## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **TPC** & **Carotenoids** & **Vitamin C** & **ABTS** & **RP** \\  & **(mg GAE/g)** & **(mg/g)** & **(mg/g)** & **(mg TE/g)** & **(mg TE/g)** \\ \hline MO1 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.15 d & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.10 a \\ MO2 & 6.9 \(\pm\) 0.6 e & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 1.0 \(\pm\) 0.11 b & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.16 c & 4.2 \(\pm\) 0.32 e \\ MO3 & 6.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 d & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 2.02 \(\pm\) 0.06 d & 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.28 d & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.19 d \\ MO4 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 b & 1.6 \(\pm\) 0.06 ab & 0.8 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 6.2 \(\pm\) 0.21 e & 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.08 b \\ MO5 & 6.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 d & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.10 ab & 1.4 \(\pm\) 0.07 c & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.18 b & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.20 e \\ MO6 & 5.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 bcd & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.10 ab & 0.8 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 6.0 \(\pm\) 0.12 e & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.13 d \\ MO7 & 5.5 \(\pm\) 0.4 bcc & 1.7 \(\pm\) 0.06 ab & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.03 c & 6.3 \(\pm\) 0.51 f & 3.1 \(\pm\) 0.14 c \\ MO8 & 5.9 \(\pm\) 0.7 cd & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.06 b & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.10 a & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.09 d \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* TPC—total phenolic content; ABTS—antiradical activity (2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); RP—reducing power; GAE—galic acid equivalent; TE—Trolox equivalent. Means (\(\pm\)5D; \(n=9\)) for analysis and samples followed by different small letters in column are significantly different (\(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Characteristic of powders mixtures—low-molecular-weight antioxidants and antioxidant properties. [PERSON] [49] in a study of a commonly prepared culinary mixture of vegetables, where inhibitors of lipoxygenases from tomato/garlic or tomato/lettuce acted antagonistically. Similarly, [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [50] found an antagonistic effect in a combination of raspberry/legume or raspberry/blackberry shown by the TRAP assay. Consumer perception of a new product should be regarded as a key strategy in the development of novel food products. The powders were rehydrated with water at two temperatures (20 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C) to reflect cold and hot beverages, respectively. Next, the beverages were subjected to consumer analysis, which covered quality-related properties including optical properties (color, appearance, consistency), sensory properties (aroma, taste, flavor), and overall acceptability. The results of the sensory panel are presented in Figure 1. The functional additives increased the value of color acceptance significantly. These values ranged from 3-7. The highest values for color were recorded for MO3 (enriched with strawberry) and MO5 (with the addition of raspberry and strawberry) in the case of \"cold\" rehydration and for MO2 (enriched with raspberry) and MO3 after \"warm\" hydration. Lentil sprouts, i.e., the basal source in our beverages, showed that the \"beany\" and \"insipid\" flavor negatively influenced the acceptance of the drinks. Probably, the lentil taste was still perceived; however, these undesirable organoleptic properties were slightly improved by enrichment with 10% of the functional additives. The best results were observed after the addition of raspberry (MO2). The supplemented beverages were well accepted by the panelists; however, higher overall acceptability was noted for beverages obtained at 20 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
[PERSON] [3] described challenges in developing drinks; high insoluble fiber content in a drink causes sensory issues like gritititness, which leads to lower consumer acceptability. On the other hand, consumer acceptance and interest are focused on naturally colored foods rich in naturally present colorants such as carotenoids or anthocyanins [51]. The wetting and rehydration stage is the key step in the process of powdered beverage manufacture.