## 2 Results
### Volatile Compounds in Young Wines
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **Control** & & & **Frutitaio** & & **On-Vine** & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compounds**} & **Odor** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **\(p\)-Value** \\  & **Threshold 1** & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Acetate Esters**} & & & & & & & & & \\   Ethly acetate & 12,000 & 19,537.4  & \(\pm\)1896.3 & 49,654.9  & \(\pm\)4413.3 & 33,649.2  & \(\pm\)7566.5 & 0.001 \\ Isomary acetate & 30 & 10,732.9  & \(\pm\)1503.1 & 3216.1  & \(\pm\)631.4 & 1877.3  & \(\pm\)293.0 & \(<\)0.001 \\ n-Hexyl acetate & 1800 & 279.3  & \(\pm\)41.8 & 22.3  & \(\pm\)1.5 & 6.47  & \(\pm\)1.09 & \(<\)0.0001 \\ Phenylethyl acetate & 2400 & 106.2  & \(\pm\)11.0 & 35.3  & \(\pm\)4.5 & 30.7  & \(\pm\)1.9 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Ethyl Estres & & & & & & & & \\ Ethly butanoate & 20 & 254.7  & \(\pm\)14.7 & 265.6  & \(\pm\)28.1 & 210.1  & \(\pm\)16.4 & 0.036 \\ Ethyl 3-methylbutanoate & 3 & 215.4  & \(\pm\)32.5 & 64.6  & \(\pm\)14.1 & 36.7  & \(\pm\)6.3 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Ethyl hexanoate & 14 & 548.5  & \(\pm\)33.4 & 310.3  & \(\pm\)9.5 & 302.1  & \(\pm\)24.9 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Ethyl octanoate & 5 & 452.1  & \(\pm\)50.2 & 254.3  & \(\pm\)10.7 & 249.6  & \(\pm\)27.9 & 0.000 \\ Ethyl decanoate & 200 & 45.6  & \(\pm\)6.2 & 50.6  & \(\pm\)5.5 & 38.6  & \(\pm\)6.5 & 0.132 \\ Ethyl lactate & 100,000 & 1087.9  & \(\pm\)49.6 & 690.6  & \(\pm\)34.7 & 647.8  & \(\pm\)64.2 & \(<\)0.001 \\
**Fary Acids** & & & & & & & & \\
3-Methylbutanoic acid & 250 & 511.9  & \(\pm\)38.5 & 402.3  & \(\pm\)6.6 & 449.1  & \(\pm\)19.0 & 0.005 \\ Hexanoic acid & 2080 & 2623.6  & \(\pm\)130.17 & 1286.5  & \(\pm\)103.3  & \(\pm\)368.3  & \(\pm\)36.2 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Octanoic acid & 2560 & 2044.8  & \(\pm\)184.0 & 820.0  & \(\pm\)36.8 & 1066.7  & \(\pm\)39.8 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{**Tepenes**} & & & & & & & \\ _cis_-LinaolPrincipal component analysis (PCA) showed that 65.9% of the total variance was explained by the first and second component (Figure 1). In fact, first principal component (PC-1) explained 45.8% of the total variance, while PC-2 explained 20.1%. Samples were separated into three clusters according to their withering technique. PC-1 mostly discriminated withered samples from not-withered. Control samples were characterized principally by esters, fatty acids, C\({}_{6}\) compounds 1-hexanol, _trans_-3-hexenol, and _cis_-3-hexenol precursor. Instead witnessed compounds were characterized by terpen like \(\beta\)-citronello, linalool, terpinen-4-ol, 1,4-cineole; by the norisprenoid 3-oxo-\(\alpha\)-ionol; and by several benzenoids like phenylethyl alcohol, benzyl alcohol, methyl vanillate and its glycosidic precursor. PC-2 permitted to discriminate on-vine from fruttaio samples, the major drivers of this diversity were the ethyl butanoate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl vanillate, and the bound precursor of geraniol. Figure 1: Principal component analysis showing aged wine samples scores (**A**) and loadings (**B**), only loadings with score value \(>\) 0.75 were shown. Loadings plot number correspond to: (F1) 2-Butanol, (F2) 1-Butanol, (F3) 1-Pentanol, (F6) 1-Hexanol, (F7) _trans_-3-Hexenol, (F8) _cis_-3-Hexenol, (F9) Ethyl acetate, (F10) Isoamyl acetate, (F11) n-Hexyl acetate, (F12) Phenylethyl acetate, (F13) Ethyl butanoate, (F14) Ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, (F15) Ethyl hexanoate, (F16) Ethyl octanoate, (F18) Ethyl lactate, (F19) 3-Methylbutanoate acid, (F20) Hexanoic acid, (F21) Octanoic acid, (F24) Linalool, (F28) \(\alpha\)-Terpineol, (F31) \(\beta\)-Citronello, (F34) 1,4-cineole, (F36) Limonene, (F39) Terpinolene, (F40) \(\beta\)-Damascenone, (F46) 3-oxo-\(\alpha\)-Ionol, (F48) 4-Vinyl guaiacol, (F50) Benzyl alcohol, (F52) Methyl vanillate, (F53) Ethyl vanillate, (B3) bound cis-3-Hexenol, (B12) bound Benzyl alcohol, (B14) bound Phenylethyl alcohol, (B15) bound Vanillin, (B18) bound Ethyl vanillate.