# Dandelion Flowers as an Additive to Wheat Bread: Physical Properties of Dough and Bread Quality
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Bread Texture  
Bread texture is an important parameter for consumers' acceptance. This feature can be modified both by using additives and through processing. Replacement of WF with DF at a level higher than 2% significantly increased crumb hardness compared with the control sample (Table 4). It resulted from a lower volume of bread, which consequently produced a denser and more compact crumb. The coefficient of correlation between the volume of bread and crumb hardness was significant and negative (r = -0.907, \(p\) = 0.005). Crumb hardness ranged from 6.08 N (CS) to 10.63 N (D6). On the other hand, DF incorporation into bread had little influence on crumb elasticity and no significant impact on the springiness and cohesiveness of bread. Both gumminess and chewiness linearly decreased with the percentage of DF, mainly as a result of the increase in crumb hardness. The negative influence of different plant additives on wheat bread texture, as a result of gluten weakening, was observed by many authors [46; 47]. However, this effect is not always observed. Recently, [PERSON] et al. [48] showed that the replacement of WF with parsley leaf powder in the range of 1-5% does not have a negative influence on crumb hardness. This characteristic results mainly from used ingredients, bread density and moisture content. The additives which strongly increase crumb moisture have little influence on crumb hardness because water is a plasticizer, and higher water content in bread results in softer crumb [49]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Water** & **Development** & **Stability of** & **Degree of** \\  & **Absorption [\%]** & **Time [min]** & **Dough [min]** & **softening (FU)** \\ \hline CS & 57.67 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.00 \(\pm\) 0.52 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.93 \(\pm\) 3.51 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 50.33 \(\pm\) 6.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ D1 & 57.90 \(\pm\) 0.70 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.60 \(\pm\) 0.66 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 7.67 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 37.33 \(\pm\) 5.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ D2 & 58.80 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.67 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.90 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 53.67 \(\pm\) 0.58 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ D3 & 59.67 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.30 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.07 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 64.33 \(\pm\) 2.08 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ D4 & 60.43 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.47 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.47 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 54.67 \(\pm\) 4.51 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ D5 & 60.83 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 6.53 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 8.03 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 36.00 \(\pm\) 3.61 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ D6 & 61.23 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 7.13 \(\pm\) 0.90 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 12.57 \(\pm\) 1.29 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 13.00 \(\pm\) 4.36 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} CS, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6—control bread and bread with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6% of DF, respectively. Data are presented as means with standard deviations (_n_ = 3). Values of each parameter with different superscript letters \({}^{\text{a}-\text{d}}\) in the columns are significantly different (_p_ < 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Physical properties of control wheat dough and DF-enriched dough samples.