## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Evaluation of Bread  
The sensory evaluation of bread samples was performed by a trained panel of 31 assessors, who assessed crust and crumb quality, including \"other attributes\" such as crispiness, surface uniformity, roughness, moisture, cohesiveness, gumminess, and freshness (Figure 4). The control wheat bread achieved a crust score of 3.51 and a crumb score of 3.87, indicating a well-balanced structure with satisfactory moisture content and a mouthfeel typical of standard white bread (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Crust**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Crumb**} \\ \hline
**Type of Flour** & **Proportion** & **Appearance** & **Colour** & **Thickness** & **Other Attributes** & **Elasticity** & **Porosity** & **Flavour and Aroma** & **Other Attributes** & **Total Score** \\ \hline Wheat flour & 100\% & 3.76 & 3.62 & 3.43 & 3.51 & 3.29 & 3.48 & 3.43 & 3.87 & 28.39 \\ \hline Wheat flour + red oak & 5\% & 3.95 & 3.76 & 3.14 & 3.30 & 3.33 & 3.33 & 3.05 & 3.58 & 27.44 \\ \hline Wheat flour + red oak & 10\% & 3.81 & 3.90 & 3.00 & 3.27 & 3.05 & 3.33 & 3.05 & 3.48 & 26.89 \\ \hline Wheat flour + red oak & 15\% & 3.57 & 4.10 & 2.95 & 3.19 & 2.67 & 3.33 & 3.14 & 3.32 & 26.27 \\ \hline Wheat flour + blue pedunculate oak & 5\% & 3.76 & 3.52 & 3.33 & 3.28 & 3.00 & 3.14 & 3.10 & 3.35 & 26.48 \\ \hline Wheat flour & 10\% & 3.67 & 3.62 & 2.90 & 3.13 & 2.67 & 2.86 & 2.95 & 3.13 & 24.93 \\ \hline oak & 15\% & 3.71 & 3.76 & 3.10 & 3.16 & 2.67 & 3.14 & 2.81 & 3.09 & 25.44 \\ \hline Wheat flour + red oak & 5\% & 3.86 & 3.81 & 3.19 & 3.57 & 3.29 & 3.29 & 3.33 & 3.43 & 27.77 \\ \hline Wheat flour + red mosaic & 10\% & 3.71 & 3.76 & 3.24 & 3.35 & 3.10 & 3.10 & 2.71 & 3.15 & 26.12 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Sensory evaluation of bread enriched with fruit- and tree-based flours. Figure 4: Wheat bread loaves after baking, enriched with various plant-based flours. From left to right: sweet chestnut, sessile oak, red oak, apple, horse chestnut, pedunculate oak, and control wheat bread. Each column represents a different additive, while each row corresponds to a substitution level: bottom row—5%, middle row—10%, top row—15%. Breads enriched with sweet chestnut flour consistently achieved the most favourable results in all assessed categories. The highest values were observed for the 15% addition, which received 4.02 for crust and 4.36 for crumb. These improvements were attributed to the presence of natural sugars and aromatic volatile compounds in chestnut flour, which positively influenced the bread's aroma, flavour, texture, and crust colour. [PERSON] et al. [33] confirmed that chestnut flour contributes a delicate, sweet taste and enhances aroma, while [PERSON] et al. [49] and [PERSON] et al. [44] reported significant improvement in colour, elasticity, and consumer acceptability at 10-15% supplementation. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [43] showed that gluten-free breads with 5-10% chestnut flour received the highest ratings in sensory attributes, while higher levels (20%) negatively affected quality. Our results were further supported by instrumental data and volatile compound analysis, which confirmed a higher concentration of aromatic compounds in chestnut-enriched breads. Moderate additions (5-15%) maintained high sensory appeal, while higher proportions introduced excessive sweetness and diminished porosity, as also reported by [PERSON] et al. [44]. Apple-flour-based breads also performed well in sensory analysis. Total scores ranged from 29.12 to 30.77, and the 15% supplementation level yielded the best sensory balance. Bread with apple flour was appreciated for its sweet flavour, pleasant aroma, and darker crust, a result of sugar caramelisation. These findings align with studies by [PERSON] et al. [50] and [PERSON] et al. [31], which highlighted the benefits of fruit-derived flours rich in phenolic compounds and natural sugars. [PERSON] et al.