## 4 Conclusions  
Seven hop oils commercially derived from American hop varieties (_Humulus lupulus_ L.) Amarillo, Azacca, Cascade, Centennial, Chinook, Saaz, and Ahhhroma and six hop oils hydrodistilled in our laboratory from commercial hop pellets of the same varieties (except Ahhhroma) were compared with the aid of GC, HPTLC hyphenations, and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR). To our best knowledge, this is the first reported quantification results with selected terpen (i.e., \(\alpha\)-pinene, \(\beta\)-pinene, \(\beta\)-myrcene, \(\beta\)-ocimene, limonene, \(\beta\)-caryophyllene, and \(\alpha\)-humulene) and methyl heptanoate present in the discussed American hop oil varieties. Composition profiles of the commercial and homemade (hydrodistilled) hop oils considered in this study unequivocally showed that the commercial hop oils were richer in \(\beta\)-myrcene, while the contents of \(\beta\)-caryophyllene and \(\alpha\)-humulene were usually higher in the hydrodistilled oils. Thus, the technology used in commercial hop oil production was not hydrodistillation. It was established that the antioxidant properties of the commercially available hop oils were comparable to those of white wines and beers. The results of the HPTLC assays indicated that several of the commercial hop oil components (e.g., \(\beta\)-myrcene, dimyrcenes, \(\beta\)-farnesene, \(2\)-methylbutyl isobutyrate, and geraniol) had antibacterial activity or inhibited \(\alpha\)-glucosidase and/or lipase enzymes, which could play a role in the anti-obesity activity of hops.  
The combination of fast, high-throughput, inexpensive, and relatively simple hyphenated HPTLC with GC-MS enabled the comparison of the chemical and bio-profiles of hop oils. The developed streamlined workflow, including parallel HPTLC-bioassays and HPTLC--TLC-MS Interface--SPME-GC-MS, revealed the identities of the hop oil bioactive components.  
Conceptualization, A.M.M., T.K. and M.S.; methodology, A.M.M., T.K. and M.S.; investigation, A.M.M., M.B., J.P., P.M., M.K., A.B. and M.S.; resources, A.M.M. and M.S.; data curation, A.M.M., M.B., J.P., P.M., M.K., A.B. and M.S.; formal analysis, J.F.; writing--original draft preparation, A.M.M., M.B., J.P., P.M., M.K. and T.K.; writing--review and editing, A.M.M. and T.K.; supervision, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
Figure 3: HPTLC chromatograms and bioautograms of seven commercial hop oils (Amarillo, Azacca, Cascade, Chinook, Centennial, Saaz, and Ahhhroma, 1–7, respectively): \(\beta\)-farnesene (s1), geraniol (s2), d-limonene (s3), and \(\beta\)-pinene (s4), developed with \(n\)-hexane (**a–d**) or chloroform (**e–h**), detected after anisaldehyde derivatisation and recorded under white light (**a**,**e**), the \(\alpha\)-glucosidase assays with \(2\)-naphthyll-\(\alpha\)-D-glucopyranoside under white light (**b**), the \(\alpha\)-glucosidase assay with \(4\)-methylumbelliferly-\(\alpha\)-D-glucopyranoside substrate under UV 365 nm (**c**,**f**), the _A. fischeri_ assay (d,h, greyscale images of bioluminescence), and the lipase assay under white light (**g**).  
**Funding:** This work was partially funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office of Hungary (SNNI39496).  
**Data Availability Statement:** Data are available upon reasonable request.  
**Acknowledgments:** The authors thank [PERSON] from the Plant Protection Institute, CAR, ELKH, for the preparation of the bacterial cell suspension.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.