<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article">
 <front>
  <journal-meta>
   <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">
    fns
   </journal-id>
   <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>
     Food and Nutrition Sciences
    </journal-title>
   </journal-title-group>
   <issn pub-type="epub">
    2157-944X
   </issn>
   <issn publication-format="print">
    2157-9458
   </issn>
   <publisher>
    <publisher-name>
     Scientific Research Publishing
    </publisher-name>
   </publisher>
  </journal-meta>
  <article-meta>
   <article-id pub-id-type="doi">
    10.4236/fns.2024.158052
   </article-id>
   <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">
    fns-135690
   </article-id>
   <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
     <subject>
      Articles
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2">
     <subject>
      Biomedical 
     </subject>
     <subject>
       Life Sciences
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
   </article-categories>
   <title-group>
    Effect of Soybean Cultivars on the Nutrients and Consumer Acceptance of Soymilk
   </title-group>
   <contrib-group>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Ilana
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Felberg
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Mercedes Concórdia
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Carrão-Panizzi
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Rosires
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Deliza
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Sidinéa Cordeiro de
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Freitas
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Manuela Cristina Pessanha de Araujo
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Santiago
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Marilia Penteado
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Stephan
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Monalisa Santana Coelho de
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Jesus
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Elizabeth Borges
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Gonçalves
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Rosemar
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Antoniassi
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
   </contrib-group> 
   <aff id="aff1">
    <addr-line>
     aEmbrapa Food Technology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff2">
    <addr-line>
     aEmbrapa Wheat, Passo Fundo, Brazil
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <pub-date pub-type="epub">
    <day>
     05
    </day> 
    <month>
     08
    </month>
    <year>
     2024
    </year>
   </pub-date> 
   <volume>
    15
   </volume> 
   <issue>
    08
   </issue>
   <fpage>
    807
   </fpage>
   <lpage>
    826
   </lpage>
   <history>
    <date date-type="received">
     <day>
      24,
     </day>
     <month>
      July
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year>
    </date>
    <date date-type="published">
     <day>
      27,
     </day>
     <month>
      July
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year> 
    </date> 
    <date date-type="accepted">
     <day>
      27,
     </day>
     <month>
      August
     </month>
     <year>
      2024
     </year> 
    </date>
   </history>
   <permissions>
    <copyright-statement>
     © Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 
    </copyright-statement>
    <copyright-year>
     2014
    </copyright-year>
    <license>
     <license-p>
      This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
     </license-p>
    </license>
   </permissions>
   <abstract>
    Soymilk is one of the most available beverages, an alternative to dairy milk and is recognized for its nutritional value. The nutritional quality, the presence of anti-nutritional factors, isoflavones and sensory acceptability of soymilk depended on the soybean variety as well as the processing conditions. The soymilks from conventional and specialty Brazilian soybean cultivars were compared regarding the composition and consumer acceptance. There were significant differences on the protein, oil, sugars, isoflavones, presence of anti-nutritional factors (phytate and trypsin inhibitor activity) and NSI (nitrogen solubility index) among cultivars and soymilks and for sensory acceptance of soymilks. The preference mapping and cluster analysis identified three different segments of consumers. The soymilk from the conventional cultivar BRS284 achieved higher and similar acceptance score for the three consumer’s segments while the lipoxygenase free cultivars (BRS213 and BRS257) and specialty cultivar BRS216 showed higher score for two segments of consumers. The sensory evaluation of soymilk from different soybean cultivars could improve consumer uptake.
   </abstract>
   <kwd-group> 
    <kwd>
     Preference Mapping
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Cluster Analysis
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Protein
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Phytate
    </kwd>
   </kwd-group>
  </article-meta>
 </front>
 <body>
  <sec id="s1">
   <title>1. Introduction</title>
   <p>There is a trend towards consumption of plant-based foods and the demand for soymilk has increased worldwide <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-1">
     [1]
    </xref>. Soymilk is one of the most available beverages, an alternative for consumers that avoid or want to reduce the dairy milk products <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-2">
     [2]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-3">
     [3]
    </xref>. It is recognized for its nutritional value, lactose and cholesterol free, presence of essential fatty acids, isoflavones and well-balance aminoacids <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-4">
     [4]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>The consumption of soy foods has been extensively studied and reviewed concerning the role of bioactive compounds (isoflavones, peptides, proteins, protease inhibitors, lectins, saponins, phytic acid, oligosaccharides, phytosterols, phenolic acids) related to health benefits such as cardiovascular diseases, some types of cancer, osteoporosis among others diseases <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-5">
     [5]
    </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-11">
     [11]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Despite the nutritional value of soymilk, its consumption in the Western world is limited due to the off-flavor characterized as beany, green, grassy, painty, astringent, and bitter, which have been associated with oxidation of polyunsaturated lipids by lipoxygenases (LOX) present in soybeans <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-3">
     [3]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-11">
     [11]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-12">
     [12]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Furthermore, there are anti-nutritional factors in soybean, such as anti-trypsin factor and phytates with negative effect on the protein digestion and mineral availability, respectively. Thermal treatment is commonly used for anti-trypsin factor inactivation while processes, such as blanching, roasting, hot grinding and pH adjustment of soaking water are used for LOX inactivation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-3">
     [3]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Technological alternatives for soymilk processing were developed by Nelson et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-13">
     [13]
    </xref> and Tanteeratarm et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-14">
     [14]
    </xref> called “Illinois process” and “INTSOY/Food science processes” resulting in bland and very smooth beverages. These processes for whole or dehulled soybeans may include soaking, and alkaline blanching (one or two steps) followed by cold or hot grinding. The alkaline soaking followed by alkaline blanch or alkaline blanching without soaking inactivated lipoxygenases and anti-trypsin factor. In addition to bland flavor, those steps also promote a reduction of the cooking time of soybeans. In Brazil, the processing of soymilk has been carried out with slight modifications (no soaking, reducing time of blanching and difference in bicarbonate concentration solution) by Felberg et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-15">
     [15]
    </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-17">
     [17]
    </xref> to meet the expectations of Brazilian consumers.</p>
   <p>Tripathi et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-18">
     [18]
    </xref> compared several soybean processing for soymilk such as the traditional oriental process (soaking for 4 hours and grinding at room temperature) and different soaking (pH and temperature) and grinding conditions as well as the deodorization step of soymilk. The soymilk from the traditional process presented a strong “beany flavor” while higher sensory acceptance was obtained for soymilk from soaking and cooking with bicarbonate solution (Illinois Method) and for deodorized soymilk.</p>
   <p>Nevertheless, the nutritional quality, the presence of anti-nutritional factors, isoflavones and sensory acceptability of soymilk depended on the soybean variety as well as the processing conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-19">
     [19]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-20">
     [20]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>In Brazil, a breeding program to develop specialty soybean cultivars is carried out at the National Soybean Research Center (Embrapa). In the cross combinations, high-yielding cultivars adapted to the different soybean production regions, and genotypes with special traits such as better flavor (through absence of lipoxygenase), high protein content, reduced trypsin inhibitor, appropriate seed size (large or small), and hilum color (yellow), are being considered specialty ones in order to improve soybean for human consumption <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-21">
     [21]
    </xref>. The Brazilian soybean cultivars BRS 213 and BRS 257 are lipoxygenase free and other specialty cultivars for human consumption are BRS 267 (large size, vegetable type for tofu and edamame) and BRS 216 (with high protein and isoflavones and small size for soybean sprouts) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-22">
     [22]
    </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-25">
     [25]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>The lipoxygenase-free soybean BRS 213 was evaluated as soy beverage (prepared with 10% of spray dried soymilk) and the sensory acceptance was higher than two commercial brands of dried soymilk in two different cities in Brazil <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-26">
     [26]
    </xref>, which are very promising results. The specialty, conventional and LOX free cultivars from Embrapa were evaluated for tofu by Benassi et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-27">
     [27]
    </xref> and no difference was observed for acceptance but the internal preference mapping indicated consumer segmentation in three different groups. The internal preference mapping and cluster analysis showed the segmentation of consumer groups for soymilk which are useful tools to select among soybean cultivars <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-17">
     [17]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>There are few results regarding sensory evaluation of soymilk using the specialty and LOX free soybean cultivars developed in Brazil as well as for the presence of anti-nutritional factors. This study aimed to investigate the performance of different conventional soybean cultivars, LOX-free and other specialty cultivars regarding the nutritional characteristics, presence of anti-nutritional factors and consumer acceptance of soymilk to contribute to the development of soymilk.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s2">
   <title>2. Material and Methods</title>
   <sec id="s2_1">
    <title>2.1. Material</title>
    <p>The soybean cultivars were selected based on previous studies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-22">
      [22]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-23">
      [23]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-28">
      [28]
     </xref> that investigated their nutritional characteristics and absence of LOX. The cultivars were provided by Embrapa Soybean (Londrina, PR, Brazil) at fully mature stage (R8), and their characteristics are described in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
      Table 1
     </xref>.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table1">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
       Table 1
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>Table 1. Soybean cultivars from the genetic breeding program at Embrapa Soybean.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="22.82%">Cultivars<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="104.70%">Characteristics<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="22.82%">BRS 213<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="104.70%">Lipoxygenases free (LOX1, LOX2, LOX3), yellow hilum color<p style="text-align:left"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.82%">BRS 257<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="aleft" width="104.70%">Lipoxygenases free (LOX1, LOX2, LOX3), light brown hilum<p style="text-align:left"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.82%">BRS 267<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="aleft" width="104.70%">Specialty type for edamame, pleasant flavor, large grains, yellow hilum<p style="text-align:left"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.82%">BRS 216<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="aleft" width="104.70%">Specialty type for soybean sprouts, yellow hilum, high protein and isoflavone contents<p style="text-align:left"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.82%">BRS 284<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="aleft" width="104.70%">Conventional soybean cultivar, light brown hilum color<p style="text-align:left"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="22.82%">BRS 317<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="aleft" width="104.70%">Conventional soybean cultivar with a light brown hilum<p style="text-align:left"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_2">
    <title>2.2. Processing</title>
    <p>Soymilk processing was carried out according to Felberg et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-15">
      [15]
     </xref> and Antoniassi et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-29">
      [29]
     </xref>. The soybean was dehulled, cooked for 10 minutes in sodium bicarbonate solution (0.25%) at a ratio of 1:3 (dehulled soybean: solution) and drained. Then, the grinding with boiling water using a Waring® heavy-duty blender at a ratio of 1:8 (blanched soybeans: water) was performed for two minutes, followed by centrifugation using an IEC® K7165 centrifuge with a 150 μm nylon filter at 4000 rpm (~2500 g) and pasteurization (95 a 98˚C/10 min). The soymilk presented 7% of total solids and was formulated by adding 3% sucrose and 0.2% salt (w/w) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">
      Figure 1
     </xref>). The process was carried out three to five times for each cultivar. The soymilk yield was measured as liters of soymilk resulting from the processing of one kg of dehulled soybeans.</p>
    <fig id="fig1" position="float">
     <label>Figure 1</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 1. Flowchart of soymilk processing.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2703937-rId12.jpeg?20240830023347" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_3">
    <title>2.3. Physicochemical Analysis of Soybean and Soymilk</title>
    <p>The analysis of dehulled soybean and soymilk was performed in six replicates according to the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-30">
      [30]
     </xref>. Moisture analysis was performed by oven-drying to constant weight at 105˚C (AOAC 925.45B). The ash content was measured at 550˚C in a muffle furnace (AOAC 923.03/32.1.05). The protein content was calculated based on the nitrogen content obtained by the Kjeldahl method (AOAC 4.2.11) using a 6.25 factor. Oil extraction was performed by acid hydrolysis followed by ethyl ether and petroleum ether extraction according to AOAC method 922.06 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-30">
      [30]
     </xref>. The nitrogen solubility index (NSI) and the trypsin inhibitor activity were determined according to the Official methods of AOCS <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-31">
      [31]
     </xref>, BA 11-65 and Ba 12-75, respectively. The phytate content followed the official method AOAC 986.11 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-30">
      [30]
     </xref> but the phosphorus content was measured by ICP-OES (Inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry) (Optima 2100 DV, Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, EUA) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-32">
      [32]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>The analysis of mono-, di- and oligosaccharides was performed with six replicates based on the liquid chromatographic separation with using the HPLC system (Waters™, Waltham, MA, USA) and refractive index detector mode W2410 (Waters™) and amino column (Zorbax carbohydrate column, 4.6 × 250 mm; 5 µm—Agilent™). The chromatographic conditions employed isocratic elution mode with acetonitrile: water (75:25, v/v), at temperature of 45˚C, and a 20 µL injection volume. Sample extraction was conducted with 1 g of sample weighed in a 25-mL volumetric flask containing 10 mL of ultrapure water, followed by an ultrasonic bath for 10 min. Subsequently, 5 mL of acetonitrile was added, and the volume was completed with ultrapure water. Finally, the extract was filtered. The quantification was done by external standardization.</p>
    <p>The isoflavone analysis of dehulled soybean was carried out according to AOAC method 2001.10 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-30">
      [30]
     </xref> using six replicates. The extractions were performed with methanol/water (80:20, v/v), followed by hydrolysis with NaOH solution, acidification, and filtration. The analyses were carried out by HPLC-PDA (Alliance™ 2695, Waters, Waltham, MA, USA) using a YMC-Pack Pro C18 column (5 μm, 4.6 mm × 250 mm, YMC, Kyoto, Japan) and a gradient with acetic acid solution and methanol running at 1.3 mL/min. The identification and quantification at 260 nm of isoflavones were performed by comparing the peak retention time with those of the respective standards. The peak identities were confirmed as well as by UV spectra. The conversion of the isoflavone concentrations (genistin, glycitin, and daidzin) into aglycon equivalents was calculated by multiplying the mass of each isoflavone form by the ratio of its aglycone molecular weight to the molecular weight of the individual form <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-33">
      [33]
     </xref>. The total isoflavones as aglycon equivalents were determined by summing the concentrations of daidzein, glycitein, and genistein to the aglycon equivalent concentrations of daidzin, glycitin, and genistin.</p>
    <p>To evaluate the presence of lipoxygenases, the soybeans were ground and defatted by Soxhlet extraction with petroleum ether for 16 hours. Protein extraction for further electrophoresis analysis was performed by solubilizing the defatted sample in 0.05 M Na<sub>2</sub>CO<sub>3</sub>, 6 M urea, 12% sucrose and 1% SDS buffer and stirring for 1 h. Samples were centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 minutes after filtration on a cotton filter. For the present work, the Bio-Rad electrophoresis system was used, according to the gel preparation methodology <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-34">
      [34]
     </xref>. The run was carried out in a 12% polyacrylamide gel for 7 h at 100 V. The polypeptide bands in the SDS-PAGE were visualized by staining with the color reagent “Coomassie brilliant blue R250”, overnight and washed with mixture of containing: 40% methanol, 10% acetic acid and 50% water, for 3 h.</p>
    <p>The six soymilk beverages were processed at EMBRAPA Food Technology one day before the test, and kept refrigerated (6˚C ± 2˚C). The samples were taken to a supermarket in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil following the requirements of a central location test. The study was approved by the Federal State University of Rio de Janeiro Ethical Committee (UNIRIO)—(TTDD:232/2011).</p>
    <p>Consumers were invited to participate in the study at the entrance of the supermarket and, when agreed, they were taken to an area where the test was performed. Tables and chairs were adequately arranged to avoid close contact between participants. Ninety-nine consumers of non-alcoholic beverages but not usual consumers of soymilk, aged between 18 and 65 years agreed to take part in this study. Participants were asked to try the samples and to indicate their overall liking. Around 40 mL of each soymilk were placed in 50 mL plastic cups, coded with three-digit numbers and served to participants at refrigerator temperature (8˚C ± 2˚C). Tap water at room temperature was provided to wash their mouths between samples. The order of samples’ presentation was balanced, and followed a complete block design <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-35">
      [35]
     </xref>. Samples were presented monadically. The seven-point Hedonic Scale was used, ranging from (1) “I really disliked it” to (7) “I really liked it”. After expressing their level of overall liking, consumers were given the option to freely state what they liked and disliked about each soymilk. This task was not mandatory, and they had the opportunity to express only likes, only dislikes, both or none for each product <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-36">
      [36]
     </xref>. The test was carried out between 10:00 am - 16:30 pm.</p>
    <p>The data was evaluated by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey at a significance level of 95% using SAS (Statistical Analysis System Institute).</p>
    <p>For the consumer acceptance data, ANOVA was used and the sample was specified as fixed effect, whereas consumer as a random effect, and Tukey’s test was used for post hoc pairwise comparisons of sample means, at a significance level of 5%. In addition, the data from the acceptance study were also analyzed using Cluster Analysis and Internal Preference Mapping <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-37">
      [37]
     </xref> to better understanding the consumer preference. The analyses were carried out using XLSTAT.</p>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s3">
   <title>3. Results and Discussion</title>
   <sec id="s3_1">
    <title>3.1. Physicochemical Analysis of Soybean Cultivars</title>
    <p>Analysis of the protein identity pattern by SDS-PAGE showed the absence of lipoxygenases in the molecular mass range of 100 kDa in the BRS 213 and BRS 257 confirming them as LOX free cultivars, different from the other specialty and conventional cultivars that presented the enzymes.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>There were significant differences among cultivars evaluated regarding the proximate composition (dry weight), presence of anti-nutritional factors (phytate and trypsin inhibitor activity) and NSI (nitrogen solubility index) (p &lt; 0.05) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
      Table 2
     </xref>). The levels of protein were in the range presented by Silva et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-22">
      [22]
     </xref> and Felberg et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-17">
      [17]
     </xref> but higher than those reported by Ciabotti et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-25">
      [25]
     </xref> for Brazilian cultivars. The protein content ranged from 38.8 to 44.8 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> and highest figure was obtained for cultivar BRS 216 recognized by its higher protein content <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-22">
      [22]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-23">
      [23]
     </xref>. The oil content varied from 19.8 to 26.7 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> agreeing with the range presented by Felberg et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-17">
      [17]
     </xref> but higher than the results obtained by Silva et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-22">
      [22]
     </xref>, Ciabotti et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-25">
      [25]
     </xref> and Seibel et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-28">
      [28]
     </xref> for Brazilian soybean cultivars. The highest oil content was obtained for BRS 284 that showed the lowest protein content, similar as observed by Felberg at al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-17">
      [17]
     </xref>. The ash content ranged from 5 to 5.8 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>, similar to Felberg et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-17">
      [17]
     </xref> and Ciabotti et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-25">
      [25]
     </xref>, and BRS 267 presented the highest content. No trend regarding proximate composition was observed among the specialty, conventional and lipoxygenase-free soybean cultivars.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table2">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
       Table 2
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>Table 2. Proximate composition (g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>, dry weight), anti-nutritional factors and Nitrogen Solubility index of Brazilian soybean cultivars.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="15.20%">Cultivar<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.01%">Protein<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="8.86%">Ash<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.01%">Oil<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.60%">Phytate (mg·g<sup>−1</sup>)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.03%">NSI (%)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="26.28%">Trypsin inhibitor activity (TIU/mg)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.20%">BRS 216<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.01%">44.8<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="8.86%">5.0<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.01%">20.4<sup>e</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.60%">13.8<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.03%">59.5<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="26.28%">20.3<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.20%">BRS 267<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">42.5<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.86%">5.8<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">19.8<sup>f</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.60%">16.9<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.03%">57.3<sup>bc</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.28%">25.6<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.20%">BRS 213<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">41.8<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.86%">5.6<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">23.2<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.60%">14.2<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.03%">67<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.28%">34.3<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.20%">BRS 257<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">43.3<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.86%">5.5<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">23.5<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.60%">13.8<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.03%">59.2<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.28%">24.0<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.20%">BRS 317<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">39.3<sup>e</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.86%">5.0<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">24.4<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.60%">11.2<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.03%">52.7<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.28%">NP<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.20%">BRS 284<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">38.8<sup>f</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.86%">5.5<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.01%">26.7<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.60%">8.7<sup>e</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.03%">71.4<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="26.28%">32.4<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>NSI: Nitrogen Solubility index; Trypsin inhibitor activity—TIU; NP—not performed. Means with different lowercase letters in the same column are significantly different (p &lt; 0.05) by Tukey test. Results expressed as the average of six replicates.</p>
    <p>The trypsin inhibitor activity (TIU) was significant higher for the BRS 284 (conventional) and BRS 213 (LOX free) while the lowest content was obtained for the specialty one BRS 216 (p &lt; 0.05). The results obtained were in the range obtained by Galão et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-38">
      [38]
     </xref> for conventional and transgenic soybean cultivars grown in Brazil and higher than the results for Brazilian cultivars reported by Seibel et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-28">
      [28]
     </xref>. TIU elimination or reduction through genetic improvement techniques are valuable tools to enhance the digestibility and nutritional value of soy-based products <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-38">
      [38]
     </xref>. The trypsin inhibitors are protease inhibitors that reduce the protein digestibility but can be eliminated by thermal processing. However, the conditions may reduce the nutrients (such as isoflavones) and decrease amino acid availability <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-3">
      [3]
     </xref>. The blanching of soybeans with sodium bicarbonate inactivated the trypsin inhibitors according to Nelson et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-13">
      [13]
     </xref> which employed similar conditions of this work.</p>
    <p>There were significant differences for sugars (p &lt; 0.05) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
      Table 3
     </xref>). Glucose was not detected and fructose varied from 0.36 to 0.89 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>. Sucrose content ranged from 3.8 to 11 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> and the highest content was quantified for BRS267 followed by BRS216 and BRS284. The raffinose content ranged from 1 to 2.8 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>, and the highest value was obtained for BRS267. Stachyose content ranged from 5.8 to 11.8 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> and the highest content was found in BRS216. Silva et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-22">
      [22]
     </xref> evaluated five Brazilian soybean cultivars as well as BRS213, BRS216, BRS267 and BRS133 and the ranges observed for sucrose, raffinose and stachyose were 3.4 to 4.3; 0.4 to 1.0 and 2 to 3.5 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>, respectively. Oliveira et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-23">
      [23]
     </xref> evaluated 28 Brazilian, American and Japanese cultivars and observed very wide ranges of values for sucrose (2.4 to 6 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), stachyose (2.2 to 4.4 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), raffinose (0.4 to 1.2 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>) and fructose was detected up to 0.05 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>. According to Kumar et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-39">
      [39]
     </xref>, the content of sucrose of soybeans was significantly higher at cooler growing location (up to 16%) while differences for raffinose and stachyose were genotype-dependent. The results showed different pattern of the specialty cultivars BRS 216 and BRS 267 related to sugars content. Although the oligosaccharides are commonly described as flatulence factor, currently the oligosaccharides from soybean have been reported as prebiotics that promote competitive exclusion of pathogens and the consumption of these prebiotics may be useful for maintaining populations of beneficial bacteria in the gut <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-40">
      [40]
     </xref>.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table3">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
       Table 3
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>Table 3. Sugar content of six Brazilian soybean cultivars (g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>, dry weight).</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="17.00%">Cultivars<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="18.60%">Fructose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.78%">Glucose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="18.23%">Sucrose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="15.38%">Raffinose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="17.00%">Stachyose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.00%">BRS 216<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="18.60%">0.49<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.78%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="18.23%">8.67<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.38%">2.33<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.00%">11.77ª<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">BRS 267<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.60%">0.71<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.78%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.23%">11.04<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.38%">2.77<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">5.92<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">BRS 213<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.60%">0.36<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.78%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.23%">3.82<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.38%">1.69<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">5.82<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">BRS 257<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.60%">0.47<sup>cd</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.78%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.23%">4.54<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.38%">1.67<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">5.83<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">BRS 317<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.60%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.78%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.23%">4.36<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.38%">1.82<sup>bc</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">5.85<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">BRS 284<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.60%">0.89<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.78%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.23%">8.02<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.38%">1.04<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.00%">6.26<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>Means with different lowercase letters in the same column are significantly different (p &lt; 0.05) by Tukey test. Results expressed as the average of six replicates. ND—Not detected.</p>
    <p>There were significant differences among soybean cultivars (p &lt; 0.05) for the total isoflavones content and the individual isoflavones (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">
      Table 4
     </xref>). The total isoflavones content varied from 65 to 150 mg/100g and the higher amount was observed for BRS 317 (conventional grain type) followed by BRS 216. The main isoflavones were genistin and daidzin, while lower amounts of genistein, daidzein and glycitin were observed. Glycitein was detected only for BRS 317. The results were in the range obtained for Brazilian cultivars by Carrão-Panizzi et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-41">
      [41]
     </xref> and Felberg et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-17">
      [17]
     </xref>. The variation of the isoflavones from different countries and cultivars was reported by Bhagwat et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-42">
      [42]
     </xref>, for daidzein (2.64 to 191.43 mg·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), genistein (5.56 to 276.21 mg·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), glycitein (0 to 121.69 mg·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>) and for the total isoflavones (10.04 to 440.72 mg·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>). The isoflavone contents in soybean varies according to genetic differences, geographic location, soil, year, and environmental conditions during growth <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-43">
      [43]
     </xref>. No trend regarding isoflavone contents was observed among the specialty, conventional and lipoxygenase-free soybean cultivars.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table4">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">
       Table 4
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>Table 4. Isoflavone content (mg·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>, dry basis)* of soybean from different Brazilian soybean cultivars.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="11.88%">Cultivar<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="88.12%" colspan="7">aglycone equivalents (mg/100 grams, dry weight)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.66%">Daidzein<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.74%">Glycitein<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.22%">Genistein<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.62%">Daidzin*<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.69%">Glycitin*<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.18%">Genistin*<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="11.00%">Total<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.88%">BRS 216<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.66%">0.83<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.74%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.22%">1.40<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.62%">40.49<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.69%">2.16<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.18%">60.16<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.00%">105.04<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.88%">BRS 267<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.66%">0.91<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.74%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.22%">1.66<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.62%">27.8<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.69%">1.08<sup>e</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.18%">42.76<sup>e</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.00%">74.20<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.88%">BRS 213<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.66%">0.77<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.74%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.22%">1.46<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.62%">28.49<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.69%">1.39<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.18%">52.91<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.00%">85.02<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.88%">BRS 257<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.66%">0.61<sup>bc</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.74%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.22%">1.20<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.62%">22.94<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.69%">2.00<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.18%">46.30<sup>de</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.00%">73.05<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.88%">BRS 317<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.66%">2.48<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.74%">0.17<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.22%">0.74<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.62%">68.99<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.69%">0.93<sup>f</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.18%">76.78<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.00%">150.08<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.88%">BRS 284<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.66%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.74%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.22%">1.08<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.62%">12.92<sup>e</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.69%">1.24<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.18%">49.91<sup>cd</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.00%">65.16<sup>e</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>Means with different lowercase letters in the same column are significantly different (p &lt; 0.05) by Tukey test. *Individual isoflavone glycosides were normalized for their molecular weight differences into aglycone forms and summed to obtain the total content. Results expressed as the average of six replicates for soybean; ND—not detected.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_2">
    <title>3.2. Physicochemical Analysis of Soymilk</title>
    <p>There were slight but significant differences (p &lt; 0.01) related to the total solids (10 to 12 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>) of the soymilk (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
      Table 5
     </xref>) then the results were presented as dry basis. There were significant differences for protein (28.8 to 38.6 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), oil (19.9 to 27.6 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>) and ash contents (4.7 to 5.7 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>), of the soymilk from conventional, LOX free and specialty soybean cultivars (p &lt; 0.05) (dry weight). Considering the nutritional value, the higher intake of protein and oil will be supplied, respectively, by the soymilk from LOX free cultivars (BRS213 and BRS257) (Supplementary data).</p>
    <p>There were significant differences for sugars (p &lt; 0.05) of soymilk (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">
      Table 6
     </xref>) but the variation among them were lower than for soybeans (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
      Table 3
     </xref>). Glucose and fructose were not detected. Sucrose content ranged from 29.5 to 36.6 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> because this sugar was added in the formulation step. The raffinose content ranged from 2.3 to 3.4 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>, and the stachyose varied from 5.7 to 7.8 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>. Some results of raffinose content of soymilk were higher than for soybeans because for soymilk the analysis accounted the extracted sugars and for soybeans the analysis extraction from dehulled soybeans depended on the grain hardness.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table5">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
       Table 5
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>Table 5. Proximate composition (g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>, dry weight), total solids (g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> of the beverage), anti-nutritional factors and Nitrogen Solubility index of soymilk from Brazilian soybean cultivars*.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="15.52%">Cultivar<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="11.77%">Protein<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="8.81%">Ash<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="9.69%">Oil<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.33%">Phytate (mg·g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.32%">NSI<p style="text-align:center"></p>(%)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="15.23%">Yield<p style="text-align:center"></p>(L·kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)**<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.33%">Total solids (g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.52%">BRS 216<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="11.77%">33.4<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="8.81%">5.1<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="9.69%">23.0<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.33%">13.0<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.32%">81.2<sup>ac</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.23%">3.3<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.33%">10.9<sup>cd</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.52%">BRS 267<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.77%">33.1<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.81%">5.6<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.69%">19.9<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">15.2<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.32%">82.9<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.23%">3.7<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">10.9<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.52%">BRS 213<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.77%">36.1<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.81%">5.1<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.69%">21.7<sup>cd</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">13.0<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.32%">84.8<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.23%">3.9<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">12<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.52%">BRS 257<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.77%">38.6<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.81%">5.2<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.69%">25.4<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">10.8<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.32%">77.5<sup>cd</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.23%">3.9<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">11.6<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.52%">BRS 317<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.77%">28.8<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.81%">5.7<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.69%">27.6<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">10.3<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.32%">79.4<sup>bcd</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.23%">4.1<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">10<sup>e</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.52%">BRS 284<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="11.77%">31.4<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="8.81%">4.7<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="9.69%">21.5<sup>cd</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">7.4<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="12.32%">75.5<sup>d</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.23%">4.0<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.33%">11.2<sup>bc</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>NSI: Nitrogen Solubility index; *Results expressed as the average of six replicates; **Yield—Average Soymilk yield obtained from three to six processes (Liters of soymilk/kg of dehulled soybeans); Means with different lowercase letters in the same column are significantly different (p &lt; 0.05) by Tukey test.</p>
    <table-wrap id="table6">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">
       Table 6
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>Table 6. Sugar contents of soymilk from six soybean cultivars (g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>, dry weight).</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="18.24%">Cultivars<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="15.08%">Fructose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="15.10%">Glucose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="16.67%">Sucrose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="16.29%">Raffinose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="18.62%">Stachyose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="18.24%">BRS 216<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.08%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="15.10%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="16.67%">36.56<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="16.29%">2.65<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="18.62%">7.79<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.24%">BRS 267<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.08%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.10%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.67%">36.21<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.29%">3.37<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.62%">7.15<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.24%">BRS 213<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.08%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.10%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.67%">29.49<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.29%">2.06<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.62%">5.68<sup>c</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.24%">BRS 257<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.08%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.10%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.67%">32.58<sup>bc</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.29%">2.56<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.62%">7.48<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.24%">BRS 317<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.08%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.10%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.67%">42.11<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.29%">3.19<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.62%">7.35<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.24%">BRS 284<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.08%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="15.10%">ND<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.67%">35.24<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="16.29%">2.27<sup>bc</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="18.62%">6.34<sup>bc</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p>Means with different lowercase letters in the same column are significantly different (p &lt; 0.05) by Tukey test. Results expressed as the average of six replicates. ND—not detected.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_3">
    <title>3.3. Effects of the Processing</title>
    <p>Regarding the composition of soymilk (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
      Table 5
     </xref>), a different trend related the ratio of protein, oil, ash and phytate from soybean to soymilk was observed (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
      Figure 2
     </xref>). There was difference among cultivars and for different nutrients moreover higher ratios were observed for oil and ash than for protein ratio. The protein content of the soymilk from BRS 216 (33.4 g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> dry weight, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
      Table 5
     </xref>) stood among the lower figures than the other ones, although this soybean presented the highest protein content among the cultivars evaluated. This behavior may be confirmed by the soymilk yield which ranged from 3.3 to 4.1 Liter·kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> of dehulled soybeans and the lower figure was observed for BRS 216 that did not differ from BRS 267 and no difference was observed from the former one the BRS213, 257, 317 and 284 (p &lt; 0.05). The mass transfer of compounds from soybean to soymilk depended on the soybean cultivars as well as on the process conditions, such as the grain softening or tenderization during macerating and during grinding. Additionally, the centrifugation step may be relevant for the composition of soymilk. The Nitrogen Solubility index of soybeans varied from 52.7% to 71.4% (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
      Table 2
     </xref>) while for soymilk ranged from 75.5% to 84.8% (p &lt; 0.05) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
      Table 5
     </xref>). Then there was an increase of NSI in the soymilk, even after heat treatment (blanching, grinding and pasteurization). Rigo et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-24">
      [24]
     </xref> found NSI for Brazilian soybean cultivars varying from 60% - 63% and significant reduction was observed after heat treatment (98˚C for 5 minutes). The water extraction of soymilk followed by centrifugation favored the extraction of more soluble protein fraction that present higher NSI found in this work.</p>
    <fig id="fig2" position="float">
     <label>Figure 2</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 2. Average ratio (%) of the component between soymilk/soybean (content in dry basis) among cultivars.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2703937-rId13.jpeg?20240830023350" />
    </fig>
    <p>In relation to phytate, the ranges observed for soybean and soymilk were 8.7 to 16.9 and 7.4 to 15.2 mg/g (dry weight) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
      Table 2
     </xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
      Table 5
     </xref>), respectively, but a similar ratio (78% - 84%) was observed indicating that the processing did not removed this anti-nutritional factor (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
      Figure 2
     </xref>). The phytate content of Brazilian cultivars was evaluated by Karkle and Beleia <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-44">
      [44]
     </xref> and Oliveira et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-45">
      [45]
     </xref> ranging from 11.9 to 18.3 and 7.7 to 11.8 mg/g, respectively. The phytate content from 116 different genotypes varied from 7.7 to 22.2 mg/g <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-46">
      [46]
     </xref> while Kumar et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-47">
      [47]
     </xref> reported the range of 9 - 17 mg/g. Phytate has both beneficial and detrimental effects on human nutrition, due to ability to complex with several metal ions such as zinc, calcium, and iron reducing their bioavailability. However, it had been reported to be a potent natural plant antioxidant that plays a protective role against oxidative stress in seeds and preventive role in various human diseases <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-47">
      [47]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-48">
      [48]
     </xref>. The higher phytate content was observed for BRS 267 followed by BRS 213 (LOX free) while the lower content was found for BRS 284 (conventional).</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_4">
    <title>3.4. Consumer Acceptance Results</title>
    <p>The results of the analysis of variance showed that there was a difference (p ≤ 0.05) in consumer acceptance only between soymilk processed from BRS257 (LOX free) and BRS284 (conventional) soybean cultivar (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">
      Table 7
     </xref>). In addition, there was no average acceptance difference among beverages elaborated from the other cultivars. However, when the score of each consumer is observed, it was possible to notice that some participants liked the products, while others rated the beverages with very low scores. Results from the Preference Mapping (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">
      Figure 3
     </xref>) and cluster analysis allow the observation of this diversity and help identifying consumers who liked one beverage over another. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">
      Figure 3
     </xref> shows the position of consumers (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(a)">
      Figure 3(a)
     </xref>) and samples (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(b)">
      Figure 3(b)
     </xref>).</p>
    <table-wrap id="table7">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">
       Table 7
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>Table 7. Average consumer acceptance scores and standard deviation of soymilk samples.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td rowspan="2" class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.50%">Acceptance<sup>§</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="82.50%" colspan="6">Soymilk samples<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.74%">BRS213<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">BRS216<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">BRS257<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">BRS267<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">BRS284<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">BRS317<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.50%">Average<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.74%">4.9<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">4.5<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">4.4<sup>b</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">4.6<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">5.0<sup>a</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="13.75%">4.7<sup>ab</sup><p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="17.50%">Standard deviation<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.74%">1.56<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.75%">1.76<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.75%">1.67<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.75%">1.63<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.75%">1.58<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="13.75%">1.66<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p><sup>§</sup>Evaluated in 7-point hedonic scales: 1—“I really disliked it” to 7—“I really liked it”.</p>
    <p>The first and second dimensions (F1 and F2) represented 51% of the total variation and can be considered adequate taking into account that samples were evaluated by consumers with no experience on the product. The results shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(a)">
      Figure 3(a)
     </xref> revealed the consumer segmentation regarding the acceptance of the samples, and three segments were identified, which had different acceptance towards samples. The dimension 1 separated the sample BRS213 from the others, while in the dimension 2, soymilks from cultivars BRS317 and BRS284 were positioned apart. Participants were mainly spread across three quadrants of the <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3(b)">
      Figure 3(b)
     </xref>, indicating that soymilks made from BRS317, BRS284 and BRS213 cultivars were preferred, as they pleased a greater number of consumers and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">
      Table 8
     </xref> presents the mean acceptance scores of the three consumer’s segments.</p>
    <p>The soymilk made from BRS317 (conventional) reached higher acceptance score only for segment one (37 consumers) while no difference was observed for this cultivar and BRS284, BRS257 (LOX free), BRS267 and BRS216 for the segment 1. The segment 2 with 43 consumers preferred the BRS284 and BRS213 (LOX free). No difference was observed for BRS216, BRS213, BRS284 and BRS257 for the segment 3 with 19 consumers.</p>
    <p>The soymilk processed with the conventional cultivar BRS284 achieved similar acceptance score for the three consumer’s segments and was positioned between “liked slightly” and “liked moderately”. On the other hand, it is worth</p>
    <fig id="fig3" position="float">
     <label>Figure 3</label>
     <caption>
      <title>Figure 3. Internal preference mapping results the position of: (a) Consumers (b) Samples.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2703937-rId14.jpeg?20240830023351" />
    </fig>
    <table-wrap id="table8">
     <label>
      <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">
       Table 8
      </xref></label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>Table 8. Average soymilk acceptance<sup>§</sup> scores and standard errors of consumer’s segments.</title>
     </caption>
     <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="24.85%">Soymilk sample<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="25.04%">Segment 1<p style="text-align:center"></p>(n = 37)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="25.06%">Segment 2<p style="text-align:center"></p>(n = 43)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="25.06%">Segment 3<p style="text-align:center"></p>(n = 19)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="24.85%">BRS317<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.04%">5.4<sup>aA</sup> ± 0.25<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.06%">4.5<sup>bB</sup> ± 0.23<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="25.06%">3.5<sup>cC</sup> ± 0.35<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="24.85%">BRS257<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.04%">4.8<sup>abA</sup> ± 0.26<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">3.8<sup>cB</sup> ± 0.34<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">5.1<sup>aA</sup> ± 0.36<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="24.85%">BRS284<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.04%">4.8<sup>abA</sup> ± 0.26<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">5.2<sup>aA</sup> ± 0.24<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">4.7<sup>abA</sup> ± 0.36<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="24.85%">BRS267<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.04%">5.0<sup>aA</sup> ± 0.27<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">4.5<sup>bA</sup> ± 0.25<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">4.2<sup>bcA</sup> ± 0.36<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="24.85%">BRS213<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.04%">4.2<sup>bB</sup> ± 0.24<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">5.1<sup>aA</sup> ± 0.23<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">5.5<sup>aA</sup> ± 0.34<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
      <tr> 
       <td class="acenter" width="24.85%">BRS216<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.04%">4.9<sup>abA</sup> ± 0.29<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">3.8<sup>cB</sup> ± 0.25<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
       <td class="acenter" width="25.06%">5.5<sup>aA</sup> ± 0.38<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      </tr> 
     </table>
    </table-wrap>
    <p><sup>§</sup>Evaluated in 7-point hedonic scales. Different lowercase letters on the same column indicate difference (p ≤ 0.05), and different capital letters on the same line indicate difference (p ≤ 0.05). n: number of consumers.</p>
    <p>comment about the soymilks prepared with LOX free soybeans achieved an adequate performance for consumers in segments 2 and 3 for BRS213 and segments 1 and 3 for BRS 257.</p>
    <p>Comparing the consumer acceptance of soymilks and its composition, the soymilk from the conventional cultivar BRS317 presented the lowest protein content (wet basis, supplementary data) which could negatively affect its acceptance because the sucrose content was the highest. Additionally, the soybean BRS317 showed the highest isoflavone content among the cultivars evaluated and this characteristic may be useful for nutrition claim if authorized. In contrast, the highest protein content was observed for LOX free cultivars BRS213 and BRS257 (wet basis, supplementary data). Regarding the phytate content the higher result was observed for BRS 267 followed by BRS 213 and lowest content was found for BRS 284. Although, the Trypsin inhibitor activity was higher for BRS 284 and BRS 213, the alkaline soaking is efficient for inactivation. The LOX free cultivars is interesting for avoiding the off flavors associated with lipoxygenases activity but the heat treatment is required for anti-trypsin factor inactivation. Then the cultivars LOX free with reduced anti-trypsin factor should be evaluated in order to reduce the conditions of heat treatment.</p>
    <p>The soymilk from BRS267, specialty type for edamame called as vegetable type <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-22">
      [22]
     </xref> presented high score only for one segment of consumers and performance similar was observed by Felberg et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-17">
      [17]
     </xref>, indicating that this cultivar is not recommended for soymilk production. In the other hand, the BRS216 (specialty type for sprouts) reached high scores for segment 1 and 3.</p>
    <p>Considering that the consumer has a key role on the food product development, the understanding of his/her preference is a key factor for success. Therefore, knowing how much consumers like a product is not enough, it is also important to understand the reasons of their evaluations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-49">
      [49]
     </xref>, which is a quite challenging task for both marketing and sensory scientists. Taking into account the comments made by participants about the soymilks together with the scores on liking may contribute to the understanding. Consumers were asked to comment on what they liked and/or disliked about each soymilk after they had tasted and given their overall liking score. Looking at the comments it was possible to notice that “nice flavor”, “tasty”, “balanced flavor”, “light”, “low soybean flavor”, “texture” were mentioned about those samples that were liked. On the contrary, “no flavor”, “strong soybean flavor”, “off flavor”, “astringent” were the words that participants referred to the samples that were not liked. These comments were spontaneous and, therefore, important to identify drivers of liking, which can help on the beverage development process. Further studies can use these comments to deeply investigate soymilk beverages.</p>
    <p>The acceptance results indicated that the conventional, LOX free as well as the specialty cultivar for soybean sprouts were suitable for soymilk production and the conditions of processing employed were appropriate to meet the expectations of Brazilian consumers of soymilk.</p>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s4">
   <title>4. Conclusion</title>
   <p>There was a difference among the cultivars related to the transfer rate of protein and oil from soybean to soymilk as well as the soymilk yield. The transfer rate of phytate from soybean to soymilk suggested that this anti-nutritional factor was not inactivated or removed. No trend was observed between sensory acceptance and nutrients of soymilk. The preference mapping and cluster analysis were useful tools to help identify soybean cultivars more adequate for soymilk production. However, a sensory descriptive analysis carried out with consumers or trained panel is recommended to make clear decision about the adequate cultivar for soymilk processing. One conventional soybean cultivar achieved higher and similar average acceptance score for the three consumer’s segments. On the other hand, the LOX free and specialty cultivars evaluated showed higher score for two segments of consumers. The sensory evaluation of soymilk from different soybean cultivars could improve consumer uptake.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s5">
   <title>Acknowledgements</title>
   <p>The authors thank Embrapa for funding, David Régis de Oliveira for their technical assistance and Andre L. N. Gomes for assistance with the figures.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s6">
   <title>Ethical Guidelines</title>
   <p>The study was approved by the Federal State University of Rio de Janeiro Ethical Committee (UNIRIO)—(TTDD:232/2011).</p>
  </sec><sec id="s7">
   <title>Data Availability Statement</title>
   <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s8">
   <title>Supplementary Data</title>
   <table-wrap id="table9">
    <label>
     <xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">
      Table 9
     </xref></label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.135690-"></xref>Table S1. Soymilk composition (wet basis).</title>
    </caption>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="17.06%">Cultivar<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td rowspan="2" class="acenter" width="17.14%">Total solids (g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup>)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td acenter" width="85.55%" colspan="6">Nutrients (g·100 g<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> wet basis)<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="12.86%">Protein<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="9.85%">Oil<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.51%">Ash<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="14.51%">Sucrose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="16.17%">Raffinose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td custom-top-td acenter" width="17.65%">Stachyose<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.06%">BRS216<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.14%">10.9<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="12.86%">3.64<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="9.85%">2.51<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.51%">0.56<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="14.51%">3.99<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="16.17%">0.29<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td acenter" width="17.65%">0.85<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.06%">BRS267<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.14%">10.9<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="12.86%">3.61<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="9.85%">2.17<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">0.61<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">3.95<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="16.17%">0.37<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.65%">0.78<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.06%">BRS213<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.14%">12<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="12.86%">4.33<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="9.85%">2.60<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">0.61<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">3.54<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="16.17%">0.22<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.65%">0.68<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.06%">BRS257<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.14%">11.6<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="12.86%">4.48<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="9.85%">2.95<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">0.60<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">3.78<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="16.17%">0.28<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.65%">0.87<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.06%">BRS317<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.14%">10.0<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="12.86%">2.88<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="9.85%">2.76<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">0.57<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">4.21<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="16.17%">0.35<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.65%">0.74<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.06%">BRS284<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.14%">11.2<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="12.86%">3.52<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="9.85%">2.41<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">0.53<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="14.51%">3.95<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="16.17%">0.25<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
      <td class="acenter" width="17.65%">0.71<p style="text-align:center"></p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </table-wrap>
  </sec>
 </body><back>
  <ref-list>
   <title>References</title>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref1">
    <label>1</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Storz, M.A., Brommer, M., Lombardo, M. and Rizzo, G. (2023) Soy Milk Consumption in the United States of America: An NHANES Data Report. Nutrients, 15, Article 2532. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15112532
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref2">
    <label>2</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Aydar, E.F., Tutuncu, S. and Ozcelik, B. (2020) Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: Bioactive Compounds, Conventional and Novel Processes, Bioavailability Studies, and Health Effects. Journal of Functional Foods, 70, Article 103975. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2020.103975
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref3">
    <label>3</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Han, H., Choi, J.K., Park, J., Im, H.C., Han, J.H., Huh, M.H., et al. (2021) Recent Innovations in Processing Technologies for Improvement of Nutritional Quality of Soymilk. CyTA-Journal of Food, 19, 287-303. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2021.1893824
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref4">
    <label>4</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Singh, B.P., Yadav, D. and Vij, S. (2019) Soybean Bioactive Molecules: Current Trend and Future Prospective. In: Mérillon, J.M. and Ramawat, K.G., Eds., Bioactive Molecules in Food, Springer International Publishing, 267-294. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78030-6_4
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref5">
    <label>5</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kobayashi, M., Egusa, S. and Fukuda, M. (2016) Isoflavone Aglycones and Oligopeptides in Lactic Acid-Fermented Soy Milk Differentially Regulate Lipid Metabolism-Related Gene Expression. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 7, 989-1009. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2016.711097
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref6">
    <label>6</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kobayashi, M., Shima, T. and Fukuda, M. (2018) Metabolite Profile of Lactic Acid-Fermented Soymilk. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 9, 1327-1340. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2018.911095
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref7">
    <label>7</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Nachvak, S.M., Moradi, S., Anjom-shoae, J., Rahmani, J., Nasiri, M., Maleki, V., et al. (2019) Soy, Soy Isoflavones, and Protein Intake in Relation to Mortality from All Causes, Cancers, and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 119, 1483-1500.E17. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2019.04.011
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref8">
    <label>8</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Li, N., Wu, X., Zhuang, W., Xia, L., Chen, Y., Zhao, R., et al. (2019) Soy and Isoflavone Consumption and Multiple Health Outcomes: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of Observational Studies and Randomized Trials in Humans. Molecular Nutrition &amp; Food Research, 64, Article 1900751. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201900751
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref9">
    <label>9</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sansai, K., Na Takuathung, M., Khatsri, R., Teekachunhatean, S., Hanprasertpong, N. and Koonrungsesomboon, N. (2020) Effects of Isoflavone Interventions on Bone Mineral Density in Postmenopausal Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Osteoporosis International, 31, 1853-1864. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05476-z
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref10">
    <label>10</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kim, I., Yang, W. and Kim, C. (2021) Beneficial Effects of Soybean-Derived Bioactive Peptides. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22, Article 8570. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22168570
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref11">
    <label>11</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Yang, A., Smyth, H., Chaliha, M. and James, A. (2015) Sensory Quality of Soymilk and Tofu from Soybeans Lacking Lipoxygenases. Food Science &amp; Nutrition, 4, 207-215. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.274
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref12">
    <label>12</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Yu, H., Liu, R., Hu, Y. and Xu, B. (2017) Flavor Profiles of Soymilk Processed with Four Different Processing Technologies and 26 Soybean Cultivars Grown in China. International Journal of Food Properties, 20, S2887-S2898. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2017.1382507
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref13">
    <label>13</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Nelson, A.I., Steinberg, M.I. and Wei, L.S. (1976) Illinois Process for Preparation of Soymilk. Journal of Food Science, 41, 57-61. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1976.tb01100.x
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref14">
    <label>14</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Tanteeratarm, K., Nelson, A.I. and Wei, L.S. (1999) Manufacturing of Bland Soymilk. In: Williams, S.W., Ed., Soybean Processing for Food Uses, INTSOY, 154-164.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref15">
    <label>15</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Felberg, I., Antoniassi, R., Deliza, R., Freitas, S.C.d. and Modesta, R.C.D. (2009) Soy and Brazil Nut Beverage: Processing, Composition, Sensory, and Color Evaluation. Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos, 29, 609-617. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1590/s0101-20612009000300024
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref16">
    <label>16</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Felberg, I., Deliza, R., Gonçalves, E.B., Antoniassi, R., Freitas, S.D. and Cabral, L.C. (2004) Whole Soymilk and Brazil Nuts Beverage: Physicochemical, Nutritional and Consumer Acceptance. Alimentos e Nutrição, 15, 163-174.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref17">
    <label>17</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Felberg, I., Carrão-Panizzi, M.C., Deliza, R., de Freitas, S.C., Gonçalves, E.B., Pacheco, S., et al. (2023) Nutritional and Consumer Acceptance Evaluation of Soymilk from Specialty and Conventional Soybean Cultivars. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 26, e2022075. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-6723.07522
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref18">
    <label>18</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Tripathi, M.K., Mangaraj, S., Kumar, M., Sinha, L.K., Giri, S.K. and Ali, N. (2015) Effect of Processing Conditions on the Quality and Beany Flavour of Soymilk. Current Science, 109, 1165-1169.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref19">
    <label>19</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Abagoshu, N.A., Ibrahim, A.M., Teka, T.A. and Mekonnen, T.B. (2016) Effect of Soybean Varieties and Processing Methods on Nutritional and Sensory Properties of Soymilk. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 41, e13014. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13014
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref20">
    <label>20</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Niyibituronsa, M., Onyango, A.N., Gaidashova, S., Imathiu, S., Uwizerwa, M., Ochieng, E.P., et al. (2018) The Effect of Different Processing Methods on Nutrient and Isoflavone Content of Soymilk Obtained from Six Varieties of Soybean Grown in Rwanda. Food Science &amp; Nutrition, 7, 457-464. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.812
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref21">
    <label>21</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Carrão-Panizzi, M.C., Almeida, L.A., de Souza Kiihl, R.A., Miranda, L.C. and Kikuchi, A. (2001) Developing Sustainable Agricultural Systems: Determinants, Future Approaches and Roles of Different Partners, as Viewed from the Soybean Breeding Program for Human Nutrition, at the National Soybean Research Center of EMBRAPA. &gt;https://www.jircas.go.jp/en/publication/intlsymp/9/107
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref22">
    <label>22</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     de Silva, J.B., Carrão-Panizzi, M.C. and Prudêncio, S.H. (2009) Chemical and Physical Composition of Grain-Type and Food-Type Soybean for Food Processing. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 44, 777-784. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-204x2009000700019
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref23">
    <label>23</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Oliveira, M.A.D., Carrão-Panizzi, M.C., Mandarino, J.M.G., Leite, R.S., Campos Filho, P.J.D. and Vicentini, M.B. (2010) Quantificação dos teores de açúcares, oligossacarídeos e amido em genótipos/cultivares de soja (Glycine max (L) Merril) especiais utilizados para alimentação humana. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 13, 23-29. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref24">
    <label>24</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Rigo, A.A., Dahmer, A.M., Steffens, C., Steffens, J. and Carrão-Panizzi, M.C. (2015) Characterization of Soybean Cultivars Genetically Improved for Human Consumption. ETP International Journal of Food Engineering, 1, 1-7. &gt;https://doi.org/10.18178/ijfe.1.1.1-7
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref25">
    <label>25</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ciabotti, S., Juhász, A.C.P., Mandarino, J.M.G., Costa, L.L., Corrêa, A.D., Simão, A.A., et al. (2019) Chemical Composition and Lipoxygenase Activity of Soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill.) Genotypes, Specific for Human Consumption, with Different Tegument Colours. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 22, e2018003. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-6723.00318
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref26">
    <label>26</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     De Silva, J.B., Prudêncio, S.H., Felberg, I., Deliza, R. and Carrão-Panizz, M.C. (2007) Aceitabilidade de bebidas preparadas a partir de diferentes extratos hidrossolúveis de soja. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 42, 1779-1784. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-204x2007001200016
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref27">
    <label>27</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Benassi, V.T., Benassi, M.T. and Prudencio, S.H. (2011) Cultivares brasileiras de soja: Características para a produção de tofu e aceitação pelo mercado consumidor. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, 32, 1901-1914. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref28">
    <label>28</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Seibel, N.F., Alves, F.P., Oliveira, M.A. and Leite, R.S. (2013) Brazilian Soybean Varieties for Human Use. In: El-Shemy, H.A., Ed., Soybean—Bio-Active Compounds, IntechOpen, 475-493. &gt;https://doi.org/10.5772/52602 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref29">
    <label>29</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Antoniassi, R., Felberg, I., de Aguiar, P.F., de Freitas, S.C., de Aguiar, A.C., Pereira, L.M. and Mesquita, D.L. (2008) Efeito do cozimento na inativação de lipoxigenases da variedade de soja IAS-5. In: CBCTA, Ed., Ciência e inovação para o desenvolvimento sustentável, SBCTA, 21.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref30">
    <label>30</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Horowitz, W. (2005) Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 18th Edition, AOAC.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref31">
    <label>31</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     AOCS (American Oil Chemists’ Society) (2009) Official Methods and Recommended Practices of the AOCS. 6th Edition, AOCS. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref32">
    <label>32</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Freitas, S.C., Marcatto, J.D.O.S., Simas, E.S., Santos Silva, T. and Conte, C. (2015) Método de digestão por via úmida para determinação de microelementos e elementos traços por espectrometria de emissão óptica em vinhos. &gt;https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/handle/doc/1039724
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref33">
    <label>33</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Song, T., Barua, K., Buseman, G. and Murphy, P.A. (1998) Soy Isoflavone Analysis: Quality Control and a New Internal Standard. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 68, 1474S-1479S. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/68.6.1474s
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref34">
    <label>34</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Laemmli, U.K. (1970) Cleavage of Structural Proteins during the Assembly of the Head of Bacteriophage T4. Nature, 227, 680-685. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1038/227680a0
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref35">
    <label>35</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Macfie, H.J., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, K. and Vallis, L.V. (1989) Designs to Balance the Effect of Order of Presentation and First‐Order Carry‐Over Effects in Hall Tests. Journal of Sensory Studies, 4, 129-148. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459x.1989.tb00463.x
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref36">
    <label>36</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Symoneaux, R., Galmarini, M.V. and Mehinagic, E. (2012) Comment Analysis of Consumer’s Likes and Dislikes as an Alternative Tool to Preference Mapping. A Case Study on Apples. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 59-66. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.08.013
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref37">
    <label>37</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Greenhoff, K. and MacFie, H.J.H. (1994) Preference Mapping in Practice. In: MacFie, H.J.H. and Thomson, D.M.H., Eds., Measurement of Food Preferences, Springer, 137-166. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2171-6_6
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref38">
    <label>38</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Galão, O.F., Carrão-Panizzi, M.C., Mandarino, J.M.G., Leite, R.S., Claus, T. and Visentainer, J.V. (2014) Kunitz Trypsin Inhibitor and Phytic Acid Levels in Conventional and Genetically Modified Soybean Seeds from Londrina and Ponta Grossa, South Brazil. Acta Scientiarum. Technology, 36, 727-731. &gt;https://doi.org/10.4025/actascitechnol.v36i4.17711
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref39">
    <label>39</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kumar, V., Rani, A., Goyal, L., Dixit, A.K., Manjaya, J.G., Dev, J., et al. (2010) Sucrose and Raffinose Family Oligosaccharides (RFOs) in Soybean Seeds as Influenced by Genotype and Growing Location. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58, 5081-5085. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1021/jf903141s
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref40">
    <label>40</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ma, Y., Wu, X., Giovanni, V. and Meng, X. (2017) Effects of Soybean Oligosaccharides on Intestinal Microbial Communities and Immune Modulation in Mice. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 24, 114-121. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.09.004
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref41">
    <label>41</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Carrão-Panizzi, M.C., Berhow, M., Mandarino, J.M.G. and Oliveira, M.C.N. (2009) Environmental and Genetic Variation of Isoflavone Content of Soybean Seeds Grown in Brazil. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 44, 1444-1451. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-204x2009001100011
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref42">
    <label>42</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bhagwat, S., Haytowitz, D.B. and Holden, J.M. (2015) USDA Database for the Isoflavone Content of Selected Foods Release 2.0. &gt;http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/80400525/Data/isoflav/Isoflav_R2.pdf 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref43">
    <label>43</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Wang, H. and Murphy, P.A. (1994) Isoflavone Composition of American and Japanese Soybeans in Iowa: Effects of Variety, Crop Year, and Location. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 42, 1674-1677. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00044a017
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref44">
    <label>44</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Karkle, E.N.L. and Beleia, A. (2010) Effect of Soaking and Cooking on Phytate Concentration, Minerals, and Texture of Food-Type Soybeans. Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos, 30, 1056-1060. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1590/s0101-20612010000400034
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref45">
    <label>45</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Oliveira, N.P., Faquin, V., da Costa, A.L., do Livramento, K.G., de Pinho, P.J. and Guilherme, L.R.G. (2016) Genotypic Variation of Agronomic Traits as Well as Concentrations of Fe, Zn, P and Phytate in Soybean Cultivars. Revista Ceres, 63, 403-411. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-737x201663030018
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref46">
    <label>46</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Horner, H.T., Cervantes-Martinez, T., Healy, R., Reddy, M.B., Deardorff, B.L., Bailey, T.B., et al. (2005) Oxalate and Phytate Concentrations in Seeds of Soybean Cultivars [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 53, 7870-7877. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1021/jf051193i
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref47">
    <label>47</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kumar, V., Sinha, A.K., Makkar, H.P.S. and Becker, K. (2010) Dietary Roles of Phytate and Phytase in Human Nutrition: A Review. Food Chemistry, 120, 945-959. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.11.052
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref48">
    <label>48</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kumar, A., Singh, B., Raigond, P., Sahu, C., Mishra, U.N., Sharma, S., et al. (2021) Phytic Acid: Blessing in Disguise, a Prime Compound Required for Both Plant and Human Nutrition. Food Research International, 142, Article 110193. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110193
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.135690-ref49">
    <label>49</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chrea, C., Melo, L., Evans, G., Forde, C., Delahunty, C. and Cox, D.N. (2010) An Investigation Using Three Approaches to Understand the Influence of Extrinsic Product Cues on Consumer Behavior: An Example of Australian Wines. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, 13-24. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459x.2010.00316.x
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
  </ref-list>
 </back>
</article>