## 2 Results
### Volatilome of the Sweet Wines  
An analysis of the headspace, aroma profile of the sweet wines was carried out by solid phase micro-extraction, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (SPME GC-MS) identifying 160 compounds (43 esters, 6 lactones, 31 alcohols, 12 organic acids, 32 carbonyl compounds, 19 terpen, 11 hydrocarbons, and 6 other compounds) (Table 2). The origin of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **SW-F** & **SW-S** & **SW-A** \\ \hline Total titratable acidity (g tartaric acid/L) & 7.39 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 7.35 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 6.38 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Volatile acidity (g acetic acid/L) & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ pH & 3.88 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.86 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.83 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Ethanol (\% \(p\)/\(v\)) & 15.3 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 15.0 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 16.0 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Total sugars (g/L) & 121.7 \(\pm\) 6.9 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 138.6 \(\pm\) 5.9 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 110.7 \(\pm\) 5.7 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ Glucose (g/L) & 59.2 \(\pm\) 3.8 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 67.4 \(\pm\) 3.0 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 44.2 \(\pm\) 4.0 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ Fructose (g/L) & 62.5 \(\pm\) 3.1 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 71.2 \(\pm\) 2.1 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 66.5 \(\pm\) 1.7 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ Saccharomyces (g/L) & nd & nd & nd \\ Free sulfite (mg/L) & 14.9 \(\pm\) 3.2 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 11.9 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 11.5 \(\pm\) 1.0 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Total sulfite (mg/L) & 24.3 \(\pm\) 4.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 29.4 \(\pm\) 2.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 44.8 \(\pm\) 4.5 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Citric acid (g/L) & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ Tartaric acid (g/L) & 2.19 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.58 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 1.99 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Malic acid (g/L) & 3.26 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.62 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 3.49 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\uccinic acid (g/L) & 2.84 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 2.84 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.98 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Acetic acid (g/L) & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.44 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.23 \\ Total phenolic content (mg GA/L) & 325 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 284 \(\pm\) 4 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 244 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ Polyphenols (mg/L) & 576 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 555 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 459 \(\pm\) 5 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ Antioxidant capacity (mg AA/L) & 35.0 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 24.0 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 18.0 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SW-F: Sweet wine with added FSS raisins to adjust sweetness. SW-S: Sweet wine with added FSS syrup to adjust sweetness. SW-A: Sweet wine with alcohol added to case fermentation at the desired sweetness level. GA: Gallic acid. AA: Aside acid. nd: not detected. Superscript letters in a row indicate statistical differences between treatments (\(p<0.05\)). All assays were carried out at least in triplicate (n = 3–6).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Composition of the sweet wines made from Corinthian currents finishing side-stream (FPSS). these compounds (presence in wines, raisins, grapes, etc.) and their effect on food aroma has been described in detail in [2]. These compounds were identified in all sweet wines, with quantitative differences (expressed as % normalized peak areas as retrieved by the semi-quantitative GC-MS analysis).