## 3 Results
### Multivariate Statistical Analysis  
After the original dataset reduction, mentioned in Section 2.2 above, 9 variables from the original 19 ones were maintained as the necessary as well as sufficient ones for a description of the recorded data variability. In correspondence with information compressed in Table 3, the first principal component (PC1) covered 46%, the PC2 22%, and the PC3 10% of the reduced dataset scatter on average. The PC1 covered mainly the Mixolab torque points of dough consistency and hot gel stability (C1 and C4) plus the crumb whiteness \(L^{\star}\); the PC2 is built-up from the characteristics essential oil dose, starch retrogradation rate (torque point C5), and dough weight loss in 90 min of the leavening test (Figure 6a). For the majority of the mentioned dough quality features, these PC1 and PC2 could be considered sufficient to ensure a minimal information loss (communalities sum \(\geq\) 70%). For the bread yield additionally, the PC3 should also be included--as mentioned above, bread volume variance did not allow a clear distinguishing of essential oil type, or its dose used. It is a partially logical finding that the volume and shape of the final leavened bakery product depend on many factors; they begin from used dough recipe and mixer type via leavening conditions and dough pieces shaping procedure up to baking conditions. The plot of PC1 \(\times\) PC2 loadings confirmed a known positive relationship between specific bread volume/bread yield and the Mixolab torque point C2--the more resistant the dough to heat-mechanical treatment, the potentially larger rise of the dough during leaving (based on stronger gluten net present in that dough).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Variable**} & **PC1** & **PC2** & **PC3** & **Sum** \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Dose of essential oil} & 3 & 45 & 29 & 77 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Mixolab torque point} & C1 & 74 & 3 & 6 & 82 \\  & C2 & 64 & 24 & 3 & 91 \\  & C4 & 41 & 0 & 1 & 42 \\  & C5 & 41 & 47 & 3 & 91 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Baking trial} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} \begin{tabular}{c} \text{Dough weight}_{\text{90 min}}\end{tabular} \\ \end{tabular} } & 14 & 53 & 6 & 73 \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\begin{tabular}{c} \text{Bread yield} \\ \end{tabular} } & 27 & 2 & 42 & 70 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Bread color} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} \text{Crumb }L^{\star}\end{tabular} } & 86 & 1 & 0 & 87 \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{
\begin{tabular}{c} \text{Crumb }a^{\star}\end{tabular} } & 64 & 25 & 0 & 89 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{Average} & 46 & 22 & 10 & 78 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Communalities (%), a percentage of explained data variability by the first three principal components (PC).  
Figure 6: Principal component plot: (**a**) of variable loadings, where C1, C2, C4, and C5: Mixolab torque points; dough wt-90 min—weight of the dough sample in the 90 min of the leavening test; _Crumb L\({}^{\star}\)_, _Crumb a\({}^{\star}\)_—crumb luminosity (whiteness) and redness; (**b**) of case scores, where STD—non-fortified wheat dough/bread; 10-20-40-80 THY/LMG—wheat dough/bread fortified by 10 up to 80 mg/100 g four of thyme and lemongrass essential oil, respectively.  
Correspondingly to the positions of the variables in Figure 6a, the tested samples are located in the same plane of the PC1 \(\times\) PC2. The effects of THY and LMG on flour/dough and bread properties are listed above; in the plot Figure 6b, there is documented a statistical closeness of the samples 10 THY and 10 LMG to the non-enriched control (STD).  
Uncovered oscillation mainly in bread yields and crumb color caused shifts in the position of the samples containing 20 or 40 mg/100 g of both essential oils (20 THY, 40 THY, 20 LMG, and 40 LMG), whilst as presumed, the most enriched specimen 80 THY and 80 LMG are the furthest from the control (STD).