## 3 Results  
### Oenological Analysis  
The standard oenological parameters for all wines from both varieties produced with different acidity corrections are summarized in Table 1 for Antao Vaz wines. All parameters are within the legal values (International Organization of Vine and Wine, 2019). Total acidity was always higher than 3.5 g:L\({}^{-1}\) (TA), and volatile acidity was under 1.2 g:L\({}^{-1}\) (expressed in acetic acid). The alcoholic contents for all white wines range from 12.8% to 13.9% (\(v\)/\(v\)), and pH values range from 3.43 to 3.63. When performing ANOVA on these data, significant differences were obtained for the total content of SO\({}_{2}\) and pH, as UM\({}^{\star}\) wines presented the lowest values in both parameters. Additionally, regarding the total acidity, significant differences were obtained between all wines. An increase for the UM\({}^{\star}\) wine was obtained. Indeed, results indicate that using unripe must increases wine acidity, as expected, but the effect on pH is the same as the one obtained using chemical acidification. Furthermore, regarding the ethanol content, significant differences were also achieved. In the wines where the acidity correction was performed by adding the unripe grape must (UM\({}^{\star}\)), a decrease in the alcohol content can be observed as the acidity is corrected, obtaining the lowest content compared to Mix\({}^{\star}\) and T\({}^{\star}\) wines. The possibility of lowering the alcoholic range of wines using unripe grape musts is a pertinent achievement due to the expectable raising in ethanol concentration owing to climate change. High ethanol content can also modify the sensory profile of the wine, increasing the perception of bitterness and astringency [32]. Therefore, wines with lower acidic content are continually becoming a trendy market. Reportedly, soft alcohol beverages, such as reduced-alcohol wine, have become increasingly accepted by consumers. Forecasts assume a continuous growth in demand for low-alcohol drinks, reflecting the global trend for healthier lifestyles and awareness about the benefits of drinking wine [33; 34]. Different strategies have already been proposed to reduce alcohol concentration, including vineyard management, grape must pre-fermentation practices, microbiological approaches during fermentation, and post-fermentation processing technologies [32; 35; 36]. Considering the results obtained in this study, a new dual strategy can be explored us \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Sample** \\ **Name** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Free SO\({}_{2}\)** \\ **(mg\(\cdot\)mL\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Total SO\({}_{2}\)** \\ **(mg\(\cdot\)mL\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Ethanol** \\ **(mg\(\cdot\)mL\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Total** \\ **(\% Vol)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Volatile** \\ **Acidity** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **pH** \\ **(g\(\cdot\)L\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline T\({}^{\star}\) & 10.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 40.0\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 1.1 & 13.8\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.1 & 4.83\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 3.63\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \\ UM\({}^{\star}\) & 10.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 33.5\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 2.1 & 12.8\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 6.17\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 3.43\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.00 \\ Mix\({}^{\star}\) & 12.0 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 39.5\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.7 & 13.9\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.1 & 6.00\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 3.43\({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Total acidity—expressed in tartaric acid; Volatile acidity—expressed in acetic acid. Each value represents the mean \(\pm\) standard error of the mean. (Different letters in column mean significant differences at \(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Average values for oenological parameters for all Antão Vaz wines.