## 3 Results and Discussion
### Nutritional Value of GF Bread  
Nutritional information for bread formulations was estimated and is shown in Table 4, so that it can be compared with data from previous studies ([PERSON] et al., 2018; [PERSON] et al., 2018; [PERSON] et al., 2018). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Energy and Nutrient Values (per 100 g of Bread)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Formulations**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Ctrl** & **CP** & **GFB5** & **GFB6** & **GFB8** \\ \hline Energy (kcal) & 202.15 & 203.64 & 184.30 & 183.29 & 181.49 \\ Carbohydrates (g) & 42.24 & 39.10 & 33.29 & 32.60 & 31.43 \\ Sugars (g) & 1.31 & 1.22 & 1.02 & 0.99 & 0.94 \\ Dietary fiber (g) 1 & 3.65 & 3.30 & 6.23 & 6.92 & 8.15 \\ Protein (g) & 2.71 & 5.59 & 5.15 & 5.14 & 5.12 \\ Total lipid (g) & 3.49 & 3.44 & 3.14 & 3.13 & 3.11 \\ Saturated fat (g) & 0.51 & 0.50 & 0.45 & 0.45 & 0.45 \\ Magnesium (mg) 2 & ND & ND & 2.35 & 2.86 & 3.78 \\ Calcium (mg) 2 & ND & ND & 1.06 & 1.29 & 1.71 \\ Iron (mg) 2 & ND & ND & 0.07 & 0.09 & 0.11 \\ Manganese (mg) 2 & ND & ND & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03 \\ Copper (mg) 2 & ND & ND & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.05 \\ Zinc (mg) 2 & ND & ND & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.03 \\ Salt (g) & 1.57 & 1.56 & 1.44 & 1.44 & 1.44 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Nutritional values for Ctrl, CP, GFB5, GFB6 and GFB8. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Batches**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & & **A** & **B** & **C** & **D** \\ \hline Minerals & Mg & 475.00 & (25.792) & 478.00 & (33.651) & 440.00 (30.4785) & 439.50 (10.911) \\ (\(\mu\)g/g) & Ca & 221.00 & (9.370) & 210.00 & (16.107) & 227 (20.031) & 241.00 (16.383) \\  & Mn & 4.030 & (0.029) & 4.01 & (0.189) & 4.055 (0.268) & 4.510 (0.166) \\  & Fe & 18.10 & (3.058) & 11.10 & (1.276) & 22.50 (1.456) & 37.20 (1.528) \\  & Cu & 6.79 & (0.368) & 6.69 & (0.254) & 5.540 (0.323) & 7.270 (0.265) \\  & Zn & 3.44 & (0.330) & 3.57 & (0.375) & 6.330 (0.466) & 7.405 (0.331) \\  & Se & \textless{}LOQ & \textless{}LOQ & \textless{}LOQ & \textless{}LOQ & \textless{}LOQ \\ Protein (\%) & & 3.85 & (0.38) & 3.73 & (0.12) & 2.98 (0.17) & 3.47 (0.28) \\ Ash (\%) & & 1.55 & (0.27) & 2.37 & (0.48) & 1.94 (0.41) & 1.55 (0.12) \\ Fiber fractions & HMWDF (g/100 g) & 75.000 & (1.414) & 89.000 & (1.414) & 74 (1.414) & 82.5 (1.212) \\  & IDF (\%) & 65.31 & & 73.07 & 68.93 & 64.88 \\  & SDFP (\%) & 34.69 & & 26.93 & 31.07 & 35.12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mineral and fiber mean content (standard deviation) of A–C apple pomace powder (APP) batches, collected in four different days from October to December. GFB with APP had less simple carbohydrates and fats and more protein, fiber and micronutrients than Ctrl bread, supporting the use of APP as a fortification ingredient in bread. It is worth noting that all the GFB formulations in our study contained a lower amount of carbohydrates and a higher amount of fiber than the amounts declared for most of the commercial GF breads that are currently on the market [41]. Energy contribution tended to be slightly lower than marketed products, while proteins remained similar. Salt content was higher than in general GF commercial formulations. Salt was added at 1.5% to the formulations, based on values observed in commercial products. This was not an objective in this study, so it was maintained at that level in all the samples. However, the authors will keep it as a variable to adapt in the future in order to meet the current daily recommendation of 2 g/day [42]. Nutrient contribution within reference values was expressed in 100 g (two 50 g portions), which could be a realistic daily intake (Table 4). This way, daily energy contribution would be 9.0-9.2%, while carbohydrate, sugar, protein and total lipids were 12.0-12.8%, 1.0-1.12%, 10.2-10.3%, and 4.42-4.48%, respectively, considering the reference intake of an average adult (8400 kJ/2000 kcal) from European Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers [43].