Effect of processing methods on functional, pasting properties of flours and sensory

evaluation of “Amala” made from different yam cultivars

Babalola John Olarenwaju 1, *, Olakunle Esther Jesufemi 1, Elutilo Oluwashola Oyedunni 1, Adeoti Olatunde
Micheal 2 and Adesina David Ademola 2
1Department of Food Science and Technology, The Oke-Ogun Polytechnic Saki, Oyo State Nigeria.
2 Department of Science Laboratory and Technology, The Oke-Ogun Polytechnic Saki, Oyo State Nigeria.

GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

Publication history: Received on 06February 2020; revised on 28 March 2021; accepted on 01 April 2021

Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/gscarr.2021.7.1.0006

Abstract
The effect of processing methods on the functional, pasting properties of flours and sensory evaluation of “amala” made
from three different cultivars of yam were determined using standard analytical methods. The three cultivars of yam
namely; Dioscorea caynensis “Amula and Lasinrin) and Dioscorea alata (Cote divoire) were processed using three
different methods as following; (a) parboiling with steep water (omi-ogi) in aluminium pot and local clay pot (b)
parboiling with clean water in aluminium pot and local clay pot (c) heating steep water omi -ogi and clean water
separately at 60°C and blanching sliced yam with it in plastic bucket. The functional and sensory properties of the yam
flour obtained from the three processing methods were determined using standard analytical method. Data collected
were analyzed statistically to determine the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and the means. There were significant
differences (P<0.05) in the result obtained. The bulk density, water absorption capacity, wettability, oil absorption
capacity and swelling index of the yam flour ranged from 0.33±0.01 to 0.49±0.03g/ml, 7.50±0.44 to 0.50±0.44g/ml,
36.67±11.55 to 178.33±2.89secs, 1.47±0.23 to 7.40±1.06g/ml and 1.10±0.01 to 1.82±0.03g/g respectively. The peak
viscosity, trough, breakdown, final viscosity, setback, peak time and pasting temperature of yam flour ranged from
1783.00±7.07 to 3682.00±2.83 cP, 1691.00±4.24 to 3533.50±3.54cP, 27.50±2.12 to 195.00±7.07cP, 2351.00±1.41 to
4332.50±3.54cP, 420.00±7.07 to 799.00±1.41cP, 7.03±0.04 to 5.10±0.14cP, 81.35±0.92 to 89.10±0.14cP respectively.
The appearance, colour, taste, texture and overall acceptability of the “amala” ranged from 3.70±1.08 to 8.65±0.75,
3.70±1.03 to 8.60±0.82, 3.50±1.19 to 8.20±1.01, 3.35±1.04 to 8.50±0.95 and 3.35±0.75 to 8.60±0.75 respectively. The
LLPSW (cultivar “Lasinrin” processed with local clay pot and steep water “omi-ogi”) had the highest water absorption
capacity, LAPOW (cultivar “Amula” processed with aluminium pot and clean water) had the best overall acceptability.
Water absorption capacity measures the extent of water retention in yam flour. It can be concluded that yam flour
processed with LCPSW was the best flour from the above results on water absorption capacity.

Keywords: “Lasinrin”; “Amula”; “Omi-ogi”; “Cote divoire”; Functional properties, Sensory evaluation

1. Introduction
Yam belongs to the family Dioscorea spp. It is a semi-perishable class of food due to its relatively high moisture content
(1). It is a tuber crop that is grown widely in many part of the world. It is majorly grown in sub-saharan Africa, with the
production of more than 95% of the global yam cultivation. It is the second most important root/tuber crop in Africa
after cassava (2, 3). The traditional storage structures used for yam storage include leaving the tubers in the ground
until required, the yam barn and underground structures (3). In the absence of good storage facilities, yam tubers are
prone to gradual physiological deterioration after harvesting (1). Yam is a source of carbohydrate and has a lower


Corresponding author: Babalola JO
Department of Food Science and Technology, The Oke-Ogun Polytechnic Saki, Oyo State Nigeria.
Copyright © 2021 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0.
 GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

glycemic index which makes it a sustainable source of energy and gives better protection against obesity and diabetes
(4). Fresh yams are difficult to store and are subject to post-harvest losses during storage (5,6). These losses serve as
an impetus for processing this staple food into a product of longer shelf-life.

Elubo is processed by peeling, slicing, blanching in hot water (at 40-50oC for 1-3hrs), steeping for a day and drying to
brittleness at 60oC. The resulting dried sliced tuber is referred to as “gbodo” in Nigeria (7, 8, 9). When “gbodo” is milled
into flour, it is referred to as “elubo” which when stirred in boiling water will form a thick brown paste known as “amala”.
The processing of yam traditionally depends on the species, for instance white yam (Dioscorea rotundata) are always
preferred for production of gbodo and pounded yam (10) due to better textural quality of the final product. Water yam
(Dioscorea alata) is always preferred for use in preparing porridge such as “ikokore” mainly eaten by Ijebu people of
South West Nigeria and “Ojojo” (grated and fried water yam) with no appreciable economic secondary food product
(11).

In Nigeria, particularly the South Western region, root and tuber crops such as; yam and cassava are usually processed
into flour known as “elubo” using traditional methods of parboiling in water or soaking followed by drying. This is to
overcome the high perishability of fresh forms of the seasonal nature of their production. Little or no work has been
done on the effect of processing methods of producing yam flour “elubo” using different yam cultivars.

This study aims at producing yam flour by different processing methods using three yam cultivars and to determine the
functional properties of the resultant flour and sensory properties of prepared “amala”.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Sources of raw materials

Two cultivars of Dioscorea cayenensis (“Amula” and “Lasinrin”) and one cultivar of Dioscorea alata (“Cote devoire”) were
purchased from Sango market, Saki, Oyo state, Nigeria. The processing of yam into yam flour (elubo) was done at the
Food Science and Technology Laboratory of the Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki (TOPS).

2.2. Production of yam flour

Four kilogrammes each of the yam cultivars were separately washed, weighed, peeled, sliced and washed in water
containing 0.1ppm sodium metabisulphite. The sliced cultivar was parboiled using 4L of steep water (“omi ogi”) in local
clay pot and aluminium pot separately at 50oC for 30 min. The parboiled yam slices was steeped for 24 hrs, drained,
sundried for 4 days and milled into flour as shown in Figure 1.‘

Figure 1 Flow chart for production of yam flour using steep water (“omi-ogi”)/clean water, local clay pot and
aluminium pot and plastic bucket respectively

124
 GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

2.3. Determination of functional properties of the flour

Bulk density and water absorption capacity were determined using the methods of (12,13) respectively. Oil absorption
properties of the flour were determined following method of (14). A quantity of oil in a Moulinex blender (Model DEPC
3, Frence) at high speed for 30 sec. The sample was allowed to stand at 300C for 30 mins and then centrifuged at
10,000rpm for 30 min the volume of supernatant in a graduated cylinder was noted.

Swelling index was determined using the method described by (15).

2.4. Pasting Properties

Pasting characteristics was determined with a Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA), (Model RVA3D+), Network Scientific and
Australia. First, flour sample (2.5g) was weighed into a dried empty canister; then 25ml of distilled water was dispensed
into the canister containing the sample. The solution was thoroughly mixed and the canister was well fitted into the
RVA as recommended. The slurry was heated at 59oC to 95oC with a holding time. The rate of heating and cooling was
at a constant rate of 11.25oC per minute. Peak viscosity, trough, breakdown, final viscosity, set back, peak time and
pasting temperature were read from the pasting profile with the aid of thermo cline for windows software connected
to a computer (16).

2.5. Sensory Evaluation of ‘Amala’ samples produced from flour of different yam cutivars
Fifty grammes each of the Yam flour was stirred in 150ml boiling water to make paste (Amala) that was used for sensory
evaluation. Scoring difference test and hedonic scale test was used in measuring the intensity and acceptability of the
paste, colour, taste, mould-ability, texture and aroma of the prepared amala. A semi-trained fifty member panel was
used and scores were allocated by the panelists based on 6-point hedonic scale, ranging from 1(extremely black) to 6
(cream) and a 9-point henodic scale was used to determine the overall acceptability of yam paste ranging from 1(dislike
extremely) to 9 (like extremely) as described by (17). The data collected were subjected to statistical analysis to
determined possible differences among samples.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

All data were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using SPSS Version 16.00 and means were separated using
Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT).

3. Results and discussion

Functional properties are the intrinsic physiochemical properties that reflect the complex interaction between the
composition, structure, confirmation and physiochemical properties of protein and other food components and the
nature of the environment in which these are associated and measured (18). The functional properties of yam flour
produced from different yam cultivars are shown in Table 1.

The bulk density of the yam flour varied significantly (P<0.05). The bulk density of the yam flour ranged from 0.33g/ml
to 0.49g/ml. CLPSW has the highest bulk density (0.49g/ml), while ALPOW has the lowest bulk density value
(0.33g/ml). The result obtained from this study is similar to the one obtained by (19) on effect of processing on cocoyam
which ranged from 0.588g/ml to 0.714g/ml. Bulk density is dependent upon the particle size of the sample. It is
important for determining packaging requirements, material handling and application is wet processing in the food
industry (20). Flour with low bulk density will be an advantage in the bulk storage and transportation of the flour (21).

Water absorption capacity (WAO) measures the extent of water retention in yam flour. This affects the ability of the
yam flour to form paste. There was significant difference in the water absorption capacity of the yam flour produce.
Water absorption capacity of the yam flour produced ranged from 3.40g/ml to 7.53g/ml. APBOW has the lowest water
absorption index (2.40g/ml) while LAPOW has the highest water absorption index (7.53g/ml). The result obtained
conforms with the result recorded by (22) on quality evaluation of wheat – cocoyam – soybean cookies which ranges
from 2.43 to 8.00g/g). Water absorption capacity can be used to determine carbohydrate physicochemical properties
in various food product like soup, dough and baked product (23). Low water absorption capacity is attributed to
compactness of the molecular structure while high value indicates loose structure of the starch polymers (24). High
water absorption capacity is an indication of its use in composite flour for bread making (25).

125
 GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

Table 1 Functional properties of yam flour made from different yam cultivars using different processing methods.

SAMPLES BULK WATER WETTABILITY OIL ABSORPTION SWELLING

DENSITY ABSORPTION (SECS) CAPACITY INDEX
(G/ML) CAPACITY (G/ML) (G/ML)
(G/ML)
APBSW 0.41±0.02c 2.67±0.31ef 178.33±2.89a 1.87±0.12a 1.35±0.27cd
ALPSW 0.38±0.00c 2.53±0.23ef 120.00±0.00de 1.60±0.35a 1.10±0.01ged
AAPSW 0.35±0.01eff 2.80±0.20def 148.00±44.81c 5.13±2.32b 1.61±0.02fg
APBOW 0.37±0.02d 2.40±0.53f 120.00±0.00de 7.40±1.06a 1.28±0.01cde
ALPOW 0.33±0.01f 3.07±0.31def 156.00±5.77abc 1.80±0.20a 1.15±0.04efg
AAPOW 0.36±0.03ef 3.35±1.01cde 173.00±25.17ab 2.33±0.76cd 1.43±0.00efg
CPBSW 0.35±0.03f 3.83±0.29bcd 88.33±2.89fg 5.20±1.73b 1.32±0.00cd
CLPSW 0.49±0.03a 4.63±0.11b 86.67±11.55g 3.57±0.75c 1.12±0.00ab
CAPSW 0.45±0.01b 4.27±0.11bc 36.67±11.55h 2.80±0.00cd 1.16±0.00ab
CPBOW 0.36±0.03ef 4.40±0.20bc 100.00±0.00efg 3.53±0.12c 1.15±0.00c
CLPOW 0.40±0.02c 3.77±0.21bcd 120.00±0.00cd 3.00±0.00cd 1.11±0.10bd
CAPOW 0.46±0.00a 3.53±0.46cde 86.67±2.89g 2.77±0.25cd 1.10±0.11ab
LPBSW 0.45±0.03b 2.33±0.23f 138.33±2.89cd 1.47±0.23a 1.26±0.01def
LLPSW 0.40±0.02c 7.50±0.44a 93.33±5.77fg 1.90±0.26a 1.32±0.03cd
LAPSW 0.33±0.02g 3.13±0.23def 150.00±0.00bc 1.60±0.35a 1.15±0.01efg
LPBOW 0.41±0.02c 2.60±0.00ef 93.33±5.77fg 1.67±0.12a 1.73±0.39fg
LLPOW 0.34±0.01fg 2.87±0.12def 110.00±10.00efg 1.80±0.20a 1.29±0.18cd
Values are mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate sample; means with different superscripts in the same row were significantly different
(P<0.05)

APBSW, ALPSW, AAPSW, APBOW, ALPOW, AAPOW=Cultivar “Amula” processed with: plastic and steep water, local clay
pot and steep water, aluminium pot and steep water, plastic bucket and clean water, local clay pot and clean water, and
aluminium pot and clean water respectively.

CPBSW, CLPSW, CAPSW, CPBOW, CLPOW, CAPOW=Cultivar “Cotedivoire” processed with: plastic bucket and steep
water, local clay pot and steep water, aluminium pot and steep water, plastic bucket and clean water, local clay pot and
clean water, and aluminium pot and clean water respectively.

LPBSW, LLPSW, LAPSW, LPBOW, LLPOW, LAPOW=Cultivar “Lasinrin” processed with: plastic bucket and steep water,
local clay pot and steep water, aluminium pot and steep water, plastic bucket and clean water, clay pot and clean water,
and aluminium pot and clean water respectively.

The wettability of the yam flour ranges from 36.67secs to 178.83secs. APBSW has the highest wettability value
(178.83secs) while the lowest wettability (36.67secs) was recorded for CAPSW. There were significant difference
(P<0.05) in the result obtained for the yam flour. The result obtained differs from the result obtained by (22) which
ranges from 106.33 to 136.67secs. The non-conformity may be as a result of the yam cultivar used and the processing
methods adopted wettability is a function of the ease of dispersion/displacement of water by any sample. The sample
with the lowest time of wettability will dissolve in water faster and would perform better in texture and comminuted
meats and baked products (25).

Oil Absorption Capacity of yam flour ranges from 1.47g/ml to 7.40g/ml. LAPOW has the lowest oil absorption capacity
while LPBSW has the highest value. The results obtained does not vary significantly (P<0.05) except in AAPSW, AAPOW,
CPBSW, CLPSW, CAPSW, CPBOW, CLPOW and CAPOW where the 5.13g/ml, 2.33g/ml, 5.20g/ml, 3.57g/ml, 2.80g/ml,

126
 GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

3.53g/ml, 3.60g/ml and 2.77g/ml respectively. The results obtained from this study conform with the result recorded
by (26) on quality evaluation of wheat – cocoyam – soybeans cookies which ranges from 1.92g/ml to 3.84g/ml and the
one recorded by on Sorghum – African yam bean flour which ranged from 6.48 – 8.86g/ml. Flours with excellent oil
absorption capacity will be useful in the preparation of pastries and pie crust mixes.

The pasting characteristics of yam flour made from different yam cultivar using different processing methods are shown
in Table 3. When heat is applied to starch based foods in the presence of water, a series of changes occur known as
gelatinization and pasting which influences the quality and aesthetic considerations in food industry, as it affects the
texture, digestibility of starchy food (27). Peak viscosity of yam flour ranged from 1783.00cP to 3682.00cP. CPBOW had
the lowest peak viscosity (1783.00cP) while LAPSW had the highest peak viscosity (3682.00cP) there was significant
difference (P<0.05) in the peak viscosity of yam flour except in APBOW, LPBSW, LLPSW, LPBOW and LLPOW which are
3257.00, 3257.00, 3269.50, 3272.00 and 3281.00cP respectively. The result obtained is not similar to the one reported
by (28) on chemical and sensory properties of water yam – cassava flour and paste which ranged from 212.00 to
362.07cP. The variation might be as a result of the method of processing or equipment used for analysis. High peak
viscosity is an indication of high starch content which also relate to water binding capacity of starch (29). Peak viscosity
is often correlated with the final product quality. It also provides an indication of the viscous load likely to be
encountered during mixing (31). High swelling index is indicative of high peak viscosity while higher solubility as a
result of starch degradation or dextrinization results in reduced paste viscosity (32).

The maximum viscosity of constant temperature phase of the cP profile and the ability of paste to withstand breakdown
during cooling is referred to as the trough (33). The trough of the yam flour ranged from 1691.00cP to 3533.50cP.
CPBOW has the lowest trough (1691.00cP) while LAPSW had the highest trough value (3533.50cP). There was
significant difference (P<0.05) in the result obtained except in CLPSW, CAPSW, CLPOW and CAPOW which were
2006.50cP, 2020.00cP, 2005.00cP and 2041.00cP respectively. The result obtained differs from the one recorded by
(34) on effect of processing methods on pasting and functional properties of Aerial yam (Dioscorea bulbifera) flour
which ranged from 16.67cP to 239.17cP. The different might be as a result of the yam cultivar used in this study or the
processing method. Trough is an indication of breakdown or stability of the starch gel during cooking (35, 36).

The final viscosity of the yam flour ranged from 2464.00 – 4332.50cP. CAPSW had the lowest final viscosity (2464.00cP)
while LPBOW had the highest peak viscosity (4332.50cP). The result varied significantly (P<0.05) except in AAPSW and
APBOW which were 3868.50 and 3862.5cP respectively. The result obtained is not similar to the result recorded by (9)
on effect of yam varieties on pasting properties of traditional dry yam which ranged from 55.5cP to 378.0cP. The
difference might be as a result of the yam cultivar used or equipment used for analysis. The peak and final viscosities
are considered to be the most important paste viscosity especially with regard to product properties (37). (38) have
reported the use of starches with high viscosity value in pharmaceutical companies especially as tablet binders.

The values obtained for setback of the yam flour varied significantly (P<0.05). The value ranged from 340.50cP to
799.00cP. CLPSW had the lowest setback value (340.50cP) while APBOW had the highest setback value (799.00cP). The
obtained from this study differs from the result recorded by (39) which ranged from 118.75 to 168.96cP. Higher setback
value means reduced dough digestibility (32) while lower setback during cooling of paste indicates lower tendency for
retrogradation (35, 40).

The peak time is a measure of the cooking time (27). The peak time of the yam flour varied significantly. The peak time
value ranged from 5.10mins to 7.03mins. CPBOW had the lowest peak time (5.10mins) while APBSW had the highest
peak time (7.03mins). The values obtained are similar to the values obtained by (34) on Aerial yam flour and (41) on
pasting and sensory properties of poundo yam which ranged from 4.07mins to 5.66mins and 7.0mins respectively.

The pasting temperature of the flour ranged from 81.35°C to 89.10°C. The lowest value (81.35°C) was recorded for
LPBOW while the highest value (89.10°C) was recorded for CLPOW. The result obtained is similar to that recorded by
(34) on Aerial yam flour which ranged from 82.45°C to 88.25°C. There was no significant difference (P<0.05) in the
pasting temperature except in CPBSW, CLPSW, CAPSW and CPBOW which are 88.13°C, 88.30°C, 87.05°C and 88.35°C
respectively. The pasting temperature gives an indication of the gelatinization time during processing. It is the
temperature at which the first detectable increase in viscosity is measured and is an index characterized by the initial
change due to the swelling (42).

127
 GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

Table 2 Pasting properties of yam flour made from different yam cultivars using different processing methods.

SAMPELS PEAK VISCOSITY TROUGH (cP) BREAKDOWN FINAL SETBACK PEAKTIME PASTING
(cP) (cP) VISCOSITY (cP) (cP) (MINS) TEMPERATURE (°C)
APBSW 3497.00±69.30c 3259.00±1.41b 195.00±7.07b 3941.00±1.41d 686.50±3.54c 7.03±0.04a 83.15±0.07bc
ALPSW 3475.00±21.21c 3432.00±2.83a 27.50±2.12l 3889.50±17.68c 445.50±3.54i 6.54±0.01b 82.23±0.04bc
AAPSW 3466.50±4.95c 3271.50±207.18b 39.00±1.41k 3868.50±3.54f 662.00±2.83f 6.47±0.05bc 82.29±0.05bc
APBOW 3267.00±63.64d 3068.00±2.83d 157.50±2.12d 3862.50±3.54f 799.00±1.41a 6.32±0.26bcd 81.54±0.06bc
ALPOW 2789.00±1.41e 2741.00±2.83e 48.50±0.71ij 3352.50±3.54j 612.00±5.66h 6.23±0.04bcde 82.28±0.04bc
AAPOW 2735.00±7.07f 2694.50±6.36e 178.00±2.83c 3731.50±2.12i 629.50±12.02g 6.15±0.07cde 83.39±0.05bc
CPBSW 1886.50±4.95i 1784.00±5.66g 45.00±7.07jk 2531.00±1.41l 437.00±7.07i 6.56±0.03b 88.13±0.04a
CLPSW 2017.00±1.41h 2006.50±4.95f 27.50±3.54l 2556.50±3.54k 340.50±6.36m 6.48±0.07bc 88.30±0.03a
CAPSW 2034.00±1.41h 2020.00±7.07f 40.05±1.48k 2464.00±4.24m 362.00±1.41l 5.34±0.03f 87.05±0.07a
CPBOW 1783.00±7.07j 1691.00±4.24g 29.00±1.41l 2.35.50±3.54l 442.50±3.54i 5.10±0.14f 88.35±0.07b
CLPOW 2044.50±14.85h 2005.00±7.07f 117.50±3.54g 2447.00±2.83n 420.00±7.07j 6.05±0.07de 89.10±0.14a
CAPOW 2136.50±4.95g 2041.00±2.83f 67.00±1.41h 2338.00±2.83o 378.50±2.12k 5.15±0.21f 83.90±3.25b
LPBSW 2257.00±4.24d 3126.00±1.41cd 128.50±2.12f 3806.00±1.41g 685.00±7.07e 6.17±0.24cde 82.23±1.31bc
LLPSW 3269.50±7.78d 3051.00±2.83d 210.00±1.41a 3772.00±2.83h 719.50±0.71d 6.38±0.45bcd 82.25±1.06bc
LAPSW 3682.00±2.83a 3533.50±3.54a 154.00±1.41d 4288.00±11.31b 762.50±3.54b 5.93±0.00e 82.57±1.79bc
LPBOW 3272.00±2.83d 3187.50±2.12bc 143.50±4.95e 4332.50±3.54a 743.50±2.12c 6.08±0.02de 81.35±0.92c
LLPOW 3281.00±1.41d 3224.50±4.95bc 53.50±0.71i 3940.00±1.41d 710.00±4.24d 6.20±0.00bcde 82.13±0.18bc
LAPOW 3571.00±1.41b 3441.00±1.41a 127.50±3.45f 4099.50±0.71c 655.00±4.24f 6.48±0.08bc 83.91±0.06b
Values are mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate sample; means with different superscripts in the same row were significantly different (P<0.05

128
 GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

Table 2 Sensory evaluation of yam flour made from different yam cultivar using different processing methods.

SAMPLES APPEARANCE TASTE COLOUR TEXTURE OVERALL

ACCEPTABILITY
APBSW 8.05±0.89abc 7.75±1.07bc 8.00±0.92a 7.70±1.03b 7.90±1.07bcd
ALPSW 7.70±0.92bc 7.45±1.15bc 7.55±1.19b 7.45±1.19b 7.95±0.99abcd
AAPSW 7.85±1.23bc 7.20±1.47c 7.95±1.32ab 7.45±1.23b 7.80±0.95bcd
APBOW 7.60±0.88c 7.30±1.47c 7.45±1.15b 7.45±1.05b 7.40±0.94d
ALPOW 7.70±0.98bc 7.35±1.04c 7.55±1.05b 7.25±1.07b 7.60±0.75cd
AAPOW 8.05±0.83abc 7.95±0.83abc 7.85±0.75ab 7.50±0.89b 7.80±0.77bcd
CPBSW 5.05±1.23d 4.10±1.21d 4.45±1.47cd 4.10±1.33c 4.10±1.37e
CLPSW 4.55±1.19de 3.80±1.06d 5.00±4.15c 3.95±0.94c 3.90±1.17ef
CAPSW 4.15±1.31ef 3.65±1.04d 4.00±0.92d 3.65±1.04c 3.85±1.27ef
CPBOW 3.70±1.08f 3.70±1.08d 3.70±1.03d 3.40±0.99c 3.60±0.94ef
CLPOW 3.75±1.25f 3.55±1.05d 3.70±1.08d 3.35±1.04c 3.35±0.75f
CAPOW 3.95±1.32ef 3.50±1.19d 3.08±1.20d 3.45±1.09c 3.80±0.95ef
LPBSW 7.45±1.32c 7.55±0.89bc 7.65±1.09ab 7.35±1.39b 7.60±0.99cd
LLPSW 8.00±1.12abc 7.40±1.05bc 7.10±1.17b 7.20±1.28b 7.40±0.94d
LAPSW 7.90±1.07abc 7.75±1.02bc 7.45±0.99b 7.75±1.12ab 8.00±0.73abcd
LPBOW 8.40±0.88ab 7.95±1.50abc 8.15±0.88ab 7.90±1.48ab 8.40±0.60ab
LLPOW 8.40±0.82ab 8.20±1.01ab 8.15±1.09ab 8.00±1.34ab 8.25±0.91abc
LAPOW 8.65±0.75a 6.38±2.21a 8.60±0.82a 8.50±0.95a 8.60±0.75a
Values are mean ± standard deviation (SD) of triplicate sample; means with different superscripts in the same row were significantly different
(P<0.05).

The swelling index of yam flour from different yam cultivars varied significantly (P<0.05). The results obtained ranged
from 1.10 to 1.82ml/ml. ALPSW and CAPOW had the lowest swelling index (1.10ml/ml) while the highest swelling index
was recorded for LAPOW. This result is similar to the result obtained by (19) on effect of processing on cocoyam which
ranges from 1.26ml/ml to 2.00ml/ml. The swelling index of flour granules is an indication of the extent of associative
forces within the granules (43). Swelling power is an indication of presence of amylase which influences the quantity of
amylase and amylopectin present in the yam flour. Therefore, the higher the swelling power, the higher the associate
forces (44).

The mean score of sensory evaluation of the yam flour made from different yam cultivars is presented in Table 2. There
were significant difference (P<0.05) in the panelist score for all sensory attributes. Appearance ranged from 3.70 to
8.65, colour ranged from 3.70 to 8.60, taste ranged from 3.50 to 8.20, texture ranged from 3.35 to 8.50 and overall
acceptability ranged from 3.35 to 8.60. It was observed that majority of the panelist preferred LAPOW (Cultivar
Cotedivoire processed with aluminium pot and clean water) in terms of appearance, colour, texture and overall
acceptability.

CAPSW (Cultivar Cotedivoire processed with aluminium pot and steep water) had the lowest scoring test (3.65) in terms
of taste and CPBOW (Cultivar Cotedivoire processed with plastic bucket and clean water) had the lowest scoring test in
terms of colour. The two samples had bitter taste and dark colour. The yam developed bitter taste and dark colour
presumably due to the yam flour content and rate of browning that occurred during processing (45).

129
 GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

4. Conclusion
LLPSW (cultivar “Lasinrin” processed with local clay pot and steep water “omi ogi”) had the highest water absorption
capacity; LAPOW (Cultivar “Amula” processed with aluminium pot and clean water) had the best overall acceptability.
Water absorption capacity measures the extent of water retention in yam flour. This affects the ability of the yam flour
to form paste.

Compliance with ethical standards

Acknowledgments
We appreciate the local farmers within The Oke-Ogun Polytechnic, Saki. (TOPS) who gave us the local names of the Yam
cultivars used in the research work.

Disclosure of conflict of interest

All the authors hereby declared that there are no conflicts of interest before, during and after the conduct of this
research.

References
[1] Jimoh KO, Olatidoye OP. Evaluation of physic-chemical and Rheological characteristics of soya beans fortified
with yam flour. Journal of applied bioscience. 2009; 13:703-706.
[2] FAO. Food production yearbook. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome vol.50. FAO (1997). Food production
yearbook. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome. 1996; 51.
[3] FAO. Food and Agricultural Organization: Food Production Yearbook. 1997; 50:160-168.
[4] Brand-miller J, Burani J, Foster-Powell K. The New Glucose Revolution Pocket Guide to the Top 100GI Foods. ISBN
1-56924-500-2. 2003.
[5] Otusanya MO, Jeger MJ. Effect of Aspergillus niger on shoot emergence and virus development in full sown yam
(Dioscorea spp) and root development under long term storage condition. Int. Biodegrade. 1996; 38:89-100.
[6] Afoaka EA, Dedeh SKS. Biochemical and Textural Changes in Triofoliate Yam (Dioscoreadumentorum) Tuber
after harvest. 2001.
[7] Onayemi O, Potter NN. Studies on local techniques of yam flour production. Journal of food technology. 1974;
16:303-311.
[8] Ige MT, Akintunde FO. Preparation and storage properties of drum dried water yam. Journal of Food Chemistry.
1981; 1:141-149.
[9] Babajide JM, Henshaw FO, Oyewole OB. Effect of yam variety on the pasting properties and sensory attribute of
traditional dry-yam and its product. Journal of Food Quality. 2008; 295-305.
[10] Ajibola OO, Babatunde OO, Ige MT. A modified process for low cost Palm Oil Extraction. Journal of food science
and Technology. Cabdirect.org. 1988.
[11] Ukpabi UJ, Omodamiro RM, Ikeorgu JG, Asiedu R. Sensory evaluation of amala from improved water yam
(Dioscorea alata) genotype in Nigeria. African journal of biotechnology. 2008; 7(8): 1134-1138.
[12] Mbofung CM, Abubakar YN, Njintang A, Abdu-Boubak BF. Physico-chemical and functional properties of six
varieties of Taro (Colocasiaesculenta I.schott) flour. J. Food Technol. 2006; 4: 135-142.
[13] Wang YD, Kinsella JE. Functional properties of novel protein. J. Food Sci. 1976; 41: 286-294.
[14] Sathe SK, Pont LG, Rangnekar PD, Salunkhe DK. Effect of addition of great northern bean flour and protein
concentrates on the rheological properties of dough and baking quality of bread. Cereal Chem. 1981; 58:97-100.
[15] Tharise N, Juliana F, Nurminah M. Evaluation of physic-chemical and functional properties of composite flour
from cassava, rice, potato, soybean santhan gum as alternative of wheat flour. Int. Food Research. 2014; 21: 141-
1649.

130
 GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

[16] IITA. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture: Operation manual for the 3 rapid visco analyzer using
thermocline for windows. Newport scientific property Ltd. Standard Univ. press. Stanford, CA,USA. 2001; 315.
[17] Ihekoronye AI, Ngoddy PO. Integrated food science and technology for the tropics. Macmillan Pub.ltd., London.
1985 pp115-375.
[18] Kinssella JE. Functional ppts of protein in food – A survey. Crit Rev Food Sci. Nutr. 1976; 5: 219 – 225.
[19] Ukomi AN, Richard CP, Abasiekong SK. Effect of processing on the Proximate, Functional and Anti-nutritional
properties of cocoyam (Xanthosoma matata) (Schott) flour. Official J. of Nig. Inv. of Food Sci. and Tech. 2017;
32(2):9-17.
[20] Ocloo FCK, Bansa D, Boatin R, Adom T, Agbemavor WS. Physiochemical, functional and pasting characteristics of
flour produced from Jack fruits (Artocarpushetorophyllus) seeds. Agriculture and Biology journal of North
America. 2010. ISSN print: 2151-7517.
[21] Oluwalana IB, Oluwamukomi MO, Fagbemi TN, Oluwatemi GI. Effect of Temperature and period of blanching on
the pasting and functional properties of plantain (Musa Parasidiaca) flour. Journal of stored product and post –
harvest Research. 2011; 2(8): 164 – 169.
[22] Ojinnaka MC, Nnorom CC. Quality Evaluation of wheat – cocoyam – soybean cookies. Nigerian Journal of
Agriculture Food and Environment. 2015; 11(3): 123-129.
[23] Adeyeye EI, Aye PAC. (1998). The effects of sample preparation on the proximate composition and the functional
properties of the African yam bean flours. Note 1La Rivista Haliana Della sostanzecrasceLXXV-Maggio. 1998; 253-
261.
[24] Saani LO, Adebowale AA, Tafa SO. Proximate functional, pasting and sensory qualities of instant yam flour. A
paper presented as the 15th LSTRC symposium, central Tuber Crops Research institute Trivandrum, Kerala State,
India. 2006.
[25] Akinyede AI, Amoo IA, Eleyinmi AF. Chemical and functional properties of full fat and defatted Diocleare flaxa
seed flours. J. Food. Agricul. Environ. 2005; 3(2):112-115.
[26] Okoye JI, Ene GI, Ojobor CC. Chemical component and functional properties of sorghum – Africa yam bean flour
blend. Sky Journal of Food Science. 2017; 6(2): 021-026.
[27] Adebowale AA, Sanni LO, Awonorin SO. Effect of texture modifiers on the physiochemical and sensory properties
of dried fufu. Food Science and Technology International Journal. 2005; 11(5):373-382.
[28] Babajide JM, Olowe S. Chemical functional and sensory properties of water yam – cassava flour and its paste.
International Food Research Journal. 2013; 20(2):902-909.
[29] Olkku J, Rha C. Gelatinization of starch and wheat flour – a review. Journal of Food Chemistry. 1978; 3:293-317.
[30] Osungbaro TO. Effect of differences in varieties and dry milling of maize on the textural characteristics of Ogi
(Fermented maize meal). Journal of Science and Food Agriculture. 1990; 52:1-12.
[31] Maziya – Dixon B, Dixon AGO, Adebowale AA. Targeting different end uses of cassava: genotypic variations for
cyanogenic potentials and pasting properties. A paper presented at ISTRC-AB symposium, 31 October – 5
November 2004, whitesands Hotel, Mombasa, Kenya. 2004.
[32] Shittu TA, Lasekan OO, Sanni LO, Oladosu MO. (2001). The effect of drying methods on the functional and sensory
characteristics of pupuru – a fermented cassava product. ASSET Int. J. 2001; 1:9-16.
[33] Newport Scientific,. Applications Manual for the Rapid Viscotm Analyzer using Thermocline forWindows.
Newport Scientific Pvt. Ltd., Australia, 1998: 2-26.
[34] Prince will – Ogbonna IL, Ezembaukwu NC. Effect of various processing methods on the pasting and functional
properties of Aerial yam (Dioscorea bulbifera) flour. British Journal of Applied Science and Tech. 2015; 9(5):517-
526.
[35] Ragaee S, Abdel – Aal EM. Pasting properties of starch and protein in selected cereals and quality of their food
products. J. Food Chem. 2016; 9-18.
[36] Zaidhul ISM, Hiroaki Y, Sunju K, Naoto H, Takahiro N. RVA study of mixture of wheat flour and potato starches
with different phosphorus contents. Food Chemistry. 2006;06:056.

131
 GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021, 07(01), 123–132

[37] Akissoe NH, Hounhouigan JD, Mestres C, Nago M. How blanching and drying affects the colour and functional and
functional characteristics of yam (D. cayenensis-rotundata) flours. Food chemistry. 2003; 82:257-264.
[38] Brooks MA, Schitzsaci U. Food Science and technology, Abstracts Int’l. Food into serves (IFIS). 1999; 4(70):67.
[39] Babajide JM, Olowe S. Chemical functional and sensory properties of water yam – cassava flour and its paste.
International Food Research Journal. 2013; 20(2):902-909.
[40] Sandhu K.S,Singh N, Malhi N.S.Some properties of Corn grains and their flours. Physiochemical, functional and
Chapti-marking properties of flours. Journal food chem. 2007.101:938-946.
[41] Oluwamukomi MO, Adeyemi AO. Physicochemical, Pasting and Sensory properties of “Poundo-yam” enriched
with defetted soy flour. J. Applied Tropical Agriculture. 2015; 20(1):89-95.
[42] Emiola L, Delarosa LC. Physicochemical characteristics of yam starchs. Journal of Food Biochemistry. 1918;
5:115-130.
[43] Moorthy SN, Rarnanujan T. (1986). Variation in properties of starch in cassava varieties in relation to age of the
crop. Starch/Starke. 1986; 38(2):58-61.
[44] Ruales J, Nair BM. The content of fat, vitamin and mineral in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) Wild seeds. Food
chemistry Elesevier. 1993.
[45] Samir AM, Abdelgaleil FH, Muneiro N. Antifungal activity of limonoids from KhayaIvorensis. Past Management
Science. 2005; 61(2):186-190.

132