## 3 Results and Discussion
### Bread Quality Attributes
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Attributes**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Samples**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(p\)**Value**} \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-5}  & **CTR** & & **MPP-5** & **MPP-10** \\ \hline Weight loss (\%) & 14.87 \(\pm\) 1.35 & 14.55 \(\pm\) 5.15 & 12.98 \(\pm\) 2.59 & 0.116 \\ Humidity (\%) & 46.11 \(\pm\) 0.98 & 47.77 \(\pm\) 3.75 & 55.21 \(\pm\) 4.39 & 0.138 \\ Specific volume (cm\({}^{3}\)/g) & 2.45 \(\pm\) 0.66 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.97 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 1.38 \(\pm\) 0.47 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.01 \\ Firmness (N/mm\({}^{2}\)) & 0.034 \(\pm\) 0.006 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.036 \(\pm\) 0.006 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.047 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 \\ Void fraction (\%) & 40.39 \(\pm\) 2.32 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 46.57 \(\pm\) 1.29 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 50.94 \(\pm\) 1.80 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 \\ Cell density (n/cm\({}^{2}\)) & 60.44 \(\pm\) 1.31 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 90.0 \(\pm\) 2.83 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 96. \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.02 \\ Mean cell area (cm\({}^{2}\)) & 0.72 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.005 \\ Crust colour & & & & \\ Brightness & 56.67 \(\pm\) 9.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 51.39 \(\pm\) 7.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 50.92 \(\pm\) 4.9 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.006 \\ Readness & 8.24 \(\pm\) 4.61 & 8.66 \(\pm\) 7.18 & 6.99 \(\pm\) 2.82 & 0.461 \\ Yellowness & 34.13 \(\pm\) 3.34 & 32.87 \(\pm\) 11.74 & 30.26 \(\pm\) 2.16 & 0.135 \\ Crumb colour & & & & \\ Brightness & 68.02 \(\pm\) 2.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 57.86 \(\pm\) 3.96 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 54.52 \(\pm\) 2.74 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 \\ Redness & \(-\)3.36 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-\)1.01 \(\pm\) 0.63 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(-\)0.32 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 \\ Yellowness & 22.01 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 19.69 \(\pm\) 0.93 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 22.39 \(\pm\) 0.94 \({}^{\text{ac}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} The results show the mean value \(\pm\) standard deviation (S.D) of 4 determinations, performed in 2 technical repeats across 2 independent experiments. Data within a line marked by different letters are significantly different (\(p\) < 0.05). Abbreviations: TTA, total titralable acidity; CTR, control bread; MPP-5, experimental bread enriched with 5% (\(w\)/\(w\)) mango peel powder (MPP); MPP-10, experimental bread enriched with 10% (\(w\)/\(w\)) MPP; n.a. = not analysed.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Quality attributes of bread samples. and CTR bread (\(p\) < 0.05). Alveolation size decreased with MPP addition, and there was a significant difference in alveolation size between CTR bread and both MPP-5 and MPP-10 trials. One of the key factors in consumer decision-making is the visual appeal of a product. Among visual attributes of foods, colour is the most influential character for consumers [4]. Indeed, it is regarded as the most critical element in how consumers perceive quality [44]. The colour of the bread surface is a crucial characteristic closely associated with flavour, texture, and appearance, which are critical factors for consumers. Incorporating MPP changed the colour parameters of both the crust and crumb in the breads. As the percentage of MPP increased, the L* and a* values gradually decreased, while all trials showed negative values for the crumbs. However, despite these results, [PERSON] et al. [43] found that adding MPP increased the L, a, and b* values in bread. Generally, reduced colour variation is preferred as it indicates better preservation of the original colour, which is a crucial indicator of visual quality, and suggests less degradation of pigmented compounds [45].