## 3 Results and Discussion
### Analysis of Sensory Characteristics of Base Wines  
As for the sensory evaluation of the wines, it must be point out that no significant differences were found among the wines. However, some interesting findings were obtained, corroborating the results obtained in the chemical analysis. PCA was also carried out with the sensory data (Table 3). The first principal component (PC1) and the second principal component (PC2) expressed 38.09% and 28.22% of the total variance, respectively. Wine aged on sonicated lees at 90% of amplitude (sample 90) was placed at positive values of both PC1 and PC2 (Figure 3). This sample presented high scores on layer intensity related to high values for colour intensity, anthocyanins and total polyphenic index (Figure 1). This wine was also characterized by high scores on odour and flavour intensity, alcoholic and bitter. High scores on odour and flavour intensity found in this wine are consistent with their increased concentrations of volatile compounds (Figure 2). These results are similar to those reported by [PERSON] et al. [9], which showed a higher score on aromatic intensity in wines aged on sonicated lees after 60 days of ageing. Sample 60 was located at a positive value of PC1 and negative of PC2, and was characterised by high scores on three olfactory parameters: fruits, herbaceous and lactic. In fact, this wine showed high concentrations of volatile compounds responsible for fruits odour, such as acetates and ethyl esters [26] and C6-alcohols with herbaceous notes [34] (Figure 2). Moreover, the tonality of this wine was high, and it was confirmed by spectrophotometric analysis (Figure 1). In contrast, the base wine aged on lees treated at 30% of amplitude was characterised by low values of all sensory parameters. Finally, samples C and L, located at negative values of PC1 and positive of PC2, were characterised by high levels of astringency, persistence and mouthfeel. Astringency was verified by chemical analysis, and it could be the cause of the increased persistence and mouthfeel observed in these wines. [PERSON] et al. [9] also observed that an ageing on sonicated lees reduced the perceived astringency of wine, while increasing the body of the wine. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Code**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameters**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Control (C)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Lees (L)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Ultrasound-Treated Lees**} \\ \cline{4-7}  & & & & **30\%** & **60\%** & **90\%** \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Visual phase**} \\ Tona & Tonality & 6.8 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 6.3 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 6.4 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 6.1 \(\pm\) 2.7 & 6.2 \(\pm\) 2.3 \\ Lay & Layer intensity & 6.5 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 6.9 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 6.9 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 6.4 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 5.8 \(\pm\) 1.8 \\ \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Olfactory phase**} \\ Odo & Odour intensity & 4.5 \(\pm\) 2.0 & 4.8 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 5.1 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 1.6 \\ Fru & Fruit & 3.6 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 3.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 4.0 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.3 \\ Her & Herbaceous & 3.8 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 1.7 \\ Lac & Lactic & 3.8 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 3.4 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 3.8 \(\pm\) 1.7 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.2 \\ \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Gustatory phase**} \\ Alco & Alcoholic & 3.7 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 3.7 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 1.4 \\ Bit & Bitter & 3.0 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 2.0 & 3.1 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 3.0 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 2.7 \(\pm\) 1.2 \\ Ast & Astringency & 2.9 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 3.3 \(\pm\) 1.5 & 2.7 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 2.4 \(\pm\) 1.3 & 3.0 \(\pm\) 1.4 \\ Mou & Mouthfeel & 3.6 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 3.8 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.7 \\ Flavo & Flavour intesity & 4.0 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 3.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 3.5 \(\pm\) 1.0 \\ Per & Persistence & 3.5 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 3.6 \(\pm\) 1.2 & 3.7 \(\pm\) 1.5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}