## 3 Results and Discussion
### Effects of STL Addition on BT VMs
#### 3.2.1 Identification of VMs
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**STL** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Appearance (25\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Liquor Color (10\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Aroma (25\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Taste (30\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Infused Leaf (10\%)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Total**} \\ \cline{2-10}
**Treatment** & **Evaluation** & **Score** & **Evaluation** & **Score** & **Evaluation** & **Score** & **Evaluation** & **Score** & **Score** \\ \hline \#1 & curly, tight, & strong & strong & strong & strong & & & & \\ (STL/withered & red, and & 90.0 \(\pm\) & gelatinous & 87.0 \(\pm\) & gelatinous & 86.8 \(\pm\) & red bright, & 89.9 \(\pm\) & 88.3 \(\pm\) \\ tea leaves with & glossy, & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & red, clarity & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & rice flavor, & 0.4 \({}^{\circ}\) & rice taste, & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) \\
20/1500 & uniform & & & tea aroma & & tea taste & & & \\  & curly, tight, & & & with & & sweet & & & \\
**42** (STL/rolled & red, and & 89.8 \(\pm\) & red, clarity & 90.0 \(\pm\) & gelatinous & 92.5 \(\pm\) & mellow, & 92.7 \(\pm\) & red bright, & 89.8 \(\pm\) & 91.4 \(\pm\) \\
20/1500 & glossy, & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & red, clarity & 0.2 \({}^{\circ}\) & rice flavor, & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & thick, & 0.2 \({}^{\circ}\) & buds & 0.2 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.2 \({}^{\circ}\) \\  & uniform & & & strong & & smooth & & & & \\
**83** & curly, tight, & & & & sweet & & & & & \\ (STL/fermented & red, and & 90.1 \(\pm\) & red, clarity & 89.9 \(\pm\) & with a & 90.0 \(\pm\) & sweet & 90.6 \(\pm\) & red bright, & 90.0 \(\pm\) & 90.2 \(\pm\) \\ tea leaves with & glossy, & 0.2 \({}^{\circ}\) & red, clarity & 0.2 \({}^{\circ}\) & blue, & 0.4 \({}^{\circ}\) & red, & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & red bright, & 0.4 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) \\
20/1500 & uniform & & & & rice flavor & & & & & \\
**44** (STL/rolled & curly, tight, & & & & & & & & \\ tea leaves with & red, and & 90.0 \(\pm\) & red, clarity & 90.0 \(\pm\) & white & 90.2 \(\pm\) & white & 90.2 \(\pm\) & white & 90.9 \(\pm\) & red bright, & 89.8 \(\pm\) & 90.3 \(\pm\) \\
10/1500 & glossy, & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & red, clarity & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & blue, & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & blue, & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & blue, & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & red bright, & 0.2 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) \\
**10**/1500 & uniform & & & & rice flavor & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Data are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (\(t=5\)). Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences based on the least significant difference test (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Sensory quality evaluations of tea samples treated with different addition methods of STL leaves. turn, the proportions of the esters, ketones, enynes, alkynes, and alkanes were the highest in the STL samples (\(p<0.05\)), whereas those of the aromatic hydrocarbons and alcohols were the highest in the BT and STL samples, respectively (\(p<0.05\) for each). Through appropriate addition technology, STL could confer BT samples with a variety of volatile metabolites, thereby enhancing the aroma quality of BT. The VMs present in the BT and STL samples were combined in the BoS samples. Among them, alcohol and alkane contents were significantly higher in the latter than in the BT samples, which was consistent with the sensory quality evaluation results.