## 3 Results
### Sensory Characterization of the Wines  
After transforming bitterness intensities into ranks for each panelist, the [PERSON] test gave a significant sample effect (Q = 46.03, \(df\) = 2, \(p<0.0001\)). Post hoc Nemenyi test showed significant  
Figure 2: Principal component analysis (PCA) of macerated wines performed on the area of 8 volatile constituents statistically different from the two sites based on ANOVA and \(p\)-value \(<0.05\). The six macerated wines 1,2,3 originating from MC (red circle) and J (blue triangle) and analyzed in technical triplicates a, b, c. Red and blue ellipses correspond to the groups of macerated wines for MC and J, respectively with an interval of confidence of 95%. Loadings of the PCA are plotted in green and represent the eight molecular features associated with their RT (retention times) obtained in the chromatograms. differences between CW and the two macerated wines, but not between MC and J (Table 3). Given the strong differences on bitter compounds showed in Table 2 between the two sites we expected significant sensory differences between MCW and JW. The reason of this surprising result could be that the levels of bitterness were so high that panelists reached saturation and could not physiologically discriminate the two samples in terms of bitterness. Furthermore, carryover effects during the tasting could have played a role in the panelists' inability to discriminate between the two samples. Concerning the aroma assessment, Figure 3 shows the correspondence analysis (CA) of the frequencies of citation of each descriptor for each sample. Since we only have three samples the explained variance of the CA is logically 100% in only two dimensions. The first-dimension accounting for most of the explained variance opposes the control wine to the macerated wines. The results suggest that the fruity and floral notes associated with CW have been masked by aromas coming from the gentian powder. The second axis with only 17.9% of explained variance suggests that the two macerated wines are quite close in odor, but that JW could be slightly more solvent and medicinal while MCW would have a moldy/earthy nuance. A deeper analysis of the differences between samples show slight, but significant differences between JW and MCW. A chi-squared test on the frequency distribution of fruity shows that MCW and CW are significantly frutier than JW (\(df=2\); \(p=0.0018\)). Moreover, chi-squared tests on the descriptors medicinal and moldy/earthy show also interesting results being medicinal significantly more cited for JW than for MCW (\(df=1\); \(p=0.045\)) while MCW tend to be more moldy/earthy than JW (\(df=1\); \(p=0.058\)). Figure 3: Correspondence analysis of the aroma description of the three wine samples. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Mean for Bitterness** & **Groups** \\ \hline JW & 2.57 & A \\ MCW & 2.43 & A \\ CW & 1.00 & B \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Bitterness average ranks for each sample. Means with different letters were significantly different according to Nemenyi test (alpha = 5%). Discussion of Chemically Differentiated Compounds between Two Gentian Sampling Sites and Sensory Properties in Macerated Wines  
Figure 4 indicates the mean concentration factors of the validated (\(p\)-value \(<0.05\)) chemical markers discriminating gentian geographic origin in the macerated wines (with \(p\)-value \(<0.05\)) compared to unmacerated wine (CW). Only origin-differentiating compounds that could have a greater influence in sensory perception were chosen with a mean concentration factor above 3.9 or below 0.25 at minimum in one site for gentian- macerated wines. In this sense K, Ca and Sr were withdrawn from the discussion when applying this arbitrary criterium.