## 2 Results and Discussion
### Organoleptic Analysis  
The best rated beer in the criteria of aroma, color, taste, and overall impression was MP (Table 5). The only criterion in which MP achieved worse notes than BC was beer clarity. All beers with fruit addition were characterized by a better aroma. Only MR achieved the same lowest note in the criterion of beer color as BC.  
Testers were also asked to describe the aromas they sensed in the tested beers. BC was described as having a bread-like, straw-like, and grainy aroma. MJ was described as having a sweet, fruity, and pineapple-like aroma. MP was described as having an intensively fruity aroma. Three of the testers described MP as a beer having a very rich, sweet, and mango-like aroma. The MR aroma was described as woody, piney, and flowery with bread-like tones. MRH was described as having a sweet fruity aroma with hints of pine sap and rose flowers. MHH was described mostly as having a sweet, fruity, and pine aroma.  
Studies about the sensory properties of beer with fruit addition conducted in the past years by [PERSON] et al. [32] also demonstrated that significant changes in the character of beer can be noted the after addition of fruit and consumers mostly choose fruit beers as being more desirable compared to traditional types of beer.  
In the study conducted by the [PERSON] et al., which used neural networks and advanced machine learning connected with state-of-the-art chromatographic analysis, showed that beers that were characterized by a greater concentration of volatiles with fruity, floral, and sweet aromas were preferred by the consumers because of their better taste and more pleasant aroma [37].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Beer Type\({}^{\text{a}}\)** & **Aroma** & **Color** & **Clarity** & **Taste** & **Overall Impression** \\ \hline BC & 2.56 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 3.00 \(\pm\) 0.41 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.44 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.56 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.44 \(\pm\) 0.50 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline MJ & 4.00 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 4.22 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.89 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.00 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 4.22 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ \hline MP & 4.44 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.33 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.78 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.44 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.56 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline MR & 3.44 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.11 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.22 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.78 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.67 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ \hline MRH & 4.00 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 4.11 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.11 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.89 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.78 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ \hline MHH & 3.89 \(\pm\) 0.42 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.89 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.00 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.44 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.89 \(\pm\) 0.39 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\text{a}}\) BC—control beer; MJ—beer with mango juice; MP—beer with mango pulp; MR—beer with raw mango; MRH—beer with raw mango homogenate; MHH—beer with heated mango homogenistic. Values are expressed as mean (\(n=9\)) \(\pm\) standard deviation. Mean values with different letters (a, b, c) within the same column are statistically different (\(p\)-value \(<\) 0.05).  
\end{table}
Table 5: Sensory analysis of mango beers.