Table 4: Descriptive sensory analysis of commercial samples of Fondillón used to validate the sensory lexicon.

AttributeANOVAPDO profileF8F9F10F11F12
Sensory intensity (scale 0–10)

Odor (o)
AlcoholNS7.07.07.07.06.57.0
Fruity6.06.0 a6.0 a5.5 b6.0 a4.0 c
FloralNS2.02.02.03.02.02.0
Vegetal2.53.0 b3.5 ab4.0 a2.0 c2.5 b
SpicyNS3.52.54.04.03.03.5
Animal3.03.0 b3.0 b4.0 a2.8 b3.0 b
ToastedNS6.05.57.05.06.36.0
Defects00 b0 b2.8 a0 b2.5 a

Flavor (f)
AlcoholNS7.07.07.07.07.07.0
Fruity6.06.0 a6.5 a4.0 b6.0 a3.0 b
FloralNS2.02.01.02.02.02.0
VegetalNS2.02.02.02.02.03.0
SpicyNS4.03.04.04.02.84.0
AnimalNS3.03.02.03.02.03.0
ToastedNS6.06.06.85.06.36.0
Sweet3.02.0 b5.0 a3.0 b4.0 ab3.0 b
Sour4.04.0 ab3.0 b5.0 a4.0 ab5.0 a
BitterNS2.02.02.02.01.33.0
AstringentNS2.02.02.03.01.02.5
Defects00 c0 c2.5 a0 c1.0 b

Global
Imbalances01.0 b0 c3.0 a0 c2.0 ab
Aftertaste7.07.0 ab8.0 a6.5 b7.0 ab6.0 b

Appearance (a)
LimpidityNS9.09.09.08.59.08.0
Color (hue)5.05.0 b5.0 b6.0 a5.0 b3.0 c
Color intensity3.03.5 b3.0 b5.0 a4.8 a3.0 b
DefectsNS000000.5

QualificationOKOKNOT OKOKNOT OK
Liking6.0 b8.0 a6.7 b
Rankingbab

NS = not significant at ; , , and significant at , 0.01, and 0.001, respectively. Values (mean of 15 trained panelists) followed by the same letter, within the same row, were not significantly different (), according to Tukey’s least significant difference test. Mean satisfaction degree of 30 consumers is denoted by liking, and statistical results of Friedman’s test are denoted by ranking.