## 3 Results and Discussion
### Quality Parameters
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **GM** & **GL** & **RM** & **RL** \\ \hline Weight (g) & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.8 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Thickness (mm) & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Diameter (mm) & 14 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 14 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 14 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 14 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Breaking force (N) & 121 \(\pm\) 8 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 162 \(\pm\) 29 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 164 \(\pm\) 29 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 96 \(\pm\) 13 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Friability (\%) & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Disintegration (min) & 2 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 66 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 19 \(\pm\) 1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 67.3 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ LHC (g/g) & 5.3 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.8 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ WHC (g/g) & 5.5 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.2 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Mean values \(\pm\) standard deviation (\(n=3\)). \({}^{\text{a-d}}\) Superscript letters indicate significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) between tablet formulations. GM: green cactus pear residue with microcrystalline cellulose; GL: green cactus pear residue with lactose; RM: red cactus pear residue with microcrystalline cellulose; RL: red cactus pear residue with lactose. LHC: lipid holding capacity; WHC: water holding capacity.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Quality and functional parameters of cactus pear residue tablet formulations. of \(\alpha\)-lactose agglomerates, while cellulose tablets are characterized by a lower compressibility and crushing strength since cellulose crystals are softer, weaker, and less elastic [24; 44]. Disintegration is the first step in the bioavailability process, used to evaluate the behavior of the product through the gastrointestinal tract [45]. The formulations with microcrystalline cellulose had lower disintegration times (1.9 and 19.3 min for GM and RM, respectively), while lactose tablets presented greater times (66 and 67 min for GL and RL, respectively). These differences may be related to the low compressibility of microcrystalline cellulose and its rapid swelling in a humid environment. However, if there is erosion on the tablets, it may explain why tablets of similar mass show little difference in the dissolution profiles [46]. In comparison with other studies, slower disintegration for tablets with lactose derivatives is reported [44]. Other studies on tablets made with pectin from citrus peel exhibited disintegration times of between 12 and 15 min [39], and the times for banana peel tablets were 8-10 min [21]. These differences can be explained by the geometry playing an important role--tablets with larger surface area have faster drug release and disintegration [46]--and the variation in particle size [45]. In this context, the GL tablet presented greater resistance to breakage, less friability, and a longer disintegration time compared to the other excipients. These differences can be explained by the influence of the different excipients analyzed and their physical and chemical properties, given that several researchers have reported that the excipients are a critical factor in the development of new pharmaceutical formulations with greater pharmacological functionality (disintegration, dissolution, release, and bioavailability of the drug) [47; 48].