## 3 Results
### Dough Rheology  
3.2.1. Mixing and Pasting Properties  
It is important to investigate the influence of microalgae incorporation on dough rheology during mixing and pasting. Mixolab2 was employed to assess the doughs' behaviours and determine the optimum water absorption % (WA) for optimal consistency (Table 3). The control dough's optimal consistency was set at a water absorption rate of 59.0%. The addition of microalgae resulted in noticeable differences in the dough's water absorption capacity. _C. vulgaris_ increased water absorption to 60.5%, while _T. chuii_ and _P. tricornutum_ decreased WA to 57.0% and 58.5%, respectively (Table 3). The reduction in the water absorption may be due to the high fat content in _T. chuii_ compared with the other algae [40]. Additionally, the increased water absorption in the _C. vulgaris_ sample could be attributed to its high cell wall polysaccharides and protein content, which can entrap more water. The available free water is distributed among the hydrophilic components in the microalgae and wheat flour, potentially hindering the formation of the gluten network [41]. Like our findings, [PERSON] et al. [1] observed significant water absorption when incorporating _C. vulgaris_ into sourdough. In contrast to our results, [PERSON] et al. [42] reported higher water absorption with the incorporation of 12% _T. chuii_. This may be attributed to the high levels of algae, which led to increased protein and polysaccharide content, as explained by [PERSON] et al. [43]. Dough development time (DDT) and stability (DS) usually describe the dough's status, with high values indicating strong dough, as documented by [PERSON] et al. [44]. In this study, it was observed that the microalgae-enriched dough required more time for development compared to the control dough (_p_ < 0.05) (Table 3). Specifically, _C. vulgaris_ exhibited the shortest development time when compared to _T. chuii_ and _P. tricornutum_, although it was \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**WA \%**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**DDT** **(s)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**DS (s)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**C2 (N.m)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**C3**} & **C4** & **C5** \\  & & & & & & **Time (s)** & **T(s’C)** & **(N.m)** & **(N.m)** \\ \hline Control & 59.0 & 86 \(\pm\) 19 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 574 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1376 \(\pm\) 6 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.58 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 71.50 \(\pm\) 0.76 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 4.09 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ \hline Cv & 60.5 & 221 \(\pm\) 23 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 496 \(\pm\) 0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 1465 \(\pm\) 10 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.12 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 72.80 \(\pm\) 2.42 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 2.11 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 3.06 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline Pt & 58.5 & 299 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 592 \(\pm\) 15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.34 \(\pm\)0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1452 \(\pm\) 40 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.58 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 76.20 \(\pm\) 0.66 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.24 \(\pm\) 0.91 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.27 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline Tc & 57.0 & 286 \(\pm\) 23 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 568 \(\pm\) 32 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1478 \(\pm\) 21 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.74 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 76.80 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.41 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.98 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Parameters extracted from the pasting curves of control (without algae) and 4% (_w_/_w_) microalgae dough. _Chloella vulgaris_ (Cv), _Phaeodactylum tricornutum_ (Pt) and _Tetraselmis chuii_ (Tc). Different letters in the same parameter show significant differences (_p_ < 0.05, Tukey test). higher than the control dough (221 s vs. 86 s). Interestingly, the presence of _T. chuii_ and _P.