## 3 Results and Discussion
### Nutritional Profile
Given the persistence of aluminum in the body, the EFSA panel considered it appropriate to establish a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) rather than a tolerable daily intake, setting a value of 1 mg/kg body weight/per week [45]. The Al contents obtained were 0.26 mg/100 g (DW), 0.23 mg/100 g (B_BMW), and 0.31 mg/100 g (B_TW). [PERSON] and colleagues [43] quantified the Al levels present in their bread samples in the 0.206 and 0.656 mg/100 g range, with the lowest value quantified in fresh wheat bread. Higher Al contents compared to this study were determined by [PERSON] and collaborators [46], with concentrations between 24.9 and 34.4 mg/100 g.  
Lead occurs primarily in an inorganic form in the environment. Human exposure is mainly via food and water, with some via air, dust, and soil. In average adult consumers, lead dietary exposure ranges from 0.36 to 1.24, up to 2.43 ug/kg body weight per day in European high-consumers [47]. On the other hand, long-term exposure to this metal can cause kidney damage, reproductive and immune system issues, as well as adverse effects on the nervous system [48]. The lead content in food corresponds to the 0.02 to 0.25 mg/100 g [49; 50]. In this study, only the B_BMW and B_TW formulations presented Pb levels, with 0.001 and 0.013 mg/100 g values, respectively. The results demonstrated lead levels lower than the lowest recommended Pb intake value, which do not pose any risk to consumer health. [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] and their collaborators [41; 43; 51]reported Pb levels in the ranges of 2.951 to 9.862 mg/100 g, 0.034 to 0.313 mg/100 g, and 0.04719 to 0.1025 mg/100 g, respectively, with these authors obtaining higher Pb levels than those obtained in this study. The main toxic effect of cadmium is its toxicity to the kidney, although it is associated with lung tumors and skeletal changes [52; 53]. The permissible limit for Cd in food is 2.5 ug/kg body weight [53]. In this study, no Cd was detected in the formulations developed. Therefore, both TW and BMW can be safely introduced into bread and can potentially increase the levels of certain mineral compounds, contributing to their daily intakes through diet. Texture Profile  
The texture analysis results (hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess, chewiness, and resilience) obtained from the different bread formulations are shown in Table 5.  
Through the analysis of the results obtained, it was possible to verify that using different water matrices influenced the textural properties of the final product. Hardness is the most important attribute for determining consumer acceptability of food products [54; 55; 56; 57], defined as the force that teeth exert on the food, and is measured in grams [58]. The values of hardness obtained for B_TW (11,624.3 g) did not present statistically significant differences from B_DW (11,701.2 g). In contrast, the B_BMW formulation presented a value for the hardness parameter much lower than B_DW, with a value of 8068.3 g. The fact that B_BMW presents this difference in hardness may be related to the significant increase in air retention capacity [59], as it is carbonated water. Furthermore, according to [PERSON] [60], hardness may be related to the moisture content of the food, meaning that the higher its moisture content, the lower its hardness, which follows the results obtained in the B_BMW formulation, since out of the three formulations developed, it was the one that presented the highest moisture content (30.64 g/100 g, Table 2) [60]. Another important texture parameter, which revealed statistically significant differences between the B_BMW and B_TW formulations compared to the B_DW, was the elasticity. Elasticity is defined as the speed at which the deformed material returns to its initial state after the removal of the force [61]. In this study, the value obtained for this parameter was 0.712% for the B_BMW formulation and 0.788% for the B_TW formulation, with values higher than B_DW (0.592%).