# Aromatic Profile of Hydroponically and Conventionally Grown Tomatoes
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Analysis Carried Out by the Evaluators
A very wide variance is visible for samples V826 (IT), V102 (NL), and V269 (SR). Table 3 was subsequently generated from the results of the scoring test, showing the demonstrability of differences between the tested samples. The resulting values, which are highlighted in yellow in the table, indicate that there is a difference between them at the alpha level of significance = 0.05. For us, the most important results are indicated in bold. Sample V826 (IT), which belongs to conventionally grown tomatoes, was marked as statistically significantly different. Its dissimilarity was not proven for samples V102 (NL) and V269 (SR). This means that these samples had similar sensory characteristics to the tomatoes that were stemless. The Slovak hydroponically grown tomatoes V931 were statistically significantly different from other samples, namely samples V102 (NL), V297 (BE), and V826 (IT). Similarly, to the Slovak sample, the Czech tomato (V512) differed from the samples that were grown conventionally (V102, V297, and V826). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **V102** & **V153** & **V188** & **V269** & **V297** & **V512** & **V740** & **V826** & **V931** \\ \hline
**V102** & 1 & 0.0549 & 0.0985 & 0.0804 & 0.1240 & 0.0279 & 0.0550 & 0.6970 & 0.0481 \\
**V153** & 1 & 0.9235 & 0.00833 & 0.0350 & 0.8637 & 0.2268 & 0.0115 & 0.8957 \\
**V188** & & 1 & 0.0718 & 0.3100 & 0.7846 & 0.3827 & 0.0207 & 0.8946 \\
**V269** & & & 1 & 0.3465 & 0.0050 & 0.0666 & 0.0550 & 0.0057 \\
**V297** & & & & 1 & 0.0206 & 0.3057 & 0.0406 & 0.0144 \\
**V512** & & & & & 1 & 0.2068 & 0.0063 & 0.8747 \\
**V740** & & & & & & 1 & 0.0127 & 0.2043 \\
**V826** & & & & & & 1 & 0.0106 \\
**V931** & & & & & & & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Demonstrability of differences between samples (sensory evaluation) (yellow label statistical difference \(p\) < 0.05). Figure 7: (**a**) PCA analysis of the overall character of the samples (point test); (**b**) PCA analysis of the complex profile of the samples (point test)—output by Sensominer software. The second part of the sensory analysis performed by the sensory panel consisted of assessing the sensory profiles through the hedonic scale. Our evaluators assessed the odor-flavor profile of the tomato, i.e., the flavor. Flavor refers to the sensory impression of the food or other substance, which is determined mainly by chemical combinations of taste and smell. To obtain the results, we used a similar program to the scoring test, namely SensoMiner, and we provide the results by visualizing them in the table evaluating the treated averages of the measured values. From a statistical point of view, we used [PERSON]'s non-parametric test. The provable differences between the samples are demonstrated to us by the values shown in Table 4. Statistically demonstrably stronger, more pronounced attributes are shown in blue. Attributes in which specific samples were rated as statistically demonstrably weaker are shown in yellow. From the values shown, we can see that in terms of sweet flavor, tomato sample with stem V931, hydroponically grown in Slovakia, dominates. The evaluators identified the foreign, conventionally grown samples V297 (BE) and V826 (IT) as statistically significantly less sweet. In this context, lower fruit ripeness was also associated with sample V826 and a demonstrably more acidic flavor with sample V297. Sample V740 (SR) was also found to be sour. Sample V269 (SR) was less acidic than the other samples. In terms of the other evaluated flavors, there was no clear difference between the samples. This means that there were no spicy, peppery, hot, metallic, or other foreign odors or flavors present in the samples that would significantly affect the character of the tomato. As a result, it can be said that samples V297 (BE) and V826 (IT), which represented foreign conventionally grown tomato varieties, were marked as less ripe or underripe by this method of evaluation and were therefore less sweet but more acidic to the evaluators compared to other samples.