## 2 Results and Discussion
### Aromatic Profile Analysis

Table 3: The impact of different fermentation technologies on wine aroma compounds in Muscat Hamburg wine. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Aroma Compound**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Retention**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Ion**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Type of Wine (ug/L)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Odor Descriptors \({}^{\star}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Odorant**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Threshold**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Significance \({}^{\ddagger}\)**} \\  & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**m/\({}^{\text{b}}\)**} & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**ETS**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**(Z)\(\times\)3-Heenyl acetate**} & 1331 & 43 & 10.08 \(\pm\) 0.69 \({}^{\star}\) & 38.3 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\star}\) & 1315 \(\pm\) 0.73 \({}^{\star}\) & Green, Apple, Grassy & 4,6 & 8 & **...** \\ Ethyl butyrate & 1047 & 43 & 21.25 \(\pm\) 0.86 \({}^{\star}\) & 23.14 \(\pm\) 1.34 \({}^{\star}\) & 24.23 \(\pm\) 0.97 \({}^{\star}\) & Fruity & 6 & 20 & **...** \\ Isoamyl acetate & 1122 & 70 & 64.65 \(\pm\) 5.35 \({}^{\star}\) & 581.24 \(\pm\) 1.49 \({}^{\star}\) & 952.64 \(\pm\) 817 \({}^{\star}\) & Branza, Fruity, Sweet & 3,6 & 30 & **...** \\ Ethyl cryorate & 1227 & 88 & 6.15 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\star}\) & 50.1 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\star}\) & 69.019 \({}^{\star}\) & Fruity, Banana & 6 & 5 & **...** \\ Ethyl hexanoate & 1232 & 88 & 914.41 \(\pm\) 5.32 \({}^{\star}\) & 786.33 \(\pm\) 5.3 \({}^{\star}\) & 107.756 \(\pm\) 6.92 \({}^{\star}\) & Green apple, Banana & 6 & 14 & **...** \\ Heavenly acetate & 1007 & 43 & 5.77 \(\pm\) 0.75 \({}^{\star}\) & 10.10 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\star}\) & 7.85 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\star}\) & Fruity & 6 & 2 & **...** \\ Ethyl hepatanoate & 1334 & 88 & 2.84 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\star}\) & 391 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\star}\) & & & & & & \\ Methyl octanoate & 1390 & 74 & 3.49 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\star}\) & 4.16 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\star}\) & 5.42 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\star}\) & Fruity, Green & 4,6 & 200 & **...** \\ \hline Ethyl octanoate & 1437 & 88 & 7244.34 \(\pm\) 5.77 \({}^{\star}\) & 8024.21 \({}^{\star}\) & 15048 \(\pm\) 11.17 \({}^{\star}\) & Fruity, Banana, Pear & 2,6 & 5 & **...** \\ Ethyl decapanoate & 1639 & 88 & 849.44 \(\pm\) 4.13 \({}^{\star}\) & 2392.35 \({}^{\star}\) & 8420.62 \({}^{\star}\) & Fruity & 6 & 200 & **...** \\ Ethyl 9-deconote & 1697 & 88 & 534.52 \(\pm\) 2.36 \({}^{\star}\) & 312.6 \(\pm\) 1.21 \({}^{\star}\) & 4815.21 \(\pm\) 1.75 \({}^{\star}\) & Fruity, Fatty & 5,6 & 100 & **...** \\ Prehybrid acetate & 1830 & 104 & 301.09 \(\pm\) 2.07 \({}^{\star}\) & 3410.8 \(\pm\) 2.15 \({}^{\star}\) & 467.62 \(\pm\) 1.67 \({}^{\star}\) & Fruyl & 2 & 250 & **...** \\ Ethyl laurate & 1848 & 88 & 82.89 \(\pm\) 1.43 \({}^{\star}\) & 56.36 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\star}\) & 253.02 \(\pm\) 3.43 \({}^{\star}\) & Fruily & 6 & 1,500 & **...** \\ \hline Substotal (ug/L) & & & & & & & & & \\ Substotal (ug/L) & & & & & & & & & & \\ Substotal (ug/L) & & & & & & & & & & \\ Substotal (ug/L) & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Total & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Mean value and SD for three independent fermentation.—— not data.* \({}^{\star}\) Kavats retention index was calculated based on an n-alkane series (Co-Ca4) on a polyethylene glycol) (PPC) column under the same chromatographic conditions. b The characteristic (m/z) was used for identifying the corresponding compound and evaluating their peak areas to avoid possible interference by other compounds. c, l, solvent, 2, floral, 3, sweet, 4, green; 5, fatty, 6, fruity. d \({}^{\ddagger}\)\(p<\) 0.05, **=**_p_ \(<\) 0.001.} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cmt._Esters were the most abundant type of aromatic compounds in the wines (77.1%-82.15% (_w/w_)), followed by terpenes and aldehydes. The concentrations of total esters in the wines ranged from 2969.24 to 5221.26 ug/L. Esters are largely responsible for the fresh and fruity aromas of wines and are mainly produced during alcoholic fermentation [20].