## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Proximate Composition  
The proximate composition for the three fractions, large (QL), medium (QM) and small (QS) of quinoa seeds flour is shown in Table 2. The moisture content of the samples ranged from 9.75 to 10.46%, a decrease in the moisture content with decreasing particle size occurring. According to the obtained results, there were no significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) in the moisture content between the particle sizes. The same results of moisture of different particle sizes of quinoa flours in different fractions was observed by [PERSON] et al. (2019) [PERSON] et al. (2019) and for rye and barley flours [PERSON] et al. (2019). The decrease of moisture when quinoa particle size decreases can be explained by higher possible heat generation during the milling of the finer particle size flours [PERSON] et al. (2019). The low moisture observed for the quinoa flours was a good indicator of their potential for longer shelf life. In agreement with [PERSON] (2014) [PERSON] (2014) materials such as flour and starch containing up to 12% moisture have higher storage stability than those with higher moisture contents. The ash contents ranged between 1.75 and 3.2% and the values increased significantly with the reduction of particle size, but the highest values were observed at medium particle size (QM) (3.2%), followed by small particle size (QS) (2.53%). There were significant differences (\(p<0.0001\)) between the samples regarding the ash content correlated with mineral content [PERSON] et al. (2019). The ash content is closely related to the chemical composition of the quinoa seed and also to the morphological structure. Some studies reported that mineral content of quinoa seems to vary dramatically due to soil type, mineral composition and fertilizer application [PERSON] et al. (2019). Minerals, such as P, K, and Mg are located in the embryo, while Ca and P are in the pericarp associated with peci \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Particle Size**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **QL** & **QM** & **QS** \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Chemical composition**} \\ \hline Moisture (\%) & 10.46 \(\pm\) 0.05 a  & 10.04 \(\pm\) 0.01 a  & 9.75 \(\pm\) 0.50 a  \\ Ash (\%) & 1.75 \(\pm\) 0.01 a  & 3.20 \(\pm\) 0.04 c  & 2.53 \(\pm\) 0.00 b  \\ Protein (\%) & 11.96 \(\pm\) 0.08 a  & 18.86 \(\pm\) 0.05 c  & 15.69 \(\pm\) 0.19 b  \\ Fat (\%) & 6.44 \(\pm\) 0.00 a  & 6.41 \(\pm\) 0.01 a  & 6.36 \(\pm\) 0.03 a  \\ Carbohydrates (\%) & 69.39 \(\pm\) 0.94 c  & 61.49 \(\pm\) 0.09 a  & 65.66 \(\pm\) 0.65 b [FONOTE:b]Footnote b: footnotemark: [ENDFOOTNOTE] \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Physical properties**} \\ \hline WAC (\%) & 2.50 \(\pm\) 0.02 a  & 2.92 \(\pm\) 0.00 c  & 2.75 \(\pm\) 0.04 b  \\ WRC (g/g) & 4.32 \(\pm\) 0.04 a  & 4.91 \(\pm\) 0.10 b  & 4.31 \(\pm\) 0.04 a  \\ SC (mL/g) & 5.26 \(\pm\) 0.08 a  & 5.55 \(\pm\) 0.23 a  & 6.21 \(\pm\) 0.17 b [FONOTE:b]Footnote b: footnotemark: [ENDFOOTNOTE] \\ BD (g/mL) & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.00 c  & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.01 b  & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.00 a  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} WAC—water absorption capacity; WRC—water retention capacity; SC—welling capacity; BD—bulk density. Lower-case letter (a, b and c) refers to the comparison of the same compound between the different particle size quinoa flour samples; results followed by the lowercase letter are significantly different according to [PERSON]’s HSD post hoc test (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Chemical composition and physical properties of the quinoa flours fractions: large particle size (QL), medium particle size (QM) and small particle size (QS). which may explain the variation in ash from different quinoa fractions. The cell wall material from broken endosperm may contribute significantly to the ash content [53]. Increasing ash content with reducing quinoa particle size was observed earlier by [PERSON] et al.