## 2 Results and Discussion
### Texture  
Textural parameters of experimental pasta are shown in Table 2. Fortification of pasta with BLP resulted in a decrease in firmness and total shearing force (TSF) with increased BLP percentage. No significant differences were observed between B2.5 and B5 samples; however, a decreasing tendency was observed. The texture of pasta is an important parameter influencing consumer acceptance. Pasta firmness is defined as the peak force attained during the first comp \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **BLP** & **C** & **B2.5** & **B5** \\ \hline Moisture (\%) & - & 61.04 \(\pm\) 0.26 ** & 63.64 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 60.75 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Ash (\%) & 10.94 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.19 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Protein (\%) & 25.66 \(\pm\) 0.27 & 13.06 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.17 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.26 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Fat (\%) & 3.94 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 3.94 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.79 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 4.45 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Carbohydrate (\%) & 59.46 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 21.08 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 17.41 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 20.23 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \(L^{*}\) & 46.18 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 87.51 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 76.05 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 67.61 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \(A^{*}\) & \(-\)9.33 \(\pm\) 0.03 & \(-\)0.12 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)6.25 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(-\)6.26 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \(B^{*}\) & 27.39 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 14.05 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 28.14 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 31.48 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ WI & 38.89 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 81.20 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 62.52 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 54.41 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ BI & 66.67 \(\pm\) 0.29 & 16.99 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 38.20 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 52.57 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ OCT (min) & - & 3.56 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.03 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.44 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Cooking loss (\%) & - & 5.96 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 7.47 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.95 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Water absorption (\%) & - & 62.26 \(\pm\) 1.36 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 55.55 \(\pm\) 5.65 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 60.45 \(\pm\) 3.88 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Swelling index (\%) & - & 0.82 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.08 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.07 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Firmness (kg) & - & 13.37 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.09 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 11.96 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ TSF (kg s\({}^{-1}\)) & - & 87.30 \(\pm\) 4.11 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 76.09 \(\pm\) 1.52 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 73.90 \(\pm\) 5.53 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} (*) Different letters in the same line indicate a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)). C: control pasta; B2.5: pasta fortified with 2.5% broccoli leaf powder; B5: pasta fortified with 5% broccoli leaf powder; WL: whiteness index; BI: browning index; OCT: optimal cooking time; TSF: total shearing force.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Proximate composition, colour characteristics, cooking and texture properties of BLP and experimental pasta expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD). related to the strength and integrity of the protein matrix developed during the cooking process, whereas TSF is defined as the force to cut/shear [10; 30]. The present study showed that the incorporation of BLP into pasta decreased both textural parameters. Firmness can be reduced as a result of a higher SI [6], which was observed in BLP-fortified pasta. Similar findings were reported by [PERSON] et al. [31], who noted a decrease in the pasta firmness after the incorporation of carrot pomace. Based on the results reported by [PERSON] et al.