Vodka Brand Differences May Reflect Water-Alcohol Arrangement

Spectroscopic analysis of vodkas finds that brands differ in the clustering of ethanol molecules in cages of water molecules, which could account in part for customer preferences. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


I once took part in a vodka tasting contest, in which participants tried to tell an expensive brand from a cheap one. I don’t recall the exact outcome, for obvious reasons. But I do know that several people swore they could taste the difference.

Well, maybe they could. Because according to a study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, different vodkas can have different molecular “structures,” which could drive drinkers to favor one brand over another. [Naiping Hu et al., http://bit.ly/bktqSV]

Vodka’s an alcoholic beverage that’s supposed to be relatively flavorless. So researchers got to wondering: how come people who enjoy the stuff often express brand preference?

Being good little scientists, they trotted out their spectroscopic equipment and examined the chemical signatures of five different vodkas. What they found is that each brand differs in how its ethanol molecules cluster. In the ethanol-water mix we call vodka, some of the ethanol molecules get surrounded by a sort of “cage” made of water. And different brands differ in how much ethanol is caged. Vodkas with fewer cages might seem more “watery” than those with more structure.

Of course, drink enough of the stuff and it really won’t matter how tightly caged it is. You’ll be loose as a grey goose.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe