*4.4. Statistical Analysis*

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using the formula aov (analyte ~ treatment) in R (version 3.6.3) to determine whether mean aroma-active compound concentrations (*n* = 3 for all treatments) differed with regard to SO2 treatment. If ANOVA *p* values were less than 0.05, a multiple comparison of the analyte concentration with respect to treatment was undertaken using the function HSD.test (agricolae) to determine the grouping of the treatments at alpha = 0.05. ANOVA *F*3*,*<sup>8</sup> values, *p* values, treatment means, standard deviations and treatment group are reported in Table S2.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/6/2/62/s1, Figure S1: Sugar-consumption kinetics, Figure S2: Replicate fermentation comparisons, Table S1: OTU abundance measurements, Table S2: Chemical analysis results.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.B.; methodology, K.C., S.V.D.H., M.S., C.V.; investigation, K.C.; S.V.D.H.; M.R., M.S., C.V.; formal analysis, S.S., A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B., S.S.; writing—review and editing, all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The AWRI is supported by Australia's grape growers and winemakers through their investment body Wine Australia with matching funds from the Australian Government.

**Acknowledgments:** Thank you to Caroline Bartel for performing SO2 analysis and Ross Sanders for performing the volatile sulphur compound analysis and Markus Herderich for critical review of the manuscript. The AWRI is a member of the Wine Innovation Cluster in Adelaide.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
