## 3 Results and Discussion
### Quality of bread Made Using Preparations  
There were no notable alterations in the physical parameters of the bread, which could impact the quality of the products, such as bread weight or bread yield, as indicated in Table 5. Statistically significant differences were only observed between the standard bread and the bread prepared with the E0 PP additive incorporated into the sourdough (E0 PP_T2). This particular bread exhibited the lowest weight and, consequently, the lowest yield. (Table 5) among the examined samples. On the other hand, the highest parameters were shown by standard bread. The use of a pure (unenriched) preparation without potato pulp (E0 PP) significantly accelerated the fermentation process, as this preparation provided the largest amount of carbohydrates (Table 2), and these breads had the largest volume (Table S2). Large differences were also observed between the volumes of the bread. The breads with preparations added at the sourdough fermentation stage were distinguished by a much larger volume compared to standard bread and bread to which the preparation was added at the dough kneading stage. This effect was observed regardless of the type of preparation used (Table S2). Probably, in these breads, the microorganisms proliferated better, as evidenced by the higher acidity of the dough after fermentation (Table 4). At the same time, an influence of the type of preparation on the volume of bread was observed. The preparation consisting of maltodextrin and rice flour 50/50 (E0 PP) had the most favorable effect on the bread volume regardless of the technology used (T1 or T2) (Table S2). These changes may be related to the lower carbohydrate content in these preparations, which significantly facilitates fermentation, the presence of a greater content of dietary fiber in these preparations (Table 2), or in limiting the production of carbon dioxide by microorganisms due to the addition of preparations containing \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Type of** & **Weight of Loaf** & **Volume (cm3)** & **Yield (\%)** & **Baking Loss (\%)** \\
**Bread** & **(g)** & & & \\ \hline SB & 83.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.9 & 198.13 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 1.83 & 140.26 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.51 & 16.26 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.90 \\ \hline E0 PP\_T1 & 82.98 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.52 & 192.16 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 1.91 & 139.00 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.88 & 17.01 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.52 \\ \hline E30 PP\_T1 & 83.04 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.67 & 189.21 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 2.25 & 139.10 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 1.13 & 16.96 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.68 \\ \hline E40 PP\_T1 & 83.11 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.32 & 189.39 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.89 & 139.22 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.53 & 16.89 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.32 \\ \hline E0 PP\_T2 & 82.59 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.24 & 206.68 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.16 & 138.33 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.40 & 17.41 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.24 \\ \hline E30 PP\_T2 & 83.25 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.53 & 197.89 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.77 & 139.45 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.89 & 16.75 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.53 \\ \hline E40 PP\_T2 & 83.05 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.11 & 195.17 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 2.16 & 139.10 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.19 & 16.95 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.11 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Qualitative features of bread made using the tested preparations. polyphenols. Dietary fiber generally negatively affects the volume of bread and texture characteristics; therefore, searching for new possibilities of adding high-fiber products to bread without reducing their quality, often using a fermentation process, is a current requirement [53; 54; 55; 56]. In addition, the greater volume of E0 PP bread may result from the supply of greater amounts of maltodext with a DE of 18-19, because, as demonstrated by [PERSON] et al.