# Development and Characterization of High-Fiber, Gluten-Free Pasta for Celiac Disease Patients
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Chemical Composition of the Pasta Treatments
#### 3.1.1 Moisture Content  
The results of the moisture content percent indicate the percentages of moisture content of the control sample (13.89) and pasta treatments (T1: 13.26), (T2: 13.24), (T3: 12.9), (T4: 11.84), (T5: 12.9), and (T6: 11.92), respectively. This variation in the moisture content might be due to the various levels of water holding capacity of the components of different treatments. According to the [PERSON] (2017) study, moisture content generally decreased  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Flours** & **Moisture \% *** & **Ash \% *** & **Protein \% *** & **Fiber \% *** & **Lipid \% *** & **Carbohydrate \% *** \\ \hline Control & 13.89 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 1.28 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 13.45 \(\pm\) 0.51 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 1.24 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\rm f}\) & 9.32 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\rm f}\) & 60.84 \(\pm\) 0.75 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ T1 & 13.26 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 1.17 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 6.70 \(\pm\) 0.65 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 2.19 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 14.29 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 62.38 \(\pm\) 1.28 \({}^{\rm a}\) \\ T2 & 13.24 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 1.41 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 9.56 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 1.83 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 14.0 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 59.68 \(\pm\) 0.46 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ T3 & 12.90 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 1.49 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 10.79 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 2.79 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 15.33 \(\pm\) 1.05 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 57.93 \(\pm\) 1.23 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\ T4 & 11.84 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 1.50 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 12.79 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 3.33 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 16.64 \(\pm\) 0.56 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 55.90 \(\pm\) 0.88 \({}^{\rm d}\) \\ T5 & 12.90 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 1.47 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 12.07 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 3.95 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 19.87 \(\pm\) 0.48 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 49.56 \(\pm\) 0.50 \({}^{\rm e}\) \\ T6 & 11.92 \(\pm\) 0.48 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 1.65 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 13.84 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 4.68 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 21.99 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 46.10 \(\pm\) 0.69 \({}^{\rm f}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Chemical composition of different gluten-free pasta treatments and the control.  
as the level of lupin and flazseed composite flour increased [19]. This could be due to the protein content, which appears to be a critical factor in the ability of the flours to absorb more water. Accordingly, the reduction in the ability of wheat flour to bind water may be attributed to its low protein content [20]. Therefore, this could explain the reason that water absorption increased with an increase in protein content because lupin flour contains more protein than wheat flour [21]. In addition, the higher water absorption capacity of wheat flour could be attributed to the presence of a higher amount of carbohydrates (starch) in the flour [22]. The control sample moisture content was significantly higher (\(p<0.05\)) compared to other treatments, while T4 and T6 had the lowest moisture content, and there was no significant difference between them.