Use for evaluating the representativeness of chemical-authentication evidence, not for assigning brands or consumer flavor profiles to the anonymized codes.
Category counts counted from Table 1. Analytical replicates are not additional independent products; two Tennessee samples cannot represent every producer or method.
The study uses 68 commercial samples: 16 Bourbon, 8 Irish, 9 Japanese, 33 Scotch, and 2 Tennessee. Labels provide age and proof; distillery identifiers are anonymized. Bottles from the same distillery share a code.
2.1
2.1
Samples and Reagents; Table 1
Checked against the supplied PDF browser display (French Rum) or publisher HTML (Hopfer) on 2026-09-06. Verified means faithful representation of the source, not independent confirmation of the source's claim. Preservation holds remain on Source.
No access / Whiskey Excerpts Database (USWA)
Verified means this note faithfully represents the material reviewed. It does not mean the author's historical or causal claims have been independently established.
Evidence
The study uses 68 commercial samples: 16 Bourbon, 8 Irish, 9 Japanese, 33 Scotch, and 2 Tennessee. Labels provide age and proof; distillery identifiers are anonymized. Bottles from the same distillery share a code.
Evidence type: Data or Statistic. This is not a verbatim quotation.
Location and context
Source: No access.
Publisher HTML: Samples and Reagents; Table 1.
Category counts counted from Table 1. Analytical replicates are not additional independent products; two Tennessee samples cannot represent every producer or method.
Annotation
Use for evaluating the representativeness of chemical-authentication evidence, not for assigning brands or consumer flavor profiles to the anonymized codes.
Literature Note: 
Citation: