## 4 Conclusions  
The use of chokeberry pomace flour as a substitute for the typical flours (wheat, rice, and corn) used in the production of sponge muffins negatively affected the physical and sensory characteristics of the products. Irrespective of the type of muffin (classic, gluten-free), even the lowest levels of fruit flour caused significant changes in the color of the dough and finished products compared to control samples. An increase in the proportion of pomace flour reduced the quality of the products. The influence of pomace on the quality of the products depended on the type of muffin; a stronger effect on the parameters studied was observed for products with wheat flour. On the other hand, the use of fruit flour in gluten-free products led to a greater variation in their sensory evaluation. The results obtained indicate the possibility of using chokeberry pomace flour in sponge-fat products with a so-called spongy structure at a maximum level of 10%. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variant**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Appearance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Texture**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Color** & **Surface Cracks** & **Cracking** & **Hardness** & **Springiness** \\ \hline control & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 7.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 2.9 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 4.8 \(\pm\) 1.1 \\
10\% & 5.1 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 2.3 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 3.8 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 3.4 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 4.5 \(\pm\) 1.5 \\
20\% & 6.2 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 3.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 4.2 \(\pm\) 1.6 \\
30\% & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 4.2 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 2.7 \(\pm\) 1.0 \\
40\% & 6.9 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 5.5 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 4.4 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 \\
50\% & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 1.0 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 6.2 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 7.8 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 2.1 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Smell**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Typical** & **Fruity** & **Floury** & **Other** \\ \hline control & 8.0 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 0.6 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.4 \(\pm\) 2.1 \\
10\% & 5.2 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 1.9 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 3.0 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 1.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 \\
20\% & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 3.1 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 3.4 \(\pm\) 0.8 \\
30\% & 3.8 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 3.0 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\
40\% & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 3.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 3.4 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\
50\% & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 2.4 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 3.0 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Taste**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Typical** & **Sweet** & **Floury** & **Other** & **Overall Quality** \\ \hline control & 6.4 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 5.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 6.0 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 1.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 5.6 d \\
10\% & 5.1 \(\pm\) 2.0 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 4.4 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 2.1 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 5.6 d \\
20\% & 3.2 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 4.2 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 4.1 c \\
30\% & 3.3 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 4.7 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 2.9 b \\
40\% & 2.6 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 2.7 a \\
50\% & 2.6 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 3.8 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 4.7 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 2.7 a \\ \hline \end{tabular} a, b, c, d—different letters next to numbers indicate statistically significant differences.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: The descriptive sensory analysis of a gluten free muffin. **Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.Z. ; methodology, A.Z. and K.M.-L.; validation, A.Z., P.L., M.K. ([PERSON]), A.L., M.K. ([PERSON]), and K.M.-L.; formal analysis, A.Z., and K.M.-L.; investigation, A.Z., P.L., M.K. ([PERSON]), A.L., M.K. ([PERSON]), and K.M.-L.; resources, A.Z., P.L., M.K. ([PERSON]), and K.M.-L.; data curation, A.Z., P.L., M.K. ([PERSON]), A.L., M.K. ([PERSON]), and K.M.-L.; writing--original draft preparation, A.Z., P.L., and K.M.-L.; writing--review and editing, A.Z., P.L., M.K. ([PERSON]), A.L., M.K. ([PERSON]), and K.M.-L.; visualization, A.Z. and K.M.-L.; supervision, A.Z. ; project administration, A.Z. ; funding acquisition, A.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.