Table 1 Color evaluation of different lupin cultivars.

From: Comparative assessment of nutritional, thermal, rheological and functional properties of nine Australian lupin cultivars

Species

Cultivars

L*-Value

a*-Value

b*-Value

C* (Chroma)

h° (Hue angle)

L. angustifolius

Barlock

86.83 ± 0.11

− 2.73 ± 0.04c,g

31.63 ± 0.15i

31.7476

180.67

Gunyidi

86.93 ± 0.08

− 2.55 ± 0.04d,g,i

31.35 ± 0.28i

31.45354

183.58

Jenabillup

87.34 ± 0.06

− 2.31 ± 0.03a,d,g,h,i

29.45 ± 0.11

29.54046

174.58

Jindalee

87.28 ± 0.05

− 2.96 ± 0.02b,c,e,f

30.05 ± 0.16

30.19543

178.88

Jurien

87.48 ± 0.05

− 2.53 ± 0.01d,g,i

29.42 ± 0.12

29.52858

180.73

Mandelup

86.94 ± 0.14

− 2.55 ± 0.02d,g,i

31.06 ± 0.09

31.1645

182.46

L. albus

Luxor

86.68 ± 0.10

− 3.14 ± 0.02a,b,c,e,f,h

30.58 ± 0.30

30.74079

176.92

Rosetta

86.16 ± 0.06

− 2.66 ± 0.03c,g

31.64 ± 0.15i

31.75162

181.26

WK388

87.27 ± 0.12

− 2.96 ± 0.04b,c,e,f

28.59 ± 0.08a,b,h

28.74282

175.80

  1. Data are means of three replicates with standard deviations (SD). Data within the same column with different superscripts are significantly different, pair-wise comparison by Post Hoc Tukey test (aP < 0.05 vs. Barlock; bP < 0.05 vs. Gunyidi; cP < 0.05 vs Jenabillup; dP < 0.05 vs. Jindalee; eP < 0.05 vs Jurien; fP < 0.05 vs. Mandelup; gP < 0.05 vs Luxor; hP < 0.05 vs Rosetta; iP < 0.05 vs WK388). C* and h° are calculated using the means of L*, a*, b* values.