## 3 Results
### Ester Concentrations  
Thirty ester compounds were measured using method 1 and method 2 (Table 3). All three main factors and their respective levels, skin contact (yes/no), \(\beta\)-lyase (yes/no), and fermentation gradient (FG0, FG1, and FG2) presented significant differences (\(\alpha=0.05\)) for specific esters (Table 3). Eight esters (2-methylpropyl acetate, 3-methylbutyl acetate, 3-methylbutyl butanoate, ethyl octanoate, 3-methylbutyl hexanoate, 3-methylbutyl octanoate, methyl octanoate, and 2-phenylethyl acetate) showed higher concentrations when  
Figure 2: Change in Brix during fermentation of the experimental Chardonnay wines by R1 and R2 and fermentation schedules FG0, FG1, and FG2. Standard deviations are represented by the error bars. skin contact was performed as opposed to four esters (ethyl 2-hydroxypropanoate, ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate, ethyl 2-phenylacetate, and ethyl propanoate), which presented higher concentrations when skin contact was not performed. Three esters (3-methylbutyl butanoate, 3-methylbutyl octanoate, and methyl octanoate) presented higher concentrations when \(\beta\)-lyase was added to the wines, in contrast to not adding this enzyme, which resulted in four esters (butyl acetate, ethyl dodecanoate, ethyl pentanoate, and 2-phenylethyl acetate) with higher concentrations. A total of 19 esters were statistically significant for the fermentation gradient factor. Overall, FG1 and FG2 resulted in higher ester concentrations in comparison to FG0. Some esters increased based on the fermentation gradient, while others were lower in concentration (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Parameters \({}^{\ast}\)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SC**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**BL**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**FG**} \\  & **No** & & **Yes** & **No** & **Yes** & **0** & **1** & **2** \\ \hline pH & 3.02 (\(\pm\)0.08) \({}^{\ast}\) & 3.15 (\(\pm\)0.03) \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 3.09 (\(\pm\)0.08) \({}^{\ast}\) & 3.08 (\(\pm\)0.09) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.1 (\(\pm\)0.08) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.08 (\(\pm\)0.09) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.07 (\(\pm\)0.08) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ TA (g/L) & 8.2 (\(\pm\)0.86) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 6.5 (\(\pm\)0.28) \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 7.3 (\(\pm\)1.08) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 7.4 (\(\pm\)1.05) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 7.13 (\(\pm\)1.21) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 7.39 (\(\pm\)0.9) \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 7.53 (\(\pm\)1.04) \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ RS (g/L) & 0.14 (\(\pm\)0.06) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.22 (\(\pm\)0.08) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.17 (\(\pm\)0.08) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.19 (\(\pm\)0.08) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.16 (\(\pm\)0.07) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.19 (\(\pm\)0.09) \({}^{\mathrm{ab}}\) & 0.19 (\(\pm\)0.08) \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ AA (g/L) & 0.05 (\(\pm\)0.03) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.05 (\(\pm\)0.03) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.05 (\(\pm\)0.03) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.05 (\(\pm\)0.03) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.05 (\(\pm\)0.03) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.07 (\(\pm\)0.04) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.04 (\(\pm\)0.02) \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 0.04 (\(\pm\)0.02) \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ MA (g/L) & 2.67 (\(\pm\)0.42) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.34 (\(\pm\)0.16) \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 2.5 (\(\pm\)0.35) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.52 (\(\pm\)0.36) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.48 (\(\pm\)0.34) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.52 (\(\pm\)0.36) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.51 (\(\pm\)0.37) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ EtOH (\% v/v) & 13.37 (\(\pm\)0.43) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 13.44 (\(\pm\)0.18) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 13.44 (\(\pm\)0.3) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 13.41 (\(\pm\)0.37) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 13.46 (\(\pm\)0.30) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 13.44 (\(\pm\)0.33) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 13.36 (\(\pm\)0.33) \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\ast}\)TA = titralte achicity; RS = residual sugars; AA = acetic acid; MA = malic acid; EtOH = ethanol. Values with different letters are significantly different (\(p<0.05\) by [PERSON]’s HSD test).  
\end{table}