Yogurt Forti Fication With Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum) Flour: Physicochemical and Sensory Effects
Yogurt Forti Fication With Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum) Flour: Physicochemical and Sensory Effects
Yogurt Forti Fication With Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum) Flour: Physicochemical and Sensory Effects
DOI 10.1002/aocs.12102
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Abstract Yogurt, a popular dairy product made by bac- significant improvement in the viscosity of stored yogurt.
terial fermentation of milk, is a nutritious food that con- Chickpea flour stimulated the growth of probiotic bacteria
tains probiotics beneficial for digestive health. Protein and maintained higher counts over the 21-day refrigerated
fortification is an effective way to design foods with storage. Sensory evaluation revealed no significant influ-
increased satiety. Chickpea is rich in protein, fiber, and ence on the acceptance scores of yogurt with addition of
prebiotics and can be a source for enhancing the nutri- 1% or 2% of chickpea flour. The results suggest that addi-
tional quality of food products while providing functional tion of chickpea flour up to 2% level can be an option to
attributes of macromolecules and promoting probiotic enhance the protein level of yogurt without adverse effects
growth. The present study evaluated the effects of the on product qualities and sensorial properties.
addition of chickpea flour (1%, 2%, 3%, or 5%, w/v, level)
on selected quality parameters of yogurt of 2% fat- Keywords Chickpea Protein Yogurt Prebiotic
containing milk that was inoculated with a yogurt culture, Physicochemical Sensory
fermented, and stored at 4 C up to 21 days. The results
demonstrated that addition of chickpea flour to the yogurt J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018).
mix promoted the growth of bacteria during yogurt mak-
ing, and decreased the incubation time. Fortification of
yogurt with 1% and 2% chickpea flour provided a Introduction
Khosroushahi, 2017) have been included in yogurt. Chick- 2% fat homogenized milk
pea (Cicer arietinum L.) is a pulse and a grain legume that 2% fat homogenized milk +
(control sample) Chickpea flour (1%, 2%, 3%, or 5%, w/v)
is high in protein and dietary fibers but low in fat Stir for 3 min at 1500 rpm
(Thavarajah, 2012; Tosh & Yada, 2010). The raffinose-
family oligosaccharides, raffinose, and stachyose present
in chickpea are considered good prebiotics although they Homogenize for 3 min at 70
amplitude
possess flatulence-causing properties. Both animal and Heat to 90 °C
Cool to 42 °C
in vitro studies have confirmed the health-promoting bene-
fits of oligosaccharides such as inulin, oligofructose, lactu-
lose, and resistant starch, including the facilitation on
Inoculation with yogurt culture, 1 U L–1
survival of Bifidobacterium. The addition of raffinose fam- Incubation at 42 °C until pH reaches
ily oligosaccharides had a positive influence on the sur- 4.5 ± 0.05
Control
All tests were conducted in triplicate unless stated. An 1% Chickpea flour
ANOVA was performed using general linear model proce- 6.5 2% Chickpea flour
3% Chickpea flour
dure to identify significant differences (P < 0.05) among 5% Chickpea flour
the samples, followed by Tukey’s test. All statistical ana- 6.0
lyses were carried out using Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) (SPSS 20.0; IBM Crop, Armonk,
pH
NY, USA). 5.5
5.0
Results and Discussion
4.5
According to the USDA nutrient database, raw chickpea
contains 20.5% protein, 6.0% fat, 12.2% total dietary fiber,
10.7% sugars, and 57 mg calcium 100 g−1 calcium. Plain 4.0
low-fat yogurt has 5.3% protein, 0% fiber, and 183 mg cal- 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
cium 100 g−1 calcium. Considering these values in the Time (hour)
4.2 Control
1% Chickpea flour Viscosity of yogurt is affected by the structure, and the
2% Chickpea flour number and strength of bonds between casein micelles. The
3% Chickpea flour
5% Chickpea flour viscosity values of the control yogurt sample showed a
gradual drop during the 21-day storage and significantly
4.1
low values (P < 0.05) than day 1 (Table 2). Interestingly,
chickpea flour-added samples showed a general increase
(not statistically significant) in viscosity values up to day
7 and then started to decline. Such a decrease in viscosity
4.0
values over storage was reported in other studies also (Lee,
Hwang, Lee, Ahn, & Kwak, 2007; Supavititpatana, Wirjan-
toro, & Raviyan, 2010) and may be due to the poor ability
3.9
of the yogurt matrix to entrap all the serum phase resulting
in instability and weakening the gel network.
On day 1, chickpea flour-fortified yogurt showed compa-
rable viscosity values (P < 0.05) to control yogurt indicat-
3.8 ing that addition of chickpea flour did not disrupt the
1 7 14 21 bond formation between casein micelles. However, Cruz
Time (days) et al. (2013) reported that higher apparent viscosity of
yogurt was observed with 1 day of storage when supple-
Fig. 3 Changes in pH of yogurt of 2% fat-containing milk (control) mented with oligofructose. On day 7, viscosity values of
and yogurts of 2% fat milk fortified with different addition levels yogurts with chickpea flour more than the 1% addition level
of chickpea flour during storage at 4 C for 21 days following were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than the control
incubation
yogurt. This could be due to the ability of chickpea flour to
absorb the serum phase released due to the weakening
4 C (Özer, Akin, & Özer, 2005). A somewhat similar pat- casein gel network with storage. Similar to control, sample
tern of changes in pH and TTA during a 7-day storage viscosity of yogurts with 5% chickpea flour decreased sig-
period was also found in the study of De Souza Oliveira nificantly with storage (after day 7) and resulted in a low
et al. (2009) when different amounts of inulin addition value at day 21 (Table 2). The decrease in viscosity of 5%
influenced lactic acid production differently depending on chick pea flour-fortified samples during storage can be
the probiotic strains in yogurt. According to Bakr (2013), related to the high activity of microorganisms, which had
the water extract of chickpea flour was also capable of an effect on the protein-network interaction and conse-
decreasing the pH and increasing TTA of yogurts during a quently on product viscosity (Debon, Prudêncio, & Petrus,
21-day storage period at 4 C. 2010). The drop in viscosity for yogurts with 1%, 2%, and
Table 1 TTAa of yogurt fortified with chickpea flour in the 21-day storage period at 4 C
Means followed by the same uppercase letter (ABCD) in the same column are not significantly different between each concentration of chickpea
flour on the same storage day, according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Means followed by the same lowercase letter (abcd) in the same row are not significantly different for a particular day of storage for each parame-
ter, according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
a
Means SD of three measurements.
b
Control = starter culture only; 1%, 2%, 3%, and 5% = addition of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 5.0 g, respectively, of chickpea flour per 100 mL of milk
prior to fermentation.
Table 2 Viscositya of yogurt fortified with chickpea flour during the 21-day storage period at 4 C
Means followed by the same uppercase letter (ABC) in the same column are not significantly different between each concentration of chickpea
flour on the same storage day, according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Means followed by the same lowercase letter (abcd) in the same row are not significantly different for a particular day of storage for each parame-
ter, according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
a
Means SD of three measurements.
b
Control = starter culture only; 1%, 2%, 3%, and 5% = addition of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 5.0 g, respectively, of chickpea flour per 100 mL of milk
prior to fermentation.
3% added chickpea flour with storage was not statistically for a functional yogurt to provide the nutritional benefits
significant, therefore, the addition of 1% and 2% chickpea and to remain appealing to consumers.
flour could improve the viscosity of stored yogurt while
maintaining lesser changes in TTA values (Table 1) than
Effects of Chickpea Flour on Microbial Growth
other addition levels.
The number of probiotic bacteria (L. delbrueckii ssp. bul-
Effects of Chickpea Flour on Color
garicus) of the products ranged from 7.99 log CFU mL−1
(control) to 8.85 log CFU mL−1 (5% fortified yogurt sam-
Appearance of a clean white color with a pleasant sheen
ple) with a significant difference between the chickpea
seems to be the most often demanded color of a naturally
flour-enriched samples and the control sample at the initial
set yogurt. Yogurts with added chickpea flour were white
day (Table 4). These observed levels were higher than the
and lighter in color as indicated by a high L* value, and
minimum level of live and active cultures (7 log CFU
low a* and b* values (Table 3). Addition of different levels
mL−1) after production as recommended by FDA regula-
of chickpea flour did not significantly (P > 0.05) change
tions (FDA, 2017).
these values and were comparable with the control samples.
During the storage of yogurt for a 21-day period, the
The color of yogurt is commonly associated with the accep-
viability of the probiotic bacteria (L. delbruccki ssp. bulgari-
tance of consumers and marketability. Thus, it is important
cus [LB]) slightly reduced among all the samples regardless
of the supplementation of chickpea flour (Table 4). Com-
Table 3 Color valuesa of yogurt fortified with chickpea flour and
stored for 1 day pared to the control throughout the overall storage period,
the growth of LB in yogurt supplemented with chickpea
Treatmentb Color parameterc
flour above 1% level was significantly greater (P < 0.05)
L* a* b* than the control (Table 4). The sample with 5% chickpea
flour maintained a stable microbial count of 7.76 log CFU
Control 96.81 0.16A −1.90 0.03A 10.20 0.14A
mL−1 at day 21. These results can be attributed to the func-
1% 96.93 0.22A −1.77 0.16A 9.99 0.19A
tional capability of prebiotic chickpea flour in stimulating
2% 96.32 0.51A −1.79 0.12A 10.68 0.12A
the growth of probiotics, as was also reported by Bakr
3% 96.84 0.13A −1.71 0.03A 10.35 0.03A
(2013) who used chickpea water extract in yogurt. Similarly,
5% 93.39 0.46A −1.86 0.04A 10.96 0.14A
it has also been observed that adding pulse (lentil) flour (4%)
Means followed by the same letter (ABC) in the same row are not to yogurt mix enhanced the probiotic bacteria count specifi-
significantly different for each concentration of chickpea flour accord- cally during storage of 7 days (Agil et al., 2013) and pro-
ing to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
moted the growth of LB (Zare et al., 2011) and the overall
a
Means SD of three measurements.
b
microbial count (Agil et al., 2013). Among the various
Control = starter culture only, fermented until pH reached
4.5 0.05; 1%, 2%, 3%, and 5% = addition of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and
pulse-based ingredients studied on their effect on yogurt cul-
5.0 g, respectively, of chickpea flour per 100 mL of milk prior to tures, lentil, chickpea, and soy had the most positive effect
fermentation, fermented until pH reached 4.5 0.05. on the growth of Lactobacilli, and other pulses and soy
c *
L = lightness; a* = redness (+) and blueness (−); b* = yellowness. ingredients strongly promoted the growth of two probiotic
Table 4 Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus (LB) countsa of yogurt fortified with chickpea flour fermented at 42 C for 6 hours and stored
at 4 C for 21 days
Means followed by the same uppercase letter (ABC) in the same column are not significantly different between each concentration of chickpea
flour on the same storage day, according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
Means followed by the same lowercase letter (abcd) in the same row are not significantly different for a particular day of storage for each parame-
ter, according to the Tukey test (P < 0.05).
a
Means SD of two measurements.
b
Control = starter culture only; 1%, 2%, 3%, and 5% = addition of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 5.0 g, respectively, of chickpea flour per 100 mL of milk
prior to fermentation.
bacteria, Lactobacilus rhamuosus AD200 and Lactobacilus reasonable to say that yogurt can be fortified with chickpea
acidophilus AD200 (Zare et al., 2012). Minerals (zinc and flour at the 2% level to enhance the nutritional and functional
iron) and raffinose oligosaccharides present in chickpea flour quality of yogurt without affecting its appearance, aroma,
may have stimulated the growth and viability of probiotic texture, taste, and overall acceptability signifi-
bacteria when added to yogurt (Zare et al., 2012). cantly (P < 0.05).
Table 5 Scores for sensory propertiesa of yogurt fortified with chickpea flour at 4 C, immediately after production
Control 5.1 2.3A 5.6 2.5A 5.1 2.5A 4.5 2.8A 4.9 2.6A
1% 5.5 2.4A 5.4 2.3A 4.8 2.7A 3.5 2.7A 4.3 2.8A
2% 4.7 2.3A 5.3 2.5A 5.0 2.4A 4.02 2.5A 4.5 2.4A
Means followed by the same letter (ABC) in the same row are not significantly different for each concentration of chickpea flour according to the
Tukey test (P < 0.05).
a
Means SD of scores of 50 panelists. Scale range of 1–9, where 9 = extremely like, 5 = neither like nor dislike, and 1 = extremely dislike.
b
Control = starter culture only, fermented until pH reached 4.5 0.05; 1% and 2% are addition of 1.0 and 2.0 g chickpea flour per 100 mL of
milk prior, respectively, prior to fermentation, then fermented until pH reached 4.5 0.05.
with the control sample (plain yogurt). Higher cell counts of Handayani, M. N., Cakrawati, D., & Handayani, S. (2016) Effect of
L. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus in yogurts supplemented with modified yam (Dioscorea esculenta) flour on some physiochemical
and sensory properties of symbiotic yoghurt. IOP Conference
chickpea flour were noted during the 21-day storage period Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 128:012035. https://
with the 5% (w/v) addition level. Counts of L. delbrueckii doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/128/1/012035
ssp. bulgaricus remained at a significantly higher number Hernandez-Hernandez, O., Muthaiyan, A., Moreno, F. J.,
even at 21 days of storage at 4 C compared to the control Montilla, A., Sanz, M. L., & Ricke, S. C. (2012) Effect of prebiotic
yogurt. Chickpea flour has the potential of providing nutri- carbohydrates on the growth and tolerance of Lactobacillus. Food
Microbiology, 30:355–361.
tional benefits and enhancing the quality of fermented dairy
Kodaka, H., Mizuochi, S., Teramura, H., & Nirazuka, T. (2005) Com-
products on the basis of the physicochemical, microbial, and parison of the compact dry TC method with the standard pour plate
sensory properties. Chickpea flour is a natural supplement method (AOAC official method 966.23) for determining aerobic
that can further enhance health benefits of yogurt. colony counts in food samples: Performance-tested method. Jour-
nal of AOAC International, 88:1702–1713.
Acknowledgments K.B. acknowledges New Faculty Start Up Grant Lee, S. J., Hwang, J. H., Lee, S., Ahn, J., & Kwak, H. S. (2007) Prop-
by the Office of Research and Grants, UCO. X.C. acknowledges erty changes and cholesterol-lowering effects in evening primrose
RCSA grant support from the Office of Research and Grants, UCO. oil enriched and cholesterol reduced yogurt. International Journal
of Dairy Technology, 60:22–30.
Martinez-Villaluenga, C., Frías, J., Gómez, R., & Vidal-Valverde, C.
(2006) Influence of addition of raffinose family oligosaccharides on
Conflict of Interest probiotic survival in fermented milk during refrigerated storage.
International Dairy Journal, 16:768–774.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Nami, Y., Haghshenas, B., & Yari Khosroushahi, A. (2017) Effect of
psyllium and gum Arabic biopolymers on the survival rate and stor-
age stability in yogurt of Enterococcus durans IW3 encapsulated in
alginate. Food Science & Nutrition, 5:554–563.
References Özer, D., Akin, S., & Özer, B. (2005) Effect of inulin and lactulose
on survival of Lactobacillus acidophilusla-5 and Bifidobacterium
Agil, R., Gaget, A., Gliwa, J., Avis, T. J., Willmore, W. G., & bifidum bb-02 in Acidophilus-bifidus yoghurt. Food Science and
Hosseinian, F. (2013) Lentils enhance probiotic growth in yogurt Technology International, 11:19–24.
and provide added benefit of antioxidant protection. LWT—Food Pelaes Vital, A. C., Goto, P. A., Hanai, L. N., Gomez-da
Science and Technology, 50:45–49. Costa, S. M., Filho, B. A., Nakamura, C. V., &
AOAC (2011) In W. Horwitz & R. Latimer (Eds.), Official methods Matumoto-Pintro, P. T. (2015) Microbiological, functional and rhe-
of analysis of AOAC international (18th ed., revision 4th ed.). ological properties of low fat yogurt supplemented with Pleurotus
Gaithersburg, MD: Author. ostreatus aqueous extract. LWT—Food Science and Technology,
Bakr, S. A. (2013) Nutritional and therapeutical values of chickpea 64:1028–1035.
water extract enriched yogurt made from cow and camel milk.
Robinson, R., & Itsaranuwat, P. (2008) Properties of yoghurt and
American Journal of Drug Discovery and Development, 3:47–59.
their appraisal. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Brownawell, A. M., Caers, W., Gibson, G. R., Kendall, C. W.,
Lewis, K. D., Ringel, Y., & Slavin, J. L. (2012) Prebiotics and the Seçkin, A. K., & Baladura, E. (2012) Effect of using some dietary
health benefits of fiber: Current regulatory status, future research, fibers on color, texture and sensory properties of strained yogurt.
and goals. The Journal of Nutrition, 142:962–974. GIDA, 37:63–69.
Charalampopoulos, D., Pandiella, S. S., & Webb, C. (2002) Growth Supavititpatana, P., Wirjantoro, T. I., & Raviyan, P. (2010) Character-
studies of potentially probiotic lactic acid bacteria in cereal-based istics and shelf-life of corn milk yogurt. Chiang Mai University
substrates. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 92:851–859. Journal of Natural Sciences, 9:133–149.
Clark, S., Bodyfelt, F. W., Costello, M., & Drake, M. (2009) The sen- Thavarajah, P. (2012) Evaluation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
sory evaluation of dairy products. New York, NY: Springer. micronutrient composition: Biofortification opportunities to combat
Cruz, A., Cavalcanti, R., Guerreiro, L., Sant’Ana, A., Nogueira, L., global micronutrient malnutrition. Food Research International,
Oliveira, C., & Bolini, H. (2013) Developing a prebiotic yogurt: 49:99–104.
Rheological, physico-chemical and microbiological aspects and Tosh, S. M., & Yada, S. (2010) Dietary fibres in pulse seeds and frac-
adequacy of survival analysis methodology. Journal of Food Engi- tions: Characterization, functional attributes, and applications. Food
neering, 114:323–330. Research International, 43:450–460.
De Souza Oliveira, R. P., Perego, P., Converti, A., & De
Oliveira, M. N. (2009) The effect of inulin as a prebiotic on the pro- USDA. (2016) NASS Dairy Products 2016 Summary, Washington,
duction of probiotic fibre-enriched fermented milk. International DC. ISSN:1057-784X.
Journal of Dairy Technology, 62:195–203. Zare, F., Boye, J., Orsat, V., Champagne, C., & Simpson, B. (2011)
Debon, J., Prudêncio, E. S., & Petrus, J. C. C. (2010) Rheological and Microbiol, physical and sensory properties of yogurt supplemented
physico-chemical characterization of prebiotic microfiltered fer- with lentil flour. Food Research International, 44:2482–2488.
mented milk. Journal of Food Engineering, 99:128–135. Zare, F., Champagne, C., Simpson, B., Orsat, V., & Boye, J. (2012)
FDA. (2017) CFR—Code of federal regulations 21 C.F.R. § 131.200. Effect of the addition of pulse ingredients to milk on acid produc-
Retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh%20/ tion by probiotic and yoghurt starter cultures. LWT—Food Science
cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=131.200 and Technology, 45:155–160.