## 3 Results and Discussion
### Flour Characterization and Analysis  
Table 3 summarizes the results of moisture content and stone rotational speed on chickpea flour composition. Regarding starch, the two-way ANOVA found a significant individual effect of chickpea moisture content (\(p\) = 0.016), while this was not the case for stone rotational speed or their interaction. As shown in Table 3, the starch content of flour decreases as chickpea moisture content increases, consistent with the findings of [PERSON] et al. (2018) [24] and [PERSON] et al. (2020) [25]. However, the most interesting result concerns damaged starch content. With respect to damaged starch, the results of the ANOVA found a significant individual effect of stone rotational speed (\(p\) = 0.006), while this was not the case for chickpea moisture content or their interaction. As highlighted in Table 3, damaged starch content increases as stone rotational speed increases. Moreover, the sample with 10% moisture content milled at the highest speed (i.e., 320 RPM) showed the maximal content of damaged starch. The latter result is consistent with Sections 3.2 and 3.3 and with those of other authors [22; 26; 27]. In particular, [PERSON] et al. (2022) [22], [PERSON] et al. (2015) [26], and [PERSON] et al. (2018) [27] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **\textless{}125 \(\upmu\)m (\%)** & **125–250 \(\upmu\)m (\%)** & **250–400 \(\upmu\)m (\%)** & **400–600 \(\upmu\)m (\%)** & **>600 \(\upmu\)m (\%)** \\ \hline U 8\%, speed 120 RPM & 8.67 \(\pm\) 7.51 & 25.00 \(\pm\) 2.00 a & 31.67 \(\pm\) 4.04 & 28.33 \(\pm\) 5.13 ax & 6.33 \(\pm\) 0.58 ax \\ U 8\%, speed 220 RPM & 8.67 \(\pm\) 7.57 & 30.83 \(\pm\) 4.65 ab & 34.17 \(\pm\) 2.25 & 21.83 \(\pm\) 10.15 ax & 4.50 \(\pm\) 0.50 by \\ U 8\%, speed 320 RPM & 33.00 \(\pm\) 8.72 & 33.00 \(\pm\) 4.00 ab & 34.00 \(\pm\) 6.93 & 16.67 \(\pm\) 5.51 ax & 3.33 \(\pm\) 0.58 ca \\ U 10\%, speed 120 RPM & 14.67 \(\pm\) 4.16 & 27.67 \(\pm\) 3.21 a & 29.67 \(\pm\) 3.51 & 23.00 \(\pm\) 7.00 ax & 5.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 ax \\ U 10\%, speed 220 RPM & 13.67 \(\pm\) 4.51 & 34.00 \(\pm\) 6.00 ab & 32.67 \(\pm\) 2.89 & 15.33 \(\pm\) 3.06 ax & 4.33 \(\pm\) 1.15 by \\ U 10\%, speed 320 RPM & 17.67 \(\pm\) 7.51 & 41.67 \(\pm\) 4.04 ca & 28.67 \(\pm\) 2.89 & 8.00 \(\pm\) 3.61 ca & 4.00 \(\pm\) 1.73 by \\ U 12\%, speed 120 RPM & 13.33 \(\pm\) 5.13 & 30.67 \(\pm\) 6.81 ab & 31.00 \(\pm\) 2.65 & 18.33 \(\pm\) 4.16 ax & 6.67 \(\pm\) 1.53 ax \\ U 12\%, speed 220 RPM & 15.00 \(\pm\) 11.79 & 29.33 \(\pm\) 7.09 ab & 31.67 \(\pm\) 5.51 & 17.33 \(\pm\) 2.08 ax & 6.67 \(\pm\) 3.06 ax \\ U 12\%, speed 320 RPM & 16.67 \(\pm\) 13.05 & 38.00 \(\pm\) 7.00 b & 27.33 \(\pm\) 7.09 & 12.67 \(\pm\) 3.06 by & 5.33 \(\pm\) 1.53 ax \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of flour particle size distribution 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) and for chickpea moisture content (x, y, z). Columns without letters are not significantly different. found a statistically significant increase in damaged starch content as milling speed and process energy increased. This is mainly due to the impact of the different forces involved in the milling process on starch integrity and structural properties; when starch is subjected to a progressive increase in milling speed and energy, the damaged starch content in chickpea flows significantly increased, leading to an improved starch pulverization at the highest milling speed (i.e., 320 RPM). Concerning protein content, the two-way ANOVA found a significant individual effect of chickpea moisture content (\(p=0.004\)). This was not the case for stone rotational speed or the factor interaction. In particular, Tukey HSD test highlighted a significantly lower protein content in samples with 12% moisture content compared to samples with 8% moisture content.