Next Article in Journal
Development and Validation of a Fast UHPLC–HRMS Method for the Analysis of Amino Acids and Biogenic Amines in Fermented Beverages
Previous Article in Journal
Caffeine Consumption and Risk Assessment Among Adults in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Beverages
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/beverages11040122
beverages-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Understanding the Sensory Influences of Oak in the Production of Smoke-Affected Wines: A Case Study with Cabernet Sauvignon

by
Jenna A. Fryer
and
Elizabeth Tomasino
*
Department of Food Science and Technology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Beverages 2025, 11(4), 122; https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040122
Submission received: 2 June 2025 / Revised: 10 July 2025 / Accepted: 6 August 2025 / Published: 21 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sensory Analysis of Beverages)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Wines produced from grapes exposed to wildfire smoke exhibit smoke-related flavors, such as smoky, burnt, and an ashy finish. While grapes are impacted on the vine, winemaking strategies can influence the perception of smoke-related properties in the resulting wine. This case study evaluated eight smoke-affected wines across three vintages from commercial production to assess how oak influences smoke-related flavors. Each vintage explored a different usage of oak, including oak origin, oak chips with carbon fining, and potential carryover of flavors through reused barrels. Wines were assessed using descriptive analysis, with intensity ratings collected for seven attributes representing smoke-related and typical wine flavors. Results showed that American oak reduced the perception of smoke-related flavors compared to French oak. The use of oak chips, both alone and with carbon fining, did not improve the flavor profile. This suggests that combining treatments should be approached with caution, especially when strategies target smoke taint mitigation through different mechanisms. Sensory results also indicated no evidence of smoke flavor carryover from using barrels that previously held smoke-affected wine. Overall, this work showed that oak can influence sensory profile of smoke-affected wines and consideration of different wine production practices can be beneficial when faced with a smoke-impacted vintage.

1. Introduction

Wildfires have become a prominent issue in the wine industry around the globe. In the United States, there has been on average 7.5 million acres burned annually across the country, with a heavily impacted region being the wine-producing West Coast [1]. Wildfires have caused massive economic losses and damages to both the US and global wine industry [2,3].
The influence of wildfires on wines is not solely due to the physical damage these fires cause. A major concern lies in the smoke that is produced. Smoke from wildfires carries volatile compounds produced through combustion over vast distances, which can be absorbed directly by grapes [4]. These compounds then accumulate within the grape skin as free, volatile, compounds or can bind to prevalent sugars forming non-volatile glycosides [5]. These glycosides can be broken down throughout the winemaking process, in addition to being released in the mouth, which further impacts flavor alterations [6]. The extent to which smoke exposure will impact the grapes, and therefore the resulting wine, is dependent on many factors including the density of smoke, length of smoke exposure, number of smoke events, stage in grape growth cycle, distance to active fire, and the varietal of the grape [4,7,8].
Wines made from wildfire-affected grapes are often described as having smoky, burnt, and dirty aromas and flavors, accompanied by a lingering ashy finish [6,9]. With the introduction of these sensory attributes, smoke exposure can also suppress more desirable wine qualities, such as fruity and floral flavors [7,10]. Volatile phenols found in elevated concentrations in smoke affected wine include guaiacol, syringol, 4-methylguaiacol, 4-methylsyringol, o-cresol, m-cresol, and p-cresol, all of which are influential in the smoke flavor experience [6]. These compounds are not unique to smoke-affected wines, as they are also introduced to wine through the use of oak barrels in wine production, adding confounding variables to the identification of smoke-impacted wines [11]. Thiophenols have also been identified as a compound of interest in smoke-affected wines, being a key contributor to smoke-related flavors [12]. While volatile phenols are contained in smoke, thiophenols are thought to form within the grape as a plant defense response or during fermentation [13,14]. These compounds in combination with the volatile phenols were found to produce the smoky/ashy flavors indicative of smoke taint [12]. Unlike volatile phenols, these thiophenols are not commonly found in wine, making them a valuable marker of smoke exposure. However, concerns lie in their low concentration and the limit of detection of common analytical techniques [15].
Oak can contribute positive sensory properties to wine, adding to the aromatic profile, improving the mouthfeel, and stabilizing the color [16]. As stated, oak contributes phenols that are used as indicators of smoke exposure and can be found in similar concentrations, depending on oak species, oak origin, and level of toasting [17]. While the same volatile phenols are present in both oak-aged and smoke-affected wines, the former are typically described with more favorable attributes, like oaky and vanilla, as opposed to the negative characteristics associated with smoke [4]. This is most likely due to the inclusion of other aromatic compounds from oak aging, like oak lactones and furfuryl compounds that can balance the intensity of the smokey flavors [18]. The negative association with these volatile phenols in smoke taint, along with occurrence from spoilage microorganisms, is due to the excess concentration [19]. When the concentration of volatile phenols is too high, the olfactory properties are overly pronounced and break the balance of the wine [20].
Oak barrels come in various styles, each with their own unique contributions. These include wood origin, level of toast, and if the barrel has been previously used. Due to the natural occurrence of smoke-related compounds in oak and their dependance on level of toasting, it is advised to avoid the use of heavily toasted barrels to avoid the addition of more smoke characteristics [21]. A less expensive alternative to oak barrels is oak alternatives, like oak chips. These have been shown to be an effective mitigation strategy for masking the sensorial effects of smoke exposure by increasing the complexity of the wine [22]. However, this method is not effective for highly smoke-affected wines, as it does not remove smoke compounds, but only masks the perception of them [23]. Oak barrels are also an active vessel; they are not only additive but subtractive as well [24]. There is some adsorption of volatile compounds by the wood that has the potential to be transferred when reused, leading to a concern if negative smoke aromatics can be introduced to an unaffected wine [25].
Several post-fermentation strategies to improve the flavor of smoke-affected wines, which have included reverse osmosis, cyclodextrin polymers, and blending, all showing moderate levels of efficacy [23]. Treatments have been found to be most effective in combination [26]. Fining agents are commonly used in winemaking to remove compounds that could negatively impact the final product. These fining agents can improve clarity, color, mouthfeel properties, and reduce off-flavors [27]. One fining agent that has been effective for smoke-affected wines from both a chemical and sensory perspective is carbon [28]. As an adsorbent, carbon can efficiently remove phenolic compounds, which includes the volatile phenols introduced by smoke [29]. However, carbon is not specific and can strip the wine of desirable components, diminishing the wine’s overall quality [8].
Descriptive analysis is a common practice to assess how different wine factors influence perceived attribute intensity [30]. In this method, panelists receive training on specified attributes to ensure a common understanding and definition, promoting consistent ratings from the panel from product to product [31]. While panelists are aligned on sensory terms, bias is still a concern, especially biases that arise from physiological effects. Smoke-affected wines have been observed to have a lengthy aftertaste, which can influence following samples without proper protocols [9]. To minimize order effects and reduce any potential carryover for reliable results, studies with smoke-affected wine should use proper randomized designs along with appropriate interstimulus protocols [32,33].
The purpose of this case study was to determine how oak barrel usage in wine production alters the flavors found in smoke-affected Cabernet sauvignon from commercial production. Three different smoke-impacted vintages were used, looking at the impact of (1) different oak origins, (2) combination of carbon fining and oak chips, and (3) potential carryover of smoke flavor through the barrel. Gaps in current research span each of these areas, with there being no published work on smoke-affected wine held in oak barrels, combination of oak chips and fining, and if there is carryover of smoke-related flavors. The objective was to determine if any of these production methods significantly alter the sensory profile, considering both smoke-related and typical wine attributes. With the projected increase in occurrence of wildfires in the coming years, this work will help provide greater knowledge in making sensory-driven decisions in winemaking.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Wine Samples

The Oregon State University Wine Sensory Lab (Corvallis, OR, USA) received donated samples for descriptive analysis. Finished and bottled wines were acquired from the winery in the Napa Valley AVA and transported back to the Oregon State University, where they were stored at room temperature (~21 °C) until use. The wines were produced according to the winery’s standard procedures, with differences in winemaking protocol summarized in Table 1. Treatments were selected based on winery interest. Chemical parameters provided by the producer for select wines are detailed in Table S1. This study will focus on 9 wines from a larger descriptive analysis panel to understand ashy flavor.

2.2. Panelists

A total of 21 panelists (9 male/12 female) were recruited from the Oregon Wine Research Institute’s wine consumer database. Panelists were recruited based on consumption of at least one serving of red wine per week and over the age of 21. Exclusion criteria included smoking, oral disorders, taste deficits, oral lesions, canker sores, oral piercings, pregnancy, or wine allergies. Additionally, panelists had been previously screened for their ability to perceive smoke-related attributes and had previously participated in smoke-affected wine descriptive analysis [32]. Study approval was granted from the Oregon State University Institutional Review Board (IRB-8781).
Sessions took place over the course of 2 weeks, with panelists coming in for one hour, three times per week, to the wine sensory laboratory in Weigand Hall on the Oregon State University campus. Each session accommodated up to six participants seated at separate tabletop booths. RedJade software (versions 5.1.1; RedJade Sensory Solutions LLC, Pleasant Hill, CA, USA) was used to collect data. Approximately 20 mL of each sample were served at room temperature (~20 °C) in blindly coded black INAO wine glasses (Lehmann Glass, Kiyasa Group, New York, NY, USA). Each panelist was provided with a spit cup, filtered water, and a 4 g/L glucose rinse solution (NOW Foods, Bloomingdale, IL, USA).

2.3. Training

The first session encompassed a full training on the sensory attributes and evaluation procedure. During the attribute training, participants were trained to recognize seven attributes using reference samples (Table 2). The attributes were selected to include flavors present in smoke-affected wines, flavors masked by smoke-related attributes, and flavors associated with compounds present in smoke-impacted wines [10,12,32]. Participants were instructed to sip and spit the reference sample and select which flavor attributes off of a multiple-choice list describes the sample. They were then informed the correct flavor and asked to retaste the reference with this flavor in mind. This process was repeated for each attribute in duplicate with the order of reference evaluation randomized for each panelist. The next part of the training was used to familiarize panelists with line scale evaluation. Panelists were presented with an unstructured line scale (505px) with “high” and “low” anchors at 90% and 10%, respectively. They then were presented with two wines, a smoke-affected Pinot noir and a standard red wine (NV Merlot) to practice evaluation. All attributes were evaluated using these scales along with an open response “other” option for panelists to provide and rate an attribute not included. Between each sample, both reference and wine, participants were instructed to rinse with a glucose rinse solution (4 g/L; NOW Foods, Bloomingdale, IL, USA) followed by water during a forced 90 s rest [32].
The second session and first session of week two (session 4) included a partial training where the attribute training was repeated with one presentation per reference prior to beginning evaluation.

2.4. Evaluation

For each wine sample, panelists were instructed to sip and spit a sample of wine then wait 15 s before evaluating the attributes. Panelists then rated the intensity of the seven attributes on the unstructured line scale, as performed in the training, including the two “other” options. Attribute order was randomized for each sample. Between each sample, both reference and wine, participants were instructed to rinse with the glucose rinse solution followed by water during a forced 90 s rest [32].
Ref. [32] during each evaluation session, panelists were presented with 10 wine samples split between two sets with a 5 min break in between. When following a partial training, 8 wine samples were evaluated following the break. All wines were presented to panelists in duplicate following a balanced randomized design. The first sample was always a warm-up wine (NV Merlot) to alleviate first sample effects [34].

2.5. Data Analysis

All data analysis was conducted using XLSTAT version 2023.2.1413 (Lumivero, New York, NY, USA). Attribute ratings from the unstructured line scales were converted to a rating from 0 to 100. To control for differences in scale use by panelists, z-score standardization for each attribute was performed using the following equation:
Standardized   rating = x i j − μ i σ i
where xi is the intensity score given by the panelist (i) for the sample (j) for the attribute, μi is the average rating for the panelist for the attribute, and σi is the standard deviation of the ratings for the panelist for the attribute. Following standardization, data was analyzed in three different subsets to focus on key comparisons: (1) American versus French oak, (2) oak chips and carbon fining, (3) smoke attribute carryover via used barrels. For each set, a fixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted at a 95% confidence level. The model included wine, panelist, and replicate main effects along with wine by panelist, wine by replicate, and panelist by replicate interactions. For significant attributes, Tukey HSD’s test was conducted at ɑ = 0.05 for subsets (1) and (3). For significant attributes for subset (2), two-sided Dunnett’s test was used to compare treatments to the control, which was the untreated wine. Discriminant analysis (DA) with 95% confidence ellipses used the standardized ratings to explore the differences between the wines from a multivariate approach.

3. Results

3.1. French Versus American Oak

From the ANOVA analysis, smokey (p = 0.031) and ashy aftertaste (p = 0.008) were the only significant attributes (Figure 1). For both attributes, the wine held in French oak showed significantly higher intensities than the wine held in American oak based on the Tukey HSD post hoc test. There were no significant interaction terms (Table S2).

3.2. Oak Chips and Carbon Fining

From the ANOVA results, floral was the only significant attribute (Table 3). From the Dunnett’s test, the Carbon treatment showed a significantly higher intensity of this attribute than the untreated wine. There were no significant interaction terms (Table S3).
When looking at the wines in a multivariate space from discriminant analysis, 99.19% of the variation in the data can be explained by the first two factors (Figure 2). Factor 1 (60.55%, x-axis) shows a correlation to the red fruit (−0.539) and floral (−0.787) attributes on the negative pole, while ashy (0.591) has a correlation with the positive pole. Factor 2 (38.64%, y-axis) shows a correlation to the floral (0.552) and vegetative (0.466) attributes on the positive pole. Based on the 95% confidence interval around each centroid, or wine, significant differences are observed between the carbon treated wine and the control and other wine treatments. The carbon-treated wine lies negative pole of the F1-axis, being more related to the typical wine attributes (red fruit, dark fruit, floral) than the smoke-related attributes (smokey, ashy aftertaste). The combination treatment of the oak chips and carbon fining shows minimal difference from the control wine and is not significantly different. The oak chip only treatment is more related to the vegetative attribute; however, the oak chip treatment is not significantly differentiated from the control wine nor the combination treatment.

3.3. Smoke Attribute Carryover via Barrel

From the ANOVA, red fruit, floral, and ashy aftertaste were significant attributes (Table 4). For red fruit, the stainless-steel wine had a significantly higher intensity than the untreated (2021) wine. For floral, the oak and smoke oak samples were found to have a significantly higher in intensity than the untreated (2021) wine. For ashy, the untreated (2021) wine had a significantly higher intensity than the oak and smoke oak samples.
For vegetative, the replicate term, wine*panelist, and panelist*replicate were significant, indicating the wines were not rated consistently between the two replicates nor similarly by the panelists for this attribute (Table S3). For other significant interaction terms, red fruit indicated a significant wine*panelist interaction while chemical indicated a significant wine*replicate interaction, which suggest there may be some inconsistencies in rating by the panelists for these attributes (Table S4).
From the discriminate analysis, the first two factors explained 98.08% of the variance (Figure 3). The first factor showed a correlation with the floral attribute (0.651) on the positive pole and ashy aftertaste (−0.679) on the negative pole. The second factor showed a correlation with the red fruit attribute (0.751) on the positive pole and chemical (−0.325) on the negative pole. Based on the 95% confidence intervals around the centroids, or wines, all of the 2022 wines were significantly different than the 2021 control wine, which was the most associated with the smoke-related attributes. For the 2022 wines, the stainless steel-held wine was significantly different than the oak wine, being slightly on the negative pole of F1. The smoke oak wine was not differentiated from either of the 2022 wines.

4. Discussion

4.1. French Versus American Oak

These results indicated that smoke-affected Cabernet sauvignon matured in French oak showed higher intensities of smoke-related flavors than when matured in American oak. American oak has been found to impart greater amounts of oak lactone, as it is found in white oak (Quercus alba), which is the predominant oak used for barrels in the United States [35]. With the increased complexity of stronger aromatics from the wood, this can decrease the perception of the harsh, negative flavor attributes from smoke. Additionally, oak lactone, also known as whiskey lactone, has been found to mask smoke aromas caused by volatile phenols which, as seen here, may improve the sensory profile of smoke-impacted wine [36]. American oak also contains, and therefore imparts to wine, higher levels of volatile norisoprenoids, which lead to floral and fruity flavors, helping improve the overall flavor profile [37]. Merlot wine matured in American oak was found to extract less guaiacol, which is a key contributor to the flavor profile associated with smoke-affected wines [38]. These differences between American and French oaks may be the cause of the differences in smoke-related attributes seen in this work and the potential advantage of American over French oak. However, in other works, it has been found that there is greater dependence on other characteristics of oak than origin, indicating that there may be other traits of oak barrels more influential in improving smoke-affected wine [18]. While these results suggest these effects of oak origin, a more extensive study is necessary to investigate the many different oaks and their impacts to smoke-affected wine of varying varietals.

4.2. Oak Chips and Carbon Fining

Looking at the treatments for the 2021 smoke-affected Cabernet sauvignon, the carbon treatment was found to be the only treatment that significantly differed from the untreated wine and the most related to typical wine attributes. Carbon treatments have been found to be effective for the reduction in smoke-related volatile phenols, and therefore in smoke-related flavors, using rates of 1–1.5 g/L and higher [27,39,40]. While the wine used in this work was treated at a lower rate, the dose of carbon that is effective is heavily dependent on the starting matrix [39]. This matrix includes both standard wine parameters and the extent to which wine is affected, altering the potential effective dose rate for each vintage. This lower dose rate may additionally be effective as it does not negatively alter other components influential in wine flavor. Carbon fining is a non-selective treatment, and rates that can significantly reduce smoke-related phenol concentrations can also reduce fruit and floral flavor intensity, which in turn negatively impacts wine quality [8]. In this work, the carbon treatment enhanced the floral flavor intensity even though smoke-related flavors were not significantly impacted. However, it should be noted that the p-value of this significance was 0.49, indicating boarder line significance. Proper considerations need to be taken to balance the proper dose rate to reduce smoke flavors and enhance desirable flavors while not diminishing the overall quality of the wine by stripping out these desirable attributes.
Oak chips at variable levels of toasting have been found to increase the complexity of wine, enough to reduce smoke attribute perception in Shiraz wine, with medium level of toasting showing the most reduction [22]. Our results are consistent with previous work with Cabernet Sauvignon, which found there was no clear impact of the addition of untoasted and lightly toasted French oak chips [21]. Other works have also shown that red wine aged in used barrels with and without oak chips are not differentiable, further supporting the lack of strong differences from oak chip addition in this study [16]. The oak chip treatment also showed the strongest relationship to the ashy aftertaste attribute from the discriminate analysis. Wines aged with French oak chips have been found to have a prominent smoky aroma [41]. As oak can contribute similar volatile phenols to wine that similar to what can be imparted by smoke, caution should be taken when applying these methods with the introduction of these volatile compounds. In the present study, the addition of oak compounds via oak chips contributed to the persistence of the smoke related flavors as opposed to altering other sensory properties to mask these attributes. This persistence of smoke-related flavors has been found in other work with untoasted French oak chips, indicating that while some improvements were observed the smoky aftertaste remained [42]. As oak chips have been indicated as a mitigation strategy in the literature, this work supports previous research in that caution needs to be taken with this application [23].
In combining both the carbon treatment and the addition of oak chips, instead of there being a combined positive effect, there was no perceptual change from the starting wine. The two employed methods approach mitigation to wine using different strategies. While carbon looks to remove smoke-related volatiles, oak chips add sensory-inducing components to mask the off-flavors associated with smoke. Untoasted oak chips have been hypothesized to be able to absorb smoke-related compounds from the wine; however, this has been disproven for both volatile phenols and phenolic glycosides [42]. As stated, this work indicated that the use of the oak chips for this wine did not improve the sensory properties, as it did not significantly differ from the untreated wine and was the most related to the ashy aftertaste attribute. While the carbon treatment alone was found to improve the overall sensory profile, once the oak chips were added, the treated wine was not differed from the untreated wine. As oak chips can add volatile phenols to a wine, which can be of similar make-up as what was removed from the carbon treatment, the effect of the carbon treatment is negated [43,44]. While combination treatments may be effective, considerations need to be taken regarding how both methods interact with each other. In this case, the addition of oak volatiles following reduction from fining and lack of introduction of grape and fermentation-derived flavors resulted in no improvement over the untreated wine from a sensory perspective.

4.3. Smoke Attribute Carryover via Barrel

Different vintages will produce wines with different sensory properties, resulting from variations in starting composition in the grape due to differences in growth conditions and other wine parameters during the winemaking process [45]. For the 2022 vintage, smoke exposure occurred prior to veraison, which is considered a lower susceptibility window for the grapes to uptake smoke-related compounds [46]. This led to a wine that would exhibit lesser smoke-related sensory alterations and allow for clear effects of potential flavor carryover via the barrel to be observed. As seen in the discriminant analysis plot, there is clear separation of smoke-affected wine from the 2021 vintage (Untreated 2021) and the 2022 wine produced under the same conditions (Oak).
Looking specifically at the wines from the 2022 vintage (stainless, smoke oak, oak), there are clear differences between the wine matured in oak versus the wine matured in stainless steel. Stainless steel as opposed to oak tends to produce wines with more pronounced varietal characteristics, like fruit flavors, than wines matured in oak [47]. However, stainless steel does not impart any sensory inducing compounds, like oak, which have the ability to mask smoke-related flavors. As seen in this work, while the grapes were impacted before veraison, the wine matured in stainless steel shows the greatest level and most relation to smoke-related attributes of the 2022 wines.
Looking at the potential flavor carryover via the barrel, we see that the wine matured in oak that previously held smoke-affected wine, specifically the 2021 untreated wine, there were no differences from the wine matured in used oak that did not previously hold smoke-affected wine. This effect was confirmed by no significant difference in the individual attributes and from the discriminant analysis of the aroma and flavor attributes evaluated. In this work, there was no observed flavor carryover from a smoke-affected vintage to another vintage via the barrel, leading to significant differences from standard production methods. While oak is able to absorb volatile compounds from the wine, the concentration of volatiles retained in wood is not proportional to the concentrations observed in wine, indicating more selective sorption and dependance on wood type [25]. Volatile phenols from wine can be adsorbed until an equilibrium is reached [48]. As toasted oak barrels contain volatile phenols found in smoke-affected wines, this may influence the capacity of the barrel to absorb more volatile phenols. However, more research is needed to confirm this effect. Additionally, the sorption of these compounds into the barrel is based on both the hydrophobicity of the volatile and the composition of the wine [49]. Ethanol content and the presence of yeast macromolecules both can reduce the partitioning of volatiles into wood [49]. While no significant effects were found in this work, since wine composition is a key factor in both sorption of the barrel and extraction into the wine, further work is needed to understand how this effect is observed in other varietals, wine styles, and different types of oak.
While the oak and stainless steel wines were significantly different, the smoke oak wine was not significantly differentiated from the stainless steel. The similarity of the smoke oak to the stainless-steel wine may be due to variations in oak, which can lead to different flavor profiles. The extractives from oak, like flavor-inducing volatile compounds, are depleted over time, which is dependent on what was held in the barrel prior [50]. As these barrels did not hold the same wine prior, this could additionally be the cause of the observed differences in relation to the stainless steel wine between the two oak treatments. Further work should confirm this analytically.

4.4. Limitations and Future Work

While this work provided key information regarding oak influence on smoke-affected wines, there are areas of limitations and additional areas to be investigated. The first limitation of this work is the agreement of the panel. While these individuals were trained on the attributes and had prior experience, standardization was required to mitigate different scale usage between panelists. Increased levels of training or looking at more representative references, especially for the vegetative attribute, may be able to improve the effects seen here.
Next is that this work only studied a single wine varietal. Volatile phenols added to different wine types have different effects, which influences both oak and smoke contributions [51]. As some grapes are more susceptible to smoke on the vine, further work is needed to understand how this relates to applications of oak in these varietals. Additionally, the level of smoke impact is highly dependent on the parameters of the smoke event, which includes the timing, duration, and intensity of smoke [46].
Further research is needed to confirm these effects in different varietals, vintage, and level of smoke impact. This work also does not investigate how these results relate to consumer response. Consumer research is needed to understand if there is any change in consumer acceptance and quality assessments of these wines. While this work shows promising results in regard to the flavor profiles of these wines, the relation of these results to consumer behavior needs to be confirmed.

5. Conclusions

As oak is an influential component of wine production, its sensorial effects in regard to smoke-affected wine require better understanding. Within this set of commercially produced wines, this study found that there may be an advantage to using American oak over French oak when faced with smoke-impacted vintages. Although oak chips can add complexity to wine, careful consideration needs to be taken when applying this strategy to smoke-affected wine, especially when in combination with conflicting effects, as seen with carbon fining. Importantly, no sensory flavor carryover via barrel was observed from the studied wines when comparing a wine matured in a barrel that previously held smoke affected wine against one that had not. These findings highlight the role that oak can play in the flavor profiles of smoke-affected wine and provide considerations for production practices when working with smoke-affected grapes. When applying these in wine production, the use of oak must be tailored to the severity of smoke exposure, the unique matrix of each varietal and wine blend, and the desired sensory profile. Further research is needed to confirm the effects observed here across these areas and to ensure consumer acceptability of the use of oak in smoke taint treatment.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/beverages11040122/s1. Table S1: Wine and smoke chemical parameters for selected wines as provided by the producer. Table S2: p-values from three-way ANOVA for wine, panelist, replicate, and two-way interactions from 2017 oak origin analysis. Bolded p-values indicate significance at 95% confidence interval. Table S3: p-values from three-way ANOVA for wine, panelist, replicate, and two-way interactions from 2021 wine treatment analysis. Bolded p-values indicate significance at 95% confidence interval. Table S4: p-values from three-way ANOVA for wine, panelist, replicate, and two-way interactions from 2022 oak flavor carryover analysis. Bolded p-values indicate significance at 95% confidence interval.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.F. and E.T.; Formal Analysis, J.A.F.; Investigation, J.A.F.; Methodology, J.A.F. and E.T.; Project administration, E.T.; Resources, E.T.; Supervision, E.T.; Visualization, J.A.F.; Writing—Original draft, J.A.F.; Writing—Review and editing, E.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project was funded by Specialty Crop Research Initiative Grant #2021-51181-35862/project accession #1027470 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) project number 2072-21000-057-00D. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Study approval was granted from the Oregon State University Institutional Review Board (IRB-8781).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Honig Vineyard and Winery for producing the wine utilized in this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Riddle, A.A. Wildfire Statistics; District of Columbia: Washington, DC, USA, 2023.
  2. Adams, A. 2020 Fires Caused $3.7 Billion in Losses for Wine Industry. Available online: https://www.winebusiness.com/news/article/240575 (accessed on 6 January 2025).
  3. Høj, P.; Pretorius, S.; Blair, R. The Australian Wine Research Institute Annual Report; The Australian Wine Research Institute: Glen Osmond, Australia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  4. Summerson, V.; Viejo, C.G.; Pang, A.; Torrico, D.D.; Fuentes, S. Review of the Effects of Grapevine Smoke Exposure and Technologies to Assess Smoke Contamination and Taint in Grapes and Wine. Beverages 2021, 7, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hayasaka, Y.; Baldock, G.A.; Parker, M.; Pardon, K.H.; Black, C.A.; Herderich, M.J.; Jeffery, D.W. Glycosylation of Smoke-Derived Volatile Phenols in Grapes as a Consequence of Grapevine Exposure to Bushfire Smoke. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 10989–10998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Parker, M.; Osidacz, P.; Baldock, G.A.; Hayasaka, Y.; Black, C.A.; Pardon, K.H.; Jeffery, D.W.; Geue, J.P.; Herderich, M.J.; Francis, I.L. Contribution of Several Volatile Phenols and Their Glycoconjugates to Smoke-Related Sensory Properties of Red Wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 2629–2637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kennison, K.R.; Gibberd, M.R.; Pollnitz, A.P.; Wilkinson, K.L. Smoke-Derived Taint in Wine: The Release of Smoke-Derived Volatile Phenols during Fermentation of Merlot Juice Following Grapevine Exposure to Smoke. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 7379–7383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Krstic, M.P.; Johnson, D.L.; Herderich, M.J. Review of Smoke Taint in Wine: Smoke-Derived Volatile Phenols and Their Glycosidic Metabolites in Grapes and Vines as Biomarkers for Smoke Exposure and Their Role in the Sensory Perception of Smoke Taint. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2015, 21, 537–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fryer, J.A.; Collins, T.S.; Tomasino, E. Evaluation of Different Interstimulus Rinse Protocols on Smoke Attribute Perception in Wildfire-Affected Wines. Molecules 2021, 26, 5444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kelly, D.; Zerihun, A. The Effect of Phenol Composition on the Sensory Profile of Smoke Affected Wines. Molecules 2015, 20, 9536–9549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Prida, A.; Chatonnet, P. Impact of Oak-Derived Compounds on the Olfactory Perception of Barrel-Aged Wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2010, 61, 408–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tomasino, E.; Cerrato, D.C.; Aragon, M.; Fryer, J.; Garcia, L.; Ashmore, P.L.; Collins, T.S. A Combination of Thiophenols and Volatile Phenols Cause the Ashy Flavor of Smoke Taint in Wine. Food Chem. Adv. 2023, 2, 100256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dubourdieu, D.; Tominaga, T.; Masneuf, I.; Des Gachons, C.P.; Murat, M.L. The Role of Yeasts in Grape Flavor Development during Fermentation: The Example of Sauvignon Blanc. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2006, 57, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, K.; Wu, D.; Bo, Z.; Chen, S.; Wang, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Fang, Y. Regulation of Redox Status Contributes to Priming Defense against Botrytis Cinerea in Grape Berries Treated with β-Aminobutyric Acid. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 244, 352–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Slaghenaufi, D.; Tonidandel, L.; Moser, S.; Román Villegas, T.; Larcher, R. Rapid Analysis of 27 Volatile Sulfur Compounds in Wine by Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction Gas Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Food Anal. Methods 2017, 10, 3706–3715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cano-López, M.; Bautista-Ortín, A.B.; Pardo-Mínguez, F.; López-Roca, J.M.; Gómez-Plaza, E. Sensory Descriptive Analysis of a Red Wine Aged with Oak Chips in Stainless Steel Tanks or Used Barrels: Effect of Contact Time and Size of the Oak Chips. J. Food Qual. 2008, 31, 645–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cerdán, T.G.; Rodríguez Mozaz, S.; Ancín Azpilicueta, C. Volatile Composition of Aged Wine in Used Barrels of French Oak and of American Oak. Food Res. Int. 2002, 35, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pérez-Prieto, L.J.; López-Roca, J.M.; Martínez-Cutillas, A.; Pardo Mínguez, F.; Gómez-Plaza, E. Maturing Wines in Oak Barrels. Effects of Origin, Volume, and Age of the Barrel on the Wine Volatile Composition. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 3272–3276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Grazzi-Soncini, G. Wine: Classification, Wine Tasting, Qualities, and Defects; Board of State Viticultural Commissioners: San Fransisco, CA, USA, 1892. [Google Scholar]
  20. Loureiro, V.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M. Spoilage Yeasts in the Wine Industry. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 86, 23–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Oberholster, A.; Wen, Y.; Suarez, S.D.; Erdmann, J.; Girardello, R.C.; Rumbaugh, A.; Neupane, B.; Brenneman, C.; Cantu, A.; Heymann, H. Investigation of Different Winemaking Protocols to Mitigate Smoke Taint Character in Wine. Molecules 2022, 27, 1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ristic, R.; Osidacz, P.; Pinchbeck, K.A.; Hayasaka, Y.; Fudge, A.L.; Wilkinson, K.L. The Effect of Winemaking Techniques on the Intensity of Smoke Taint in Wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2011, 17, S29–S40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mirabelli-Montan, Y.A.; Marangon, M.; Graça, A.; Mayr Marangon, C.M.; Wilkinson, K.L. Techniques for Mitigating the Effects of Smoke Taint While Maintaining Quality in Wine Production: A Review. Molecules 2021, 26, 1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mosedale, J.R.; Puech, J.L. Wood Maturation of Distilled Beverages. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 1998, 9, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Coelho, E.; Domingues, L.; Teixeira, J.A.; Oliveira, J.M.; Tavares, T. Understanding Wine Sorption by Oak Wood: Modeling of Wine Uptake and Characterization of Volatile Compounds Retention. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. AWRI. Smoke Taint—Practical Management Options for Grapegrowers and Winemakers; AWRI: Adelaide, Australia, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fudge, A.L.; Schiettecatte, M.; Ristic, R.; Hayasaka, Y.; Wilkinson, K.L. Amelioration of Smoke Taint in Wine by Treatment with Commercial Fining Agents. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2012, 18, 302–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Whiting, J.; Krstic, M. Understanding the Sensitivity to Timing and Management Options to Mitigate the Negative Impacts of Bush Fire Smoke on Grape and Wine Quality—Scoping Study; Wine Australia: Adelaide, Australia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  29. Furuya, E.G.; Chang, H.T.; Miura, Y.; Noll, K.E. A Fundamental Analysis of the Isotherm for the Adsorption of Phenolic Compounds on Activated Carbon. Sep. Purif. Technol. 1997, 11, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lawless, H.T.; Heymann, H. Descriptive Analysis. In Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  31. Murray, J.M.; Delahunty, C.M.; Baxter, I.A. Descriptive Sensory Analysis: Past, Present and Future. Food Res. Int. 2001, 34, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fryer, J.A.; Tomasino, E. Analysis of Retronasal Flavor Alterations in Smoke-Affected Wines and the Efficacy of Various Inter-Stimulus Rinse Protocols in Clearing Smoke-Related Attributes. Beverages 2022, 8, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Torrico, D.D.; Jirangrat, W.; Wang, J.; Chompreeda, P.; Sriwattana, S.; Prinyawiwatkul, W. Novel Modelling Approaches to Characterize and Quantify Carryover Effects on Sensory Acceptability. Foods 2018, 7, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Plemmons, L.E.; Resurreccion, A.V.A. A Warm-up Sample Improves Reliability of Responses in Descriptive Analysis. J. Sens. Stud. 1998, 13, 359–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Waterhouse, A.L.; Towey, J.P. Oak Lactone Isomer Ratio Distinguishes between Wine Fermented in American and French Oak Barrels. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1994, 42, 1971–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schumaker, M.R.; Diako, C.; Castura, J.C.; Edwards, C.G.; Ross, C.F. Influence of Wine Composition on Consumer Perception and Acceptance of Brettanomyces Metabolites Using Temporal Check-All-That-Apply Methodology. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 963–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sefton, M.A.; Francis, I.L.; Williams, P.J. Volatile Norisoprenoid Compounds as Constituents of Oak Woods Used in Wine and Spirit Maturation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1990, 38, 2045–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chira, K.; Teissedre, P.-L. Chemical and Sensory Evaluation of Wine Matured in Oak Barrel: Effect of Oak Species Involved and Toasting Process. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2015, 240, 533–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Culbert, J.A.; Jiang, W.W.; Bilogrevic, E.; Likos, D.; Francis, I.L.; Krstic, M.P.; Herderich, M.J. Compositional Changes in Smoke-Affected Grape Juice as a Consequence of Activated Carbon Treatment and the Impact on Phenolic Compounds and Smoke Flavor in Wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 69, 10246–10259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Summerson, V.; Gonzalez Viejo, C.; Torrico, D.D.; Pang, A.; Fuentes, S. Digital Smoke Taint Detection in Pinot Grigio Wines Using an E-Nose and Machine Learning Algorithms Following Treatment with Activated Carbon and a Cleaving Enzyme. Fermentation 2021, 7, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dumitriu, G.-D.; Teodosiu, C.; Gabur, I.; Cotea, V.V.; Peinado, R.A.; López de Lerma, N. Evaluation of Aroma Compounds in the Process of Wine Ageing with Oak Chips. Foods 2019, 8, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. AWRI. Treating Smoke-Affected Wine with Untoasted Oak Chips; AWRI: Adelaide, Australia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  43. Parker, M.; Jiang, W.; Coulter, A.D.; Siebert, T.E.; Bilogrevic, E.; Francis, I.L.; Herderich, M.J. Prevalence of Wildfire Smoke Exposure Markers in Oaked Commercial Wine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2024, 75, 0750017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Pollnitz, A.P.; Pardon, K.H.; Sykes, M.; Sefton, M.A. The Effects of Sample Preparation and Gas Chromatograph Injection Techniques on the Accuracy of Measuring Guaiacol, 4-Methylguaiacol and Other Volatile Oak Compounds in Oak Extracts by Stable Isotope Dilution Analyses. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 3244–3252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lorrain, B.; Chira, K.; Teissedre, P.-L. Phenolic Composition of Merlot and Cabernet-Sauvignon Grapes from Bordeaux Vineyard for the 2009-Vintage: Comparison to 2006, 2007 and 2008 Vintages. Food Chem. 2011, 126, 1991–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kennison, K.R.; Wilkinson, K.L.; Pollnitz, A.P.; Williams, H.G.; Gibberd, M.R. Effect of Timing and Duration of Grapevine Exposure to Smoke on the Composition and Sensory Properties of Wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2009, 15, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Crump, A.M.; Johnson, T.E.; Wilkinson, K.L.; Bastian, S.E.P. Influence of Oak Maturation Regimen on Composition, Sensory Properties, Quality, and Consumer Acceptability of Cabernet Sauvignon Wines. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 1593–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Barrera-García, V.D.; Gougeon, R.D.; Voilley, A.; Chassagne, D. Sorption Behavior of Volatile Phenols at the Oak Wood/Wine Interface in a Model System. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 3982–3989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ramirez-Ramirez, G.; Chassagne, D.; Feuillat, M.; Voilley, A.; Charpentier, C. Effect of Wine Constituents on Aroma Compound Sorption by Oak Wood in a Model System. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2004, 55, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gómez-Plaza, E.; Pérez-Prieto, L.J.; Fernández-Fernández, J.I.; López-Roca, J.M. The Effect of Successive Uses of Oak Barrels on the Extraction of Oak-related Volatile Compounds from Wine. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2004, 39, 1069–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. McKay, M.; Bauer, F.F.; Panzeri, V.; Buica, A. Investigating the Effects of Two Volatile Phenols on Aroma Perception of Four Red Wine Cultivars Using Projective Mapping. J. Sens. Stud. 2021, 36, e12616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Beverages 11 00122 g001
Figure 1. Comparison of oak origin (American—Orange squares, French—Blue circles) on flavor profile of 2017 smoke-affected Cabernet Sauvignon using standardized ratings (averages and standard deviations). * Indicates significant differences (p < 0.05) between the wines based on ANOVA.
Figure 1. Comparison of oak origin (American—Orange squares, French—Blue circles) on flavor profile of 2017 smoke-affected Cabernet Sauvignon using standardized ratings (averages and standard deviations). * Indicates significant differences (p < 0.05) between the wines based on ANOVA.
Beverages 11 00122 g001
Beverages 11 00122 g002
Figure 2. (A) Discriminant analysis plot, accounting for 99.19% of the total variance, for 2021 smoke-affected Cabernet sauvignon treatments, to show separation of untreated wine (red triangle) with carbon treatment (purple diamond), oak chip treatment (yellow square), and combination treatment (blue circle). Ellipses represent a 95% confidence interval around the means. (B) Variable loadings.
Figure 2. (A) Discriminant analysis plot, accounting for 99.19% of the total variance, for 2021 smoke-affected Cabernet sauvignon treatments, to show separation of untreated wine (red triangle) with carbon treatment (purple diamond), oak chip treatment (yellow square), and combination treatment (blue circle). Ellipses represent a 95% confidence interval around the means. (B) Variable loadings.
Beverages 11 00122 g002
Beverages 11 00122 g003
Figure 3. (A) Discriminant analysis plot, accounting for 98.07% of the total variance, for 2022 smoke-affected Cabernet sauvignon to show separation of wine matured in stainless steel (gray square), used oak (orange circle), and used oak that held 2021 smoke-affected wine (brown diamond), along with untreated 2021 wine (red triangle). Ellipses represent a 95% confidence interval around the means. (B) Variable loadings.
Figure 3. (A) Discriminant analysis plot, accounting for 98.07% of the total variance, for 2022 smoke-affected Cabernet sauvignon to show separation of wine matured in stainless steel (gray square), used oak (orange circle), and used oak that held 2021 smoke-affected wine (brown diamond), along with untreated 2021 wine (red triangle). Ellipses represent a 95% confidence interval around the means. (B) Variable loadings.
Beverages 11 00122 g003
Table 1. Summary of oak treatments to smoke-affected Cabernet Sauvignon from various vintages.
Table 1. Summary of oak treatments to smoke-affected Cabernet Sauvignon from various vintages.
Wine NameTreatment
FrenchWine produced from 2017 smoke-impacted Cabernet sauvignon aged in new French oak for ~30 months
AmericanWine produced from 2017 smoke-impacted Cabernet sauvignon aged in new American oak for ~30 months
Untreated (2021)Wine produced from 2021 smoke-impacted Cabernet sauvignon stored in used French oak barrels
CarbonUntreated (2021) with addition of 0.6 g/L carbon
Oak ChipsUntreated (2021) aged with untoasted French oak chips (30 chips per 1000 gallons) for 42 days
CombinationOak chip wine fined with 0.6 g/L carbon after aging
Oak2022 smoke-impacted Cabernet sauvignon aged in used French oak barrels
Smoke Oak2022 smoke-impacted Cabernet sauvignon aged in used French oak barrels that previously held Untreated (2021)
Stainless Steel2022 smoke-impacted Cabernet sauvignon aged in stainless steel
Table 2. Flavor attributes rated during evaluation and provided references and definitions during training.
Table 2. Flavor attributes rated during evaluation and provided references and definitions during training.
AttributeDefinitionReference Solution
Ashy aftertasteDry, dusty, dirty aroma associated with the residual of burnt products (e.g., a day-old campfire, ash tray)1.5% v/v ash solution in water a
SmokeyBrown, pungent, acrid, slightly charred/burnt aroma associated with woodfire smoke5% v/v whiskey b in water
FloralLight, slightly perfumy impression associated with all flowers2% v/v lavender syrup c, 2% v/v rose syrup c, and 0.005% w/v citric acid d in water.
ChemicalAromatics associated with antiseptic products (e.g., plastic band aids, cleaning supplies)40% Mezcal e in water
VegetativeFlavor of vegetation, fresh or cooked vegetables (e.g., bell peppers, grass, asparagus)1 bunch of parsley (~50 g) in 1 L water
Red fruitFlavor associated with all red fruits (e.g., raspberries, strawberries)10% w/v frozen strawberries blended with 5% w/v raspberry jam in water
Dark fruitFlavor associated with blueberries, blackberries, etc.10% w/v frozen blueberries blended with 5% w/v blackberry jam in water
a See [32] for formulation procedure. b Laphroaig Distillery, Laphroaig, United Kingdom. c Monin, Bourges, France. d Crush2Cellar, Newburg, OR, USA. e Del Maguey Vida, Mexico.
Table 3. Average standardized ratings for the treatments of the 2021 Cabernet sauvignon with p-values from three-way ANOVA. Bolded p-values indicate significant at 95% confidence interval. Different letters indicate significant difference from Dunnet’s test, comparing treatments (carbon, oak chips, combination) to the control (untreated).
Table 3. Average standardized ratings for the treatments of the 2021 Cabernet sauvignon with p-values from three-way ANOVA. Bolded p-values indicate significant at 95% confidence interval. Different letters indicate significant difference from Dunnet’s test, comparing treatments (carbon, oak chips, combination) to the control (untreated).
UntreatedCarbonOak ChipsCombinationp-Value
Red Fruit−0.2330.058−0.252−0.2450.269
Dark Fruit−0.142−0.030−0.026−0.0900.920
Floral−0.350 b0.180 a0.031−0.2920.049
Smokey−0.017−0.137−0.104−0.0790.939
Ashy aftertaste0.222−0.0900.4050.2800.159
Vegetative−0.058−0.1960.173−0.0540.437
Chemical0.131−0.0710.1300.1350.740
Table 4. Average standardized ratings for the 2022 Cabernet sauvignon to observe potential carryover from the 2021 vintage with p-values from three-way ANOVA. Bolded p-values indicate significance at 95% confidence interval. For significant attributes, sample with same superscript letters are not significantly different according to Tukey HSD post hoc (a = 0.05).
Table 4. Average standardized ratings for the 2022 Cabernet sauvignon to observe potential carryover from the 2021 vintage with p-values from three-way ANOVA. Bolded p-values indicate significance at 95% confidence interval. For significant attributes, sample with same superscript letters are not significantly different according to Tukey HSD post hoc (a = 0.05).
Untreated (2021)Stainless SteelOakSmoke Oakp-Value
Red Fruit−0.233 b0.523 a0.033 ab0.247 ab0.002
Dark Fruit−0.142 b−0.020 ab0.407 a0.080 ab0.052
Floral−0.350 b−0.083 ab0.298 b0.180 b0.009
Smokey−0.0170.150−0.258−0.0910.269
Ashy aftertaste0.222 a−0.107 ab−0.472 b−0.328 b0.007
Vegetative−0.0580.0890.2470.1290.443
Chemical0.131−0.312−0.247−0.2160.074
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fryer, J.A.; Tomasino, E. Understanding the Sensory Influences of Oak in the Production of Smoke-Affected Wines: A Case Study with Cabernet Sauvignon. Beverages 2025, 11, 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040122

AMA Style

Fryer JA, Tomasino E. Understanding the Sensory Influences of Oak in the Production of Smoke-Affected Wines: A Case Study with Cabernet Sauvignon. Beverages. 2025; 11(4):122. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040122

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fryer, Jenna A., and Elizabeth Tomasino. 2025. "Understanding the Sensory Influences of Oak in the Production of Smoke-Affected Wines: A Case Study with Cabernet Sauvignon" Beverages 11, no. 4: 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040122

APA Style

Fryer, J. A., & Tomasino, E. (2025). Understanding the Sensory Influences of Oak in the Production of Smoke-Affected Wines: A Case Study with Cabernet Sauvignon. Beverages, 11(4), 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11040122

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop