## 3 Materials and Methods
### Data Analysis  
Sensory data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA using participants as a random factor and wines as a fixed factor, with [PERSON]'s LSD post hoc test (\(p\leq 0.05\)), to determine significant differences between wines, using XLSTAT (version 2018.1.1, Addisonft, New York, USA). Mean comparisons were performed by least significant difference (LSD) multiple comparison test at \(p<0.05\). Principal component analysis (PCA) of sensory data was also performed using XLSTAT.  
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules27228096/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules27228096/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules27228096/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules27228096/s1)), Table S1: Chemical structures and physical properties of smoke-derived volatile phenols.; Table S2: Mean intensity ratings for sensory attributes of smoke-tainted Shiraz Sangiovese and Petit Verdot Sangiovese wines, before and after spinning cone column distillation.; Table S3: Concentrations of fermentation volatiles (\(\mu\)g/L) detected in condensate derived from spinning cone column distillation of smoke-tainted Shiraz Sangiovese and Petit Verdot Sangiovese wines [56; 57]; Table S4: Aroma and palate attributes evaluated during sensory analysis; Figure S1: Predicted and actual concentrations of (**a,b**) guiaicol (Gu) and syringol (Syr), and (**c,d**) their glycoconjugates (GuR and SyrGB), in smoke-tainted (**a,c**) Shiraz Sangiovese and (**c,d**) Petit Verdot Sangiovese wines, before and after SCC distillation.  
All authors were involved in conceptualization; formal analysis, C.P. and R.R.; resources, J.S. and K.W.; data curation, K.W.; writing--original draft preparation, C.P. and K.W.; writing--review and editing, R.R. and J.S.; project administration, K.W.; funding acquisition, K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by the Government of South Australia, via the South Australian Wine Industry Development Scheme (SAWIDS) 2019/2020.  
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Adelaide (Ethics Approval No. H-2019-095, approved 6 June 2019).  
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.  
All data are included in the article and/or Supplementary Materials.  
The authors gratefully acknowledge: the industry partners who provided grape juice and wine samples; [PERSON] from Laffort for invaluable technical support; the Australian Wine Research Institute's Commercial Services Laboratory for juice, condensate and wine analysis; [PERSON] from the University of Adelaide for enzymatic analyses; Metabolomics South Australia, which is funded through Bioplatforms Australia Pty Ltd. (BPA), a National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS), and investment from the South Australian State Government and The Australian Wine Research Institute, for GC-MS analysis of condensate; and the panelists who participated in sensory analysis.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.  
Samples of compounds are not available from the authors.