## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Apple Pomace Powder  
Table 2 shows physicochemical results for bread formulations. The English classification of cider apple varieties distinguishes four types: bitter sharp, sharp, bittersweet and sweet [36]. The majority of apples used in the Basque Country for cider production are bitter sharp and sharp, according to [PERSON] et al. [37]; Orixa and Txistu are the main varieties used in Laneko cooperative, whose pH is around 3.5-4.5. These values match the pH results of all the batches analyzed (Table 2), without any notable variation between apples collected on different days. Obtaining APP included a dehydration step where water was removed. A previous research study showed that low values of aw between 0.2 and 0.4 inhibit fungal growth and chemical reactions leading to deterioration, these results being optimal for product storage [5]. As expected, the dehydration process of apple pomace led to similar results in all batches. The L, a* and b* color values in Table 2 aligned with color parameter values reported in similar research on several apple varieties [38]. The results of all batches indicated that APP shows reddish-yellowish colorations without significant differences among them. Data on antioxidant activity from Table 2 show lower values for apple pomace compared to values for fresh apple reported in the literature. Processing decreases antioxidant capacity due to thermal and moisture conditions, which are associated with the browning phenomena of Maillard reactions [39]. Values from all the sampling days were similar, with only slight variations, which might be associated with the storage period prior to APP processing. It was observed that the batch that was stored for a longer time, D, obtained the lowest values for antioxidant activity, whereas batch A (the former processed one) presented the higher antioxidant capacity. In spite of this apparent variability, raw material from every sampling day showed relevant DPPH values, which were in agreement with the literature. However, regarding antioxidant properties, storage time and conditions appeared to be the key variable to obtaining the highest quality standard. Mineral content, shown in Table 3, is parallel with information from previous studies on dried apple pomace. Some small changes were detected between sampling days (not significant, \(p\) > 0.05), probably due to changes in the proportion of distinct apple varieties in the pressing stage [7]. In comparison with mineral values reported by [PERSON] et al. [7], our APP presented similar values for Mg (439.5-478.0 \(\upmu\)g/g), but higher values than the range compiled for Cu (5.5 to 7.27 \(\upmu\)g/g compared to 1.1-2.2 \(\upmu\)g/g). Our APP had Zn and Mn values around the lower bounds previously reported by [PERSON] et al. [7] and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Batches**} & & & & \\ \cline{3-8}  & & **A** & & **B** & & **C** & & **D** \\ \hline Color & L* & 54.477 & \(\pm\)0.315 a & 57.540 & \(\pm\)0.705 a & 56.947 & \(\pm\)0.481 a & 57.033 & \(\pm\)1.097 a \\  & a* & 10.897 & \(\pm\)0.227 a & 10.483 & \(\pm\)0.472 a & 11.497 & \(\pm\)0.125 a & 11.443 & \(\pm\)0.499 a \\  & b* & 25.483 & \(\pm\)0.550 a & 27.057 & \(\pm\)1.390 a & 29.007 & \(\pm\)0.490 a & 29.207 & \(\pm\)0.514 a \\ pH & & 3.967 & \(\pm\)0.038 b & 4.233 & \(\pm\)0.133 ab & 4.260 & \(\pm\)0.021 a & 4.287 & \(\pm\)0.034 a \\ aw & & 0.211 & \(\pm\)0.048 a & 0.180 & \(\pm\)0.012 a & 0.359 & \(\pm\)0.145 a & 0.189 & \(\pm\)0.021 a \\ DPPH \% & & 30.171 & \(\pm\)0.777 a & 27.399 & \(\pm\)0.274 ab & 27.716 & \(\pm\)1.189 ab & 24.232 & \(\pm\)0.274 b \\ DPPH (\(\upmu\)Mol eq./g APP) & & 482.280 & \(\pm\)12.424 a & 437.973 & \(\pm\)4.384 ab & 443.040 & \(\pm\)19.00 ab & 387.343 & \(\pm\)4.384 b \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Significant differences between batches (\(p\) < 0.05) are identified with different letters (a,b).  
\end{table}