## 3 Results  
### Effect of Withering Time on Sensory Quality  
The sensory evaluation was carried out using two groups: professionals and consumers. Table 1 demonstrates the professional evaluation outcomes, and a noticeable effect of withering time on sensorial attributes was detected. The appearance was granular, chestnut auburn in all treatments, with bloom generated at WT10 and WT12, and also unevenness at WT4. A red-clear liquor color was marked in all but at WT10, and WT12 was red-clear and heavy. A greenish aroma was noticed at WT4, which gradually vanished as withering time extended; at WT8 and WT10 fragrance was detected with no remarkable difference between the two treatments, followed by a decline in fragrance degree. The grassy and astingent taste detected at WT4 was slowly transformed as withering time extended into a refreshing, sweet, and mellow taste perceived at WT8 and WT10, with no significant (\(p<0.05\)) difference between the two treatments. Infused leaves were slightly uneven and red-blown at WT4 and WT6, with a reddish and dull appearance observed at WT12. The cumulative scores pattern showed the highest score at WT10 (86.88) followed by WT8 (86.74). The withering time exhibited a significant effect on the sensory quality, and this finding suggested that WT8 and WT10 could develop the sensory attributes of black tea. The customer sensory evaluation was based on three noticeable attributes, i.e., aroma, color, taste, and overall scores. The results show no significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) among all sensory indices evaluated (Table 1). Moreover, the scores of all attributes were around \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatments** & **Appearance** & **Liquor Colour** & **Aroma** & **Taste** & **Infused Leaf** & **Overall** & **Cumulative** \\   Professional & 20\% & 10\% & 30\% & 30\% & 10\% & 100\% \\   Evaluation & & & & & & \\ WT4 & 85.80 \(\pm\) 0.20 a & 90.83 \(\pm\) 1.04 a & 79.33 \(\pm\) 0.58 a & 74.50 \(\pm\) 1.32 a & 88.83 \(\pm\) 0.29 a & 81.28 \(\pm\) 0.40 a \\   WT6 & 86.97 \(\pm\) 0.15 b & 90.83 \(\pm\) 0.58 a & 80.33 \(\pm\) 0.58 a & 79.33 \(\pm\) 0.58 b & 88.90 \(\pm\) 0.17 a & 83.27 \(\pm\) 0.25 b \\   WT8 & 87.10 \(\pm\) 0.26 b & 91.17 \(\pm\) 0.29 ab & 84.67 \(\pm\) 0.58 b & 86.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 d & 90.07 \(\pm\) 0.12 b & 86.74 \(\pm\) 0.39 d \\   WT10 & 88.90 \(\pm\) 0.36 d & 92.33 \(\pm\) 0.58 b & 84.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 b & 85.50 \(\pm\) 0.50 d & 90.13 \(\pm\) 0.15 b & 86.88 \(\pm\) 0.42 d \\   WT12 & 88.00 \(\pm\) 0.20 c & 92.50 \(\pm\) 0.50 c & 80.33 \(\pm\) 0.58 a & 82.83 \(\pm\) 0.76 c & 88.93 \(\pm\) 0.58 a & 84.63 \(\pm\) 0.36 c \\   Customer & & & & & & \\ Evaluation & & & & & & \\ WT4 & 6.55 \(\pm\) 0.94 & 5.65 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 5.80 \(\pm\) 0.97 & 6.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 & \\   WT6 & 6.34 \(\pm\) 0.93 & 5.52 \(\pm\) 1.02 & 5.81 \(\pm\) 1.03 & 6.02 \(\pm\) 1.09 & \\   WT8 & 6.43 \(\pm\) 1.02 & 5.66 \(\pm\) 1.09 & 6.07 \(\pm\) 0.97 & 6.06 \(\pm\) 0.88 & \\   WT10 & 6.33 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 5.71 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 6.00 \(\pm\) 1.16 & 6.09 \(\pm\) 0.88 & \\   WT12 & 6.49 \(\pm\) 0.92 & 5.52 \(\pm\) 0.96 & 5.84 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 5.91 \(\pm\) 0.91 & \\   P\({}_{\rm S}\) \(\times\) F & 0.761 & 0.784 & 0.53 & 0.881 & \\ Significance & No & No & No & No \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Note: WT4, WT6, WT8, WT10, and WT12 represent the withering time set at 4 h \(\pm\) 0.5 h, 6 h \(\pm\) 0.5 h, 8 h \(\pm\) 0.5 h, 10 h \(\pm\) 0.5 h, and 12 h \(\pm\) 0.5 h, respectively. Professional evaluation data are presented as mean \(\pm\) SD (\(n=5\)). Mean values with different superscripts down the column are significantly different (\(p<0.05\)) according to [PERSON]’s test. Customer evaluation data are presented as mean \(\pm\) SD (\(n=58\)). \(\Pr>\) F \(>\) 0.05 indicates no significant difference.} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Professional and customer sensory evaluations of black tea with different withering time. 6, which means that the products were liked slightly.