. 2015 Sep;53(3):298–306. doi: 10.17113/ftb.53.03.15.4022

Table 1. Results of the sensory analysis and protein content of samples.

Sample	Taste	Flavour	Consistency	Appearance	Overall quality	w(protein) g per 100 g of dm
Ref	(4.63±0.52)^a	(4.75±0.46)^a	(4.75±0.43)^a	(5.00±0.00)^a	(8.75±0.43)^a	(14.63±0.64)^e
20%	(4.38±0.74)^a	(4.38±0.52)^a	(4.25±0.71)^a	(4.75±0.46)^ab	(7.75±1.16)^ab	(26.72±0.01)^d
30%	(4.13±0.64)^a	(4.25±0.46)^a	(4.38±0.52)^a	(4.38±0.52)^b	(7.38±0.92)^b	(33.23±0.16)^c
40%	(4.38±0.52)^a	(4.25±0.71)^a	(4.13±0.64)^a	(4.50±0.53)^ab	(7.75±0.89)^ab	(39.41±0.03)^b
50%	(4.00±1.07)^a	(4.38±0.74)^a	(4.12±0.83)^a	(4.25±0.89)^b	(7.50±1.3)^b	(46.11±0.37)^a
p-value	0.475	0.439	0.294	0.075	0.069	<0.0001

Values with the same letter in superscript within the same column are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test (p>0.05); shape of pasta: extruded tagliatelle for all samples; Ref=100% durum wheat; 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%=samples with 20, 30 40 and 50% added plant protein, respectively; dm=dry mass