## Results
### Consumer Acceptance  
Global consumer acceptance was assessed using a nine-point hedonic scale. The results of the CATA-L and CATA-F (Figure 7) grape juice scores are presented below. For grape juice, a significant observation was that acceptance rates surpassed 70% among respondents in both methods. Furthermore, all three juice brands under evaluation consistently obtained ratings over six. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Attributes**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Grape Juice**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Milk Chocolate**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **CATA-L** & **CATA-F** & **CATA-L** & **CATA-F** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Essentials} & Characteristic color * & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Characteristic color *} & Characteristic color * \\  & Characteristic compl * & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Characteristic compl *} & Characteristic smell * & Characteristic smell * \\  & Characteristic smell * & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Characteristic flavor *} & Characteristic flavor * \\  & Good consistency * & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Good consistency *} & Tasty * & Tasty * \\  & Very strong smell & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Tasty} & Good texture * & Good texture * \\  & Concentrated & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Characteristic flavor} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Indulgent *} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Indulgent *} \\  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Good appearance} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Soft melting in the mouth} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Undesirable} & Very weak smell * & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Very light color *} & Very light color * \\  & Watery * & Very weak smell * & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Weak smell *} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Weak taste *} \\  & Acidic * & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Watery *} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Weak taste *} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Nausea *} \\ \cline{1-1}  & Very light color & Acidic * & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Achiseweness in the mouth *} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Achiseweness in the mouth *} \\ \cline{1-1}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Astringent} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Firm} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Very sweet} \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & Heavy melting in the mouth \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Common attributes for both methods.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summary table of essential and undesirable attributes of grape juice and milk chocolate for both CATA methods. Figure 7: Histogram of acceptance scores for the evaluated grape juice samples: (**a**) CATA-L, (**b**) CATA-F (%). For chocolate, we can observe (CATA-L and CATA-F, Figure 8) different results for both methods regarding chocolates one and two. Figures 7 and 8 offer a comprehensive insight into the hedonic classification of grape juice and milk chocolate, respectively. For grape juice (Figure 7), both the CATA-L (a) and CATA-F (b) methodologies exhibit a high level of alignment in their results. Juice 1 received ratings above six from 72% of respondents in both methods. Juice 2 secured a slightly higher percentage of 74% in method (a) and 77% in method (b) for ratings above six. Juice 3 demonstrated similar acceptance levels, with 71% in method (a) and 77% in method (b). Turning to milk chocolate (Figure 8), while there are some variances, a general trend of consistency between the two methods persists. Chocolate 1 received ratings exceeding six from 58% of participants in method (a) and a higher rating of 74% in method (b). Chocolate 2 maintained consistent ratings, with 58% in method (a) and a slightly divergent 45% in method (b) for ratings above six. Chocolate 3 exhibited the most significant percentage difference, with 77% in method (a) and 72% in method (b). These results emphasize a key observation: the predominant preference for products remains consistent irrespective of the employed methodology. This observation extends across both food matrices, grape juice and milk chocolate. Whether a product was favorably received or less preferred in the CATA-L method, similar outcomes were reflected in the CATA-F method.