition and physical and organoleptic characteristics of fve Kersting’s groundnut accessions. Tis study contri uted to the promotion of Kersting’s groundnut accessions with etter nutritional contents and easy cooking technology. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Selected Kersting’s Groundnut Seeds. Te fve Kersting’s groundnut seed lots used in this study were accessions BUR 7, BUR 14, BUR 16 collected in Burkina Faso, ADC, and OUA collected in Benin. Tese accessions were selected ased on yield performance and sta ility, from a wide germplasm collection followed y multilocation evaluations across growing areas in Benin. BUR 14 and BUR 7 have cream seed coat with a lack eye, BUR 16 has lack seed coat while ADC and OUA have cream seed coat and eye (Fig• ure 1) [18]. After harvesting and sun drying, the pods were shelled and seeds packaged in sealed paper ags and stored at room temperature until analyses. 2.2. Determination of Physical Seed Characteristics 2.2.1. Length, Width, and Tickness of Seeds. Hundred randomly selected seeds from each accession were used to measure the three main dimensions that are in the three mutually perpendicular directions: the length (L), the width (W), and the thickness (T). Tey were measured using a Vernier Caliper reading to 0.01 mm, as applied y Wani et al. [19]. Te geometric mean diameter (Dm) of each ac• cession was calculated using the approach of Mohsenin [20]. Dm � (LWT)1/3 . (1) 2.2.2. Hundred Seed Weight and Hundred Seed Volume. Tree seed lots, each of one hundred seeds, were manually counted from each accession; these samples were weighed on a digital weighing alance with accuracy up to 0.001 mg and recorded as 100•seed weights. Te seeds volume (Vm) was calculated using the formula of Mohsenin [20]. πB2 L2 (2) , 6(2L − 3) where B � (WT)1/2 with width (W) and thickness (T). Vm � 2.2.3. Hydration Capacity and Hydration Index. One hundred grams of each accession were weighed and transferred to a measuring cylinder, along with 100 ml of water. Te cylinder was covered with aluminum foil and left Journal of Food Quality 3 BUR 14 BUR 7 BUR 16 ADC OUA Figure 1: Seed of selected Kersting’s groundnut accessions. at room temperature (28 ± 2°C). Te seeds were left to soak for 24 hours and drained, and their superfuous water was removed using a tissue paper. Tereafter, the swollen seeds hydration capacity per seed � were weighed. Hydration capacity per seed and hydration index were calculated using the following formulae applied y Ade owale and Oshodi [21]: (weight after soaking − weight efore soaking) , num er of seed (3) hydration capacity per seed . hydr ation index � weightof one seed 2.2.4. Cookability of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed. Te cook• a ility of the accessions was determined with selected panelists who were previously trained on the evaluation of the texture of cooked Kersting’s groundnut seeds. 2.2.5. Panelists Selection and Training on Evaluation of Cooked Seed Texture. Te cooking time of each Kersting’s groundnut accession was determined using the su jective fnger pressing method, as applied y Kinyanjui et al. [22] with some modifcations. As this method is su jective and then requires trained panel to o tain relia le results [23], a quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) was used for this purpose [24]. Ten (10) consumers of Kersting’s groundnut seed were selected and trained on the evaluation of cooked seeds texture. Six men and four women from four ethnic groups (Fon, Idatcha, Nago, and Mahi) were selected. Tey were students aged 24.8 ± 2.3 years old and had participated at least once in a sensory evaluation in the past. During the training, they defned the cooked Ker• sting’s groundnut seed as follows: “A seed that can reak under a gentle pressure using fngers and thum and no hard material will e found in the cotyledon.” To prevent ias and to consider the means of panelists, unstructured line scales were used to defne the score of texture in• tensity, as recommended y Murray et al. [25]. Te panel was trained over eight (08) hours to master the scoring scheme. Te lowest and highest scores were defned for the uncooked and well•cooked Kersting’s groundnut seed. Te lowest score 0 was “dry Kersting’s groundnut seed” and the highest score 10 was “soft seed.” Te middle (score 5) corresponds to the state where the cooked seed may e accepta le and the texture value 6 is a state where the cooking is accepta le for consumption. During the training, the cooked seeds were su jected to sensory triangle tests and intensity scales to make sure that the panelists were a le to detect a diference. 2.2.6. Cooking Time Determination for Cooked Kersting’s Groundnut Seed. Cooking test was done weighing one hundred (100) grams of seeds of each accession. Each seed lot was put in an aluminum sauce pan with two liters of distilled water. Tis was placed to oil on a gas cooker. Boiling was continued for ninety minutes after which little samples were picked using a spatula every 10 min and tested for softness y pressing etween fngers and thum y the panelists. Each panelist received 10 oiled seeds, and the test was duplicated during two consecutive days for each ac• cession. Cooking was said complete when the panelists scored at least 5 for the pressure exerted on the cooked seed. Tereafter, the cooking time was defned as the period of time the seeds achieved the desira le softness. Cooking time was reported in minutes. 2.3. Nutritional Characteristics of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed. Seed lot of each Kersting’s groundnut accession was cleaned, which involved removal of foreign matter, roken seeds, and immature seeds. Tere were ground in la oratory condition using the la oratory mill 3600 and sieved with 500 μm sieve. Flour o tained was packaged in polyethylene ag and stored at 4°C until analysis. 2.3.1. Seed Dry Matter. Dry matter was determined according to the AOAC [26] method. Five grams of samples were used for the determination of dry matter y weighing in a cruci le and drying in an oven at 105°C for 72 hours. Te dry matter content was calculated using the following formulae: TMS � P2 − P1 􏼁 ∗ 100, Pe (4) where TMS is the dry matter content, P1 is the cruci le weight, P2 is the weight (sample + cruci le) after drying, and Pe is the weight of sample. 4 Journal of Food Quality 2.3.2. Ash Content of Kersting’s Groundnut Seeds. Te ash content was determined according to the AOAC [26] method. A clean porcelain cruci le was oven•dried at 105°C for 1 hour and weighed. Kersting’s groundnut seeds were ground using the la oratory mill 3600. Five grams’ samples were weighed and placed in a mufe furnace at 550°C for 8 hours. It was cooled in a desiccator efore recording the weight of the porcelain cruci le. Te ash content was computed using the following formulae: ASH � P 2 − P1 􏼁 ∗ 100, P0 into the ether stock ottle. Te thim le•containing the sample was then removed and dried on a clock glass on the enchtop. Te extractor fask with condenser was replaced, and the distillation continued until the fask was practically dried. Te fask, which now contained the fat or oil, was detached; it was dried to a constant weight in the oven [28]. Te fat content was determined using FAT content � [(W1 − Wo)/Weight of sample taken] where the initial weight of the dry Soxhlet fask is Wo and the fnal weight of the oven•dried fask + oil/fat is W1. (5) where ASH is the ash content, P1 is the porcelain weight, P2 is the weight (sample + cruci le) after drying in the furnace at 550°C for 8 hours, and P0 is the weight of the sample. 2.3.3. Protein Content of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed. Te micro•Kjeldahl method applied y Akintomide and Antai [27] was used for protein content determination. Five grams’ samples were placed into the micro•Kjeldahl fask, and one Kjeldahl catalyst ta let with 10 ml of concentrated H2SO4 was added. Digestion was performed for 4 hours after which a clear colorless solution was found in the tu e. Te digest was carefully transferred into a 100 ml volumetric fask, thoroughly rinsing the digestion tu e with distilled water, and the volume of the fask was made up to the mark with distilled water. Five•millimeter portion of the digest was then pipetted to Kjeldahl apparatus, and 5 ml of 40% (w/v) NaOH was added. Te mixture was then steam•distilled, and the released ammonia was collected into a 50 ml conical fask containing 10 ml of 2% oric acid plus mixed methyl red• methylene lue indicator solution. Te green colored so• lution was then titrated using 0.01 N HCl solution. At the endpoint, the green color turns to a wine color, which in• dicates that all the nitrogen trapped as ammonium orate has een removed as ammonium chloride. Te percentage of nitrogen was calculated using % N � (Titre value ∗ atomic mass of nitrogen ∗ normality of HCl used ∗ 4) where % N is the percentage of nitrogen. Te protein is determined y multiplying the percentage of nitrogen y a constant factor of 6.25 [28]. 2.3.4. Fat Content of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed. Fat content was determined using the Soxhlet system according to the AOAC [28] method as applied y Akintomide and Antai [27]. Samples of 1 g were placed into a fat•free extraction thim le, which was plugged lightly with cotton wool. Te thim le was placed in the extractor and ftted up with a refux condenser and a 250 ml Soxhlet fask, which had een previously dried in an oven, cooled in the desiccator, and weighed. Te Soxhlet fask was then flled to ¾ of its capacity with petroleum ether and the Soxhlet fask extractor and condenser set was placed on the heater. Te heater was put on for six hours with constant running water from the tap for condensation of ether vapor. Te ether was left to siphon over several times at least 10–12 times until it was short of siphoning. After this, the remaining ether content of the extractor was carefully drained 2.3.5. Dietary Fiber and Carbohydrate Contents of Kersting’s Groundnut Seed. Te dietary f er content was assessed according to the AOAC [26] method, while the car ohydrate content was determined y the diference method. Per• centages of moisture, fat, protein, ash, and dietary f er content were su tracted from 100% as applied y Ijarotimi and Keshinro [29]. 2.3.6. Determination of Amino Acid Profle. Amino acid profle of Kersting’s groundnut seed was determined using liquid chromatography method as applied y Im uhila [30]. A sample of 100 mg was weighed in duplicate from each accession. Each was transferred into a 5 ml vial tu e and 2 ml of 6 N HCl was added and the content was completely closed. Te samples were hydrolyzed for 24 hours at 110°C. Te hydrolysates were evaporated to dryness under a vac• uum. Tereafter, the hydrolysates were reconstituted in 1 ml 90 : 10 water : acetonitrile solution. Tere were vortexed for 30 seconds and then centrifuged at 14,000 rpm, and the supernatant was transferred to another vial. Serial dilutions of the authentic standards amino acids (1–105 µg/µl) were analyzed using liquid chromatography to generate linear cali ration curves (peak area vs. concentration) used for external quantifcation. Te samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography to determine the amino acids and their concentration in each sample. ACE5 C•18 column (250 × 108 4.6 mm, 5 μm particle size) was used at 40°C. Te fow rate and injection volume were 0.5 mL/min and 3 μL, respectively. Te solvent system used as mo ile phase consisted of two eluents: water and 0.01% acetonitrile acid. Te amino acids were identifed and quantifed y com• paring with the retention times and peak areas of standards. 2.4. Acceptability Test of Cooked Kersting’s Groundnut Seed. Tirty students from the University of A omey•Calavi who were willing to taste and assess Kersting’s groundnut were selected on a voluntary asis for the accepta ility test. Tis test was performed at the “La oratoire de Physico•Chimie et d’Evaluation Sensorielle (LAPESA)” at the Faculty of Ag• ronomic Sciences (FSA) using individually partitioned ooth. Te accepta ility of each accession was assessed after their cooking times have een determined. Each panelist received 25 g of the cooked Kersting’s groundnut on a white tray, with a glass of water for rinsing the mouth etween two samples. Te cooked samples were coded and su mitted to evaluation using a 7 hedonic scale test as follows: 7 � liked Journal of Food Quality 5 extremely, 6 � liked very much, 5 � liked, 4 � neither liked nor disliked, 3 � disliked, 2 � disliked very much, and 1 � disliked extremely. Te frmness, taste, Kersting’s groundnut aroma, color intensity, and overall accepta ility were evaluated for each accession [31, 32]. Since aroma is lost over time [31, 33] and legume texture ecomes hard over time after cooking, these were evaluated immediately after cooking when samples were still warm. 2.5. Statistical Analysis. All statistical analyses were per• formed in R Statistical Software [34] at 5% signifcance level. Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were used to summarize physical and physicochemical charac• teristics of Kersting’s groundnut. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test whether there was a signifcant diference etween accessions for their physical character• istics, proximate parameters, and amino acid contents. Te Anova linear model is presented as follows: Yij � μ + τ i + εij ; i � 1, . . . , t; j � 1, . . . , nij , (6) here Error term εij ∼ i.i.d N (0, σ 2 ) with σ 2 the residual variance, τ i is the efect of accession i, nij is the num er of replicates in accession group (i, j), and Yij is the response varia le (physical and physicochemical char acteristics) Te Kruskal–Wallis test was used to test the efect of accession on the physical and physicochemical character• istics where the assumptions for normality were not met. When a signifcant diference (p < 0.05) was detected, Tukey’s multiple comparison test was used to evaluate the diference etween pairs of accessions. Prediction of cooking time to textural intensity scale 6 (accepta le texture for consumption) was carried out using a linear regression (Ta le 1). Pearson correlation test was performed in the packages Harrell [35] and Wei and Simko [36] to highlight the relationship etween accession’s cooking time, physical parameters (length, width, thickness, and hundred seed weight), and proximate parameters (car ohydrate, fat, protein, ash, dietary f er, and dry matter). 3. Results 3.1. Physical Characteristics of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions. Generally, there was no signifcant diference among accessions for width, thickness, seed volume, geo• metric mean diameter, and hydration index (p > 0.05) (Ta le 2). However, signifcant diferences were found in accessions regarding their seed length, 100•seed weight, and hydration capacity. Te accessions BUR 14, BUR 7, OUA, and ADC have the lowest seed length (from 8.1 ± 0.1 to 8.6 ± 0.3 mm) while the accession BUR 16 had the highest seed length (9.3 ± 0.2 m). BUR 14 had the highest 100•seed weight (16.7 ± 1.6 g) while ADC exhi ited the lowest 100• seed weight (11.7 ± 0.8 g). Accessions BUR 14, BUR 16, and BUR 7 had 0.14 ± 0.00 g/seed while ADC and OUA had 0.10 ± 0.00 g/seed as hydration capacities (Ta le 2). 3.2. Cooking Time of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions. Te texture of the selected Kersting’s groundnut accessions varied across the accessions and according to the cooking time (Figure 2). Accession BUR 7 had the lowest trend of texture change in function of the cooking time, which means that it had high texture than the other accessions. Te ac• cessions BUR 16 following y BUR 14 had the highest trend of texture change in function of the cooking time. At ninety minutes cooking time, the texture of the accession BUR 16 was 6.27, which is higher than the accepta le texture (score 6) for consumption according to the panelists. Tese values indicate that BUR 16 cooks in less than 90 minutes. Ac• cessions BUR 7, ADC, OUA, and BUR 14 after eing cooked for 90 minutes had texture scores of 4.33, 5.59, 5.58, and 5.40, respectively, values lower than 6. Using the linear regression equation of texture for each accession as a function of the cooking time (Ta le 1), the cooking times needed for accessions BUR 16, BUR 14, ADC, OUA, and BUR 7 to reach an accepta le texture for consumption (score 6) were 78.0, 100.5, 104.5, 105.3, and 124.0 minutes, respectively. 3.3. Proximate Composition of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions. Tere was a signifcant diference among ac• cessions for all proximate parameters (Ta le 3). Te protein content ranged from 20.5 ± 0.2 g/100 g dw (ADC) to 22.0 ± 0.2 g/100 g dw (OUA). Accession BUR 16 had the highest fat content (2.3 ± 0.0 g/100 g dw), and the accession ADC had the lowest fat content (1.2 ± 0.0 g/100 g dw). Te car ohydrate contents varied from 56.5 ± 0.0 g/100 g dw (BUR 7) to 59.4 ± 0.1 g/100 g dw (BUR 14). Te accession ADC had the highest dietary f er content (7.6 ± 0.4 g/100 g dw) while OUA had the lowest dietary f er content (4.3 ± 1.0 g/100 g dw). Te highest ash content was 3.9 ± 0.0 g/100 g dw for BUR 7 while the lowest ash content was 3.1 ± 0.1 g/100 g dw for OUA. 3.4. Amino Acids Composition of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions. Amino acids composition varied signifcantly among accessions (Ta le 4). Concentration of methionine ranged etween 0.19 ± 0.00 and 0.41 ± 0.02 g/100 g dw of protein. Concentrations of valine and histidine ranged e• tween 0.92 ± 0.01–1.32 ± 0.03 g/100 g dw protein and 0.38 ± 0.01–0.64 ± 0.0103 g/100 g dw protein, respectively, while phenylalanine varied etween 0.73 ± 0.02 and 1.91 ± 0.02 g/100 g dw protein. ADC had the highest leucine content ut generally poor in other amino acids. BUR 7 had the highest methionine and valine contents while OUA had the highest lysine and phenylalanine contents. Overall, the accession OUA had the est amino acid profle, ranking top in 6 out of 8 essential amino acids analyzed. Across ac• cessions leucine was in higher concentration (1.84 ± 0.02 g/ 100 g dw of protein) followed y lysine (1.64 ± 0.02 g/100 g dw of protein), while arginine had the lowest concentration (0.24 ± 0.03 g/100 g dw of protein). 6 Journal of Food Quality Table 1: Parameters of linear regression equations of the fve accessions texture according to the cooking time. Accessions BUR 16 BUR 14 BUR 7 ADC OUA Linear regression equations y � 3.33571 + 0.03414 cooking time y � 0.47000 + 0.05504 cooking time y � −0.09143 + 0.04914 cooking time y � 3.05143 + 0.02821 cooking time y � 3.11714 + 0.02739 cooking time Adjusted R•squared 0.9635 0.9931 0.9799 0.9873 0.9891 with y � Kersting’s groundnut seed texture. Table 2: Physical characteristics of Kersting’s groundnut seeds. Selected accessions ADC OUA BUR 14 BUR 16 BUR 7 Signifcance levels 8.1 ± 0.1a 8.1 ± 0.3a 8.6 ± 0.3a 9.3 ± 0.2 8.2 ± 0.4a Hundred seed weight (g) 11.7 ± 0.8a 13.2 ± 0.4a 16.7 ± 1.6c 15.1 ± 0.7 c 15.4 ± 1.3 c 0.004 0.002 Width (mm) Tickness (mm) Length (mm) 5.8 ± 0.1a 5.9 ± 0.1a 5.7 ± 0.4a 6.0 ± 0.2a 5.5 ± 0.3a 4.4 ± 0.5a 4.5 ± 0.5a 4.9 ± 0.0a 4.0 ± 0.0a 4.6 ± 0.5a 0.366 0.187 Hydration capacity (g/seed) Hydration index 67.3 ± 10.4a 69.5 ± 6.2a 78.6 ± 8.64a 71.8 ± 4.4a 68.3 ± 13.6a Geometric mean diameter (mm) 5.9 ± 0.3a 6.0 ± 0.1a 6.2 ± 0.2a 6.1 ± 0.1a 5.9 ± 0.4a 0.10 ± 0.00a 0.10 ± 0.00a 0.15 ± 0.01 0.14 ± 0.00 0.15 ± 0.00 0.82 ± 0.00a 0.83 ± 0.00a 0.96 ± 0.09a 0.96 ± 0.00a 1.01 ± 0.05a 0.594 0.542 0.003 0.038 Seed volume (mm3) Te mean ± standard deviation is presented and values having diferent superscript letters in a given column are signifcantly diferent at 5% signifcance level. 9.00 8.30 8.18 Texture of cooked seed 8.00 7.95 7.33 7.15 7.00 6.84 6.27 6.00 7.20 7.10 6.77 6.37 6.15 7.10 6.99 5.87 6.43 5.59 5.65 5.00 5.32 4.82 4.33 4.00 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 Cooking time in minutes ADC OUA BUR_7 BUR_14 BUR_16 Figure 2: Cooking time• and accession• ased changing trend of Kersting’s groundnut seed texture. Table 3: Proximate composition of selected Kersting’s groundnut seed. Selected accessions ADC OUA BUR 14 BUR 16 BUR 7 Signifcance levels Dry matter (g/100 g) 88.9 ± 0.1a 88.7 ± 0.1a 88.9 ± 0.1a 88.9 ± 0.1a 89.2 ± 0.0 0.008 Ash (g/100 g dw) 3.5 ± 0.0a 3.1 ± 0.1 3.6 ± 0.0a 3.5 ± 0.1a 3.9 ± 0.0c 0.001 Protein (g/100 g dw) 20.5 ± 0.2a 22.0 ± 0.2 21.8 ± 0.2 21.2 ± 0.3 c 20.8 ± 0.4 ac 0.001 Fat (g/100 g dw) 0.5 ± 0.0a 1.2 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.0c 2.3 ± 0.0d 1.1 ± 0.0e <0.001 Car ohydrate (g/100 g dw) 56.8 ± 0.0a 58.3 ± 0.0 59.4 ± 0.1c 56.9 ± 0.0a 56.5 ± 0.0d <0.001 Dietary f er (g/100 g dw) 7.6 ± 0.4a 4.3 ± 1.0 c 3.7 ± 0.2c 5.6 ± 1.3 7.2 ± 0.4a 0.001 Te mean ± standard deviation is presented and values having diferent superscript letters in a given column are signifcantly diferent at 5% signifcance level. Journal of Food Quality 7 Table 4: Amino acids composition of Kersting’s groundnut seed (g) per 100 g protein dry weight. Accessions ADC OUA BUR 14 BUR 16 BUR 7 Signifcance levels Methionine (g/100 g dw) 0.19 ± 0.00a 0.41 ± 0.02 0.29 ± 0.00c 0.35 ± 0.00d 0.39 ± 0.03 Lysine (g/100 g dw) 0.36 ± 0.02a 1.64 ± 0.02 1.29 ± 0.03c 1.24 ± 0.02d 1.23 ± 0.03d Valine (g/100 g dw) 0.92 ± 0.01a 1.30 ± 0.01 1.16 ± 0.02c 1.25 ± 0.03d 1.32 ± 0.03 Histidine (g/100 g dw) 0.38 ± 0.01a 0.56 ± 0.01 0.64 ± 0.01c 0.61 ± 0.00d 0.52 ± 0.01e Phénylalanine (g/100 g dw) 0.73 ± 0.02a 1.09 ± 0.02 0.82 ± 0.03c 0.76 ± 0.00 a 0.87 ± 0.03d Tryptophane (g/100 g dw) 0.63 ± 0.00a 0.82 ± 0.01 0.73 ± 0.01c 0.91 ± 0.02d 0.85 ± 0.02e Leucine (g/100 g dw) 1.80 ± 0.04a 1.84 ± 0.02a 1.03 ± 0.01b 1.03 ± 0.01 1.21 ± 0.02c Arginine (g/100 g dw) 0.12 ± 0.00a 0.24 ± 0.03 0.18 ± 0.03c 0.24 ± 0.03 0.17 ± 0.01c <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Te mean ± standard deviation is presented and values having diferent superscript letters in a given column are signifcantly diferent at 5% signifcance level. Table 5: p value of correlation matrices. Width Tickness Length 100•seed weight Ash Dry matter Protein Fat CHO Dietary f er Cooking time Width Tickness Length 0.203 0.395 0.361 0.581 0.545 0.382 0.134 0.116 0.627 0.339 0.895 0.610 0.061 0.724 0.827 0.587 0.085 0.241 0.561 0.261 0.883 0.979 0.853 0.188 0.993 0.667 0.077 100•seed weight 0.401 0.526 0.530 0.845 0.506 0.404 0.911 3.5. Relationship between Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions, Cooking Time, and Teir Physical and Nutritional Proprieties. Tere was no signifcant correlation etween the cooking time and the physical and nutritional composition of Ker• sting’s groundnut seed at 5% (Ta le 5). Otherwise, at 10% signifcance level, the cooking time was negatively correlated with seed width and length. Although there were not sig• nifcant, cooking time was also positively correlated with the thickness, ash, dry matter, and dietary f er content of Kersting’s groundnut and negatively correlated with its fat and protein content (Ta le 6). Tese results indicate that accessions with high thickness and high dietary f er content could take longer to cook whereas the accessions with high width, length, fat, and protein content could cook faster. 3.6. Acceptability of Selected Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions. Tirty students aged of 28 ± 5.6 years old evaluated the ac• cepta ility of Kersting’s groundnut seeds. Sixty percent were man and forty percent were women. Tey are from six ethnic groups mainly Fon, Idatcha, Nago, Mahi, Minan, and Adja. In general, more than 50% of the panelists liked the ac• cessions ADC, OUA, BUR 7, and BUR 14 for their texture, aroma, color, and taste after cooking (Ta le 7). Texture after cooking of the accession BUR 14 was the most appreciated (76.7% of the panelists). Te texture after cooking of OUA was appreciated y 63.3% of the panelists. Based on aroma and taste, the accessions OUA and BUR 7 were the most appreciated while color intensity of ADC (66.7%) and OUA Ash 0.007 0.303 0.839 0.527 0.404 0.520 Dry matter 0.259 0.953 0.357 0.290 0.389 Protein Fat CHO 0.947 0.074 0.008 0.731 0.487 1.000 0.305 0.034 0.847 Dietary f er 0.574 (66.7%) appeared to e more appreciated than that of BUR 14 (63.3%) and BUR 7 (53.3%). Overall, up to 50% of the panelist appreciated the accessions ADC, OUA, BUR 7, and BUR 14 (Figure 3). BUR 7 was the most appreciated ac• cession (70%) followed y OUA (66.7%), BUR 14 (60%), and ADC (56.7%). Accession BUR 16 appeared the most dis• liked. It was disliked y 46.7% of the panelists, 30% were indiferent and only 23.3% liked it (Figure 3). Te lack seed color appeared to e the main reason for its rejection (63%), followed y the aroma (53.3%) and taste (40%). 4. Discussion 4.1. Physical Characteristics and Correlation with Nutritional Composition and Cookability of the Seeds. Te width, thickness, and length of the fve selected accessions varied from 5.8 to 6.0 mm, 4.4 to 4.9 mm, and 8.1 to 9.3 mm, re• spectively. Tese values are within the range reported on 297 accessions of Kersting’s groundnut y Akohoue et al. [37]. Te authors found that the width, thickness, and length of the accessions varied from 4.7 to 8.80 mm, 3.5 to 6.23 mm, and 6.9 to 9.3 mm, respectively. Otherwise, the 100•seed weight of the fve selected accessions ranged from 11.7 to 16.7 g while the seed grains found y the aforementioned authors ranged etween 7.10 and 16.3 g. Te seed weight of the accessions used in the present study especially BUR_14 is much heavier than that investigated y Akohoue et al. [37]. It comes out that the physical characteristics mainly width and thickness, length, and 100•seed weight of these selected 8 Journal of Food Quality Table 6: Correlation matrices etween Kersting’s groundnut physical characteristics and proximate composition. Width Tickness Length 100•seed weight Ash Dry matter Protein Fat Car ohydrates Dietary f er Cooking time Width Tickness Length 1.00 −0.68 0.50 1.00 −0.53 1.00 100•seed weight −0.34 0.37 0.51 1.00 −0.76 −0.78 0.30 0.55 0.08 −0.31 −0.86 0.22 0.14 0.33 −0.83 0.64 −0.35 0.62 0.09 −0.02 0.12 0.70 −0.01 −0.26 −0.84 0.49 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.40 −0.49 −0.07 Dry matter Ash 1.00 0.97 −0.58 −0.13 −0.38 0.49 0.39 Protein Fat Car ohydrates 1.00 0.04 0.84 −0.97 −0.21 1.00 −0.41 0.00 −0.58 1.00 −0.91 −0.12 1.00 −0.63 −0.04 −0.53 0.59 0.50 Dietary f er 1.00 0.34 Table 7: Accepta ility level of cooked Kersting’s groundnut accessions. Sensorial attri utes Accepta ility levels Disliked Neither liked nor disliked Liked Disliked Neither liked nor disliked Liked Disliked Neither liked nor disliked Liked Disliked Neither liked nor disliked Liked Texture Kersting’s groundnut aroma Color intensity Taste ADC 33.3 16.7 50.0 13.3 23.3 63.3 13.3 20.0 66.7 16.7 23.3 60.0 OUA 3.3 33.3 63.3 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.3 23.3 73.3 BUR 7 3.3 40.0 56.7 3.3 30.0 66.7 16.7 30.0 53.3 10.0 16.7 73.3 BUR 14 6.7 16.7 76.7 10.0 26.7 63.3 10.0 26.7 63.3 6.7 33.3 60.0 BUR 16 36.7 23.3 40.0 53.3 20.0 20.0 63.3 20.0 16.7 40.0 30.0 30.0 Te results are presented as proportion (%) of panelists who like, neither liked nor disliked, or disliked. Liked: Proportion of panelists who liked extremely + liked very much + liked. Disliked: Proportion of panelists who disliked extremely + disliked very much + disliked. 80.0 70.0 Overall acceptability 66.7 60.0 56.7 60.0 46.7 40.0 30.0 26.7 20.0 30.0 23.3 20.0 16.7 10.0 30.0 10.0 3.3 0.0 ADC OUA BUR 7 BUR 14 Kersting’s groundnut accessions BUR 16 Disliked Neither liked nor disliked Liked Figure 3: Overall accepta ility of Kersting’s groundnut accessions. Legend: Liked: proportion of panelists who liked extremely + liked very much + liked. Disliked: proportion of panelists who disliked extremely + disliked very much + disliked. Journal of Food Quality accessions are similar to those already consumed across climatic areas of Benin and Togo. Consequently, the physical characteristics will not e a challenge for the accepta ility of these accessions. Even though there was no signifcant correlation e• tween the physical characteristic, proximate composition, and cooka ility of the accessions at 5%, some results are in line with the studies of Kaur et al. [38] and Singh et al. [39]. Accession BUR_14 had the highest seed volume, indicating that it has a higher car ohydrate content and lowest dietary f er content correlation also reported y Kaur et al. [38]. Car ohydrate content of seed is negatively correlated with protein, dietary f er, and fat content, and this is consistent with results reported y Singh et al. [39]. Tickness is positively correlated with cooking time, indicating that thicker grains require a longer cooking time. Similar results were found y Erkskine et al. [40]. In opposite, accession BUR_7 which had the highest hydration capacity (0.15 g/ seed) and hydration index (1.01) should have a higher permea ility of the seed coat and softer cotyledons than lower cooking time [39]. Tese results mean that they may have a strong correlation etween physical characteristics, proximate composition, and cooka ility of Kersting’s groundnut. However, correlation was not signifcant in this study. 4.2. Nutritional Potential of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions and Implication for Teir Promotion. Te protein content found in the present study ranged from 20.5 ± 0.2 to 22.0 ± 0.2 g/100 g dw. Tese values are consistent with o • servations made y Ajayi and Oyetayo [12] and Adu•gyamf et al. [13]. However, the accessions used in our study exhi it higher protein content than those analyzed y A iola and Oyetayo, [41]. As for car ohydrate contents, they ranged etween 56.5 ± 0.0 to 59.4 ± 0.1 g/100 g dw, values that are higher than those o served y Adu•gyamf et al. [13] which is 49.6 g/100 g dw and lower than those of Ajayi and Oyetayo [12], 61.53–73.3 g/100 g dw. Tese discrepancies could e explained y the genetic ackground of each accession and the environmental conditions where they were grown [42–45]. However, taking into account protein and car o• hydrate contents of the fve Kersting’s groundnut accessions, they can e consumed as alternative legume protein sources as cowpea grains which have similar protein and car ohy• drate contents (22.2 g/100 g and 59.3 ± 2.3 g/100 g, re• spectively) [46]. Protein content of these Kersting’s groundnut accessions can e used to enhance the protein content of the diet to address the protein malnutrition that remains a challenge in rural areas among the low•income groups [47]. Terefore, the production of these accessions could e promoted in the areas where the population cannot aford the animal protein source. Similar to organisms that have diferent amino acids, Kersting’s groundnuts have several amino acids arranged in diferent sequence and com inations. Of the 20 amino acids that are the asic components of the ody’s proteins, ten are considered to e essential, as they cannot e synthesized endogenously via meta olic pathways and thus must e 9 provided y dietary sources [48]. Eight of these essential amino acids were analyzed and found in the accessions used in the present study (arginine, histidine, leucine, lysine, methionine, tryptophan, phenylalanine, and valine). Tese essential amino acids have a growing interest in the medical feld for use in preventing or even treating chronic meta olic disorders [49]. Te accession OUA had the highest amino acid contents compared to other accessions. Te amino acid contents of the fve accessions were lower than those found in Kersting’s groundnut accessions y Adu•gyamf et al. [13]. Tese amino acid contents were lower than the required amount for legume (in g/100 g protein 5.0 for valine, 7.0 for leucine, 5.5 for lysine, and 1.0 for tryptophan) according to data reported y Hussain and Basahy [50]. Overall, the accession OUA had higher protein content and amino acid profle compared to the other accessions and therefore could e promoted as alternative nutritious accessions. However, further reeding eforts are needed to improve the nutri• tional value of this accession. However, the nutritional value of legumes grains is not only the key parameter in term of plant reeding; their technological is also of interest. Cooking is the most widely used processing method for legumes. In this process, the legume seeds are oiled in hot water until they ecome soft. Tis improves protein and amino acid digesti ility [51]; it causes considera le losses of them and modifes the starch structure of legume. Protein and amino acid solu ilities signifcantly decreased (up to 50%) during cooking due to thermal modifcation and loss of solu le fractions in the cooking water [52]. Future studies are needed to access the efective protein and amino acid contents of accessions as consumed y consumers for their etter selection. Moreover, cooking legume seeds causes a signifcant decrease in resistant starch (RS) ( y 61–71%) and slowly digesti le starch (SDS) ( y 56–84%) [53] and this reduction increases with cooking time. RS in the diet has een shown to exert positive efects on a human ody as it stimulates the growth of enefcial microfora and reduces postprandial lood level of glucose and lood level of cholesterol [54]. Te SDS is used for the treatment of type II dia etes ecause it afects the sensation of satiety through the meta olic response, namely, the postprandial low level of glucose and insulin in lood [55]. Terefore, the decrease in SR and SDS may have an impact on consumer’s health, and the phenomenon is strongly correlated with the amylose content of legumes [56]. It will e important to conduct future studies in order to investigate the starch quality of the accessions. Furthermore, since the solids reduction of le• gumes increases with cooking time and a long cooking time is a limitation for legume selection, their cooka ility appears important. 4.3. Cookability of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions. Cooking time is an important and key quality parameter in food legumes. First, the cooking softens the grains and fa• cilitates palata ility, increases protein digesti ility and ioavaila ility in grain legumes, and destroys antinutritional factors [57]. Te cooking time varied across accessions, and the lowest and highest cooking times recorded were 78.0 and 10 124.0 minutes for the accessions BUR 16 and BUR 7, respectively. However, to the est of our knowledge, only one study assessed the cooking time of Kersting’s groundnut [58]. Tis study reported that the cream Kersting’s groundnut seed usually consumed in Benin has a cooking time of 392.25 ± 18.82 minutes using similar cooking equipment. Comparing this value with the range of 78–124 minutes found in this study, it turns out that the accessions used in the present study have shorter cooking times and pro a ly could e more accepta le y the consumers. Accordingly, using BUR 16, BUR 14, ADC, OUA, and BUR 7 accessions, consumers will reduce their usual cooking time y 80.11%, 74.38%, 73.36%, 73.15%, and 68.38%, respectively. In addition, these cooking times are lower than the cooking time of am ara groundnuts (3•4 hours) and cowpea ean (2.4 hours) reported y Mu aiwa et al. [59], two commonly consumed legumes in Africa. Although cooking improves the nutritional quality of the legume seed, prolonged cooking results in a de• crease in protein quality and digesti ility and loss of nutrients such as vitamins and minerals [60, 61]. Tere• fore, a short cooking time is then desira le as it preserves the protein quality and digesti ility of nutrients ut also reduces energy used in cooking and saves la or cost [42]. In this context, soft cooking cultivars of Kersting’s groundnut could make them prefera le y the consumers. Otherwise, the cooking time has a negative correlation with their width, length, fat, and protein content. Tus, Kersting’s groundnut accessions with high width and length (accessions BUR 16 and BUR 14) and fat and protein content (accessions OUA and BUR 16) could e interesting in the case of cooking time reduction. Ac• cordingly, a out the modern trend towards convenience foods with reduced cooking time [42], these accessions BUR 16 and BUR 14 could e interesting for their high length and width while the accession OUA and BUR 16 could e interesting for their protein and fat content. Tis result indicates that the lack Kersting’s groundnut seed (BUR 16) would e the frst preference of consumers, as it would involve lesser fuel and time consumption. Nev• ertheless, these correlations are not signifcant and need to e investigated y future studies ecause cooking time is not the only parameter, which makes the product ac• cepta le to consumers. 4.4. Acceptability of Kersting’s Groundnut Accessions. Te accession BUR 16 suggested as the est in terms of cooking time has recorded the lowest overall accepta ility. Tis result is due to its lack color disliked y 63% of the panelists. Assog a et al. [6] found that the color after cooking is the most sensitive sensorial attri ute that infuences Kersting’s groundnut accepta ility. Color plays a major role in the initial accepta ility of a product [62, 63]. According to Bar ut [64], the visual appearance and color are important factors in consumer selection of food, and if the color does not meet expectations, they react negatively to the product. Consequently, Kersting’s groundnut lack•seeded landraces Journal of Food Quality are scare and produced only y a few households particularly for its contri ution to dietary diversity and medicinal purposes, and it is used for cultural rituals [10]. Apart from the color of accession BUR 16 that was much disliked, its texture, aroma, and taste were also disliked y the panelists. Tis result underlined that the BUR 16 color infuences negatively the accepta ility of other sensorial attri utes [6]. In this study, we recommend a paradigm change, toward research of new processing schemes for the lack and red Kersting’s accessions, in order to optimize their consump• tion while reducing on refusal due to color and aroma. Otherwise, the accessions OUA and BUR 7 were the most accepted due certainly to their taste, liked y up to 70% of the panelists and aroma liked y up to 60% of the panelists, which are important infuential attri utes for food accept• a ility [65]. In addition, according to the panelists, the accession OUA has similar characteristics with the local Kersting’s groundnut usually consumed while the accession BUR 7 is very similar to cowpea grain especially due to it lack eyes. Tere y, the consumers could promote the ac• cessions OUA and BUR 7 for crops production as they have the est accepta ility. Nevertheless, given that Kersting’s groundnut got much higher market value than cowpea, it would e useful for reeding eforts to give priority to va• rieties with cream seed coat without lack eyes, as these later would e seen as cowpea and thus would fail to fetch true price. 5. Conclusion and Perspectives Te present study explored physical, nutritional, and or• ganoleptic characteristics of fve selected Kersting’s groundnut accessions. Te cooking time of these accessions was lower than the cooking time of the cream Kersting’s groundnut seed usually consumed in Benin and the ac• cessions BUR 16 and BUR 14 recorded the lowest cooking time. Te accessions BUR 7 and OUA recorded the est accepta ility level. It is worth noting that the accessions BUR 16 and BUR 14, which recorded the short cooking times, were not the most accepted pro a ly due to their color. Te accession OUA could e promoted for production ased on its higher protein content, est amino acid profles, its medium cooking time, and good accepta ility level. How• ever, further studies need to e conducted on the im• provement of protein content especially the amino acid profles as well as the profling of their antinutritional composition. Appendix Ta le 1 presents the linear regression equations for the fve accessions’ textures according to cooking time. Te normality of the model was determined and all these equation’ residuals were normally distri uted (p˃0.05). In addition, all the adjusted R•squared were higher than 95%, indicating that these equations explain more than 95% of the varia ility in Kersting’s groundnut seed texture. Journal of Food Quality Data Availability Te dataset used to support the fndings of this article are availa le upon request from the corresponding author. Conflicts of Interest Te authors declare that they have no conficts of interest. Acknowledgments Tis work was supported y the Netherlands Organization for Scientifc Research (NWO•WOTRO) (grant no. W08.270.344). References [1] S. A. O. Adeyeye, O. T. Bolaji, T. A. A egunde, and T. O. Adesina, “Processing and utilization of snail meat in alleviating protein malnutrition in Africa: a review,” Nutrition & Food Science, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1085–1097, 2020. [2] N. J. Chickwendu, “Chemical composition of four varieties of groun ean (Kerstingiella geocarpa),” Jornal of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Extension, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 79–84, 2007. [3] E. Achigan•Dako and S. Vodouhè, “Macrotyloma geocarpum (harms) maréchal and Baudet,” Plant Resources of Tropical Africa, vol. 1, pp. 111–114, 2006. [4] A. Dansi, R. Vodouh, P. Azokpota et al., “Diversity of the neglected and underutilized crop species of importance in Benin,” Te Scientifc World Journal, vol. 2012, Article ID 932947, 20 pages, 2012. [5] Y. L. Loko, J. Akohonwe, J. Tofa et al., “Farmers knowledge, perceptions and management of Kersting’ s groundnut (Macrotyloma geocarpum Harms) insect pests in Benin,” Te Journal of Basic and Applied Zoology, vol. 40, no. 41, pp. 1–11, 2019. [6] P. Assog a, E. B. K. Ewedje, A. Dansi et al., “Indigenous knowledge and agro•morphological evaluation of the minor crop Kersting ’ s groundnut ( Macrotyloma ´ chal et Baudet ) cultivars of Benin geocarpum ( Harms ) Mare,” Genetic Re• sources and Crop Evolution, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 493–509, 2016. [7] M. Couli aly, C. O. A. Agossou, M. Sawadogo, and E. G. Achigan•dako, “Farmers’ preferences for genetic re• sources of kersting ’ s groundnut [ macrotyloma geocarpum systems of Burkina Faso and Ghana,” Agronomy, vol. 10, no. 371, pp. 1–20, 2020. [8] E. E. Agoyi, N. Sognig e, M. Kafoutchoni, M. Ayena, and F. A. K. Sodedji, “Kersting ’ s groundnut [macrotyloma geocarpum (harms) maréchal & Baudet] crop attracts more feld pests and diseases than reported efore,” Agricultural Research & Technology, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1–5, 2019. [9] M. A. T. Ayenan and V. A. Ezin, “Potential of kersting’ s groundnut [macrotyloma geocarpum (harms) maréchal & Baudet] and prospects for its promotion,” Agriculture & Food Security, vol. 9, 2016. [10] F. Akohoué, J. Si iya, and E. G. Achigan•Dako, “On•farm practices, mapping, and uses of genetic resources of Ker• sting’ s groundnut [Macrotyloma geocarpum (Harms) Maré• chal et Baudet] across ecological zones in Benin and Togo,” Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, vol. 7, pp. 1–20, 2018. [11] M. O. Aremu, S. S. Audu, and L. Gav, “Comparative review of crude protein and amino acid composition of some legu• minous seeds grown in Nigeria,” International Journal of Sciences, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1–10, 2017. 11 [12] O. B. Ajayi and F. L. Oyetayo, “Short communication po• tentials of,” Journl of Medecinal Food, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 184–187, 2009. [13] R. Adu•gyamf, I. K. Dzomeku, and J. Lardi, “Evaluation of growth and yield potential of genotypes of kersting’ s groundnut (macrotyloma geocarpum harms) in Northern Ghana,” International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 509–515, 2012. [14] V. Moda•cirino, A. C. Gerage, C. R. Riede et al., “Plant reeding at instituto agronômico do paraná – iapar,” Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology, vol. 2, pp. 25–30, 2012. [15] D. A. Animasaun, S. Oyedeji, Y. K. Azeez, O. T. Mustapha, and M. A. Azeez, “Genetic varia ility study among ten cul• tivars of cowpea (vigna unguiculata L . Walp) using morpho• agronomic traits and nutritional composition,” Te Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 119–130, 2015. [16] R. C. V. Carneiro, S. E. Duncan, S. F. O. Keefe, Y. Yin, and C. L. Neill, “Sensory and consumer studies in plant reeding: a guidance for edamame development in the U . S,” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 4, pp. 1–10, 2020. [17] S. O. Hansson, P. Åman, W. Becker et al., “Breeding for pu lic health: a strategy,” Trends in Food Science & Technology, vol. 80, 2018. [18] G. Y. Chodaton, E. E. Agoyi, and T. A. Houndété, “Genetics & genomic Sciences morphological variation among and dis• criminating traits of kersting’ s groundnut acces• sions,” Journal of Genetics & Genomic Sciences, vol. 6, no. 31, pp. 1–11, 2021. [19] I. A. Wani, D. S. Sogi, and B. S. Gill, “Physical and cooking characteristics of lack gram (Phaseolus mungoo L .) cultivars grown in India,” International Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 48, pp. 2557–2563, 2013. [20] N. Mohsenin, Physical Properties of Plant and Animal Ma• terials Gordon and Breach, Science Pu lishers, Inc, New York, NY, USA, 1970. [21] Y. A. Ade owale and A. A. Oshodi, “Food Chemistry Vari• a ility in the physicochemical , nutritional and antinutritional attri utes of six Mucuna species,” Food Chemistry, vol. 89, pp. 37–48, 2005. [22] P. K. Kinyanjui, D. M. Njoroge, A. O. Makokha, S. Christiaens, D. S. Ndaka, and M. Hendrickx, “Hydration properties and texture fngerprints of easy• and hard•to•cook ean varieties,” Food Science & Nutrition Published, vol. 9, 2014. [23] E. N. Wafula, I. Wainaina, C. Buve et al., “Application of near• infrared spectroscopy to predict the cooking times of aged common eans (Phaseolus vulgaris L),” Journal of Food Engineering Journal, vol. 284, 2020. [24] H. Stone and J. L. Sidel, Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (Te QDA Method), Sensory Evaluation Practices, Elsevier Aca• demic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, 2004. [25] J. M. Murray, C. M. Delahunty, and I. A. Baxter, “Descriptive sensory analysis: past, present and future,” Food Research International, vol. 34, pp. 461–471, 2001. [26] Aoac, (Association of Ofcial Analytical Chemists), Methods of Analysis for Nutrition Labeling, Association of Ofcial Analytical Chemist Arlington, Gaithers urg, 1993. [27] M. J. Akintomide and S. P. Antai, “Inorganic nitrogen sup• plementation and micro•fungal,” Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 820–832, 2012. [28] Aoac, fcial Methods of Analysis, Association of Ofcial Analytical Chemist Arlington, VA, USA, 1990. [29] O. S. Ijarotimi and O. O. Keshinro, “Formulation and nu• tritional quality of infant formula produced from germinated 12 [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] Journal of Food Quality popcorn, Bam ara groundnut and african locust ean four,” Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 1358–1388, 2012. B. Im uhila, Infuence of Cowpea Plant and Seed Char• acteristics and Packaging Material in Storage on Cowpea Weevil (Callosobruchus Maculatus) Infestation, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Juja, Kenya, 2020. A. V. Mkanda, A. Minnaar, and H. L. Kock, “Relating con• sumer preferences to sensory and physicochemical properties of dry eans (Phaseolus vulgaris),” Journal of the Science fFood and Agriculture, vol. 2879, pp. 2868–2879, 2007. U. N. Onwuka and O. Okala, “Efects of selected salts on the cooking time, protein content and sensory properties of African yam eans and cowpeas,” Food Service Technology, vol. 3, pp. 3–7, 2003. H. Yeung, J. D. Ehlers, R. D. Waniska, J. N. Alviola, and L. W. Rooney, “Field Crops Research Rapid screening methods to evaluate cowpea cooking characteristics,” Field Crops Research, vol. 112, pp. 245–252, 2009. R Core Team 2020R, A Language and Environment for Sta• tistical Computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing, R Core Team, Vienna, Austria, 2020. J. F. Harrell, “Hmisc: harrell miscellaneous. R package version 4.6–0,” 2021, https://cran.r•project.org/package=Hmisc. T. Wei and V. Simko, “R package “corrplot”: visualization of a correlation matrix (Version 0.90),” 2021, https://githu . com/taiyun/corrplot. F. Akohoue, E. G. Achigan•Dako, M. Couli aly, and J. Si iya, “Correlations, path coefcient analysis and phenotypic di• versity of a West African germplasm of Kersting ’ s groundnut [Macrotyloma geocarpum (Harms) Mare Baudet],” Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, vol. 1, Article ID 0123456789, 18 pages, 2019. M. Kaur, N. Singh, and N. S. Sodhi, “Physicochemical, cooking , textural and roasting characteristics of chickpea (Cicer arieti• num L .) cultivars,” Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 69, pp. 511–517, 2005. N. Singh, M. Kaur, K. S. Sandhu, and N. S. Sodhi, “Physi• cochemical, cooking and textural characteristics of some Indian lack gram (Phaseolus mungo L) varieties,” Journal of the Science fFood and Agriculture, vol. 982, pp. 977–982, 2004. W. Erkskine, P. C. Williams, and H. Nakkoul, “Genetic and environmental variation in the seed size, protein, yield, and cooking quality of lentils,” Field Crops Research, vol. 12, pp. 153–161, 1985. C. A iola and V. O. Oyetayo, “Efect of liquid and solid fermentation on mineral and amino acid contents of kersting ’ s groundnut (macrotyloma geocarpum),” Journal of Scientifc Research & Reports, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1–12, 2015. F. Appiah, J. Y. Asi uo, and P. Kumah, “Physicochemical and functional properties of ean fours of three cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L . Walp) varieties in Ghana,” African Journal of Food Science, vol. 5, pp. 100–104, 2011. A. T. Asare, R. Ag emafe, G. E. Adukpo, E. Dia or, and K. A. Adamtey, “Assessment of functional properties and nutritional composition of some cowpea (vigna unguiculata l.) genotypes in Ghana,” Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 465–469, 2013. S. Muranaka, M. Shono, T. Myoda et al., “Genetic diversity of physical, nutritional and functional properties of cowpea grain and relationships among the traits,” Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 67–76, 2016. [45] S. S. Nielsen, W. E. Brandt, and B. B. Singh, “Genetic vari• a ility for nutritional composition and cooking time of im• proved cowpea lines,” Crop Science, vol. 33, pp. 469–472, 1993. [46] P. Mamiro, A. M waga, D. Mamiro, A. Mwanri, and J. Kina o, “Nutritional quality and utilization of local and improved cowpea varieties in some regions in Tanzania,” African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Devel• opment, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 4490–4506, 2011. [47] E. W. Santos, D. C. Oliveira, G. B. Silva et al., “Hematological alterations in protein malnutrition,” Nutrition Reviews, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 909–919, 2017. [48] Y. Martı́nez, X. Li, G. Liu, P. Bin, and W. Yan, “Te role of methionine on meta olism, oxidative stress, and diseases,” Amino Acids, vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 2091–2098, 2017. [49] C. Jayathilake, R. Visvanathan, A. Deen et al., “Cowpea: an overview on its nutritional facts and health enefts,” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 98, no. 13, pp. 4793–4806, 2018. [50] M. A. Hussain and A. Y. Basahy, “Nutrient composition and amino acid pattern of cowpea (Kgm unguiculata (L .) Walp , Fa aceae) grown in the G i z a area of Saudi Ara ia,” In• ternational Journal of Food Sciences & Nutrition, vol. 49, pp. 117–124, 1998. [51] J. Gu, A. Bk, H. Wu et al., “Impact of processing and storage on protein digesti ility and ioavaila ility of legumes,” Food Reviews International, vol. 28, 2022. [52] R. A. Ha i a, “Changes in anti•nutrients , protein solu ility , digesti ility , and HCl•extracta ility of ash and phosphorus in vegeta le peas as afected y cooking methods,” Food Chemistry, vol. 77, pp. 187–192, 2002. [53] M. Piecyk, R. Wołosiak, B. Dru, and E. Woro iej, “Chemical composition and starch digesti ility in fours from Polish processed legume seeds,” Food Chemistry, vol. 135, pp. 1057–1064, 2012. [54] M. G. Sajilata, R. S. Singhal, and P. R. Kulkarni, “Resistant starch A review,” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, vol. 5, pp. 1–17, 2006. [55] D. J. A. Jenkins, C. W. C. Kendall, L. S. A. Augustin et al., “Glycemic index: overview of implications in health and disease 1 – 4,” Te American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 76, pp. 266–273, 2002. [56] B. S. Yadav, A. Sharma, and R. B. Yadav, “Resistant starch content of conventionally oiled and pressure•cooked cereals , legumes and tu ers,” Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 84–88, 2010. [57] Icrisat, Uses of Tropical Grain Legumes: Proceedings of a Consultants Meeting, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi•Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Center, Patancheru A.P. India, 1991. [58] P. S. Ayedegue, Amélioration du procédé de transformation de la lentille de terre (Macrotyloma geocarpum) au Benin, Uni• versité Nationale d’Agriculture, Ketou, Benin, 2021. [59] J. Mu aiwa, V. Fogliano, C. Chidewe, and A. R. Linnemann, “Hard•to•cook phenomenon in am ara groundnut (Vigna su terranea L. Verdc.) processing: Options to improve its role in providing food security,” Food Reviews International, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 167–194, 2016. [60] J. K. Deol and K. Bains, “Efect of household cooking methods on nutritional and anti nutritional factors in green cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) pods,” Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 579–581, 2010. [61] N. Khatoon and J. Prakash, “Nutritional quality of microwave•cooked and pressure•cooked legumes,” Journal of Food Quality [62] [63] [64] [65] International Journal f Food Sciences and Nutrition, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 441–448, 2004. K. T. Clay on and S. A. Barringer, “Consumer accepta ility of color in processed tomato products y African•American, Latino and prototypical consumers,” Jornal of Food Quality, vol. 25, pp. 487–498, 2015. A. Y. T. Putra, E. K. B. Susiloningsih, and M. A. Susanti, “Physicochemical and sensory properties of pedada fruit (son• neratia caseolaris) ar physicochemical and sensory properties of pedada fruit (sonneratia caseolaris) ar,” Journal of Physics, vol. 1569, pp. 1–8, 2020. S. Bar ut, “Efect of retail lights on accepta ility of salami,” Meat Science, vol. 66, pp. 219–223, 2003. L. Boateng, E. Nortey, A. N. Ohemeng et al., “Sensory at• tri utes and accepta ility of complementary foods forti f ed with Moringa oleifera leaf powder,” Nutrition & Food Science, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 393–406, 2019. 13