## 3 Results and Discussion
### Small Analysis with Electronic Nose (E-Nose)
The inability of sensors  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Phenolic Compounds**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**MF**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RT (min)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Concentration (mg/100 g)**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & & **JLcAp** & **JLhAp** & **JLpAp** & **JCON** \\ \hline _Phenolic acids_ & & & & & & \\ Chlorogenic acid & C\({}_{16}\)H\({}_{18}\)O\({}_{9}\) & 11.72 & 0.427 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.973 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.385 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 1.293 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Sinapic acid & C\({}_{11}\)H\({}_{12}\)O\({}_{5}\) & 19.61 & 2.202 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.011 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.938 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.845 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ Ferulic acid & C\({}_{10}\)H\({}_{10}\)O\({}_{4}\) & 19.66 & 0.731 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.702 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.679 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.335 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ Gallic acid & C\({}_{2}\)H\({}_{6}\)O\({}_{5}\) & 6.45 & 0.615 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.633 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.639 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.d \\ Neochlorogenic acid & C\({}_{16}\)H\({}_{18}\)O\({}_{9}\) & 9.63 & 0.357 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2.646 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.306 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.747 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Caffeic acid & C\({}_{9}\)H\({}_{8}\)O\({}_{4}\) & 14.47 & 0.513 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.898 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.d & 0.235 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Protocatechuric acid & C\({}_{7}\)H\({}_{6}\)O\({}_{4}\) & 9.85 & n.d & 0.091 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.034 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & n.d \\ Syringic acid & C\({}_{9}\)H\({}_{10}\)O\({}_{5}\) & 15.19 & 0.023 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.268 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.d & n.d \\
2,3,4-trihydroxybenzoicic & & & & & & \\ acid & C\({}_{7}\)H\({}_{6}\)O\({}_{5}\) & 9.10 & 0.147 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.231 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.132 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.168 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \(P\)-comamic acid & C\({}_{9}\)H\({}_{8}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 18.56 & n.d & n.d & n.d & 0.057 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Total phenolic acids & & & & 5.016 \(\pm\) 0.001 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 8.453 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.115 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.681 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ _Flavonols_ & & & & & & \\ Morin & C\({}_{15}\)H\({}_{10}\)O\({}_{7}\) & 23.51 & 1.088 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.d & n.d & 0.721 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Quercetin & C\({}_{15}\)H\({}_{10}\)O\({}_{7}\) & 23.65 & 1.560 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.d & n.d & 1.293 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Catechin & C\({}_{15}\)H\({}_{14}\)O\({}_{6}\)  
W1W, W5S, W1S, and W2S to reach nearly zero implies the presence of high concentrations of these volatiles. Variations in bicultured sample responses to sensors may be attributed to cellular-level adaptive mechanisms, inducing hydrolytic enzymes [12; 31; 44] and releasing bound flavor precursors in raw jujube pures during the lactic-acetic co-fermentation. The robust physiological nature of _A. pasteurianus_, Ap-As.1.41, known to produce acetic acid that can penetrate cell membranes, might have enhanced volatile release [7]. The sensor responses were translated into radar fingerprints (Figure 1a), highlighting that sensors WSS, W1S, W1W, and W2S were most predominant in the bicultured pures compared to the control, JCON. This substantial variation in smell suggests an expansive volatile fraction in the bicultured pures compared to the unfermented sample (Table 4). E-nose parameters of fermented pures (JP) and control underwent principal component analysis, where PC1 (95.88%) and PC2 (2.52%) explained 98.7% of the sample variance (Figure 1b).