# Evaluation of Malolactic Starters in White and Rose Winemaking of Moschofilero Wines
## 3 Results
### Chemical Characteristics
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **C** & **S** & **Oenos** & **Cine** & **CH6** & **C** & **S** & **Oenos** & **Cine** & **CH6** \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Rose Wine**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{10}{c}{Polycols (g/L)} \\ \hline Glycerol & (0.121)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.153)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.821)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.074)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.102)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.051)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.051)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.048)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.078)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.052)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Organic acids (g/L)} \\ \hline Malic acid & 2.50 & 0.61 & 0.07 & 0.05 & 0.04 & 1.75 & 0.76 & 0.11 & 0.05 & 0.12 \\  & (0.008)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.002)\({}^{\rm\AA}\) & (0.002)\({  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **C** & **S** & **Oenos** & **Cine** & **CH16** & **C** & **S** & **Oenos** & **Cine** & **CH16** \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Rose Wine**} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**White Wine**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Higher alcohols (mg/L)} \\ \hline Isoamyl alcohol & 78.5 & 34.0 & 32.2 & 35.1 & 34.9 & 37.8 & 40.0 & 34.0 & 60.5 & 59.4 \\  & (18.2)\({}^{\rm h,B}\) & (71.2)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (16.04)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (16.43)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (15.45)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (2.04)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (2.36)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (3.24)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (2.14)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) \\ \hline Phenethyl alcohol & 0.79 & 0.94 & 0.84 & 0.99 & 0.89 & 0.77 & 0.79 & 0.88 & 1.24 & 0.94 \\  & (0.081)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.078)\({}^{\rm h,B}\) & (0.062)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.074)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.062)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.027)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.035)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.038)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.019)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.014)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Terpenes (mg/L)} \\ \hline Linalool & 0.073 & 0.062 & 0.085 & 0.089 & 0.086 & 0.073 & 0.070 & 0.073 & 0.089 & 0.082 \\  & (0.0025)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.0064)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.0370)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.0426)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.0046)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.008)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.0021)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.0041)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) & (0.0055)\({}^{\rm h,A}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{C: strain UCLM S325-conducted AF without MLP; S; strain UCLM S325-conducted AF followed by spontaneous MLF; GONG; strain UCLM S325-conducted AF and strain Windows; Oones-conducted MLP; Cine; strain UCLM S325-conducted AF and strain Windows; Cline; concluded AF. The energy values are presented and the standard deviation given in parenthesis. Different superiorly lowercase results within a column of the same wine type designate statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)), different superscript capital letters within a column designate statistically significant differences between wine types (\(p<0. The 14 volatile and non-volatile compounds with enological interest, which were quantified in all fermentation cases assessed, were further analyzed by PCA to enhance the visualization of the diversity of the produced wines through different inoculation schemes (Figure 1). The PCA plot of the first two components explained 66.2% of the wine variation; variations with a component 1 rating accounted for 42.8% of the total and variations with a component 2 rating accounted for 23.4% of the total. PCA analysis clearly distinguished the wine in which no MLF took place (C) on the positive right side of the map, connecting to the malic, citric acid, isoamyl acetate and isoamyl alcohol as well as some medium chain fatty acids. The strains Vniflora(r) CH16, Vniflora(r) Oenos and Vniflora(r) CiNe were associated with lactic acid, ethyl-2-methyl butyrate, phenethyl alcohol and ethyl isobutyrate. The rose wines were loaded on the upper part of component 2, while the white ones were on the lower part.