## 2 Results
### Effect of the Type of Stopper and Storage Time on the Phenolic Profile  
Two-way ANOVA was performed to assess the influence of the type of stopper and the bottle storage time on the phenolic composition of the four wines. The results showed that the storage time (F storage time) significantly influenced the phenolic concentration (Tables 1 and 2). Notably, GRP and anthocyanin glucosides, acetyl-glucosidase and counaroyl-glucosidase in Lagrein rose (F = 8570; 34,170; 20,423 and 10,927, respectively); caffe acid, GRP and glucoside in Merlot (F = 3435; 3263 and 3435, respectively); GRP, glucosides and acetyl-glucosidase in St. Magdalener (F = 2861; 4767 and 2971, respectively); and \(p\)-coumaric acid in Lagrein (F = 4297) were strongly affected by the storage period. On the other hand, the influence of the type of stopper at each sampling time (F stopper) a significantly affected the phenolic compounds only in a few cases. Compared to the bottles closed with conventional stoppers, Lagrein red wine closed with the 'blend' stopper showed significantly lower concentrations of anthocyanin glucosides at three months (T3), acetyl glucosides at six months (T4), (+)-catechin and caffeic acid at three and six months and \(p\)-coumaric acid at one month of storage (T2). Merlot wines reported significant differences for anthocyanin acetyl-glucosidase at bottling (T1), at one month (T2) and at three months (T3), but in this case higher concentrations were detected in the bottles closed with the 'blend' stoppers compared to the conventional stoppers. All these differences can be attributable to an imperfect homogeneity of the Merlot wine in the bottling line (for each sampling point, the content of different bottles were analyzed). The Lagrein rose wine showed a higher abundance of \(p\)-coumaric acid at T2 in the wine sample closed with the 'blend' stopper. St. Magdalener wines differed for the lower concentrations of GRP, anthocyanin glucosides and acetyl-glucosidase after six months storage (T4) in bottles closed with the 'blend' stoppers. To summarize, a common temporal trend of one or more phenolic compounds related to the type of stopper could not be evidenced in the four wines. The statistical differences highlighted between two types of stoppers were quite unpredictable and seemed to be due to the natural variability of the products. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Time** & **Blend** & **c** & **Significant Difference (95\% Confidence)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Lagrein Red} & T1 & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.07 & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\ast\)} \\  & T2 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.00 & & \\  & T3 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.07 & & \\  & T4 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.14 & & \\  & T5 & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.00 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Lagrein Rose} & T1 & 3.10 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 1.40 \(\pm\) 0.00 & \(\ast\) \\  & T2 & 3.05 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 2.20 \(\pm\) 0.14 & \(\ast\) \\  & T3 & 3.65 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 2.45 \(\pm\) 0.07 & \(\ast\) \\  & T4 & 2.65 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 1.90 \(\pm\) 0.00 & \(\ast\) \\  & T5 & 2.75 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 2.90 \(\pm\) 0.00 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Merlot} & T1 & 1.70 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.28 & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\ast\)} \\  & T2 & 2.35 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 1.80 \(\pm\) 0.00 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & T3 & 2.75 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 2.15 \(\pm\) 0.07 & \(\ast\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & T4 & 1.25 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 1.10 \(\pm\) 0.00 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & T5 & 2.35 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 2.55 \(\pm\) 0.07 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{St. Magdalener} & T1 & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.07 & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\ast\)} \\  & T2 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.00 & \(\ast\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & T3 & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.00 & \(\ast\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & T4 & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.00 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & T5 & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.07 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Legend: Blend, blend stopper; c, conventional stopper, as reported in Table 6. \(\ast\) Significance level (\(p<0.05\)) of difference between stoppers.  
\end{table}