## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Analysis of the Experimental Chips  
In the sensory analysis, HSC5% obtained the highest score in the overall judgment of the panel compared to the CTRc (median values 6.844 and 5.611, respectively). The two products showed significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) for all sensory descriptors (Table 4). It is particularly noteworthy that in HSC5%, the presence of some detected attributes, such as roasty, coffee-like, walnut aroma, hazelnut aroma, and caramel aroma, were instead completely absent in the CTRc product. This result marked a deep sensory difference between the two formulated chips. Our results also show that the HSC5% chip had half the pulse-like and potato attributes of the CTRc product (4.333 vs. 8.667 and 4.389 vs. 7.333, respectively) and is therefore more balanced and pleasant tasting. Regarding the PCA evaluation, Figure 3 shows the clear separation of the two samples along F1, with the HSC5% chip on the positive side of F1 and the CTRc chip on the negative side. In all, 89.84% of the total variance is explained by the first two components (85.66% F1 and 4.18% F2). The attributes, overall judgment, aromatic intensity, coffee-like, roasty, walnut aroma, caramel aroma, hardness, crunchiness, and hazelnut aroma had the values that contributed most to F1. These descriptors were related to HSC5%, whereas the attributes of broth, pulse-like, potato sweetness, and pastiness were closely associated with the CTRc sample. This is evident from the PCA biplot, which shows a clustering of HSC5% in the first and second quadrants, while the CTRc is mainly in the third and fourth quadrants. Therefore, the difference in sensory characteristics between the two products under consideration was confirmed. Finally, in sensory analysis, the performance of the panel is of paramount importance, as it is indispensable for reliable and certain results. Indeed, it is the panelists' judgment that determines the outcome of the evaluation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Attributes** & **HSc5\%** & **CTRc** & **Pr \textgreater{} F(Model)** & **Significant** \\ \hline Hardness & 7.889 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.667 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.000 & Yes \\ Crunchiness & 8.722 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.003 & Yes \\ Pastiness & 0.900 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.044 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Sweetness & 0.833 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.833 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Bitterness & 3.778 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.944 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Astringent & 0.278 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.006 & Yes \\ Broth & 2.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Pulse-like & 4.333 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 8.667 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Hazelnut aroma & 2.650 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.300 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Caramel aroma & 0.389 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Walnut aroma & 2.056 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.222 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Bread aroma & 4.000 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.667 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Potato & 4.389 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 7.333 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Coffee-like & 2.722 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Roasty & 6.667 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.000 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Aromatic intensity & 6.944 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.056 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ Overall judgment & 6.844 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.611 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \textless{}0.0001 & Yes \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Means that show different letters are significantly different (\(p\leq 0.05\)) according to Student’s \(t\)-test. CTRc control chip recipe; HSC5%: hazelnut skin chip 5% recipe.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Least squares means of sensory attributes and overall judgment of the two products. Table 5 shows the control of assessor performances.