## 3 Results and Discussions
### Total Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Potential of Dough and Bread
In that study, relative to the control group, the TPC increased by 115% in wheat dough enriched with 2.5% walnut flowers and by 316% in 2.5% fortified bread. Similarly, the inclusion of 2.5% inflorescence lyophilize led to an elevation in the antioxidant power of the dough and bread by 363% and 299%, respectively, as measured by the FRAP method. Therefore, it can be summarized that, like the flowers, leaves are a great example of a byproduct of a walnut tree and are rich in health-promoting substances that can be exploited in the process of food enrichment. Further, the content of polyphenols as well as the antioxidant potential of bread decreased compared to the TPC and the antioxidant action in the corresponding dough. Such an observation has already been noted in the bread-baking process [48; 49; 50]. However, the opposite phenomenon, i.e., the TPC and the antioxidant values significantly increased in \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Leaves’ Share** & **TPC** & **ABTS** & **FRAP** \\ (_lev/iv_ **Four Basis)** & **[mg GAE/g dw]** & **[mmol TE/g dw]** & **[mmol TE/g dw]** \\ \hline
0.0 (control) & 153 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 4 & 1.85 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 0.00 \\
0.5 (A) & 202 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \(\pm\) 8 & 2.49 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \(\pm\) 0.26 & 0.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \(\pm\) 0.00 \\
1.0 (B) & 233 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \(\pm\) 6 & 3.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 0.27 & 0.18 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \(\pm\) 0.01 \\
1.5 (C) & 282 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \(\pm\) 8 & 3.37 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.28 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \(\pm\) 0.00 \\
2.0 (D) & 316 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \(\pm\) 5 & 3.71 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \(\pm\) 0.12 & 0.38 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \(\pm\) 0.00 \\
2.5 (E) & 359 \({}^{\text{f}}\) \(\pm\) 4 & 3.87 \({}^{\text{fb}}\) \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.43 \({}^{\text{f}}\) \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} The means marked in the columns with the same letters do not differ at the significance level \(p\leq 0.05\). A–E: the systems in which the flour was replaced with walnut leaf powder at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5% levels, respectively. TPC—total phenolic content; ABTS and FRAP—methods of antioxidant activity.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Antioxidant activity of wheat dough with _J. regia_ leaves. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Leaves’ Share** & **TPC** & **ABTS** & **FRAP** \\ (_lev/iv_ **Four Basis)** & **[mg GAE/g dw]** & **[mmol TE/g dw]** & **[mmol TE/g dw]** \\ \hline
0.0 (control) & 70 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 4 & 1.31 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.00 \\
0.5 (A) & 104 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 3 & 2.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \\
1.0 (B) & 134 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 2 & 2.35 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.16 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 \\
1.5 (C) & 173 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 5 & 2.79 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.22 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \\
2.0 (D) & 194 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 75 & 3.35 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.34 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \\
2.5 (E) & 222 \({}^{\text{f}}\)\(\pm\) 1 & 3.80 \({}^{\text{f}}\)\(\pm\) 0.15 & 0.37 \({}^{\text{f}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} The means marked in the columns with the same letters do not differ at the significance level \(p\leq 0.05\). A–E: the systems in which the flour was replaced with walnut leaf powder at 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5% levels, respectively. TPC—total phenolic content; ABTS and FRAP—methods of antioxidant activity.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Antioxidant activity of wheat bread with _J. regia_ leaves. the enriched bread with respect to the unbaked control groups, was previously reported [51]. In food products, phenolic compounds exist within complex multi-component systems, where interactions can influence their activity and stability.