## 3 Results and Discussion
### E-Tongue's Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **0 d** & **7 d** & **14 d** & **21 d** & **28 d** & **35 d** & **42 d** \\ \hline Sourness & \(-44.33\)\({}^{\text{g}}\) & \(-41.392\)\({}^{\text{f}}\) & \(-40.77\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(-39.486\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(-38.732\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-38.95\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(-40.06\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ Bitterness & \(8.45\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(6.816\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(6.322\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(6.742\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(6.26\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(6.156\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(6.916\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Astringency & \(-1.25\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(0.2\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(0.4\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(0.476\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(0.46\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(0.45\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(0.312\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Aftertaste\(-\)B & \(-1.11\)\({}^{\text{f}}\) & \(-0.436\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(-0.72\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(-0.374\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-0.654\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(-0.806\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(-0.408\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Aftertaste\(-\)A & \(-0.93\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(-0.778\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(-0.748\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(-0.692\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(-0.656\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-0.692\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(-0.71\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Umami & \(11.96\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(15.398\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(15.558\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(15.43\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(15.446\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(15.772\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(16.108\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Richness & \(1.54\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(2.14\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(2.286\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(2.22\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(2.236\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(2.318\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(2.176\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Saltiness & \(2.5\)\({}^{\text{f}}\) & \(2.89\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(3.264\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(2.848\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(3.026\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(3.36\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(3.496\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} Results are expressed as an average (\(n=3\)). \({}^{\text{a}}\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) Different superscripts in the same row indicate significant differences (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Taste value of E- tongue under different fermentation times. Figure 2: Taste value (**A**) and PCA analysis (**B**) of E- tongue at different fermentation times. PCA is expressed as the mean of flavor values. other taste values. It was, therefore, suggested that the umami of the fermented pork loin ham might be more pronounced across all taste values. To better visualize the results, a principal component analysis (PCA) was carried out to visualize the results better. The results are presented in Figure 2B. Of the total variance, 94.8% was explained by the first two principal components, with PC1 and PC2 accounting for 87.9% and 6.9% of the variance, respectively. The fermented pork loin ham on day 7 was associated with bitterness. Pork loin hams at 14, 21, and 42 days were associated with umami, saltiness, astringency, and after-bitterness. The 28 and 35 day fermented pork loin hams were associated with after-astringency richness, and sourness. This indicated that the E-tongue could better distinguish samples from different fermentation periods.