## 3 Results and Discussion
### Milling Operative Parameters  
The results of milling operative parameters are reported in Table 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Flour Yield (\%)**} & **Temperature** & **Energy** & **Average Power** & **Specific Milling** \\  & & **Increase (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **(min)** & **(kWh)** & **(kW)** & **Energy (kJ/kg)** \\ \hline U 8\%, speed 120 RPM & 97.66 \(\pm\) 1.15 & 8.97 \(\pm\) 0.61 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 47.92 \(\pm\) 1.42 \({}^{\mathrm{av}}\) & 0.222 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\mathrm{v}}\) & 0.277 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 418.36 \(\pm\) 16.40 \({}^{\mathrm{v}}\) \\ U 8\%, speed 220 RPM & 97.95 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 9.13 \(\pm\) 3.75 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 39.19 \(\pm\) 7.09 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 0.237 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{w}}\) & 0.364 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 446.90 \(\pm\) 75.97 \({}^{\mathrm{v}}\) \\ U 8\%, speed 320 RPM & 97.17 \(\pm\) 1.28 & 14.20 \(\pm\) 0.92 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 31.29 \(\pm\) 7.85 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 0.240 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{w}}\) & 0.466 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 455.34 \(\pm\) 88.78 \({}^{\mathrm{v}}\) \\ U 10\%, speed 120 RPM & 97.20 \(\pm\) 1.31 & 8.13 \(\pm\) 2.15 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 63.38 \(\pm\) 10.41 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 0.280 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.265 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 518.22 \(\pm\) 28.44 \({}^{\mathrm{w}}\) \\ U 10\%, speed 220 RPM & 97.05 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 11.50 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.29 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 48.74 \(\pm\) 16.32 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.287 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.354 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 532.15 \(\pm\) 168.20 \({}^{\mathrm{w}}\) \\ U 10\%, speed 320 RPM & 98.00 \(\pm\) 0.68 & 12.13 \(\pm\) 1.80 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 37.20 \(\pm\) 10.26 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)bwr & 0.284 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.461 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 521.57 \(\pm\) 122.90 \({}^{\mathrm{w}}\) \\ U 12\%, speed 120 RPM & 97.00 \(\pm\) 0.67 & 9.83 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\)b & 93.13 \(\pm\) 4.01 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 0.448 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{g}}\) & 0.288 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 812.92 \(\pm\) 109.81 \({}^{\mathrm{x}}\) \\ U 12\%, speed 220 RPM & 97.26 \(\pm\) 1.41 & 10.90 \(\pm\) 1.21 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 58.98 \(\pm\) 5.25 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)bwr & 0.392 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\mathrm{z}}\) & 0.393 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{e}}\) & 710.86 \(\pm\) 239.50 \({}^{\mathrm{x}}\) \\ U 12\%, speed 320 RPM & 97.91 \(\pm\) 0.31 & 12.37 \(\pm\) 1.15 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 45.05 \(\pm\) 12.60 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\)bwr & 0.397 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\mathrm{z}}\) & 0.524 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{f}}\) & 712.70 \(\pm\) 225.16 \({}^{\mathrm{x}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Results of milling expressed as the mean of three replicates \(\pm\) SD. Letters represents statistically significant differences reported using the Tukey HSD post hoc test for stone rotational speed (a, b, c, d, e, f) and for chickpea moisture content (v, w, x, y, z). Columns without letters are not significantly different. Figure 1: Chickpeas dehydration kinetics expressed as the loss of water content in percentage during drying (12 h). Data points (one sample every hour) represent the mean of the three replicates \(\pm\) SD. The result of zero percent after 12 h refers to the free water removed from the chickpea samples (approximately 3.00% of bonded water remained in the product). With respect to flour yield, the two-way ANOVA did not find any statistically significant differences. Regarding temperature increase (\(\Delta\)T), the results of the ANOVA found a significant individual effect of stone rotational speed (\(p\) = 0.001), while this was not the case for moisture content or their interaction. As a result, chickpea flour temperature increases as stone rotation speed increases. Concerning milling time, the two-way ANOVA highlighted individual main effect for stone rotational speed (\(p\) < 0.001) and moisture content (\(p\) < 0.001) but not the interaction.