Template LAAR 2021

Abstract-- This study focused on the effect of different legume (LF) and cereal (CF) flours on the proximate composition, powder, and sensory properties of the gluten-free tarhana (GFT). For this purpose, several legumes and cereal flours such as commercial gluten-free flour, rice flour, chickpea flour, bean flour, and yellow lentil flour were used. The moisture contents of tarhana samples were < 10%. Based on the obtained results, it can be stated that the protein and cellulose contents of GFT samples can be significantly increased using rice (75.94% for protein and 15.29% for cellulose), chickpea (260.00% for protein and 115.88% for cellulose), bean (283.91% for protein and 385.88% for cellulose), and yellow lentil (277.19% for protein and 32.35% for cellulose) flours instead of commercial gluten-free flour (p<0.05). While chickpea flour tarhana has superior properties in wettability time (33.80s), bean flour tarhana has superior properties in bulk density (961.53 kg/m³), Carr Index (2.56-5.38), and Hausner Ratio (1.02-1.05) values compared to the other tarhana samples. The sensory evaluation showed that all GFT samples were greatly accepted by the panelists.

Keywords-- tarhana, gluten-free, legume flour, functional properties, fermentation

I. INTRODUCTION

Tarhana is a traditional lactic acid fermented and dried soup in Turkey. The ingredients of tarhana dough are wheat flour, yogurt, yeast, salt, tomato, onion, paprika, and herbs. The tarhana fermentation generally takes place around 1–7 days and after fermentation, the dough is dried. The dried pellets were milled to the particle size < 1 mm and used for soup making. Tarhana may be considered a functional food due to its high protein, vitamin (B complex), and mineral content (Daglioǧlu, 2000, Ekıncı, 2005, Kumral, 2015).

Celiac disease is a chronic autoimmune disease of the small intestine triggered by the ingestion of gluten or gluten-like proteins. The cereals (wheat, etc.) are the major triggering factors due to their prolamines, gliadin, hordein, and avenin contents (Jnawali et al., 2016). Legumes (chickpea, lentil, bean, etc.) are rich in proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, dietary fibers, essential amino acids, phenolic compounds, etc. (Campos-Vega et al., 2010). Legumes do not contain gluten and they can be considered as functional gluten-free food ingredients to increase the nutritional quality of the food products such as bread, pasta, cake, tarhana, etc. (Horax et al., 2004). Many studies focused on the improvement of the GFT formulations using quinoa: rice flour combinations (Demir, 2014), corn flour (Yalcin et al., 2008), chickpea flour (Kumral, 2015), rice flour (Yalcin et al., 2008), etc. To date following a gluten-free diet is the only treatment method for people with celiac (Rubio-Tapia et al., 2013). For this reason, developing gluten-free product formulations which are nutritious and economic is very important (Jnawali et al., 2016). The type of ingredients and their amounts that are used in the tarhana formulation will directly affect the nutritional content and sensory attributes of tarhana samples. For this purpose, this study aimed to develop a new GFT formulation using cereal (rice) and legume (chickpea, bean, and yellow lentil) flours and to determine the effect of these flours on the proximate composition and powder, and sensory properties of the GFT samples.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. Materials

The commercial gluten-free flour (Eksun Food, Agriculture San. Trade Inc., 0.44% fat, 0.52% protein, 88.05% carbohydrate), rice flour (Kenton Food Industry Inc., 0.67% protein, 7.76% carbohydrate, 0.2% fiber), pre-cooked chickpea flour (Kenton Food Industry Inc., 5.1% fat, 15.5% protein, 49.5% carbohydrate, 17.9% fiber), precooked bean flour (Kenton Food Industry Inc., 1.6% fat, 19.3% protein, 33.1% carbohydrate, 34.0% fiber), pre-cooked yellow lentil flour (Kenton Food Industry Inc., 0.7% fat, 26%, protein, 12% fiber, 53% carbohy-drate), yogurt (Sütaş Dairy Products Inc.), onion, tomato paste (Tukaş Food Industry and Trade Inc.), active dry yeast (Pak Food Production and Marketing Inc.), salt (Billur Boiled Salt Trade Inc.), mint and dried grounded red pepper (Avşarlar Dried Fruits and Nuts Production Industry and Trade Inc.) were obtained from a local supermarket in Alanya, Turkey.

B. Tarhana Production

The method that is given our previous studies (Çalışkan Koç and Özçıra, 2019, Çalışkan Koç et al., 2021, Tekgül et al., 2021) was used for GFT production. The GFT samples were stored in the multilayer packaging material at room temperatures in the desiccator until further analysis.

C. Analysis

Proximate composition

Moisture (44-01), ash (08-01), protein (46–12), cellulose
(32-10), starch (76-13), and fat (30–25) contents analyseswere performed according to American Association of Cereal Chemists methods (AACC, 1990). The total carbohydrate content and total energy value were calculated according to Gibson (2005). Color values were measured using a Minolta CR-400 Colorimeter, Japan. Chroma (C), Hue angle (ºHA), total color change (ΔE), browning (BI), and yellowness (YI) index were compu-ted according to the given Eqs. (Pathare et al., 2013).

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

The pH values of samples (at 0, 24^th, and 48^th hours of fermentation) were measured by pH meter (Seven Excellence S 400 Mettler Toledo AG, China). The total phenolic content (TPC) and antioxidant activity (DPPH) analysis were performed modified method of Kim et al. (2002) and dos Santos et al. (2014), respectively.

Functional and Powder Properties

Water holding (WHC) and oil holding capacity (OHC) values were determined as the amount of water or oil retained per weight of 100g samples (Stone et al., 2015). Foaming capacity (FC), and foam stability (FS) values were determined according to, respectively. FC was expressed as the ratio of foam volume to solution volume, and FS was expressed as the time for half of the foam volume to disappear.

Wettability time was determined as the time (s) taken for samples (10g) to be completely wetted in 100g of water at 25°C (Gong et al., 2008). Solubility time was measured as the time required for samples (2g) to dissolve completely in distilled water (50 ml, 30°C, Goula and Adamopoulos, 2008). The Hygroscopicity of samples was determined according to the modified method of Cai and Corke (2000). Briefly, it was determined that the water absorption of the samples (1g), which were kept in the saturated NaCl (relative humidity of 75.3%) solution for 1 week, would be taken into account. The bulk density was calculated by dividing the tarhana by the volume it occupies in a 100 ml measuring cup, and the tapped density was calculated by dividing the volume occupied after it was dropped from a height of 15 cm 80 times to a soft surface (Jinapong et al. 2008). Carr Index (CI) and Hausner Ratio (HR), were calculated using formulas showing the relationship between bulk and compacted density values (Jinapong et al. 2008). In order to determine the dispersibility of the samples, the reconstituted tarhana samples (1g sample/ 10 ml distilled water) was poured through a 212 µm sieve and the filtrate was dried at 105°C (4 h) (Jinapong et al., 2008).

Sensory Evaluation

The GFT soups were prepared according to the methodsthat are given in our previous studies (Çalışkan Koç and Özçıra, 2019, Tekgül et al., 2021). Descriptive rating sensory tests were performed using 20 panelists from the students of the Department of Gastronomy and Culinary Arts (AHEP University, Antalya, Turkey). The sensory test included properties such as color, odor, consistency, homogeneity, flavor, off-flavor, and overall acceptability which were rated on a 5-point scale (1=very bad- 5=very good).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical software SPSS 16.0 (SPSS Inc., USA) was used for the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple range test (α= 0.05). The tarhana production was replicated and all the analyses were triplicated.

III. RESULTS

Physicochemical, functional, and powder properties of legume and cereal flours are presented in Table 1. The rice flour has the lowest solubility time compared to the other flours. While chickpea flour has lower moisture content and wettability time, bean flour has superior properties in ash content and water and oil holding capacities than other flours. The highest pH and oil holding capacity values were obtained from chickpea and yellow lentil flours, whereas the lowest values were observed for commercial gluten-free and bean flours, respectively. Similar to our results, the moisture and ash contents of bean flours were reported to be 10.41±0.01% and 3.49±0.07%, respectively (Kohajdová et al., 2013). The ash content of rice flour was found to be higher than the ash content of rice flour (0.49%) which was presented by Yalcin et al. (2008), whereas the ash content of chickpea flour was found in a similar range to the values (2.8±0.07%) reported by Mohammed et al. (2014). The highest TPC and DPPH values were observed for commercial gluten-free flour, whereas the lowest values were observed for yellow lentil and chickpea flours, respectively (p<0.05). Similar to our findings, the water holding capacity of yellow lentil flour was reported as 143±3% (Kohajdová et al., 2013). Siddiq et al. (2010) reported that the water and oil absorptions of different types of beans (red kidney, small red kidney, cranberry, and black) ranged between 223-265% and 123-152%, respectively. Although the WHC of bean flour (234.33%) is in a similar range in the results of Siddiq et al. (2010), lower OHC values (65.67%) were obtained in this study compared to Siddiq et al. (2010). The different WHC and OHC of legumes and cereal flours may be because of different amino acid and carbohydrate contents (Kohajdová et al., 2013). A high WHC is desired for the flours since a higher WHC enables the adding more water to the dough formulation so this process improves the handling properties and prolongs the shelf life (Kudra and Ratti, 2006, Sanjeewa et al., 2010). According to this explanation, it can be stated that the chickpea and bean flours are desired flours due to their higher WHC.

Proximate Composition

The moisture content, ºHA, C, BI, YI, and ΔE values, and

the color values of GFT samples are shown in Table 2

Figure 1: Color values (a), changes in pH values (b), and sensory scores (c) of gluten-free tarhana samples. CGFFT: Commercial Gluten-Free Flour Tarhana, RFT: Rice Flour Tarhana, CFT: Chickpea Flour Tarhana BFT: Bean Flour Tarhana YLFT: Yellow Lentil Flour Tarhana

and Fig. 1, respectively. The moisture contents of GFT samples were lower than 10% which is consistent with barley flour (Erkan et al., 2006), corn and rice tarhanas (Yalcin et al., 2008), and tarhana enriched with immature wheat germ (Aktaş et al., 2015). The moisture contents of GFT samples were also consistent with Turkish Standard (TS 2282). The type of flours was generally found insignificant for the moisture contents of GFT samples (p>0.05). The lowest moisture content was obtained from commercial gluten-free flour tarhana, whereas the highest value was observed for bean flour tarhana. The different moisture content values may be due to different water holding capacities of flours, different drying times of GFT dough, etc. The lowest and highest water holding capacities were obtained for commercial gluten-free flour and bean flour which may be due to the reason for the lowest and highest moisture content of the commercial gluten-free and bean flour tarhana samples.

The ºHA and C of GFT samples were between 1.37-1.46 and 27.50-36.10, respectively. The chroma values showed that the gluten-free tarhana samples have higher color intensity. The lowest BI was calculated for rice and yellow lentil flour tarhana samples. Similar to BI, the lowest YI was calculated for rice flour tarhana whereas the highest BI and YI were calculated for chickpea flour tarhana. It can be stated that the rice flour tarhana has a lower ΔE compared to other samples. Similar to C, BI, and YI, the highest ΔE was calculated for chickpea flour tarhana.

The effect of legume and cereal flours on the color of the GFT samples was found to be significant (p<0.05). The highest L* values were observed for commercial gluten-free and rice flour tarhana samples, whereas the lowest value was observed for chickpea flour (p<0.05). The a* values of commercial gluten-free, rice and bean flours tarhana were found similar (p>0.05). The b* value of chickpea flour tarhana was the highest. It may be due to the more evident yellow color of the chickpea flour. Yalcin et al. (2008) reported that the color values of rice tarhana were L*= 82.15, a*= 13.19, and b*=26.26. In this study, the color values of rice flour tarhana were measured as L*=82.12, a*=5.43, and b*=27.32. The L* and b* values of rice flour tarhana samples are consistent with the results of Yalcin et al. (2008) however, lower a* values were measured. It may be due to different tarhana formulations (amount of tomato paste, tomato, red pepper, etc.), drying time, fermentation periods, etc.

The pH values of GFT dough during the fermentation period are shown in Figure 1. The pH of the GFT dough samples significantly decreased depending on the increasing fermentation period due to the formation of organic acids (p<0.05, Erbaş et al., 2006). The high pH of the tarhana dough encourages the growth of lactic acid and mesophilic aerobic bacteria (Erbaş et al., 2005). In this study, the pH values of GFT doughs (0th day) were measured as 5.47, 4.91, 6.11, 6.03, and 5.62 for commercial gluten-free, rice, chickpea, bean, and yellow lentil flour tarhana doughs, respectively. These high pH values may encourage the fermentation process. The pH of GFT doughs significantly decreased at the end of the 24h and 48h fermentation periods except for commercial gluten-free and rice flour tarhana doughs (p<0.05). The pH values of all samples were around 5.0 except for rice flour tarhana. There is not a standard for tarhana formulation and fermentation time (generally around 1-7 days). The pH of tarhana samples strongly depends on the fermentation period (Erbaş et al., 2006). In this study, the fermentation period was 48 hours. It may be the reason for slightly higher values compared to the values of tarhana enriched with immature wheat germ (pH:4.05-4.55, fermentation temperature and time: 30ºC and 96h, Aktaş et al., 2015) and tarhana with yogurt, kefir and yogurt and kefir (pH:4.77-4.92, fermentation temperature and time: 25ºC and 96h (Arslan-Tontul et al., 2018). In addition, the utilization of different legumes and cereal flours in the tarhana formulation may be the reason for the different pH values of the tarhana samples. The lowest pH values were found to be for rice flour tarhana dough and tarhana (p<0.05). The pH of rice flour tarhana (4.66±0.04) was found to be similar to the pH of rice flour tarhana (4.48±0.255) produced by Yalcin et al. (2008).

The chemical compositions of GFT samples are given in Table 3. The highest ash, protein, and cellulose contents and the lowest starch content were obtained for bean flour tarhana, (p<0.05). The ash content of GFT samples can be significantly increased by around 4.57% and 13.47% using chickpea and bean flour instead of commercial gluten-free flour (p<0.05). However, using rice (6.28%) and yellow lentil (0.23%) flours instead of using commercial gluten-free flour resulted in a decrease in the ash content of the GFT samples. Grehn et al. (2001) and Moreno Amador et al. (2014) reported that refined gluten-free flour or starch was used for gluten-free foods. For this reason, gluten-free foods are rich in carbohydrates and fats and lack fiber. Similarly, in this study, it can be stated that the cellulose contents of tarhana samples which were produced using commercial gluten-free flour are significantly lower compared to other samples whereas the starch content is significantly higher except for rice flour tarhana (p<0.05). The protein and cellulose contents of tarhana samples can be increased using rice (75.94% for protein and 15.29% for cellulose), chickpea (260.00% for protein and 115.88% for cellulose), bean (283.91% for protein and 385.88% for cellulose), and yellow lentil (277.19% for protein and 32.35% for cellulose) flours instead of commercial gluten-free flour (p<0.05). However, the starch contents of GFT samples can be significantly decreased using the legume flours (p<0.05). The protein content of rice flour tarhana was found similar to the protein content of rice flour tarhana (11.9%) produced by Yalcin et al. (2008), however, significantly higher ash contents were obtained in this study compared to the results (1.35%) of Yalcin et al. (2008). The different fat contents of flours may be the reason for these differences. The significantly higher fat content of chickpea flour (5.1%) may be the reason for the significantly higher fat content of chickpea flour tarhana (p<0.05). The highest total carbohydrate content was observed from commercial gluten-free tarhana (p<0.05). The differences between the total carbohydrate content of chickpea, bean, and yellow lentil flour tarhana samples were insignificant (p>0.05). Daglioǧlu (2000) reported that the fat contents of tarhana range between 1.6 and 18.2 g/100g. The obtained results in this study were found to be in a similar range to the given values.

The protein, fat, carbohydrate, crude fiber, dietary fiber, and mineral contents (dry basis) were reported to be as 7.70%, 2.20%, 73.70%,1.63%, 2.20%, and 1.20% for rice; 23.64%, 6.48%, 64.60%, 3.82%, 18-22%, and not detected (ND) for chickpea; 22.7%, 0.70%, 20%, ND, 14.6%, and ND for lentil, respectively (Jnawali et al., 2016). The higher protein and mineral contents were obtained for rice, chickpea, and yellow lentil flour tarhana compared to the results of Jnawali et al. (2016). It may be due to other ingredients such as yogurt, tomato paste, etc. that contribute to the nutritional value of tarhana. The highest TPC and DPPH values were observed for rice flour tarhana, whereas the lowest values were observed for chickpea flour tarhana (p<0.05). The chickpea flour tarhana has the highest calorie value (p<0.05). It may be because of the higher fat content of the chickpea flour tarhana (p<0.05). The differences between the total energy of other tarhana samples were found insignificant (p>0.05).

Functional Properties

The WHC and OHC, and foaming properties of GFT samples are given in Table 4. The WHC is considered an important functional property for dough and bakery products which is important for the moistness of the product, starch retrogradation, subsequent product staling, etc. (Hayta et al., 2002; Siddiq et al., 2010). The OHC is important for the development of new food products and to determine the storage stability (flavor binding, development of oxidative rancidity, etc.) (Siddiq et al., 2010). The WHC of GFT samples significantly affected the gluten-free legumes flours (p<0.05). This can be explained by different chemical compositions such as starch, protein contents, etc., along with the particle size, surface area, and energy of selected gluten-free legume flours (Celik et al., 2005). The WHC values of the tarhana samples have a similar trend to the WHC values of the gluten-free legumes flours (Table 2), however, similar results were not obtained for OHC. Moreover, the WHC of tarhana samples showed a similar trend with cellulose content. The hydrophilic groups in the cellulose of the GFT samples might have resulted in an easy integration with water that finally led it to an increased WHC. The highest WHC and lowest OHC values were observed for bean flour and bean flour tarhana. According to these results, it can be stated that the WHC and OHC of the samples are generally inversely proportional. In addition, the relationship between the WHC and OHC values of tarhana samples can be explained by a quadratic equation (y=0.0031x²-0.8171x+23.947, R²=0.7429). The water and oil holding capacity values of tarhana samples were found to be generally significantly lower compared to the gluten-free legumes flours except for oil holding capacity values of rice flour and tarhana (p<0.05). The different types of protein and protein content of the tarhana samples may be the reason for the different OHC values, however, in this study, the correlation between the protein content and OHC cannot be reached.

The foam cannot be obtained for commercial gluten-free, rice, and bean flour tarhana samples. It may be because of different types of proteins, the degree of denaturation, pH, temperature, etc. In addition, traditional tarhana contains milk (casein, globulin, and albumin come from yogurt) and wheat proteins (glutenin and gliadin come from wheat flour) (Celik et al., 2005; Daglioǧlu, 2000). However, in this study, due to lack of wheat proteins may affect the foaming capacity of the tarhana samples. In addition, the proteolytic activity of yeast, which leads to the weakness in the gas absorption property of proteins may also affect the foaming capacity. Kohajdová et al. (2013) reported that the foaming capacity and foam stability of lentil and bean flours are 34.03 ± 0.08 and 22.00 ± 0.48 cm³/ 100cm³ and 18.10 ± 0.22 and 11.00 ± 0.15 cm³/100cm³, respectively. According to the results of Kohajdová et al. (2013), it can be stated that yellow lentil flour has higher foaming capacity and foam stability values compared to bean flour. It may also be a reason for the lack of foaming in the bean flour tarhana sample, whereas the yellow lentil flour tarhana sample has foam.

Powder Properties

The powder properties of GFT samples are given in Tab-

le 5. The wettability and solubility times of the tarhana samples have a similar trend to the wettability and solubility times of the legume and cereal flours (Table 1). The wettability times of the commercial gluten-free flour tarhana which also has the lowest moisture content and WHC are significantly higher compared to other GFTs (p<0.05, Tables 2 and 4). It may be due to difficult water diffusion inside the particle at the lower moisture content values. The wettability times of the GFT samples can be significantly decreased using gluten-free legumes flours (p<0.05). The solubility times of commercial gluten-free flour and legume and cereal flours were lower than the 60s, however, the solubility times of GFT samples were found to be lower than this value. Considering the solubility time and dispersibility percentage, it can be concluded that RFT is more advantageous than the others. The lowest hygroscopicity value was observed for yellow lentil flour tarhana (p<0.05). Santana et al. (2013) explained that hygroscopicity is inversely proportional to the moisture content of the product. Similarly, in this study, the highest hygroscopicity value was observed for commercial gluten-free flour tarhana which has the lowest moisture content (8.88%, Table 2). The relationship between the moisture content and hygroscopicity of the tarhana samples can be explained by a quadratic function (y=9.8889x²-190.02x+921.06, R² = 0.6721).

In addition, the lowest water holding capacity value of the commercial gluten-free flour tarhana may also be a reason for the lowest hygroscopicity value (Table 4). The lowest bulk and tapped density values were obtained from chickpea flour tarhana samples, whereas the highest values were obtained from bean flour tarhana samples. The bean flour tarhana has significantly higher bulk density values than other tarhana samples (p<0.05). In order to reduce the packaging and transportation costs, the high bulk density values can be regarded as advantageous (Caliskan Koc and Dirim, 2018). The GFT samples showed very good flow characteristics and a low Hausner Ratio which may be due to the low moisture and fat contents. In the comparison of the GFT samples, the rice flour tarhana has superior properties in the solubility time and dispersibility value compared to the other flours. While chickpea flour tarhana has desired low wettability time, bean flour tarhana has desired high bulk density, CI, and HR values compared to the other tarhana samples.

Sensory Evaluation

The ingredients, fermentation process, etc. are very important for the sensorial acceptability of tarhana soup. The sensory scores for GFT samples are given in Figure 1. The color and odor insignificantly differ among the tarhana soups except for yellow lentil tarhana soup (p>0.05). Similarly, Yalcin et al. (2008) also claimed that the color scores of rice tarhana soups were not significantly different from that of wheat tarhana soup (p>0.05). The significantly highest consistency (spoon and mouth) scores (3.85±0.23 and 4.05±0.46) were obtained from commercial gluten-free flour tarhana soup (p<0.05). The consistency scores of legume and cerealflour tarhana soups were lower than 3 except for chickpea flour tarhana (3.25 consistency in the spoon). According to visual inspection, it can be said that in spite of adding a different amount of water during cooking, the cereal, and legume flour tarhana soups have a very viscous structure compared to commercial gluten-free tarhana soup. In addition, after serving the viscosity of the tarhana soups

increased. The desired consistency for the soups is to be less viscous which is in a liquid state, however, the legume and cereal flour tarhana soups almost reached a semi-solid state. It may be a reason for the lower consistency scores. In addition, Jnawali et al. (2016) reported that gluten is required to ensure the desired texture, mouthfeel, and color of the product. Lack of gluten in the selected legume and cereal flours may also be the reason for the lower consistency scores of the GFT soups. According to the panelist scores, all tarhana soups have homogeneous structures except for bean flour tarhana soup (2.95±0.40). It may be due to lower dispersibility values (40.42%) of bean flour tarhana in the water. Tarhana has a sour and acidic taste with a yeasty flavor (Tarakci et al., 2013). All GFT soups have a traditional sour and acidic taste. The highest flavor score (3.25±0.37) was obtained from rice flour tarhana (p<0.05). The panelist did not detect off-flavor in the tarhana soups. The overall acceptability scores were in the order of commercial gluten-free flour tarhana soup> rice flour tarhana soup>yellow lentil flour tarhana soup> bean flour tarhana soup> chickpea flour tarhana soup.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The production of gluten-free products and the discovery of new gluten-free sources as alternatives to wheat flour are important for celiac patients. In this study, it was aimed to develop the tarhana formulation, which is a traditional fermented soup, by using different legumes and cereal flours. Commercial gluten-free flour was used as a control. As a result, it can be stated that the gluten-free tarhana formulations were satisfactorily improved in terms of physicochemical, powder, functional, and sensorial properties using cereal and legume flours. It can be concluded that the rice flour tarhana has superior properties in the browning index (43.94), total color change (2.12), total phenolic content (1283.91mg GAE/kg tarhana), antioxidant activity (6085.90µMol Trolox Equiva-lence), solubility time (22.16s), dispersibility (77.14%) and flavor score (3.25) compared to the other samples. Bean flour tarhana has superior properties in ash content (9.94%), protein content (24.57%), cellulose content (8.26%) water holding capacity (215.50%), bulk density (961.53 kg/m³), Carr Index (2.56), and Hausner Ratio (1.02) values compared to the other samples. When all the results are evaluated, it can be asserted that rice flour tarhana is acceptable in terms of total phenolic content and antioxidant activity as well as being liked sensorily, however, bean flour tarhana is rich in protein, ash, and cellulose contents compared to other samples. In this context, future studies may be on tarhana production by mixing these two flours in different proportions. In addition, the bioavailability and bioaccessibility of tarhana samples bioactive compounds and contributing nutrients can be needed further studies.

REFERENCES

AACC (1990) Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists (8th ed.) St Paul, MN.

Aktas, K., Aktaş, K., Demirci, T. and Akin, N. (2015) Chemical Composition and Microbiological Properties of Tarhana Enriched with Immature Wheat Grain. J Food Process Preserv. 39, 3014–3021.

Arslan-Tontul, S., Mutlu, C., Candal, C. and Erbaş, M. (2018) Microbiological and chemical properties of wet tarhana produced by different dairy products. J Food Sci Technol. 55, 4770–4781.

Cai, Y.Z., and Corke, H. (2000) Production and Properties of Spray-dried Amaranthus Betacyanin Pigments. J Food Sci. 65, 1248–1252.

Campos-Vega, R., Loarca-Piña, G. and Oomah, B.D. (2010) Minor components of pulses and their potential impact on human health. Food Res Int. 43, 461–482.

Celik, I., Isik, F., Simsek, O. and Gursoy, O. (2005) The Effects of the Addition of Baker’s Yeast on the Functional Properties and Quality of Tarhana, a Traditional Fermented Food. Czech J Food Sci. 23, 190–195.

Çalışkan Koç, G., Tekgül, Y., Erten, E.S. and Akdogan, A. (2021) Mineral content, fatty acid composition and volatile compounds of gluten-free tarhana formulated with different cereal and pulse flours, Journal of Food Science. 86, 4376-4392.

Çalışkan Koç, G. and Özçıra N. (2019) Chemical Composition, Functional, Powder, and Sensory Properties of Tarhana Enriched with Wheat Germ. J Food Sci Technol. 56, 5204–5213.

Caliskan Koc, G. and Dirim, S.N. (2018) Spray dried spinach juice: powder properties. J. Food Meas Charact. 12, 1654-1668.

Daglioǧlu, O. (2000) Tarhana as a traditional Turkish fermented cereal food. Its recipe, production and composition. Food/ Nahrung. 44, 85–88.

Demir, M.K. and Faculty, A. (2014) Use of Quinoa Flour in The Production of Gluten-Free Tarhana. Food Sci Techno Res. 20, 1087–1092.

dos Santos Lima, M., de Souza Veras Silani, I., Toaldo, I.M., Corrêa, L.C., Biasoto, A.C.T., Pereira, G.E., Bordignon-Luiz, M.T. and Ninow, J.L. (2014) Phenolic compounds, organic acids and antioxidant activity of grape juices produced from new Brazilian varieties planted in the Northeast Region of Brazil. Food Chem. 161, 94–103.

Ekıncı, R. (2005) The effect of fermentation and drying on the water-soluble vitamin content of tarhana, a traditional Turkish cereal food. Food Chem. 90, 127–132.

Erbaş, M., Kemal Uslu, M., Erbaş, O., and Certel, M. (2006) Effects of fermentation and storage on the organic and fatty acid contents of tarhana, a Turkish fermented cereal food. J Food Compost Anal. 19, 294-301.

Erbaş, M., Certel, M., and Kemal Uslu, M. (2005) Microbiological and chemical properties of Tarhana during fermentation and storage as wet—sensorial properties of Tarhana soup. LWT - Food Sci Technol. 38, 409–416.

Erkan, H., Çelik, S., Bilgi, B. and Köksel, H. (2006) A new approach for the utilization of barley in food products: Barley tarhana. Food Chem. 97, 12–18.

Gibson, R.S. (2005) Principles of nutricional assessment. 2^nd ed. Oxford university press, New York.

Gong, Z., Zhang, M., Mujumdar, A.S. and Sun, J. (2008) Spray Drying and Agglomeration of Instant Bayberry Powder. Drying Technol. 26, 116–1121.

Goula, A.M. and Adamopoulos, K.G. (2008) Effect of Maltodextrin Addition during Spray Drying of Tomato Pulp in Dehumidified Air: II. Powder Properties. Drying Technol. 26, 726–737.

Grehn, S., Fn ’dell, K., Lilliecreutz, M. and Hallert, C. (2001) Dietary habits of Swedish adult coeliac patients treated by a gluten-free diet for 10 years. Scand J Nutr. 45;178–182.

Hayta, M., Alpaslan, M. and Baysar, A. (2002) Effect of Drying Methods on Functional Properties of Tarhana: A Wheat Flour-Yogurt Mixture. J Food Sci. 67, 740–744.

Horax, R., Hettiarachchy, N.S., Chen, P. and Jalaluddin, M. (2004) Preparation and Characterization of Protein Isolate from Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.). J Food Sci. 69, 114–118.

Jinapong, N., Suphantharika, M. and Jamnong, P. (2008) Production of instant soymilk powders by ultrafiltration, spray drying and fluidized bed agglomeration, J Food Eng. 84, 194–205.

Jnawali, P., Kumar, V. and Tanwar, B. (2016) Celiac disease: Overview and considerations for develop-ment of gluten-free foods. Food Science and Human Wellness. 5, 169–176.

Kim, Y.K., Guo, Q. and Packer, L. (2002) Free radical scavenging activity of red ginseng aqueous extracts. Toxicology. 172, 149–156.

Kohajdová, Z., Karovičová, J. and Magala, M. (2013) Effect of lentil and bean flours on rheological and baking properties of wheat dough. Chemical Papers. 67, 398–407.

Kudra, T. and Ratti, C. (2006) Foam-mat drying: Energy and cost analyses. Canadian Biosystems Engineering/ Le Genie Des Biosystems Au Canada. 48, 27–32.

Kumral, A. (2015) Nutritional, chemical and microbiological changes during fermentation of tarhana formulated with different flours. Chemistry Central Journal. 9, 16.

Mohammed, I., Ahmed, A.R. and Senge, B. (2014) Effects of chickpea flour on wheat pasting properties and bread making quality. J Food Sci Technol. 51, 1902–1910.

Moreno Amador, M. de, Comino, I., and Sousa, C. (2014) Alternative Grains as Potential Raw Material for Gluten-Free Food Development in The Diet of Celiac and Gluten-Sensitive Patients. Aust J Nutr Food Sci. 2, 1–9.

Pathare, P. B., Opara, U. L. and Al-said, F. A.-J. (2013) Colour Measurement and Analysis in Fresh and Processed Foods: A Review. Food Bioprocess Technol. 6, 36–60.

Rubio-Tapia, A., Hill, I.D., Kelly, C.P., Calderwood, A. H. and Murray, J.A. (2013) ACG clinical guidelines: diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 108, 656–677.

Sanjeewa, W.G.T., Wanasundara, J.P.D., Pietrasik, Z. and Shand, P.J. (2010) Characterization of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flours and application in low-fat pork bologna as a model system. Food Res Int. 43, 617–626.

Santana, A.A., Oliveira, R.A. de, Pinedo, A.A., Kurozawa, L.E. and Park, K.J. (2013) Microencap-sulation of babassu coconut milk. LWT-Food Sci Techno. 33, 737–744.

Siddiq, M., Ravi, R., Harte, J.B. and Dolan, K.D. (2010) LWT - Food Science and Technology Physical and functional characteristics of selected dry bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) flours. LWT - Food Sci Technol. 43, 232–237.

Stone, A.K., Karalash, A., Tyler, R.T., Warkentin, T.D. and Nickerson, M.T. (2015) Functional attributes of pea protein isolates prepared using different extraction methods and cultivars. FRIN. 76, 31–38.

Tarakci, Z., Anil, M., Koca, I. and Islam, A. (2013) Effects of adding cherry laurel (Laurocerasus officinalis) on some physicochemical and functio-nal properties and sensorial quality of tarhana. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. 5, 347–355.

Tekgül, Y., Koç Çalışkan, G., Erten, E.S. and Akdogan, A. (2021) Determination of the effect of wheat germ on the mineral and fatty acid composition and aroma compounds of tarhana: A traditional fermented cereal food. J Food Process Preserv. 45, e15144

Yalcin, E., Çelik, S., and Köksel, H. (2008) Chemical and Sensory Properties of New Gluten-free Food Products: Rice and Corn Tarhana. Food Sci Biotechnol. 17, 728- 733.

Received: December 14, 2021

Sent to Subject Editor: December 22, 2021

Accepted: May 18, 2022

Recommended by Subject Editor Maria Laura Foresti