## 3 Results and Discussion
### Water Absorption Capacity of Flour and Rheological Properties of Wheat Dough  
Table 3 presents the results of the analysis of the water absorption capacity of wheat flour and the ability of the tested flour to absorb water infusions based on the ground ivy herb, as well as the results of the tests of the rheological parameters of the dough determined using a farinograph and obtained on the basis of the tested flour-water and flour-GH infusion systems (1, 3, 5%). Water absorption of the tested wheat flour was at the level of 54.4%, while its absorption in the case of using a 1% infusion of _G. hederacea_ L. did not change. At the same time, it was noted that in the case of replacing water with infusions of higher concentration (3 and 5%), the absorption of flour increased statistically significantly (\(p<0.05\)) with the increase in the concentration of the infusion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Water** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dough Properties**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Absorption** & **Development** & **Stability** & **Softening** & **FQN** \\  & **of Flour [\%]** & **Time [min]** & **[min]** & **[FU]** & **FQN** \\ \hline control & 54.0 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 0.0 & 2.3 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 0.1 & 9.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 0.5 & 45 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 3 & 95 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 4 \\ A & 55.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.1 & 2.5 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 0.4 & 11.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.4 & 39 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 6 & 121 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \(\pm\) 15 \\ B & 56.7 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.2 & 7.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.4 & 10.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.1 & 81 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 2 & 115 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 5 \\ C & 57.0 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.2 & 7.6 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.9 & 11.3 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.9 & 104 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 4 & 124 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Mean values from three repetitions \(\pm\) SD. Values in columns followed by the same superscript letters do not significantly differ at a significance level of 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Farinographic quality parameters of tested wheat doughs with _G. hederacea_ L. infusions. Interesting observations were made when comparing the results of the dough development time (DDT) measurement as the control sample and the sample with 1% infusion of ground ivy herb (A) did not differ statistically significantly in terms of this parameter, and the average DDT was 2.4 min. However, in the case of the next two experimental systems (B, C), an extension of the dough development time was noted, even 3-fold (C). Moreover, it was found that different concentrations of the _G. hederacea_ L. infusions used differentiated the discussed parameter between samples B and C. The next parameter tested was dough stability, which remained at the same level in the tested control sample systems and A and B. Therefore, neither replacing water with infusion nor its different concentrations (1 and 3%) had no statistically significant effect on the dough stability time. When using 5% infusion, an improvement in dough stability was noted. The softening of the control dough and dough A was similar, but the use of _G. hederacea_ L. infusions at a higher concentration caused a significant increase in dough softening, and in the case when 5% GH infusion was used instead of water, it was over 55% higher. The farinographic quality number was higher for the tested systems in which water in the dough was replaced with GH herb infusion. The use of 1% infusion did not differentiate the properties of the obtained dough in comparison to those of the control dough. Higher concentrations of the infusions used showed a significant effect on the properties of the tested dough, especially the 5% infusion, because an improvement in stability was noted, but also an increase in dough softening.