## 3 Results
### Sensory Analysis of the Tested Rice Drinks  
The sensory profiles of the tested rice beverages, as carried out by a qualified team of experts, are given in Table 5. The experts evaluated the tested beverages for such distinguishing characteristics as colour, overall smell intensity, smell (sweet, dairy vanilla, rice, fat, or other), density, viscosity, taste (sweetness), flavour (dairy, rice, fat, or different), \"body\" (the complex interaction of flavour characteristics), and overall sensory quality. The tested samples differed in terms of colour, with the RB_10 rice drink and RB_9 drink showing the lightest colour (scores of 1.16 IU and 1.91 IU, respectively), while the RB_4 and RB_5 drinks showed darker colour (5.30 IU and 6.54 IU, respectively). Beverages RB_2 and RB_9 were the most intense in terms of smell, which may have been related to sensing the sweet smell at a high level. Rice and fatty smells were most noticeable in the RB_2 beverage (4.56 units and 2.37 units, respectively). The RB_5 rice drink showed the most noticeable vanilla smell (2.15 IU). The RB_4 beverage had the highest density and viscosity (3.09 IU and 2.90 IU, respectively). The lowest density (1.01 IU) was shown by the RB_10 rice drink, which at the same time had the lowest viscosity (1.07 IU), which could be due to the low fat content of this drink. The RB_8 and RB_6 rice drinks were the sweetest (scores of 5.82 and 5.85 IU), while the RB_10 and RB_1 drinks showed the most minor sweetness (scores of 2.79 and 2.82 IU). The RB_9 beverage had a rice flavour (5.00 IU) at the highest level among all the beverages evaluated, while the RB_4 beverage had a dairy flavour (4.24 IU). The most complete flavour characteristics were attributed to the RB_4 and RB_9 beverages, which thus translated into a high overall sensory quality for these beverages at 5.54 IU and 5.60 IU, respectively. The lowest overall sensory quality was demonstrated by the RB_10 beverage (3.97 IU), which may have been due to the lowest fat and carbohydrate content in this beverage. Figure 2: Antioxidant activity of the tested rice beverages (arithmetic mean \(\pm\) standard deviation) a–f—mean values in bars marked with different letters differ significantly (\(p<0.05\)). Figure 3 shows the relationship (PCA) between the tested beverage samples and their sensory profile. This projection illustrates the distribution of sensory quality discriminants on a plane formed by two factors responsible for 76.51% of the samples' variability (factor p1--43.13% and factor p2--33.38%). In other words, the projection shown is a picture of the correlation of the evaluated sensory attributes described in Table 5 for the two factors: p1 and p2. Based on the obtained correlations, it can be concluded that the tested beverages differed in terms of the sensory attributes evaluated. Beverages RB_1, RB_3, RB_5, and RB_7 differed from the other beverages being assessed in terms of the taste of others (indicated most often by evaluators as caramel). In contrast, the RB_8 and RB_6 beverages stood out from the others regarding overall smell intensity. These samples showed more intense notes given to most smells than the other evaluated beverages. Beverage RB_4 stood out for having the most intense \"body\", while beverages RB_2 and RB_9 had the most intense mice smell. Figure 3: Graph of differences and similarities of the studied rice drinks. v1—colour, v2—general smell intensity, v3—sweet smell, v4—milk smell, v5—vanilla smell, v6—rice smell, v7—fat smell, v8—other (caramel) smell, v9—density, v10—viscosity, v11—sweet taste, v12—milk flavour, v13—rice flavour, v14—fat flavour, and v15—other flavour (indicated most often by evaluators as caramel), v16—‘body”, v17—overall sensory quality, p1–p10—tested rice drinks, red circles indicate groups of rice beverage samples tested that are similar in terms of similar sensory attributes.