1. Introduction

FNS

Food and Nutrition Sciences

2157-944X

Scientific Research Publishing

10.4236/fns.2022.133023

FNS-116185

Articles

Biomedical&Life Sciences

Utilization of Chickpea Split (<i>Cicer arietinum</i> L.) in Preparing Some Gluten-Free Casein-Free Food Products for Autism Children

Rehab

Mohamed Ibrahim

₁^*

Department of Special Food and Nutrition, Food Technology Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Giza, Egypt

10032022

130328431523, February 202225, March 2022 28, March 2022

2014

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This study aimed to prepare and evaluat e some gluten-free and casein-free (GFCF) food products for autism children from rice and chickpea split. Like-milk beverages and snacks (bakery) were prepared by replacing rice with chickpea at a ratio of 25 % , 50 % , 75 % , and 100%, and in a ratio of 25 % and 50% with fried snacks. Chemical composition, antioxidant activity, the energy content of ingredients and final products, as well as the viscosity, texture profile analysis, and sensory evaluation of final products, were determined. The results showed that chickpea contains higher values of protein, fat, fiber, and ash compared with rice. Also, the antioxidant activity (total phenolic (TP), DPPH scavenging activity, and FRAP value) of chickpea was higher than rice. The addition of chickpea to rice caused a significant increase in protein (%), fat (%), minerals (Ca, Fe, K, Zn, and Mg) (%), and antioxidant activity of all products, and these values were increased with the increased of chickpea amount added , while the viscosity of rice-chickpea milk samples and the hardness of snacks (fried and bakery) were significantly decreased with the increase of chickpea amount added. According to the recommended daily allowances (RDA), it was found that 100 mL of chickpea milk (100%) could provide autism children with 99.5 % , 32 % , and 36% of the daily required iron, Ca, and Zn, respectively. Also, the daily intake of 100 g of snacks (sample BS5) could provide autism children with 75 % , 7 % , 42 % , 125 % , 1.7 % , and 52% of the daily required of protein, fiber, Ca, iron, Mg, and Zn, respectively. On the other hand, 100 g fried snacks (sample FS3) could provide autism children with 59.9 % , 42 % , and 64% of the daily required protein, calcium, and iron, respectively. The best sensory evaluation scores were obtained with rice milk (100%), bakery snacks sample BS4 (25% rice: 75% chickpea), and fried snacks sample FS2 (75% rice: 25% chickpea).

Autism Chickpea Split Rice Gluten-Free Diet Casein-Free Diet Antioxidants

1. Introduction

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder described by a lack of social communication and restricted/repetitive patterns of behavior [1], and known as one of the most common developmental disabilities in children, affecting approximately 1 in every 54 children [2]. The ASD starting showing occurs through at the first 3 years of life and has a genus prejudice with a ratio of 5 males to 1 female [3] [4]. In June 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) revealed epidemiological statistics indicating that ASD affects one in every 160 children worldwide; further, the incidence ratio of ASD in many low- and middle-income countries remains unknown [5]. ASD children face challenges lifelong because of their unique needs, especially nutrition needs [6] [7]. This challenge including sensitivity and selectivity related to preferences of food and mealtime, including neophobia of food, selective and repetitive eating patterns, and oral-motor fixations and sensitivity, further complicated the pursuit of healthy lifestyle choices for children with autism [8] [9]. Additionally, strong aversions to the rigidity of dietary which attributed variations of food texture, flavor, and aroma, led to depend on a small repertoire of food choices [10] [11] [12]. Because of the lack of effective medical treatments for Autism spectrum disorder, most parents have turned to substitutional treatments that are mostly perceived as risk-free, among these, the most widely used is the gluten-free and casein-free (GFCF) diet [13] [14] [15]. The first observation of a possible correlation between gluten and ASD was reported in 1969 [16]. The studies on Gluten-free and casein-free diet interventions are aimed at preventing gluten or casein from entering the bloodstream and thereby reducing the autism symptoms [17]. The use of gluten-free and casein-free diets is dependent on the opioid theory that is related to neurotransmitters which concern the release of opioid peptides during the digestion of protein within the intestines. After food digestion, certain types of proteins namely peptides could cross the intestinal mucosa as intact if they were more permeable than normal as is the case when impaired by immunological factors or by lesions in the case of celiac disease. If these peptides transported by the bloodstream, were to cross the blood-brain barrier and reach the central nervous system in large quantities, brain function would be affected [18] [19]. The assumed theory is that some autism spectrum disorder children suffer from increased permeability of the gut and improper production of digestive enzymes related to casein and gluten. Inadequate levels of these enzymes result in failures in the transformation of casein and gluten into amino acids. Additionally, increased gut permeability enables leaking into the bloodstream, where they may pass the brain-blood barrier [20]. Moreover, reports exist suggesting a good and beneficial effect of the gluten-free diet (GFD) in decreased behavioral and intellectual problems associated with ASD [21]. Therefore, gluten-free legumes and grains (such as chickpeas and rice) are among the best sources used to produce foods suitable for ASD.

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the main cereal foods consumed by humans, especially in Ashia. It is a great main carbohydrate source and classified as whole grain and contains a range of important nutrients such as phosphorous, manganese, sodium, magnesium and potassium, and vitamin A and B [22] [23]. Rice contains about 64.3% carbohydrate, 7.3% protein, 2.2% fat, 0.8% fiber and 1.4% ash [24]. In milled rice (rice flour), starch is the major component of about 90% of the dry matter, proteins 6.7%, lipids 3.5%, and fibers ~0.4% which can be found in the rice endosperm [25]. Rice protein is a good alternative to whey because it does not show any allergenicity, and has a beneficial effect on muscle strength and thickness [26] [27] [28]. Rice is considered an ideal candidate for the development of extruded snacks due to its super puffing and expansion properties, bland taste, nice white color, hypoallergenicity, and digestion ease [29]. However, rice-based extruded products are low in protein content and rich in carbohydrates, besides having a high glycemic index (GI). Therefore, there is an increasing interest to enhance the protein content of rice snacks.

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the third most important pulse crop containing high dietary fiber, protein, vitamins, and essential minerals, and has a low glycemic index. It was reported that chickpea has beneficial effects on cancer, cardiovascular diseases, lowering of glucose level, cholesterol, and hypertension [30]. Chickpea was recommended for the development of nutrient-dense diets to promote general well-being and overall health [31]. Many studies showed that chickpea can be used either as a main component of new products or as a functional food ingredient in product formulations [32] [33] [34]. The digestibility of chickpea protein varies between 48% - 89.01% [35] [36]. Therefore, this study was carried out to prepare and evaluate some gluten-free and casein-free food products (such as like-milk beverages and snacks) from rice and chickpea split, suitable for children with autism disease.

2. Materials and Methods2.1. Materials

Chickpea split, rice, sugar, butter, vanillin, ginger powder, onion powder, garlic powder and fine iodized salt were obtained from local market of Alexandria, Egypt. All chemicals and reagents used in this study were of analytical grade except Folin-Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent of Sigma-Aldrich Company (St. Louis, Missouri, USA).

2.2. Methods2.2.1. Preparation of Chickpea Split Flour

The chickpea was sorted to remove small stones, lumps of dirt and defective seeds then washed using tap water. Chickpea was soaked in water (1:10) for 12 h. Discard soaking water and the soaked chickpea seeds were cooked in boiling water for 30 minutes, and then dried in a hot air oven dryer for 12 hours at 50˚C. The dried chickpea seeds were milled using mill (Moulinex AR1044). After that, it was sieved to pass a 40 mesh sieve, then packed into polyethylene bags and kept at 4˚C until used [37].

2.2.2. Preparation of Rice Flour

Rice was sorted to remove small stones, lumps of dirt and defective seeds then washed using tap water, and then dried in a hot air oven dryer for 3 hours at 50˚C. The dried rice was milled using mill (Moulinex AR1044). After that, it was sieved to pass a 40 mesh sieve, then packed into polyethylene bags and kept at 4˚C until used [38].

2.2.3. Preparation of Chickpea Split: Rice Milks

1) Preparation of Chickpea milk: chickpea seeds were washed well and soaked in distilled water for 12 h at room temperature. After that, water was decanted, and chickpeas were boiled with distilled water in a 1:10 ratio for 30 min by using an electric pot. Chickpeas were wet-milled continuously for 5 min by using a homogenizer (Moulinex AR1044) and filtered through double-layered cheesecloth. Sugar (5%) and vanillin (0.5%) were added. The Chickpea milk was preheated to 90˚C/10 min, then cooled and stored until analysis [39].

2) Preparation of rice milk: Rice milk was prepared by soaking the rice with distilled water in a ratio 1:3 for 2 h at room temperature (about 25˚C). The soaked rice samples were drained and boiled with distilled water in a 1:9 ratio for 15 min, then ground for 5 min using a grinder until a smooth slurry was produced, then supernatants were filtered. 5 g sugar and 0.5 g vanillin were added to each 100 mL rice milk. The rice milk heated to 90˚C/10min, then cooled and stored until analysis [40].

3) Preparation of chickpea: rice milks: samples were prepared by replacing rice milk with chickpea milk at 0% (M1), 25% (M2), 50% (M3), 75% (M4), and 100% (M5).

2.2.4. Preparation of Bakery Snacks

Bakery snacks samples were prepared according to the method of Bhat et al. [41], by replacing rice flour with chickpea split flour at 0% (BS1), 25% (BS2), 50% (BS3), 75% (BS4), and 100% (BS5). For each 100 g of the previous mixtures, 5 g spice mix (consisting of 5 g sugar, 1 g ginger powder, 1 g onion powder and 0.75 g garlic powder) was added. The ingredients were mixed in a blender, adding water gradually until dough was produced. The dough was formed in a sheets, then cut into squire forms (4 × 4 cm), finally, baked for 30 min at 180˚C in preheated oven. The baked snacks were stored in a cool and dry place until analyses.

2.2.5. Preparation of Fried Salty Snacks

Fried salty snacks samples were prepared according to the method of Miranda et al. [42], by replacing rice flour with chickpea split flour at 0% (FS1), 25% (FS2), and 50% (FS3), while, the treatments containing 75% and 100% chickpea (FS4 and FS5) were canceled because its texture is crumbly. For each 100 g of each previous mixture, 5 g of salt, 70 mL of water, and 40 g of butter (82% fat) were added. The mixture was then kneaded to form smooth dough, then steam precooked for 20 min. The dough was cooled to room temperature, and sheeting until reaching a final thickness of 1 mm. The dough sheets were cut into circles using a mold (4 cm diameter). Finally, they were fried in corn oil for 5 sec. at 170˚C. The fried snacks were stored in a cool and dry place until analyses.

2.2.6. Antinutritional Factors of Chickpea Split

Phytic acid was determined based on the method of Wheeler and Ferrel [43]. Total tannins were determined according to the method of AOAC [44]. Trypsin inhibitor activity was determined according to the method of Kakade et al. [45].

2.2.7. Gross Chemical Composition and Total Caloric Values

Chemical constituents of chickpea split and rice flours and final products (moisture, protein, fat, ash, crude fiber) were determined by AOAC [46]. Carbohydrates were calculated by difference. Total caloric values (K.cal) of ingredients (chickpea and rice flours) and final products were calculated using the method of AOAC [46]

Energy ( K . cal ) = [ Protein ( g ) × 4 ] + [ Carbohydrate ( g ) × 4 ] + [ Fat ( g ) × 9 ] .

1) Amino Acid Composition of chickpea split and rice flours

Amino acid content was estimated as described by AOAC [47]. Amino acids were determined using High Performance Amino Acid Analyzer.

Chemical Score (CS) was calculated according to FAO/WHO [48].

C .S = mg of essential amino acid in g test protein mg of essential amino acid in requirement pattern

2) Calculation of food protein (A)/total essential amino acids content (E) ratio

The relationship between the content of an individual essential amino acid in the food protein (A) and the total essential amino acids content (E) was calculated according to FAO, [49] as follows:

A/E ratio = mg of the individual essential amino acids/g of essential amino acids.

3) Calculation of protein efficiency ratio (PER)

Protein efficiency ratio was calculated using the equation mentioned by Alsmeyeret al. [50], as follows:

PER = − 0.684 + 0.456 ( Leucine ) − 0.047 ( Proline ) ( g / 100 gprotein )

4) Calculation of biological value (BV)

Biological value of protein was calculated according to the equation of Oser, [51] as follows:

BV = 49.09 + 10.53 ( PER ) .

5) Fatty Acid Composition of chickpea split and rice flour

Preparation of fatty acid methyl esters of oils extracts from chickpea and rice flours were performed according to the procedure of Radwan [52]. Using 1% sulphuric acid in absolute methanol, the fatty acid methyl esters obtained were separated by Shimodzu gas chromatograph (GC-4 CM-PFE) under the following conditions: column, 10% DEGS on 801,100 chromosorb Q III; Detector temperature 270˚C: flow, N2 and chart speed, 5 min. Standard fatty acid methyl esters were used for identification. The area under each peak was measured by the triangulation method as percentage of each fatty acid was regard to the total area.

6) Determination of minerals of chickpea split, rice and final products

Minerals including calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), potassium (K), sodium (Na), zinc (Zn), magnesium (Mg) and cooper (Cu) were measured in ash solution using ICP-OES Agilent 5100 VDV according to AOAC [46].

2.2.8. Antioxidant Activity of Chickpea Split, Rice and Final Products

1) Preparation of ethanolic extracts of chickpea, rice and final products

Five grams of each ingredient (chickpea and rice flours), and final products were mixed with 30 mL ethanol (75%), stirring for 2 hours at room temperature, and then, filtered using Whatman No.1 and the extracts were stored at −20˚C until analysis [53].

2) Determination of total phenolic contents of extracts

Total phenolic contents of extracts were determined using the method developed by Abirami et al. [54]. A 300 µl were added to 1.5 mL of Folin–Ciocalteu’s reagent (diluted 10 times) and 1.2 mL of Na₂CO₃ (7.5% w/v). The mixtures were kept for 30 min, in dark at room temperature before measuring absorbance at 765 nm using a spectrophotometer (Pg T80+, England), tests were carried out in triplicate. Total phenol content (TPC) was expressed as Gallic acid equivalent in mg/g plant material or extract.

3) DPPH scavenging activity %

Scavenging activity of 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical was determined according to the method of Brand-Williams et al. [55]. Two milliliters of 0.15 mM DPPH was added to 1 mL of each extract in different dilutions. A control was prepared by adding 2 ml of DPPH to 1 mL of ethanol. The mixtures were kept in dark for 30 min at room temperature, and absorbance was measured at 517 nm using a spectrophotometer (Pg T80+, England). The results were expressed as % radical scavenging activity. Triplicate tubes were prepared for each extract.

Radicalscavengingactivity% = Acontrol − Asample Acontrol × 100

4) Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP)

One and half milliliter of each extract was added to of phosphate buffer (2.5 mL, 0.1 M, pH 6.6) and potassium ferricyanide (2.5 mL, 1% w/v). Mix well, and the mixture was then incubated in a water bath (50˚C for 20 min) then cooling to room temperature. After that, 2.5 mL of trichloroacetic acid (10% w/v) was added. The mixtures of the tubes were centrifuged at 8000 ×g at 5˚C for 15 min, then, 2.5 mL of supernatant was removed from each tube, and mixed with 2.5 mL of distilled water and 0.5 mL of ferric chloride solution (0.1% w/v). These mixtures were allowed to stand for 30 min (in dark at room temp.). The absorbance was measured at 700 nm using UV/Visible spectrophotometer (Pg T80+, England). The assay was done in triplicate. The FRAP values, expressed in mg GAE/g of extract, were derived from a standard curve [56].

2.2.9. Color Measurement of Final Products

Color values like the L* (lightness), a* (red intensity), and b* (yellow intensity) of the samples were measured using a Hunter Lab Ultra Scan, VIS model, colorimeter (USA). The instrument was standardized during each sample measurement with a black and white tail (L* = 94.1, a* = 1.12, b* = 1.26). Mean of five readings of each color index of Hunter scale (L*, a*, b*) were recorded [57].

2.2.10. Determination of Viscosity of Chickpea and Rice Milk’s

The viscosity of rice and chickpea milks were measured in triplicate at 10˚C ± 1˚C using oscillatory viscometer (VR 3000M YR Viscometers, Spain), using spindle 2 at speed of 60 rpm [58].

2.2.11. Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) of Snacks

Texture profile analysis of final products were performed using TA-XT 2 Texture meter (Texture Pro CT3 V1.2, Brookfield, Middleboro, USA) as described by Yuan and Chang [59]. Force time deformation curves were obtained during applying a 5 kg load cell, at a 1 mm/s cross head speed. The following texture attributes were calculated, Hardness (g), Adhesive Force (g), Resilience, and Springiness (mm).

2.2.12. Sensory Evaluation of Final Products

The final product (chickpea milk, bakery snacks, and fried snacks) were served to 20 staff members of Food Technology Research Institute Alexandria, Egypt. The panelists were asked to judge for color, taste, odor, texture, and overall acceptability of samples using standard hedonic rating scale from 9 (like extremely) to 1 (dislike extremely), according to Banach et al. [60].

2.2.13. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS statistical analysis software (2004). Means were compared by Duncan’s test at the significance level of P < 0.05. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to calculate the correlation [61].

3. Results and Discussion3.1. Effect of Preparation Method on Anti-Nutritional Factors in Chickpea Split

Chickpeas have anti-nutritional factors, including tannins, protease inhibitors, phytic acid, alkaloids, and saponins [62]. Data illustrate in Table 1 showed the effect of soaking, cooking and drying treatments on the anti-nutritional factors (tannic acid, trypsin inhibitor, and phytic acid) in chickpea. The soaking and cooking treatments caused a significant (P < 0.05) decrease in trypsin inhibitor (8.99%), phytic acid (59.76%), and tannic acid (31.53%). This results in agree with Alajaji and El-Adaway [63] who reported that the effect of anti-nutritional factors can be reduced by cooking. These anti-nutritional factors can reduce the digestibility of chickpeas and make chickpeas astringent. Phytates can also join with cations, including calcium, magnesium, zinc, and iron, limiting their absorption [62]. While, tannins which are phenolic compounds that bind proteins through non-covalent interactions, thereby reducing their nutritional availability [64]. Also, the other anti-nutritional factor found in chickpea seeds are the trypsin inhibitors which competitively inhibit trypsin activity in the digestive track of humans, and thus interfere with the digestion of proteins [63]. El-Adawy [65] Studied the effects of different cooking methods on nutritional and antinutritional components in chickpeas and they found that cooking resulted in significant decreases in antinutritional components and increases in dietary fibers and digestibility of protein. According to Sadigova et al. [66], the methods of chickpea seeds treatment allowed removal of the specific odor of legume and decreased the anti-nutritional substances content in chickpea flour.

3.2. Chemical Composition of Rice and Chickpea Split

The chemical composition of rice and chickpea presented in Table 2 showed that the chickpea was higher in protein (23.5%), fat (5.5%), Ash (3.41%), and fiber (2.06%) in comparison with rice, while, the rice was the higher in moisture (8.26%) and carbohydrates (81.69%). The results of our study in agree with Gupta et al. [34] who noted that the types of chickpea had: protein (23.33% to 30.95%), lipid (4.25% to 6.98%), and carbohydrate (54.60% to 60.40%) contents. Similarly, Boye et al. [67] and Jukanti et al. [62] reported that the lipid (%) of chickpea seeds ranges from 4.5% to 6% g oil/100 g of bean, while, in rice was 0.6%.

Costa et al. [68] found that the seed of legume is relatively high in protein

Table 1 Effect of soaking, cooking and drying process on anti-nutritional factors in chickpea split

Treatment	Trypsin inhibitor		Phytic acid		Tannins
Treatment	U/mg sample	Reduction (%)	mg/g sample	Reduction (%)	mg/g sample	Reduction (%)
Raw	8.90 ± 0.11^a	0.00	1.014 ± 0.086^a	0.00	0.498 ± 0.114^a	0.00
Soaking, cooking and drying	8.1 ± 0.11^b	8.99	0.408 ± 0.038^b	59.76	0.341 ± 0.023^b	31.53

Results are reported as mean ± SD, Mean values (±SD) with different small letters within the same Column are significantly different (P < 0.05).

Table 2 Chemical composition and energy content of rice and chickpea split

Parameters	Rice	Chickpea
Moisture (%)	8.26 ± 0.28^a	5.56 ± 0.32^b
Protein (%)	8.50 ± 0.30^b	23.50 ± 0.21^a
Fat (%)	0.635 ± 0.075^b	5.50 ± 0.22^a
Ash (%)	0.438 ± 0.011^b	3.41 ± 0.099^a
Carbohydrates (%)	81.69 ± 0.24^a	59.97 ± 0.58^b
Crud fiber (%)	0.470 ± 0.030^b	2.06 ± 0.14^a
Energy content (Kcal/100 g)	366.48 ± 1^b	383.38 ± 1.8^a
Minerals (mg/100 g)
Ca	257.3 ± 0.20^b	807.04 ± 0.46^a
Fe	11.32 ± 0.68^b	14.08 ± 0.18^a
K	84.43 ± 0.57^b	879.8 ± 0.24^a
Zn	3.64 ± 0.17^b	5.42 ± 0.12^a
Mg	1.937 ± 0.18^b	3.85 ± 0.26^a

Results are reported as mean ± SD, Mean values (±SD) with different small letters within the same row are significantly different (P < 0.05).

which ranges from 18.5 ± 1.74 to 21.3 ± 0.73 depending on the species. Legumes contain 60% to 65% carbohydrate, which is slightly lower than cereals (70% - 80%). Carbohydrates of legumes are mostly composed of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides [69]. Carbohydrates were the major component in chickpeas flour (30% - 56%) with fiber and starch being the most relevant. The carbohydrates in chickpea, are absorbed and digested slowly, as in other pulses, and thus help control obesity and diabetes diseases [70]. Chickpea is an important source of Mg, Ca, Fe, K, Zn, Mn, and P levels which are higher than other legumes [71]. Our results showed that the nutritional value (K. calorie) and minerals (Ca, Zn, K, Fe, Mg %) of chickpea were higher than those of rice (Table 2). A ration of chickpea (100 g), can provide the recommended daily intake of zinc (4.2 mg and 3 mg), and Fe (1.05 - 1.46 mg for homes and women, respectively), while consumption of chickpeas by a percentage of 200 g, will provide the recommended daily intake of Mg (260 mg and 220 mg, respectively) [62]. Our results showed higher content in Ca (807.04 mg/100 g), while, the Mg content was lower (3.85 mg/100 g) in comparison with Costantini et al. [72] who found that the Ca and Mg contents in chickpea were 104 and 140.2 mg/100 g, respectively. Meanwhile, Wang and Daun [73] found that the values of Zn, Cu, Fe, and P in chickpeas were a range of 2.50 - 5.20, 0.40 - 0.90, 4.30 - 7.90, and 270.30 - 950.50 mg/100 g, respectively.

3.3. Amino Acids Composition of Rice and Chickpea Split

The content of amino acids is a very important indicator of the nutritional value of all foods [74], nine amino acids are essential and must be present in the diet [36]. Table 3(a) presents the amino acids composition of rice and chickpea

Table 3 (a) Amino acids content of rice and chickpea split. (b) Chemical score of rice and chickpea split compared with FAO/WHO [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.116185-ref77">77</xref>]. (c) The values of A/E, PER and B.V. of rice and chickpea split

(b)

Amino Acid (%)	Rice	Chickpea
Essential Amino Acids
Therionine (THR)	0.21	0.77
Phenylalanine (PHE)	0.31	1.06
Methionine	0.11	0.15
Leucine (LEU)	0.48	1.56
Isoleucine (ILE)	0.25	0.93
Valine (VAL)	0.36	1.02
Lysine (LYS)	0.22	1.46
Hisitidine (HIS)	0.14	0.49
Total essential amino acids	2.08	7.44
Conditionally Essential Amino Acids
Argnine (ARG)	0.53	1.52
Glycine (GLY)	0.28	0.86
Proline (PRO)	0.28	0.84
Tyrosine (TYR)	0.32	0.82
Total conditionally amino acids	1.41	4.04
Non-Essential Amino Acids
Alanine (ALA)	0.33	0.94
Aspartic (ASP)	0.62	2.3
Glutamic (GLU)	1.09	3.43
Serine (SER)	0.26	0.88
Cystine (CYS)	0.11	0.21
Total non-essential amino acids	2.41	7.76
TAAA	0.63	1.88
TSAA	0.11	0.15
Leucine: Isoleucine ratio	1.92:1	1.68:1

(c)

Essential Amino Acids	Chemical score
Essential Amino Acids	Rice	Chickpea split
Therionine (THR)	61.77	81.92
Valine (VAL)	84.71	86.81
Isoleucine (ILE)	73.53	98.94
Leucine (LEU)	80.67	94.83
Lysine (LYS)	51.77	124.26
Total sulfur amino acids	73.95	43.77
Total aromatic amino acids	123.53	133.33
Total essential amino acid	85.29	105.91
Limiting amino acids
First	Lysine	Total sulfur amino acids
Second	Threonine	Threonine

Essential Amino Acids	Rice	Chickpea
A/E ratio
Therionine (THR)	80.46	85.94
Phenylalanine (PHE)	118.77	118.30
Methionine	42.15	16.74
Leucine (LEU)	183.91	174.11
Isoleucine (ILE)	95.79	103.80
Valine (VAL)	137.93	113.84
Lysine (LYS)	84.29	162.95
Hisitidine (HIS)	53.64	54.69
PER (g)	1.74	2.19
B.V. (%)	67.37	72.13

A/E ratio: essential amino acid in the food protein (A)/total essential amino acids content (E) ratio, PER: protein efficiency ratio and B.V.: biological value.

flour. Results found that the total of essential amino acids in chickpea (7.44%) was higher than in rice (2.08%). Also, the chickpea was higher in the content of leucine and lysine amino acids. While, the leucine: isoleucine ratio in rice was 1.92:1, while, and in chickpea was 1.68:1. Note that the proposed ratio is 1.8:1. In addition, non-essential amino acids in chickpea (7.76%) were higher than rice and (2.41%). Also, the total aromatic amino acids (TAAA) and total sulfur amino acids in chickpea were 1.88% and 0.15%, respectively, compared to 0.63 and 0.11%, respectively, in rice. The results cleared that lysine was the first limiting amino acid in rice, while threonine was the second limiting amino acids (Table 3(b)). Meanwhile, total sulfur amino acids were the first limiting amino acid in chickpea, while threonine was the second limiting amino acid. The data in Table 3(c) showed the A/E ratio of rice and chickpea. It was found that the methionine was the lower content in rice and chickpea (42.15 and 16.74, respectively) followed by the histidine (53.64 and 54.69, respectively), while, the leucine was the highest (183.91 and 174.11, respectively). The chickpea flour become to be the in the value of protein efficiency ratio (2.19 g) and biological value of protein (72.13%) in compared with rice flour (1.74 and 67.37, respectively).

In chickpea flour, the content of essential amino acids was 39.89 g/100 g protein, and the content of endogenous amino acids was 58.64 g/100 g protein, which is higher than in wheat flour (32.20 and 56.55 g/100 g protein, respectively) [75]. The chickpea flour was lowering in methionine and cysteine amino acids, while, in wheat flour, the limiting amino acids are lysine, methionine, cysteine, and leucine [75] [76]. Meanwhile, Boye et al. [67] reported that the limiting amino acids in the chickpea flour are also arginine and aspartic acids.

3.4. Fatty Acids Composition of Rice and Chickpea Split

The Fatty acids composition of rice and chickpea were shown in Table 4. The

Table 4 Fatty acids content of rice and chickpea split

Fatty acid (%)	Rice	Chickpea split
Saturated fatty acids (SFA)
Myristic (C14:0)	0.615	0.061
Palmitic (C16:0)	21.45	3.304
Stearic (C18:0)	2.491	0.899
Mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA)
Oleic (C18:1, ω9)	29.57	12.80
Poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)
Linoleic (C18:2, ω6)	45.88	80.91
α-Linolenic (C18:3, ω3)	ND	2.021

results showed that contents of saturated fatty acids (Meristic, stearic, palmetic) were higher in rice compared to chickpea. Also, the Mono-unsaturated fatty acids (oleic acid) were higher in rice than in chickpea. On the other hand, chickpea showed higher content of Linoleic acid (80.91%) compared with rice (45. 88%). While, α-Linolenic acid was found in chickpea (2.021%), and not detected in rice. The fat content in chickpea (6.04%) is higher than that in other pulses such as red kidney bean (1.06%), mung bean (1.15%), lentils (1.06%), and pigeon pea (1.64%), and also in some types of cereals such as rice (0.60%) and wheat (1.70%) [78]. Chickpea is composed of about 66% polyunsaturated fatty acids, about 19% mono unsaturated fatty acids and about 15% saturated fatty acids [73]. Rachwarosiak et al. [36] reported that the lipids of chickpea seeds containing a high level of essential unsaturated fatty acids such as oleic acid (21.6% - 22.2% in oil), linoleic acid (54.7% - 56.2% in oil), and linolenic acid (0.5% - 2.35% in oil), in addition to saturated fatty acids such as Palmitic acid (18.9% - 20.4% in oil) and stearic acid (1.3% - 1.7% in oil). Linoleic acid has a higher nutritional value, which is very vital due to its metabolism in the tissues of the body where production of prostaglandins takes place, which reduces blood pressure and regulates the contraction of smooth muscle [79]. Meanwhile, rice was higher in oleic monounsaturated fatty acid (C18:1, W9) than chickpea, while, the chickpea was the higher in linoleic fatty acid (C18:2, W6). As for α-linolenic fatty acid (C18:3, W3) it was found only in chickpea (2.21%) and absent in rice [36]. The palmitic acid in chickpea flours (about 12%) is lower than in wheat flour (21.96%) [80].

3.5. Antioxidant Activity of Rice and Chickpea Split Flour

Antioxidant activity namely, total phenolic content, DPPH radical scavenging activity (%) and Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) of rice and chickpea flour were studied Figure 1. The results showed that the total phenolic content (TP) in chickpea was 2.36 mg GA/g, while, it was not detected in rice. The DPPH radical scavenging activity (%) was significantly higher in chickpea

(95.46%) than in rice (12.38%). Also, the FRAP value in chickpea (1.69 mg GAE/g) was higher than that in rice (0.006 mg GAE/g). The obtained mean value of total phenolic (2.36 ± 0.133 mgGA/g) was higher than the mean value found by Zia-Ul-Haq et al. [81], who noted that the total phenolic compounds found in the cultivar Climax were 0.99 mg/g. Also, it was noted that the different phenolic compounds are responsible for quenching the different types of free radicals [82]. The effect of antioxidative components on inhibition of DPPH radical is considered to be due to their ability of hydrogen-donating [83]. According to Chaiklahan et al. [84], the DPPH radical scavenging activity of chickpea depended on its content from phenolic. The previous studies found a positive correlation between DPPH• scavenging activity of several legumes (such as chickpeas, lentils, peas, lupines, and grass peas) and lipid contents especially unsaturated fatty acid contents [85] [86], because when the number of unsaturated bonds increases induces an increase in the susceptibility to oxidation [72].

3.6. Chemical Composition of Final Products

Data in Table 5(a) and Table 5(b) showed the chemical composition of rice and chickpea milks and their mixtures. The sample containing of 100% chickpea milk (M5) showed the highest contents of protein (%), fat (%), ash (%) moisture (%) and minerals (Ca, Fe, K and Zn) compared to other treatments. On the other side, the sample containing 100% rice (M1) was significantly highest in carbohydrates (%) and energy content. The mixtures of rice-chickpea milk showed a significant increase in contents of protein, fat, ash, mineral (Ca, Fe, K and Zn) and moisture with the increase of chickpea percentage in mixture and the highest values were found with treatment M4 (25% rice: 75% chickpea).

The comparison between snacks prepared from rice or chickpea flour showed that the bakery snacks made from chickpea flour only (BS5) were the heights in protein (%), fat (%), ash (%), minerals (Ca, Fe, K, Mg, and Zn) and moisture (%) compared to that made from rice flour (Table 5(a) and Table 5(b)). On the other hand, bakery and fried snacks made from rice flour (BS1 and FS1) were the highest in carbohydrate and energy contents. Moreover, the corporation

Table 5 (a). Effect of different concentrations of rice and chickpea split on chemical composition of rice and chickpea milk’s, bakery snacks, and fried snacks. (b). Effect of different concentrations of rice and chickpea split on mineral content

Products	Moisture (%)	Protein (%)	Fat (%)	Ash (%)	Crud fiber (%)	Carbohydrates (%)	Energy C. (Kcal/100 g)
Rice and chickpea milks
M1 (100%R)	83.76 ± 0.18^e	0.701 ± 0.21^d	0.556 ± 0.045^d	0.219 ± 0.010^e	-	14.76 ± 0.15^a	66.85 ± 1.46^a
M2 (75%R:25%Ch)	84.38 ± 0.23^d	0.903 ± 0.35^c	0.769 ± 0.031^cd	0.350 ± 0.010^d	-	13.60 ± 0.22^b	64.93 ± 2.01^b
M3 (50%R:50%Ch)	86.05 ± 0.01^c	1.063 ± 0.23^b	1.01 ± 0.11^bc	0.421 ± 0.010^c	-	11.45 ± 0.13^c	59.14 ± 1.36^c
M4 (25%R:75%Ch)	86.66 ± 0.06^b	1.09 ± 0.2^ab	1.07 ± 0.10^b	0.587 ± 0.006^b	-	10.60 ± 0.12^d	56.39 ± 0.39^d
M5 (100%Ch)	87.90 ± 0.44^a	1.125 ± 0.25^a	1.75 ± 0.31^a	0.626 ± 0.004^a	-	8.60 ± 0.64^e	54.65 ± 1.57^e
Bakery Snacks
BS1 (100%R)	9.59 ± 0.13^b	6.90 ± 0.66^e	2.11 ± 0.36^e	0.442 ± 0.011^e	0.345 ± 0.015^e	80.62 ± 0.48^a	369.07 ± 2.16^d
BS2 (75%R:25%Ch)	9.53 ± 0.66^b	8.80 ± 0.31^d	3.12 ± 0.18^d	1.150 ± 0.057^d	0.743 ± 0.021^d	76.65 ± 0.68^b	369.89 ± 3.0^cd
BS3 (50%R:50%Ch)	9.66 ± 0.43^b	13.13 ± 0.48^c	6.01 ± 0.19^c	1.877 ± 0.029^c	1.14 ± 0.06^c	68.19 ± 0.98^c	379.37 ± 1.39^a
BS4 (25%R:75%Ch)	9.85 ± 0.02^b	16.07 ± 0.40^b	6.53 ± 0.23^b	2.61 ± 0.041^b	1.77 ± 0.102^b	63.17 ± 0.77^d	375.73 ± 0.64^b
BS5 (100%Ch)	10.83 ± 0.05^a	18.06 ± 0.32^a	7.31 ± 0.28^a	3.20 ± 0.092^a	1.94 ± 0.046^a	58.68 ± 0.73^e	372.75 ± 0.9^bc
Fried snacks
FS1 (100%R)	9.11 ± 0.52^c	6.00 ± 0.21^c	0.941 ± 0.16^a	0.413 ± 0.016^c	1.50 ± 0.105^c	82.03 ± 0.84^a	360.59 ± 1.87^a
FS2 (75%R:25%Ch)	17.83 ± 0.43^b	9.01 ± 0.31^b	1.04 ± 0.06^a	1.193 ± 0.037^b	1.89 ± 0.108^b	69.04 ± 0.43^b	321.56 ± 1.62^b
FS3 (50%R:50%Ch)	21.63 ± 0.68^a	14.38 ± 0.32^a	1.22 ± 0.18^a	1.76 ± 0.144^a	2.29 ± 0.011^a	58.73 ± 0.48^c	303.42 ± 2.76^c

Products	Ca (mg/100 g)	Fe (mg/100 g)	K (mg/100 g)	Zn (mg/100 g)	Mg (mg/100 g)
Rice and chickpea milks
M1 (100%R)	83.1 ± 0.60^e	7.98 ± 0.48^d	24.28 ± 0.30^e	2.43 ± 0.11^d	ND
M2 (75%R:25%Ch)	129.7 ± 0.58^d	8.53 ± 0.25^cd	81.33 ± 0.25^d	2.76 ± 0.25^cd	ND
M3 (50%R:50%Ch)	171.9 ± 0.39^c	8.96 ± 0.49^bc	138.35 ± 0.35^c	3.07 ± 0.17b^c	ND
M4 (25%R:75%Ch)	215.9 ± 0.90^b	9.41 ± 0.41^ab	195.01 ± 0.95^b	3.36 ± 0.35^ab	ND
M5 (100%Ch)	260.6 ± 0.51^a	9.95 ± 0.45^a	252.46 ± 0.55^a	3.66 ± 0.35^a	ND
Bakery Snacks
BS1 (100%R)	108.1 ± 0.51^e	8.5 ± 0.39^e	34.8 ± 0.32^e	3.52 ± 0.21^d	1.11 ± 0.11^c
BS2 (75%R:25%Ch)	165.8 ± 0.68^d	9.5 ± 0.25^d	117.0 ± 0.52^d	3.97 ± 0.38^cd	1.36 ± 0.35^bc
BS3 (50%R:50%Ch)	223.8 ± 0.39^c	10.5 ± 0.22^c	199.1 ± 0.58^c	4.40 ± 0.39^bc	1.66 ± 0.36^abc
BS4 (25%R:75%Ch)	281.6 ± 0.55^b	11.5 ± 0.48^b	281.3 ± 0.25^b	4.85 ± 0.36^ab	1.93 ± 0.43^ab
BS5 (100%Ch)	339.3 ± 0.31^a	12.5 ± 0.50^a	363.4 ± 0.35^a	5.26 ± 0.26^a	2.21 ± 0.20^a
Fried snacks
FS1 (100%R)	164.6 ± 0.22^c	5.73 ± 0.33^b	5.81 ± 0.31^c	2.12 ± 0.22^a	1.48 ± 0.22^b
FS2 (75%R:25%Ch)	252.5 ± 0.31^b	6.09 ± 0.22^ab	19.5 ± 0.40^b	2.38 ± 0.32^a	1.85 ± 0.25^ab
FS3 (50%R:50%Ch)	340.6 ± 0.52^a	6.44 ± 0.34^a	33.16 ± 0.64^a	2.64 ± 0.43^a	2.22 ± 0.22^a

between chickpea flour and rice flour significantly increased the values of protein, fat, ash, minerals (Ca, Fe, K, Mg, and Zn) and fiber in a rice-chickpea bakery or fried snacks, and the bakery snacks samples containing 75% chickpea and 25% rice (BS4) was significantly higher other treatments (BS2 and BS3), but it was the lowest in carbohydrate and energy contents (Table 5(a) and Table 5(b)). While, in fried snacks, the sample containing chickpea flour and rice flour by ratio 50:50 (FS3) was the highest in protein (%), ash (%), minerals (Ca, Fe, K, and Mg), and moisture (%), but it was the lowest in carbohydrate and energy contents compared to FS1 and FS2 samples.

These results agreed with Gupta and Bansal, [87] who found that the moisture content of chickpea products ranged from 6.63% to 9.15%, in spite of having gluten-free properties. Gram flour and chickpea flour acted as a good binding factor and rendered smooth light yellow-texture to the dough on kneading with water. The chickpea proteins are mainly globulins (salt soluble proteins) and albumins (water-soluble proteins). The fractional composition data of these proteins confirmed that the products of chickpea can be used in the technology of cooking foods with low gluten content [88]. Xu et al. [37] stated that hydration and swelling properties as well as water absorption and holding capacities of cooked chickpeas were higher than raw chickpeas, with the largest increases in the pressure-cooked seeds. Therefore, kneading the dough from chickpea flour resulted in fundamental changes in dough rheology and led to an increase in chickpea water-soluble proteins.

A study carried out by Hall et al. [89] showed that the carbohydrate (%) in chickpea snacks was 40.4% - 42.6%. Also, Xu et al. [37] found that the protein (%) of chickpea snacks samples was 23.33% to 30.95%. The reason for differences between these studies results and our results due to the composition of snacks formula used. Gonzales et al. [90] reported that the chickpea-based baked food products are considered as a good sources of nutrients particularly energy and contained around 105 - 526 Kcal. While, Gupta and Bansal [87] found that the chickpea based snacks had 500 - 541 Kcal owing to deep frying cooking methods of the products.

3.7. Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA)

In the present study, the final products made from rice, chickpea, or both together, were compared with the mean dietary intake for each nutrient to the published RDA norms [91], of calories, carbohydrates, fats, protein, and minerals for autism children (Table 6). The results showed that daily intake of 100 mL of chickpea milk (100%) could provide autism children with 99.5%, 32%, and 36% of the daily required iron, Ca, and Zn, respectively. Also, the daily intake of 100 g of snacks (sample BS5) could provide autism children with 75%, 7%, 42%, 125%, 1.7%, and 52% of the daily required of protein, fiber, Ca, iron, Mg, and Zn, respectively. on the other hand, 59.9%, 42%, and 64% of the daily required of protein, calcium, and iron could be obtained from 100 g fried snacks (sample

Table 6 Effect of different concentrations of rice and chickpea split on recommended daily allowances (RDA)

Products	Age years		Energy content (Kcal/100 g)		Protein	Fat		Carbohydrates	Fiber	Ca (mg)	Fe (mg)	Mg (mg)	Zn (mg)
	3 - 5		1800		24 g (10% - 30%)	39 - 62 g (25% - 35%)		45% - 65%	23 - 28 g	800	10	130	10
	6 - 9		2000		28 g (10% - 30%)	62 - 85 g (25% - 35%)		45% - 65%	23 - 28 g	1300	10	240	10
Rice and chickpea milks
M1 (100%R)		3 - 5		3.71	2.92		1.10	1.49	-	10.39	79.80	-	24.30
M1 (100%R)		6 - 9		3.34	2.50		0.76	1.34	-	6.39	79.80	-	24.30
M2 (75%R:25%Ch)		3 - 5		3.61	3.76		1.52	1.37	-	16.21	85.30	-	27.60
M2 (75%R:25%Ch)		6 - 9		3.25	3.23		1.05	1.24	-	9.98	85.30	-	27.60
M3 (50%R:50%Ch)		3 - 5		3.29	4.43		2.00	1.16	-	21.49	89.60	-	30.70
M3 (50%R:50%Ch)		6 - 9		2.96	3.80		1.37	1.04	-	13.22	89.60	-	30.70
M4 (25%R:75%Ch)		3 - 5		3.13	4.54		2.12	1.07	-	26.99	94.10	-	33.60
M4 (25%R:75%Ch)		6 - 9		2.82	3.89		1.46	0.96	-	16.61	94.10	-	33.60
M5 (100%Ch)		3 - 5		3.04	4.69		3.47	0.87	-	32.58	99.50	-	36.60
M5 (100%Ch)		6 - 9		2.73	4.02		2.38	0.78	-	20.05	99.50	-	36.60
Bakery Snacks
BS1 (100%R)		3 - 5		20.50	28.75		4.18	8.14	1.35	13.51	85.00	0.85	35.20
BS1 (100%R)		6 - 9		18.45	24.64		2.87	7.33	1.35	8.32	85.00	0.46	35.20
BS2 (75%R:25%Ch)		3 - 5		20.55	36.67		6.18	7.74	2.91	20.73	95.00	1.05	39.70
BS2 (75%R:25%Ch)		6 - 9		18.49	31.43		4.24	6.97	2.91	12.75	95.00	0.57	39.70
BS3 (50%R:50%Ch)		3 - 5		21.08	54.71		11.90	6.89	4.47	27.98	105.00	1.28	44.00
BS3 (50%R:50%Ch)		6 - 9		18.97	46.89		8.18	6.20	4.47	17.22	105.00	0.69	44.00
BS4 (25%R:75%Ch)		3 - 5		20.87	66.96		12.93	6.38	6.94	35.20	115.00	1.48	48.50
BS4 (25%R:75%Ch)		6 - 9		18.79	57.39		8.88	5.74	6.94	21.66	115.00	0.80	48.50
BS5 (100%Ch)		3 - 5		20.71	75.25		14.48	5.93	7.61	42.41	125.00	1.70	52.60
BS5 (100%Ch)		6 - 9		18.64	64.50		9.95	5.33	7.61	26.10	125.00	0.92	52.60
Fried snacks
FS1 (100%R)		3 - 5		20.03	25.00		1.86	8.29	5.88	20.58	57.30	1.14	21.20
FS1 (100%R)		6 - 9		18.03	21.43		1.28	7.46	5.88	12.66	57.30	0.62	21.20
FS2 (75%R:25%Ch)		3 - 5		17.86	37.54		2.06	6.97	7.41	31.56	60.90	1.42	23.80
FS2 (75%R:25%Ch)		6 - 9		16.08	32.18		1.41	6.28	7.41	19.42	60.90	0.77	23.80
FS3 (50%R:50%Ch)		3 - 5		16.86	59.92		2.42	5.93	8.98	42.58	64.40	1.71	26.40
FS3 (50%R:50%Ch)		6 - 9		15.17	51.36		1.66	5.34	8.98	26.20	64.40	0.93	26.40

R: Rice and Ch: Chickpea split.

FS3). According to Herndon et al. [92] the children with ASD had a lower consumption average of calcium (747 mg/day), a higher consumption average of vitamin B6 (1.5 g/day), and a higher consumption average of vitamin E (8 mg/day) as compared to 894 mg/day, 1.2 g/day, and 4 mg/day of calcium, V.B6, and V.E respectively with their counterparts. Zimmer et al. [93] found that children with ASD had lower consumption of protein (72.77 g/day), calcium (945.18 mg/day), magnesium (314.89 mg/day), vitamin B12 (4.69 µg/day), and vitamin D (198.62 IU/day), as compared with 92.64 g/day, 1221.98 mg/day, 265.93 mg/day, 6.66 µg/day, and 319.86 IU/day, of protein, calcium, magnesium, vitamin B12, and vitamin D, respectively, in their counterparts (normal children). Also, Emond et al. [94] found that the children with ASD consumed less vitamin C and vitamin D and more iodine with their counterparts. Previous studies have noted a significant decrease in the vitamins and minerals levels in the blood of autism children within comparison to controls, thus implying a role of these nutrients in autism pathophysiology [95].

3.8. Antioxidant Activity of Final Products

The antioxidant activity of rice and chickpea milk, and snacks is illustrated in Figure 2. The higher total phenolic (TP) content was found with chickpea milk (M5), while, in rice milk, TP was not detected. In the mixtures of chickpea-rice milk, the TP was significantly (P < 0.05) increased by the increases of chickpea milk amount in the mixture (M3 and M4). The same behavior was observed in fried and bakery snacks, whereas, TP was increased by increases of chickpea flour in the formula of snacks. Also, the results of DPPH scavenging activity (%) and FRAP assays showed that the higher antioxidative activity was found with the milk and snacks samples containing 100% chickpea (M5 and BS5). Furthermore, the values of the DPPH inhibition activity and FRAP of products containing a mix of rice and chickpea (milk, fried snacks, and bakery snacks) were significantly (P < 0.05) increased with the increase of chickpea amount in the product. The bioactive components such as phenolic, carotenoids, and anthocyanins, are recognized as antioxidants. So, they can prevent or reduce the peroxidation of lipid and scavenge free oxygen radicals [96]. Many studies found a positive correlation between ABTS•+ scavenging capacity and TP contents, as well as with the total flavonoids contents [82] [97]. Thanuja and Parimalavalli [98] found that the heat treatment generally causes a significant decreased in the total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of rice flour. It was suggested that when rice exposure to heat, the phenolic compounds have a tendency of breaking down into smaller stable forms which may or may not show antioxidant activity. On cooking, the cellular breakdown enhances the release of the bound phenolics [98]. There is a potentiality that these phenolics compounds could replace the free phenolics, the maximum of which got destroyed during the cooking process [99]. Meanwhile, some studies suggested that an imbalance of minerals would change the content of flavonoids and polyphenols [86]. Also, Sulaiman et al. [100] noted a significant correlation between Mn content and DPPH•

inhibition activity. From the results of this study as well as previous studies, it could be concluded that there is a significant correlation between the total phenolic content and minerals, and the antioxidant capacity of chickpea. On the other hand, Saxena et al. [101] reported that the soaking (overnight) seed of chickpea caused improvement in starch digestibility and reduces the content of phenols, proteins, and protease inhibitors.

3.9. Determination of Viscosity of Rice and Chickpea Split Milks

The sample containing 100% of rice milk has a higher viscosity value (24 ± 2.52 mpa.s) compared with all other treatments (Figure 3). On the other hand, the viscosity was significantly decreased with the increase of chickpea milk percentage in rice-chickpea milk treatments. Rohman et al. [102] reported that the milled rice has higher starch and lower protein and lipid content compared to brown rice within the same variety. Furthermore, it was found that the rice milk

made from Bengal milled rice has a higher viscosity compared to the other rice milk samples [40] [102]. The rate of viscosity was increased with the degree of milling being higher for medium grain than for long-grain cultivars. The swelling of starch granules determined the pasting behavior and rheological properties of a starch solution [103]. The swelling was a property of amylopectin, while lipid and amylose inhibited the swelling properties. Where, during the gelatinization process, amylose leaches from starch granules affecting the viscosity of the continuous phase [104]. Lopes et al. [105] reported that heat treatment (such as cooking and pasteurization), is able to remove off-flavors of legumes, which are the most challenging barrier to consumer acceptance, but high temperatures may cause immoderate denaturation of protein, decreased protein solubility, and may increase legume beverage viscosity, affecting its physical stability. So, Colloidal milling is known as a technological intervention capable to elevate the physical stability of beverages by reducing the size of the dispersed particles.

3.10. Color Measurements of Final Products

Color is an important characteristic attribute that governs the acceptability of food products [106]. The color values (lightness “L”, redness “a”, and yellowness “b”) of the rice and chickpea milk, and snacks are shown in Table 7. By increasing, the added amount of chickpea milk to rice milk the lightness “L” value was significantly (P < 0.05) decreased, while, redness “a”, and yellowness “b” values were significant (P < 0.05) increased. The same results were observed with bakery snacks, whereas the increase in chickpea flour addition caused a significant decrease in “L” value, while, “a”, and “b” values were significant (P < 0.05) increased. The opposite was found with fried snacks, whereas the chickpea flour caused a significant (P < 0.05) decrease in “L”, and “b” values, while the “a” value was not affected. Our results agree with Aguilar et al. [107], Xiao et al. [108] and Olojede et al. [109] who found that the addition of chickpea into various bread flours induced darkness of the bread, where lysine and sugars provided by the chickpea enhance the Maillard reaction. Whil, Sharima-Abdullah et al. [110]

Table 7 Effect of different concentrations of rice and chickpea split flour on color measurements

Products	Lightness (L*)	Redness (a*)	Yellowness (b*)
Rice and chickpea milks
M1 (100%R)	44.11 ± 0.89^a	−1.08 ± 0.08^c	−0.87 ± 0.05^e
M2 (75%R:25%Ch)	41.20 ± 0.80^b	−1.25 ± 0.05^d	−0.25 ± 0.07^d
M3 (50%R:50%Ch)	35.29 ± 0.79^c	−1.00 ± 0.03^c	0.57 ± 0.08^c
M4 (25%R:75%Ch)	33.83 ± 0.93^c	−0.83 ± 0.05^b	1.00 ± 0.010^b
M5 (100%Ch)	32.05 ± 0.95^d	−0.55 ±0.05^a	1.72 ± 0.08^a
Bakery Snacks
BS1 (100%R)	57.53 ± 0.53^a	3.64 ± 0.25^d	10.55 ± 0.46^e
BS2 (75%R:25%Ch)	49.30 ± 0.30^b	6.32 ± 0.19^c	17.83 ± 0.33^d
BS3 (50%R:50%Ch)	48.51 ± 0.50^b	14.38 ± 0.62^b	24.81 ± 0.21^c
BS4 (25%R:75%Ch)	44.57 ± 0.68^c	15.95 ± 0.45^a	33.41 ± 0.20^b
BS5 (100%Ch)	36.48 ± 0.53^d	16.33 ± 0.34^a	35.40 ± 0.29^a
Fried snacks
FS1 (100%R)	41.29 ± 1.29^a	10.30 ± 0.71^a	21.98 ± 0.4^a
FS2 (75%R:25%Ch)	33.28 ± 2.28^b	10.76 ± 0.47^a	16.87 ± 0.38^b
FS3 (50%R:50%Ch)	32.63 ± 2.75^b	10.86 ± 0.32^a	16.86 ± 0.63^b

Results are reported as mean ± SD, Mean values (±SD) with different small letters within the same Column are significantly different (P < 0.05). R: Rice and Ch: Chickpea split.

reported that the addition of vegetable protein, chickpea flour’s improved the color and visual appearance of the product and the optimized amounts are needed to improve consumer overall acceptance.

3.11. Texture Profile Analysis of Snacks

The use of chickpea as a food ingredient in different food categories increased due to its nutritional value and improved offer of options of gluten-free food, in addition, the options baked of gluten-free products had several obstacles that include decreased acceptability due to a compact structure, crumb with a hard and crumbly texture lack of cellular structure, and cracked crust [111]. The results in Table 8 clearly show that the addition of chickpea flour to rice flour caused a significant (P < 0.05) decrease in hardness, while the springiness and resilience were significantly (P < 0.05) increased. The higher hardness value (641 ± 6.05) was found with the sample containing 100% rice (BS1) followed by sample BS2 (containing 25% chickpea flour). While, the higher springiness (0.721 ± 0.021) and resilience (0.070 ± 0.003) values were observed with sample BS5 (100% chickpea flour). Concerning fried snacks, it was found that the sample containing 75% rice flour: 25% chickpea flour (FS2) has hardness and springiness values compared to other treatments (FS1 and FS3). Meanwhile, the higher scores of springiness (7.01 ± 0.52) and resilience (0.43 ± 0.08) were obtained with the

Table 8 Effect of different concentrations of rice and chickpea split flour on texture profile analysis of bakery and fried snacks

Products	Hardness (g)	Adhesive Force (g)	Resilience	Springiness (mm)
Bakery Snacks
BS1 (100%R)	641 ± 6.05^a	0.00 ± 0.00^b	0.010 ± 0.001^e	0.250 ± 0.031^d
BS2 (75%R:25%Ch)	430 ± 5.05^b	0.00 ± 0.00^b	0.020 ± 0.001^d	0.310 ± 0.021^c
BS3 (50%R:50%Ch)	319 ± 4.05^c	3.00 ± 0.21^a	0.030 ± 0.0^c	0.450 ± 0.021^b
BS4 (25%R:75%Ch)	289 ± 3.05^d	0.00 ± 0.00^b	0.060 ± 0.002^b	0.710 ± 0.021^a
BS5 (100%Ch)	233 ± 3.05^e	0.00 ± 0.00^b	0.070 ± 0.003^a	0.721 ± 0.021^a
Fried snacks
FS1 (100%R)	462 ± 5.95^b	4.00 ± 0.25^a	0.14 ± 0.01^c	0.22 ± 0.021^c
FS2 (75%R:25%Ch)	666 ± 5.99^a	0.00 ± 0.00^b	0.28 ± 0.02^b	7.01 ± 0.52^a
FS3 (50%R:50%Ch)	249 ± 4.05^c	0.00 ± 0.00^b	0.43 ± 0.08^a	1.72 ± 0.045^b

Results are reported as mean ± SD, Mean values (±SD) with different small letters within the same Column are significantly different (P < 0.05). R: Rice and Ch: Chickpea split.

samples containing 25% and 50% chickpea flour, respectively (FS2 and FS3). In some previous studies, various percentages of chickpea flour were tested to examine their effects on baking performance [112] [113] [114] [115]. It was found that the addition of chickpea flour at a level of 5% resulted in higher dough stability. However, a level of 10% - 24% caused a weakened gluten network, which would result in decreased dough stability. While Boukid et al. [113] found that the supplementation with10% chickpea flour increased dough stability as well as had a similar color to an all wheat flour. Rachwa-Rosiak et al. [116] detected that the supplementation of dough with chickpea flour resulted in lower volume and higher hardness, which may agree with the lower viscosity of chickpea flour during processing. Also, incorporating chickpea flour in the production of flatbread significantly decreased the volume of the product and this is due to the decreased dough elasticity comparing the whole wheat sample [117].

3.12. Sensory Evaluation of Rice and Chickpea Split Milks and Snacks

Sensory characteristics such as color, taste, odor, texture, and overall acceptability of rice and chickpea milks and snacks are presented in Figure 4. Rice milk (M1) sample has the highest scores in color, taste, odor, texture, and overall acceptability compared to all other treatments, but by addition of chickpea milk to rice milk all sensory properties was significantly (P < 0.05) decreased except the taste. Concerning of bakery snacks, the sample containing 75% chickpea flour: 25% rice flour (BS4) has the higher evaluation scores in taste, odor, texture, and overall acceptability compared to other treatments. While, the higher score in color was found with sample BS2 (75% rice flour: 25% chickpea flour) compared to other treatments. As for the fried snacks, it was found that the addition of chickpea flour by ration 25% or 50% to rice flour not affected on all sensory

properties of snacks. On the contrary to our findings, Han et al. [118] found that the fortification of noodles with chickpea flour (up to 20%) resulted in a weak dough with poor sensory quality, due to the technological effect of chickpea flour on the gluten-forming proteins and starch being diluted. While using germinated chickpea instead of chickpea flour in the formulation produced a good product with high nutritional value and without adverse effects on texture, color, and undesirable mouthfeel [118] [119]. on the other side, Rababah et al. [120] did not find any differences in the overall impression of maize-based snack products fortified with different levels of chickpea flour (up to 9%). Other researchers found that the gluten-free cookies made with buckwheat and amaranth, with the addition of chickpea flour (up to 60%) were better perceived than a less than 40% addition of chickpea flour on wheat cookies, whereas, this addition (40%) showed a texture change, causing a drop in sensory score from 6.14 to 3.44 and appearance of beany flavor and an aftertaste [121]. Armaforte et al. [122] found that the use of chickpea protein isolate (CPI) as an alternative emulsifier demonstrated similar behavior in acceptability in terms of texture, aroma, flavor, appearance, and overall acceptability compared with a control mayonnaise (egg-based). Lopes et al. [105] used chickpea to developing a new beverage with good texture, similar to the current non-dairy alternative beverages with good acceptability scores (3 on a scale of 5). Abou-Dobara et al. [123] studied the effect of mixing various concentrations of rice milk with cow milk on sensory evaluation scores. He found that the rice milk with its intense white gained the highest scores of appearance and color compared to the yellow color of cow milk.

4. Conclusion

In this study, we investigated the preparation and characterization of gluten-free and casein-free (GFCF) food products (Like-milk beverages and snacks) for autism patients from rice and chickpea split by replacing rice with chickpea at a ratio of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%, and in a ratio of 25% and 50% with fried snacks. The results showed that the addition of chickpea to rice significantly increased protein (%), fat (%), minerals (Ca, Fe, K, Zn, and Mg) (%), and antioxidant capacity of final products. On the other hand, the viscosity of rice milk and the hardness of snacks significantly decreased with the increase in the amount of chickpea split flour added. The recommended daily allowances (RDA) observed that the intake of 100 mL chickpea milk (100%) could provide autism children with 99.5%, 32%, and 36% of the daily required iron, Ca, and Zn, respectively. Also, the daily intake of 100 g of snacks (sample BS5) could provide autism children with 75%, 7%, 42%, 125%, 1.7%, and 52% of the daily required of protein, fiber, Ca, iron, Mg, and Zn, respectively. On the other hand, 100 g fried snacks (sample FS3) could provide autism children with 59.9%, 42%, and 64% of the daily required protein, calcium, and iron, respectively. The best sensory evaluation scores were obtained with rice milk (100%), bakery snacks sample BS4 (25% rice: 75% chickpea), and fried snacks sample FS3 (50% rice: 50% chickpea). This study recommends the addition of chickpea to rice by a ratio of 50:50 in the preparation of milk beverages and snacks for autism patients.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Cite this paper

Ibrahim, R.M. (2022) Utilization of Chickpea Split (Cicer arietinum L.) in Preparing Some Gluten-Free Casein-Free Food Products for Autism Children. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 13, 284-315. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2022.133023

References1

El-Rashidy, O., El-Baz, F., El-Gendy, Y., Khalaf, R., Reda, D. and Saad, K. (2017) Ketogenic Diet Versus Gluten Free Casein Free Diet in Autism Children: A Case-Control Study. Metabolic Brain Disease, 32, 1935-1941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11011-017-0088-z

Maenner, M.J., Shaw, K.A., Baio, J. and Dietz, P. (2020) Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder among Children Aged 8 Years—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2016. MMWR Surveillance Summary, 69, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6904a1

Fombonne, E. (2002) Epidemiological Trends in Rates of Autism. Molecular Psychiatry, 7, S4-S6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4001162

Tonge, B. and Brereton, A. (2011) Autism Spectrum Disorder. Australian Family Physician, 40, 672-677.

CDC Estimate on Autism Prevalence Increases by Nearly 10 Percent, to 1 in 54 Children in the U.S. 26 March 2020. https://www.autismspeaks.org/press-release/cdc-estimate-autism-prevalence-increases-nearly-10-percent-1-54-children-us

Hill, A.P., Zuckerman, K.E. and Fombonne, E. (2015) Obesity and Autism. Pediatrics, 136, 1051-1061. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-1437

Manzanarez, B., Garcia, S., Iverson, E., Lipton-Inga, M.R. and Blaine, K. (2021) Lessons in Adapting a Family-Based Nutrition Program for Children with Autism. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 53, 1038-1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2021.09.003

Xia, W., Zhou, Y., Sun, C., Wang, J. and Wu, L. (2010) A Preliminary Study on Nutritional Status and Intake in Chinese Children with Autism. European Journal of Pediatrics, 169, 1201-1206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-010-1203-x

Ranjan, S. and Nasser, J.A. (2015) Nutritional Status of Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Do We Know Enough? Advances in Nutrition, 6, 397-407. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.114.007914

Bandini, L.G., Anderson, S.E., Curtin, C., Cermak, S., Evans, E.W., Scampini, R., Maslin, M. and Must, A. (2010) Food Selectivity in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Typically Developing Children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 157, 259-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.02.013

Bonis, S. (2016) Stress and Parents of Children with Autism: A Review of Literature. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 37, 153-163. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2015.1116030

Novak, P. and Perez, J. (2017) Treating Obesity in ASD. Nutrition Focus, 32, 1-12.

Levy, S.E. and Hyman, S.L. (2005) Novel Treatments for Autism Spectrum Disorders. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 11, 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20062

Hanson, E., Kalish, L.A., Bunce, E., Curtis, C., McDaniel, S., Ware, J. and Petry, J. (2007) Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine among Children Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 628-636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0192-0

Alpert, M. (2007) The Autism Diet. Scientific American, 296, 19-20. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0407-19

Goodwin, M.S. and Goodwin, T.C. (1969) In a Dark Mirror. Mental Hygiene, 53, 550-563.

Munasinghe, S.A., Oliff, C., Finn, J. and Wray, J.A. (2010) Digestive Enzyme Supplementation for Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1131-1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0974-2

Daniel, H. (2004) Molecular and Integrative Physiology of Intestinal Peptide Transport. Annual Review of Physiology, 66, 361-384. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.physiol.66.032102.144149

Janecka, A., Staniszewska, R., Gach, K. and Fichna, J. (2008) Enzymatic Degradation of Endomorphins. Peptides, 29, 2066-2073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2008.07.015

Mulloy, A., Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G. and Rispoli, M. (2010) Gluten-Free and Casein-Free Diets in the Treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 328-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2009.10.008

Croall, I.D., Hoggard, N. and Hadjivassiliou, M. (2021) Gluten and Autism Spectrum Disorder. Nutrients, 13, Article 572. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020572

Folorunso, A.A., Omoniyi, S.A. and Habeeb, A.S. (2016) Proximate Composition and Sensory Acceptability of Snacks Produced from Broken Rice (Oryza sativa) Flour. American Journal of Food and Nutrition, 6, 39-43.

Costa, K.K.F.D., Garcia, M.C., Ribeiro Kde, O., Soares Junior, M.S. and Caliari, M. (2016) Rheological Properties of Fermented Rice Extract with Probiotic Bacteria and Different Concentrations of Waxy Maize Starch. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 72, 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.04.014

Zhou, Z., Robards, K., Helliwell, S. and Blanchard, C. (2002) Composition and Functional Properties of Rice. International Journal of Food Science Technology, 37, 849-886. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2621.2002.00625.x

de Souza, D., Sbardelotto, A.F., Righetto Ziegler, D., Ferreira Marczak, L.D. and Tessaro, I.C. (2016) Characterization of Rice Starch and Protein Obtained by a Fast Alkaline Extraction Method. Food Chemistry, 191, 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.032

Joy, J.M., Lowery, R.P., Wilson, J.M., Purpura, M., Souza, E.O.D., Wilson, S.M., Kalman, D.S., Dudeck, J.E. and Jager, R. (2013) The Effects of 8 Weeks of Whey or Rice Protein Supplementation on Body Composition and Exercise Performance. Nutrition Journal, 12, 12-86. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-12-86

Babault, N., Paizis, C., Deley, G., Guérin-Deremaux, L., Saniez, M.H., Lefranc-Millot, C. and Allaert, F.A. (2015) Pea Proteins Oral Supplementation Promotes Muscle Thickness Gains during Resistance Training: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial vs. Whey Protein. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, 12, Article No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12970-014-0064-5

Health Canada (2018) Common Food Allergens. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-allergies-intolerances/food-allergies.html

Kadan, R.S., Bryant, R.J. and Pepperman, A.B. (2003) Functional Properties of Extruded Rice Flours. Journal of Food Science, 68, 1669-1672. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb12311.x

Sharma, C., Singh, B., Hussain, S.Z. and Sharma, S. (2017) Investigation of Process and Product Parameters for Physicochemical Properties of Rice and Mung Bean (Vigna radiata) Flour Based Extruded Snacks. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 54, 1711-1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2606-8

Meng, X.D., Threinen, D., Hansen, M. and Driedger, D. (2010) Effects of Extrusion Conditions on System Parameters and Physical Properties of a Chickpea Flour-Based Snack. Food Research International, 43, 650-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.016

Abo Taleb

H.M.A.

,et al. (2017)Production of Untraditional Products from Chickpea Middle East Journal of Applied Sciences 7, 755-765.

Harsha

,et al. (2014)Nutritional Composition of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and Value Added Products—A Review Indian Journal of Community Health 26, 102-106.

Gupta, S., Liu, C. and Sathe, S.K. (2019) Food Quality of a Chickpea-Based High Protein Snack. Journal of Food Science, 84, 1621-1630. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.14636

Han, I.H., Swanson, B.G. and Baik, B.K. (2007) Protein Digestibility of Selected Legumes Treated with Ultrasound and High Hydrostatic Pressure during Soaking. Cereal Chemistry, 84, 518-521. https://doi.org/10.1094/CCHEM-84-5-0518

Rachwarosiak, D., Nebesny, E. and Budryn, G. (2015) Chickpeas Composition, Nutritional Value, Health Benefits, Application to Bread and Snacks: A Review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 55, 1137-1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.687418

Xu, Y., Thomas, M. and Bhardwaj, H.L. (2013) Chemical Composition, Functional Properties and Microstructural Characteristics of three Kabuli Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as Affected by Different Cooking Methods. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 49, 1215-1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12419

Mir, S.A., Bosco, S.J.D. and Shah, M.A. (2019) Technological and Nutritional Properties of Gluten-Free Snacks Based on Brown Rice and Chestnut Flour. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 18, 89-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.02.002

Li, W., Wei, M., Wu, J., Rui, X. and Dong, M. (2016) Novel Fermented Chickpea Milk with Enhanced Level of γ-Aminobutyric Acid and Neuroprotective Effect on PC12 Cells. PeerJ, 4, e2292. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2292

Lee, Y., Doas-Mdrse, P.N. and Meullenet, J.F. (2019) Effect of Rice Variety and Milling Fraction on the Starch Gelatinization and Rheological Properties of Rice Milk. Food Science and Technology, 39, 1047-1051. https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.17118

Bhat, T., Hussain, S.Z., Naseer, B., Rather, A. and Mir, S.A. (2020) Development of Thiamine-Rich Snacks from Brown Rice Using Extrusion Technology. British Food Journal, 123, 1732-1757. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2020-0732

Miranda, D.V., Rojas, M.L., Pagador, S., Lescano, L., Sanchez-Gonzalez, J. and Linares, G. (2018) Gluten-Free Snacks Based on Brown Rice and Amaranth Flour with Incorporation of Cactus Pear Peel Powder: Physical, Nutritional, and Sensorial Properties. International Journal of Food Science, 2018, Article ID: 7120327. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7120327

Wheeler, E.I. and Ferrel, R.E. (1971) A Method for Phytic Acid Determination in Wheat and Wheat Fractions. Cereal Chemistry, 48, 312-316.

AOAC (1990) Official Methods of Analysis. 15th Edition, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC.

Kakade, M.L., Simons, N. and Liener, I.E. (1969) An Evaluation of Natural vs. Synthetic Substrates for Measuring the Antitryptic Activity of Soybean Samples. Cereal Chemistry, 46, 518-528.

AOAC (2019) Official Method of Analysis Chemists. In: Horwitz, W., Ed., Method 950.46, 21th Edition, Official Method of Analysis Chemists, MD.

AOAC (2012) Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 19th Edition, AOAC, Arlington.

FAO/WHO (1991) Protein Quality Evaluation Reports of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO, Rome.

FAO (1965) Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. Protein Requirement. FAO Nutrition Meetings Report Series, No. 37, Rome.

Alsmeyer, R.H., Cunningham, A.E. and Happich, M.L. (1974) Equations Predict PER from Amino Acid Analysis. Food Technology, 28, 34-40.

Oser, B.L. (1959) An Integrated Essential Amino Acid Index for Predicting the Biological Value of Proteins. In: Albanese, A.A., Ed., Protein and Amino Acid Nutrition, Academic Press, New York, 295-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-395683-5.50014-6

Radwan, S.S. (1978) Coupling of Two Dimensional Thin Layer Chromatography with Gas Chromatography for the Quantitative Analysis of Lipid Classes and Their Constituent Fatty Acids. Journal of Chromatographic Science, 16, 538-542. https://doi.org/10.1093/chromsci/16.11.538

Oztürk, H.I., Aydin, S., Sozeri, D., Demirci, T., Sert, D. and Akin, N. (2018) Fortification of Set-Type Yoghurts with Elaeagnus angustifolia L. Flours: Effects on Physicochemical, Textural, and Microstructural Characteristics. LWT, 90, 620-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.01.012

Abirami, A., Nagarani, G. and Siddhuraju, P. (2014) In Vitro Antioxidant, Antidiabetic, Cholinesterase Andtyrosinase Inhibitory Potential of Fresh Juice from Citrus hystrix and C. maxima Fruits. Food Science and Human Wellness, 3, 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2014.02.001

Brand-Williams, W., Cuvelier, M.E. and Berset, C. (1995) Use of a Free Radical Method to Evaluate Antioxidant Activity. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 28, 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0023-6438(95)80008-5

Oyaizu, M. (1986) Studies on Products of Browning Reaction: Antioxidative Activities of Products of Browning Reaction Prepared from Glucosamine. Japan Journal of Nutrition, 44, 307-315. https://doi.org/10.5264/eiyogakuzashi.44.307

Santipanichwing, R. and Suphantharika, M. (2007) Carotenoids as Colorants in Reduced-Fat Mayonnaise Containing Spent Brewer’s Yeast β-Glucan as a Fat Replacer. Food Hydrocolloids, 21, 565-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2006.07.003

El-Sayed, M.I., Awad, S. and Abou-Soliman N.H.I. (2021) Improving the Antioxidant Properties of Fermented Camel Milk Using Some Strains of Lactobacillus. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 12, 352-371. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2021.124028

Yuan, S. and Chang, S.K.C. (2007) Texture Profile of Tofu as Affected by Instron Parameters, Sample Preparation and Correlation of Instron Hardness and Springiness with Sensory Scores. Journal of Food Science, 72, 136-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00263.x

Banach, J.C., Clark, S. and Lamsal, B.P. (2014) Texture and Other Changes during Storage in Model High-Protein Nutrition Bars Formulated with Modified Milk Protein Concentrates. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 56, 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.11.008

SAS (2004) SAS Procedure Guide “Version 6.12 Ed.” SAS Institute Inc., Cary.

Jukanti, A.K., Gaur, P.M., Gowda, C.L. and Chibbar, R.N. (2012) Nutritional Quality and Health Benefits of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A Review. British Journal of Nutrition, 108, S11-S26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512000797

Alajaji, S.A. and El-Adaway, T.A. (2006) Nutritional Composition of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as Affected by Microwave Cooking and Other Traditional Cooking Methods. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 19, 806-812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2006.03.015

Zia-Ul-Haq, M., Ahmad, M., Iqbal, S. and Ali, H. (2007) Characterization and Compositional Study of Oil from Seeds of Desi Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Cultivars Grown in Pakistan. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 84, 1143-1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11746-007-1136-3

El-Adawy, T.A. (2002) Nutritional Composition and Antinutritional Factors of Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) Undergoing Different Cooking Methods and Germination. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, 57, 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013189620528

Sadigova, M.K., Buhovets, V.A., Belova, M.V. and Rysmuhambetova G.E. (2018) Technology Solutions in Case of Using Chickpea Flour in Industrial Bakery. Scientific Study & Research. Chemistry & Chemical Engineering, Biotechnology, Food Industry, 19, 169-180.

Boye, J.I., Zare, F. and Pletch, A. (2010) Pulse Proteins: Processing, Characterization, Functional Properties and Applications in Food and Feed. Food Research International, 43, 414-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.09.003

de Almeida Costa, G.E., da Silva Queiroz-Monici, K., Reis, S.M.P.M. and de Oliveira, A.C. (2006) Chemical Composition, Dietary Fibre and Resistant Starch Contents of Raw and Cooked Pea, Common Bean, Chickpea and Lentil Legumes. Food Chemistry, 94, 327-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.11.020

Oomah, B.D., Patras, A., Rawson, A., Singh, N. and Compos-Vega, R. (2011) Chemistry of Pulses. In: Tiwari, B.K., Gowen, A. and McKenna, B., Eds., Pulse Foods: Processing, Quality and Nutraceutical Applications, Academic Press, London, 9-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382018-1.00002-2

Malunga, L.N., Bar-El Dadon, S., Zinal, E., Berkovich, Z., Abbo, S. and Reifen, R. (2014) The Potential Use of Chickpeas in Development of Infant Follow-On Formula. Nutrition Journal, 13, Article No. 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-13-8

Wang, N., Hatcher, D., Tyler, R., Toews, R. and Gawalko, E. (2010) Effect of Cooking on the Composition of Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.). Food Research International, 43, 589-594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2009.07.012

Costantini, M., Summo, C., Centrone, M., Rybicka, I., D’Agostino, M., Annicchiarico, P., Caponio, F., Pavan, S., Tamma, G. and Pasqualone, A. (2021) Macro- and Micro-Nutrient Composition and Antioxidant Activity of Chickpea and Pea Accessions. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 71, 177-185. https://doi.org/10.31883/pjfns/135813

Wang, N. and Daun, J.K. (2004) Effect of Variety and Crude Protein Content on Nutrients and Certain Antinutrients in Field Peas (Pisum sativum). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 84, 1021-1029. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1742

Raza, H., Zaaboul, F., Shoaib, M. and Zhang, L. (2019) An Overview of Physicochemical Composition and Methods Used for Chickpeas Processing. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, 7, 495-500.

Arab, E.A., Helmy, I. and Bareh, G. (2010) Nutritional Evaluation and Functional Properties of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Flour and the Improvement of Spaghetti Produced from Its. Journal of American Science, 6, 1055-1072.

FAO/WHO/UNU (1985) Energy and Protein Requirements Report of a Joint Expert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 724, WHO, Geneva.

FAO/WHO (1973) Energy and Protein Requirements: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Ad Hoc Expert Committee. Rome: FAO Nutrition Meetings Report Series No. 52. Geneva: WHO Technical Report Series No. 522.

United States Department of Agriculture (2010) USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 22 (2009). http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Ziaulhaq, M., Iqbal, S., Ahmad, S., Imran, M., Niaz, A. and Bhanger, M.I. (2007) Nutritional and Compositional Study of Desi Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Cultivars Grown in Punjab, Pakistan. Food Chemistry, 105, 1357-1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.05.004

Dandachy, S., Mawlawi, H. and Obeid, O. (2019) Effect of Processed Chickpea Flour Incorporation on Sensory Properties of Mankoushe Zaatar. Foods, 8, Article 151. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8050151

Zia-Ul-Haq, M., Amarowicz, R., Ahmad, S. and Riaz, M. (2013) Antioxidant Potential of Some Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Cultivars Commonly Consumed in Pakistan. OXID Community Edition, 36, 1046-1057.

Xu, Y., Burton, S., Kim, C. and Sismour, E. (2016) Phenolic Compounds, Antioxidant, and Antibacterial Properties of Pomace Extracts from Four Virginia-Grown Grape Varieties. Food Science and Nutrition, 4, 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.264

El-Sayed, M.I., Ibrahim, A.A. and Awad, S. (2019) Impact of Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) Extract as Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Agent on Overall Quality and Shelf Life of Greek-Style Yoghurt. Egyptian Journal of Food Science, 47, 51-64. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejfs.2019.12089.1005

Chaiklahan, R., Chirasuwan, N., Loha, V., Tia, S. and Bunnag, B. (2011) Separation and Purification of Phycocyanin from Spirulina sp. Using a Membrane Process. Bioresource Technology, 102, 7159-7164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.04.067

Zhang, B., Deng, Z., Tang, Y., Chen, P., Liu, R., Ramdath, D.D., Liu, Q., Hernandez, M. and Tsao, R. (2014) Fatty Acid, Carotenoid and Tocopherol Compositions of 20 Canadian Lentil Cultivars and Synergistic Contribution to Antioxidant Activities. Food Chemistry, 161, 296-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.04.014

Grela, E.R., Samolińska, W., Kiczorowska, B., Klebaniuk, R. and Kiczorowski, P. (2017) Content of Minerals and Fatty Acids and Their Correlation with Phytochemical Compounds and Antioxidant Activity of Leguminous Seeds. Biological Trace Element Research, 180, 338-348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1005-3

Gupta, M. and Bansal, V. (2021) Development of Gluten Free Snacks Using Chickpea Flour and Flax Seeds for Celiac Patients. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 8, 223-238.

Sadigova

M.K.

,et al. (2009)Use of Nut Oil in the Production of Bakery Products Bulletin of the Saratov State Vavilov Agrarian University 1, 29-33.

Hall, C., Hillen, C. and Robinson, G.J. (2016) Composition, Nutritional Value, and Health Benefits of Pulses. Cereal Chemistry, 94, 11-31. https://doi.org/10.1094/CCHEM-03-16-0069-FI

Gonzales, I.C., Gonzales, F.R., Quindara, H.L., Belino, P. L. and Botangen, E.T. (2016) Chickpea (Garbanzos) Its Nutritional and Economical Value. IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance, 7, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.9790/5933-0704010106

NRC/FNB (1980) National Research Council, Food Nutrition Board (NRC/FNB) Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA). 10th Edition, National Academy of sciences, Washington DC.

Herndon, A.C., DiGuiseppi, C., Johnson, S.L., Leiferman, J. and Reynolds, A. (2009) Does nutritional Intake Differ between Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Children with Typical Development? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 212-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-0606-2

Zimmer, M.H., Hart, L.C., Manning-Courtney, P., Murray, D.S., Bing, N.M. and Summer, S. (2012) Food Variety as a Predictor of Nutritional Status among Children with Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 549-556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1268-z

Emond, A., Emmett, P., Steer, C. and Golding, J. (2010) Feeding Symptoms, Dietary Patterns, and Growth in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Pediatrics, 126, e337-e342. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2391

Adams, J.B., Audhya, T., McDonough-Means, S., Rubin, R.A., Quig, D., Geis, E., Gehn, E., Loresto, M., Atwood, S., Barnhouse, S. and Lee, W. (2011) Effect of a Vitamin/Mineral Supplement on Children and Adults with Autism. BMC Pediatrics, 11, Article No. 111. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-11-111

Ashokkumar, K., Diapari, M., Jha, A.B., Tar’an, B., Arganosa, G. and Warkentin, T.D. (2015) Genetic Diversity of Nutritionally Important Carotenoids in 94 Pea and 121 Chickpea Accessions. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 43, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.014

Yao, Y., Yang, X., Tian, J., Liu, C., Cheng, X. and Ren, G. (2013) Antioxidant and Antidiabetic Activities of Black Mung Bean (Vigna radiate L.). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61, 8104-8109. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf401812z

Thanuja, B. and Parimalavalli, R. (2020) Comparison of Anti-Oxidant Compounds and Antioxidant Activity of Native and Dual Modified Rice Flour. Thanuja and Parimalavalli, IJPSR, 11, 1203-1209.

Goffman, F.D. and Bergman, C.J. (2004) Rice Kernel Phenolic Content and Its Relationship with Antiradical Efficiency. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 84, 1235-1240. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1780

100

Sulaiman, S.F., Yusoff, N.A.M., Eldeen, I.M., Seow, E.M., Sajak, A.A.B. and Ooi, K.L. (2011) Correlation between Total Phenolic and Mineral Contents with Antioxidant Activity of Eight Malaysian Bananas (Musa sp.). Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 24, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2010.04.005

101

Saxena, A.K., Chadha, M. and Sharma, S. (2003) Nutrients and Antinutrients in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Cultivars after Soaking and Pressure Cooking. Journal of Food Science and Technology-Mysore, 40, 493-497.

102

Rohman, A., Helmiyati, S., Hapsari, M. and Setyaningrum, D.L. (2014) Rice in Health and Nutrition. International Food Research Journal, 21, 13-24.

103

Barrera, G.N., Bustos, M.C., Oturriaga, L., Flores, S.K., León, A.E. and Ribotta, P.D. (2013) Effect of Damaged Starch on the Rheological Properties of Wheat Starch Suspensions. Journal of Food Engineering, 116, 233-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.11.020

104

Rao, M.A. (2014) Flow and Functional Models for Rheological Properties of Fluid Foods. In: Smith, M.A., Ed, Rheology of Fluid, Semisolid, and Solid Foods, Springer, Boston, 27-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9230-6_2

105

Lopes, M., Pierrepont, C., Duarte, C.M., Filipe, A., Medronho, B. and Sousa, I. (2020) Legume Beverages from Chickpea and Lupin, as New Milk Alternatives. Foods, 9, Article 1458. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9101458

106

Nithya, D.J., Basco, K.A., Saravanan, M., Mohan, R.J. and Alagusundaram, K. (2016) Optimization of Process Variables for Extrusion of Rice—Bengal Gram Blends. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 75, 108-114.

107

Aguilar, N., Albanell, E., Minarro, B. and Capellas, M. (2015) Chickpea and Tiger Nutflours as Alternatives to Emulsifier and Shortening in Gluten-Free Bread. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 62, 225-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.12.045

108

Xiao, Y., Huang, L., Chen, Y., Zhang, S., Rui, X. and Dong, M. (2016) Comparative Study of the Effects of Fermented and Non-Fermented Chickpea Flour Addition on Quality and Antioxidant Properties of Wheat Bread. CyTA-Journal of Food, 14, 621-631. https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2016.1188157

109

Olojede, A.O., Sanni, A.I. and Banwo, K. (2020) Effect of Legume Addition on the Physiochemical and Sensorial Attributes of Sorghumbased Sourdough Bread. LWTv, 118, Article ID: 108769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108769

110

Sharima-Abdullah, N., Hassan, C.Z., Arifin, N. and Huda-Faujan, N. (2018) Physicochemical Properties and Consumer Preference of Imitation Chicken Nuggets Produced from Chickpea Flour and Textured Vegetable Protein. International Food Research Journal, 25, 1016-1025.

111

Capriles, V.D. and Arêas, J.A.G. (2014) Novel Approaches in Gluten-Free Breadmaking: Interface between Food Science, Nutrition, and Health. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 13, 871-890. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12091

112

Turfani, V., Narducci, V., Durazzo, A., Galli, V. and Carcea, M. (2017) Technological, Nutritional and Functional Properties of Wheat Bread Enriched with Lentil or Carob Flours. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 78, 361-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.12.030

113

Boukid, F., Zannini, E., Carini, E. and Vittadini, E. (2019) Pulses for Bread Fortification: A Necessity or a Choice? Trends in Food Science and Technology, 88, 416-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.04.007

114

Zhao, J., Liu, X., Bai, X., and Wang, F. (2019) Production of Biscuits by Substitution with Different Ratios of Yellow Pea Flour. Grain & Oil Science and Technology, 2, 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaost.2019.09.004

115

Cappelli, A., Oliva, N., Bonaccorsi, G., Lorini, C. and Cini, E. (2020) Assessment of the Rheological Properties and Bread Characteristics Obtained by Innovative Protein Sources (Cicer arietinum, Acheta domesticus, Tenebrio molitor): Novel Food or Potential Improvers for Wheat Flour? LWT-Food Science and Technology, 118, Article ID: 108867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108867

116

Rachwa-Rosiak, D., Nebesny, E. and Budryn, G. (2015) Chickpeas Composition, Nutritional Value, Health Benefits, Application to Bread and Snacks: A Review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 55, 1137-1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.687418

117

Pathania, S., Kaur, A. and Sachdev, P.A. (2017) Chickpea Flour Supplemented High Protein Composite Formulation for Flatbreads: Effect of Packaging Materials and Storage Temperature on the Ready Mix. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 11, 125-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2017.01.006

118

Han, L., Lu, Z.-H., Zhang, J., Chakravarty, B., Jin, L. and Cao, X. (2021) Nutrient and Specification Enhancement of Fortified Asian Noodles by Chickpea Flour Substitution and Transglutaminase Treatment. International Journal of Food Properties, 24, 174-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2021.1873360

119

Sofi, S.A., Singh, J., Muzaffar, K., Majid, D. and Dar, N. (2020) Physicochemical Characteristics of Protein Isolates from Native and Germinated Chickpea Cultivars and Their Noodle Quality. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 22, Article ID: 100258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100258

120

Rababah, T.M., Brewer, S., Yang, W., Al-Mahasneh, M., Al-U’datt, M., Rababa, S. and Ereifej, K. (2012) Physicochemical Properties of Fortified Corn Chips with Broad Bean Flour, Chickpea Flour or Isolated Soy Protein. Journal of Food Quality, 35, 200-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.2012.00440.x

121

Yamsaengsung, R., Berghofer, E. and Schoenlechner, R. (2012) Physical Properties and Sensory Acceptability of Cookies Made from Chickpea Addition to White Wheat or Whole Wheat Flour Compared to Gluten-Free Amaranth or Buckwheat Flour. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 47, 2221-2227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03092.x

122

Armaforte, E., Hopper, L. and Stevenson, G. (2021) Preliminary Investigation on the Effect of Proteins of Different Leguminous Species (Cicer arietinum, Vicia faba and Lens culinarius) on the Texture and Sensory Properties of Egg-Free Mayonnaise. LWT, 136, Article ID: 110341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110341

123

Abou-Dobara, M.I., Ismail, M.M. and Refaat, N.M. (2016) Chemical Composition, Sensory Evaluation and Starter Activity in Cow, Soy, Peanut and Rice Milk. Journal of Nutritional Health & Food Engineering, 5, 634-640. https://doi.org/10.15406/jnhfe.2016.05.00175