Evaluation of wet-milling performance of commercial yellow maize hybrids grown in México and relations with grain physicochemical properties

  • Perla Marysol Uriarte-Aceves
  • Peter Adeoye Sopade
  • Jesús Gabriel Rangel-PerazaEmail author
Original Article


The use of commercial maize hybrids is a common practice worldwide because of improved yield potential and agronomic characteristics. However, there is very little information regarding their quality characteristics and industrial potential. In this study, 16 commercial yellow maize hybrids, cultivated in the same location, were evaluated for compositional, physical and wet-milling properties. Grain contents of protein (8.5–12.3%, db), crude fat (3.9–5.7%, db) and starch (69.0–72.8%, db) showed varietal differences that were also reflected in, amongst others, thousand-kernel weight (350–430 g), pericarp (4.5–7.7%, db), thickness (3.9–4.9 mm), flour Hunter b color value (28.0–44.6), and 48-h moisture saturation point (0.33–0.46 (g water absorbed/g sample)). The starch yield from the wet-milling varied from 45.0 to 69.5% (db), with a concomitant recovery (%, db) of 64.2–96.2. These properties were correlated and modeled to predict the starch yield that was highly significantly dependent (r2 > 0.7; P < 0.001) on the protein content and kernel density, with the latter accounting for most of the variations. The results suggest that kernel density would be a good indicator of starch yield, and its evaluation could be useful in screening suitable maize hybrids for wet-milling.


Kernel density Proximate composition Wet-milling Starch yield Correlations Models 



Test weight


Thousand-kernel weight


Kernel density


Initial water absorption rate


Water absorption index at 4 h


Water absorption index at 24 h


Moisture saturation point



The authors thank the Autonomous University of Sinaloa (UAS) and the National Institute for Forestry, Agricultural and Livestock Research (INIFAP) in Culiacán, Sinaloa, México for material support. Author Uriarte-Aceves acknowledges the technical assistance of the UAS Faculty of Chemical and Biological Sciences, particularly the Bioprocesses Laboratory.


  1. American Association of Cereal Chemists International (2000) Approved methods of analysis, 10th edn. AACC International, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  2. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1999) Official methods of analysis of the AOAC, 16th edn. AOAC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Butts-Wilmsmeyer CJ, Mumm RH, Bohn MO (2017) Concentration of beneficial phytochemicals in harvested grain of U.S. yellow dent maize (Zea mays L.) germplasm. J Agric Food Chem 65:8311–8318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Correa CES, Shaver RD, Pereira MN, Lauer JG, Kohn K (2002) Relationship between corn vitreousness and ruminal in situ starch degradability. J Dairy Sci 85:3008–3012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dowd MK (2003) Improvements to laboratory-scale maize wet-milling procedures. Ind Crops Prod 18:67–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duarte AP, Mason SC, Jackson DS, Kiehl JC (2005) Grain quality of Brazilian maize genotypes as influenced by nitrogen level. Crop Sci 45:1958–1964. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckhoff SR, Singh SK, Zehr BE, Rausch KD, Fox EJ, Mistry AK, Haken AE, Niu YX, Zou SH, Buriak P, Tumbleson ME, Keeling PL (1996) A 100-g laboratory corn wet milling procedure. Cereal Chem 73:54–57Google Scholar
  8. Fox SR, Johnson LA, Hurburgh CR Jr, Dorsey-Redding C, Bailey TB (1992) Relations of grain proximate composition and physical properties to wet-milling characteristics of maize. Cereal Chem 69:191–197Google Scholar
  9. Hsu KH, Kim CJ, Wilson LA (1983) Factors affecting water uptake of soybeans during soaking. Cereal Chem 60:208–211Google Scholar
  10. Lee KM, Herrman TJ, Rooney L, Jackson DS, Lingenfelser J, Rausch KD, McKinney J, Iiams C, Byrum L, Hurburgh CR Jr, Johnson LA, Fox SR (2007) Corroborative study on maize quality, dry-milling and wet-milling properties of selected maize hybrids. J Agric Food Chem 55:10751–10763. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Milašinović M, Radosavljević M, Dokić LJ, Jakovljević J (2007) Wet-milling properties of ZP maize hybrids. Maydica 52:289–292Google Scholar
  12. Mussolini RC, Lopes Filho JF, Duarte AP (2014) Physical-chemical characterization and wet milling yield of four maize hybrids. Eng Agric 34:523–529. Google Scholar
  13. Ramchandran D, Hojilla-Evangelista MP, Moose SP, Rausch KD, Tumbleson ME, Singh V (2016) Maize proximate composition and physical properties correlations to dry-grind ethanol concentrations. Cereal Chem 93:414–418. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rausch K, Eckhoff SR (2016) Maize: wet milling. In: Wrigley C, Corke H, Seetharaman K, Faubion J (eds) Encyclopedia of food grains, vol 2. Academic Press, Oxford, pp 467–481. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rooney LW, McDonough CM, Waniska RD (2004) The corn kernel. In: Smith CW, Betrán J, Runge ECA (eds) Corn: origin, history, technology, and production. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 273–303Google Scholar
  16. Sandhu KS, Singh N, Malhi NS (2007) Some properties of corn grains and their flours I: Physicochemical, functional and chapati-making properties of flours. Food Chem 101:938–946. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shukla R, Cheryan M (2001) Zein: the industrial protein from corn. Ind Crops Prod 13:171–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singh N, Eckhoff SR (1996) Wet milling of corn: a review of laboratory-scale and pilot plant-scale procedures. Cereal Chem 73:659–667Google Scholar
  19. Singh N, Buriak P, Du L, Singh V, Eckhoff SR (1996) Wet milling characteristics of waxy corn hybrids obtained from different planting locations. Starch/Stärke 48:335–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Singh SK, Johnson LA, Pollak LM, Fox SR, Bailey TB (1997) Comparison of laboratory and pilot-plant corn wet-milling procedures. Cereal Chem 74:40–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Singh SK, Johnson LA, Pollak LM, Hurburgh CR (2001) Compositional, physical, and wet-milling properties of accessions used in germplasm enhancement of maize project. Cereal Chem 78:330–335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Singh N, Shevkani K, Kaur A, Thakur S, Parmar N, Virdi A (2014) Characteristics of starch obtained at different stages of purification during commercial wet milling of maize. Starch/Stärke 66:668–677. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Somavat P, Li Q, de Mejia EG, Liu W, Singh V (2016) Coproduct yield comparisons of purple, blue and yellow dent corn for various milling processes. Ind Crops Prod 87:266–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Taboada-Gaytan O, Pollak LM, Johnson LA, Fox SR (2009) Wet-milling characteristics of 10 lines from germplasm enhancement of maize project compared with five corn belt lines. Cereal Chem 86:204–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Taboada-Gaytan O, Pollak LM, Johnson LA, Fox SR, Montgomery KT (2010) Physical, compositional, and wet milling characteristics of grain from crosses of corn inbreds with exotic and nonexotic background. Cereal Chem 87:486–496. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thakur S, Kaur A, Singh N, Virdi A (2015) Successive reduction dry milling of normal and waxy corn: grain, grit, and flour properties. J Food Sci 80:C1144–C1155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Uriarte-Aceves PM, Cuevas-Rodríguez EO, Gutiérrez-Dorado R, Mora-Rochín S, Reyes-Moreno C, Puangpraphant S, Milán-Carrillo J (2015) Physical, compositional, and wet-milling characteristics of Mexican blue maize (Zea mays L.) landrace. Cereal Chem 92(5):491–496. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vignaux N, Fox SR, Johnson LA (2006) A 10-g laboratory wet-milling procedure for maize and comparison with larger scale laboratory procedures. Cereal Chem 83:482–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang FC, Chung DS, Seib PA, Kim YS (2000) Optimum steeping process for wet milling of sorghum. Cereal Chem 77:478–483. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Watson SA (1987) Corn structure and composition. In: Watson SA, Ramstad PE (eds) Corn: chemistry and technology. AACC Inc., St. Paul, pp 53–82Google Scholar
  31. Yuan J, Flores RA (1996) Laboratory dry-milling performance of white corn: effect of physical and chemical corn characteristics. Cereal Chem 73:574–578Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tecnológico Nacional de MéxicoInstituto Tecnológico de CuliacánCuliacánMexico
  2. 2.Department of Food Science and Engineering, School of Agricultural SciencesXichang UniversityXichangChina
  3. 3.Food Process Engineering ConsultantsForest LakeAustralia

Personalised recommendations