## 2 Results and Discussion
### Orthonasal Aroma Attributes
Both phenylethyl acetate and citronellol had odor activity values (OAVs) lower than one and, therefore, were unlikely to be of sensory relevance (Table 3). Phenylethyl alcohol did have OAVs higher than one for all  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Compounds** & **Cold PD** & **Cold/Hot PD** & **Cold/Hot No PD** & **Hot PD** & **Hot No PD** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Source 1** \\  & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Isobutyl acetate & \(\mathrm{n.d.}\)\({}^{2}\) (0.00) & 34.1 (0.016) \(\mathrm{b. }^{3}\) & \(\mathrm{n.d.}\) (0.00) & \(\mathrm{n.d.}\) (0.00) & 69.5 (0.033) \(\mathrm{b. }\) & 141 (0.067) \(\mathrm{a}\) & **0.002** & [52] \\ Ethly butyrate & \(\mathrm{176}\,(\mathrm{3.20}\)\(\mathrm{b.}\)\(\mathrm{c.}\)\(\mathrm{b.}\)\(\mathrm{c.}\)\(\mathrm{d.}\)\(\mathrm{c.}\)\(\mathrm{b. }\) & 156 (3.02) \(\mathrm{d.}\)\(\mathrm{c.}\)\(\mathrm{b. }\) & 197 (3.83) \(\mathrm{ab. }\) & 229 (4.64) \(\mathrm{a. }\) & 137 (2.67) \(\mathrm{d.}\) & 191 (3.71) \(\mathrm{b. }\) & **0.002** & [53] \\ Hexyl acetate & 644 (22.22) \(\mathrm{a. }\) & 277 (0.95) \(\mathrm{b.}\)\(\mathrm{d. }\) & 479 (1.65) \(\mathrm{ab. }\) & 520 (1.79) \(\mathrm{a. }\) & 0.4 (0.00) & n.d. (0.00) & **0.000** & [54] \\ Isomamic acetate & 727 (19.74) & 752 (20.33) \(\mathrm{d.}\)\(\mathrm{d.}\)\(\mathrm{d.}\) & 846 (22.9) \(\mathrm{b.}\)\(\mathrm{c.}\)\(\mathrm{b. }\) & 118 (30.7) \(\mathrm{a. }\) & 611 (16.5) \(\mathrm{d.}\) & 998 (27.4) \(\mathrm{b. }\) & **0.001** & [53] \\ Ethly hexanoate & 631 (31.64) \(\mathrm{a. }\)\(\mathrm{5}\) & 523 (26.20) \(\mathrm{c.}\)\(\mathrm{b.}\)\(\mathrm{d. }\) & 613 (30.66) \(\mathrm{d.}\)\(\mathrm{a. }\) & 637 (34.4) \(\mathrm{a. }\) & 440 (20.20) \(\mathrm{c.}\) & 490 (245.5) \(\mathrm{c.}\) & **0.002** & [55] \\ Ethly lactate & 22,125 (0.143) \(\mathrm{a}\) & 26,695 (0.173) \(\mathrm{a.}\)\(\mathrm{d.}\)\(\mathrm{b.}\)\(\mathrm{c.}\)\(\mathrm{b.}\)\(\mathrm{d.}\)\(\mathrm{c.}\)\(\mathrm{b. }\) & 426 (0.74) \(\mathrm{a. }\) & 33,023 (2.14) \(\mathrm{a. }\)\(\mathrm{5}\),740 (2331) \(\mathrm{a. }\) & 26,006 (1.68) \(\mathrm{a. }\) & 0.365 & [56] \\ Ethly heptanoate & 0.994 (\(\mathrm{a.}\)\(\mathrm{a.}\)\(\mathrm{a.}\)\(\mathrm{a.}\)\(\mathrm{b.}\)\(\mathrm{d.}\)\(\mathrm{c.}\)\(\mathrm{b. wines and had its concentration significantly effected by fermentation temperature with a significant interaction with cap management (\(p\) = \(<\)0.0001) (Table 3, Supplemental Table S3). A Partial Least Square Regression (PLSR) analysis was run to relate volatile chemistry with sensory descriptors. The PLSR model, which was calculated using Factor 1 (R\({}^{2}\) X: 0.33; R\({}^{2}\)Y: 0.44; Q\({}^{2}\): \(-\)0.07) and Factor 2 (R\({}^{2}\) X: 0.65; R\({}^{2}\)Y:0.71; Q\({}^{2}\): 0.13), explained 71.2% of the variation in the dataset, showing that the rose aroma was not strongly associated with phenylethyl alcohol (Figure 2A,B). It is then possible that the rose aroma could have been attributed to a volatile compound that was not detected in the GC-MS methods used. Alternatively, this aroma could be due to the wine aroma buffer which is a combination of several volatile compounds in wine that contribute to its \"vinous\" aroma character [61]. As for the hot aroma, in the present study, it was defined as _\"the aromatic burn of ethanol\"_. Hot aromas in wine are typically associated with higher levels of ethanol. Empirically, monovarietal Premium or Ultra-premium Grenache wines produced commercially tend to be wines with 14.5 to 15.5% ethanol (\(v/v\)). However, this was not the case for the wines of the present experiment, whereby ethanol in the finished wines ranged from 12.8% to 13.3% ethanol (\(v/v\)) (Table 4). While the one-way ANOVA showed variation in the _post-hoc_ test, the two-way ANOVA indicated that ethanol was not significantly impacted by fermentation temperature, cap management, or their interaction (Supplemental Table S4). Three factors might explain this discrepancy.