# Advance on the Capitalization of Grape Peels By-Product in Common Wheat Pasta
## 3 Results \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Hardness (N)** & **Resilience (Adim.)** & **Springiness \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) (Adim.)** & **Cohesiveness (Adim.)** \\ \hline Control & 14.13 \(\pm\) 0.62 \({}^{\rm f}\) & 1.22 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm abc}\) & 99.55 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\ GP1\% & 18.51 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 1.28 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 99.57 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm ab}\) & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm bc}\) \\ GP2\% & 24.71 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 1.25 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\rm ab}\) & 99.60 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\rm ab}\) & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ GP3\% & 26.64 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 1.22 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm abc}\) & 99.62 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm ab}\) & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ GP4\% & 28.21 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm abc}\) & 99.66 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\rm ab}\) & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm ab}\) \\ GP5\% & 32.11 \(\pm\) 0.51 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm bc}\) & 99.73 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\rm ab}\) & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm ab}\) \\ GP6\% & 38.77 \(\pm\) 1.19 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 1.14 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 99.75 \(\pm\) 0.91 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm a}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Effects of grape peel flour on dough texture. Figure 3: Effect of grape peel flour on dough elastic (G\({}^{\prime}\)) and viscous (G\({}^{\prime\prime}\)) moduli. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Moisture (\%)** & **Crude Ash (\%)** & **Crude Fat (\%)** & **Crude Protein (\%)** & **Carbohydrates (\%)** \\ \hline Control & 11.54 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 12.39 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 72.11 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm e}\) \\ GP1\% & 11.53 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.56 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm cd}\) & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm bc}\) & 12.36 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 74.56 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\rm a}\) \\ GP2\% & 11.54 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm bc}\) & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm abc}\) & 12.32 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 74.21 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm ab}\) \\ GP3\% & 11.40 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm ab}\) & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm abc}\) & 12.29 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 74.09 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ GP4\% & 11.42 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm abc}\) & 1.01 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm abc}\) & 12.26 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 73.60 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\ GP5\% & 11.48 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm ab}\) & 1.02 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm ab}\) & 12.22 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 73.27 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\rm cd}\) \\ GP6\% & 11.44 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 0.74 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 1.04 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 12.19 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 73.10 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\rm d}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Each experiment was carried out in triplicate and data was reported as means \(\pm\) standard deviation. Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (\(p\) \(<\) 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Effects of grape peel flour on pasta chemical compounds content. Crude fat, protein and moisture of pasta did not exert significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) among samples. The carbohydrates content decreased with grape peel flour level raise, the values being higher compared to the control, as it can be observed in Table 2.  
The incorporation of grape peel flour in common wheat pasta caused significant increase of total polyphenols (Figure 5) and resistant starch content (Figure 4) compared to the control and with the raise of the amount added, the variations being from 9.50 to 14.12 mg GAE/100 g and from 0.89 to 1.70%, respectively. Figure 4: Effects of grape peel flour addition on fiber and resistant starch contents of pasta.