Development of Maize based Composite Flour Cheela and its Effect on Nutritional, Sensory Characteristics and Quality Parameters

In the modern era people are consuming and prefer fast food. However, fast food is made from refined flour. Although refined flour is not good for health (Shipra et al., 2017). Cheela is staple food prepared from flour batter and additional ingredients. The composite flour product contains combination of different ingredients such as maize, flaxseed, chickpea, finger millet and barley with a better nutritional profile and therapeutic properties to reduce incidence of various lifestyle diseases. Composite flour used either binary or tertiary mixture of flours from some other crop with or without wheat flour (Noorfarahzilah et al., 2014). Nutritionally balanced food at affordable cost is a prime concern in attaining food and nutritional security among population in the world (Bamidele and Fasogbon, 2020). Globally, maize is one of the third most important cereal crop after rice and wheat. However, maize is the most multi-skilled emergent crop which is widely accepted under various agro-climatic environments. Maize crop demands lesser water content as compared to other cereal crops. Among the maize growing countries, India rank 4th in area and 7th in production which represent 4 per cent of world maize area and 2 per cent of total production (IIMR, 2017). Maize is a source of nutrition as well as phytochemical compounds. Moreover, it helps to prevent chronic diseases due to presence of major phytochemicals present in maize such as carotenoids, phenolic compounds and phytosterols (Rouf Shah  et al., 2016). Flax seed is a promising alternative to reduce the risk of diseases associated with body weight excess because it is rich in alpha-linolenic acid, ligans and dietary fiber (Machado et al., 2015). Flax seed is a globally important agricultural crop grown both for its seed oil and its stem fibre (Herchi et al., 2015). Flaxseed is emerging as an important functional food ingredient (Katte et al., 2024). Among the different legumes chickpea is categorized one of the oldest and most widely consumed legumes in the world as well as it is a staple food crop particularly tropical and sub-tropical region (Olika et al., 2019). Chickpea can be used to develop nutritionally value added products and hence products can be used as nutritious for low income group people and for patients suffering with lifestyle diseases (Hirdyani, 2014). Chickpea is a good source of carbohydrate and proteins, which together constitutes about 80 per cent of the total dry seed mass. The starch content of chickpea cultivators have been reported to vary 41 to 50 per cent (Jambunathan and Singh, 1980). The unavailable carbohydrate content in chickpea is higher than any other legumes moreover; carbohydrate has a lower digestibility than other pulses (Kamath and Belavady, 1980). Barley is a major food and animal feed crop whereas, the nutrient content of barley compares favorably with that of corn, oats, wheat and field peas. Eating whole grain barley can reduce blood glucose response to a meal for upto 10 hours after consumption is comparison to white or even whole grain wheat, having similar glycemic index (Alka et al, 2014). Finger millet also known, as ‘ragi’ is popular millet in India, consumed without dehulling. It is the principal food grain of the rural population belonging to low-income groups. At present finger millet is usually used for preparation of flour, pudding, porridge and roti (Chaturvedi and Srivastava, 2008). Ragi is considered to be ideal food for diabetic individuals due to its low sugar content and slow release of glucose/sugar in the body (Machado, 2015). The millets are a known source of dietary fiber and well known for minerals. The millets are processed by different ways viz. milling, soaking, germination, roasting, fermentation, popping, cooking, extrusion and radiation (Dagadkhair et al., 2025). Wheat (Triticum aestivum) is the most abundantly consumable and principal cereal crop which enhances the rolling capability of the product because of its gluten content. Therapeutic properties of whole wheat, is due to its bran along with germ which protect against diseases like- cardiovascular, diverticulum, appendicitis, constipation, obesity, etc. The present study has been conducted to develop composite flour for cheela preparation from maize in combination with other other food materials.

The present investigation was conducted in the research laboratory of Department of Food and Nutrition, College of Community Science, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar in the year of 2021. The grains like flaxseed, chickpea, wheat, barley and ragi selected for the study were procured from local market Pusa whereas maize (variety ‘Lakshmi’) was procured from farmers.
 
Processing of raw materials
 
The selected raw food grains were gone through different processing methods after cleaning viz. soaking, boiling and oven drying. Primarily all raw food grains were clean thoroughly to remove inedible parts and washed thoroughly. However, maize grains were soaked just double amount of water (1:2 w/v) for 15-20 minutes; boiled (30 minutes) and oven dried at 65^oC for 10 hours. Flaxseed were roasted at 180^oC for 10 to 15 minutes; cooled at room temperature and grounded. Ragi, wheat grains and chickpea were processed by soaking, overnight in water (1:2 w/v). Next day, water was drained and oven dried at 60-65^oC for 7 hours excluding chickpea which took 10 hours for drying. Dried grains were grounded separately and put it into air tight container till use so that it became moisture free.
 
Development of composite flour in different proportions
 
For the development of different proportions of flour, 50% of maize and 10% of flaxseed was constant because of maize had been selected as a base material and flaxseed have been decided to be added compulsorily due its nutritional and therapeutic properties. Only variations were in remaining 40% flour Table1. In developing countries the utilization of composite flour had several advantages such as: promotion of high yielding and better supply of protein for human nutrition (Jambunathan and Singh, 1980).


 
Formulation of cheela
 
The cheela was prepared by incorporating different treatments of flour in relation to wheat flour (100%). Primarily, onion and chilli was washed properly and chopped; after that batter was prepared by mixing all the ingredients including water at desired consistency; oil was applied in non-stick tawa, batter was poured and spread it to form thin layer therefore flipped both the sides until brown colour was developed and served as hot with sauce or chutney Fig 1.



Nutritional composition of cheela
 
The Energy content of cheela was calculated by factorial method i.e. Carbohydrate- 4 g/100 g, Protein- 4 g/100 g, Fat- 9 g/100 g respectively. The crude protein content was estimated by Micro-Kjeldahl method. However, protein percentage present in the sample was calculated by multiplying per cent nitrogen with 6.25 (Alka, 2014); whereas crude fibre, crude fat estimated by by the method prescribed by AOAC (2000). The micronutrient content (Fe and Zn) was determined by using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978). Calcium was analysed by complexo-metric titration method (Chang and Bray, 1951). Carbohydrate content was determined by subtracting the percentage of moisture, ash, cude protein, crude fat and crude fibre content from 100.
 
Determination of quality parameters of cheela
 
Dimension
 
The dimension of cheela prepared from varied proportion of flour was determined by means of ruler scale and compass and measured in terms of length, breadth and area (cm²). Dimension of different treatments of cheela was compared with control (wheat flour) which was made by different students in the Department of Food and Nutrition.

Bulk density
 
The bulk density of cheela was determined by taking 50g of sample into 100 ml of measuring cylinder. Bulk volume was measured. After that mechanical tapping was done for 10-15 times to remove air space between the sample. Bulk density was evaluated by given formula.
 

  

 
Statistical analysis
 
All the samples were taken in triplicate forms and represented as mean±SD. The analysis of variance (ANOVA- one way) of the data obtained was done by using completely randomized design (CRD) through OPSTAT software. The analysis of variance revealed at level of significance of P<0.05. Student t-test was used to analyze the data of quality parameters and check level of significance at 1% and 5%.
 
Sensory and organoleptic characteristics
 
Freshly prepared cheela of different treatments of flour was evaluated for sensory characteristics like- color, flavor, texture, taste and overall acceptability by semi-trained panel members, comprised of department, academic staff, students on 9-point hedonic rating scale.

The amount and ingredients used for cheela preparation from different treatments of flour are given in Table 2. The amount of flour (50 g), onion (15 g) salt (2 g), oil (5 ml) and green chilli (1.5 g) were used in same amount in all treatments. Differences were found in amount of water incorporated for making dough. The more of water was taken by T₃E₃ cheela (160 ml) followed by T₅E₅ (150 ml), T₄E₄ (140 ml), T₂E₂ and T₁E₁ (135 ml) as compared to wheat flour cheela (105). Lowest amount of water was taken by chickpea flour cheela (90). Cooked weight of T₃E₃ cheela was found to be 138 g which was highest among all.

​
 
Nutritional composition of cheela
 
The nutritional composition of cheela prepared from different treatments of flour is represented in Table 3. However, the highest energy content was found in T₀E_0.1 (387.76±2.13) and lowest in T₀E_0.2 (375.06±1.74). All treatments were found significant when compared to both T₀E_0.1 and T₀E_0.2. The highest protein content was found in T₀E_0.1 (19.36±0.04) and lowest in T₅E₅ (6.42±0.09) though in case of flour prepared from different composition T₂ contains highest protein content T₅ lowest (Yadav and Singh, 2022). Statistically, all treatments were found to be significant (P<0.05) compared T₀E_0.1 and T₀E_0.2 both. Fat content was highest in T₀E_0.1 (15.28±0.09) and lowest in T₀E_0.2 (6.58±0.06). The significant difference (P<0.05) was found among themselves when compared to T₀E_0.1 and T₀E_0.2. The highest fibre content has been found in T₀E_0.1 (25.70±0.28) and lower amount in T₀E_0.2 (11.84±0.96). Furthermore, all treatments showed significant difference (P<0.05) compared to both T₀E_0.1 and T₀E_0.2. With regard to carbohydrate, highest amount was seen in T₀E_0.2 (67.80±1.17) and lowest in T₀E_0.1 (43.21±0.05). Statistically, significant difference was found between when compared to T₀E_0.1 and compared to T₀E_0.2 (P<0.05).
       
In case of calcium content, treatment T₃E₃ (150.96±0.52) seems to be higher and T₀E₀. (32.40±0.43) lower. All treatments were clearly exhibited the significant difference (P<0.05) among each other when compared with T₀E_0.1 and T₀E_0.2 both. The treatment T₁E₁ (7.05±0.55) showed higher iron content and T₀E_0.2 (4.28±0.07) lower content. All treatment of have significant difference between each other compared to T₀E_0.1 and (P<0.05) and T₀E_0.2 both Table 3. Zinc content has been found highest in T₂E₂ (3.79±0.07) and lowest in T₀E_0.2 (2.90±0.02). The difference among all treatments was significant between one another when compared to T₀E_0.1 except T₃E₃ at five per cent level (P<0.05) among each other when compared to T₀E_0.2 respectively.


  
Determination of quality parameters of cheela
 
Dimension
 
The quality characteristics of formulated products were measured with regard to its dimension and bulk density. Cheela were prepared from different treatments of flour and compared with two control samples i.e. chickpea flour and wheat flour cheela Table 4. The area of cheela was measured to find out the expansion of cheela. The highest mean score for expansion of cheela was found in treatment T₃E₃ (226.56±0.52) and lowest expansion (cm²) was in diameter of T₀E_0.2 (153.54±0.63).

​

Bulk density
 
The bulk density of cheela had been presented in Table 5. It was observed that the highest bulk density was found to be in treatment T₂E₂ (0.65±0.03) and lowest in T₀E_0.2 c(0.52±0.02). The difference was shown highly significant only in T₁E₁ when compared with T_0.1 (P<0.01) while, others were also significant (P<0.05). However, when compared with T₀E_0.2 then highly significant (P<0.01) difference was shown by T₁E₁ and remaining was significant at P<0.01.

​
 
Organoleptic and acceptability quality of cheela
 
The organoleptic and acceptability of cheela was ascertained in different treatments of flour which has been illustrated in Table 6. It was observed that in case of appearance the highest score was found by treatment T₀E_0.1 (8.2) and lowest by T₀E_0.2 (6.2). Statistically when compared with T₀E_0.1 then significant difference (P<0.05) was found in all except T₅E₅. Moreover, the only significant difference was showed by T₄E₄ and T₅E₅ treatment when compared to T₀E_0.2. In the case of color, T₀E_0.1 treatment got highest (8.0) score and T₀E_0.2 lowest (6.3). Statistically, significant difference (P<0.05) between each other as compared to T₀E_0.1 except T₅E₅ was observed when compared to T₀E_0.2. Only significant difference was found in T₄E₄ and T₅E₅. With regard to taste, T₀E_0.1 was found to be highest score (8.9) compared to others. In case of taste highest score was found by T₅E₅ (8.5) and lowest T₀E_0.2 (6.2). Statistically, compared with T₀E_0.1 significant difference (P<0.05) was observed in all treatments of excluding T₅E₅. When compared to T₀E_0.2, all treatments showed significant difference among each other. In texture, the highest sensory score has T₀E_0.1 (8.3) and lowest T₀E_0.2 (6.1). All treatments was found to be statistically significant (P<0.05) except T₅E₅. However, non-significant difference was found only by T₁E₁ and T₃E₃ treatments as compared to T₀E_0.2. The treatment T₀E_0.1 showed highest (8.5) score in terms of flavor and T₀E_0.2 (6.8) got less. The result indicated that the significant difference was manifested among (P<0.05) all treatments compared to T₀E_0.1 excluding T₅E₅ and when compared with T₀E_0.2 then significant difference was found in T₄E₄ and T₅E₅. Therefore, overall acceptability of T₀E_0.1 was higher (8.9) and that of T₀E_0.2 (6.1) was lower. Statistically, significant difference was seen between all treatments when compared with T₀E_0.1 excluding T₃E₃ while, all treatments were found to be statistically significant (P<0.05) compared to T₀E_0.2.

​

In the present investigation, different treatments of flour were made and from that, cheela were prepared and subjected to analyze in term of nutritional characteristics, quality parameters. Sensory evaluation was also examined by different semi-trained panel members. The result showed that cheela made from chickpea flour T0E0.1 is rich nutritionally and also acceptable. Therefore, it is recommended that by replacing refined wheat flour to multigrain grain flour products in regular basis reduces the incidence of lifestyle diseases and makes people fit in future.

The authors are very thankful to the department of Food and Nutrition because of providing various facilities as per requirement for smooth conduct of work in time.

All authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.