## 2 Results and Discussion
### Influence of SCC Distillation on Wine Composition
The SCC distillation conditions employed in the current study (i.e., vacuum pressure, feed and steam flow rates, operating temperatures and strip rates) were those routinely used to achieve dealcoholization of wine. These parameters could, however, be manipulated to facilitate isolation of volatile phenols, albeit, this might require stripping beyond 29% and the use of higher operating temperatures. Glycosylation of volatile phenols renders them non-volatile. As such, SCC treatment was not expected to result in the removal of volatile phenol glycosconjugates. The concentrations of the volatile phenol glycoconjugates that were measured (being the rutinosides of guaiacol, 4-methylguaiacol, phenol and cresol, and gentiobiosides syringol and 4-methylsyringol) increased with SCC distillation (Table 1), as predicted; no glycoconjugates were detected in condensate fractions. Again, changes in volatile phenol glycoconjugates seemingly followed the degree of stripping, and thus, reflected a concentration effect. Compositional analyses provided no evidence of any appreciable hydrolysis of volatile phenol glycoconjugates under the (relatively mild) operating conditions employed during SCC treatment, in agreement with previous research that demonstrated the relative stability of volatile phenol glycoconjugates [42]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c|c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{**Shiraz Sangiovese**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Petit Verdot Songiovese**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **Untreated** & **1\% Strip** & **13\% Strip** & **29\% Strip** & **Untreated** & **1\% Strip** & **14\% Strip** & **29\% Strip** \\ \hline alcohol (\% abv) & 15.1 & 14.5 & 7.9 & 0.3 & 14.2 & 13.8 & 6.8 & 0.3 \\ residual sugar (g/L) & 1.4 & 1.4 & 1.6 & 1.4 & 0.7 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.8 \\ pH & 3.7 & 3.7 & 3.6 & 3.5 & 3.7 & 3.7 & 3.6 & 3.5 \\ TA (g/L) & 6.3 & 6.4 & 7.2 & 8.5 & 5.7 & 5.7 & 6.4 & 7.3 \\ VA (g/L) & 0.53 & 0.50 & 0.42 & 0.48 & 0.36 & 0.36 & 0.38 & 0.48 \\ malic acid (g/L) & 1.35 & 1.42 & 1.67 & 1.99 & \textless{}0.10 & \textless{}0.10 & \textless{}0.10 & \textless{}0.10 \\ wine color (au) & 6.5 & 6.6 & 7.7 & 9.2 & 4.2 & 4.4 & 5.1 & 5.9 \\ wine hue & 0.87 & 0.89 & 0.89 & 0.87 & 0.96 & 0.96 & 0.91 & 0.95 \\ phenolics (au) & 48 & 49 & 55 & 65 & 32 & 33 & 38 & 43 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Basic chemistry of smoke-tainted wines, before and after spinning cone column distillation treatment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Treatment**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Conical**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{** \begin{tabular}{c} **\#3-Methyl** \\ **Causet** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\#-Cresol**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\#-Cresol**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\#-Cresol**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\#-Cresol**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Signed**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\#-Methyl**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\#-CMR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\#-CMR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\#-CMR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**\#-CMR**} \\ \hline  &  
These results suggest SCC distillation alone does not present a viable strategy for remediation of smoke tainted wine, since neither volatile phenols nor their glycoconjugates were removed to an extent that would enhance wine aroma, flavor and/or quality. However, it could potentially be used in combination with other remediation strategies, e.g., the addition of adsorbents, such as activated carbon, to facilitate treatment of wine fractions rather than whole wine, thereby mitigating negative impacts of these treatments on desirable wine constituents (e.g., loss of varietal characters).