## 2 Results
### Volatile Composition of Aged Wine  
After model aging, wines were different for 28 volatile compounds (Table 3) and seven bound compounds (\(p<0.05\)) (Table 4). The fruttaio and the on-vine samples showed significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) for 17 compounds, three of which were glycosidically bound precursors. The PCA analysis (Figure 2) after wine model aging showed a total variance of 63.1%. Three clusters were formed corresponding to the three conditions studied: control, fruttaio and on-vine. The compounds that most characterized these three groups were basically the same that were obtained in wine samples before model aging: the class of esters, acids and alcohols for control samples, terpenes and benzenoids for withered samples. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **Control** & & **Fruttaio** & & **On-Vine** & & \\ \hline
**Compounds** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
**Alcohols** & & & & & & & \\ Phenylethyl alcohol & 284.9  & \(\pm\)11.0 & 282.0 [FOOTNOTE:]Footnote : Values in the same row with different letters indicate statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)). \(<\)LOQ: Value below the limit of quantification. [ENDFOOTNOTE] & \(\pm\)47.8 & 0.017 \\
1-Hexanol & 203.8  & \(\pm\)29.8 & 159.6  & \(\pm\)0.28 & 3.27  & \(\pm\)0.29 & 0.003 \\ \(cis\)-3-Hexen-1-ol & 25.4  & \(\pm\)1.6 & 0.000 \\
**Terpenes** & & & & & & \\ _cis_-Linalooloxide & 1.93  & \(\pm\)0.53 & 2.06  & \(\pm\)0.72 & 2.74  & \(\pm\)0.61 & 0.666 \\ Linalool & 5.71  & \(\pm\)0.82 & 6.91  & \(\pm\)0.02 & 0.070  & \(\pm\)0.032 & 0.999 \\ \(\alpha\)-Terpineol & 2.00  & \(\pm\)0.02 & 2.42  & \(\pm\)0.048 & 0.747  & \(\pm\)0.030 & 0.051 \\ Nerol & 15.1  & \(\pm\)1.8 & 11.3  & \(\pm\)1.7 & 24.1 [FOOTNOTE:]Footnote : Values in the same row with different letters indicate statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)). \(<\)LOQ: Value below the limit of quantification. [ENDFOOTNOTE] & \(\pm\)1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Futtaio**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**On-Vine**} \\ \hline
**Compounds** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **\(p\)-Value** \\ \hline
**Acetate Esters** & & & & & & & \\ Ethyl acetate & 19,178.22  & \(\pm\)7696.5 & 32,697.7  & \(\pm\)2026.1 & 38,187.8  & \(\pm\)5575.2 & 0.015 \\ Isoamyl acetate & 3732.0  & \(\pm\)188.2 & 1435.2  & \(\pm\)852.1 & 760.8  & \(\pm\)300.4 & 0.001 \\ n-Hexyl acetate & 82.8  & \(\pm\)3.1 & 8.9  & \(\pm\)2.1 & 8.0  & \(\pm\)2.8 & 0.000 \\ Phenylethyl acetate & 55.2  & \(\pm\)1.9 & 29.0  & \(\pm\)10.2 & 23.8  & \(\pm\)2.2 & 0.002 \\
**Ethyl Esters** & & & & & & \\ Ethyl butanoate & 255.2  & \(\pm\)12.2 & 296.2  & \(\pm\)20.1 & 231.7  & \(\pm\)24.2 & 0.018 \\ Ethyl 3-methylbutanoate & 56.6 [FOOTNO \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Futtaio**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**On-Vine**} & \\ \hline
**Compounds** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline
**Alcohals** & & & & & & & \\ Phenylethyl alcohol & 121.4 ab & \(\pm\)7.8 & 96.2 a & \(\pm\)21.9 & 146.9 b & \(\pm\)9.4 & 0.015 \\
**C6 alcohols** & & & & & & \\
1-Hexanol & 84.6 a & \(\pm\)6.7 & 84.8 a & \(\pm\)14.0 & 82.8 a & \(\pm\)7.4 & 0.965 \\ _trans-_3-Hexen-1-ol & 0.588 a & \(\pm\)0.035 & 0.852 b & \(\pm\)0.163 & 0.750 ab & \(\pm\)0.065 & 0.054 \\ _cis-_3-Hexen-1-ol & 22.6 b & \(\pm\)1.6 & 11.2 a & \(\pm\)5.2 & 13.8 a & \(\pm\)0.8 & 0.011 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Concentration (\(\mu\)g/L) of bound compounds in aged wine samples. Mean, standard deviation (SD) and ANOVA. Figure 2: Principal component analysis showing aged wine samples scores (**A**) and loadings (**B**), only loadings with score value \(>\)0.75 were shown.