## 3 Results and Discussion
### Oenological Parameters of the Cabernet Sauvignon Wines
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **D-SC** & **TA-SC** & **S-LP** & **PreAF-LP** \\ \hline Sugar (g/L) & 2.19 \(\pm\) 0.11 b & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.23 a & 1.94 \(\pm\) 0.17 b & 2.26 \(\pm\) 0.07 b \\ Lactic acid (g/L) & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.13 a & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.13 a & 2.04 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 2.05 \(\pm\) 0.03 b \\ Malic acid (g/L) & 1.53 \(\pm\) 0.13 c & 1.78 \(\pm\) 0.04 d & 0.81 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 1.04 \(\pm\) 0.05 b \\ Citric acid (g/L) & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\ Tartaric acid (g/L) & 2.93 \(\pm\) 0.06 a & 4.06 \(\pm\) 0.04 b & 2.79 \(\pm\) 0.12 a & 2.83 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\ Acetic acid (g/L) & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.26 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.01 b \\ \({}^{\mathrm{A}}\)Tittrable acidity (g/L) & 6.62 \(\pm\) 0.19 a & 7.72 \(\pm\) 0.06 b & 7.58 \(\pm\) 0.13 b & 8.04 \(\pm\) 0.05 c \\ pH & 3.58 \(\pm\) 0.01 c & 3.55 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 3.57 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 3.51 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\ \({}^{\mathrm{B}}\)Volatile acidity (g/L) & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.08 a \\ Ethanol (\% \(v/v\)) & 12.65 \(\pm\) 0.21 b & 12.85 \(\pm\) 0.21 b & 12.55 \(\pm\) 0.07 b & 11.60 \(\pm\) 0.14 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation) within each row followed by different letters are significantly different according to one-way ANOVA, [PERSON]’s honest HSD post hoc tests at 95% confidence level. \({}^{\mathrm{A}}\)Tittrable acidity is expressed as g/L tartaric acid. \({}^{\mathrm{B}}\)Volatile acidity is expressed as g/L acetic acid.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Basic oenological parameters of the Cabernet Sauvignon wines obtained from four different fermentation modalities. Lesser amounts of lactic acid can be seen in wines fermented by the co-inoculation modality (e.g., 0.6\(\sim\)8.9 g/L, [9]) compared to the sequentially inoculated fermentations (e.g., 1.0\(\sim\)11 g/L, [9]). Such differences in lactic acid yield can be due to the antagonistic activities of SC against \(L\). _thermtolerans_. Compared to \(L\). _thermtolerans_ reported in previous studies, the LP strain in this study showed comparable or less lactic acid production, depending partially on the yeast strain being evaluated [9; 10; 11]. Similarly, lactic acid yield by LP can be strain specific, and further studies on screening of superior LP strains with desired lactic fermentation performance are underway. In addition, for \(L\). _thermtolerans_, factors such as fermentation temperature and the presence of SO\({}_{2}\) also exerted influences on lactic acid production [10]. Since these physico-chemical factors also affect the growth and metabolism of LP, it is worth investigating the response of LP to these factors upon lactic fermentation. Relating to the presence of LP, all wines were quantified for volatile acidity, which was between 0.31 and 0.52 among tested wines (Table 1), conforming to the approved National Standard of the People's Republic of China (GB/T 15038-2006). Volatile acidity was contributed primarily from acetic acid, which was found higher in LP wines compared to SC wines (Table 1). Nonetheless, these amounts are unlikely to be detrimental to wine flavour as they were well below the sensory threshold (0.5 g/L) [41]. In theory, extra acetic acid formation through lactic fermentation by LP can be avoided due to its homofermentative hexose metabolism. Thus, the slight increase in acetic acid in LP wines are likely due to catabolism of other organic acids mediated by the bacteria, possibly through citric acid metabolism (Table 1) [16]. Tartaric acid remained rather stable in all wine samples, with LP inoculation inducing a weak but not significant decrease in this organic acid compared to the D-SC control (\(p>0.05\) in each scenario, [PERSON]'s HSD post hoc analysis, Table 1). The control TA-SC yielded the highest concentration of ethanol (12.85% \(v/v\)), comparable to those of D-SC.