## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Evaluation Results  
Currently, customers are increasingly seeking bakery products with enhanced nutritional value that retain sensory appeal. The nutritional value and sensory properties of bread depend on the type and quality of ingredients used as well as the applied technological process [71; 72]. In our research, we used flour from seeds of selected legume species as an additional ingredient in the recipes. Additionally, the bread dough was prepared using a two-phase sourdough method, which is rarely used in industrial wheat bread production. When assessing the overall appearance of the loaf, the panelists paid attention to its shape, the degree of rising, and the appearance of the crust surface. The evaluators awarded the highest scores for these characteristics (8.5 points) to the control bread (CB) (Table 8), which had the most significant rise (Figure 1). The bread with a 10% addition of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **TPC (mg GAE g** & **EC\({}_{50}\) DPPH (mg** & **EC\({}_{50}\) ABTS (mg** \\  & **DM\({}^{-1}\))** & **DM mL\({}^{-1}\))** & **DM mL\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \hline WF & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 217 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 188 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{B}}\) \\ GP & 1.72 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 169 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\text{B}}\) & 178 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ YL & 1.88 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{C}}\) & 160 \(\pm\) 9 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) & 169 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ NL & 2.15 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{D}}\) & 148 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\text{A}}\) & 164 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\text{A}}\) \\ \hline CB & 0.72 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 275 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\text{k}}\) & 213 \(\pm\) 18 \({}^{\text{f}}\) \\ \hline GPB10 & 0.81 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{ef}}\) & 241 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\text{j}}\) & 186 \(\pm\) 1 \({}^{\text{ac}}\) \\ GPB15 & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 230 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{i}}\) & 163 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ GPB20 & 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{bf}}\) & 218 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 148 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ GPB25 & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{ad}}\) & 204 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 139 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ \hline YLB10 & 0.92 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 186 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 199 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ YLB15 & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{ad}}\) & 174 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 192 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ YLB20 & 1.03 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{ag}}\) & 165 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 193 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ YLB25 & 1.09 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 154 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 191 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ \hline NLB10 & 0.93 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 158 \(\pm\) 1 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 183 \(\pm\) 7 \({}^{\text{ac}}\) \\ NLB15 & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 145 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 181 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ NLB20 & 1.04 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{ag}}\) & 140 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 189 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ NLB25 & 1.12 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 136 \(\pm\) 2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 168 \(\pm\) 3 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* WF—wheat flour; GP—grass pea flour; XL—yellow lupine flour; NL—narrow-leaf lupine flour; CB—control bread; GPB10-GPB25—bread with 10, 15, 20, and 25% of grass pea flour; YLB10-YLB25—bread with 10, 15, 20, and 25% of yellow lupine flour; NLB10-NLB25—bread with 10, 15, 20, and 25% of grass pea flour; YLB10-YLB25—bread with 10, 15, 20, and 25% of narrow-leaf lupine flour. The values designated by the different letters \({}^{\text{A}}\)\({}^{\text{D}}\) or \({}^{\text{a}}\)\({}^{\text{k}}\) were significantly different (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of raw materials, control, and enriched bread samples. GP, YL, or NL (GPB10, YLB10, and NLB10) as well as a 15% addition of YL or NL (YLB15 and NLB15) obtained comparable scores to the control sample.