Composite flour is a mixture of various cereals, pulses and oilseeds at varied proportion which contains abundant of nutrients and beneficial for health especially for those people who are suffering from lifestyle disorders like- diabetes mellitus, obesity, constipation, colon cancer etc. Chapatti is a staple food consumed by people which is prepared from cooking dough of flour and water (Habib & Nisar 2024). The chapatti prepared from wheat flour is mostly consumed by population because of its easy availability and accessibility but due to certain circumstances preference was not given to it although it contains protein gluten which expands and gives appealing texture but high in glycemic index. Food supplements provide concentrated doses of essential nutrients that may degrade during storage, such as vitamin C tablets and omega-3 capsules (Kachhot, 2024). The development of missi chapatti made from composite flour of wheat, chickpea, soya bean and methi leaves powder enhances its nutritional composition as well as keeping quality (Kadam et al., 2012). Protein energy malnutrition is increasing rapidly among children and adults. However, Maize (Zea mays) restrained inexpensive nutrients though its nutritional quality boosted by incorporating other food substances (Bamidele and Fasogbon 2020). Lifestyle diseases are increasing day-to-day among population because of their unhealthy life style pattern, poor eating habitats, unavailability, scarcity etc. The consumption of normal wheat flour chapatti, people are getting only one specific nutrient i.e. protein (Sankararao, 2016). Cereal grains are part of human diet which provides 60-70% carbohydrate content per 100 g, variety of grains are cultivated in India which are accompanied with more than one nutrient, so combination of more than one ingredients not only enhances in terms of its nutritional composition but also minimizes the risk of diseases (Lal et al., 2022). However, the whole cereal grains are recognized as an important source of soluble or insoluble dietary fibre, vitamins mainly B-complex and trace minerals (Misra et al., 2009). Maize being an affordable and inexpensive crop which demands lesser water content or drought tolerant, rich in antioxidant content (ß-carotene). Sakarya variety of sweet corn contain higher percentage of nutrients in different parts (embryo, shell as well as endosperm) of kernel likewise water (13%), proteins (11.2%), fat (4.6%) and starch (72.3%) (Budak and Aydemir 2020). Flax seed (Linum usitatissimmum) is an oilseed crop. It contains good fat (ɷ-3fatty acid), leads to increase in HDL cholesterol and ultimately minimizes the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) also known as "gram" or "desi chana" is mostly included in people diet in various forms. Chickpea reduces the happening of type II diabetes mellitus because it contributes to insulin resistance responses. Barley (Hordeum vulgare) is a major cereal grain crop mainly grown in temperate climates. It is known for its specific quality i.e. rich in dietary fibre ß- glucan which declines blood cholesterol level and facilitates glycemic regulation by enhancing the growth of gut microbiota. Finger millet (Eleusine coracana) or "Ragi" is prominent for its nutritional composition among cereals, slow digestion of ragi keeps people away from intake of enormous calories (ICAR-IIMR, 2017). Ragi contains 364 mg/100g of calcium (Longvah et al., 2017) which enhances bone mineral density. Furthermore, wheat is principal cereal crop as well as profusely consumable in whole world. Well, a known fact is that it enhances the rolling capability of the product because of its gluten content. Considering all these aspects, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the nutritional composition, quality characteristics, and sensory attributes of chapatti made from maize-based composite flour (Wani & Kumar 2024).

Procurement of raw materials

This study was carried out in the Food and Nutrition Laboratory of the College of Community Science, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University (RPCAU), Bihar. The grains were selected for the study viz. ragi (Finger millet), linseed, chickpea, barley maize (variety “Lakshmi”) including wheat. However, maize was purchased from farmers while other items were brought from Pusa (local market) The study was conducted during 2021.

Processing of raw ingredients

Firstly, all the ingredients were cleaned properly to discard non-consumable parts like stones, leaves including other foreign matters subsequently they were under gone for different processing methods. The maize was immersed in dual quantity of water according to its weight (1:2 weight/volume) for 10-15 minutes at room temperature; boiling was continued for 30 minutes. Once temperature become normal; water removed then dried in hot air oven at temperature 65°C for 10 hrs; dried grains of maize  was grinded and put it in the moisture free container. Whereas, flax seed were roasted at 180ºC for 10-15 minutes; leave it for cooling at room temperature then grounded and packed. Barley, finger millet, chickpea including wheat was immersed whole night (1:2 weight/volume); moreover, in morning water removed from soaked grains then dried in hot air oven at temperature 60-65ºC for 7 hrs. except chickpea which wants more time to dry (10 hrs.). However, processed ingredients were grinded individually and stored in moisture proof container till it use. 

Preparation of composite flour 

The composite flour was formulated using various combinations of different grain flours. The control T0 (100% wheat flour) and other five treatments were also prepared by incorporated composite flour i.e. T1 (50:10:20:20) contains maize, flaxseed, chickpea and barley flour; T2 (50:10:20:10:10) contains maize, flaxseed, chickpea, finger millet and wheat; T3 (50:10:20:20) consists maize, flaxseed, chickpea and finger millet; T4 (50:10:20:10:10) had maize, flaxseed, chickpea, barley and wheat whereas, T5 (50:10:10:10:10:10) contains maize, flaxseed, chickpea, barley, finger millet and wheat respectively.

Formulation of chapatti

The chapatti was formulated by incorporating composite flour in varied proportions and compared with 100% wheat flour (Fig.1) because chapatti of wheat flour are in general consumption. The normal wheat chapatti can be replaced by multigrain chapatti because it enhances in terms of taste and nutritional health benefits (Agrawal et al., 2015). First of all, flour made from different raw ingredients (grains) was mixed properly then soft dough was prepared by adding water, dough was divided into equal portion subsequently small balls were prepared. The prepared balls were rolled out with the help of rolling pin. Then, cooked on a hot tawa and flipped both the sides until brown colored appearance and served as hot (Fig.1).

Nutritional composition 

Energy

The energy content of chapatti was calculated by factorial method i.e. Protein: 4 kcal/g, Carbohydrate: 4g/100g and Fat: 9g/100g.

Crude protein

The crude protein content of the chapatti was assessed by measuring its total nitrogen using the standard Micro-Kjeldahl method (NIN, 1983). The protein analysis involved three main steps: digestion, distillation, and titration. After estimating nitrogen content, the crude protein content calculated by multiplied with 6.25.

Crude fat

Crude fat of chapatti was determined by using standard method as stated in AOAC (2000). 

Crude fibre: The crude fibre was determined by using acid alkali treatment as given in AOAC (2000).

Calcium

Calcium was determined by complexo-metric titration using disodium solution of ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) (Cheng and Bray, 1951).

Iron and Zinc

The micronutrient (iron and zinc) was calculated by using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) (Lindsay and Norvell 1978).

Determination of quality parameters of chapatti

Dimension: Keeping in view, the dimension of chapatti developed by using different treatments and evaluated with the help of a ruler scale and compass, measured in terms of length, breadth, and area (cm2). Prior to diameter length and breadth was measured, find out radius from center point. With the help of compass circle was made. Dimension was compared with the developed composite flour chapatti to normal chapatti (wheat flour) developed by the people including department (food and nutrition) students.

Bulk Density (BD): The bulk density of different products was evaluated by picking weight of sample to the volume (w/v). BD of chapatti was found by using 100 ml of measuring cylinder into that 50 g of sample and noted reading of bulk volume. Mechanical tapping was done 10-15 times to remove air spaces between sample. The reading was recorded at which sample was settled thereafter, bulk density was evaluated with the help of given formula:

Bulk density (g/ml) =

Water absorption capacity (WAC): Water absorption capacity of chapatti was determined by method prescribed in AACC (2000). Weighed 1 g of sample in centrifugal tube and add 10 ml of water into that. Centrifuged at 2000 rpm for 15-20 minutes. Moreover, water was discarded and measured remaining water which was represented the volume of water absorbed by 1 g of sample. The WAC was measured with the help of given formula:

Water Absorption Capacity (%) = W2-W1/W1

Statistical analysis

All samples were analyzed in triplicate, and the results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The nutritional composition and sensory evaluation data of the chapattis were statistically analyzed using OPSTAT software. One-way ANOVA was employed to identify significant differences among the treatments, with statistical significance set at P<0.05. Moreover, paired t-test was accustomed to evaluate data of quality parameters at different level of significance (5% and 1%). There are various types of research design that are used in research such as ex post facto, experimental etc. (Srivastava et al., 2023; Arya et al., 2024). 

Sensory evaluation 

The chapatti formulated from maize based composite flour in different proportions was evaluated by semi-trained panel members for organoleptic and acceptability quality by using a 9 point hedonic rating scale (Lal et al., 2022). 

From the Table 1 it was found that 30g of flour was used for chapatti formulation from all treatments. More amount of water was taken by T3C3 (35 ml) or equal amount of water were utilized by T4C4 and T5C5 chapatti i.e. 30 ml followed by T2C2 or T1C1 (25 ml) and less by T0C0 (20 ml). Cooked weight of T3C3 chapatti (58.49) was higher in contrast with others. The quantity made of chapatti from each treatment was same that is two in numbers.

Table 1: The measured amount of ingredients incorporated for chapatti formulated from various proportions of flour in relation to control.

The chapatti formulated by incorporating various ingredients at different level of proportions; its nutritional composition has been illustrate in Table 2 and Fig 2. The highest energy content (Kcal/100g) were obtained in T3C3 (345.62±0.55) followed by T1C1 (342.78±0.50), T4C4 (332.88±0.57), T2C2 (324.05±0.75), T5C5 (320.90±0.82) and T0C0 (318.63±0.56) contained lower amount of energy. All treatments were significant at % level of probability. With regard to protein content (g/100g), T1C1 (10.50±0.00) had higher protein content followed by T4C4 (9.62±1.23), T3C3 (8.90±2.05), T2C2 (8.75±2.47), T5C5 (7.87±1.23), and T0C0 chapatti (7.19±0.72). Statistical data found significant difference (P<0.05) between one another except T5C5 when compared with to T0C0. Maharana et.al. (2024), concluded that adopting healthier diets and active lifestyles is critical for diabetes prevention. Public health efforts should focus on dietary education and lifestyle modification for effective intervention.

Fat content was found to be highest in T3C3 (5.35±0.30) as compared to other treatments of chapatti. Next higher content of fat was found in T2C2 (5.17±0.90), T1C1 (4.77±0.57), T4C4 (4.03±0.82), T5C5 (3.89±0.22) and lastly T0C0 (2.09±0.08) had lower content of fat. Statistically, all are significant while compared with control (P<0.05). 

The treatment T3C3 (18.88±1.36) had higher dietary fibre content (g/100g) in addition with T2C2 (18.28±1.82), T4C4 (16.32±0.51), T1C1 (15.99±0.51), T5C5 (14.68±0.61) and T0C0 (8.73±0.72) All treatments were showed significant difference (P<0.05) among themselves.

 In case of carbohydrate, T0C0 (68.03±0.85) seems to be first in position subsequently, T3C3 (65.42±1.20), T4C4 (64.69±0.83), T1C1 (64.32±1.73), T5C5 (63.40±1.79), and lower carbohydrate exist in T2C2 (62.74±4.70) respectively. All treatments clearly showed significant (P<0.05) difference when compared with control. 

Regarding mineral content, calcium was found highest in T3C3 (138.47±0.25) because of its composition (20% ragi). The T2C2 (91.92±0.63) had second position followed by T5C5 (87.03±1.96), T1C1 (65.18±0.15), T4C4 (61.59±0.54) and T0C0 (20.54±0.37) comparatively lower in content. The mean difference in all treatments exhibited significant difference each another (P<0.05). 

In terms of micronutrient (iron and zinc) as depicted in Table 2 T2C2 had (5.29±0.15) more in iron content (mg/100g) followed by T4C4 (5.02±1.57), T5C5 (4.52±0.61), T1C1 (3.48±0.41), T3C3 (2.50±0.50) and chapatti prepared from T0C0 (1.44±0.44) had lower iron content (mg/100g). However, significant difference found between each another except T3C3. The higher amount of zinc content (mg/100g) has been found in T5C5 chapatti (7.11±0.22) than T4C4 (6.93±0.56), T1C1 (6.25±1.90), T2C2 (5.06±2.48), T3C3 (3.53±0.62), and T0C0 (2.40±1.0) respectively. Therefore, except T3C3 each treatment of chapatti showed significant difference (P<0.05) between each another compared to control (Table 2).

Table 2: Nutritional composition of chapatti formulated from various treatments in relation to control (Wheat flour).

All the values are in Mean±SD

Fig. 2. Nutritional composition of chapatti formulated by using various treatments.

Quality parameters of chapatti

Dimension: The area of chapatti was compared with normal wheat flour (control) chapatti to check the spreadibility and rolling capacity. It can be observed from Table 3 that the treatment T3C3 (243.19±0.04) had maximum spreadibility followed by, T1C1 (237.64±0.05) T4C4 (232.23±0.04), T2C2 (226.84±0.06), T5C5 (221.55±0.02) and T0C0 (136.76±0.01) respectively.

Table 3: Dimension of chapatti formulated from various treatments.

Bulk density (BD)

The BD of chapatti exhibited in Table 4. Moreover, it was recognized that highest BD was in treatment T2C2 i.e. 0.85±0.01 followed by T4C4 and (0.78±0.01), T3C3 (0.76±0.01), T1C1 (0.73±0.0), T5C5 (0.72±0.0) and control (0.58±0.02) which had lower in bulk density (g/ml) as compared to other treatments of flour. Statistically, highly significant difference observed between all treatments when compared with control excluding T1C1 (P<0.05).

Water absorption capacity (WAC)

The water absorption capacity (g/ml) of chapatti formulated by different treatments by comparing control has been given in Table 5. The highest WAC was found to be in T3C3 (2.86±0.05) followed by T2C2 (2.70±0.03), T1C1 (2.66±0.05) in addition with T4C4 (2.56±0.05) and T5C5 (2.13±0.05) as compared to control (1.99±0.09) which absorb less amount of water. WAC indicated the volume of water taken per gram of flour sample. Statistical data manifested that the highly significant difference (P<0.01) were seen among each other when relate with control except T5C5.

Table 4: Bulk density of chapatti formulated from various flour treatments.

*Significant at 5% level of probability,  **Significant at 1% level of probability

Table 5: Water absorption capacity of chapatti formulate from various treatments in relation to control.

  NS- Non Significant

Organoleptic and acceptability features of chapatti

The organoleptic and acceptability features of chapatti were determined from various flour treatments for selected parameters (colour, taste, appearance, texture, flavour as well as overall acceptability). It was noted from the Table 6 that the appearance of treatment T0C0 (8.95) got highest score followed by T2C2 chapatti (8.90), T4C4 chapatti (8.81), T5C5 (8.45), T1C1 (7.83) and T3C3 (7.06) which scored less. The statistically analyzed data showed non-significant difference between T2C2, T4C4 and T5C5 treatment when compared to control (T0C0). The score of the color parameter, T0C0 chapatti got highest (9.05) followed by T2C2 chapatti (8.80), T5C5 formulated chapatti (8.72), T1C1 chapatti (7.76), and T3C3 chapatti (7.26) and least by T4C4 (7.03).  

Furthermore, excluding T2C2 and T5C5 others are significant (P<0.05) each other. In terms of taste, T2C2 formulated chapatti (9.16) scored highest among all other treatments followed by T3C3 chapatti (8.29), T4C4 chapatti (8.20), T5C5 chapatti (7.90), T1C1 chapatti (7.13) and T0C0 (7.05) got the least score. Except T1C1 and T5C5 all treatment was observed significantly different (P<0.05) within each other. In case of texture, the wheat flour chapatti (9.02) scored well followed by T2C2 chapatti (8.86), T5C5 chapatti (7.92), T1C1 chapatti (7.75), T3C3 chapatti (7.43), and T4C4 chapatti (7.16) which scored least. Statistically analyzed result indicated the significant difference (P<0.05) was found in each treatments of chapatti except T2C2 chapatti. With regard to flavor, the score of T2C2 chapatti (8.96) was the highest including T1C1 chapatti (8.80), T5C5 chapatti (8.66), T4C4 chapatti (8.16), T3C3 chapatti (7.53), and T0C0 (7.15) which scored least. The data showed significant difference (P<0.05) between one another except T3C3 when compared to control. Therefore, T2C2 chapatti scored highest i.e. 9.06 and overall acceptable respectively. Statistically, significant difference was obtained in all treatment of chapatti when compared to control excluding T4C4 and T5C5 chapatti which were non-significant among themselves (Fig 3).

Table 6: Sensory quality of chapatti formulated from various treatments.

Fig. 3. Organoleptic and acceptability features of chapatti.

Future studies may explore optimizing the proportions of composite flours to further enhance both nutritional and sensory qualities of chapattis. Advanced processing techniques such as fermentation or germination could be incorporated to improve bioavailability of nutrients. Additionally, large-scale trials and consumer acceptability studies across diverse populations can validate the findings. Investigations into the shelf life, glycemic index, and potential commercialization of such composite flours may also be undertaken.