# Effect of Chitosan on the Removal of Different Types of Tannins from Red Wines
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Forced Oxidation Trial
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Delphiniding 3-Glucoside**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cyanidin**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Petualidin 3-Glucoside**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ponidin**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Malvidin 3-Glucoside**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Malvidin 3-Gill-Countazoyl-Glucoside**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cyanidin 3-Gill-Countazoyl-Glucoside**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mg/L)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mg/L)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mg/L)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mg/L)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mg/L)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mg/L)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mg/L)**} \\ \hline Wo & 5.88 \(\pm\) 0.92 & AB \(\beta\) & ND & 6.20 \(\pm\) 0.91 & \({}^{*}\) A \(\beta\) & ND & 30.79 \(\pm\) 1.08 & A \(\beta\) & 10.92 \(\pm\) 1.94 & \({}^{*}\) A \(\beta\) & ND \\ W+C0 & 4.76 \(\pm\) 1.02 & ab \(\beta\) & ND & 4.13 \(\pm\) 0.69 & a \(\beta\) & ND & 25.24 \(\pm\) 6.66 & a \(\beta\) & 7.40 \(\pm\) 0.34 & a \(\beta\) & ND \\ CTo & 5.61 \(\pm\) 0.78 & A \(\beta\) & ND & 4.45 \(\pm\) 0.75 & A \(\beta\) & ND & 26.71 \(\pm\) 5.41 & A \(\beta\) & 9.18 \(\pm\) 1.37 & A \(\beta\) & ND \\ CTo-C0 & 5.40 \(\pm\) 1.02 & a \(\beta\) & ND & 4.91 \(\pm\) 0.83 & a \(\beta\) & ND & 24.67 \(\pm\) 2.52 & a \(\beta\) & 6.91 \(\pm\) 1.55 & ab \(\beta\) & ND \\ ETo & 4.26 \(\pm\) 0.41 & BC \(\beta\) & ND & 4.55 \(\pm\) 0.77 & A \(\beta\) & ND & 27.30 \(\pm\) 0.12 & A \(\beta\) & 10.06 \(\pm\) 0.38 & \({}^{*}\) A \(\beta\) & ND \\ ETo-C0 & 3.16 \(\pm\) 0.93 & b \(\beta\) & ND & 3.71 \(\pm\) 0.67 & a \(\beta\) & ND & 22.44 \(\pm\) 0.05 & a \(\beta\) & 5.48 \(\pm\) 0.02 & b \(\beta\) & ND \\ GTO & 3.64 \(\pm\) 0.44 & \({}^{*}\) C \(\beta\) & ND & 4.41 \(\pm\) 0.86 & A \(\beta\) & ND & 26.85 \(\pm\) 3.27 & A \(\beta\) & 7.75 \(\pm\) 1.41 & A \(\beta\) & ND \\ GTCo & 2.99 \(\pm\) 0.27 & b \(\beta\) & ND & 3.97 \(\pm\) 0.17 & a \(\beta\) & ND & 24.59 \(\pm\) 0.54 & a \(\beta\) & 6.78 \(\pm\) 0.63 & ab \(\beta\) & ND \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Different residue indicates a statistically significant difference among tracked wines according to [PERSON]’s (HSD) analysis (\(p\) = 0.50%). The effect of transforms addition is expected with a capital letter on wines Wo, Clo, FE, and Clo (A, B, C). The effect of chitosan addition is expressed with a lowercase letter on wines WC, CT-Co, ETCo, and CT-Co (A, B). The asterisk (7) indicates a statistical difference between each kind of wine before and after the treatment with chitosan. The Greek symbol (B) is used if the value is significantly lower than the one-oxided sample. All data are expressed as means a standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Oxidation effect on native anthocyanins. The changes in total anthocyanins and chromatic characteristics after oxidation were as expected: a decrease in total anthocyanins and colour intensity and an increase in tonality (Table 7). Significant data points were those on \(\Delta\)E between wines treated and untreated with C: for all experimental wines after oxidation the effect of C was well visible (\(\Delta\)E > 3) (Table 8) and the trend was: ET > GT > CT and W. The great effect of C on ellagitannins agrees with previous results [43] and it deserves future investigation.