## 3 Results and Discussions
### Sensory Evaluation  
Sensory analysis is an important analytical tool to objectively characterize food products. Sensory evaluation of a product, including both the analytical sensory evaluation carried out by trained panelists and the affective test carried out on consumers, allows for more information about the product being analyzed and its quality to be obtained and to verify factors influencing its acceptability by consumers, which facilitates work on improving the quality of the product or its reformulation [42; 75]. In particular, in the production of probiotic beverages, acceptable sensory properties are very important because of the sensory changes that can occur during the development of probiotic products following the addition of probiotic bacteria to raw materials. This approach provides insight into the aromatic qualities of a new formulation, which contributes to product development, quality control, and consumer satisfaction. In the first flash profile (FP) session, the panelists recorded 14 sensory descriptors to describe the taste and aroma profile of the PFVBs. The sensory attributes generated were apple, peach, passion fruit, mango, coconut, pineapple, orange, strawberry, berries, carrot, beet, ginger, spinach, and cucumber. In the second session, the panelists grouped the descriptors by aroma similarity and reduced them to six sensory terms: tree fruit, tropical fruit, citrus fruit, red fruit, edible root, and vegetable. The FP results from the four formulations of probiotic beverages are represented in Figure 4. It is noteworthy that none of the formulations with added probiotic _L. pentosus_ LPG1 exhibited any unusual aromas or tastes. The FP of the PFVB1 formulation was mainly described as tropical fruit, tree fruit, and citrus fruit, the latter being the only term that showed a lower citation frequency in the taste profile (12.5%) versus the aromatic one (25.0%). In relation to the FP of PFVB2, notes such as citrus fruit, vegetable, and edible root can be profiled in the polygonal diagram. There was a good correlation between the aromatic and taste profile, except for the vegetable term, which was only just detected (12.5%) during the taste sensorial analysis. Regarding the aroma and taste profile of PFVB3, the citation frequency of the sensorial terms of the two-flash profile were very closely matched. In addition, the panelists characterized  
Figure 3: Total phenolic compound (TPC) content (g gallic acid/L) and antioxidant activity (AA) (% DPPH inhibition) of the PFVBs. Different lowercase letters represent significant differences between the TPC values of the probiotic beverages studied (\(p\leq\) 0.05). Different capital letters represent significant differences between the AA values of the probiotic beverages studied (\(p\leq\) 0.05). this formulation by red fruits and edible root notes, principally. Finally, PFVB4 was predominantly characterized as vegetable and citrus notes by the panelists. However, the aroma profile was less intense than the taste profile, especially in terms of the citation frequency of citrus notes (18.8%). The acceptance rate of aroma and taste attributes and overall liking of the probiotic vegetal beverages were evaluated using the acceptability index, and the results are shown in Figure 5. The judges reported a preference for the odor and taste of all beverage formulations, with over 61% indicating a positive response. In particular, PFVB1 containing mainly pineapple, apple, and grape juice presented the highest acceptability indexes for aroma (77.1%) and taste (68.8%). In contrast, PFVB4 obtained the lowest acceptability for aroma (61.3%). This could be related to the raw material of PFVB4, which included spinach (7.05%) and cucumber (5.64%). These vegetables contain nitrogen, sulfur, and C9 aroma compounds with distinctive grassy, slightly musty, and earthy aromatic notes [76]. Also, PFVB3 obtained the lowest acceptability index for taste (62.5%).