Aroma-Enhancing Strategies in Mead: A Metabolomics- and Machine Learning-Guided Additive Approach

Aroma-Enhancing Strategies in Mead: A Metabolomics- and Machine Learning-Guided Additive Approach | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Aroma-Enhancing Strategies in Mead: A Metabolomics- and Machine Learning-Guided Additive Approach Ziwei Liu, Jingyu Zhang, Duanhao Wang, Xuening Tang, Wenlin Sun, and 10 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7189594/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract To enhance dry mead (DM) flavor, 13 herbal teas and coffee were added, and volatile changes were dynamically monitored using HS-SPME-GC-MS with three columns. While aroma intensity improved, off-flavors also increased. Pearson correlation analysis identified 17 key volatile compounds associated with enhanced aroma and reduced off-flavor intensity. The Random Forest (RF) algorithm was applied, enabling the identification of compounds positively associated with sensory evaluation scores, including both taste and aroma. Four compounds—ethyl phenylacetate (ES30), decanal (AD10), ethyl nonanoate (ES35), and phenylacetaldehyde (AD6)—were selected. Their addition increased aroma-active compounds by 3.5–39.0%, reduced isoamyl alcohol (AL4) by 9.7–56.81%, and raised total ester content by 3.05–5.88 times. Combined with sensory and metabolomic data, single-additive meads better preserved original flavor while enhancing floral, fruity, sweet, and herbal notes and suppressing off-flavors, compared to tea- or coffee-blended meads. Notably, inhibiting isoamyl acetate (ES10) formation appears critical for reducing AL4. Biological sciences/Biochemistry Biological sciences/Chemical biology Physical sciences/Chemistry Biological sciences/Plant sciences Mead Volatile metabolomics Aroma enhancement Random Forest HS-SPME-GC-O-MS Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 1 Introduction Mead, often referred to as the "ancestor of all alcoholic beverages," is a fermented drink made from honey, water, and yeast, with historical records dating back to around 7000 BCE 1 . It has played a significant role in various ancient civilizations, including Egypt, China, and Nordic cultures, often appearing in myths and folklore 2 . Beyond its historical and cultural significance, mead also offers potential health benefits due to its rich content of antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals, which may support immune function, metabolism, and bone health 3 . In recent years, the rise of backyard beekeeping in North America and Europe has provided a sustainable honey supply, fostering both the mead industry and ecological conservation 4 . As this culture continues to grow, exploring mead production not only enhances the appreciation of this ancient beverage but also adds diversity and enjoyment to modern lifestyles. During the fermentation of mead, higher alcohols play a crucial role in shaping its aroma and flavor profile. For example, mead samples fermented using Saccharomyces cerevisiae G10 contained a high concentration of phenylethyl alcohol (AL26), which imparts a characteristic honey-rose fragrance 5 . Additionally, ethyl palmitate (ES63) and ethyl myristate (ES59) were identified as the main ester compounds present in all mead samples, contributing to a fruity aroma 6 . Further studies have highlighted other key ester compounds responsible for the floral and fruity notes in mead. Notably, ethyl caprate (ES47) was identified as significant contributors to these aromatic qualities 7 . However, traditional mead fermentation may produce certain off-flavors. For example, Li and Sun reported that mead made from various types of honey contained ethyl laurate (ES55) and octanoic acid (AC6), which impart soapy, candlewax-like, oily, and fatty flavors that mask other aromas 2 . Similarly, Li and Zhang analyzed the effects of pre-culture on volatile compound dynamics in mead and identified isoamyl alcohol (AL4), ES55, and AC6 as key contributors to undesirable flavors 8 . Beyond mead, some compounds commonly found in this beverage have also been reported as off-flavor substances in other alcoholic drinks. For instance, research on Maotai-flavored baijiu by Fan et al. indicated that AL4 can produce an unpleasant and irritating odor 9 . In addition, Guan et al. suggested that hexanoic acid (AC4) and AC6 may contribute to off-putting aromas in wine 10 . Another study by Wang et al. characterized furfural (AD2) and AL4 as compounds responsible for both bitterness and astringency in baijiu 11 . Herbal plants, such as floral teas, are rich in bioactive compounds and have the potential to enhance the flavor profile of alcoholic beverages. Not only do they introduce their own distinct aromas, but certain key compounds in these plants can also influence the fermentation process. For instance, Wu et al. investigated the co-fermentation of non- Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces yeasts in Yuan’an yellow tea beer and found that methyl salicylate from yellow tea increased the concentrations of ES47, phenylethyl acetate (ES32), and ES63 12 . These compounds contributed sweet, spicy, and minty notes to the beer. Similarly, Xu et al. studied the processing of "Ziyan" tea wine and found that aerobic conditions promoted the degradation of α-pinene, which facilitated the formation of distinct floral and fruity aromas, further KEGG database analysis revealed that myrtle alcohol, a natural compound extracted from Myrtaceae leaves, serves as an intermediate product of α-pinene degradation 13 . Moreover, Zhu et al. reported that during fermentation and aging, AL4 and hexanol react with AC4 and butyric acid via esterification, imparting Jiang-flavor baijiu with prominent fruity and floral characteristics 14 . Xu et al. examined the dynamic changes in volatile compounds during the processing of dark tea wine and found that the presence of black tea enhanced the phenylalanine metabolism pathway 15 . This led to a significant increase in AL26, a key compound associated with fruity, floral, and sweet notes 15 , 16 . Additionally, Zhou et al. reported that α-pinene, a monoterpene found in fruits, can be used as a substitute for sulfur dioxide in grape wine fermentation, reducing sulfur content 17 . These findings suggest that specific compounds in herbal teas can influence the fermentation process and ultimately alter the sensory attributes of alcoholic beverages. In this study, we fermented 15 types of mead, including pure honey mead, 13 floral tea-infused meads, and one coffee-infused mead. Volatile compounds were analyzed using Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction Gas Chromatography-Olfactometry–Mass Spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-O-MS) with three different chromatographic columns. A total of 230 volatile compounds were identified throughout the fermentation process—from honey solution to semi-sweet mead to dry mead—by referencing authentic standards. Among them, 88 volatile compounds were identified in the final 15 dry meads. A comprehensive metabolomic analysis of volatile changes during fermentation was performed. Correlation analysis revealed 17 potential compounds associated with enhanced aroma and reduced off-flavor perception. Based on machine learning results, four single-additive meads were formulated using ethyl phenylacetate (ES30), decanal (AD10), ethyl nonanoate (ES35), and phenylacetaldehyde (AD6). Compared to the control rapeseed honey mead, these meads exhibited enhanced aroma profiles and reduced off-flavors. HS-SPME-GC-O-MS and sensory evaluation further identified two optimized meads, decanal-dry mead (AD10-DM) and ethyl nonanoate-dry mead (ES35-DM). Orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA), and variable importance in projection (VIP) analysis, combined with aroma recombination and omission experiments, confirmed their characteristic aroma compounds. Unlike direct herbal plant infusion, this approach allows for the enhancement of mead aroma while minimizing off-flavors without compromising the beverage's core honey-based flavor profile. Additionally, it provides valuable reference data and theoretical support for the application of commercial additives in improving mead flavor. 2 Results and discussions 2.1 Fermentation of mead Honey is one of the oldest carbon sources, but its low protein content makes fermentation challenging, resulting in generally low alcohol levels in fermented products 5 . Consequently, additional nitrogen sources are indispensable. In this study, we screened five yeast strains and two common nitrogen sources (yeast extract, and diammonium phosphate). As shown in Fig. S1 , the ethanol content was used as the indicator, and results demonstrated that both yeast strain and nitrogen source significantly influenced mead fermentation. Diammonium phosphate enhanced fermentation for the less efficient yeast strains (RV002, SY, and CR1), whereas Angie's yeast extract performed better for the highly efficient yeast strains (BV818 and RV171). The combination of Angie's yeast extract and Angie's BV818 yeast produced the highest ethanol content, reaching 12.9%vol, which was significantly higher than all other samples (P < 0.05). Therefore, this yeast strain and nitrogen source combination were selected for subsequent mead fermentation experiments in this work. 2.2 HS-SPME-GC-MS characterization of blended meads Volatile compounds in 15 meads were analyzed using HS-SPME-GC-MS by three different columns, resulting in the identification of 88 volatile compounds. These compounds were classified into alcohols (28.40%), esters (31.82%), alkenes (6.82%), aldehydes (5.68%), ketones (3.41%), phenols (2.27%), acids (6.82%), alkanes (6.82%), ethers (1.14%), and others (6.82%). To explore the profile of volatile compounds throughout the fermentation process, analyses were also conducted on honey solutions, semi-sweet meads (fermentation for 3 days), and dry meads. Overall, 255 volatile compounds were detected, among which 70 consistently appeared during the entire fermentation (from honey solution to final mead). Detailed results are available in Table S1 , S2, and S3. Mead typically contains relatively high levels of higher alcohols due to the yeast-mediated conversion of glucose and fructose from honey into ethanol via glycolysis during fermentation. Concurrently, higher alcohols such as AL4 and AL26 are generated through amino acid degradation or side reactions during carbohydrate metabolism. These higher alcohols exhibit strong volatility. Notably, AL4, AL6, and AL26 were commonly detected in all dry meads. Compared with dry rape mead (Rh-DM), all 14 blended meads showed reduced levels of AL26, with reductions ranging from 41.76–71.29%. The most significant reductions were observed in dry Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat mead (CmR-DM) (71.29%) and dry Passiflora edulis Sims mead (PeS-DM) (65.67%). AL26 is known for imparting rose and honey-like aromas 18 . In contrast, ES32 content increased in all blended meads compared to Rh-DM. Particularly, dry Rosa Crimson Glory mead (RCG-DM) exhibited a 7.35-fold increase, while PeS-DM had the smallest increase (1.58-fold). This increase may result from esterification reactions between AL26 and acetic acid, forming ES32. ES32 imparts floral and fruity aromas (e.g., banana, pear, jasmine) to mead and is considered an indicator of premium flavor quality 19 . Compared to Rh-DM, most blended meads showed reduced levels of AL6, with the exception of dry Hibiscus sabdariffa mead (Hs-DM), where the content remained nearly unchanged. In the remaining 13 blended meads, the concentration of AL6 decreased by 32.67–83.25%. The most significant reduction was observed in dry Rosa rugosa Thunb mead (RrT-DM), with a residual concentration of only 19.49 µg/L. AL6 is believed to be a characteristic metabolite of yeast anaerobic respiration in honey solutions 20 . It contributes an oily texture and a slightly sweet flavor, which may enhance the smooth mouthfeel of mead and mitigate the burning sensation of alcohol 21 . Moreover, it is noteworthy that AL4 content increased in all 14 blended meads. The elevated levels of AL4 in the blended meads suggest that certain constituents in herbal teas or coffee may promote the formation of this compound. AL4 is associated with fusel, nail polish, and solvent-like aromas, contributing to undesirable off-flavors in blended meads 22 , 23 , 24 . This finding was further supported by GC-O-MS analysis, which identified AL4 as an off-flavor compound (as shown in Table 1). Additionally, several unique alcohols were detected exclusively in the blended meads. For instance, CmR-DM contained eucalyptol (AL17) at a concentration of 105.78 µg/L, contributing a distinctive eucalyptus aroma to the mead 21 . Citronellol (AL42), a characteristic rose-scented compound 25 , was identified in RCG-DM and RrT-DM at concentrations of 38.94 µg/L and 36.97 µg/L, respectively. This compound imparts floral and citrus-like aromas to the mead. Esters represent essential aromatic components of mead, and 11 esters—ethyl acetate (ES1), isoamyl acetate (ES10), ethyl caprylate (ES26), ES32, ES35, ethyl 3-phenylpropionate (ES39), ethyl 9-decenoate (ES46), ES47, ES55, ES59, and ES63—were consistently detected in all dry meads. Notably, ES26 concentrations significantly increased in all 14 blended meads. Its concentration was highest in RCG-DM (3323.34 µg/L), an increase of 129.87-fold compared to Rh-DM (25.59 µg/L), with the smallest increase seen in PeS-DM, still 44.17-fold higher than Rh-DM. Regarding ES1, six blended meads exhibited higher concentrations than Rh-DM, with dry Nelumbinis Folium mead (NF-DM) showing the greatest increase (1.26-fold). ES10, ES32, and ES39 also increased in some blended meads. ES10 was highest in RCG-DM and dry Hibiscus sabdariffa mead (Hs-DM), with concentrations of 153.52 µg/L and 88.92 µg/L, respectively, 3.18 and 1.84 times higher than Rh-DM. However, ES10 decreased by 35.47% and 9.41% in PeS-DM and dry Jasminum sambac (L.) mead (Js-DM), respectively. ES32 and ES39 concentrations increased in all blended meads, with the greatest increases observed in RCG-DM (7.26-fold) and FM-DM (20.92-fold) compared to Rh-DM. Previous studies have identified ES1, ES10, ES26, and ES32 as important aroma compounds in fruit wines, contributing significantly to the fruity, floral, and sweet aromatic profiles of meads 13 , 26 . Except for CmR-DM, PeS-DM, and Js-DM, all blended meads exhibited higher concentrations of ES47 compared to Rh-DM. For example, dry Coffee mead (Coffee-DM) contained 4546.45 µg/L of ES47, approximately 2.94 times the level found in Rh-DM. This ester is typically associated with grape, citrus, or tropical fruit aromas, and may enhance the fruity complexity of mead 27 . Interestingly, ES46 and isoamyl decanoate (ES58) were not detected in Rh-DM but were found in blended meads. ES46 ranged from 197.20 µg/L to 1058.64 µg/L across the 14 blended meads. ES58 was present in Coffee-DM and Hs-DM at concentrations of 43.89 µg/L and 33.46 µg/L, respectively, they contributing grassy and rose aromas to the meads 8 . ES55 enhance aroma complexity synergistically with other esters, though excessively high concentrations may negatively impact flavor quality. Analysis of honey solutions revealed ES55 was undetected in Rh-HS but present at 349.58 µg/L in dry Fructus Mori mead (FM-HS) and at lower concentrations (6.99 µg/L to 16.94 µg/L) in CmR-HS, RCG-HS, and Ct-HS. ES55 appeared in all semi-sweet blended meads, with the lowest concentration detected in CmR-SDM (28.25 µg/L) and the highest in semi-sweet Clitoria ternatea mead (Ct-SSM) (472.1 µg/L, 27.87 times higher than dry Clitoria ternatea mead (Ct-HS). This indicates that additives enhance ES55 production efficiency. ES59 and ES63 were detected in all mead samples, contributing fruity flavors 28 , 29 . Compared to Rh-DM, concentrations of ES59 and ES63 increased in blended meads. The largest increases in ES59 were observed in Coffee-DM and RCG-DM, increasing by 14.60-fold and 13.84-fold, respectively. Significant increases in ES63 were found in FM-DM, RCG-DM, and Coffee-DM, being 11.44-fold, 9.40-fold, and 9.14-fold higher, respectively, compared to Rh-DM. Fatty acids are present at low concentrations in mead but significantly influence its flavor profile. Short-chain fatty acids, such as butyric acid, and AC4, can enhance the complexity of aroma and improve flavor when present at low levels. However, at higher concentrations, they may cause undesirable sharp acidity, rancid, or sweaty odors, adversely affecting mead quality. Medium- and long-chain fatty acids, including AC6, decanoic acid (AC7), and dodecanoic acid (AC8), can introduce undesirable astringent or soap-like tastes, particularly if their concentrations become excessive. Moreover, elevated levels of these acids may disrupt flavor balance and inhibit yeast fermentation. In honey solutions, only a few blended honey solutions contained trace amounts of pterin-6-carboxylic acid (AC10), ranging from 0.16 µg/L to 4.38 µg/L. No acids were detected in rape honey solution (Rh-HS). During mead fermentation, however, the diversity and concentration of organic acids significantly increased. For instance, five organic acids were identified in semi-sweet rape mead (Rh-SSM), with AC6 being the predominant one found across all semi-sweet meads (SSMs). Its concentration in Rh-SSM was 407.40 µg/L, while even higher levels were detected in semi-sweet Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat mead (CmR-SSM) (419.06 µg/L), semi-sweet Rosa Crimson Glory mead (RCG-SSM) (463.89 µg/L), and semi-sweet Rosa rugosa Thunb mead (RrT-SSM) (569.39 µg/L). AC7 was present in Rh-SSM at only 19.5 µg/L, but CmR-SSM, semi-sweet Nelumbinis Folium mead (NF-SSM), and RrT-SSM had approximately 100 µg/L each. Additional acids, including 4-methylvaleric acid (AC3), AC4, heptanoic acid (AC5), AC8, and tridecanoic acid (AC9), were detected in SSM at concentrations below 30 µg/L. After complete fermentation, the overall concentration of organic acids in mead significantly decreased, particularly medium- and long-chain acids known to cause off-flavors. For example, AC4 in RrT-DM was reduced to just 0.42 µg/L, with AC5 and AC6 entirely absent. Interestingly, pentadecanoic acid (AC11), previously undetected, was found in small quantities (1.03 µg/L) in RCG-DM. Additionally, dry mead contains alkenes, aldehydes, ketones, phenols, alkanes, and ethers. Borneol (OT15) was exclusively detected in CmR-DM at a concentration of 306.6 µg/L. OT15 imparts a cool and refreshing sensation to mead 19 . Concentrations of other compounds are below 50 µg/L. Two volatile phenolic compounds were identified in dry mead, among which 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol (PN8), known for its antioxidant activity possibly due to phenolic acid degradation, was detected in all dry meads. Its concentrations were 5.21 µg/L in Rh-DM, 16.25 µg/L in CmR-DM, and 11.16 µg/L in RrT-DM. Other blended meads contained lower amounts of this compound than Rh-DM. Eugenol (PN3) was only found in RCG-DM at a concentration of 5.32 µg/L. Elevated PN3 levels in wine reportedly provide smoky, medicinal, and spicy aromas 20 . 2.3 OPLS-DA of blended meads OPLS-DA was employed to investigate the dynamic changes of volatile compounds during the whole fermentation processes of 15 kinds of mead, as shown in Fig. S2 . The validation plot from 200 permutation tests confirmed the reliability of the OPLS-DA model, showing a positive R² slope and a Q² intercept of -0.265, which is below the threshold of 0.05. These findings demonstrate that fermentation has a significantly greater impact on mead composition than additives. At the same fermentation stage, semi-sweet meads exhibited the greatest dispersion, followed by honey solutions and dry meads. This indicates that during the initial stages of fermentation, differences among mead samples due to additive use increase; however, towards the end of fermentation, these differences are significantly reduced. Then, OPLS-DA was employed to investigate all dry meads, as shown in Fig. 1 A. Eleven compounds with VIP scores ≥ 1 were identified, comprising seven esters and three alcohols. The compounds most influential for dry meads, ranked by VIP score, were 1-dodecanol (AL47), AL26, ES26, AL4, ES55, ES46, ES1, OT15, AL6, ES32, and ES63 (Fig. 1 B). Alcohols displayed the highest variability, suggesting significant influence by herbal teas and coffee additives on their types and concentrations. Moreover, esters were notably concentrated in blended meads, highlighting that additive usage effectively enhances mead flavor. Specifically, aside from Rh-DM and Coffee-DM, the remaining 13 compound dry meads fell within the 50% confidence interval. Additionally, ethyl butyrate (ES6), ethyl ester (ES22), butyl caprate (ES53), and ethyl 9-hexadecenoate (ES62), positioned near the center of the plot, are associated with pineapple, herbal aromas, floral and fruity scents, and honey sweetness. Distinctly, RCG-DM and Coffee-DM samples showed considerable separation from other samples, characterized by unique volatile profiles. For instance, RCG-DM closely correlated with fragrant esters and alcohols, such as 5-methyl-2-heptanol (AL8) and AL42, imparting hyacinth and rose aromas, respectively, while ES30 and ES32 enhanced floral and fruity sweetness. However, blended meads also resulted in the accumulation of undesirable odor-active compounds, such as AC6, notably clustered near PeS-DM and Js-DM, contributing waxy or soapy notes due to its medium-to-long-chain fatty acid characteristics 2 . Compared to Rh-DM, AL4 appeared closer to all blended meads, suggesting that while additives significantly enrich herbal and floral aromas, they simultaneously increase concentrations of certain undesirable compounds. In summary, the use of additives significantly enhances the aromatic complexity of mead but can also amplify undesirable flavor. Therefore, it would be ideal to selectively incorporate specific key compounds from herbal teas or coffee, as this approach may effectively enhance aroma accumulation without increasing undesirable flavors, ultimately improving the overall sensory profile of mead. 2.4 Innovative aromatic mead To elucidate interactions among volatile compounds during fermentation, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted across HS, SDM, and DM. as shown in Table S5 , from 230 initial compounds, 17 potential compounds were identified that could enhance desirable aromas while suppressing off-flavors (Fig. 2 A and Table S6 ). To further validate their contribution to sensory attributes, a Random Forest (RF) regression model was constructed using the volatile profiles and corresponding sensory. The impact of each compound was simulated by individually increasing its concentration in a reference mead sample (Rh), with changes in predicted taste and aroma scores recorded (Fig. 2 B). The results revealed that several compounds exhibited a strong positive modulation effect on both taste and aroma. Notably, p-cymene (OT8) showed the highest enhancement, increasing both taste and aroma scores substantially, followed by AD10, octane (AK1), ES30, and ES35. These compounds are likely involved in floral, citrus, or fruity notes commonly associated with mead's desirable sensory profile. In contrast, a subset of compounds, such as OT4, ES13, and ES23, resulted in negative shifts in sensory scores, suggesting potential contributions to off-flavor development or sensory suppression. AD6, while showing only a modest improvement in sensory scores, did not induce any negative effects and therefore remains a promising candidate additive for further evaluation. Given the goal of this study to support the industrial application of mead production, the selection of candidate additives was further refined by prioritizing food-grade availability as a primary criterion, followed by practical considerations such as cost-effectiveness and food-grade market accessibility (Table S6 ). Based on these factors, optimal volatile additives were identified as promising candidates for aroma enhancement in mead, including AD6, AD10, ES30, and ES35. The volatile aroma-active compounds in these meads were identified using HS-SPME-GC-O-MS with three columns. As shown in Table 1, a total of 15 aroma-active compounds (AI > 0) were identified, comprising 10 esters (66.67%), 3 alcohols (20%), and 2 aldehydes (13.33%). Among these, AL4 was considered an off-flavor compound, while the others were aroma-enhancing. Overall, esters are recognized as the most important aroma compounds in mead, contributing floral, sweet, and fruity aromas 19 . Compared to Rh-DM (2.11 mg/L), total volatile ester concentrations in ES30-DM, ES35-DM, AD6-DM, and AD10-DM were significantly elevated by 3.05 to 5.88 times, reaching concentrations of 12.41 mg/L, 10.45 mg/L, 6.44 mg/L, and 10.50 mg/L, respectively. OPLS-DA was employed to investigate the relationship between 15 odor-active compounds and mead flavors (Fig. 3 A). As shown in Fig. 3 B, five compounds had VIP values ≥ 1, ranked from highest to lowest: ES30, ES35, AL26, ES47, and ES26. ES30 (AI = 3.5), reported to impart fruity sweetness and herbal notes 18 , increased most dramatically in ES30-DM (5479.05µg/L), reaching a concentration 10,743 times higher than that in Rh-DM (0.51 µg/L) due to the direct addition of ES30. ES30 levels also rose significantly in AD10-DM, AD6-DM, and ES35-DM, being 72.16, 63.47, and 57.76 times higher than Rh-DM, respectively. In GC-O analysis, AL26 (AI = 4.2) was unanimously described by panelists as having persistent honey and sweet notes. However, its concentration decreased across all four novel meads, ranging from 6.98–69.97% of the level found in Rh-DM. The most significant reduction occurred in ES35-DM (93.02%), while the smallest decrease was observed in AD6-DM (30.03%). This may be attributed to the conversion of AL26 into other ester compounds such as ES32 during fermentation. Yeast synthesizes AL26 primarily through the shikimate and Ehrlich pathways. As shown in Fig. 4 A, the biosynthesis of AL26 begins with phosphoenolpyruvate from the glycolysis pathway and erythrose-4-phosphate from the pentose phosphate pathway. These intermediates undergo a series of enzyme-catalyzed reactions to form shikimate. Shikimate is then converted into phenylpyruvate, which is decarboxylated by phenylpyruvate decarboxylase to form AD6. Finally, AD6 is dehydrogenated by alcohol dehydrogenase to produce AL26. However, we observed that in the three meads containing additives, AL26 was further converted into ES30, whose concentration increased by several-fold. Additionally, in both ES30-DM and AD6-DM, the conversion of AD6 into ES32 was promoted. These results indicate a general decline in the concentrations of both AL26 and its precursor AD6 in the novel meads—except in AD6-DM, where AD6 was directly supplemented. The key aroma-active medium- and short-chain esters in mead are primarily formed through the esterification of medium- and short-chain fatty acids, produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae metabolism, with alcohols such as ethanol. Figure 4 B illustrates the metabolic pathways of fatty acid synthesis in yeast. ES35 (AI = 3.6), known for imparting fruity aromas in fruit wines 30 , showed the most significant increase in ES35-DM—approximately 335.28 times higher than in Rh-DM (19.37 µg/L)—followed by ES30-DM, which exhibited a 1.56-fold increase. ES47 (AI = 3.4), which contributes floral notes to mead, increased in concentration across all samples compared to Rh-DM, except in ES35-DM, where it decreased by 44.56%. The largest increases were observed in AD10-DM and ES30-DM, reaching 3.07 and 1.52 times the concentration found in Rh-DM, respectively. In AD10-DM, the direct addition of AD10 inhibited its biosynthesis from AC7 (decanoic acid), which likely promoted the accumulation of ES47. ES26 (AI = 3.9), recognized for its fruity and sweet aromas in various alcoholic beverages 31 , showed the highest increases in ES30-DM and AD6-DM—48.18-fold and 37.52-fold higher than in Rh-DM (25.59 µg/L), respectively. ES35-DM showed the smallest increase, yet still reached 25.58 times the level in Rh-DM. The substantial increase in some key medium- and short-chain aromatic esters in the novel meads is likely attributable to the use of additives, which may have promoted the formation of fatty acid metabolites in yeast and subsequently accelerated esterification reactions. In addition to the aforementioned compounds, AL4 (AI = 5) had the highest Aroma Index (AI) but was described by panelists as having an unpleasant solvent-like odor with pungency. Compared to Rh-DM, AL4 content notably decreased in ES35-DM (by 56.81%), while ES30-DM and AD10-DM saw reductions of 9.71% and 11.22%, respectively. Another significant compound was AL6 (AI = 0.8), important for balancing alcoholic flavor, imparting slight sweetness, and prolonging aroma retention. In the section 3.2 , we observed that adding tea or coffee significantly reduced AL6 content, disrupting flavor balance or causing flavor deterioration. However, relative to Rh-DM (116.36 µg/L), the levels of AL6 increased in ES30-DM, AD6-DM, and AD10-DM by 1.2, 1.44, and 1.47 times, respectively, suggesting single-compound additives effectively avoid undesirable reactions and enhance aroma accumulation. Current research indicates that there are two main biosynthetic pathways for AL4 during fruit wine fermentation: the amino acid catabolic pathway (Ehrlich pathway) and the amino acid biosynthetic pathway (Harris pathway). As illustrated in Fig. 4 C, the Ehrlich pathway involves the transamination of valine or leucine to form α-keto acids (α-keto-isovalerate or α-keto-isocaproate), which are then decarboxylated by keto acid decarboxylase to produce isovaleraldehyde. This intermediate is subsequently reduced by alcohol dehydrogenase to yield AL4. The Harris pathway, on the other hand, involves the conversion of glucose into pyruvic acid via glycolysis. Pyruvic acid is then transformed into α-keto-isovalerate through the sequential action of acetolactate synthase (ILV2), acetohydroxyacid reductoisomerase (ILV5), and dihydroxyacid dehydratase (ILV3). When amino acid availability is limited, α-keto-isovalerate undergoes decarboxylation and reduction to form AL4. In all blended meads, the concentration of AL4 ranged from 1.42 to 2.23 times higher than in Rh-DM. The highest levels were observed in RrT-DM and RCG-DM, reaching 4002.30 µg/L and 3406.66 µg/L, respectively. We found that ES10, a precursor of AL4, accumulated extensively in all blended SDMs—ranging from 3.44- to 22.37-fold higher than in Rh-SDM. This accumulation likely contributes significantly to the elevated production of AL4 during subsequent fermentation in these samples. In contrast, meads produced with direct compound addition did not exhibit this issue. In these additive-enhanced meads, the increase in ES10 was minimal, and in ES35-DM, it even decreased by 2.6-fold. Notably, this sample also showed the most significant reduction in AL4 concentration, with a 2.3-fold decline. These findings suggest that the accumulation of ES10 may be a key determinant in regulating the final AL4 concentration. Although ES35 and ES10 are derived from different metabolic pathways and do not interact directly, the major esterification enzymes in yeast—Atf1p and Atf2p—possess broad substrate specificity and are involved in the synthesis of various esters. Therefore, we hypothesize that an increase in ES35 may competitively inhibit the activity of Atf1p and Atf2p, thereby hindering the synthesis of ES10. ES1 (AI = 2.5) and ES18 (AI = 3) are important aroma compounds in wine and Chinese Baijiu 14 , 32 , 33 , contributing fruity aromas (apple and pear) and tropical fruit aromas (pineapple and banana), respectively. As shown in Fig. 4 B, we observed that the addition of specific additives in mead production promoted the formation of AC4, which in turn facilitated the synthesis of ES18. Compared with Rh-DM (356.34 µg/L), ES1 increased the most in AD6-DM, reaching 1.53 times higher, whereas the only sample showing a decreasing trend was ES35-DM, with a 24.13% reduction compared to Rh-DM. The concentration of ES18 in Rh-DM was only 0.12 µg/L, while the four new types of meads showed significantly increased ES18 contents. The greatest increases were observed in AD6-DM and ES30-DM, being 1667.42 times and 1464.67 times higher than Rh-DM, respectively. The smallest increase was found in ES35-DM, which was 533.17 times higher than Rh-DM. GC-O analysis identified two aldehydes: benzaldehyde (AD5, AI = 0.7) and AD6 (AI = 0.3), imparting almond and forest freshness, respectively 34 . Compared to Rh-DM, AD5 levels rose in ES35-DM, AD6-DM, and AD10-SM by 1.41, 1.5, and 1.06 times, respectively, while decreasing by 27.24% in ES30-DM. AD6 increased only in AD6-DM (by 9.69 times) but decreased in other novel meads, with ES35-DM showing the greatest reduction (78.44%). Nonetheless, AD6’s low AI implies minimal sensory impact. In conclusion, meads supplemented with single additives significantly enhanced aroma intensity, especially for compounds with high AI values, and effectively reduced accumulation of the off-flavor compound AL4 (AI = 5). The efficiency of single-compound supplementation surpassed that of blended additions such as tea or coffee, as shown in Table 1 and Fig. S3 . 2.5 Sensory Evaluation As shown in Fig. 5 A, a comprehensive sensory evaluation revealed significant differences in aroma attributes between the four novel meads and the reference Rh-DM. The novel meads exhibited notably higher scores in aroma descriptors such as sweet, floral, herbal, and fruity compared to Rh-DM. Specifically, ES35-DM and AD10-DM showed a reduction in irritating and waxiness attributes, while ES35-DM, ES30-DM, and AD10-DM also demonstrated diminished bitterness and fatty notes. All four novel meads exhibited a noticeable decrease in sweaty off-notes. Except for ES35-DM, the remaining three samples displayed slightly increased sourness compared to Rh-DM. In terms of overall preference, the results are shown in Fig. 5 B, approximately 58.34% of panelists selected ES35-DM as their favorite, followed by AD10-DM, which accounts for 25%. ES30-DM was perceived as having an overly intense aroma and a strong mouthfeel, with herbal notes that bordered on medicinal, making it the less favored by some panelists. AD6-DM, despite showing improved fruitiness, was generally disliked due to its enhanced bitterness and irritating characteristics. To identify the key volatile compounds contributing to mead aroma, recombination and omission experiments were performed using the two top-performing samples (ES35-DM and AD10-DM) along with Rh-DM. Based on GC-O analysis, 15 aroma-active compounds were selected and used to reconstruct the aroma profiles of Rh-DM, ES35-DM and AD10-DM. As shown in Fig. 6 A, the sensory profiles of the recombined models closely matched those of their original counterparts, validating the effectiveness of the aroma reconstitution. Then, 45 omission models were created to evaluate the individual contribution of each of the 15 key aroma compounds (Fig. 6 B, Table S7 ) in 3 kinds of meads. The results demonstrated that the absence of AL4, AL6, AL26, ES47 were consistently identified by at least 10 panelists (p < 0.01) across all three meads, indicating their importance as key aroma contributors. AL4 played a modulating role in aroma perception; its omission led to a noticeably enhanced overall aroma intensity, suggesting it may act as a masking agent in the complete matrix. This effect was recognized by 13 panelists. In contrast, the absence of AL6 resulted in diminished aroma complexity and roundness, causing the recombined samples to lose their layered character, indicating its critical role in creating a balanced and appealing sensory experience. AL26 was found to contribute significantly to the perceived sweetness of mead, with its omission leading to a marked decline in sweetness, particularly in the Rh-DM sample. Similarly, ES47 was shown to be essential for fruity notes, especially apple and pear-like aromas, with the most pronounced impact observed in AD10-DM, where this compound was present at the highest concentration. Additional compounds demonstrated specific importance to individual formulations. ES30, when omitted from ES35-DM and AD10-DM, caused a significant reduction in floral and fresh attributes, with all 13 panelists correctly identifying the missing compound (p < 0.001), highlighting its role in defining floral character. The removal of ES35 from ES35-DM led to decreased floral, fruity, and sweet notes (p < 0.001), which can be attributed to its targeted addition in this particular sample. Lastly, omission of ES26 weakened the perception of alcoholic strength, particularly in AD10-DM, suggesting its importance in contributing to the body and alcoholic impression of mead. The use of specific additive compounds led to an increase in the number of key aroma contributors identified in the mead samples. These findings suggest that, compared to blended meads incorporating ingredients like flower teas or coffee, meads formulated with a single additive are more effective at preserving the original sensory profile of mead while enhancing desirable aroma attributes such as floral, fruity, sweet, and herbal notes. Moreover, off-flavors can be significantly suppressed. This study provides a scientific foundation for the industrial production of high-quality mead with optimized aroma profiles. 3 Materials and methods 3.1 Raw materials and reagents The rapeseed honey (purity > 85%) from the apiary located at 107°03′-107°30′ E, 32°45′-33°40′ N. Commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae (BV818, RV002, RV171, SY) and yeast extract FN502 were purchased from Angel Yeast Co., Ltd. (Yichang, China). Italian Saccharomyces cerevisiae CR1 was purchased from Yantai Diboshi Self Brewing Machine Co., Ltd. (Yantai, China). Aurea helianthus (Ah), Chrysanthemum morifolium (CmR), Clitoria ternatea (Ct), Fructus Mori (FM), Hibiscus sabdariffa (Hs), Hordeum vulgare (L.) (Hv), Jasminum sambac (L.) (Js), Nelumbinis Folium (NF), Osmanthus black tea (Obt), Passiflora edulis Sims (PeS), Rosa Crimson Glory (RCG), Rosa rugosa Thunb (RrT), Siraitia grosvenorii (Sg) were purchased from Gong yuan Company (China). The internal standards 4-methyl-2-pentanol (≥ 99%), were purchased from Shanghai Titan Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). The n-alkane mixed standard sample (C6–C40) was purchased from Shanghai yuanye Bio-Technology Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China). ES30, AD10, ES35, and AD6 with food grades were purchased from Adamas-beta (Shanghai, China). Sodium metabisulfite, diammonium phosphate and DL-tartaric acid with food grades were purchased from Hunan Yueyang Sanxiang Chemical Co. (Yueyang, China). All herbal teas were purchased from Tongxiang Specialty Products Co., Ltd. (Tongxiang, China). Mixed arabica coffee powers from Sumatra with dark espresso roast was purchased from Starbucks Commercial Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). All other reagents are analytical grade were obtained from Shanghai Titan Technology Co. Ltd. (Shanghai, China). 3.2 Fermentation of Meads One gram of herbal tea or coffee power was added into 90 mL of hot distilled water (100°C) and kept for 5 min. Then, the mixture was filtered out with four-layer gauze. The rape honey was added into the above mixture, reaching 25 Brix. Yeast extract (1.5 g/L) or diammonium phosphate (1.5 g/L) and sodium metabisulfite (80 mg/L) were then added. Tartaric acid was added to adjust pH to 3.5. The prepared honey solution (HS) was pasteurized at 85°C for 20 minutes. The yeast (0.2 g) was activated in 2 mL of HS at 38°C for 20 min, then transferred into 98 mL of fresh HS and incubated at 25°C. The fermentation was stopped at 3 and 8 days to obtain semi-sweet and dry meads, respectively. This fermentation period was confirmed in our preliminary experiment (data not shown). All meads were centrifuged at 4,000 rpm and 25 ℃ for 10 minutes (H2050R-1, Cence Hunan Xiangyi Co., Ltd, China) to remove impurities. For the preparation of additional meads, neither herbal tea nor coffee was used; instead, specific additives were incorporated. The fermentation process remained the same as previously described. The amounts of additives used were as follows: ES30 50.27 µg/L, AD10 48.56 µg/L, ES35 149.24 µg/L, and AD6 141.27 µg/L. The amounts of additives based on GB2760-2024 standard. 3.3 HS-SPME-GC-O-MS analysis A 5 mL aliquot of mead was transferred into a 20 mL sample vial, to which 0.75 g of NaCl and 20 µL of internal standard solution (4-methyl-2-pentanol, 162 mg/L) were added. The vial was sealed with a screw cap fitted with a silicone septum. The sample was equilibrated at 45°C for 20 minutes prior to extraction. A solid-phase microextraction (SPME) fiber was then exposed to the headspace at 45°C for 30 minutes. Finally, the volatile compounds were desorbed from the SPME fiber in a GC-MS injector operated in splitless mode at 250°C for 5 minutes. Volatile compounds were analyzed using an Agilent 7890B/5977B GC-MS system (Agilent Technologies, California, USA) equipped with an Agilent 19091S-433UI capillary column (60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm). The chromatographic separation followed this temperature program: The oven temperature was programmed from 35 ℃ (held for 6 min), ramp to 90°C at 5°C/min (held for 2 min), ramp to 150°C at 3°C/min, ramp to 230°C at 10°C/min (held for 10 min). Helium (99.99% purity) was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.8 mL/min. The mass spectrometer operated with a mass scan range of 30–350 m/z, an ionization energy of 70 eV, and the ion source, quadrupole and transfer line temperatures were set to 240°C, 150°C, and 200°C, respectively. To confirm the identity of the compounds, additional analyses were conducted using an Agilent DB-WAX 122–7062 column (60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm) and a Shimadzu SH-I-5Sil MS column (60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm). They were respectively used in the HS-SPME-GC-O-MS analysis. Their detection methods were same as our previous work columns 8 . The identification and quantification of volatile compounds were conducted using both external and internal standard methods. For compounds with commercially available standards, qualitative analysis was performed using external standards. These standards were grouped into three mixed standard solutions, with each group prepared in triplicate. For compounds without available standards, semi-quantitative analysis was conducted using the internal standard method, with 4-methyl-2-pentanol selected as the internal standard. Compound identification was based on matching mass spectral fragmentation patterns with those in the NIST Mass Spectral Library (version 2.3), complemented by characteristic odor descriptors. Retention indices (RI) were calculated using a series of n-alkanes (C6–C40) under both polar and non-polar conditions. Volatile compounds with a relative similarity index (RSI) greater than 750 were considered reliably identified. Additionally, compounds with RI deviations less than 10% between the sample and authentic standards were considered consistent with the standards. Aroma-active compounds in mead were characterized using a Sniffer 9100 olfactometry detector (Brechbühler, Switzerland) in Agilent 7890B/5977B GC-MS system. GC effluent was split equally (1:1) between the sniffing port and MS detector. The transfer line temperature was maintained at 230°C, while the sniffing port temperature was set at 180°C. Olfactory analysis was performed by six experienced panelists (three males and three females, aged 24–45). The Odor Specific Measurement Estimate (OSME) method was employed to assess the aroma intensity (AI) of compounds over time. The AI of odor-active compounds was rated using a 5-point scale: 0 (no odor), 1 (very weak), 2 (weak), 3 (easily identifiable), 4 (strong), and 5 (extremely strong). Each compound was evaluated three times, with the occurrence time, odor characteristics, and intensity systematically recorded. 3.4 Correlation analysis of volatile compounds To investigate the interactions among volatile compounds during mead fermentation, this study considered the dynamic fermentation process and performed Pearson correlation analysis on all volatile compounds across mead samples using GraphPad Prism 10 (p < 0.05). The analysis included volatile substances from the honey solution (HS), semi-dry mead (SDM), and dry mead (DM), as presented in Table S1 , S2, and S3. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationships among volatile compounds. This statistical measure is a standard tool for assessing the degree of association between pairs of variables. Its values range from − 1 to 1, where scores below zero indicate a negative correlation, scores above zero indicate a positive correlation, and a score of zero indicates no correlation 35 . To screen potential additives, compounds were selected based on the following criteria: a positive correlation coefficient of ≥ 0.95 with aroma compounds and a negative correlation coefficient of ≤–0.95 with off-flavor compounds. The objective was to identify additives that can simultaneously enhance the flavor of mead and reduce undesirable odors. 3.5 Sensory evaluation An experienced sensory panel comprising 80 trained members (40 females and 40 males), aged between 18 and 65 years, from Northwest University (Xi’an, China) conducted the organoleptic evaluations. The aroma of mead samples was described using 10 attributes: sweetness, fruitiness, herbal notes, floral notes, acidity, sweat-like odor, waxiness, bitterness, pungency, and fattiness. Each attribute was rated on a scale from 0 (undetectable) to 10 (extremely intense). Acidity, regarded as a separate parameter, was calculated according to the methodology outlined in supplementary material Eq-A. 3.6 Machine learning Using Random Forest To further screen volatile compounds with significant impact on mead flavor, 17 candidate compounds were selected based on prior correlation analysis. A training dataset was constructed using volatile profiles from 15 honey water samples, semi-sweet meads, and dry meads as features, with sensory evaluation scores (taste and aroma) as target variables. The Random Forest (RF) algorithm was employed to model and predict both taste and aroma scores 36 . A representative mead sample (Rh) was used as a baseline to simulate the impact of increasing the concentration of each compound individually by + 100 µg/L. The predicted changes in sensory scores were used to assess the positive or negative modulation effect of each compound, thereby identifying which volatiles have the greatest potential to enhance desirable flavor attributes. This method effectively pinpointed the most influential additives for aroma and taste improvement, offering quantitative support for formulation optimization. All procedures were implemented using Python 3.10. 3.7 Aroma Recombination and Omission Experiments To evaluate whether the 15 odor-active compounds identified by GC-O could replicate the overall aroma profile of mead, reconstitution and omission experiments were conducted using standard compounds at the concentrations detected in the original samples. Three reconstituted aroma models were prepared, including Recombinant ES35-DM (RES35-DM), Recombinant AD10-DM (RAD10-DM), and Recombinant Rh-DM (RRh-DM). These composite models were compared with their corresponding original mead samples through sensory evaluation. Each reconstituted model was placed in a 20 mL capped clear glass vial and equilibrated at 4°C for 24 hours prior to sensory testing. The samples were randomly coded. A trained sensory panel consisting of 40 members (20 males and 20 females) evaluated the aroma similarity between each original mead sample and its corresponding reconstituted model using a 100-point scale. In addition, panelists rated the intensity of ten aroma attributes, as described in Section 2.5 , for each reconstituted model to assess how accurately it reproduced the sensory characteristics of the original mead. To further investigate the contribution of individual volatile compounds to the overall aroma profile of the mead samples, 45 omission models were prepared by systematically removing one compound at a time from a base solution composed of ultrapure water, ethanol, and the full set of aromatic standards. These omission models were also placed in 20 mL capped clear glass vials and equilibrated at 4°C for 24 hours prior to random coding and sensory evaluation. Sensory assessment of the omission models was conducted using the three-alternative forced-choice (3-AFC) method 37 . Each test set consisted of two fully reconstituted models and one omission model, presented simultaneously in three 20 mL vials. The samples were randomly labeled with three-digit codes and randomly ordered. A total of 20 trained panelists (10 males and 10 females) were asked to identify the sample that differed from the other two and describe the perceived differences in aroma characteristics. All sensory evaluations were carried out in accordance with the standardized procedures described in Section 2.5 . 3.8 Statistical analysis All experiments were performed in triplicate, and results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Biplots of OPLS-DA and VIP plots were created using Simca 14.1 (Umetrics Corp., Umeå, Sweden). The full names of the main abbreviations in this article are shown in Table S4 . 4 Conclusion This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of herbal tea and coffee additions on the volatile profile and aroma characteristics of mead. A total of 230 volatile compounds were identified using HS-SPME-GC-MS, and multivariate statistical analyses revealed that these additives not only enriched the aroma complexity but also amplified certain off-flavor compounds. Seventeen key aroma-related compounds were identified, among which four—ES30, AD10, ES35, and AD6—were selected based on their sensory contribution and practical feasibility. SPME-GC-O-MS analysis confirmed that the addition of these compounds significantly enhanced the content of desirable esters and reduced the concentration of isoamyl alcohol, a known off-flavor compound. Sensory evaluation further supported these findings, showing improvements in floral, fruity, sweet, and herbal notes, alongside reduced bitterness and pungency. Notably, ES35-DM and AD10-DM emerged as the most favored aromatic meads. Through omission and reconstitution experiments, eight key aroma compounds were identified as critical to the characteristic flavor profile of mead. These findings offer a targeted strategy for flavor modulation in mead production and provide a theoretical foundation for the development of high-aroma, low off-flavor honey-based alcoholic beverages. Declarations Ethical Statement The authors certify that this study was conducted in strict accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki for research involving human participants. In the context of sensory evaluation, national regulations do not require formal ethical approval, and no established ethics committee or formal documentation process is available for such studies. Despite this, the authors implemented rigorous protocols to safe guard the rights and privacy of all participants. These protocols included ensuring voluntary participation without coercion, providing comprehensive information about the study’s aims, procedures, and potential risks, obtaining verbal informed consent from each participant, ensuring that no participant data was disclosed without prior consent, and allowing participants the freedom to withdraw from the study at any point without prejudice. Declaration of competing interest The authors declares that we have no commercial or financial interests related to the submitted work. Funding This work was supported by the Central Funds Guiding the Local Science and Technology Development (2022ZY1-CGZY-05), the Science and Technology Program of Yulin City, Shaanxi Province (2024-CXY-174), Lishui Science and Technology Bureau (grant numbers 2022GYX03, 2023GYX07), the Shaanxi Province Key Research and Development Program (S2025-YF-ZDXM-CYJQ-0136, 2024CY-JJQ-39), the National Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scholars (grant numbers 22108227) and the Central Guidance on Local Science and Technology Development Fund of Shaanxi Province (2023ZY1-CGZY-06). Author Contribution L, Z., and Z, J., wrote the main manuscript. L, Z., T, X., S, W., G, M., and L, X., completed the research and investigation together.L, Z., Z, T., and L, W., have prepared all the diagrams. W, D., B, W., C, Y., and Z, H., have completed all the calculations. L, B., W, D., and C, W., reviewed the article. References Senn, K., Cantu, A., & Heymann, H. Characterizing the chemical and sensory profiles of traditional American meads. Journal of Food Science . 86(3), 1048–1057 (2021). Li, R., & Sun, Y. Effects of Honey Variety and Non-Saccharomyces cerevisiae on the Flavor Volatiles of Mead. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists . 77(1), 40–53 (2019). Česlová, L., Pravcová, K., Juričová, M., & Fischer, J. Rapid HPLC/MS/MS analysis of phenolic content and profile for mead quality assessment. Food Control . 134, 108737 (2022). Bednarek, M., & Szwengiel, A. Distinguishing between saturated and unsaturated meads based on their chemical characteristics. LWT . 133, 109962 (2020). Fu, Y., Shi, X., Li, F., Yan, X., Li, B., Luo, Y., Jiang, G., Liu, X., & Wang, L. Fermentation of mead using Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Lactobacillus paracasei: Strain growth, aroma components and antioxidant capacity. Food Bioscience . 52, 102402 (2023). Kawa-Rygielska, J., Adamenko, K., Kucharska, A. Z., & Szatkowska, K. Fruit and herbal meads – Chemical composition and antioxidant properties. Food Chemistry . 283, 19–27 (2019). Prestianni, R., Matraxia, M., Naselli, V., Pirrone, A., Badalamenti, N., Ingrassia, M., Gaglio, R., Settanni, L., Columba, P., Maggio, A., Bruno, M., Francesca, N., Moschetti, G., & Alfonzo, A. Use of sequentially inoculation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Hanseniaspora uvarum strains isolated from honey by-products to improve and stabilize the quality of mead produced in Sicily. Food Microbiology . 107, 104064 (2022). Li, X., Zhang, T., Liu, Z., Jiao, M., Li, Q., Gand, M., Zhu, K., Qiao, Y., Bai, W., Guo, Z., Li, B., Wang, Y., Dong, J., & Li, B. Machine learning analysis of pre-culture effects on rate-limiting steps in volatile compound dynamics of Mead. Food Chemistry: X . 26, 102313 (2025). Fan, C., Shi, X., Pan, C., Zhang, F., Zhou, Y., Hou, X., & Hui, M. GC-IMS and GC/Q-TOFMS analysis of Maotai-flavor baijiu at different aging times. LWT . 192, 115744 (2024). Guan, T., Gui, X., Wu, Y., Wang, S., Tian, L., Liu, Q., & Wu, Y. Aromatic and sensorial profiles of Guichang kiwi wine fermented by indigenous Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Journal of Food Science . 90(2), e70067 (2025). Wang, S. Y., Li, C., Li, Y. J., Liu, G. Q., Lu, Z. M., Chai, L. J., Xu, H. Y., Shi, J. S., Wang, S. T., Shen, C. H., Zhang, X. J., & Xu, Z. H. Evolution of aroma compounds in round soy sauce aroma type baijiu during aging and the effect of aging markers on the lasting aroma in finished glass. Food Chemistry: X . 25, 102193 (2025). Wu, D., Chen, Z., Lv, Y., Yang, L., Liu, H., Qiu, R., Xu, H., Li, J., Lu, J., & Cai, G. Coculturing of non-Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces cerevisiae for improving the aroma quality and antioxidant characteristics of beer with Yuan’an yellow tea. Food Bioscience . 58, 103725 (2024). Xu, W., Wang, X., Jia, W., Wen, B., Liao, S., Zhao, Y., Tang, Q., Li, K., Hua, Y., Yang, Y., Bouphun, T., & Zou, Y. Dynamic changes in the major chemical and volatile components during the “Ziyan” tea wine processing. LWT . 186, 115273 (2023). Zhu, M., Wang, M., Gu, J., Deng, Z., Zhang, W., Pan, Z., Luo, G., Wu, R., Qin, J., & Gomi, K. Machine learning-assisted aroma profile prediction in Jiang-flavor baijiu. Food Chemistry . 478, 143661 (2025). Xu, W., Zhu, Y., Lin, L., Tunyaluk, B., & Li, P. Dynamic changes in volatile components during dark tea wine processing. LWT . 194, 115783 (2024). Wang, D., Guo, S., Mao, Y., Lei, W., Wang, X., Liu, C., & Li, J. Influence of yeasts and aging on the accumulation of flavor components in Rosa roxburghii Tratt wine. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis . 140, 107262 (2025). Zhou, C., Yu, Y., Ai, J., Song, C., Cui, Z., Zhou, Q., Zhao, S., Huang, R., Ao, Z., Peng, B., Chen, P., Feng, X., Li, D., & Liu, Y. Fruit wines classification enabled by combing machine learning with comprehensive volatiles profiles of GC-TOF/MS and GC-IMS. Food Research International . 204, 115890 (2025). Zhang, J., Zhang, X., Shi, X., Zhang, H., Lin, Q., & Bao, Y. Effects of different frozen storage treatments on microbial diversity and volatile components of ice bayberry wine. LWT . 214, 117150 (2024). Li, Y., Pu, Y., Xu, F., Niu, Y., Zhang, M., & Huang, H. Comparative investigation of aroma characteristics of six chrysanthemum species based on sensory evaluation and multivariate statistical analysis to provide a strategy for the cultivation of sweet-scented chrysanthemums. Food Chemistry . 485, 143900 (2025). Yang, Y., Ye, Z., Araujo, L. D., Rutan, T., Deed, R. C., & Kilmartin, P. A. Inter-regional characterisation of New Zealand pinot noir wines: Correlation between wine colour, monomeric and polymeric phenolics, tannin composition, antioxidant capacity, and sensory attributes. Food Chemistry . 467, 142311 (2025). Li, S., Han, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, F., Ou, Y., Li, H., Yang, L., Qiu, S., & Lu, J. Machine learning-enhanced flavoromics: Identifying key aroma compounds and predicting sensory quality in sauce-flavor baijiu. Food Chemistry . 475, 143328 (2025). Rossetti, A. P., Perpetuini, G., & Tofalo, R. Sniffing the wine differences: The role of Starmerella bacillaris biofilm-detached cells. Heliyon . 10(15), e35692 (2024). Webster, C. E., Barker, D., Deed, R. C., & Pilkington, L. I. Mead production and quality: A review of chemical and sensory mead quality evaluation with a focus on analytical methods. Food Research International . 202, 115655 (2025). Zhang, T., Liao, Z., Li, Z., Liu, Y., Bi, J., Liu, Y., Song, Y., & Qin, Y. Revealing the flavor differences of Sauvignon Blanc wines fermented in different oak barrels and stainless-steel tanks through GC-MS, GC-IMS, electronic, and artificial sensory analyses. Food Chemistry: X . 25, 102188 (2025). Liu, Z., Ma, C., Liu, L. X., Dong, G. Z., Wang, B., Zhang, J. F., Lei, S. M., & Liu, Y. G. Comprehensive investigation on non-volatile and volatile flavor compounds in different varieties of rose tea by UPLC-Q-TOF-MS/MS-based metabolomics and GC-IMS, GC-MS. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis . 136, 106708 (2024). Qian, X., Ling, M., Sun, Y., Han, F., Shi, Y., Duan, C., & Lan, Y. Decoding the aroma characteristics of icewine by partial least-squares regression, aroma reconstitution, and omission studies. Food Chemistry . 440, 138226 (2024). Qin, L., Huang, M., Ma, Y., Zhang, D., Cui, Y., & Kang, W. Effects of two Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains on physicochemical and oenological properties of Aranèle white wine. Food Bioscience . 52, 102495 (2023). Wang, M., Wang, C., Yang, C., Peng, L., Xie, Q., Zheng, R., Dai, Y., Liu, S., & Peng, X. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum C7 and Staphylococcus warneri S6 on flavor quality and bacterial diversity of fermented meat rice, a traditional Chinese food. Food Research International . 150, 110745 (2021). Zhao, Z., Sugimachi, M., Yoshizaki, Y., Yin, X., Han, X. L., Okutsu, K., Futagami, T., Tamaki, H., & Takamine, K. Correlation between key aroma and manufacturing processes of rice-flavor baijiu and awamori, Chinese and Japanese traditional liquors. Food Bioscience. 44, 101375 (2021). Zhang, X., Chen, Y., Liu, J., Lan, Y., Qian, X., & Zhu, B. Comprehensive study of chemical and sensory profiles of hawthorn wines from China. Food Chemistry: X . 26, 102277 (2025). Zhao, Y., Liao, P., Chen, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Kang, Q., Chen, X., Sun, Y., Jin, Y., Yu, J., Li, H., Zhang, N., Sun, B., & Sun, J. Characterization of the key aroma compounds in a novel Qingke baijiu of Tibet by GC-MS, GC×GC-MS and GC-O-MS. Food Chemistry Advances . 4, 100589 (2024). Chen, Y., Lei, X., Wu, Q., Qin, Y., Song, Y., & Liu, Y. Oenological suitability of Chinese indigenous Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Chardonnay wine: The observation of grape maturity and vintage. Food Bioscience . 61, 104904 (2024). Han, B., Ren, X., Gong, H., Zhang, S., Zhou, W., Wei, Y., Fang, Y., Xu, Q., & Bian, M. Effect of compound aging treatment on the quality of Nongxiangxing Baijiu. LWT . 217, 117355 (2025). Shen, C., Yu, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, H., Chu, M., Yuan, B., Guo, Y., Li, Y., Zhou, J., Mao, J., & Xu, X. The dynamic of physicochemical properties, volatile compounds and microbial community during the fermentation of Chinese rice wine with diverse cereals. Food Research International . 198, 115319 (2024). Chen, H. et al. Inter- and intra-varietal clonal differences influence the aroma compound profiles of wines analyzed by GC–MS and GC-IMS. Food Chemistry: X . 25, 102136 (2025). Breiman, L. Random forests. Machine learning . 45(1), 5-32 (2001). Yang, S. et al. Decoding the Qu-aroma of medium-temperature Daqu starter by volatilomics, aroma recombination, omission studies and sensory analysis. Food Chemistry 457, 140186 (2024). Table Table 1 HS-SPME-GC-O-MS analysis of meads. a denotes a fruity, herbal, and sweet odor. b denotes an off-flavor. c. Average AI factors: the average valve of the aroma intensity factors of dry meads. d. Sample: RSI values of compounds in the samples. e. Standard: RSI values of standards. f. Sample: Calculated RI values of compounds in the samples. g. Standard: Calculated RI values of standards. h. Reference: RI values in the NIST Mass Spectral Library version 2.3. i. Qualitative way: MS, identification based on mass spectrometric data in NIST library (Version 2.3); RI, joint identification of RI based on carbon labeling calculation and RI reported in literature; O, identify based on odor description. j. Available: “√” compare the representative with the reference standard for identification. Class Code Compound CAS Odor description Average AI factors c Reverse Similarity Index (DB-WAX122-7062) Retention Index (HP-5ms Ultra Inert) Retention Index (SH-I-5Sil) Concentration（μg/L) Sample d Standard e Sample f (Count) Standard g (Reference h ) Sample f (Count) Standard g (Reference h ) Qualitative way i Rh-DM ES30-DM ES35-DM AD6-DM AD10-DM Available j Alcohol AL1 Ethanol 64-17-5 953 943 427 463 MS, RI 4937.56±372.77 6589.57±287.65 6902.85±53.05 6451.11±405.56 6691.87±332.50 √ AL4 Isoamyl alcohol b 123-51-3 reagent, irritate, unpleasant 5 897 866 732 736 711 697 MS, RI, O 1792.06±295.01 1618.18±94.10 774.85±12.56 1832.59±50.79 1591.64±122.27 √ AL6 2,3-Butanediol a 513-85-9 slightly sweet 0.8 789 788 763 743 MS, RI, O 116.36±5.81 139.23±3.91 81.23±1.72 167.43±90 170.98±17.04 √ AL26 Phenylethyl alcohol a 60-12--8 honey, sweet, consist 4.2 926 927 1118 1116 1108 1136 MS, RI, O 5704.87±374.09 918.77±41.49 398.63±11.62 3991.01±119.96 901.14±74.36 √ Ester ES1 Ethyl acetate a 141-78-6 fruity 2.5 928 912 600 612 605 586 MS, RI, O 356.34±22.25 432.28±35.94 270.34±5.62 546.43±12.81 466.07±27.90 √ ES6 Ethyl butyrate 105-54-4 898 923 804 802 804 785 MS, RI - 5.64±0.22 1.36±0.01 6.76±0.37 3.04±0.30 √ ES10 Isoamyl acetate a 123-92-2 fruity, sweet 1.5 874 904 881 876 849 820 MS, RI, O 48.35±6.91 70.14±2.32 18.93±0.30 76.05±3.02 47.64±3.02 √ ES18 Ethyl caproate a 123-66-0 fruity 3 892 878 1011 1000 997 984 MS, RI, O 0.12±0.05 175.76±5.98 63.98±3.60 200.09±19.52 123.64±6.77 √ ES23 Ethyl benzoate 93-89-0 1171 1171 MS, RI - 1687.87±69.61 1492.64±42.12 1804.87±31.82 1989.98±103.91 ES26 Ethyl caprylate a 106-32-1 fruity, brandy 3.9 902 898 1197 1196 1173 1183 MS, RI, O 25.59±2.27 1232.92±58.96 654.72±13.14 960.04±112.38 919.50±53.28 √ ES30 Ethyl phenylacetate a 101-97-3 sweet, floral, herbal 3.5 861 833 1247 1246 1217 1259 MS, RI, O 0.51±0.12 5479.05±266.37 29.46±0.81 32.37±2.60 36.80±2.43 √ ES32 Phenethyl acetate a 103-45-7 floral 1.5 892 886 1260 1258 1218 1259 MS, RI, O 53.19±8.25 65.07±1.40 - 289.32±6.36 49.11±2.44 √ ES35 Ethyl nonanoate a 123-29-5 fruity, sweet 3.6 772 756 1297 1296 1309 1282 MS, RI, O 19.37±0.15 30.28±3.80 6494.29±106.06 27.23±1.27 24.77±1.60 √ ES39 Ethyl 3-phenylpropionate a 2021-28-5 honey, sweet 0.5 916 912 1351 1353 1373 1359 MS, RI, O 2.94±0.33 49.57±3.43 52.02±0.16 57.52±1.79 63.84±4.43 √ ES46 Ethyl 9-decenoate 67233-91-4 848 835 1389 1387 1359 1371 MS, RI - 203.27±7.34 40.41±1.22 138.39±15.67 1229.91±89.30 √ ES47 Ethyl caprate a 110-38-3 floral, sweet 3.4 754 782 1398 1396 1353 1381 MS, RI, O 1548.31±25.16 2358.82±59.62 858.45±27.67 1746.31±162.68 4754.04±308.14 √ ES48 3-Methylbutyl octanoate a 2035-99-6 floral 0.7 936 917 1447 1446 MS, RI, O 16.51±2.83 5.21±0.19 2.75±0.04 9.90±1.36 17.06±0.78 √ ES53 Butyl caprate 30673-36-0 802 833 1549 1590 MS, RI - 3.81±0.30 - 1.35±0.16 12.72±1.04 ES55 Ethyl laurate 106-33-2 821 839 1597 1595 1593 1580 MS, RI 24.56±0.42 558.55±14.29 337.44±6.17 493.30±37.55 612.16±34.08 √ ES58 Isoamyl caprate 2306-91-4 1650 1646 MS, RI - 13.32±0.61 7.40±0.33 13.31±1.37 46.76±1.99 √ ES59 Ethyl myristate 124-06-1 850 873 1798 1794 1749 1779 MS, RI 2.47±0.12 7.47±0.96 36.10±1.33 7.64±0.81 20.16±1.37 √ ES62 Ethyl 9-hexadecenoate 54546-22-4 729 789 1977 1945 1986 MS, RI - 4.09±0.57 33.85±1.15 3.32±0.19 24.29±3.29 √ ES63 Palmitic acid ethyl ester 628-97-7 752 740 1993 MS, RI 7.10±0.46 23.47±6.45 51.18±2.10 22.35±3.65 56.32±11.03 Aldehyde AD5 Benzaldehyde a 100-52-7 the bitter almond 0.7 972 962 923 982 MS, RI, O 10.50±0.25 7.64±0.41 14.82±0.29 15.75±0.19 11.17±0.82 √ AD6 Phenylacetaldehyde a 122-78-1 honey, sweet 0.3 759 801 1043 1045 1137 1095 MS, RI, O 4.73±0.39 2.50±0.16 1.02±0.10 45.85±1.21 2.76±0.19 √ AD10 Decanal 112-31-2 823 875 1206 1206 1179 1204 MS, RI - - - 6.28±0.41 100.96±5.12 √ Phenol PN8 2,4-Di-tert-butylphenol 96-76-4 690 1520 1519 1548 1555 MS, RI 5.21±0.41 26.79±2.44 14.55±1.19 21.59±2.77 27.92±5.06 √ Acid AC4 Hexanoic acid 142-62-1 823 819 1016 990 949 974 MS, RI - 20.42±1.65 28.62±1.38 1.34±0.23 31.75±4.65 √ Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files TableS1.excel.xlsx TableS2.excel.xlsx TableS3.excel.xlsx TableS4.excel.xlsx TableS5.excel.xlsx TableS6.excel.xlsx TableS7.excel.xlsx npjSupplementarymaterial.docx Graphicalabstract.jpg Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7189594","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":491726307,"identity":"8b7a2c74-ab9f-47fb-a608-3858eb86d884","order_by":0,"name":"Ziwei Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ziwei","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":491726309,"identity":"86f9fa35-0d28-4e59-958b-bdbfeb335cf1","order_by":1,"name":"Jingyu Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jingyu","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":491726310,"identity":"96426eaa-a918-4a9b-92de-c2d5a72799e7","order_by":2,"name":"Duanhao Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Huanghuai University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Duanhao","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":491726312,"identity":"da9e2cb1-a3d0-4976-a7b6-441dfaff0953","order_by":3,"name":"Xuening Tang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xuening","middleName":"","lastName":"Tang","suffix":""},{"id":491726315,"identity":"226b3fa2-0d5f-4e4a-954b-923474fbe844","order_by":4,"name":"Wenlin Sun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wenlin","middleName":"","lastName":"Sun","suffix":""},{"id":491726319,"identity":"3faf0ff2-7e55-4749-851d-e1bf49f7a360","order_by":5,"name":"Xian Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Xian","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":491726321,"identity":"b32318e0-f350-4e25-9874-3f1ee8e950d7","order_by":6,"name":"Haoan Zhao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Haoan","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhao","suffix":""},{"id":491726322,"identity":"0dec44a9-7f92-45a7-a59b-8cf8d8c9f255","order_by":7,"name":"Meijing Guo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Meijing","middleName":"","lastName":"Guo","suffix":""},{"id":491726324,"identity":"9df4c088-accb-4c72-acf8-da362abac160","order_by":8,"name":"Tiantian Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Longdong University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tiantian","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":491726325,"identity":"60602443-8864-448a-b276-f90e4f0d33d6","order_by":9,"name":"Wenjie Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wenjie","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":491726326,"identity":"7e0139e6-7f31-428d-ab96-40d33837ce84","order_by":10,"name":"Di Wang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Lishui University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Di","middleName":"","lastName":"Wang","suffix":""},{"id":491726328,"identity":"083d4a0b-9bcd-4af5-81d9-8c12ce8124b3","order_by":11,"name":"Wushuang Bai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wushuang","middleName":"","lastName":"Bai","suffix":""},{"id":491726330,"identity":"01a9601e-c97e-42b8-b25e-9e6fa9289fbb","order_by":12,"name":"Yue Cao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yue","middleName":"","lastName":"Cao","suffix":""},{"id":491726332,"identity":"17b12565-facb-4af4-bcfd-c0f7457c7352","order_by":13,"name":"Binglin Li","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Binglin","middleName":"","lastName":"Li","suffix":""},{"id":491726334,"identity":"adb0857b-2132-4f31-ab6f-b2cf48284304","order_by":14,"name":"Wei Cao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Northwest University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wei","middleName":"","lastName":"Cao","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-22 17:53:11","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7189594/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7189594/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87807556,"identity":"231357f2-f837-44c6-b4a8-e690ce8b63ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:50:11","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":704205,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOPLS-DA of blended and traditional meads. (A). Biplot showing the correlation between aroma compounds and 15 meads; (B). Average variable importance for the projection (VIP) values of 88 volatile compounds.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/9cf97533aba05eb2bf6eac59.jpeg"},{"id":87806030,"identity":"867600de-96e3-41ab-afcb-690c61b461af","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:34:11","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":688855,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCorrelation analysis heatmap of 17 potential additives.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/989cdb91430244b59facd989.jpeg"},{"id":87807557,"identity":"a6b611b2-860f-44ac-8d8e-70452791c90e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:50:11","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":506545,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOPLS-DA analysis of 4 innovative meads and traditional mead (A). Biplot showing the correlation between 15 odorous active substances and 5 meads; (B). Average variable importance for the projection (VIP) values of 15 odorous active substances.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/8b701a0aa32a2d80c6361180.jpeg"},{"id":87806032,"identity":"2f4881d9-8621-42cb-96c8-7267de8c8f6c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:34:11","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":336076,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(A). Metabolic pathways of phenylethanol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (the green arrow represents Shikimate pathway; the red arrow represents Ehrlich pathway); (B). Metabolic pathways of isoamyl alcohol production in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (the green arrow represents Harris pathway; the red arrow represents Ehrlich pathway); (C). Metabolic pathways of fatty acids. The blue substances represent the esters; the orange substances represent the alcohols; the purple substances represent the aldehydes.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage5.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/29e23a20b6352acfdde52a49.jpeg"},{"id":87806041,"identity":"c4013867-57fd-425b-9263-a045ca880753","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:34:11","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":296004,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(A). Radar plots of sensory attributes, black straight line represents sensory attributes to Rh-DM; yellow straight line represents sensory attributes to ES30-DM; blue straight line represents sensory attributes to ES35-DM; green straight line represents sensory attributes to AD6-DM; red straight line represents sensory attributes to AD10-DM; (B). Ratio of favorite mead.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage6.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/5c74e628d192f65aed1633ea.jpeg"},{"id":87807149,"identity":"f7b4ff07-6ece-451f-b6cf-b986d50d3501","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:42:11","extension":"jpeg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":312003,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e(A). Comparison of the aroma characteristics of the RRh-DM, RES35-DM and RAD10-DM aroma model (15 odorous active substances) with the original aroma profile. Note: RRh-DM, RES35-DM and RAD10-DM represents the recombination model.; (B). Omission tests for Rh-DM, ES35-DM and AD10-DM recombination models. Note: Significance: *, significant (p ≤0.05); **, highly significant (p ≤0.01); ***, very highly significant (p ≤0.001).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage7.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/dea0994706fd5ecc6ac5ae15.jpeg"},{"id":97665462,"identity":"10279339-39de-4218-9ac1-c939012dc971","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-08 09:18:34","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":3856371,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/04e98b90-3977-4acb-ab67-72669e897203.pdf"},{"id":87807555,"identity":"0041428a-e999-40b8-97e2-28b440a419d3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:50:11","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":40264,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS1.excel.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/4b0b413571e40ead0f134bad.xlsx"},{"id":87807144,"identity":"1a1eb4a0-10f5-43e6-a8a5-8a7eba9621e4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:42:11","extension":"xlsx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":29231,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS2.excel.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/2e6650e42888bbab040b43f6.xlsx"},{"id":87806044,"identity":"0132c274-afa9-4227-b3a3-1a91b40d9d70","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:34:11","extension":"xlsx","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":30505,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS3.excel.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/330c8976d45feee9e78cafcc.xlsx"},{"id":87806043,"identity":"3cf22d40-de2a-4439-908f-bee723825ed6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:34:11","extension":"xlsx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":11524,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS4.excel.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/efc2643e798dc1adef6bb047.xlsx"},{"id":87807151,"identity":"cc0f3c3f-547d-464c-973a-da8741148c75","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:42:11","extension":"xlsx","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":367088,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS5.excel.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/fd150f88fd019d53a213c439.xlsx"},{"id":87807154,"identity":"dcde506a-0d6d-41bf-b4db-8bfb9d090faf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:42:12","extension":"xlsx","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10534,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS6.excel.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/1143cd8f41d2c3bfe8341d19.xlsx"},{"id":87806047,"identity":"02b8ca43-b44c-4367-911b-da96f9bae22b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:34:11","extension":"xlsx","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":10492,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TableS7.excel.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/cb2ceb14b39c18e1da4fc862.xlsx"},{"id":87806060,"identity":"4e4355f1-e851-4d07-80f8-d132cec89709","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:34:12","extension":"docx","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1264988,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"npjSupplementarymaterial.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/db65a0b2f73451cc60ec990f.docx"},{"id":87807159,"identity":"d768dbf1-51ca-4345-9131-ca6a92f09600","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-29 08:42:12","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":710989,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Graphicalabstract.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7189594/v1/09fa75fa5e1d249b7e556a80.jpg"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Aroma-Enhancing Strategies in Mead: A Metabolomics- and Machine Learning-Guided Additive Approach","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMead, often referred to as the \"ancestor of all alcoholic beverages,\" is a fermented drink made from honey, water, and yeast, with historical records dating back to around 7000 BCE\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It has played a significant role in various ancient civilizations, including Egypt, China, and Nordic cultures, often appearing in myths and folklore\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Beyond its historical and cultural significance, mead also offers potential health benefits due to its rich content of antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals, which may support immune function, metabolism, and bone health\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In recent years, the rise of backyard beekeeping in North America and Europe has provided a sustainable honey supply, fostering both the mead industry and ecological conservation\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. As this culture continues to grow, exploring mead production not only enhances the appreciation of this ancient beverage but also adds diversity and enjoyment to modern lifestyles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuring the fermentation of mead, higher alcohols play a crucial role in shaping its aroma and flavor profile. For example, mead samples fermented using \u003cem\u003eSaccharomyces cerevisiae\u003c/em\u003e G10 contained a high concentration of phenylethyl alcohol (AL26), which imparts a characteristic honey-rose fragrance\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, ethyl palmitate (ES63) and ethyl myristate (ES59) were identified as the main ester compounds present in all mead samples, contributing to a fruity aroma\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Further studies have highlighted other key ester compounds responsible for the floral and fruity notes in mead. Notably, ethyl caprate (ES47) was identified as significant contributors to these aromatic qualities\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, traditional mead fermentation may produce certain off-flavors. For example, Li and Sun reported that mead made from various types of honey contained ethyl laurate (ES55) and octanoic acid (AC6), which impart soapy, candlewax-like, oily, and fatty flavors that mask other aromas\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Similarly, Li and Zhang analyzed the effects of pre-culture on volatile compound dynamics in mead and identified isoamyl alcohol (AL4), ES55, and AC6 as key contributors to undesirable flavors\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Beyond mead, some compounds commonly found in this beverage have also been reported as off-flavor substances in other alcoholic drinks. For instance, research on Maotai-flavored baijiu by Fan et al. indicated that AL4 can produce an unpleasant and irritating odor\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In addition, Guan et al. suggested that hexanoic acid (AC4) and AC6 may contribute to off-putting aromas in wine\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Another study by Wang et al. characterized furfural (AD2) and AL4 as compounds responsible for both bitterness and astringency in baijiu\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHerbal plants, such as floral teas, are rich in bioactive compounds and have the potential to enhance the flavor profile of alcoholic beverages. Not only do they introduce their own distinct aromas, but certain key compounds in these plants can also influence the fermentation process. For instance, Wu et al. investigated the co-fermentation of non-\u003cem\u003eSaccharomyces\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eSaccharomyces\u003c/em\u003e yeasts in Yuan\u0026rsquo;an yellow tea beer and found that methyl salicylate from yellow tea increased the concentrations of ES47, phenylethyl acetate (ES32), and ES63\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e. These compounds contributed sweet, spicy, and minty notes to the beer. Similarly, Xu et al. studied the processing of \"Ziyan\" tea wine and found that aerobic conditions promoted the degradation of α-pinene, which facilitated the formation of distinct floral and fruity aromas, further KEGG database analysis revealed that myrtle alcohol, a natural compound extracted from \u003cem\u003eMyrtaceae\u003c/em\u003e leaves, serves as an intermediate product of α-pinene degradation\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, Zhu et al. reported that during fermentation and aging, AL4 and hexanol react with AC4 and butyric acid via esterification, imparting Jiang-flavor baijiu with prominent fruity and floral characteristics\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Xu et al. examined the dynamic changes in volatile compounds during the processing of dark tea wine and found that the presence of black tea enhanced the phenylalanine metabolism pathway\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This led to a significant increase in AL26, a key compound associated with fruity, floral, and sweet notes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, Zhou et al. reported that α-pinene, a monoterpene found in fruits, can be used as a substitute for sulfur dioxide in grape wine fermentation, reducing sulfur content\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. These findings suggest that specific compounds in herbal teas can influence the fermentation process and ultimately alter the sensory attributes of alcoholic beverages.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we fermented 15 types of mead, including pure honey mead, 13 floral tea-infused meads, and one coffee-infused mead. Volatile compounds were analyzed using Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction Gas Chromatography-Olfactometry\u0026ndash;Mass Spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-O-MS) with three different chromatographic columns. A total of 230 volatile compounds were identified throughout the fermentation process\u0026mdash;from honey solution to semi-sweet mead to dry mead\u0026mdash;by referencing authentic standards. Among them, 88 volatile compounds were identified in the final 15 dry meads. A comprehensive metabolomic analysis of volatile changes during fermentation was performed. Correlation analysis revealed 17 potential compounds associated with enhanced aroma and reduced off-flavor perception. Based on machine learning results, four single-additive meads were formulated using ethyl phenylacetate (ES30), decanal (AD10), ethyl nonanoate (ES35), and phenylacetaldehyde (AD6). Compared to the control rapeseed honey mead, these meads exhibited enhanced aroma profiles and reduced off-flavors. HS-SPME-GC-O-MS and sensory evaluation further identified two optimized meads, decanal-dry mead (AD10-DM) and ethyl nonanoate-dry mead (ES35-DM). Orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA), and variable importance in projection (VIP) analysis, combined with aroma recombination and omission experiments, confirmed their characteristic aroma compounds. Unlike direct herbal plant infusion, this approach allows for the enhancement of mead aroma while minimizing off-flavors without compromising the beverage's core honey-based flavor profile. Additionally, it provides valuable reference data and theoretical support for the application of commercial additives in improving mead flavor.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 Results and discussions","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Fermentation of mead\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eHoney is one of the oldest carbon sources, but its low protein content makes fermentation challenging, resulting in generally low alcohol levels in fermented products\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Consequently, additional nitrogen sources are indispensable. In this study, we screened five yeast strains and two common nitrogen sources (yeast extract, and diammonium phosphate). As shown in Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e, the ethanol content was used as the indicator, and results demonstrated that both yeast strain and nitrogen source significantly influenced mead fermentation. Diammonium phosphate enhanced fermentation for the less efficient yeast strains (RV002, SY, and CR1), whereas Angie's yeast extract performed better for the highly efficient yeast strains (BV818 and RV171). The combination of Angie's yeast extract and Angie's BV818 yeast produced the highest ethanol content, reaching 12.9%vol, which was significantly higher than all other samples (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Therefore, this yeast strain and nitrogen source combination were selected for subsequent mead fermentation experiments in this work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2 HS-SPME-GC-MS characterization of blended meads\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eVolatile compounds in 15 meads were analyzed using HS-SPME-GC-MS by three different columns, resulting in the identification of 88 volatile compounds. These compounds were classified into alcohols (28.40%), esters (31.82%), alkenes (6.82%), aldehydes (5.68%), ketones (3.41%), phenols (2.27%), acids (6.82%), alkanes (6.82%), ethers (1.14%), and others (6.82%). To explore the profile of volatile compounds throughout the fermentation process, analyses were also conducted on honey solutions, semi-sweet meads (fermentation for 3 days), and dry meads. Overall, 255 volatile compounds were detected, among which 70 consistently appeared during the entire fermentation (from honey solution to final mead). Detailed results are available in Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e, S2, and S3.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMead typically contains relatively high levels of higher alcohols due to the yeast-mediated conversion of glucose and fructose from honey into ethanol via glycolysis during fermentation. Concurrently, higher alcohols such as AL4 and AL26 are generated through amino acid degradation or side reactions during carbohydrate metabolism. These higher alcohols exhibit strong volatility. Notably, AL4, AL6, and AL26 were commonly detected in all dry meads.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompared with dry rape mead (Rh-DM), all 14 blended meads showed reduced levels of AL26, with reductions ranging from 41.76\u0026ndash;71.29%. The most significant reductions were observed in dry \u003cem\u003eChrysanthemum morifolium\u003c/em\u003e Ramat mead (CmR-DM) (71.29%) and dry \u003cem\u003ePassiflora edulis Sims\u003c/em\u003e mead (PeS-DM) (65.67%). AL26 is known for imparting rose and honey-like aromas\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In contrast, ES32 content increased in all blended meads compared to Rh-DM. Particularly, dry \u003cem\u003eRosa\u003c/em\u003e Crimson Glory mead (RCG-DM) exhibited a 7.35-fold increase, while PeS-DM had the smallest increase (1.58-fold). This increase may result from esterification reactions between AL26 and acetic acid, forming ES32. ES32 imparts floral and fruity aromas (e.g., banana, pear, jasmine) to mead and is considered an indicator of premium flavor quality\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCompared to Rh-DM, most blended meads showed reduced levels of AL6, with the exception of dry \u003cem\u003eHibiscus sabdariffa\u003c/em\u003e mead (Hs-DM), where the content remained nearly unchanged. In the remaining 13 blended meads, the concentration of AL6 decreased by 32.67\u0026ndash;83.25%. The most significant reduction was observed in dry \u003cem\u003eRosa rugosa\u003c/em\u003e Thunb mead (RrT-DM), with a residual concentration of only 19.49 \u0026micro;g/L. AL6 is believed to be a characteristic metabolite of yeast anaerobic respiration in honey solutions\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. It contributes an oily texture and a slightly sweet flavor, which may enhance the smooth mouthfeel of mead and mitigate the burning sensation of alcohol\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, it is noteworthy that AL4 content increased in all 14 blended meads. The elevated levels of AL4 in the blended meads suggest that certain constituents in herbal teas or coffee may promote the formation of this compound. AL4 is associated with fusel, nail polish, and solvent-like aromas, contributing to undesirable off-flavors in blended meads\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e ,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This finding was further supported by GC-O-MS analysis, which identified AL4 as an off-flavor compound (as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, several unique alcohols were detected exclusively in the blended meads. For instance, CmR-DM contained eucalyptol (AL17) at a concentration of 105.78 \u0026micro;g/L, contributing a distinctive eucalyptus aroma to the mead\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Citronellol (AL42), a characteristic rose-scented compound\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, was identified in RCG-DM and RrT-DM at concentrations of 38.94 \u0026micro;g/L and 36.97 \u0026micro;g/L, respectively. This compound imparts floral and citrus-like aromas to the mead.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEsters represent essential aromatic components of mead, and 11 esters\u0026mdash;ethyl acetate (ES1), isoamyl acetate (ES10), ethyl caprylate (ES26), ES32, ES35, ethyl 3-phenylpropionate (ES39), ethyl 9-decenoate (ES46), ES47, ES55, ES59, and ES63\u0026mdash;were consistently detected in all dry meads. Notably, ES26 concentrations significantly increased in all 14 blended meads. Its concentration was highest in RCG-DM (3323.34 \u0026micro;g/L), an increase of 129.87-fold compared to Rh-DM (25.59 \u0026micro;g/L), with the smallest increase seen in PeS-DM, still 44.17-fold higher than Rh-DM. Regarding ES1, six blended meads exhibited higher concentrations than Rh-DM, with dry \u003cem\u003eNelumbinis Folium\u003c/em\u003e mead (NF-DM) showing the greatest increase (1.26-fold). ES10, ES32, and ES39 also increased in some blended meads. ES10 was highest in RCG-DM and dry \u003cem\u003eHibiscus sabdariffa\u003c/em\u003e mead (Hs-DM), with concentrations of 153.52 \u0026micro;g/L and 88.92 \u0026micro;g/L, respectively, 3.18 and 1.84 times higher than Rh-DM. However, ES10 decreased by 35.47% and 9.41% in PeS-DM and dry \u003cem\u003eJasminum sambac\u003c/em\u003e (L.) mead (Js-DM), respectively. ES32 and ES39 concentrations increased in all blended meads, with the greatest increases observed in RCG-DM (7.26-fold) and FM-DM (20.92-fold) compared to Rh-DM. Previous studies have identified ES1, ES10, ES26, and ES32 as important aroma compounds in fruit wines, contributing significantly to the fruity, floral, and sweet aromatic profiles of meads\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExcept for CmR-DM, PeS-DM, and Js-DM, all blended meads exhibited higher concentrations of ES47 compared to Rh-DM. For example, dry Coffee mead (Coffee-DM) contained 4546.45 \u0026micro;g/L of ES47, approximately 2.94 times the level found in Rh-DM. This ester is typically associated with grape, citrus, or tropical fruit aromas, and may enhance the fruity complexity of mead\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Interestingly, ES46 and isoamyl decanoate (ES58) were not detected in Rh-DM but were found in blended meads. ES46 ranged from 197.20 \u0026micro;g/L to 1058.64 \u0026micro;g/L across the 14 blended meads. ES58 was present in Coffee-DM and Hs-DM at concentrations of 43.89 \u0026micro;g/L and 33.46 \u0026micro;g/L, respectively, they contributing grassy and rose aromas to the meads\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eES55 enhance aroma complexity synergistically with other esters, though excessively high concentrations may negatively impact flavor quality. Analysis of honey solutions revealed ES55 was undetected in Rh-HS but present at 349.58 \u0026micro;g/L in dry \u003cem\u003eFructus Mori\u003c/em\u003e mead (FM-HS) and at lower concentrations (6.99 \u0026micro;g/L to 16.94 \u0026micro;g/L) in CmR-HS, RCG-HS, and Ct-HS. ES55 appeared in all semi-sweet blended meads, with the lowest concentration detected in CmR-SDM (28.25 \u0026micro;g/L) and the highest in semi-sweet \u003cem\u003eClitoria ternatea\u003c/em\u003e mead (Ct-SSM) (472.1 \u0026micro;g/L, 27.87 times higher than dry \u003cem\u003eClitoria ternatea\u003c/em\u003e mead (Ct-HS). This indicates that additives enhance ES55 production efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eES59 and ES63 were detected in all mead samples, contributing fruity flavors\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Compared to Rh-DM, concentrations of ES59 and ES63 increased in blended meads. The largest increases in ES59 were observed in Coffee-DM and RCG-DM, increasing by 14.60-fold and 13.84-fold, respectively. Significant increases in ES63 were found in FM-DM, RCG-DM, and Coffee-DM, being 11.44-fold, 9.40-fold, and 9.14-fold higher, respectively, compared to Rh-DM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFatty acids are present at low concentrations in mead but significantly influence its flavor profile. Short-chain fatty acids, such as butyric acid, and AC4, can enhance the complexity of aroma and improve flavor when present at low levels. However, at higher concentrations, they may cause undesirable sharp acidity, rancid, or sweaty odors, adversely affecting mead quality. Medium- and long-chain fatty acids, including AC6, decanoic acid (AC7), and dodecanoic acid (AC8), can introduce undesirable astringent or soap-like tastes, particularly if their concentrations become excessive. Moreover, elevated levels of these acids may disrupt flavor balance and inhibit yeast fermentation. In honey solutions, only a few blended honey solutions contained trace amounts of pterin-6-carboxylic acid (AC10), ranging from 0.16 \u0026micro;g/L to 4.38 \u0026micro;g/L. No acids were detected in rape honey solution (Rh-HS). During mead fermentation, however, the diversity and concentration of organic acids significantly increased. For instance, five organic acids were identified in semi-sweet rape mead (Rh-SSM), with AC6 being the predominant one found across all semi-sweet meads (SSMs). Its concentration in Rh-SSM was 407.40 \u0026micro;g/L, while even higher levels were detected in semi-sweet \u003cem\u003eChrysanthemum morifolium\u003c/em\u003e Ramat mead (CmR-SSM) (419.06 \u0026micro;g/L), semi-sweet \u003cem\u003eRosa\u003c/em\u003e Crimson Glory mead (RCG-SSM) (463.89 \u0026micro;g/L), and semi-sweet \u003cem\u003eRosa rugosa\u003c/em\u003e Thunb mead (RrT-SSM) (569.39 \u0026micro;g/L). AC7 was present in Rh-SSM at only 19.5 \u0026micro;g/L, but CmR-SSM, semi-sweet \u003cem\u003eNelumbinis Folium\u003c/em\u003e mead (NF-SSM), and RrT-SSM had approximately 100 \u0026micro;g/L each. Additional acids, including 4-methylvaleric acid (AC3), AC4, heptanoic acid (AC5), AC8, and tridecanoic acid (AC9), were detected in SSM at concentrations below 30 \u0026micro;g/L. After complete fermentation, the overall concentration of organic acids in mead significantly decreased, particularly medium- and long-chain acids known to cause off-flavors. For example, AC4 in RrT-DM was reduced to just 0.42 \u0026micro;g/L, with AC5 and AC6 entirely absent. Interestingly, pentadecanoic acid (AC11), previously undetected, was found in small quantities (1.03 \u0026micro;g/L) in RCG-DM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, dry mead contains alkenes, aldehydes, ketones, phenols, alkanes, and ethers. Borneol (OT15) was exclusively detected in CmR-DM at a concentration of 306.6 \u0026micro;g/L. OT15 imparts a cool and refreshing sensation to mead\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Concentrations of other compounds are below 50 \u0026micro;g/L. Two volatile phenolic compounds were identified in dry mead, among which 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol (PN8), known for its antioxidant activity possibly due to phenolic acid degradation, was detected in all dry meads. Its concentrations were 5.21 \u0026micro;g/L in Rh-DM, 16.25 \u0026micro;g/L in CmR-DM, and 11.16 \u0026micro;g/L in RrT-DM. Other blended meads contained lower amounts of this compound than Rh-DM. Eugenol (PN3) was only found in RCG-DM at a concentration of 5.32 \u0026micro;g/L. Elevated PN3 levels in wine reportedly provide smoky, medicinal, and spicy aromas\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3 OPLS-DA of blended meads\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOPLS-DA was employed to investigate the dynamic changes of volatile compounds during the whole fermentation processes of 15 kinds of mead, as shown in Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS2\u003c/span\u003e. The validation plot from 200 permutation tests confirmed the reliability of the OPLS-DA model, showing a positive R\u0026sup2; slope and a Q\u0026sup2; intercept of -0.265, which is below the threshold of 0.05. These findings demonstrate that fermentation has a significantly greater impact on mead composition than additives. At the same fermentation stage, semi-sweet meads exhibited the greatest dispersion, followed by honey solutions and dry meads. This indicates that during the initial stages of fermentation, differences among mead samples due to additive use increase; however, towards the end of fermentation, these differences are significantly reduced.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen, OPLS-DA was employed to investigate all dry meads, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA. Eleven compounds with VIP scores\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;1 were identified, comprising seven esters and three alcohols. The compounds most influential for dry meads, ranked by VIP score, were 1-dodecanol (AL47), AL26, ES26, AL4, ES55, ES46, ES1, OT15, AL6, ES32, and ES63 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB). Alcohols displayed the highest variability, suggesting significant influence by herbal teas and coffee additives on their types and concentrations. Moreover, esters were notably concentrated in blended meads, highlighting that additive usage effectively enhances mead flavor. Specifically, aside from Rh-DM and Coffee-DM, the remaining 13 compound dry meads fell within the 50% confidence interval. Additionally, ethyl butyrate (ES6), ethyl ester (ES22), butyl caprate (ES53), and ethyl 9-hexadecenoate (ES62), positioned near the center of the plot, are associated with pineapple, herbal aromas, floral and fruity scents, and honey sweetness. Distinctly, RCG-DM and Coffee-DM samples showed considerable separation from other samples, characterized by unique volatile profiles. For instance, RCG-DM closely correlated with fragrant esters and alcohols, such as 5-methyl-2-heptanol (AL8) and AL42, imparting hyacinth and rose aromas, respectively, while ES30 and ES32 enhanced floral and fruity sweetness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, blended meads also resulted in the accumulation of undesirable odor-active compounds, such as AC6, notably clustered near PeS-DM and Js-DM, contributing waxy or soapy notes due to its medium-to-long-chain fatty acid characteristics\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Compared to Rh-DM, AL4 appeared closer to all blended meads, suggesting that while additives significantly enrich herbal and floral aromas, they simultaneously increase concentrations of certain undesirable compounds.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the use of additives significantly enhances the aromatic complexity of mead but can also amplify undesirable flavor. Therefore, it would be ideal to selectively incorporate specific key compounds from herbal teas or coffee, as this approach may effectively enhance aroma accumulation without increasing undesirable flavors, ultimately improving the overall sensory profile of mead.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4 Innovative aromatic mead\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo elucidate interactions among volatile compounds during fermentation, Pearson correlation analysis was conducted across HS, SDM, and DM. as shown in Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS5\u003c/span\u003e, from 230 initial compounds, 17 potential compounds were identified that could enhance desirable aromas while suppressing off-flavors (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA and Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS6\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo further validate their contribution to sensory attributes, a Random Forest (RF) regression model was constructed using the volatile profiles and corresponding sensory. The impact of each compound was simulated by individually increasing its concentration in a reference mead sample (Rh), with changes in predicted taste and aroma scores recorded (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB). The results revealed that several compounds exhibited a strong positive modulation effect on both taste and aroma. Notably, p-cymene (OT8) showed the highest enhancement, increasing both taste and aroma scores substantially, followed by AD10, octane (AK1), ES30, and ES35. These compounds are likely involved in floral, citrus, or fruity notes commonly associated with mead's desirable sensory profile. In contrast, a subset of compounds, such as OT4, ES13, and ES23, resulted in negative shifts in sensory scores, suggesting potential contributions to off-flavor development or sensory suppression. AD6, while showing only a modest improvement in sensory scores, did not induce any negative effects and therefore remains a promising candidate additive for further evaluation. Given the goal of this study to support the industrial application of mead production, the selection of candidate additives was further refined by prioritizing food-grade availability as a primary criterion, followed by practical considerations such as cost-effectiveness and food-grade market accessibility (Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS6\u003c/span\u003e). Based on these factors, optimal volatile additives were identified as promising candidates for aroma enhancement in mead, including AD6, AD10, ES30, and ES35.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe volatile aroma-active compounds in these meads were identified using HS-SPME-GC-O-MS with three columns. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;1, a total of 15 aroma-active compounds (AI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0) were identified, comprising 10 esters (66.67%), 3 alcohols (20%), and 2 aldehydes (13.33%). Among these, AL4 was considered an off-flavor compound, while the others were aroma-enhancing. Overall, esters are recognized as the most important aroma compounds in mead, contributing floral, sweet, and fruity aromas\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Compared to Rh-DM (2.11 mg/L), total volatile ester concentrations in ES30-DM, ES35-DM, AD6-DM, and AD10-DM were significantly elevated by 3.05 to 5.88 times, reaching concentrations of 12.41 mg/L, 10.45 mg/L, 6.44 mg/L, and 10.50 mg/L, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOPLS-DA was employed to investigate the relationship between 15 odor-active compounds and mead flavors (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eA). As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eB, five compounds had VIP values\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;1, ranked from highest to lowest: ES30, ES35, AL26, ES47, and ES26. ES30 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.5), reported to impart fruity sweetness and herbal notes\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, increased most dramatically in ES30-DM (5479.05\u0026micro;g/L), reaching a concentration 10,743 times higher than that in Rh-DM (0.51 \u0026micro;g/L) due to the direct addition of ES30. ES30 levels also rose significantly in AD10-DM, AD6-DM, and ES35-DM, being 72.16, 63.47, and 57.76 times higher than Rh-DM, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn GC-O analysis, AL26 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.2) was unanimously described by panelists as having persistent honey and sweet notes. However, its concentration decreased across all four novel meads, ranging from 6.98\u0026ndash;69.97% of the level found in Rh-DM. The most significant reduction occurred in ES35-DM (93.02%), while the smallest decrease was observed in AD6-DM (30.03%). This may be attributed to the conversion of AL26 into other ester compounds such as ES32 during fermentation. Yeast synthesizes AL26 primarily through the shikimate and Ehrlich pathways. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA, the biosynthesis of AL26 begins with phosphoenolpyruvate from the glycolysis pathway and erythrose-4-phosphate from the pentose phosphate pathway. These intermediates undergo a series of enzyme-catalyzed reactions to form shikimate. Shikimate is then converted into phenylpyruvate, which is decarboxylated by phenylpyruvate decarboxylase to form AD6. Finally, AD6 is dehydrogenated by alcohol dehydrogenase to produce AL26. However, we observed that in the three meads containing additives, AL26 was further converted into ES30, whose concentration increased by several-fold. Additionally, in both ES30-DM and AD6-DM, the conversion of AD6 into ES32 was promoted. These results indicate a general decline in the concentrations of both AL26 and its precursor AD6 in the novel meads\u0026mdash;except in AD6-DM, where AD6 was directly supplemented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe key aroma-active medium- and short-chain esters in mead are primarily formed through the esterification of medium- and short-chain fatty acids, produced by \u003cem\u003eSaccharomyces cerevisiae\u003c/em\u003e metabolism, with alcohols such as ethanol. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB illustrates the metabolic pathways of fatty acid synthesis in yeast. ES35 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.6), known for imparting fruity aromas in fruit wines\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, showed the most significant increase in ES35-DM\u0026mdash;approximately 335.28 times higher than in Rh-DM (19.37 \u0026micro;g/L)\u0026mdash;followed by ES30-DM, which exhibited a 1.56-fold increase. ES47 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.4), which contributes floral notes to mead, increased in concentration across all samples compared to Rh-DM, except in ES35-DM, where it decreased by 44.56%. The largest increases were observed in AD10-DM and ES30-DM, reaching 3.07 and 1.52 times the concentration found in Rh-DM, respectively. In AD10-DM, the direct addition of AD10 inhibited its biosynthesis from AC7 (decanoic acid), which likely promoted the accumulation of ES47. ES26 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.9), recognized for its fruity and sweet aromas in various alcoholic beverages\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, showed the highest increases in ES30-DM and AD6-DM\u0026mdash;48.18-fold and 37.52-fold higher than in Rh-DM (25.59 \u0026micro;g/L), respectively. ES35-DM showed the smallest increase, yet still reached 25.58 times the level in Rh-DM. The substantial increase in some key medium- and short-chain aromatic esters in the novel meads is likely attributable to the use of additives, which may have promoted the formation of fatty acid metabolites in yeast and subsequently accelerated esterification reactions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the aforementioned compounds, AL4 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) had the highest Aroma Index (AI) but was described by panelists as having an unpleasant solvent-like odor with pungency. Compared to Rh-DM, AL4 content notably decreased in ES35-DM (by 56.81%), while ES30-DM and AD10-DM saw reductions of 9.71% and 11.22%, respectively. Another significant compound was AL6 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.8), important for balancing alcoholic flavor, imparting slight sweetness, and prolonging aroma retention. In the section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec10\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3.2\u003c/span\u003e, we observed that adding tea or coffee significantly reduced AL6 content, disrupting flavor balance or causing flavor deterioration. However, relative to Rh-DM (116.36 \u0026micro;g/L), the levels of AL6 increased in ES30-DM, AD6-DM, and AD10-DM by 1.2, 1.44, and 1.47 times, respectively, suggesting single-compound additives effectively avoid undesirable reactions and enhance aroma accumulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurrent research indicates that there are two main biosynthetic pathways for AL4 during fruit wine fermentation: the amino acid catabolic pathway (Ehrlich pathway) and the amino acid biosynthetic pathway (Harris pathway). As illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eC, the Ehrlich pathway involves the transamination of valine or leucine to form α-keto acids (α-keto-isovalerate or α-keto-isocaproate), which are then decarboxylated by keto acid decarboxylase to produce isovaleraldehyde. This intermediate is subsequently reduced by alcohol dehydrogenase to yield AL4. The Harris pathway, on the other hand, involves the conversion of glucose into pyruvic acid via glycolysis. Pyruvic acid is then transformed into α-keto-isovalerate through the sequential action of acetolactate synthase (ILV2), acetohydroxyacid reductoisomerase (ILV5), and dihydroxyacid dehydratase (ILV3). When amino acid availability is limited, α-keto-isovalerate undergoes decarboxylation and reduction to form AL4. In all blended meads, the concentration of AL4 ranged from 1.42 to 2.23 times higher than in Rh-DM. The highest levels were observed in RrT-DM and RCG-DM, reaching 4002.30 \u0026micro;g/L and 3406.66 \u0026micro;g/L, respectively. We found that ES10, a precursor of AL4, accumulated extensively in all blended SDMs\u0026mdash;ranging from 3.44- to 22.37-fold higher than in Rh-SDM. This accumulation likely contributes significantly to the elevated production of AL4 during subsequent fermentation in these samples. In contrast, meads produced with direct compound addition did not exhibit this issue. In these additive-enhanced meads, the increase in ES10 was minimal, and in ES35-DM, it even decreased by 2.6-fold. Notably, this sample also showed the most significant reduction in AL4 concentration, with a 2.3-fold decline. These findings suggest that the accumulation of ES10 may be a key determinant in regulating the final AL4 concentration. Although ES35 and ES10 are derived from different metabolic pathways and do not interact directly, the major esterification enzymes in yeast\u0026mdash;Atf1p and Atf2p\u0026mdash;possess broad substrate specificity and are involved in the synthesis of various esters. Therefore, we hypothesize that an increase in ES35 may competitively inhibit the activity of Atf1p and Atf2p, thereby hindering the synthesis of ES10.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eES1 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.5) and ES18 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3) are important aroma compounds in wine and Chinese Baijiu\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, contributing fruity aromas (apple and pear) and tropical fruit aromas (pineapple and banana), respectively. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB, we observed that the addition of specific additives in mead production promoted the formation of AC4, which in turn facilitated the synthesis of ES18. Compared with Rh-DM (356.34 \u0026micro;g/L), ES1 increased the most in AD6-DM, reaching 1.53 times higher, whereas the only sample showing a decreasing trend was ES35-DM, with a 24.13% reduction compared to Rh-DM. The concentration of ES18 in Rh-DM was only 0.12 \u0026micro;g/L, while the four new types of meads showed significantly increased ES18 contents. The greatest increases were observed in AD6-DM and ES30-DM, being 1667.42 times and 1464.67 times higher than Rh-DM, respectively. The smallest increase was found in ES35-DM, which was 533.17 times higher than Rh-DM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGC-O analysis identified two aldehydes: benzaldehyde (AD5, AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.7) and AD6 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3), imparting almond and forest freshness, respectively\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Compared to Rh-DM, AD5 levels rose in ES35-DM, AD6-DM, and AD10-SM by 1.41, 1.5, and 1.06 times, respectively, while decreasing by 27.24% in ES30-DM. AD6 increased only in AD6-DM (by 9.69 times) but decreased in other novel meads, with ES35-DM showing the greatest reduction (78.44%). Nonetheless, AD6\u0026rsquo;s low AI implies minimal sensory impact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, meads supplemented with single additives significantly enhanced aroma intensity, especially for compounds with high AI values, and effectively reduced accumulation of the off-flavor compound AL4 (AI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5). The efficiency of single-compound supplementation surpassed that of blended additions such as tea or coffee, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;1 and Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.5 Sensory Evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eA, a comprehensive sensory evaluation revealed significant differences in aroma attributes between the four novel meads and the reference Rh-DM. The novel meads exhibited notably higher scores in aroma descriptors such as sweet, floral, herbal, and fruity compared to Rh-DM. Specifically, ES35-DM and AD10-DM showed a reduction in irritating and waxiness attributes, while ES35-DM, ES30-DM, and AD10-DM also demonstrated diminished bitterness and fatty notes. All four novel meads exhibited a noticeable decrease in sweaty off-notes. Except for ES35-DM, the remaining three samples displayed slightly increased sourness compared to Rh-DM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of overall preference, the results are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eB, approximately 58.34% of panelists selected ES35-DM as their favorite, followed by AD10-DM, which accounts for 25%. ES30-DM was perceived as having an overly intense aroma and a strong mouthfeel, with herbal notes that bordered on medicinal, making it the less favored by some panelists. AD6-DM, despite showing improved fruitiness, was generally disliked due to its enhanced bitterness and irritating characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo identify the key volatile compounds contributing to mead aroma, recombination and omission experiments were performed using the two top-performing samples (ES35-DM and AD10-DM) along with Rh-DM. Based on GC-O analysis, 15 aroma-active compounds were selected and used to reconstruct the aroma profiles of Rh-DM, ES35-DM and AD10-DM. As shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eA, the sensory profiles of the recombined models closely matched those of their original counterparts, validating the effectiveness of the aroma reconstitution.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThen, 45 omission models were created to evaluate the individual contribution of each of the 15 key aroma compounds (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eB, Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS7\u003c/span\u003e) in 3 kinds of meads. The results demonstrated that the absence of AL4, AL6, AL26, ES47 were consistently identified by at least 10 panelists (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) across all three meads, indicating their importance as key aroma contributors. AL4 played a modulating role in aroma perception; its omission led to a noticeably enhanced overall aroma intensity, suggesting it may act as a masking agent in the complete matrix. This effect was recognized by 13 panelists. In contrast, the absence of AL6 resulted in diminished aroma complexity and roundness, causing the recombined samples to lose their layered character, indicating its critical role in creating a balanced and appealing sensory experience. AL26 was found to contribute significantly to the perceived sweetness of mead, with its omission leading to a marked decline in sweetness, particularly in the Rh-DM sample. Similarly, ES47 was shown to be essential for fruity notes, especially apple and pear-like aromas, with the most pronounced impact observed in AD10-DM, where this compound was present at the highest concentration. Additional compounds demonstrated specific importance to individual formulations. ES30, when omitted from ES35-DM and AD10-DM, caused a significant reduction in floral and fresh attributes, with all 13 panelists correctly identifying the missing compound (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), highlighting its role in defining floral character. The removal of ES35 from ES35-DM led to decreased floral, fruity, and sweet notes (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), which can be attributed to its targeted addition in this particular sample. Lastly, omission of ES26 weakened the perception of alcoholic strength, particularly in AD10-DM, suggesting its importance in contributing to the body and alcoholic impression of mead. The use of specific additive compounds led to an increase in the number of key aroma contributors identified in the mead samples.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that, compared to blended meads incorporating ingredients like flower teas or coffee, meads formulated with a single additive are more effective at preserving the original sensory profile of mead while enhancing desirable aroma attributes such as floral, fruity, sweet, and herbal notes. Moreover, off-flavors can be significantly suppressed. This study provides a scientific foundation for the industrial production of high-quality mead with optimized aroma profiles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1 Raw materials and reagents\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe rapeseed honey (purity\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;85%) from the apiary located at 107\u0026deg;03\u0026prime;-107\u0026deg;30\u0026prime; E, 32\u0026deg;45\u0026prime;-33\u0026deg;40\u0026prime; N. Commercial \u003cem\u003eSaccharomyces cerevisiae\u003c/em\u003e (BV818, RV002, RV171, SY) and yeast extract FN502 were purchased from Angel Yeast Co., Ltd. (Yichang, China). Italian \u003cem\u003eSaccharomyces cerevisiae\u003c/em\u003e CR1 was purchased from Yantai Diboshi Self Brewing Machine Co., Ltd. (Yantai, China). \u003cem\u003eAurea helianthus\u003c/em\u003e (Ah), \u003cem\u003eChrysanthemum morifolium\u003c/em\u003e (CmR), \u003cem\u003eClitoria ternatea\u003c/em\u003e (Ct), \u003cem\u003eFructus Mori\u003c/em\u003e (FM), \u003cem\u003eHibiscus sabdariffa\u003c/em\u003e (Hs), \u003cem\u003eHordeum vulgare (L.)\u003c/em\u003e (Hv), \u003cem\u003eJasminum sambac (L.)\u003c/em\u003e (Js), \u003cem\u003eNelumbinis Folium\u003c/em\u003e (NF), \u003cem\u003eOsmanthus black tea\u003c/em\u003e (Obt), \u003cem\u003ePassiflora edulis Sims\u003c/em\u003e (PeS), \u003cem\u003eRosa Crimson Glory\u003c/em\u003e (RCG), \u003cem\u003eRosa rugosa Thunb\u003c/em\u003e (RrT), \u003cem\u003eSiraitia grosvenorii\u003c/em\u003e (Sg) were purchased from Gong yuan Company (China). The internal standards 4-methyl-2-pentanol (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;99%), were purchased from Shanghai Titan Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). The n-alkane mixed standard sample (C6\u0026ndash;C40) was purchased from Shanghai yuanye Bio-Technology Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China). ES30, AD10, ES35, and AD6 with food grades were purchased from Adamas-beta (Shanghai, China). Sodium metabisulfite, diammonium phosphate and DL-tartaric acid with food grades were purchased from Hunan Yueyang Sanxiang Chemical Co. (Yueyang, China). All herbal teas were purchased from Tongxiang Specialty Products Co., Ltd. (Tongxiang, China). Mixed arabica coffee powers from Sumatra with dark espresso roast was purchased from Starbucks Commercial Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). All other reagents are analytical grade were obtained from Shanghai Titan Technology Co. Ltd. (Shanghai, China).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2 Fermentation of Meads\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne gram of herbal tea or coffee power was added into 90 mL of hot distilled water (100\u0026deg;C) and kept for 5 min. Then, the mixture was filtered out with four-layer gauze. The rape honey was added into the above mixture, reaching 25 Brix. Yeast extract (1.5 g/L) or diammonium phosphate (1.5 g/L) and sodium metabisulfite (80 mg/L) were then added. Tartaric acid was added to adjust pH to 3.5. The prepared honey solution (HS) was pasteurized at 85\u0026deg;C for 20 minutes. The yeast (0.2 g) was activated in 2 mL of HS at 38\u0026deg;C for 20 min, then transferred into 98 mL of fresh HS and incubated at 25\u0026deg;C. The fermentation was stopped at 3 and 8 days to obtain semi-sweet and dry meads, respectively. This fermentation period was confirmed in our preliminary experiment (data not shown). All meads were centrifuged at 4,000 rpm and 25 ℃ for 10 minutes (H2050R-1, Cence Hunan Xiangyi Co., Ltd, China) to remove impurities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the preparation of additional meads, neither herbal tea nor coffee was used; instead, specific additives were incorporated. The fermentation process remained the same as previously described. The amounts of additives used were as follows: ES30 50.27 \u0026micro;g/L, AD10 48.56 \u0026micro;g/L, ES35 149.24 \u0026micro;g/L, and AD6 141.27 \u0026micro;g/L. The amounts of additives based on GB2760-2024 standard.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3 HS-SPME-GC-O-MS analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA 5 mL aliquot of mead was transferred into a 20 mL sample vial, to which 0.75 g of NaCl and 20 \u0026micro;L of internal standard solution (4-methyl-2-pentanol, 162 mg/L) were added. The vial was sealed with a screw cap fitted with a silicone septum. The sample was equilibrated at 45\u0026deg;C for 20 minutes prior to extraction. A solid-phase microextraction (SPME) fiber was then exposed to the headspace at 45\u0026deg;C for 30 minutes. Finally, the volatile compounds were desorbed from the SPME fiber in a GC-MS injector operated in splitless mode at 250\u0026deg;C for 5 minutes. Volatile compounds were analyzed using an Agilent 7890B/5977B GC-MS system (Agilent Technologies, California, USA) equipped with an Agilent 19091S-433UI capillary column (60 m \u0026times; 0.25 mm \u0026times; 0.25 \u0026micro;m). The chromatographic separation followed this temperature program: The oven temperature was programmed from 35 ℃ (held for 6 min), ramp to 90\u0026deg;C at 5\u0026deg;C/min (held for 2 min), ramp to 150\u0026deg;C at 3\u0026deg;C/min, ramp to 230\u0026deg;C at 10\u0026deg;C/min (held for 10 min). Helium (99.99% purity) was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.8 mL/min. The mass spectrometer operated with a mass scan range of 30\u0026ndash;350 m/z, an ionization energy of 70 eV, and the ion source, quadrupole and transfer line temperatures were set to 240\u0026deg;C, 150\u0026deg;C, and 200\u0026deg;C, respectively. To confirm the identity of the compounds, additional analyses were conducted using an Agilent DB-WAX 122\u0026ndash;7062 column (60 m \u0026times; 0.25 mm \u0026times; 0.25 \u0026micro;m) and a Shimadzu SH-I-5Sil MS column (60 m \u0026times; 0.25 mm \u0026times; 0.25 \u0026micro;m). They were respectively used in the HS-SPME-GC-O-MS analysis. Their detection methods were same as our previous work columns\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The identification and quantification of volatile compounds were conducted using both external and internal standard methods. For compounds with commercially available standards, qualitative analysis was performed using external standards. These standards were grouped into three mixed standard solutions, with each group prepared in triplicate. For compounds without available standards, semi-quantitative analysis was conducted using the internal standard method, with 4-methyl-2-pentanol selected as the internal standard. Compound identification was based on matching mass spectral fragmentation patterns with those in the NIST Mass Spectral Library (version 2.3), complemented by characteristic odor descriptors. Retention indices (RI) were calculated using a series of n-alkanes (C6\u0026ndash;C40) under both polar and non-polar conditions. Volatile compounds with a relative similarity index (RSI) greater than 750 were considered reliably identified. Additionally, compounds with RI deviations less than 10% between the sample and authentic standards were considered consistent with the standards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAroma-active compounds in mead were characterized using a Sniffer 9100 olfactometry detector (Brechb\u0026uuml;hler, Switzerland) in Agilent 7890B/5977B GC-MS system. GC effluent was split equally (1:1) between the sniffing port and MS detector. The transfer line temperature was maintained at 230\u0026deg;C, while the sniffing port temperature was set at 180\u0026deg;C. Olfactory analysis was performed by six experienced panelists (three males and three females, aged 24\u0026ndash;45). The Odor Specific Measurement Estimate (OSME) method was employed to assess the aroma intensity (AI) of compounds over time. The AI of odor-active compounds was rated using a 5-point scale: 0 (no odor), 1 (very weak), 2 (weak), 3 (easily identifiable), 4 (strong), and 5 (extremely strong). Each compound was evaluated three times, with the occurrence time, odor characteristics, and intensity systematically recorded.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4 Correlation analysis of volatile compounds\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo investigate the interactions among volatile compounds during mead fermentation, this study considered the dynamic fermentation process and performed Pearson correlation analysis on all volatile compounds across mead samples using GraphPad Prism 10 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The analysis included volatile substances from the honey solution (HS), semi-dry mead (SDM), and dry mead (DM), as presented in Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e, S2, and S3. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationships among volatile compounds. This statistical measure is a standard tool for assessing the degree of association between pairs of variables. Its values range from \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 to 1, where scores below zero indicate a negative correlation, scores above zero indicate a positive correlation, and a score of zero indicates no correlation\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. To screen potential additives, compounds were selected based on the following criteria: a positive correlation coefficient of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;0.95 with aroma compounds and a negative correlation coefficient of \u0026le;\u0026ndash;0.95 with off-flavor compounds. The objective was to identify additives that can simultaneously enhance the flavor of mead and reduce undesirable odors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.5 Sensory evaluation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn experienced sensory panel comprising 80 trained members (40 females and 40 males), aged between 18 and 65 years, from Northwest University (Xi\u0026rsquo;an, China) conducted the organoleptic evaluations. The aroma of mead samples was described using 10 attributes: sweetness, fruitiness, herbal notes, floral notes, acidity, sweat-like odor, waxiness, bitterness, pungency, and fattiness. Each attribute was rated on a scale from 0 (undetectable) to 10 (extremely intense). Acidity, regarded as a separate parameter, was calculated according to the methodology outlined in supplementary material Eq-A.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.6 Machine learning Using Random Forest\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo further screen volatile compounds with significant impact on mead flavor, 17 candidate compounds were selected based on prior correlation analysis. A training dataset was constructed using volatile profiles from 15 honey water samples, semi-sweet meads, and dry meads as features, with sensory evaluation scores (taste and aroma) as target variables. The Random Forest (RF) algorithm was employed to model and predict both taste and aroma scores\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. A representative mead sample (Rh) was used as a baseline to simulate the impact of increasing the concentration of each compound individually by +\u0026thinsp;100 \u0026micro;g/L. The predicted changes in sensory scores were used to assess the positive or negative modulation effect of each compound, thereby identifying which volatiles have the greatest potential to enhance desirable flavor attributes. This method effectively pinpointed the most influential additives for aroma and taste improvement, offering quantitative support for formulation optimization. All procedures were implemented using Python 3.10.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.7 Aroma Recombination and Omission Experiments\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate whether the 15 odor-active compounds identified by GC-O could replicate the overall aroma profile of mead, reconstitution and omission experiments were conducted using standard compounds at the concentrations detected in the original samples. Three reconstituted aroma models were prepared, including Recombinant ES35-DM (RES35-DM), Recombinant AD10-DM (RAD10-DM), and Recombinant Rh-DM (RRh-DM). These composite models were compared with their corresponding original mead samples through sensory evaluation. Each reconstituted model was placed in a 20 mL capped clear glass vial and equilibrated at 4\u0026deg;C for 24 hours prior to sensory testing. The samples were randomly coded. A trained sensory panel consisting of 40 members (20 males and 20 females) evaluated the aroma similarity between each original mead sample and its corresponding reconstituted model using a 100-point scale. In addition, panelists rated the intensity of ten aroma attributes, as described in Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2.5\u003c/span\u003e, for each reconstituted model to assess how accurately it reproduced the sensory characteristics of the original mead.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo further investigate the contribution of individual volatile compounds to the overall aroma profile of the mead samples, 45 omission models were prepared by systematically removing one compound at a time from a base solution composed of ultrapure water, ethanol, and the full set of aromatic standards. These omission models were also placed in 20 mL capped clear glass vials and equilibrated at 4\u0026deg;C for 24 hours prior to random coding and sensory evaluation. Sensory assessment of the omission models was conducted using the three-alternative forced-choice (3-AFC) method\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Each test set consisted of two fully reconstituted models and one omission model, presented simultaneously in three 20 mL vials. The samples were randomly labeled with three-digit codes and randomly ordered. A total of 20 trained panelists (10 males and 10 females) were asked to identify the sample that differed from the other two and describe the perceived differences in aroma characteristics. All sensory evaluations were carried out in accordance with the standardized procedures described in Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2.5\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.8 Statistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll experiments were performed in triplicate, and results are expressed as mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Biplots of OPLS-DA and VIP plots were created using Simca 14.1 (Umetrics Corp., Ume\u0026aring;, Sweden). The full names of the main abbreviations in this article are shown in Table \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of herbal tea and coffee additions on the volatile profile and aroma characteristics of mead. A total of 230 volatile compounds were identified using HS-SPME-GC-MS, and multivariate statistical analyses revealed that these additives not only enriched the aroma complexity but also amplified certain off-flavor compounds. Seventeen key aroma-related compounds were identified, among which four\u0026mdash;ES30, AD10, ES35, and AD6\u0026mdash;were selected based on their sensory contribution and practical feasibility. SPME-GC-O-MS analysis confirmed that the addition of these compounds significantly enhanced the content of desirable esters and reduced the concentration of isoamyl alcohol, a known off-flavor compound. Sensory evaluation further supported these findings, showing improvements in floral, fruity, sweet, and herbal notes, alongside reduced bitterness and pungency. Notably, ES35-DM and AD10-DM emerged as the most favored aromatic meads. Through omission and reconstitution experiments, eight key aroma compounds were identified as critical to the characteristic flavor profile of mead. These findings offer a targeted strategy for flavor modulation in mead production and provide a theoretical foundation for the development of high-aroma, low off-flavor honey-based alcoholic beverages.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthical Statement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors certify that this study was conducted in strict accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the World Medical Association\u0026rsquo;s Declaration of Helsinki for research involving human participants. In the context of sensory evaluation, national regulations do not require formal ethical approval, and no established ethics committee or formal documentation process is available for such studies. Despite this, the authors implemented rigorous protocols to safe guard the rights and privacy of all participants. These protocols included ensuring voluntary participation without coercion, providing comprehensive information about the study\u0026rsquo;s aims, procedures, and potential risks, obtaining verbal informed consent from each participant, ensuring that no participant data was disclosed without prior consent, and allowing participants the freedom to withdraw from the study at any point without prejudice.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eDeclaration of competing interest\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declares that we have no commercial or financial interests related to the submitted work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Central Funds Guiding the Local Science and Technology Development (2022ZY1-CGZY-05), the Science and Technology Program of Yulin City, Shaanxi Province (2024-CXY-174), Lishui Science and Technology Bureau (grant numbers 2022GYX03, 2023GYX07), the Shaanxi Province Key Research and Development Program (S2025-YF-ZDXM-CYJQ-0136, 2024CY-JJQ-39), the National Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scholars (grant numbers 22108227) and the Central Guidance on Local Science and Technology Development Fund of Shaanxi Province (2023ZY1-CGZY-06).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eL, Z., and Z, J., wrote the main manuscript. L, Z., T, X., S, W., G, M., and L, X., completed the research and investigation together.L, Z., Z, T., and L, W., have prepared all the diagrams. W, D., B, W., C, Y., and Z, H., have completed all the calculations. L, B., W, D., and C, W., reviewed the article.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSenn, K., Cantu, A., \u0026amp; Heymann, H. Characterizing the chemical and sensory profiles of traditional American meads. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Food Science\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e86(3),\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e1048\u0026ndash;1057 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, R., \u0026amp; Sun, Y. Effects of Honey Variety and Non-Saccharomyces cerevisiae on the Flavor Volatiles of Mead. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e77(1),\u003c/strong\u003e 40\u0026ndash;53 (2019).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eČeslov\u0026aacute;, L., Pravcov\u0026aacute;, K., Juričov\u0026aacute;, M., \u0026amp; Fischer, J. Rapid HPLC/MS/MS analysis of phenolic content and profile for mead quality assessment. \u003cem\u003eFood Control\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e134,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e108737 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBednarek, M., \u0026amp; Szwengiel, A. Distinguishing between saturated and unsaturated meads based on their chemical characteristics. \u003cem\u003eLWT\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e133,\u003c/strong\u003e 109962 (2020).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFu, Y., Shi, X., Li, F., Yan, X., Li, B., Luo, Y., Jiang, G., Liu, X., \u0026amp; Wang, L. Fermentation of mead using Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Lactobacillus paracasei: Strain growth, aroma components and antioxidant capacity. \u003cem\u003eFood Bioscience\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e52,\u003c/strong\u003e 102402 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKawa-Rygielska, J., Adamenko, K., Kucharska, A. Z., \u0026amp; Szatkowska, K. Fruit and herbal meads \u0026ndash; Chemical composition and antioxidant properties. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e283,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e19\u0026ndash;27 (2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePrestianni, R., Matraxia, M., Naselli, V., Pirrone, A., Badalamenti, N., Ingrassia, M., Gaglio, R., Settanni, L., Columba, P., Maggio, A., Bruno, M., Francesca, N., Moschetti, G., \u0026amp; Alfonzo, A. Use of sequentially inoculation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Hanseniaspora uvarum strains isolated from honey by-products to improve and stabilize the quality of mead produced in Sicily. \u003cem\u003eFood Microbiology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e107,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e104064 (2022).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, X., Zhang, T., Liu, Z., Jiao, M., Li, Q., Gand, M., Zhu, K., Qiao, Y., Bai, W., Guo, Z., Li, B., Wang, Y., Dong, J., \u0026amp; Li, B. Machine learning analysis of pre-culture effects on rate-limiting steps in volatile compound dynamics of Mead. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry: X\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e26,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e102313 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFan, C., Shi, X., Pan, C., Zhang, F., Zhou, Y., Hou, X., \u0026amp; Hui, M. GC-IMS and GC/Q-TOFMS analysis of Maotai-flavor baijiu at different aging times. \u003cem\u003eLWT\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e192,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e115744 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuan, T., Gui, X., Wu, Y., Wang, S., Tian, L., Liu, Q., \u0026amp; Wu, Y. Aromatic and sensorial profiles of Guichang kiwi wine fermented by indigenous Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Food Science\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e90(2),\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ee70067 (2025).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, S. Y., Li, C., Li, Y. J., Liu, G. Q., Lu, Z. M., Chai, L. J., Xu, H. Y., Shi, J. S., Wang, S. T., Shen, C. H., Zhang, X. J., \u0026amp; Xu, Z. H. Evolution of aroma compounds in round soy sauce aroma type baijiu during aging and the effect of aging markers on the lasting aroma in finished glass. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry: X\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e25,\u003c/strong\u003e 102193 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWu, D., Chen, Z., Lv, Y., Yang, L., Liu, H., Qiu, R., Xu, H., Li, J., Lu, J., \u0026amp; Cai, G. Coculturing of non-Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces cerevisiae for improving the aroma quality and antioxidant characteristics of beer with Yuan\u0026rsquo;an yellow tea. \u003cem\u003eFood Bioscience\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e58,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e103725 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXu, W., Wang, X., Jia, W., Wen, B., Liao, S., Zhao, Y., Tang, Q., Li, K., Hua, Y., Yang, Y., Bouphun, T., \u0026amp; Zou, Y. Dynamic changes in the major chemical and volatile components during the \u0026ldquo;Ziyan\u0026rdquo; tea wine processing. \u003cem\u003eLWT\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e186,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e115273 (2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhu, M., Wang, M., Gu, J., Deng, Z., Zhang, W., Pan, Z., Luo, G., Wu, R., Qin, J., \u0026amp; Gomi, K. Machine learning-assisted aroma profile prediction in Jiang-flavor baijiu. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e478,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e143661 (2025).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXu, W., Zhu, Y., Lin, L., Tunyaluk, B., \u0026amp; Li, P. Dynamic changes in volatile components during dark tea wine processing. \u003cem\u003eLWT\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e194,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e115783 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, D., Guo, S., Mao, Y., Lei, W., Wang, X., Liu, C., \u0026amp; Li, J. Influence of yeasts and aging on the accumulation of flavor components in Rosa roxburghii Tratt wine. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Food Composition and Analysis\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;140,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e107262 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhou, C., Yu, Y., Ai, J., Song, C., Cui, Z., Zhou, Q., Zhao, S., Huang, R., Ao, Z., Peng, B., Chen, P., Feng, X., Li, D., \u0026amp; Liu, Y. Fruit wines classification enabled by combing machine learning with comprehensive volatiles profiles of GC-TOF/MS and GC-IMS. \u003cem\u003eFood Research International\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e204,\u003c/strong\u003e 115890 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, J., Zhang, X., Shi, X., Zhang, H., Lin, Q., \u0026amp; Bao, Y. Effects of different frozen storage treatments on microbial diversity and volatile components of ice bayberry wine. \u003cem\u003eLWT\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e214,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e117150 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, Y., Pu, Y., Xu, F., Niu, Y., Zhang, M., \u0026amp; Huang, H. Comparative investigation of aroma characteristics of six chrysanthemum species based on sensory evaluation and multivariate statistical analysis to provide a strategy for the cultivation of sweet-scented chrysanthemums.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Food Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e485,\u003c/strong\u003e 143900 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang, Y., Ye, Z., Araujo, L. D., Rutan, T., Deed, R. C., \u0026amp; Kilmartin, P. A. Inter-regional characterisation of New Zealand pinot noir wines: Correlation between wine colour, monomeric and polymeric phenolics, tannin composition, antioxidant capacity, and sensory attributes. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;467,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e142311 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, S., Han, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, F., Ou, Y., Li, H., Yang, L., Qiu, S., \u0026amp; Lu, J. Machine learning-enhanced flavoromics: Identifying key aroma compounds and predicting sensory quality in sauce-flavor baijiu. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e475,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e143328 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRossetti, A. P., Perpetuini, G., \u0026amp; Tofalo, R. Sniffing the wine differences: The role of Starmerella bacillaris biofilm-detached cells. \u003cem\u003eHeliyon\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e10(15),\u003c/strong\u003e e35692 (2024).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWebster, C. E., Barker, D., Deed, R. C., \u0026amp; Pilkington, L. I. Mead production and quality: A review of chemical and sensory mead quality evaluation with a focus on analytical methods. \u003cem\u003eFood Research International\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;202,\u003c/strong\u003e 115655 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, T., Liao, Z., Li, Z., Liu, Y., Bi, J., Liu, Y., Song, Y., \u0026amp; Qin, Y. Revealing the flavor differences of Sauvignon Blanc wines fermented in different oak barrels and stainless-steel tanks through GC-MS, GC-IMS, electronic, and artificial sensory analyses. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry: X\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e25,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e102188 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, Z., Ma, C., Liu, L. X., Dong, G. Z., Wang, B., Zhang, J. F., Lei, S. M., \u0026amp; Liu, Y. G. Comprehensive investigation on non-volatile and volatile flavor compounds in different varieties of rose tea by UPLC-Q-TOF-MS/MS-based metabolomics and GC-IMS, GC-MS. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Food Composition and Analysis\u003c/em\u003e.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;136,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e106708 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQian, X., Ling, M., Sun, Y., Han, F., Shi, Y., Duan, C., \u0026amp; Lan, Y. Decoding the aroma characteristics of icewine by partial least-squares regression, aroma reconstitution, and omission studies. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e440,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e138226 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQin, L., Huang, M., Ma, Y., Zhang, D., Cui, Y., \u0026amp; Kang, W. Effects of two Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains on physicochemical and oenological properties of Aran\u0026egrave;le white wine. \u003cem\u003eFood Bioscience\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e52,\u003c/strong\u003e 102495 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, M., Wang, C., Yang, C., Peng, L., Xie, Q., Zheng, R., Dai, Y., Liu, S., \u0026amp; Peng, X. Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum C7 and Staphylococcus warneri S6 on flavor quality and bacterial diversity of fermented meat rice, a traditional Chinese food. \u003cem\u003eFood Research International\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e150,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e110745 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhao, Z., Sugimachi, M., Yoshizaki, Y., Yin, X., Han, X. L., Okutsu, K., Futagami, T., Tamaki, H., \u0026amp; Takamine, K. Correlation between key aroma and manufacturing processes of rice-flavor baijiu and awamori, Chinese and Japanese traditional liquors. \u003cem\u003eFood Bioscience.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e44,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e101375 (2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhang, X., Chen, Y., Liu, J., Lan, Y., Qian, X., \u0026amp; Zhu, B. Comprehensive study of chemical and sensory profiles of hawthorn wines from China. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry: X\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e26,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e102277 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhao, Y., Liao, P., Chen, L., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Kang, Q., Chen, X., Sun, Y., Jin, Y., Yu, J., Li, H., Zhang, N., Sun, B., \u0026amp; Sun, J. Characterization of the key aroma compounds in a novel Qingke baijiu of Tibet by GC-MS, GC\u0026times;GC-MS and GC-O-MS. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry Advances\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e4,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e100589 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, Y., Lei, X., Wu, Q., Qin, Y., Song, Y., \u0026amp; Liu, Y. Oenological suitability of Chinese indigenous Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Chardonnay wine: The observation of grape maturity and vintage. \u003cem\u003eFood Bioscience\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e61,\u003c/strong\u003e 104904 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHan, B., Ren, X., Gong, H., Zhang, S., Zhou, W., Wei, Y., Fang, Y., Xu, Q., \u0026amp; Bian, M. Effect of compound aging treatment on the quality of Nongxiangxing Baijiu. \u003cem\u003eLWT\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e217,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e117355 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShen, C., Yu, Y., Zhang, X., Zhang, H., Chu, M., Yuan, B., Guo, Y., Li, Y., Zhou, J., Mao, J., \u0026amp; Xu, X. The dynamic of physicochemical properties, volatile compounds and microbial community during the fermentation of Chinese rice wine with diverse cereals. \u003cem\u003eFood Research International\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e198,\u003c/strong\u003e 115319 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, H. et al. Inter- and intra-varietal clonal differences influence the aroma compound profiles of wines analyzed by GC\u0026ndash;MS and GC-IMS. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry: X\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e25,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e102136 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBreiman, L. Random forests. \u003cem\u003eMachine learning\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003e45(1),\u003c/strong\u003e 5-32 (2001).\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang, S. et al. Decoding the Qu-aroma of medium-temperature Daqu starter by volatilomics, aroma recombination, omission studies and sensory analysis. \u003cem\u003eFood Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e457,\u003c/strong\u003e 140186 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e HS-SPME-GC-O-MS analysis of meads.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea denotes a fruity, herbal, and sweet odor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eb denotes an off-flavor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ec. Average AI factors: the average valve of the aroma intensity factors of dry meads.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ed. Sample: RSI values of compounds in the samples.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ee. Standard: RSI values of standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ef. Sample: Calculated RI values of compounds in the samples.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eg. Standard: Calculated RI values of standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eh. Reference: RI values in the NIST Mass Spectral Library version 2.3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ei. Qualitative way: MS, identification based on mass spectrometric data in NIST library (Version 2.3); RI, joint identification of RI based on carbon labeling calculation and RI reported in literature; O, identify based on odor description.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ej. Available: \u0026ldquo;\u0026radic;\u0026rdquo; compare the representative with the reference standard for identification.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"944\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClass\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCode\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCompound\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCAS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOdor description\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage AI factors\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReverse Similarity Index (DB-WAX122-7062)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRetention Index (HP-5ms Ultra Inert)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRetention Index (SH-I-5Sil)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConcentration（\u0026mu;g/L)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample\u003csup\u003ed\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard\u003csup\u003ee\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample\u003csup\u003ef\u003c/sup\u003e (Count)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard\u003csup\u003eg\u003c/sup\u003e (Reference\u003csup\u003eh\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample\u003csup\u003ef\u003c/sup\u003e (Count)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStandard\u003csup\u003eg\u003c/sup\u003e (Reference\u003csup\u003eh\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQualitative way\u003csup\u003ei\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRh-DM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES30-DM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES35-DM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAD6-DM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAD10-DM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvailable\u003csup\u003ej\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlcohol\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAL1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthanol\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64-17-5\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e953\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e943\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e427\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e463\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4937.56\u0026plusmn;372.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6589.57\u0026plusmn;287.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6902.85\u0026plusmn;53.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6451.11\u0026plusmn;405.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6691.87\u0026plusmn;332.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAL4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIsoamyl alcohol\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123-51-3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ereagent, irritate, unpleasant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e897\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e866\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e732\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e736\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e711\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e697\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1792.06\u0026plusmn;295.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1618.18\u0026plusmn;94.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e774.85\u0026plusmn;12.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1832.59\u0026plusmn;50.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1591.64\u0026plusmn;122.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAL6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,3-Butanediol\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e513-85-9\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eslightly sweet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e789\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e788\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e763\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e743\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e116.36\u0026plusmn;5.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e139.23\u0026plusmn;3.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e81.23\u0026plusmn;1.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e167.43\u0026plusmn;90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e170.98\u0026plusmn;17.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAL26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhenylethyl alcohol\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60-12--8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehoney, sweet, consist\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e926\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e927\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1118\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1116\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1108\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1136\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5704.87\u0026plusmn;374.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e918.77\u0026plusmn;41.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e398.63\u0026plusmn;11.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3991.01\u0026plusmn;119.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e901.14\u0026plusmn;74.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"19\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEster\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl acetate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e141-78-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efruity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e928\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e912\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e600\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e612\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e605\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e586\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e356.34\u0026plusmn;22.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e432.28\u0026plusmn;35.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e270.34\u0026plusmn;5.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e546.43\u0026plusmn;12.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e466.07\u0026plusmn;27.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl butyrate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105-54-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e898\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e923\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e804\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e802\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e804\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e785\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.64\u0026plusmn;0.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.36\u0026plusmn;0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.76\u0026plusmn;0.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.04\u0026plusmn;0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIsoamyl acetate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123-92-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efruity, sweet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e874\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e904\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e881\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e876\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e849\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e820\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e48.35\u0026plusmn;6.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70.14\u0026plusmn;2.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.93\u0026plusmn;0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76.05\u0026plusmn;3.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.64\u0026plusmn;3.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl caproate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123-66-0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efruity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e892\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e878\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e997\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e984\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.12\u0026plusmn;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e175.76\u0026plusmn;5.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.98\u0026plusmn;3.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200.09\u0026plusmn;19.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123.64\u0026plusmn;6.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl benzoate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e93-89-0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1687.87\u0026plusmn;69.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1492.64\u0026plusmn;42.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1804.87\u0026plusmn;31.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1989.98\u0026plusmn;103.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl caprylate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e106-32-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efruity, brandy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e902\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e898\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1197\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1196\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1173\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1183\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.59\u0026plusmn;2.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1232.92\u0026plusmn;58.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e654.72\u0026plusmn;13.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e960.04\u0026plusmn;112.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e919.50\u0026plusmn;53.28\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl phenylacetate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101-97-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esweet, floral, herbal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e861\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e833\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1247\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1217\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1259\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.51\u0026plusmn;0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5479.05\u0026plusmn;266.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.46\u0026plusmn;0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.37\u0026plusmn;2.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.80\u0026plusmn;2.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhenethyl acetate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103-45-7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efloral\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e892\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e886\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1260\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1258\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1218\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1259\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.19\u0026plusmn;8.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65.07\u0026plusmn;1.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e289.32\u0026plusmn;6.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.11\u0026plusmn;2.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl nonanoate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123-29-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efruity, sweet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e772\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e756\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1297\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1296\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1309\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1282\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.37\u0026plusmn;0.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.28\u0026plusmn;3.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6494.29\u0026plusmn;106.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.23\u0026plusmn;1.27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.77\u0026plusmn;1.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl 3-phenylpropionate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2021-28-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehoney, sweet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e916\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e912\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1353\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1373\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1359\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.94\u0026plusmn;0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.57\u0026plusmn;3.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.02\u0026plusmn;0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.52\u0026plusmn;1.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63.84\u0026plusmn;4.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl 9-decenoate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67233-91-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e848\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e835\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1389\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1387\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1359\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1371\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e203.27\u0026plusmn;7.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.41\u0026plusmn;1.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e138.39\u0026plusmn;15.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1229.91\u0026plusmn;89.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl caprate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e110-38-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efloral, sweet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e754\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e782\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1398\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1396\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1353\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1381\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1548.31\u0026plusmn;25.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2358.82\u0026plusmn;59.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e858.45\u0026plusmn;27.67\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1746.31\u0026plusmn;162.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4754.04\u0026plusmn;308.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-Methylbutyl octanoate\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2035-99-6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efloral\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e936\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e917\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1447\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1446\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.51\u0026plusmn;2.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.21\u0026plusmn;0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.75\u0026plusmn;0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.90\u0026plusmn;1.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.06\u0026plusmn;0.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eButyl caprate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30673-36-0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e802\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e833\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1549\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1590\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.81\u0026plusmn;0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.35\u0026plusmn;0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.72\u0026plusmn;1.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl laurate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e106-33-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e821\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e839\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1597\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1595\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1593\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1580\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.56\u0026plusmn;0.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e558.55\u0026plusmn;14.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e337.44\u0026plusmn;6.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e493.30\u0026plusmn;37.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e612.16\u0026plusmn;34.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIsoamyl caprate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2306-91-4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1650\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1646\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.32\u0026plusmn;0.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.40\u0026plusmn;0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.31\u0026plusmn;1.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.76\u0026plusmn;1.99\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl myristate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e124-06-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e850\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e873\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1798\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1794\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1749\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1779\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.47\u0026plusmn;0.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.47\u0026plusmn;0.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.10\u0026plusmn;1.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.64\u0026plusmn;0.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.16\u0026plusmn;1.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthyl 9-hexadecenoate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54546-22-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e729\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e789\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1977\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1945\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1986\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.09\u0026plusmn;0.57\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.85\u0026plusmn;1.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.32\u0026plusmn;0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.29\u0026plusmn;3.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eES63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePalmitic acid ethyl ester\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e628-97-7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e752\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e740\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1993\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.10\u0026plusmn;0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.47\u0026plusmn;6.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e51.18\u0026plusmn;2.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.35\u0026plusmn;3.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56.32\u0026plusmn;11.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAldehyde\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAD5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBenzaldehyde\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100-52-7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ethe bitter almond\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e972\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e962\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e923\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e982\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.50\u0026plusmn;0.25\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.64\u0026plusmn;0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.82\u0026plusmn;0.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.75\u0026plusmn;0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.17\u0026plusmn;0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAD6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhenylacetaldehyde\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e122-78-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ehoney, sweet\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e759\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e801\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1043\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1137\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1095\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI, O\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.73\u0026plusmn;0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.50\u0026plusmn;0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.02\u0026plusmn;0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.85\u0026plusmn;1.21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.76\u0026plusmn;0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAD10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDecanal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e112-31-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e823\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e875\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1206\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1206\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1179\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1204\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.28\u0026plusmn;0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100.96\u0026plusmn;5.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhenol\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePN8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2,4-Di-tert-butylphenol\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96-76-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e690\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1520\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1519\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1548\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1555\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.21\u0026plusmn;0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.79\u0026plusmn;2.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.55\u0026plusmn;1.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.59\u0026plusmn;2.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.92\u0026plusmn;5.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcid\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAC4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHexanoic acid\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e142-62-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e823\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e819\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e990\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e949\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e974\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMS, RI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.42\u0026plusmn;1.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.62\u0026plusmn;1.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.34\u0026plusmn;0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31.75\u0026plusmn;4.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026radic;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Mead, Volatile metabolomics, Aroma enhancement, Random Forest, HS-SPME-GC-O-MS","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7189594/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7189594/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eTo enhance dry mead (DM) flavor, 13 herbal teas and coffee were added, and volatile changes were dynamically monitored using HS-SPME-GC-MS with three columns. While aroma intensity improved, off-flavors also increased. Pearson correlation analysis identified 17 key volatile compounds associated with enhanced aroma and reduced off-flavor intensity. The Random Forest (RF) algorithm was applied, enabling the identification of compounds positively associated with sensory evaluation scores, including both taste and aroma. Four compounds\u0026mdash;ethyl phenylacetate (ES30), decanal (AD10), ethyl nonanoate (ES35), and phenylacetaldehyde (AD6)\u0026mdash;were selected. Their addition increased aroma-active compounds by 3.5\u0026ndash;39.0%, reduced isoamyl alcohol (AL4) by 9.7\u0026ndash;56.81%, and raised total ester content by 3.05\u0026ndash;5.88 times. Combined with sensory and metabolomic data, single-additive meads better preserved original flavor while enhancing floral, fruity, sweet, and herbal notes and suppressing off-flavors, compared to tea- or coffee-blended meads. Notably, inhibiting isoamyl acetate (ES10) formation appears critical for reducing AL4.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Aroma-Enhancing Strategies in Mead: A Metabolomics- and Machine Learning-Guided Additive Approach","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-29 08:34:06","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7189594/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c717e01b-aa0a-458c-81bc-1e079caa01a2","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 29th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":52201464,"name":"Biological sciences/Biochemistry"},{"id":52201465,"name":"Biological sciences/Chemical biology"},{"id":52201466,"name":"Physical sciences/Chemistry"},{"id":52201467,"name":"Biological sciences/Plant sciences"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-02T15:23:58+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-29 08:34:06","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7189594","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7189594","identity":"rs-7189594","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}