## 3 Results and Discussion
### Physicochemical Parameters  
The principal chemical characteristics of sugarcane juice, including sugars, organic acids, nitrogen content, pH, total acidity, and glycerol, are summarized in Table 1. The juice exhibited a pH of 5.11 and a soluble solids content of 20.80\({}^{\circ}\)Bx, values consistent with those reported by [PERSON] et al. [69] and [PERSON] et al. [62]. The slightly acidic pH is a crucial factor in determining the freshness of the juice. It has been established that lower pH values are typically associated with ongoing fermentation and microbial activity [70]. Following the conclusion of alcoholic fermentation, the pH levels of the resulting cane wines ranged from 3.21 to 3.98. The addition of lactic or sulfuric acid not only directly lowered the initial pH of the sugarcane juice but also limited the proliferation of spoilage microorganisms, including AAB and LAB, which are known to affect fermentation dynamics and acid production. Specifically, in the trials acidified with sulfuric acid, the final pH ranged from 3.13 to 3.39, while in those treated with lactic acid, it was from 3.42 to 3.57. Overall, these values were lower compared to the trials treated with potassium metabisulfite, which showed pH values ranging from 3.36 to 3.98. In untreated trials, the absence of treatment resulted in uncontrolled microbial proliferation and higher levels of lactic and acetic acid accumulation, leading to more variable final pH values. The physicochemical composition of the cane wines following 18 days of fermentation is detailed in Table 5.  
Residual sugars in the inoculated trials ranged between 4.29 (SC16) and 1.52 (SC6) g/L, with no statistical differences between trials. In contrast, the uninoculated trials (SC1, SC5, SC9, and SC13) were unable to consume all the sugars present, resulting in residual sugar values ranging from 91.11 to 126.95 g/L.  
Regarding acetic acid, the untreated trials (SC1 to SC4) yielded values between 4.01 and 4.73 g/L, due to the absence of chemical treatment that allowed the proliferation of AAB. In contrast, the commercial control _S. cerevisiae_ EC1118 in SC16, treated with lactic acid, showed the lowest acetic acid levels, likely due to the killer activity of this strain inhibiting AAB growth [71]. However, the trials treated with lactic acid (SC13 to SC16) had higher lactic acid values than all other trials, specifically between 5.10 and 5.37 g/L. Apart from these, trials SC1 and SC5 showed the highest lactic acid values, 2.86 and 2.09 g/L, respectively, due to the proliferation of LAB without competition from inoculated yeasts [72].  
No significant differences were found between the various trials for malic acid, tartaric acid, and total acidity. However, the trials inoculated without chemical treatment (SC2, SC3, and SC4) exhibited higher levels of glycerol, ranging from 9.14 to 9.80 g/L. The trials inoculated with the control strain _S. cerevisiae_ EC1118 (SC4, SC8, SC12, and SC16) produced higher glycerol values than the other yeast strains. The concentration of glycerol produced by _S. cerevisiae_ in wine typically ranges from 4 to 9 g/L [73], and glycerol yield is significantly affected by different yeast strains [74]. In this study, differences were observed among the strains, with the control strain of _S. cerevisiae_ EC1118 producing more glycerol than the others. However, no significant differences were found between the different chemical treatments.