## 2 Results and Discussion  
### Yeast Growth and Fermentation Profiles  
Yeast cell growth (DCW g/L) and sugar consumption in different treatments were monitored during fermentation (Figure S1). To facilitate comparison, the key kinetic parameters, including the duration of fermentation, maximum biomass, the time to reach maximum biomass, maximum specific growth rate, and fermentation rate were calculated and are shown in Table 1. Except for OA_240, LA_240, ALA_120, and ALA_240, which last for 444 h of fermentation, other treatments successfully completed the alcoholic fermentation (residual sugar content below 2.5 g/L) (Figure S1). This suggested that high concentration of OA, LA, or ALA in initial grape must could result in slow alcoholic fermentation, especially in ALA wine. In comparison, low added concentrations (12 and 60 mg/L) favored yeast growth, and consequently resulted in improved fermentation activity, especially in LA and OA wines. For example, 12 mg/L LA addition shortened 154 h and 36 h of fermentation time compared to the control and ALA_12 wine, respectively, and the highest maximum biomass (3.08 g DCW/L) and fermentation rate (0.023/h) were correspondingly achieved in LA_12 wine. These results were consistent with the results of [PERSON] et al. [21], whereby exogenous UFAs are favorable for cell growth and fermentation activity. However, our data indicated that the effects of UFAs on cell growth and fermentation performance are largely dependent on the concentration and type of UFAs. Promotion only happened in low concentrations (12 and 60 mg/L), in which LA showed the highest promotion, followed by OA and ALA. Conversely, high addition could result in the inhibition, especially ALA. The physiochemical parameters of final wines were determined, including ethanol, glycerol, citric acid, malic acid, succinic acid, and acetic acid (Figure 1). The variations of UFAs concentration and type significantly influenced the production of these metabolites. The additions of 12 and 60 mg/L UFAs, especially 12 mg/L, reduced the contents of ethanol, glycerol, acetic acid, citric acid, and succinic acid, in which LA_12 had a pronounced effect, followed by OA_12. Excessive ethanol can mask the flavor profile of wines and negatively influence consumer's health, which increases the demand for reducing alcohol concentration in wines [3]. Our results suggested that slightly increasing LA and OA concentration in grape must can decrease ethanol formations, which might be a potential strategy to reduce ethanol content in wine. High contents of acetic acid and succinic acid can generate vinegar-like character and bitter taste to wine [8]. 12 and 60 mg/L UFAs addition decreased the productions of acetic acid and succinic acid. What is more, the pH of these treatments was also lower than others. It should be noticed that further increasing UFAs concentration resulted in promotion on most of the  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Time to Reach** & **Maximum** & **Time to Reach** & **Maximum** & **Maximum** \\  & **End of** & **Biomass** & **Maximum** & **Specific Growth** & **Fermentation Rate** \\  & **Fermentation (h)** & **(g DCW-L\({}^{-1}\))** & **Biomass (h)** & **Rate (h\({}^{-1}\))** & **(g-L\({}^{-1}\)-h\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \hline Control & 250 & 2.15 \(\pm\) 0.08 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 84 & 0.008 \(\pm\) 0.000 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 2.77 \\ OA\_12 & 108 & 2.96 \(\pm\) 0.11 \(\lx@math@degree\) & 84 & 0.022 \(  
metabolites, especially ALA and OA additions. The contents of acetic acid, glycerol, citric acid, and succinic acid in ALA_240 were increased by 2.18-, 1.65-, 2.11-, and 1.46-fold when compared to the control, which were also 1.40-, 1.19-, 1.96-, and 1.19-fold higher than those of LA_240 wine, respectively. The significant influence that is caused by UFAs in this study was not consistent with [PERSON] et al., who found no pronounced difference among UFAs treatments and control [15].