## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Sensory Evaluations  
The aroma profiles of the two gins are plotted in Figure 1. Both gins were dominated by an _ethanolic_ odor (not depicted), perceived with intensities of 7.0 and 5.3, respectively, for Gspusi and Kini; a lack of significance between these ratings do not allow conclusions to be drawn as to its higher rating in the gin with fewer botanicals, although it might be speculated that the use of many botanicalselicits a more complex aroma of the gin that acts to reduce the ethanolic impression. Since the present study focuses on key aroma (impressions) in relation to the use of botanicals, however, the ethanolic impression will not be considered in the ensuing discussion (and therefore, this impression has been omitted from the aroma profile plot of Figure 1).  
Kini exhibited an aroma profile that was dominantly _citrus-like_ (5.1), _orange-like_ (3.7) and _fruity_ (3.6), with these aroma notes being rated with significantly higher intensities than in Gspusi (rated at 2.6, 1.1 and 1.6, respectively). The strong _cola-like_ impression in Kini was only weakly perceived in Gspusi (respective ratings of 4.1 and 1.4), although the difference was not statistically significant due to the higher variance in the individual ratings across the panel. Based on the most intensely rated attributes, the aroma profile of Gspusi was dominantly _juniper-like_ (4.0), which might be attributed to the use of fewer botanicals and an associated emphasis of this aroma note; _juniper-like_ in Kini was rated with similar intensity (3.4), but this was less pronounced than some of the other aroma impressions (as discussed above). A _peach-like_ note was rated with higher intensity for Kini than for Gspusi (1.1 and 0.3, respectively), whereas a _eucalyptus-like_ impression was rated higher for Gspusi than for Kini (2.4 and 1.4, respectively), albeit in both cases without statistical significance. The aroma notes _soapy/coriander-like_, _anise-like_ and _malty_ were each rated with similar intensities in both gins (within the range 2.4-3.0).  
In terms of the hedonic evaluations, both gins were rated positively, albeit with Kini being rated higher than Gspusi (6.5 and 5.1, respectively). Although this difference was not statistically significant, the trend nevertheless indicates a more pleasant overall aroma of Kini compared with Gspusi. This might be explained by the richer and more complex aroma of the former compared to the latter, or the less intense ethanolic note in Kini, or a combination of both. It should be noted, however, that like the attribute ratings, the hedonic evaluation was made orthonasally and not retronasally,  
Figure 1: Comparative aroma profiles of the two gins, The King Gin Kini and Gspusi, perceived via orthonasal evaluation. Kini was produced with 50 botanicals, while Gspusi contained 15. Attributes marked with asterisks correspond to significant differences between the gins (\(p<0.05\)), as determined by analysis of variance (ANOVA). Note that the intensity scale has been adjusted to cover the range of rated intensities (maximum rated intensity of 5.1), rather than the full range available (10). The ethanolic odor impression (5.3 for Kini, 7.0 for Gspusi) has been omitted from the profile to focus only on the aroma impressions related to the botanicals.  
and preferences in flavor during consumption of the gins might be different. In a study that compared orthonasal and retronasal profiles of Chilean Pisco spirit, however, no significant differences were observed between these two methods of assessment [30].