Yogurt Forti Fication With Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum) Flour: Physicochemical and Sensory Effects

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 8

J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018)

DOI 10.1002/aocs.12102

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Yogurt Fortification with Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) Flour:


Physicochemical and Sensory Effects
Xi Chen1 · Mukti Singh2 · Kanika Bhargava3 · Ranjith Ramanathan4

Received: 18 September 2017 / Revised: 25 May 2018 / Accepted: 31 May 2018


© 2018 AOCS

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

Popularity of yogurt in the United States is on the rise; the


Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is
solely for the purpose of providing scientific information and does not yogurt consumption in United States grew from 3.6 pounds
imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA. USDA is an per person in 1994 to 10.3 pounds per person in 2014.
equal opportunity provider and employer. Annual production of plain and flavored yogurt has
* Mukti Singh increased from 1.39 billion pounds in 1994 to 4.65 billion
mukti.singh@ars.usda.gov pounds in 2016 (United States Department of Agriculture
1
[USDA], 1995, 2016).
Department of Human Sciences, Texas A&M University, 700
University Blvd., Kingsville, TX 78363, USA Over the past several years, a number of strategies to
2 improve the prebiotic content of yogurt have been investi-
National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, Functional
Foods Research, United States Department of Agriculture gated. Prebiotics such as wheat bran (Charalampopoulos,
(USDA), Agricultural Research Service, 1815 N. University Pandiella, & Webb, 2002), inulin (De Souza Oliveira,
Street, Peoria, IL 61604, USA Perego, Converti, & De Oliveira, 2009), modified yam
3
Human Environmental Sciences, University of Central (Handayani, Cakrawati, & Handayani, 2016), Pleurotus
Oklahoma, 100 N. University Drive, Edmond, OK 73034, USA ostreatus (oyster mushroom) extract (Pelaes Vital et al.,
2015), dietary fiber (Seçkin & Baladura, 2012), psylium,
4
Department of Animal & Food Sciences, Oklahoma State
University, 310 N. Monroe Street, Stillwater, OK
and gum Arabic (Nami, Haghshenas, & Yari
74078-6051, USA

J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018)


J Am Oil Chem Soc

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

vival of Bifidobacterium lactis Bb-12 and Lactobacillus


acidophilius La-5 (Martinez-Villaluenga, Frías, Gómez, &
Cooling and storage at 4 °C
Vidal-Valverde, 2006). Hernandez-Hernandez et al. (2012)
suggested that galacto-oligosaccharides can be an excellent
supplement for stimulating the growth and survival of pro- Fig. 1 Schematic presentation of the process used for yogurt (with
and without chickpea flour) making
biotic Lactobacillus strains. Zare, Champagne, Simpson,
Orsat, & Boye (2012) showed that supplementing yogurt
with legume flours (soy, lentil, or chickpea) enhanced the ground using a Vitamix dry grinder and passed through a
growth of Lactobacillus debrueckii ssp. bulgaricus. Agil 1.5 mm standard testing sieve (Advantech Manufacturing,
et al. (2013) showed that addition of green lentil flour New Berlin, WI, USA). Pasteurized, homogenized milk
enhanced selective probiotic bacteria at the initial stage of with 2% fat was collected from a local market (Walmart,
fermentation and maintained an overall high microbial Edmond, OK, USA). The freeze-dried form of the yogurt
count during a 28-day storage period. Yogurt fortified with culture containing S. thermophilus and L. delbrueckii ssp.
the water extract of chickpea had higher Streptococcus bulgaricus (YO-MIX 883 LYO 500 DCU) was obtained
thermophilus counts than that of the control without the from Danisco USA Inc. (Madison, WI, USA). All these
extract (Bakr, 2013). Fortification of yogurt with 1–3% len- were stored at 4  C until use.
til flour resulted in an increase in acid production and an
improvement in the physical and rheological properties
(Zare, Boye, Orsat, Champagne, & Simpson, 2011). Preparation of Yogurt Mix
Besides promoting satiety and weight loss and prevent-
ing obesity and cardiovascular disease, prebiotics are also Dry chickpea flour was mixed with liquid milk at 1%, 2%,
associated with the protective effects against colon cancer 3%, or 5% (w/v) level, stirred for 3 min at 1500 rpm,
and other colon diseases (Brownawell et al., 2012). Protein and homogenized for 3 min at 70 amplitude using an
fortification is an effective way to enhance the delivery of ultrasonicator (QSONICA, Q700; Qsonica, LLC, New-
the satiety level of foods. Thus, prebiotics- and protein- town, CT). This yogurt mix was heated to 90  C and held
containing chickpea will be a useful ingredient to enhance for 10 min, then cooled down to the incubation temperature
the quality of yogurt. Application of chickpea as an ingredi- of 42  C. The stock yogurt culture was made according to
ent in yogurt and its effect on quality parameters have been the instructions of Danisco USA Inc. by dissolving freeze-
less reported. dried yogurt starter culture containing S. thermophilus and
The present study investigated the effects of supplemen- L. delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus (YO-MIX 883) in water. The
tation of yogurt with chickpea flour and its effect on the milk (control contained milk only) and the mixtures of milk
pH, titratable acidity (TTA), microbial counts, and viscos- and chickpea flour were inoculated with stock yogurt
ity of the product during 21 days of storage. Final products culture (1 U L−1) at 42  C and were incubated at 42  C.
were evaluated for color and sensory properties. The pH of the mixtures was monitored starting from the
third hour of incubation (at 30 min intervals) until the pH
value reached 4.5. Once yogurt samples reached pH 4.5,
Materials and Methods they were chilled and stored at 4  C. Control yogurt
samples without chickpea flour were prepared following
Whole chickpeas (Garbanzo beans) obtained from Associ- the same manner. The process of sample preparation is
ated Whole Grocers, Inc. (Kansas City, KS, USA) were outlined in Fig. 1.

J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018)


J Am Oil Chem Soc

pH unit (CFU) per milliliter. The selectivity of viability was con-


firmed by the Gram staining and microscopic examination.
The pH of samples (50 mL) was determined in triplicate
according to the AOAC method (2011) using a pH/ORP
meter (HI 9125; HANNA Instruments Co., Ltd, Carrollton, Viscosity and Color
TX.) and measurements were taken at room tempera-
ture (21  C). The viscosity of samples at day 21 of storage was measured
using a digital rotary viscometer (Model NDJ-9S, Shenzhen
Graigar Technology Co., Ltd., China) with a spindle
Titratable Acidity
No. 3 at 30 rpm for 40 s at 21  C in triplicates according to
the manufacturer’s instructions.
The TTA was measured using the AOAC standard TTA
Color measurement was performed using a HunterLab
method (AOAC, 2011) and expressed as lactic acid %. A
MiniScan XE Plus spectrophotometer (Model 45/0 LAV,
mixture of yogurt in distilled water (1:9, v/v) was titrated
2.54-cm diameter aperture, D65, illuminant A, 10 observer;
with 0.1 M NaOH (Fisher Scientific, Chicago, IL, USA)
HunterLab, Reston, VA). The samples (in triplicates) at day
and 0.1% phenolphthalein (Ricca Chemical Co, Arlington,
1 of storage were measured at room temperature. Each
TX, USA) as the color indicator until pH value of 8.2 was
yogurt sample was poured into a beaker (90 mm outside
attained. The volume of NaOH required to neutralize acids
diameter) that is wrapped with an aluminum foil. Samples
in yogurt was recorded when the pH value of 8.2 was
were stirred gently with a spatula and the surface was leveled
reached and stabilized. The TTA as lactic acid percentage
before measuring. The results were recorded as CIE lab color
was calculated with the following equation:
parameters: L* (lightness), a* (red/greenness), and b* (yel-
Titer value × M × 90 × 100 low/blueness); and a white (tile) was used as a control.
TTA =
Volume of sample × 1000
where M is the molar concentration of sodium hydroxide,
Sensory Evaluation
90 is the equivalent weight of lactic acid, and the titer value
and sample volume are in milliliter.
The appearance, aroma, texture, flavor/taste, and overall
preference of yogurt preparations were evaluated by
Microbial Counts 50 untrained panelists according to the procedures
approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Univer-
The bacterial counts were taken immediately after culture sity of Central Oklahoma. A total of 50 untrained subjects,
inoculation and after 7, 14, and 21 days of storage. Every including 37 females and 13 males between the ages of
procedure was carried out under sterile conditions using the 18 and 61 years from the University of Central Oklahoma
pour-plate technique (Kodaka, Mizuochi, Teramura, & Nira- volunteered to complete the sensory evaluation. Subjects
zuka, 2005). L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus were counted in conducted the evaluation individually in the Human Envi-
MRS agar (bioWORLD, GeneLinx International Inc., Dublin, ronmental Sciences (HES) building in the University of
OH, USA) at pH 5.2 and anerobic incubation was performed Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK, USA. All participants
at 37  C for 72 hours. The procedures of plating methodol- were asked to sign the informed consent form and the
ogy followed the guidelines of International Standardization informed consent with allergy and medical release form
Organization (ISO 2003). One milliliter of TWEEN®-80 prior to the testing. Water and crackers were provided to
(Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was added for every cleanse the palate while tasting. A scale ranging from
1 L of the MRS agar mixture and the pH was adjusted to 5.2 9 (extremely like) to 1 (extremely dislike), with 5 being
using 1.0 M hydrochloric acid. Sterile lactose (Fisher Scien- neither like nor dislike, was used. A control sample and a
tific, Chicago, IL, USA) was added to M17 agar at 10% (w/v) sample with 1% and 2% chickpea flour stored for 21 days
level. Subsequently, samples were serially diluted and at 4  C were given to each panelist. The 3% and 5% forti-
0.1 mL of each dilution was pipetted into separately marked fied samples were too acidic and not included in the sen-
plates (in duplicates) and spread with sterile spreaders. The sory study. About 50 mL of each sample was presented in
agar was allowed to solidify and the inverted petri dishes a plastic container with the label of 123, 231, and 321.
were incubated. MRS plates were incubated in an anerobic Samples 123 and 321 were the ones containing 1% and 2%
chamber (Fisher Scientific, Chicago, IL, USA) for 72 hours chickpea flour, respectively. Sample 231 was plain yogurt
at 37  C while M17 plates were aerobically incubated for without any chickpea flour and used as a control product.
72 hours at 45  C. After incubation, the colonies were All these three samples were served in a random order
enumerated and the results were expressed as colony forming (Clark, Bodyfelt, Costello, & Drake, 2009).

J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018)


J Am Oil Chem Soc

Statistical Analysis 7.0

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)

USDA nutrient database, addition of 1%, 2%, 3%, and 5%


chickpea flour to plain low-fat yogurt may result in an Fig. 2 Changes in pH of yogurt of 2% fat-containing milk (control)
increase in the protein content by 3%, 6%, 9%, and 15%, and yogurt of 2% fat milk fortified with different addition levels of
chickpea flour during incubation at 42  C
respectively, compared to the control yogurt without added
chickpea flour.
The rate of fermentation was related to the drop in pH of
yogurt mixes due to conversion of lactose to lactic acid by with storage. When the drop in pH during the 21-day storage
bacteria during incubation at 42  C (Fig. 2). As all the sam- is considered, the values of the yogurt samples with chickpea
ples reached the typical end-point pH of 4.5, it can be con- flour (6.4–7.3%) were similar to that of the control yogurt
sidered that the addition of chickpea flour to yogurt mix did sample (7%). Although the pH of yogurt was defined as 4.6
not affect fermentation of lactose to lactic acid. Yogurt mix or lower by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2017),
fortified with 1% and 2% chickpea flour reached the end the pH of the final product may vary, and customers may
point of pH 4.5 in 5 hours compared to 6 hours for control accept yogurt with pH of 4.2. The Greek-style yogurt that
while the mixes with 3% and 5% chickpea flour reached pH contains a high content of total solids and fat has pH of
4.5 within 4.5 hours of fermentation. By reaching this end- 3.7–3.8 (Robinson & Itsaranuwat, 2008).
point pH in a shorter incubation time than control, no The TTA values of all the samples showed a general
apparent inhibition of microbial activity due to the fortifica- increase across the 21-day storage time (Table 1). At day
tion of chickpea flour was indicated. However, addition of 1, the TTA values of chickpea flour-containing samples
chickpea flour to yogurt mix increased the rate of fermenta- were significantly (P < 0.05) higher (0.84–0.95% lactic
tion, decreasing the processing time for yogurt making. acid) than the control (plain yogurt) sample (0.78% lactic
Zare et al. (2012) also reported an increase in acidification acid) and the same trend continued until day 21. The TTA
rates of probiotic-fermented milks when supplemented with values of yogurt supplemented with 5% chickpea flour were
pulse flours (20 g L−1). The dietary fiber and raffinose oli- the highest among all samples and the values were signifi-
gosaccharides in chickpea flour may have promoted the cantly (P < 0.05) different than the samples with other
activity of organisms in yogurt, therefore, the production of addition levels of chickpea flour. The acidity of yogurt can
lactose hydrolytic and lactic acid fermentation enzyme may be affected by the metabolic activity of the organisms in
have also enhanced (Zare et al., 2012). yogurt during storage; the high acidity value indicates a
During the storage of 21 days at 4  C, the pH of all the high metabolic activity of microorganisms. According to
yogurt samples continued to drop and the mixtures contain- the observation of Zare et al. (2012), pulse ingredients such
ing chickpea flours had a lower pH value compared to con- as pea fiber, lentil flour, pea protein, and chickpea flour
trol starting from day 1 (Fig. 3). This could be due to the have the ability to increase the acidity value of yogurt in
increased activity of bacterial cultures in the presence of the presence of probiotic bacteria. Fortification of low-fat
chickpea flour. Pelaes Vital et al. (2015) also reported a sig- yogurt with inulin has resulted in a decline of pH and an
nificant decrease in pH and an increase in TTA of yogurt enhancement of TTA during a 14-day storage period at

J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018)


J Am Oil Chem Soc

Effects of Chickpea Flour on Viscosity

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

Treatmentb TTA (% lactic acid)


Day 1 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21

Control 0.78  0.01Aa 0.84  0.01Ab 0.87  0.01Ab 0.91  0.01Ac


1% 0.88  0.01Ba 0.92  0.01Bb 0.95  0.00Bb 1.01  0.02Bc
2% 0.84  0.03Ba 0.98  0.01Bb 0.95  0.01Bb 1.05  0.03BCc
3% 0.93  0.01Ca 1.04  0.03Cb 1.01  0.02Cb 1.10  0.02Cc
5% 0.95  0.00Ca 1.05  0.01Cb 1.12  0.01Dc 1.18  0.01Dd

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.

J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018)


J Am Oil Chem Soc

Table 2 Viscositya of yogurt fortified with chickpea flour during the 21-day storage period at 4  C

Treatmentb Viscosity (Pa s)


Day 1 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21

Control 2.28  0.36Aa 2.23  0.31Ba 2.04  0.67Aa 1.89  0.11Aa


1% 2.61  0.35Aa 2.81  0.27ABa 2.79  0.70Aa 2.27  0.11Aa
2% 2.90  0.569Aa 3.19  0.53Aa 2.97  0.34Aa 2.22  0.16Aa
3% 2.23  0.48Aa 3.17  0.29Aa 2.51  0.31Aab 2.10  0.08Ab
5% 2.38  0.62Ab 3.08  0.26ABa 2.02  0.27Ab 1.95  0.21Ab

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

J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018)


J Am Oil Chem Soc

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

Treatmentb Log CFU mL−1


Day 1 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21

Control 7.99  0.25Aa 7.56  0.45Aa 6.36  0.32Ab 5.87  0.81Ab


1% 8.22  0.04Aa 7.98  0.33Aab 7.24  0.23Bc 6.88  0.37ABbc
2% 8.66  0.04Ba 8.09  0.16Aab 7.82  0.21BCb 7.47  0.37Bb
3% 8.71  0.05Ba 8.24  0.15Aab 8.04  0.10Cb 7.74  0.27Bb
5% 8.85  0.04Ba 8.33  0.16Aab 8.06  0.25Cb 7.76  0.29Bb

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).

Effects of Chickpea Flour on Sensory Evaluation


Conclusion
When combined with quality parameter assessment, sensory
evaluation is an invaluable tool to assess eating quality of The results indicated that the addition of chickpea flour
yogurt (Clark et al., 2009). The results of the sensory evalua- significantly enhanced the acidification process of yogurt, as
tion revealed that there was no significant difference a consequence, reduced the fermentation time from 6 to
(P > 0.05) for scores on appearance, aroma, texture, flavor/ 4.5 hours for reaching the final pH of 4.5. The lowest pH
taste, and the overall preference level among the control value and the highest TTA value were recorded after 21-day
sample, and samples with 1% and 2% of chickpea flour refrigerated storage of yogurt with 5% (w/v) of chickpea
(Table 5). Yogurt fortified with 1% chickpea flour received flour. The viscosity values showed a decrease toward the
the highest appearance score. A similar study reported on end of the 21-day storage period at 4  C; however, the addi-
yogurt enriched with chickpea water extract reported better tion of 1% and 2% (w/v) chickpea flour provided a signifi-
performance values for texture; however, a reduction in the cant improvement in the viscosity of stored yogurt. Addition
sweetness, color, and overall preference scores was noted of chickpea flour up to 2% (w/v) did not affect the color
(Bakr, 2013). With the results of the present study, it is values or sensory quality parameters and were comparable

Table 5 Scores for sensory propertiesa of yogurt fortified with chickpea flour at 4  C, immediately after production

Treatmentb Appearance Aroma Texture Flavor/taste Overall preference

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.

J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018)


J Am Oil Chem Soc

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.

J Am Oil Chem Soc (2018)

You might also like