## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Physicochemical Properties of By-Products  
#### 3.1.1 Proximate Composition  
Table 3 shows the proximate composition of the by-products. The moisture content of the samples ranged from 5.23% to 11.41%; protein content ranged from 2.66% to 8.48%, fat from 1.03% to 4.37%, and the fiber and ash contents ranged from 7.41% to 52.90% and from 1.51% to 19.60%, respectively. Carbohydrate content ranged from 16.88% to 64.36%. All the present by-products had a different composition (\(p<0.05\)). The highest moisture content was found for DAP and the highest values of ash and protein content were noted for DPPP. These values are higher than those found by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [18]. When it comes to fat, DOP had a high value compared to other by-products. DTP, DPPSP, and DPP presented high fiber contents compared to other by-products (greater than 49%). It was found that DAP was rich in carbohydrates; the proximate composition of DAP was confirmed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [50]. Differences between the proximate composition of by-products obtained in this study and the results of other studies may be due to geographic location, season, variety, ripeness, or processing.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Moisture** & **Protein** & **Fat** & **Fiber** & **Ash** & **Carabolytes** & **WHC** & **Pectin** \\  & (**v**) & (**v**) & (**v**) & (**v**) & (**v**) & (**v**) & (**g/g d.uv**) & (**v**) \\ \hline
**DOF** & 9.90 \(\pm\) 0.00\({}^{\circ}\) & 5.40 \(\pm\) 0.12\({}^{\circ}\) & 4.37 \(\pm\) 0.56 \({}^{\circ}\) & 12.41 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\circ}\) & 3.76 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\circ}\) & 64.16 & 7.42 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\circ}\) & 219.1 \(\pm\) 11 \({}^{\circ}\) \\
**DAP** & 11.41 \(\pm\) 0.28\({}^{\circ}\) & 3.66 \(\pm\) 0.23\({}^{\circ}\) & 3.16 \(\pm\) 0.80 \({}^{\circ}\) & 15.90 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.51 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\circ}\) & 64.36 & 6.84 \(\pm\) 1.17\({}^{\circ}\) & 8.65 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\circ}\) \\
**DPP** & 6.04 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\circ}\) & 4.38 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\circ}\) & 2.46 \(\pm\) 0.03\({}^{\circ}\) & 49.00 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\circ}\) & 2.92 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\circ}\) & 35.20 & 4.61 \(\pm\) 0.15\({}^{\circ}\) & 5.76 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\circ}\) \\
**DPP** & 5.23 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\circ}\) & 7.87 \(\pm\) 0.05\({}^{\circ}\) & 3.31 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\circ}\) & 52.90 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\circ}\) & 3.61 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\circ}\) & 27.08 & 5.40 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\circ}\) & 3.91 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\circ}\) \\
**DPP** & 10.29 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\circ}\) & 8.48 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.69 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\circ}\) & 7.41 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\circ}\) & 19.60 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\circ}\) & 52.53 & 4.83 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\circ}\) & 7.14 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\circ}\) \\
**DPFSP** & 7.87 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\circ}\) & 7.00 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\dagger}\) & 1.03 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\circ}\) & 50.80 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\dagger}\) & 16.42 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\circ}\) & 16.88 & 4.59 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\circ}\) & 9.85 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\dagger}\) \\
**P** & 0.0000 & -0.0001 & 0.0022 & 0.0000 & 0.0000 & 0.0001 & 0.0000 \\
**F** & 181,63 & 93,508,682 & 15.68 & 961,272,49 & 4720,53 & 19.28 & 508.60 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{l}{DOF: dried orange pomec; DAP: dried update pomec; DTP: dried tomato peel; DPP: dried pepper peel; DPP: dried pickly pear peel; DPFSP: dried pickly pear seed peel; WHC: water-holding capacity; P: value probability; F: F: Value Fisher. -4 letters indicate a statistical different of means in the same column. (\(\rho<0.05\)).} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Physico-chemical characteristics of by-products (per 100 g).