## 3 Results
### Pasta Quality Parameters and Bite Resistance  
The optimal cooking time of the pasta samples was not affected by the addition of CV, dG and/or AF. Although the cooking time and the standard deviation of some samples increased, as in this case one of the three replicates deviated in its cooking time, the median of these samples remained at 180 s, which emphasizes that the change is not significant. The water absorption for all samples containing dG (dG, CV + dG, and CV + dG + AF) decreased by approximately 10% (Table 3). The cooking loss was also reduced for samples containing dG and CV + dG, but only significantly for the sample 3% CV + dG. Together \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Net Power** & **Moisture** & \multirow{2}{*}{**L* (D65)**} & **a* (D65)** & **b* (D65)** & **\(\Delta\)E** \\  & **Consumption** & **Content** & & **Dry** & **Dry** & **Dry** \\  & **(W)** & **(\%)** & & & & \\ \hline Control 1  & 190.17 \(\pm\) 42.84 \({}^{\text{oef}}\) & 10.24 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 74.50 \(\pm\) 3.71 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 2.26 \(\pm\) 0.84 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 16.14 \(\pm\) 3.87 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)} \\
3\% CV 1 & 187.59 \(\pm\) 42.29 \({}^{\text{oef}}\) & 10.80 \(\pm\) 0.74 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 56.65 \(\pm\) 6.45 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.62 \(\pm\) 1.39 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 19.78 \(\pm\) 2.80 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 18.30 \\
5\% CV 1 & 176.01 \(\pm\) 41.64 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 10.79 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 54.19 \(\pm\) 3.57 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.65 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 21.50 \(\pm\) 3.18 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 21.07 \\
4G & 196.49 \(\pm\) 44.27 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 10.71 \(\pm\) 0.49 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 74.36 \(\pm\) 3.99 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 2.82 \(\pm\) 0.78 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 15.90 \(\pm\) 2.91 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.62 \\
3\% CV + dG & 182.48 \(\pm\) 40.40 \({}^{\text{bef}}\) & 10.27 \(\pm\) 0.77 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 51.71 \(\pm\) 4.36 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 1.22 \(\pm\) 0.90 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 16.19 \(\pm\) 1.55 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 22.81 \\
5\% CV + dG & 171.48 \(\pm\) 40.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 10.77 \(\pm\) 1.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 50.18 \(\pm\) 3.37 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.17 \(\pm\) 0.93 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 19.63 \(\pm\) 2.58 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 24.59 \\ AF & 192.83 \(\pm\) 41.20 \({}^{\text{oef}}\) & 10.78 \(\pm\) 0.68 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 55.99 \(\pm\) 4.95 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 7.90 \(\pm\) 1.21 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.48 \(\pm\) 2.63 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 19.53 \\
3\% CV + AF & 182.73 \(\pm\) 38.69 \({}^{\text{bef}}\) & 10.84 \(\pm\) 1.57 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 48.05 \(\pm\) 4.66 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 4.53 \(\pm\) 0.86 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 16.33 \(\pm\) 2.87 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 26.55 \\
5\% CV + AF & 179.64 \(\pm\) 42.84 \({}^{\text{be}}\) & 11.05 \(\pm\) 0.93 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 45.48 \(\pm\) 4.30 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.81 \(\pm\) 0.87 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 14.82 \(\pm\) 2.78 \({}^{\text{ac}}\) & 29.09 \\
3\% CV + dG + AF & 180.25 \(\pm\) 36.50 \({}^{\text{be}}\) & 10.39 \(\pm\) 0.97 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 45.57 \(\pm\) 2.63 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.69 \(\pm\) 0.61 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 12.31 \(\pm\) 1.95 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 29.21 \\
5\% CV + dG + AF & 175.62 \(\pm\) 35.50 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 11.39 \(\pm\) 0.78 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 43.50 \(\pm\) 4.65 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.89 \(\pm\) 0.53 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 13.03 \(\pm\) 3.16 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 31.16 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Net power consumption of the pasta machine in W (means \(\pm\) SD), residual moisture content of dry pasta in percent (means \(\pm\) SD), and L*a*b* values of dry pasta (means \(\pm\) SD) as well as Euclidian color difference (\(\Delta\)E). Figure 1: Appearance of bottom and top of the dry lasagna sheets. AF, apple fiber; CV, _C. vulgaris_; dG, denatured gluten. with the reduced water absorption, this indicated that the addition of gluten resulted in a more compact protein network. The addition of CV and/or AF did not significantly impact water absorption or cooking losses.