<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">FNS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Food and Nutrition Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2157-944X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/fns.2023.148048</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">FNS-127071</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Traditional Processing and Characterization of “&lt;i&gt;Alme Ardeb&lt;/i&gt;”, an Indigenous Beverage from Far North Region, Cameroon
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Daoudou</surname><given-names>Bakari</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sadou</surname><given-names>Kaou Abdouramane</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Foundikou</surname><given-names>Yaya Bruno</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yaya</surname><given-names>Garga</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tatsadjieu</surname><given-names>Ngoune Leopold</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Food Technology and Quality Control, University Institute of Technology, University of Ngaoundere, Ngaoundere, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Maroua, Maroua, Cameroon</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>14</day><month>08</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>08</issue><fpage>730</fpage><lpage>745</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>14,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>15,</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>18,</day>	<month>August</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  “Alme ardeb” is a conventional beverage made from sugar and tamarind, season with other ingredients and highly prized by the population of the northern regions of Cameroon. Despite the importance of this traditional drink, the manufacturing process and quality attributes are still unknown. As such, a study was undertaken to describe the manufacturing process and characterise the quality of “Alme ardeb”. A survey was conducted in the Diamar&#233; division of the Far north region.
   
  An ethnographical technique accompanied with semi-structured questionnaires and interviewing 
  were
   used 
  for
   collect
  ing
   data needed to elaborate the production process. Forty-nine (49) samples of “Alme ardeb” were taken from 49 women producers in the different sites representing 10 samples per site and the sensory, physicochemical, phytochemical and microbiological properties were assessed according referenced techniques. The field survey reveals that the production of “Alme ardeb” is conventional and rudimentary involving two classical units of operation, caramelisation and boiling. The pH and titratable acidity of “Alme ardeb” were insignificant (p
   
  ≥
   
  0.05) except for the soluble solids, electrical conductivity and total sugar. The pH is acidic ranging between 4.06 &#177; 0.01 and 4.74 &#177; 0.05 with an oscillating titratable acidity ranging from 0.61% &#177; 0.022% to 0.65% &#177; 0.01% and an average soluble solids content of about 10.74
   
  &#176;Brix. Similarly, the total sugar content varies between 51.25 &#177; 0.18g&#183;L<sup>-1</sup> and 61.37 &#177; 0.18
   
  g&#183;L<sup>-1</sup> with a conductivity that fluctuates around 351
   
  μS&#183;cm<sup>-1</sup> and 707
   
  μS&#183;cm<sup>-1</sup>. In addition, the average polyphenol, flavonoid and tannin contents were 2.2g
   
  EAG&#183;L<sup>-1</sup>, 0.58 g&#183;EQL<sup>-1</sup> and 0.36 g&#183;ECL<sup>-1</sup> respectively, with a free radical scavenging capacity of 52.18%. The beverage revealed a complete absence of Salmonella with a doubtful hygienic quality. The total aerobic plate count varied from (4.1 &#177; 0.014)
   &#215;
   
  10<sup>4</sup> CFU&#183;mL<sup>-1</sup> to (8.2 &#177; 0.007)
   &#215;
   10<sup>7</sup> CFU&#183;mL<sup>-1</sup>, total coliforms from (4.3 &#177; 0.6)
   &#215;
   
  10<sup>2</sup> CF
  U
  &#183;mL<sup>-1</sup> to (1.05 &#177; 0.7)
   &#215;
   
  10<sup>5</sup> CFU&#183;mL<sup>-1</sup>, faecal coliforms from non-detected to (4.1 &#177; 0.07)
   &#215;
   
  10<sup>2</sup> CFU&#183;mL<sup>-1</sup> and the fungal flora ranged from 0.0 to (6.5 &#177; 0.7)
   &#215;
   10<sup>3</sup> CFU
  &#183;mL<sup>-1</sup>. However, the panelists judged the beverage as being acidic with a brownish colour and a sweet caramelized taste. Consequently, the beverage was highly palatable and consumed with an overall score that went from 13.48 &#177; 3.32 to 15.81 &#177; 4.47.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>“Alme Ardeb”</kwd><kwd> Traditional Processing</kwd><kwd> Tamarind Fruit</kwd><kwd> Physicochemical and Microbiological Qualities</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Beverages are liquid foods consumed for refreshment, nutrition and health related problems. They contain nutrients and other elements necessary for the body such as acids, alcohol, sugars, vitamins, antioxidants. These components can influence the growth of micro-organisms in the beverage [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref1">1</xref>] . There are artisanal beverages whose consumption is growing among African populations: in Cameroon, Senegal, Egypt, Ivory Coast... These drinks are made from locally-produced raw materials such as Guinea sorrel (bissap), ginger, passion fruit, tamarind, etc. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref2">2</xref>] . The production of local drinks is therefore part of the food and cultural habits of the Cameroonian population in general and that of the Far north in particular [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref3">3</xref>] . The production of beverages from local resources is a very important secular activity among rural people of Cameroon. Fol&#233;r&#233; juice (Hibiscus sabdariffa) and “kargasok Tea” for examples are the most widely consumed homemade drinks in the Far North region of Cameroon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref5">5</xref>] . A drink of the same family is also subjected to multiple handlings and hence the hygienic aspect is often questionable [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref5">5</xref>] . Additionally to fol&#233;r&#233; and “kargasok Tea”, other juices such as lemon juice, ginger juice, baobab juice, etc., are also produced [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref6">6</xref>] . These thirst-quenching drinks are only sources of income and are not part of any tradition; unlike “kounou”, “T&#233;a l&#233;mi”, “billi billi” etc. which are marketed despite their strong traditional devotion. “Alme ardeb” is the drink with a sweet, slightly spicy and acidic flavour. It is brown or black in colour and is mostly consumed at social gatherings (baptism and marriage). Most often, this beverage is sold in periodic markets as substitute to most local non-alcoholic beverages [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref7">7</xref>] . Like many other traditional drinks, the conditions under which it is produced cannot guarantee to consumers a healthy product of good nutritional and sensory quality. “Alme ardeb” is likely produced under inappropriate settings. The drink obtained in these conditions is unstable and difficult to preserve. “Alme ardeb”, like any drink intended for human consumption, requires the strict application of good hygienic practices throughout the process from production to consumption [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref2">2</xref>] . The objective of this study is to assess the quality of “Alme ardeb” produced and marketed in the Far north region.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Method</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Zones and Field Study</title><p>The present study was conducted in the Far north region of Cameroon. To assemble data on the production of “Alme ardeb”, a field survey with the aid of semi-structured questionnaires and interview was carried out among 60 women producers and 10 consumers in seven neighborhoods of the Far north region, Cameroon: Maroua I, Maroua II, Maroua III, Gazawa, Bogo, Dargala and P&#233;tt&#233; (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Sampling of “Alme Ardeb” Beverage</title><p>Forty-nine (49) samples of “Alme ardeb” were taken from 49 women producers in the different sites representing 10 samples per site. All the samples collected were transported directly to the laboratory under aseptic conditions in a cooler for the various analyses. The samples were analysed on the day of collection.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Physicochemical Analyses</title><p>The pH of the samples was measured using a portable ATC pH meter (Eco Testr, Singapore) directly by immersing the electrode into 10 mL of sample [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref8">8</xref>] . The total titratable acidity (%) and total sugar content (g/L) were determined using the method described by Muyanja et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref9">9</xref>] and Debebe et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref10">10</xref>] respectively. Like with the pH, conductivity (&#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>) of the samples was assessed directly using a portable multifunctional conductivity meter type “e-1 TDS &amp; EC” according to the method described by Bayo&#239; et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref11">11</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Phytochemical Analyses</title><p>The content of phenolic compounds was determined by the spectrophotometric methods. Total polyphenol content was estimated by the Folin Ciocalteu method [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref12">12</xref>] and the result obtained was expressed as gram of gallic acid equivalent per liter (g∙GAEL<sup>−1</sup>). The total flavonoid and total tannin contents were determined by the AlCl<sub>3</sub> and vanillin acid methods [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref13">13</xref>] . The results were expressed as gram of catechin equivalent per liter (g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>) and gram of quercetin equivalent per liter (g∙QEL<sup>−1</sup>) for tannins and flavonoids respectively. The DPPH free radical scavenging activity was determined as described accordingly by Sun et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref14">14</xref>] and the result obtained was expressed as percentage of inhibition (I%).</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Microbiological Analysis</title><sec id="s2_5_1"><title>2.5.1. Preparation of the Inoculum</title><p>The inoculums were prepared using the serial decimal dilutions method. One milliliter (1 mL) of the stock solution of each “Alme ardeb” sample was pipetted</p><p>and introduced into 9 mL of sterile peptone water and the content was vortexed. This operation was repeated with the preceding tube until the desired dilution was obtained.</p></sec><sec id="s2_5_2"><title>2.5.2. Enumeration and Determination of Microbial Charge</title><p>To search for the total aerobic count, 1 mL of the inoculum was deeply plated in Plate Count Agar (PCA). The plates were incubated in an oven at 30˚C for 72 hours and the colonies obtained were counted [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref15">15</xref>] . Similarly, 1 mL of the inoculum was deeply plated into Eosine Methylene Blue Agar and the plates were incubated at 37˚C and 44˚C for the search of total and faecal coliforms respectively. After 24 hours of incubation, purple-red colonies (0.5mm in diameter with a precipitation zone) were counted [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref16">16</xref>] . The level of Salmonella and Shigella were assessed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref16">16</xref>] . Briefly, the culturing and enumeration of Salmonella and Shigella require three distinct steps. A pre-enrichment of buffered pepton water maintains a high pH for more than 24 hours of incubation at 37˚C. Pre-enrichment in buffered pepton water at 37˚C for 24 hours, followed by incubation of 10 ml of the sample in 100 ml of Selenite Cystine broth (CM0699) or Muller-Kauffmann broth (CM0343) for 48 hours at 43˚C. However, in the case of highly contaminated samples, it is advisable to add 0.1 g of malachite green per litre of buffered peptone water. This addition is important when Salmonella, present in small quantities, have an increased generation time due to the associated flora and cannot reach a minimum number to be successfully isolated.This was immediately followed by the selective enrichment on Mueller Kauffman Tetrathionate for 24 hours at 37˚C and lastly enriched suspension was plated in Salmonella/Shigella (SS) agar medium and incubated at 37˚C for 24 hours for the search and isolation of Salmonella and Shigella.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Sensory Analysis</title><p>Preliminary training session led to the selection of 18 panelists (8 females and 11 males). The choice was based on the availability, occupation, consumption frequency of local beverages, age, and health status. The panelists were between 18 and 32 years. The test was carried out in the morning in a clean room. Each panelist was served 30 mL of the drink sample in a cup marked with the sample code with water next to it to rinse the mouth after each tasting together with an evaluation form. Bitterness, acidity, texture, taste, aroma, colour and overall acceptability were the sensory attributes mentioned in the sheet. The panelists rated the samples using a hedonic scale ranging from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like extremely) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref17">17</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Statistical Analyses</title><p>The results were organised using the Microsoft Office/Excel 2013 worksheet and processed with STATGRAPHICS Centurion 16.1 software for Windows. Comparison of means was performed by ANOVA and then Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) multiple comparison test was used to discriminate between pairs of significantly different means. Mean values were considered statistically significant at p &lt; 0.05. At the end of the analyses, the results obtained were presented in a table in the form of Mean &#177; standard deviation.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussion</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Results</title><sec id="s3_1_1"><title>3.1.1. Traditional Production of “Alme Ardeb”</title><p>The result of the field survey led to the elaboration of manufacturing flowchart “Alme” as presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>. Alme ardeb production involved two different steps: caramelisation and boiling. Caramelisation is a crucial stage in the manufacturing process of this traditional African drink. Indeed, the role of this stage is to break the bond of sucrose in order to obtain glucose and fructose which will merge with other complex molecules to obtain caramel. Granulated sugar is the most used. For this, 1 Kg of sugar is used for every 5 L of drinking water. One-tenth fraction of the sugar (100 g) is caramelised and diluted with water (5 L). This is immediately followed by the addition of tamarind (50 mL of concentrated juice) or ginger (50 g of powder) depending on the choice of the producer and other optional ingredients (fever grass, cloves, etc). The mixture is boiled for at least 30 minutes at 100˚C. During the boiling process, the remaining nine</p><p>tenth fraction (0.9 kg) of the sugar is added and the mixture is allowed to cool. After cooling, the drink is filtered through a cotton cloth. The filtrate obtained is called “Alme” and is packaged in clean plastic or glass bottles and ready to be sold.</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_2"><title>3.1.2. Physicochemical Quality</title><p>The physicochemical profile of “Alme ardeb” samples is presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>. The pH of the analysed samples varies insignificantly (p ≥ 0.05) between 4.06 &#177; 0.01 and 4.74 &#177; 0.05 from one site to another. The highest pH was recorded with samples from Bogo (4.74 &#177; 0.05) and the least was recorded with samples from Maroua III (4.06 &#177; 0.01). Irrespective of the sampling site, the pH remains acidic with an average pH of 4.48 &#177; 0.01. Hence, “Alme ardeb” can be regarded as an acidic beverage with a sour taste. Like with the pH, the total titratable acidity remains insignificant from one site to another. The total acidity varies between 0.61% &#177; 0.02% and 0.65% &#177; 0.01% with an average of 0.63% &#177; 0.01%. “Alme ardeb” sample from Maroua III had the highest total acidity (0.65% &#177; 0.01%) jointly followed by samples from Dargala, Pett&#233;, Maroua I and II (0.63% &#177; 0.01%), Bogo (0.62% &#177; 0.02%) and lastly by Gazawa (0.61% &#177; 0.02%).</p><p>On the other hand, the conductivity, soluble solids and total carbohydrates vary significantly (p &lt; 0.05) from one site to another (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> below). The conductivity varies between 351.0 &#177; 36.39 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup> and 707.66 &#177; 9.81 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>. There were no significant differences (p ≥ 0.05) between samples collected from Dargala (412.33 &#177; 92.63 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>) and Maroua II (482.33 &#177; 1.15 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>), Pett&#233; (618.33 &#177; 8.02 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>), Bogo (707.66 &#177; 9.81 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>) and Gazawa (683 &#177; 16.52 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>) and Maroua I (352 &#177; 40.95 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>) and Maroua III (351 &#177; 36.39 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>) but between the pairs, there were significant differences (p &lt; 0.05). As for the soluble solids, “Alme” sample from Maroua III registered the highest soluble solids content (12.43 &#177; 43 ˚Brix) with the least being the sample from Bogo (9.6 &#177; 0.1 ˚Brix). Similarly, Maroua III sampled beverage recorded the greatest total sugar content (61.37 &#177; 0.18 g∙L<sup>−1</sup>) and Maroua II samples recorded the lowest total sugar content (51.25 &#177; 0.18 g∙L<sup>−1</sup>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Physicochemical properties of “Alme ardeb”</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="8"  >Sampling sites</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dargala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bogo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gazawa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pette</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua I</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua II</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua III</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.53 &#177; 0.01<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.74 &#177; 0.05<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.66 &#177; 0.01<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.52 &#177; 0.05<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.58 &#177; 0.01<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.25 &#177; 0.01<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.06 &#177; 0.01<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.48 &#177; 0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total acidity (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63 &#177; 0.00<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.62 &#177; 0.02<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61 &#177; 0.02<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63 &#177; 0.01<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63 &#177; 0.00<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63 &#177; 0.04<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65 &#177; 0.01<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63 &#177; 0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conductivity (&#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >412.33 &#177; 92.63<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >707.66 &#177; 9.81<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >683.0 &#177; 16.52<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >618.33 &#177; 8.02<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >352.0 &#177; 40.95<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >482.33 &#177; 1.15<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >351.0 &#177; 36.39<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >515.23 &#177; 17.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total sugar (g∙L<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.17 &#177; 0.27<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.28 &#177; 0.04<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56.09 &#177; 0.54<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.83 &#177; 0.13<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.70 &#177; 0.13<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.25 &#177; 0.18<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.37 &#177; 0.18<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.39 &#177; 3.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Soluble solids (˚Brix)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.93 &#177; 0.15<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.76 &#177; 0.06<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.60 &#177; 0.10<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.86 &#177; 0.06<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.66 &#177; 0.28<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.96 &#177; 0.06<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.43 &#177; 0.75<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.74 &#177; 0.14</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Mean values not followed by the same letter (a, b, c) on the same line are significantly different (p &lt; 0.05).</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_3"><title>3.1.3. Phytochemical and Antioxidant Activity of “Alme Ardeb”</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows the phytochemical and antioxidant properties of “Alme ardeb”. The total polyphenols content had an insignificant variation (p ≥ 0.05) from one site to another except the “Alme ardeb” beverage sampled from Gazawa site. The sample from Gazawa site had the highest polyphenol content (2.5 &#177; 0.00 g∙GAEL<sup>−1</sup>) as compared to those collected in other localities which fluctuate between 2.2 &#177; 0.01 g∙GAEL<sup>−1</sup> and 2.3 &#177; 0.01 g∙GAEL<sup>−1</sup>. Inversely to the total polyphenols content, the total flavonoid content varied significantly from one site to another. The total flavonoid content varies between 0.30 &#177; 0.00 g∙QEL<sup>−1</sup> (Bogo) and 0.73 &#177; 0.01 g∙QEL<sup>−1</sup> (Maroua I). As for the total tannins content, there were no significant differences between samples from Dargala (0.42 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>), Bogo (0.39 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>) and Maroua I (0.43 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>), Pett&#233; (0.26 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>), Maroua II (0.23 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>) and Maroua III (0.22 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>) and Gazawa (0.55 &#177; 0.01 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>). “Alme ardeb” sample from Gazawa locality had the highest tannins content (0.55 &#177; 0.01 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>) compared to those collected in other localities, which vary between 0.22 &#177; 0.01 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup> and 0.43 &#177; 0.01 g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>.</p><p>Despite the varying level of secondary metabolites, the beverage samples expressed a significant inhibitory DPPH scavenging power which varied between 44.75% &#177; 0.15% and 61.09% &#177; 0.73%. “Alme ardeb” sample from Gazawa (61.09% &#177; 0.73%) had the greatest free radical scavenging activity meanwhile the lowest activity was registered with samples from Bogo locality (44.75% &#177; 0.15%). Between the sites, there were no significant differences among samples from Dargala, Gazawa, Pett&#233;, Maroua I and Maroua II, Bogo, Gazawa and Maroua II except for Maroua III (53.52% &#177; 0.07%) whose free radical activity was significant (p &lt; 0.05) with all the sites.</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Bioactive and antioxidant properties of “Alme ardeb”</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="8"  >Sampling sites</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dargala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bogo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gazawa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pette</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua I</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua II</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua III</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TPC (g∙GAEL<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3 &#177; 0.01<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3 &#177; 0.01<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5 &#177; 0.00<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2 &#177; 0.01<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2 &#177; 0.01<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2 &#177; 0.00<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3 &#177; 0.01<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2 &#177; 0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TFC (g∙QEL<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58 &#177; 0.00<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.30 &#177; 0.00<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45 &#177; 0.00<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.72 &#177; 0.01<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.73 &#177; 0.01<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.68 &#177; 0.00<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65 &#177; 0.00<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58 &#177; 0.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TTC (g∙CEL<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.42 &#177; 0.00<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.39 &#177; 0.00<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.55 &#177; 0.00<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.26 &#177; 0.00<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43 &#177; 0.00<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23 &#177; 0.01<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22 &#177; 0.01<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.36 &#177; 0.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Scavenging power (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >49.92 &#177; 0.10<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.75 &#177; 0.15<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.09 &#177; 0.73<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.22 &#177; 0.13<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.80 &#177; 0.44<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.97 &#177; 0.21<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.52 &#177; 0.70<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.18 &#177; 6.06</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Mean values on the same line not followed by the same letter (a, b, c) on the same line are significantly different (p &lt; 0.05). TPC: Total polyphenol content, TFC: Total flavonoid content, TTC: Total tannin content.</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_4"><title>3.1.4. Hygienic Quality of “Alme Ardeb”</title><p>The hygienic quality of “Alme ardeb” is presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>. The analysis of the latter reveals that the total aerobic count of the samples varied significantly (p &lt; 0.05) from one site to another. These loads went from (4.1 &#177; 0.014) &#215; 10<sup>4</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> (Maroua II) to (8.2 &#177; 0.007) &#215; 10<sup>7</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> (Bogo) likewise the total coliform load varied from (4.3 &#177; 0.6) &#215; 10<sup>2</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> (Maroua II) to (1.05 &#177; 0.7) &#215; 10<sup>5</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> (Dargala and Bogo), values that are well above the standard value of 10<sup>3</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup>. Furthermore, the faecal coliforms in the varied between (1.6 &#177; 0.01) &#215; 10<sup>2</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> (Pett&#233;) and (4.1 &#177; 0.07) &#215; 10<sup>2</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> (Bogo) which is slightly above the standard 10<sup>2</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup>. However, these faecal coliforms were not detected in “Alme ardeb” sampled from Maroua sites (I, II and III). In the same train, the concentration of yeasts and moulds vary between (3 &#177; 0.07) &#215; 10<sup>2</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> (Maroua II) and (6.5 &#177; 0.7) &#215; 10<sup>3</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> (Bogo) except the “Alme ardeb” sampled from Maroua III that shows no sign of fungal growth. At least one of the aforementioned flora was detected contrary to Salmonella which was completely not detected in all the samples of “Alme ardeb”.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Microbiological profile of “Alme ardeb”</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Microbial flora (CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup>)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="8"  >Sampling sites</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dargala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bogo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gazawa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pette</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua I</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua II</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua III</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >AFNOR standard</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total plate count</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(1.39 &#177; 0.01) 10<sup>7ac</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(8.2 &#177; 0.01) 10<sup>7bc</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(3.40 &#177; 0.00) 10<sup>6c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(6.25 &#177; 0.07) 10<sup>6ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(3.39 &#177; 0.01) 10<sup>6c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(4.10 &#177; 0.01)10<sup>4a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(1.13 &#177; 0.01) 10<sup>6b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;10<sup>6</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total Coliforms</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(1.1 &#177; 0.7) 10<sup>5ac</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(1.1 &#177; 0.7) 10<sup>5ac</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(7.6 &#177; 0.03) 10<sup>4ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(7.7 &#177; 0.07) 10<sup>4ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(3.3 &#177; 0.03) 10<sup>3b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(4.3 &#177; 0.6) 10<sup>2a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(1.4 &#177; 0.00) 10<sup>4c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;10<sup>3</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fecal coliforms</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(1.7 &#177; 0.03) 10<sup>2a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(4.1 &#177; 0.07) 10<sup>2b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(2.3 &#177; 0.03) 10<sup>2a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(1.6 &#177; 0.01) 10<sup>2a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;10<sup>2</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total fungi</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(8.8 &#177; 0.01) 10<sup>2c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(6.5 &#177; 0.7) 10<sup>3ac</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(1.4 &#177; 0.10) 10<sup>3ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(6.1 &#177; 0.00) 10<sup>2b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(7.9 &#177; 0.05) 10<sup>2c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(3 &#177; 0.07) 10<sup>2a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;10<sup>5</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Salmonella/Shigella</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >ND</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0/25 mL</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Means not followed by the same letter (a, b, c) on the same line are significantly different (p &lt; 0.05). ND: Not detected.</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_5"><title>3.1.5. Sensory Analysis</title><p>The sensory attributes of “Alme ardeb” are summarised in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> below. This result shows that there is no significant difference (p &lt; 0.05) between the overall acceptability and score of “Alme ardeb”. Despite these non-differences, beverage sample from Pett&#233; had the best score (15.81 &#177; 4.47) which is slightly higher than those from the other sites with values fluctuating between 13.48 &#177; 3.32 and 14.59 &#177; 4.76. “Alme ardeb” beverage from Pett&#233; was highly graded for it colour (7.3 &#177; 1.11), texture and odour (7.1 &#177; 1.28), sourness (6.5 &#177; 1.56), bitterness (6.8 &#177; 1.38), aroma (7.3 &#177; 0.85) and taste (7.4 &#177; 0.84). These attributes greatly affected its overall acceptability and score. Similarly, the panelists turn to prefer “Alme” with a medium bitter flavour more in terms of taste. Even though, all the drinks had better scores for overall acceptability (&gt;5), the beverage from Pett&#233; site is much more appreciated (7.4 &#177; 0.96).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Discussion</title><p>The traditional production of “Alme Ardeb” comprises two main classic stages: caramelisation and boiling. This process is based on traditional know-how</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Sensory quality of “Alme ardeb”</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Attributes</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="8"  >Sampling sites</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dargala</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bogo</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gazawa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pett&#233;</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua I</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua II</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maroua III</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Colour</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.0 &#177; 1.58<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2 &#177; 1.64<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8 &#177; 1.59<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3 &#177; 1.11<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4 &#177; 1.33<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8 &#177; 1.64<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.6 &#177; 1.19<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4 &#177; 1.48</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Texture</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.6 &#177; 1.26<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4 &#177; 1.45<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.0 &#177; 1.58<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1 &#177; 1.28<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2 &#177; 1.42<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5 &#177; 1.56<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.2 &#177; 1.23<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4 &#177; 1.40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Odour</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.0 &#177; 1.08<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.6 &#177; 0.96<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.7 &#177; 1.11<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1 &#177; 1.28<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8 &#177; 1.30<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5 &#177; 1.39<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3 &#177; 1.32<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6..3 &#177; 1.29</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acidity</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5 &#177; 0.97<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5 &#177; 1.27<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1 &#177; 1.57<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5 &#177; 1.56<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8 &#177; 1.40<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1 &#177; 1.07<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8 &#177; 1.23<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9 &#177; 1.31</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Aroma</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7 &#177; 0.75<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.7 &#177; 1.03<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5 &#177; 1.20<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3 &#177; 0.85<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.9 &#177; 1.26<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7 &#177; 1.44<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1 &#177; 0.99<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7 &#177; 1.17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Taste</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7 &#177; 1.38<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5 &#177; 1.20<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1 &#177; 1.04<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4 &#177; 0.84<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8 &#177; 0.99<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5 &#177; 1.33<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4 &#177; 1.56<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8 &#177; 1.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bitterness</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3 &#177; 1.49<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1 &#177; 1.40<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3 &#177; 1.38<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8 &#177; 1.42<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.1 &#177; 1.11<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.3 &#177; 1.03<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.8 &#177; 0.93<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.6 &#177; 1.26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall acceptability</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5 &#177; 0.88<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4 &#177; 1.04<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.0 &#177; 1.00<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4 &#177; 0.96<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1 &#177; 0.69<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.1 &#177; 1.32<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.7 &#177; 1.25<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.9 &#177; 1.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall score/20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.97 &#177; 4.67<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.48 &#177; 3.32<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.02 &#177; 4.46<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.81 &#177; 4.47<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.51 &#177; 4.38<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.59 &#177; 4.76<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.14 &#177; 4.32<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.36 &#177; 3.46</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Means followed by the same letter (a, b, c) and on the same line are not significantly different (p &gt; 0.05).</p><p>which remain empirical and rudimentary like most traditional drinks. The terminal unit operations involved in the production of “Alme Ardeb” are similar to those used in the production of “Rob” produced in Algeria [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref18">18</xref>] . Furthermore, the production flowchart of “Alme Ardeb” shows differences in the stages compared to the production process of some conventional beers such as “Amgba” and “T&#233;a l&#233;mi” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref19">19</xref>] from Cameroon and “Siko” from Chad [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref20">20</xref>] . However, the production of “Alme Ardeb” is characterised by a short boiling time without the use of ferments and consequently no fermentation. This production stages are contrary to those of the aforementioned beers whose boiling can exceed 3 hours and often associated with the use of exogenous or non-exogenous ferments.</p><p>The physicochemical analyses of “Alme” showed that there were no significant differences between the drinks from the different sites. Despite the empirical production procedure, the invariability could be explained by the fact that the producers have kept the traditional reflexes and habits with precision. “Alme” has an average pH of 4.48 making this drink to be acidic as such not be consumed with an empty belly. According to CODEX STAN 247 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref21">21</xref>] , a beverage is considered acidic if it has a pH ≤ 4.5. Like with other drink, the pH of “Alme ardeb” is closely related to that obtained on orange juice (pH 4.49) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref22">22</xref>] produced in Algeria and ginger juice (pH 4.4) produced in Mali [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref23">23</xref>] . However, it is less acidic than “Fol&#233;r&#233;” juice (pH 1.57) obtained from Hibiscus sabdariffa in Cameroon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref4">4</xref>] and cashew apple juice (pH 3.81) produced in Ivory Coast [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref24">24</xref>] . The total titratable acidity vary between 0.61% &#177; 0.02% and 0.65% &#177; 0.01% which corroborates with those obtained on “Kounou” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref25">25</xref>] which varied from 0.60% &#177; 0.03% to 0.65% &#177; 0.08%. This acidity is much lower than that of orange juice (3.1 &#177; 0.51 g∙L<sup>−1</sup>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref24">24</xref>] , and higher than those of “Zoom Koom” which varies between 0.06 &#177; 0.01 and 0.49 &#177; 0.05 in Burkina Faso [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref26">26</xref>] . This variation could be justified by the nature of the raw material used for the production and brewing technique. Indeed tamarind is a tropical plant whose fruits are known to be rich in organic acids and phenolic acids [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref27">27</xref>] . The sugar content plays an important role in the soluble solids content of beverages. An average soluble solid of 10.74 &#177; 0.14 ˚Brix was registered for the “Alme ardeb” beverage. The soluble solids are higher than that of cashew apple juice (7 &#177; 0.03 ˚Brix) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref24">24</xref>] and “kounou” (8.19 &#177; 0.59) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref25">25</xref>] , but lower than that of date juice (16 ˚Brix) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref28">28</xref>] . The results show that the “Alme” contains a total sugar content lower than that found by on “fol&#233;r&#233;” juice (160.6 g∙L<sup>−1</sup>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref4">4</xref>] , and much higher than those found on fruit juice in Algeria (12.15 g∙L<sup>−1</sup>) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref29">29</xref>] . Finally, the conductivity of the different samples is clearly lower than that found by on apple juice in Ivory Coast [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref24">24</xref>] , which varies from 1031 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup> to 3900 &#181;S∙cm<sup>−1</sup>. Supposedly, “Alme ardeb” might contain little or just trace of electrolytes. Furthermore, the phytochemical analyses revealed that the average total polyphenol content (2.2 &#177; 0.01 gEG∙L<sup>−1</sup>) of “Alme ardeb” is lower than that found with “Kounou” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref25">25</xref>] which has an average content of 11 g∙L<sup>−1</sup> and higher than that of cashew apple juice (1.8 g∙L<sup>−1</sup>) produced in Ivory Coast [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref24">24</xref>] . The difference observed between these values is probably related to the nature of the raw material (sugar, sorghum and cashew apple) used to prepare these drinks. Flavonoids are a group of phenolic compounds common in plants and of low molecular weight. The total flavonoid content of “Alme ardeb” ranged from 0.30 to 0.73 g∙L<sup>−1</sup>. This result confirms this chemical class is the major constituent of the polyphenol fraction. It is lower than that of the red beer kapsiki which varies between 0.75 g∙L<sup>−1</sup> and 1.3 g∙L<sup>−1</sup> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref30">30</xref>] and higher than that obtained on strawberry juice in Algeria [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref31">31</xref>] . This observed difference could be justified by the contents of total polyphenols, geographical, climatic and genetic factors could also influence the content of phenolic compounds. The free radical and antioxidant activity of the beverages was therefore relatively dependent on the total polyphenol and flavonoid content, the more flavonoids a beverage has, the more it is considered a good antioxidant. There is a close relationship between the polyphenol content of a drink and its antioxidant capacity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref32">32</xref>] .</p><p>On the other hand, the microbiological analysis of “Alme ardeb” samples revealed a high rate of total aerobic plate count except for the Maroua II site. It should be noted that the high load of aerobic mesophilic flora is much more noticeable in the rural sites (Bogo, Dargala, Gazawa and Pett&#233;), which can be explained by the lack of hygiene awareness of the rural population. These results corroborate those obtained on “fol&#233;r&#233;” juices in three towns in the Far North region of Cameroon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref4">4</xref>] , but are inferior to those obtained on “Zoom koom” in Ivory Coast [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref2">2</xref>] and on “kounou” in Cameroon [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref25">25</xref>] . The total coliforms vary significantly from one site to another. The highest value of total coliforms was observed in “Alme ardeb” sampled from Dargala and Bogo sites, which could be justified by post-production contamination, the quality of the water used and also at the time of sale. These results are similar to those obtained on “zoom-koom” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref33">33</xref>] where the coliform rate varied between 1.10 CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> and 1.0 &#215; 10<sup>5</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup>, and higher than those obtained with “kounou” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref25">25</xref>] . The presence of faecal coliforms in certain samples can be explained by exogenous contamination of faecal origin. They are evidence of defective hygiene during or after processing [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref34">34</xref>] . However, during the bottling of “Alme ardeb”, hands are involved, which would play a considerable role in the contribution of microorganisms, given the lack of respect for personal hygiene and also the doubtful origin of the bottles could be a factor. These results are similar to those obtained on “zoom-koom” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref33">33</xref>] where the number of colonies varied between 10 CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup> and 5.4 &#215; 10<sup>4</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup>. However, the varying load of coliforms implies a poor hygienic quality of the “Alme ardeb” samples from the four rural sites (Dargala, Bogo, Gazawa, Pett&#233;) in contrast to those from the urban site (Maroua). On the other hand, the fungal flora in the samples was below the AFNOR standard (10<sup>5</sup> CFU∙mL<sup>−1</sup>) and completely absence in beverage samples from Maroua III. The presence of fungal flora in some samples could be explained by the fact that the acidic nature of the drinks favouried the growth of yeasts [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref35">35</xref>] . Yeasts and moulds have an optimum pH between 4.5 and 6.5 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref36">36</xref>] . This pH is in line with those registered with “Alme ardeb” in the course of this study (between 4.25 &#177; 0.01 and 5.74 &#177; 0.05).</p><p>Fortunately, all the beverage samples were palatable with a high degree of appreciation. The non-significant observed in the overall scores of “Alme” from different sites would be a sign of homogeneity and perfect mastery of the manufacturing process among brewers. This homogeneity seems surprising since the production is empirical. In addition, the presence of the ingredients (ginger, lemon grass and cloves) contributed to the significant improvement of the sensory characteristics of “Alme ardeb”. The fresh taste and strong aroma noted could be due to the aromatic compounds contained in this drink. The aroma enhancement in a beverage can also be correlated to their organic acid content [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.127071-ref37">37</xref>] . It can therefore be confirmed that “Alme ardeb” is an acidic drink with a characteristic brownish colouration and sweet caramelized taste.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>The traditional production and characterisation of “Alme ardeb” made in the northern regions, Cameroon was investigated. The production of “Alme ardeb” remains conventional and rudimentary with uncontrolled addition of some ingredients, hence most operations is critical. Despite this empirical production, the pH was acidic with varying total acidity, soluble solids, conductivity and total sugar. Apart from its nutritional potentials, “Alme ardeb” seems to exert biological functions as it contains a broad of phenolic compounds. The beverage presents doubtful microbiological aspects with varying loads of hygienic indicators. However, the beverage is seen to be well praised and cherished by the local population most especially for it colour, taste, acidity and aroma. To bring more light on the quality and to determine the critical control points, a traceability study from production to sale as well as the isolation and identification of the different microbial strains present in this drink could be envisaged, for a better knowledge of the contamination factors and the types of microorganisms encountered in the “Alme ardeb”.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Bakari, D., Abdouramane, S.K., Bruno, F.Y., Garga, Y. and Leopold, T.N. (2023) Traditional Processing and Characterization of “Alme Ardeb”, an Indigenous Beverage from Far North Region, Cameroon. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 14, 730-745. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2023.148048</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.127071-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Konan, A.H. (2016) Altération microbienne des boissons.Rapport stage de Master 1 en sciences et technologies des aliments. Université Nangui Abrogoua, Abidjan, C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire. 89 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Karamoko, D., Moroh, J.-L.A., Kambire, O., N’guessan, K.R. and Dje, K.M. (2020) Caractérisation physico-chimique et microbiologique d’une boisson artisanale (Zoomkoom) vendue dans la ville de Korhogo. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 29, 559-569.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bayo&amp;#239;, J.R., Djoulde, D.R. and Etoa, F.-X. (2016) Technologie de fabrication, propriétés physico-chimiques et microbiologiques de la bière “kapsiki blanche” produite dans les monts Mandara au Nord-Cameroun. Afrique Science, 12, 123-134.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bayo&amp;#239;, J.R., Djoulde, D.R., Maiwore, J., Bakary, D., Josiane, S.E., Barak, N., Guy, T., Rodrigue, T.S., Ngang, J.J.E. and Etoa, F.X. (2014) Influence du procédé de fabrication sur la qualité microbiologique du jus de “folere” (Hibiscus sabdariffa) vendu dans trois villes du cameroun: Maroua, Mokolo et Mora. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 9, 786-796.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Daoudou, B., Nouhou, M., Yaya, G., Bayo&amp;#239;, J.R. and Tatsadjieu, N.L. (2023) Traditional Manufacturing and Characterisation of “Kargasok”, an Indigenous Tea Made in the Far North Region, Cameroon. EAS Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences, 5, 72-81. https://doi.org/10.36349/easjnfs.2023.v05i03.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ma&amp;#239;woré, J., Bouba, A.A., Ngoune, L.T. and Mbofung, C.M. (2016) Source of Water and Microbial Quality of Some Beverages Consumed on the Streets of Great Agglomerations of the Far-North Region of Cameroon. International Journal of Library Science and Research, 2, 665-670.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mathieu, B., Zenabou, G., Hamadou, L., Alim, A.Y.Y. and Amadou, N.M. (2021) Caractérisation de l’artisanat agro-alimentaire de la ville de Garoua (Nord, Cameroun. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 159, 16429-16437. https://doi.org/10.35759/JABs.159.7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Katuka, Y.B., Anthony, J.D. and Auwalu U. (2017) Isolation of Enteric Bacteria from Hawked “Kunun-Zaki” in Chikun Local Government Area of Kaduna State. American Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 5, 96-98. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajlm.20170205.13</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Muyanja, C.M.B.K., Narvhus, J.A., Treimo, J. and Langsrud, T. (2003) Isolation, Characterization and Identification of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Bushera: A Ugandan Traditional Fermented Beverage. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 80, 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00148-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Debebe, A., Temesgen, S., Redi-Abshiro, M., Chandravanshi, B.S. and Ele, E. (2018) Improvement in Analytical Methods for Determination of Sugars in Fermented Alcoholic Beverages. Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry, 10, Article ID: 4010298. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4010298</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Bayo&amp;#239;, J.R. and Djoulde, D.R. (2017) Traditional Processing and Quality Control of the “Red Kapsiki”: A Local Sorghum Beer from Northern Cameroon. In: Kanauchi, M., Ed., Brewing Technology, Chapter 8, IntechOpen, London, 159-175.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boizot, N. and Charpentier, J.P. (2006) Méthode rapide d’évaluation du contenu en composés phénoliques des organes d’un arbre forestier. Le Cahier des Techniques de l’INRA, Ardon, Suisse. 79-82.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chang, C.-C., Yang, M.-H., Wen, H.-M. and Chern, J.-C. (2002) Estimation of Total Flavonoid Content in Propolis by Two Complementary Colometric Methods. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, 10, 41-53. https://doi.org/10.38212/2224-6614.2748</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sun, T., Tang, J. and Powers, J.R. (2005) Effect of Pectolytic Enzyme Preparations on the Phenolic Composition and Antioxydant Activity of Asparagus Juice. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 113, 964-969.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">AOAC (2008) Official Methods of Analysis. 17th Edition, The Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Methods 925.10, 65.17, 974.24, 992.16.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ribot, E.M., Fair, M.A., Gautom, R., Cameron, D.N., Hunter, S.B., Swaminathan, B. and Barrett, T.J. (2006) Standardization of Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis Protocols for the Subtyping of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Shigella for PulseNet. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 3, 59-67. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2006.3.59</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Olufunke, A.P. and Oluremi, K.O. (2015) Assessment of Nutritional and Sensory Quality of Kunun-Zaki, A Home-Made Traditional Nigerian Beverage. Journal of Nutrition and Food Science, 5, 358-364.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Belguedj, N., Bassi, N., Fadlaoui, S. and Agli, A. (2015) Contribution à l’industrialisation par l’amélioration du processus traditionnel de fabrication de la boisson locale à base de datte “Rob”. Journal of New Sciences, Agriculture and Biotechnology, 20, 818-829.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Roger, D.D., Venassius, L., Justin, E.N.J. and Xavier, E.F. (2013) Processing of “Amgba”: A Sorghum-Maize Based Beer, Brewed in Cameroon. Journal of Brewing and Distilling, 4, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.5897/JBD12.004</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bayo&amp;#239;, J.R., Vandi, Y., Foundikou, B.Y. and Etoa, F.-X. (2021) Traditional Processing, Physicochemical Property, Phytochemical Content, and Microbiological and Sensory Quality of the Yellow “Téa Lémi” Wine Made in the Far-North of Cameroon. Journal of Food Quality, 2021, Article ID: 6634747. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6634747</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">CODEX STAN 247 (2005) Normes générale codex pour les jus et les nectars de fruits. Codex Alimentarius, Bruxelles, 1-19.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chabane, N. and Azem, S. (2016) Analyses physico-chimiques de trois marques du jus d’orange et dosage de l’aspartame et du benzoate de sodium. Mémoire de fin d’étudesen vue de l’obtention de dipl&amp;#244;me de Master en Sciences Agronomiques. Université Mouloud Mammeri de Tizi-Ouzou, Tizi Ouzou, Algérie. 96 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ouattara, Y., Lassana, B.T. and Mohamadou, A. (2018) Contr&amp;#244;le de la qualité microbiologique des boissons de fabrication artisanale dans la commune V du District de Bamako. Symposium Malien sur les Sciences Appliquées, 7, 228-231.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ouattara, G.S., Doudjo, S., Kouamé, O.C. and Ernest, K.K. (2016) Caractérisation physico-chimique et sensorielle de diverses formulations de jus à base de pomme de cajou et d’ananas. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 10, 2447-2460. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v10i6.4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ma&amp;#239;woré, J., Baane, M.P., Djetadom, L., Hamadou, D. and Léopold, T.N. (2021) Influence du procédé de fabrication sur la qualité physico-chimique et microbiologique du “kounou”, une boisson locale à base de céréales consommée à Maroua (Cameroun). American Journal of Innovative Research and Applied Sciences, 13, 370-378.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tapsoba, F.W., Sawadogo, H., Kabore, D., Diarra, C.S. and Mamoudou, H.D. (2017) Effect of the Fermentation on the Microbial Population Occurring during the Processing of Zoom-Koom, a Traditional Beverage in Burkina Faso. African Journal of Microbiology Research, 11, 1075-1085. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR2017.8591</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Habamubgu, S.S., Kazadi, M. and Kafumba, K.M. (2014) Evaluation chimique et microbiologique des boissons locales nouvellement introduites et produites par la population du sud-kivu: cas des groupements de Katana et Bugorhe. International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 8, 736-742.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Darine, A. (2008) Suivi des Caractéristiques Microbiologiques et Physicochimiques des Jus des Dattes Conservés par Irradiation Gamma. Rapport de projet de fin d’études en vue de l’obtention du diplome de Technicien Supérieur en Industries Agro-alimentaire. Institut Supérieure des Etudes Technologiques de Zagouan, Zaghouan, Tunisie. 64 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Widad, Z. and Fatiha, C. (2018). Essai de la Fabrication D’Une Boisson Fermentée à Base de jus de la Fraise et de Lactosérum. Mémoire de fin d’études en vue de l’obtention du dipl&amp;#244;me de Master Académique en Biologie; Option Technologie Agroalimentaire et Contr&amp;#244;le de Qualité. Université de Jijen, Jijel, Algérie. 82 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bayo&amp;#239;, J.R., Djoulde, D.R., Aboubakar, D., Essia-Ngang, J.J. and Etoa, F.-X. (2015) Processing and Quality of “Red Kapsiki” an Opaque Beer from “Mandara” Mountain in Cameroon. British Biotechnology Journal, 9, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.9734/BBJ/2015/18919</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zernadji, W. and Chebchoub, F. (2018) Essai de la fabrication d’une boisson fermentée à base de jus de la fraise et de lactosérum. Mémoire de fin d’études en vue de l’obtention du dipl&amp;#244;me  de Master Académique en biologie; Option Technologie Agroalimentaire et Contr&amp;#244;le de Qualité. Université de Jijen, Jijel, Algérie. 82 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Beddou, F. (2015) Etudes phytochimiques et activités biologiques de deux plantes médicinales sahariennes, Rumex vesicarius L. et Anvillea radiata Coss. &amp; Dur. Université Abou Bekr Belkaid, Tlemcen, 164 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Razaak, S.M.A.A. (2014) Utilisation de cultures de Lactobacillus fermentum dans la technologie du zoom-koom, une boisson locale à base de mil (pennisetum glaucum) pour améliorer sa qualité nutritionnelle, sanitaire et organoleptique. Mémoire de fin d’études, en vue de l’obtention du master en biologie appliquée et modélisation des systèmes biologiques. Institut du Développement Rural (IDR), Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. 84 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Conte, S. (2008) Evolution des caractéristiques organoleptiques physico-chimiques et microbiologiques du lait caillé traditionnel. Université de Dakar, Dakar, 96 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yao, A.A., Egounlety, M., Kouamé, L.P. and Thonart, P. (2009) Les bactéries lactiques dans les aliments ou boissons amylacés et fermentés de l’Afrique de l’Ouest: Leur utilisation actuelle. Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire, 153, 54-65.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gabriel, S. (1986) Contribution à l’étude de la qualité microbiologique des laits caillés industriels commercialisés dans la région de Dakar. Thèse de Médecine vétérinaire. Université de Dakar, Dakar, Sénégal. Pages 144 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.127071-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adjou, E.S., Amamion, H., Tchobo, F.P., Aissi, V.M. and Soumanou, M.M. (2013) Extraction assistée par enzyme du jus de la pulpe fraiche r&amp;#244;nier (Borassus aethiopum Mart.) acclimaté au Benin: Caractérisation physico-chimique et microbiologique. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 7, 1135-1146. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v7i3.20</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>