## 2 Results and Discussion
### Odorants Quantitation
The concentration of this compound was very diverse among samples and ranged from 0.318 mg/L (ANSM) to 1.54 mg/L (ABY). In those samples where 2,5-dimethyl-3(2)\(H\)-furanone was detected the concentration was above its odor threshold, and OAVs ranged from 13 (ANSM and TNS) to 62 (ABY). A high concentration of this caramel-like compound suggests that it was important for the final aroma of almost all meads. This compound is known to form easily in heated and fermented foods, and it was detected in many kinds of food products such as popcorn, non-alcoholic beverages, and wines [22]. The last group of odor-active compounds detected in tested mead samples were esters, which showed the biggest differentiation in the presence of particular compounds among all samples. Fruity ethyl octanoate was the only ester identified in all samples. Its concentration was above its odor threshold in all samples. Fruity, pineapple-like ethyl hexanoate was detected only in the ANS sample, and its concentration slightly exceeded its odor threshold (0.0052 mg/L, OAV 4). The last ester, identified in only one sample (BNS), was ethyl pentanoate, with a fruity odor. Its concentration was above the odor threshold concentration (0.00468 mg/L, OAV < 1). Additional esters (ethyl pentanoate and ethyl hexanoate) were identified only in samples fermented by wild yeasts present in acacia and buckwheat honey (spontaneous fermentation). Despite their low concentrations, not exceeding odor threshold concentrations, these compounds may affect the final aroma of the product [23]. Despite noticeable differences in aroma descriptors from sensory analysis of the prepared meads, no correlation to specific odor-active compounds was found when _G. geotrichum_ was added. The strongest differences described by sensory assessors were shown for acacia-based meads, which may be explained by their subtle and delicate aroma, which is not overshadowed by dominant sensory descriptors. Further advanced research is necessary to elucidate the interactions in this context. In summary, the observed differences in the aroma profiles of various meads could be attributed not to the diversity of aromatic compounds but rather to variations in their concentrations within specific groups of compounds. Consequently, the obtained results suggest that the identification of odor-active compounds for each individual product might be unnecessary. Instead, focusing on the primary product might be sufficient, with determining differences between variants through quantitative analysis alone. This approach may allow for the efficient identification of differences in aroma profiles through quantitative analysis, without the need for exhaustive compound identification for every product. Effect of Honey Varieties, Fermentation Techniques, and Production Process on the Sensory Attributes and Important Odorants Formation  
To determine the effect of technological parameters on the sensory attributes and important aroma compounds of twelve tested meals, an unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA) was applied. Multivariate analysis confirmed that the type of honey had the most significant impact on the sensory properties of mead. Those results are in agreement with [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2019), who observed significant differences in the flavor volatiles in meads prepared with vitex, acacia, linden, multi-floral, and jujube honey (2019). The clear clustering was achieved for the analyzed data (Figure 4A). Buckwheat-based meads, irrespective of the processing type, were positioned on the left side of the plot, while tilia- and acacia-based meads were located on the right side. Interestingly, there was no clear separation between acacia- and tilia-based meads. No distinct dependencies or trends for fermentation type or heating process implementation were observed. Opposite observations were noted by [PERSON] et al. (2019).