## 3 Results and Discussion
### Turbidity  
The obtained oenological parameters over the four stipulated stages of all of the wines under study are presented in Table 5 and resumed in Figure 5.  
The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to examine the turbidity difference between all treatments in Stages 0, 1, 3 and 4. Statistically significant differences were achieved in Stage 0 (H = 9.951, \(p\) = 0.007), most specifically between ARC and ARPEF (\(p\) = 0.011) batches and ARC vs. ARE pairs (\(p\) = 0.004). ARE and ARPEF presented a not statistically significant difference (\(p\) = 0.744). It is worth mentioning that ARC presented the lowest turbidity immediately after processing, with a value of 1792 \(\pm\) 213.8 NTU, followed by ARE and ARPEF with similar values of, respectively, 2959.7 \(\pm\) 271 NTU and 2693 \(\pm\) 77.97 NTU.  
After cold settling and first cracking (Stage 1), at the end of alcoholic fermentation and 3 months post-AF, significant differences were also determined (H = 11.153, \(p\) = 0.004; H = 10.27, \(p\) = 0.006; H = 16.613, \(p\) < 0.001, respectively). Computing pairwise comparisons resulted in conclusions similar to the ones obtained for Stage 0.  
Figure 5: Results of turbidity (NTU) analyzed on 4 stages of vinicitation (Stage 0: after pressing (top left graph), Stage 1: after decantation (top right graph), Stage 3: End of AF (bottom left graph) and Stage 4: after 3 months (bottom right graph)) (n = 9). Statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) are indicated by different letters assigned to the means.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Stage**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Turbidity**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **0** & **1** & **3** & **4** \\ \hline ARC1 & 945 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 501 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 528 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 16 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ \hline ARC2 & 2135 \(\pm\) 58.3 & 308 \(\pm\) 3.5 & 443 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 92 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\ \hline ARC3 & 2299 \(\pm\) 72.0 & 444 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 358 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 8 \(\pm\) 0.3 \\ \hline ARE1 & 3557 \(\pm\) 33.3 & 322 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 185 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 3 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline ARE2 & 1875 \(\pm\) 31.2 & 130 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 263 \(\pm\) 10.1 & 2 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline ARE3 & 3447 \(\pm\) 43.7 & 157 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 406 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 6 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline ARPEF1 & 2415 \(\pm\) 164.6 & 214 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 10 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 8 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline ARPEF2 & 2872 \(\pm\) 105.0 & 537 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 438 \(\pm\) 4.0 & 2 \(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline ARPEF3 & 2790 \(\pm\) 74.4 & 763 \(\pm\) 6.1 & 355 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 1 \(\pm\) 0.1 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Results presented in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). n = 3.  
\end{table}
Table 5: Results of the parameter Turbidity.  
While [PERSON] et al., 2018 obtained similar results to our experiment [33], [PERSON] et al., 2007 found the opposite after assessing \(T\), demonstrating that an increase in grape juice yield was accompanied by a decrease in \(T\). This was attributed to possible selective damage to the cell membrane, promoting its degradation to a lesser extent [31]. These differences may be due to variations in grape varieties, winemaking techniques and equipment (e.g., type of press) [33]. However, when experimenting on Chardonnay grapes, the results obtained by [PERSON] et al. 2009 showed that \(T\) was not affected by PEF pretreatment in various pressing conditions [48]. Studies performed on other matrixes, such as apple and carrot juice, corroborate the results presented by [PERSON] et al. 2007 [58; 59]. Differences among protocols used in the experiments, such as contact with the solid fraction, pressure exerted or other variables, might be responsible for the variability of the results obtained; therefore, more experiments must be conducted in order to fully understand the relation between the use of PEF and \(T\).