## 3 Results and Discussion
### Quality of bread Made Using Preparations
For the remaining breads, the observed loss was 1.5% (EOPP_T2), 1.9% (SB), and 2.2% or more when the formulations were applied to the dough. Additionally, changes in the crumb moisture were observed during storage, and differences were observed between different preparations and applied technologies (Table S3). Nevertheless, such slight variations should not be perceptible in the organoleptic assessment, and the crumb moisture of wheat-rye bread is above 40% [49]. Crumb hardness is the parameter most often determined in bread texture studies, allowing one to estimate the bread aging rate, which is related to the retrogradation of starch [63; 65]. The addition of EOPP and E30P to the sourdough significantly lowered the hardness of the crumb on the baking day compared to the standard bread, but no significant differences were observed between the other tested breads (Tables 8 and S5). Taking into account that the bread with the addition of preparation to the sourdough was characterized by the highest volume, it can be concluded that the hardness and volume changed in direct proportion. The addition of the preparation did not statistically significantly affect the hardness of the crumb after storage, and thus the proportion of stale bread. All tested breads were characterized by an increase in crumb hardness by an average of 16N compared to the day of baking. Thus, the use of sourdough preparations only had an effect on the fermentation of the dough, thus obtaining a greater volume and lower hardness compared \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Type of**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Crumb Moisture (g/100 g)**} \\ \cline{2-4}
**Preparation Used** & **Baking Day** & **After 24 h** & **After 48 h** \\ \hline SB & 43.14 \({}^{\text{Ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.51 & 41.75 \({}^{\text{AA}}\)\(\pm\) 0.36 & 41.20 \({}^{\text{AA}}\)\(\pm\) 0.14 \\ \hline EOPP\_T1 & 42.34 \({}^{\text{bB}}\)\(\pm\) 0.32 & 40.50 \({}^{\text{CA}}\)\(\pm\) 0.44 & 40.20 \({}^{\text{BA}}\)\(\pm\) 0.08 \\ \hline E30 PP\_T1 & 42.44 \({}^{\text{BC}}\)\(\pm\) 0.23 & 40.96 \({}^{\text{bC}}\)\(\pm\) 0.26 & 39.07 \({}^{\text{CA}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline E40 PP\_T1 & 42.37 \({}^{\text{bB}}\)\(\pm\) 0.40 & 41.72 \({}^{\text{aB}}\)\(\pm\) 0.40 & 40.11 \({}^{\text{BA}}\)\(\pm\) 1.09 \\ \hline E0 PP\_T2 & 41.54 \({}^{\text{CC}}\)\(\pm\) 0.35 & 40.96 \({}^{\text{bC}}\)\(\pm\) 0.11 & 40.03 \({}^{\text{BA}}\)\(\pm\) 0.34 \\ \hline E30 PP\_T2 & 41.53 \({}^{\text{eB}}\)\(\pm\) 0.29 & 41.37 \({}^{\text{abB}}\)\(\pm\) 0.10 & 40.60 \({}^{\text{abA}}\)\(\pm\) 0.21 \\ \hline E40 PP\_T2 & 42.05 \({}^{\text{bC}}\)\(\pm\) 0.38 & 41.85 \({}^{\text{AA}}\)\(\pm\) 0.24 & 41.15 \({}^{\text{AA}}\)\(\pm\) 0.21 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The data are expressed as the mean \(\pm\) standard deviation, with a minimum sample size of 4. Within each column, values sharing the same lower-case letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Likewise, within each row, values sharing the same upper-case letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Changes in the moisture content of the tested bread during storage. to other breads, while the greater proportion of low-molecular carbohydrates did not reduce the staling process. The textural properties are also described by crumb cohesiveness, which is a measure of the degree of decay of the sample after deformation. By examining the cohesiveness, the strength of its internal bonds in the product, i.e., the degree to which the sample can be deformed before it is damaged, was determined [65]. No clear effect of the preparation proportion on crumb cohesiveness was observed; a slight beneficial effect on crumb cohesiveness was noted after the application of the E40 PP preparation directly to the dough and all the preparations dispensed for the sourdough (Tables 8 and S6).