## 2 Results and Discussion
### Brewing Trial Analysis
#### 2.4.3 Sensory Analysis  
Sensory scores on the appearance, aroma, taste and overall acceptability of the beer samples are reported in Table 5. All beer samples were considered acceptable by consumers with an acceptability score of more than 5 (neither like nor dislike). In terms of overall acceptability, BT1, BT2, BT3 and BT4 beers were similar to the BC. The respondents were asked to rank the five beers in order of preference, with 1 denoting the most preferred and 5 the least preferred. The ranking sums of the beers are reported in Table 5.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Terpenes** & **BC** & **BT1** & **BT2** & **BT3** & **BT4** & **RI _Calc_\({}^{\star}\) \\ \hline \(\beta\)-Myrene & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.19 a & 0.6 \(\pm\) 0.09 a & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.08 a & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.12 a & 0.2 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 991 \\ Linalool & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.15 a & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.06 bc & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.00 c & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.01 abc & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 1099 \\ Tepineol & 0.2 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 1188 \\ Citronello & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.08 a & 07 \(\pm\) 0.07 ab & 0.6 \(\pm\) 0.04 b & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab & 0.6 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab & 1228 \\ Geraniol & 0.2 \(\pm\) 0.02 b & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 1255 \\ Methyl geranate & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.02 b & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.3 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.4 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 1302 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* RI calc = calculated retention index, in accordance with the literature [24; 25]. BC = control beer; BT1 = T1 beer; BT2 = T2 beer; BT3 = T3 beer; BT4 = T4 beer.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Relative % abundance of terpen of beer samples. Means \(\pm\) standard deviation of the percentage of total sum area of the integrated peak area (AS) compared to the area of the internal standard (AIS). Different letters mean significant differences using [PERSON]’s post hoc tests, with a cut-off significance of \(p\) < 0.05.  
Figure 2: Score plots obtained from the PCA of Cyranose 320 sensor signals on beers made from hops across the fertilisation treatments. The analysis was performed using [PERSON]’s method (_p_ \(\leq\) 0.05). BC = control beer; BT1 = T1 beer; BT2 = T2 beer; BT3 = T3 beer; BT4 = T4 beer.  
In terms of appearance, all beers scored between 5 (neither like nor dislike) and 6 (slightly like). The rating for the odour and flavour of beer sample BT1 and the BC scored significantly differently from BT2 and BT4, showing a perception of differences between the beers by the consumers.  
The rating scores for the odour and aroma of BT4 beer were significantly lower than the BC but were not lower than BT1, BT2 and BT3. The most acceptable beer was BT1, followed by the BC. Odour and flavour revealed significant differences (Table 5): lower values indicate a preference between the analysed samples. In a previous study by [PERSON] et al. [21], where the impact of under-fertilised hops on consumers' willingness to purchase beers was evaluated, differences were observed with a preference for the beer produced with standard fertilised hops. Their results highlight the ability of consumers to identify differences among beers made with differently fertilised hops. In our study, the preference ranking of the beers was BT1 > BC > BT4 > BT2 > BT3, with a slight preference for BT1 and the C. These data are interesting and partially reflected by the analytical data, as can be seen in Table 4; the BC is richer in linalool and citronellol, whereas BT1 is richer in myrcene.