# Table Olive Flours\": An Ingredient Rich in Bioactive Compounds?
## 3 Results
### Nutritional Composition  
The moisture contents of the olives (raw material) varied between 70.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 (turning color olives) and 73.2 \(\pm\) 0.3 (green olives), with black olives presenting 71.7 \(\pm\) 3.2% (results not shown). Reduced, but still significant, differences between turning color olives and the remaining ones were present (\(p\) = 0.01). These values are in line with those expected for freshly cured olives [29]. For the flours produced from table olives at different color types (Table 1), all of them presented moisture contents lower than 2%. The fat content varied between 60.2 and 67.3% (d.m. ), with the lowest value corresponding to the \"green table olive flour\", and no significant differences were detected between the flours obtained from turning color and black table olives. On the contrary, for the crude protein content, the highest value was determined in the \"green table olive flour\" (4.77%, d.m. ), decreasing for the \"turning color\" and \"black table olive\" flours (4.30 and 3.78%, d.m., respectively). As far as carbohydrates are concerned, their contents varied between 15.0% (d.m.) for \"black table olive flour\" and 20.0% (d.m.) for \"green table olive flour\". These results show that as the olives ripen, the crude protein and carbohydrate contents decrease due to oil increase. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Physical Parameters:** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Table Olive Flour**} \\  & **Green** & **Turning Colour** & **Black** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \(L^{*}\) & 49.2 \(\pm\) 5.5\({}^{\,\mathrm{c}}\) & 43.7 \(\pm\) 4.3\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 35.8 \(\pm\) 1.5\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \(a^{*}\) & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.6\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & 6.3 \(\pm\) 0.1\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 11.6 \(\pm\) 0.4\({}^{\,\mathrm{c}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \(b^{*}\) & 24.9 \(\pm\) 2.8\({}^{\,\mathrm{c}}\) & 16.7 \(\pm\) 2.6\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 5.4 \(\pm\) 1.0\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \(C^{*}\) & 25.2 \(\pm\) 2.7\({}^{\,\mathrm{c}}\) & 17.8 \(\pm\) 2.5\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 12.8 \(\pm\) 0.4\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \(h\) & 81.5 \(\pm\) 2.3\({}^{\,\mathrm{c}}\) & 68.9 \(\pm\) 3.1\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 25.0 \(\pm\) 4.4\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Chemical Parameters:} \\ \hline Total fat (\%, d.m.) & 60.2 \(\pm\) 2.6\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & 64.3 \(\pm\) 2.3\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 67.3 \(\pm\) 1.9\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Protein (\%, d.m.) & 4.77 \(\pm\) 0.35\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 4.30 \(\pm\) 0.37\({}^{\,\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b}}\) & 3.78 \(\pm\) 0.15\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.020 \\ \hline Ashes (\%, d.m.) & 14.99 \(\pm\) 0.03\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 13.58 \(\pm\) 0.05\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & 13.85 \(\pm\) 0.01\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Carbohydrates (\%, d.m.) & 20.0 \(\pm\) 2.7\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 17.8 \(\pm\) 2.6\({}^{\,\mathrm{a},\mathrm{b}}\) & 15.0 \(\pm\) 1.9\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.010 \\ \hline Energetic value (kcal/100 g d.m.) & 641 \(\pm\) 13\({}^{\,\mathrm{a}}\) & 667 \(\pm\) 12\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & 681 \(\pm\) 9\({}^{\,\mathrm{b}}\) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Different letters on the same line indicate the existence of significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05). d.m. = dry matter.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Color parameters and nutritional composition (grams per 100 g dry matter) and energy value (kcal per 100 g dry matter) of table olive flours (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation). Figure 1: Visual appearance of the table olive flours: (**A**) Green; (**B**) Turning color; (**C**) Black. Finally, regarding the ash content, the \"green table olive flour\" had the highest value (14.99%, d.m. ), while the remaining flours showed contents of 13.58 and 13.85% (d.m.) (\"turning color\", and \"black table olive\" flours, respectively). Globally, the energy values varied between 641 and 681 kcal/100 g (d.m.