## 3 Results and Discussion
### Determination of the Physicochemical Properties of Legume-Derived Beverages
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Tested** \\ **Parameter** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Raw** \\ **Material** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Type of Beverage**} & \multirow{3}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Values of Pearson** \\ **Correlation (t) \({}^{**}\)** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{3-4}  & &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Before** \\ **Pasteurization** \\ \end{tabular} & & **Control \({}^{*}\)** & **48 h** & **72 h** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{pH} & Ch & 7.57 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{dB}}\) & 7.53 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{eB}}\) & 4.89 \(\pm\) 0.012 \({}^{\text{bA}}\) & 4.82 \(\pm\) 0.013 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.878}\) \\  & RL & 7.68 \(\pm\) 0.010 \({}^{\text{cC}}\) & 7.58 \(\pm\) 0.013 \({}^{\text{bC}}\) & 5.32 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & 5.31 \(\pm\) 0.010 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.867}\) \\  & GL & 7.17 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{cA}}\) & 7.08 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{bA}}\) & 5.55 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{aC}}\) & 5.54 \(\pm\) 0.024 \({}^{\text{aC}}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.869}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{TEC [°Brix]} & Ch & 5.62 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{dB}}\) & 5.30 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{cA}}\) & 4.12 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{bAB}}\) & 2.26 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.942}\) \\  & RL & 5.74 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{dC}}\) & 5.32 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{cA}}\) & 4.14 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{bB}}\) & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.929}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & GL & 5.38 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{cA}}\) & 5.24 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{cA}}\) & 3.96 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{bA}}\) & 2.14 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{aAB}}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.952}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of changes in pH and total extract content among tested beverages. The present results reveal that the probiotic fermentation also led to a reduction in the fiber content in the legume-based beverages (Table 2). This is consistent with the findings elucidated by [PERSON] et al. (2017), who noted that microorganisms participating in fermentation can degrade fiber and induce alterations in its constituent fractions. In general, the beverages derived from chickpeas exhibited the highest contents of IDF, SDF, and TDF at every stage of fermentation. The sole exception was observed in the control variant of red lentils (RL-0), which had SDF content comparable to that in the chickpea products (Table 2). The reduction in the IDF, SDF, and TDF levels across all the fermented beverage variants may also be attributed to the enzymatic activity of bacteria, including cellulases, \(\alpha\)-galactosidaseases, and others. These enzymes facilitate the degradation of dietary fiber, leading to the conversion of IDF into soluble fractions, which are more susceptible to further modifications ([PERSON] et al., 2018). These findings are congruent with those reported by [PERSON] et al. (2018), who demonstrated that the fermentation process resulted in a considerable decrease in the total dietary fiber content in chickpea dhal (from 161.2 to 82.4 g/kg). Furthermore, across all the beverage variants, a discernible negative correlation between the duration of probiotic fermentation and the contents of IDF, SDF, TDF, and ash was observed (Table 3). Additionally, a similar correlation between the fermentation time and the moisture content was noted in the case of products derived from both chickpeas and green lentils. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Legume-Based** & **IDF** & **SDF** & **TDF** & **Ash** & **Moisture** \\
**Beverage** & **[\% d.m. ]** & **[\% d.m. ]** & **[\% d.m. ]** & **[\% d.m. ]** & **[\%]** \\ \hline Ch-0 & 17.35 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{