## 3 Results
### Electronic Nose  
Figure 2 shows the mean values and standard errors for each gas sensor that makes up the e-nose for each sample. Again, significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05) were observed between wine samples for each of the gas sensors, indicating that the e-nose is able to differentiate \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TDS (ppm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**EC (\(\mu\)s cm\({}^{-1}\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\({}^{\circ}\)**Brix**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**pH**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Alcohol (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-10}  & **Mean** & **SE** & **Mean** & **SE** & **Mean** & **SE** & **Mean** & **SE** & **Mean** & **SE** \\ \hline NSAC & 700.00 \({}^{\text{k}}\) & \(\pm\)24.80 & \(\begin{array}{c}1489.00\\ \text{bc}\end{array}\) & \(\pm\)52.70 & 5.23 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)0.03 & 3.73 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(\pm\)0.03 & 10.70 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)0.04 \\ NSCC & 665.70 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)16.80 & 1415.70 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)35.60 & 5.80 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(\pm\)0.00 & 3.87 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(\pm\)0.07 & 11.34 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(\pm\)0.01 \\ NSCO & 727.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(\pm\)8.08 & 1546.30 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(\pm\)17.40 & 6.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(\pm\)0.00 & 3.63 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(\pm\)0.03 & 12.18 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(\pm\)0.02 \\ STAC & 802.50 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(\pm\)1.43 & 1706.80 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(\pm\)2.99 & 5.15 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & \(\pm\)0.03 & 3.48 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)0.03 & 9.64 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(\pm\)0.10 \\ STCE & 832.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(\pm\)6.43 & 1769.80 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(\pm\)13.70 & 5.09 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(\pm\)0.05 & 3.48 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)0.02 & 9.41 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(\pm\)0.13 \\ STCO & 670.30 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)16.50 & 1425.50 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)35.20 & 5.90 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & \(\pm\)0.03 & 3.43 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)0.02 & 10.76 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(\pm\)0.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: NSAC = non-smoke-tainted wine with activated carbon treatment, NSCC = non-smoke-tainted wine, STAC = smoke-tainted wine with activated carbon treatment, STCE = smoke-tainted wine with activated carbon treatment, STCE = smoke-tainted wine with enzyme and activated carbon treatment, STCO = control smoke-tainted wine and SE = standard error. Means followed by different letters are significantly different based on [PERSON]’s least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test (\(\alpha\) = 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results from the chemical measurements. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Volatile Aromatic Compound** & **Odor Description** & **RT (min)** & **NSAC** & **NSCE** & **NSCO** & **STAC** & **STCE** & **STCO** \\ \hline
1-Butanol, 3-methyl-, acetate & Banana, pear, alcohol & 13.67 & 3.97 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 4.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 23.88 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.81 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2.51 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 18.04\({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Butanediotic acid, diethyl & Fruity, grape, wine [32; 33] & 19.18 & 1.71 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.37 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.74 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0 & 0.30 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0 \\ ester & Apple, grape, sweet, brandy, & & \(\pm\)0.09 & \(\pm\)0.02 & \(\pm\)2.65 & 0 & \(\pm\)0.10 & 0 \\ Decanoic acid, ethyl ester & Apple, grape, sweet, brandy, & & 75.95 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 10.33 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 119.21 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 35.68 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.74 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 326.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & waxy [32; 33; 34; 35] & 23.02 & \(\pm\)35.12 & \(\pm\)2.70 & \(\pm\)119.21 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(\pm\)18.30 & \(\pm\)0.24 & \(\pm\)68.10 \\ Dodecanoic acid, ethyl ester & floral, waxy, soap [32; 35] & 26.33 & 7.61 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 49.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.86 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.96 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 63.87 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & & \(\pm\)2.71 & \(\pm\)0.31 & \(\pm\)12.87 & \(\pm\)2.56 & \(\pmthe samples and, hence, smoke taint amelioration treatments.