## 3 Results and Discussion
### Chemical Profile of Jubrication Wine Extracts
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compounds**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RT (min)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Ionization Mode**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Experimental Mass**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Absolute Area (Relative \%)**} \\ \cline{5-8}  & & & & **JWE** & **JWF1** & **JWF2** & **JWF3** & **JWR** \\ \hline Citric acid & 13.53 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 191.020 & \(7.8\times 10^{7}\) & \(1.7\times 10^{8}\) & \(3.9\times 10^{5}\) & \(5.8\times 10^{7}\) & \(2.2\times 10^{7}\) \\  & & & & (23.8) & (51.8) & (0.1) & (17.7) & (6.7) \\ Cyanidin & 12.60 & [M+H]\({}^{*}\) & 287.0526 & \(1.7\times 10^{9}\) & \(9.1\times 10^{6}\) & - & \(1.4\times 10^{7}\) & \(8.2\times 10^{5}\) \\ Cyanidin-3-O- & & & & (98.6) & (0.5) & - & (0.8) & (0.1) \\ glucoside & 13.86 & [M+H]\({}^{*}\) & 449.1052 & \(5.8\times 10^{5}\) & - & - & - & (99.5) \\ Delphinidin & 12.29 & [M+H]\({}^{*}\) & 303.0499 & \(3.4\times 10^{6}\) & \(8.4\times 10^{8}\) & - & \(2.7\times 10^{7}\) & - \\  & & & (0.4) & (96.5) & - & (3.1) & - \\ Ellagic acid & 11.84 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 300.9989 & \(1.1\times 10^{8}\) & - & \(1.3\times 10^{6}\) & \(7.0\times 10^{6}\) & \(6.6\times 10^{7}\) \\  & & & (59.7) & & (0.7) & (3.8) & (35.8) \\ Ellagic acid hexose & 11.70 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 481.0620 & \(6.6\times 10^{8}\) & - & - & - & \(2.6\times 10^{6}\) \\  & & & (99.6) & - & - & - & (0.4) \\ Gallic acid & 12.66 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 169.0143 & \(3.3\times 10^{8}\) & \(3.7\times 10^{7}\) & \(1.5\times 10^{7}\) & \(3.7\times 10^{8}\) & \(1.8\times 10^{9}\) \\ Glucose/ & & & & (12.9) & (14.5) & (0.6) & (1.4) & (70.5) \\ructose & & & & \(6.1\times 10^{7}\) & - & \(3.4\times 10^{6}\) & - & \(4.0\times 10^{6}\) \\ Guaijaverin & 11.69 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 433.0797 & \(2.1\times 10^{8}\) & - & \(2.3\times 10^{6}\) & \(9.0\times 10^{5}\) & \(1.8\times 10^{7}\) \\  & & & (90.8) & - & (1.0) & (0.4) & (7.8) \\ Isomyrictrin & 11.44 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 479.0856 & \(8.7\times 10^{7}\) & - & \(8.3\times 10^{5}\) & - & \(6.1\times 10^{6}\) \\  & & & (92.6) & - & (0.9) & - & (6.5) \\ isso-oenthein C & 11.26 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 783.0702 & \(1.7\times 10^{8}\) & - & - & - & \(1.3\times 10^{5}\) \\  & & & (99.9) & - & - & - & (0.1) \\ Isoquercitrin & 11.86 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 463.0884 & \(8.5\times 10^{7}\) & - & \(4.6\times 10^{5}\) & - & \(1.7\times 10^{5}\) \\  & & & (99.3) & - & (0.5) & - & (0.1) \\ Lactose/sucrose & 10 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 341.1090 & \(8.1\times 10^{7}\) & - & \(2.6\times 10^{6}\) & - & \(1.4\times 10^{6}\) \\  & & & (95.3) & & (3.1) & (1.6) \\ Malic acid & 11.80 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 133.0143 & \(2.8\times 10^{8}\) & - & \(4.5\times 10^{6}\) & \(3.1\times 10^{6}\) & \(2.4\times 10^{8}\) \\ Monogalloyl glucose & 11.93 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 331.0660 & \(4.3\times 10^{8}\) & - & \(1.3\times 10^{5}\) & \(2.6\times 10^{5}\) & \(8.0\times 10^{7}\) \\  & & & (84.2) & & (0.1) & (0.1) & (15.7) \\ Myricein & 11.55 & [M+H]\({}^{*}\) & 319.0423 & \((75.6)\) & \((24.4)\) & - & - & - \\ Quinic acid & 12.83 & [M-H]\({}^{-}\) & 191.0562 & \(9.0\times 10^{8}\) & \(1.7\times 10^{8}\) & \(6.7\times 10^{6}\) & \(2.0\times 10^{6}\) & \(1.7\times 10^{8}\) \\  & & & (72.1) & (13.6) & (0.5) & (0.2) & (13.6) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Chemical profile of jabuticaba wine extracts determined by LC-HRMS/MS analysis. Relative areas were calculated among samples. The peak area in each sample was divided by the sum of peak areas among the samples to show compound variations. contributed to enhancing the antioxidant activity of these samples by eliminating possible interferants present in the crude extract (JWE). In addition, antagonistic interactions between compounds in complex mixtures such as crude extracts may also occur [67]. It is noteworthy that some ions with relevant intensity in the chromatograms could not be annotated, as the profile of masses and fragmentation obtained were also not similar to the substances searched in public databases and literature.