## 2 Results and Discussion
### Characterization of the Volatile Profile of Pomegranate Juiices  
The overall quality of pomegranate juices depends on their taste components, aroma profiles, and color properties. Among these factors, aroma is a crucial quality criterion that significantly influences consumer acceptance and preference. The volatile profiles of local Italian pomeranate juices were analyzed using HS-SPME/GC-MS. A total of 56 volatile compounds were identified and semi-quantified through internal standard addition, as detailed in Supplementary Table S1. In particular, 15 aldehydes, 13 terpenes and derivatives, nine alcohols, seven esters, six hydrocarbons, six ketones, and one ether were found. The volatile fraction of the pomergranate juice samples that resulted was indeed mainly composed, on average, of alcohols (38-85%), aldehydes (3-41%), and terpenes (5-18%), which is consistent with prior studies on pomergnate juice, in which the same classes of volatiles are reported as predominant ([PERSON] et al., 2014). For example, in the previous study on the volatile characterization of Italian and Montenegrine pomeranate juice, [PERSON] et al. (2014) described amounts of alcohols ranging between 34% and 46%, aldehydes between 20% and 34%, and terpenes between 8% and 27%, depending on the pomegranate ecotype considered. Moreover, lower amounts of esters (6%), hydrocarbons (3%), ketones (2%), and other compounds (1%) were measured in all the samples (Figure 1A). Because 4-methyl-benzadehyde and acetophenone presented a co-elution, they were measured together and were considered as 'other' in the total volatile quantity, with caprylic ether the only ether detected in all the considered samples. Nonetheless, significant differences in the volatile profiles were observed among the various samples, indicated in Figures 1B and 2. Alcohols were the dominant chemical group both quantitatively and qualitatively in all the samples, followed by the aldehydes group (except for TU1, where the terpenes and derivatives group was detected in higher amounts) and then the terpenes group (except for TU3, where the esters were detected in higher amounts). The commercial cultivar DC was indeed the sample in which alcohols presented the lower percentage (about 38%), with the aldehydes group (40%) representing the major class. Interestingly, the TU1 juices showed the highest alcohol content and, in the same samples, the lowest aldehydes and terpenes amount in respect to all the other analyzed samples. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline ID & Glucose & Fructose & Galactose & Mannitol & Total Sugar & Ratio G/F \\ \hline LI1 & 53.91 \(\pm\) 1.9 ab & 62.67 \(\pm\) 2.1 ab & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.04 ab & 1.72 \(\pm\) 0.5 c & 118.8 \(\pm\) 2.7 ab & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.02 b \\ TU1 & 64.40 \(\pm\) 1.1 a & 66.88 \(\pm\) 1.3 a & 0.98 \(\pm\) 0.5 a & 1.37 \(\pm\) 0.3 c & 133.6 \(\pm\) 2.5 a & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.06 a \\ TU2 & 49.33 \(\pm\) 1.7 b & 51.78 \(\pm\) 1.1 b & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.1 b & 2.60 \(\pm\) 0.2 ab & 104.1 \(\pm\) 2.7 bc & 0.95 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\ TU3 & 47.76 \(\pm\) 1.4 b & 49.18 \(\pm\) 3.1 b & n.d. & 3.09 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 100.0 \(\pm\) 2.0 c & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.09 a \\ AP2 & 62.24 \(\pm\) 1.5 a & 66.96 \(\pm\) 1.1 a & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.1 ab & 1.81 \(\pm\) 0.03 c & 131.6 \(\pm\) 2.6 ab & 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.05 d \\ BA1 & 42.78 \(\pm\) 1.3 b & 62.31 \(\pm\) 1.1 ab & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab & 2.62 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab & 108.3 \(\pm\) 1.0 a-c & 0.69 \(\pm\) 0.03 d \\ DC & 45.72 \(\pm\) 1.2 b & 58.88 \(\pm\) 2.1 ab & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.3 ab & 2.17 \(\pm\) 0.6 bc & 107.2 \(\pm\) 1.6 a-c & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.01 c \\ \hline \end{tabular} Different letters on the numbers in the same column indicate significant differences (\(p\leq\) 0.05) between the juice samples. n.d.—not detected.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Sugar contents (g L\({}^{-1}\)) of pomergnate accessions. Glucose, fructose, galactose, mannitol, total sugar, and ratio G/F (G, Glucose; F, Fructose). Regarding alcohols, the detected range was from 98.00 ug/mL for AP2 to 312.88 ug/mL for TU1.