## 2 Results and Discussion  
### Chemical Composition and Transmittance of Wines  
The first requirement for wine fining is to decrease turbidity or increase transmittance, thus, to get a crystal clear and translucent wine with good stability, whiles minimizing the influence on other parameters of the wine [2]. As can be seen from Figure 1A, both fining agents and mechanical clarification caused a significant increase in wine transmittance. All the treated wine samples showed a transmittance higher than 90%. Among them, MF treatment showed higher efficiency in wine clarification, which exhibited a significantly higher transmittance value (97.98%) compared to the other treatments. On the contrary, color intensity (CI) showed a significant decrease in treated wines (Figure 1B). The MF treatment showed the lowest CI value with a 35.44% decrease while SP fining only decreased by 9.54%. In conclusion, the effectiveness of the clarification would depend on the different treatments, both mechanical clarification and fining agent could increase wine transmittance, but decrease the wine color, among them, SP fining could clarify the wine and minimize the decrease in wine color intensity. This is in agreement with what other studies have found [8].  
The chemical composition of the wines after clarification are shown in Table 1. Most parameters of the wine showed a decrease after clarification treatments, but the major differences revealed at total acidity, volatile acidity, and total phenolic content. BT fining showed the most significant decrease in total sugar and total acidity content, which may change the flavor, sweetness, and acidity of the wine, and was confirmed in sensory analysis. Total acidity was decreased by 2-3.5% and volatile acidity by 2-12%. BT and CF treatments decreased the protein content while wine treated by SP fining showed an increase. However, the change was not significant. Other researchers have reported that plant protein fining did not influence wine protein stability [8], and it could be settled together with wine suspended solids during the fining process [16]. Total phenol content showed a significant decrease in BT, SP, and MF treatments, which may delay or reduce the browning of the wine as [PERSON] and [PERSON] et al. reported [17; 18]. MF showed the greatest influence on total phenol content decreasing the initial content by 12%, while other treatments by less than 8%.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatment**} & **Total Sugar** & **Total Acidity** & **Volatile Acidity** & **Protein** & **Total Phenol** \\  & **(g/L)** & **(g/L)** & **(g/L)** & **(g/L)** & **(g/L)** \\ \hline C & 190.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 a & 9.74 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 0.115 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.477 \(\pm\) 0.000 a \\ BT & 171.33 \(\pm\) 3.21 b & 9.41 \(\pm\) 0.05 d & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.02 c & 0.114 \(\pm\) 0.001 ab & 0.454 \(\pm\) 0.011 b \\ SP & 188.67 \(\pm\) 0.58 a & 9.50 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 0.116 \(\pm\) 0.000 a & 0.441 \(\pm\) 0.006 b \\ CF & 189.33 \(\pm\) 1.53 a & 9.45 \(\pm\) 0.05 cd & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 0.113 \(\pm\) 0.001 ab & 0.470 \(\pm\) 0.006 a \\ MF & 190.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 a & 9.55 \(\pm\) 0.03 b & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 0.115 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.392 \(\pm\) 0.011 c \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data are means \(\pm\) SD (\(n=3\)). Different letters represent significant differences at a significant level of 0.05.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Basic physicochemical indexes of wine samples processed under different clarification process.  
Figure 1: Change of (**A**) light transmittance and (**B**) color intensity in wine samples with different treatments. Different letters represent significant differences at a significant level of 0.05.