Brewing Technology Protocol
-
Upload
ceci-cruz-palma -
Category
Documents
-
view
187 -
download
10
Transcript of Brewing Technology Protocol
Group no. 3d WiSe 2011/2012
CCP
Protocol for practical work in brewing technology
The influence of the mashing regime and hop additions during mashing on the
bitterness yield on the oxidative beer stability.
I
Table of contents
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... II
List of tables and calculations ..................................................................................... III
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
2. Literature Survey .................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Beer aging ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Production of ROS ............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 Antioxidants ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1 Hop derived antioxidants ................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Hops and bitterness yield .............................................................................................................. 8
3. Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 11
3.1 Wort production and fermentation ............................................................................................. 11
3.2 Laboratory analysis ...................................................................................................................... 14
4. Results ................................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Wort Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 16
4.2 Lautering control ........................................................................................................................... 28
4.3 Fermentation Control ................................................................................................................... 29
5. Discussion ............................................................................................................. 42
6. Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 47
7. Attachments .......................................................................................................... 50
II
List of Abbreviations
fig. figure
et al. et alii (= and others)
e. g. for example
SOD Superoxiddismutase
GOD Glucose oxidase
cf. related to, see
ROS Reactive oxygen species
FAN Free amino nitrogen
IBU International bitter units
EAP Endogenous antioxidant potential
III
List of tables and calculations
Table 1: Methods used for the wort and beer analysis………...………...…..….....……………..14
Calculation 1: Volume of the lauter and mashing tuns .............................................................12
Calculation 2: Calculation of hops addition during mashing .....................................................13
Calculation 3: Calculation of hops addition during boiling ........................................................13
IV
Table of Figures
Fig. 1: Effect of headspace air on the production ....................................................................... 3
Fig. 2: Effect of incubation temperatures on the ......................................................................... 3
Fig. 3: Pathway of ROS production [1] ....................................................................................... 4
Fig. 4: Oxidation schemata with possibilities of reduction [3] ..................................................... 5
Fig. 5: Reaction mechanism of sulphite oxidation [11] ............................................................... 5
Fig. 6: Ascorbic acid [13] ........................................................................................................... 6
Fig. 7: Dehydroascorbic acid [13] .............................................................................................. 6
Fig. 8: results of Wietstock et al. [5] ........................................................................................... 7
Fig. 9: Influence of wort boiling with different hop products on the antioxidative capacity .......... 7
Fig. 10: Influence of wort boiling with different amounts of α-acids on antioxidative the capacity 7
Fig. 11: Oxidative degradation influenced by different antioxidants ............................................ 8
Fig. 12: Brewing equipment used for the wort production .........................................................12
Fig. 13: Sketch of the brewing equipment used to produce the wort .........................................12
Fig. 14: Original gravity of the wort at different process stages .................................................16
Fig. 15: pH of the wort at different process stages ....................................................................17
Fig. 16: Color of the wort at different process stages ................................................................18
Fig. 17: Turbidity H90 of the wort at different process stages ...................................................18
Fig. 18: Turbidity H25 of the wort at different process stages ...................................................19
Fig. 19: Viscosity of the wort at different process stages ..........................................................20
Fig. 20: FAN in the wort at different process stages .................................................................20
Fig. 21: Total Nitrogen in the wort at different process stages ..................................................21
Fig. 22: Content of polyphenols in the wort at different process stages ....................................22
Fig. 23: Anthocyanogens in the wort at different process stages ..............................................23
Fig. 24: IBU of the wort at different process stages ..................................................................24
Fig. 25: Iso-alpha-acids in each wort at different process stages ..............................................24
Fig. 26: Alpha acids of hops each wort at different process stages ...........................................25
Fig. 27: Beta acids content of each wort at different process stages .........................................26
Fig. 28: T600 value of the pitching wort ....................................................................................27
Fig. 29: ESR slopes of the worts...............................................................................................27
Fig. 30: Iron content in each wort at different process stages ...................................................28
Fig. 31: Extract course during lautering ....................................................................................29
Fig. 32: Extract content available for the yeast during fermentation ..........................................30
V
Fig. 33: pH course of the wort to young beer during fermentation .............................................30
Fig. 34: Original gravity, apparent and real extract of the different treated worts .......................31
Fig. 35: Alcohol content both in % w/w and % v/v of beers from the different treated worts ......32
Fig. 36: Final apparent attenuation degree in the different treated worts ..................................33
Fig. 37: pH values and color in EBC of the different beers ........................................................33
Fig. 38: Turbidity of the beers according to different measurement methods ............................34
Fig. 39: Carbon dioxide concentration in the different beers .....................................................35
Fig. 40: Viscosity of the beers according to different measurement methods ............................35
Fig. 41: Head foam retention of the beers according to different measurement methods ..........36
Fig. 42: FAN and total nitrogen content in the beers from different treated worts ......................37
Fig. 43: Total polyphenols concentration in the different beers .................................................38
Fig. 44: Anthocyanogens concentration in the different beers ...................................................38
Fig. 45: IBU values and iso-alpha-acids concentration in the different beers ............................39
Fig. 46: Final alpha-acids concentration in the different beers ..................................................40
Fig. 47: EAP, T600 values and SO2 concentration in the different beers ..................................40
Fig. 48: ESR slopes of the different beers ................................................................................41
Fig. 49: Final iron content in the different beers ........................................................................42
1
1. Introduction
Beer is one of the most popular beverages nowadays. Like every other beverage in the market
it is very important to produce a high quality product. One of the most important characteristics
of beer is its bitterness. This unique bitterness comes from the isomerised substances from
hops and hops products. Normally hop is added during the boiling step as the high
temperatures make the isomerisation possible, thus the yield of hops bitter substances is
influenced by boiling time, temperature, pH and others. Moreover during boiling other reactions
such as protein denaturation and flocculation take place. It is known that the bitterness yield is
greatly reduced by the loss of bitter substances bound to this protein trub. The hop bitterness
yield is an important factor influencing the final quality of the product.
But nowadays not only the production of a high quality product is demanded; it must also be
maintained after the filling and packaging. Beer is one of the most sensitive beverages when it
comes to oxidative damage and negative changes of it characteristics due to aging. This aging
process starts almost immediately after filling and packaging. Over time, one of the most
damaged characteristics by oxidation is the flavor. In the different aging stages new unwanted
flavors and aromas developed due to chemical reactions taking place in the beer. Some
examples are the dreaded cardboard flavor or other sweet, stale and sherry like aromas. The
flavor, the flavor stability and other characteristics are not only influenced by the different
production steps, but also by the raw materials used and the storage conditions once the beer is
filled and packed. Most important are the concentration of transition metals in beer and the
oxygen, light and temperature exposures. Because of the German purity law the addition of
antioxidants such as ascorbic acid is prohibited. But it has been proven that raw materials,
mostly hops, feature a high fraction of antioxidants. That is why there is the possibility to
increase the beer’s external antioxidant potential (EAP) and stability by increasing the yield of
hops substances in the final product.
The goals of this practical course were both to achieve a higher hop bitterness yield and higher
beer stability. In order to do so higher mashing off temperatures were used so that the protein
trub is already formed during mashing thus decreasing the loss of bitter substances during
boiling. Furthermore different hops products were also added during mashing not only to
increase the bitterness yield but the concentration of hops antioxidants leading to a higher beer
EAP and therefore stability.
2
2. Literature Survey
2.1 Beer aging
The length of shelf life for beer is determined by several factors. Most important among those
are the flavour stability and the visual appearance of the brew. The later includes haze
formation and alteration of the colour. Those in turn are influenced by the colloidal stability and
possible microbiological growth of beer spoilage organisms (which can also highly influence the
flavor by releasing metabolic byproducts) that cloud the beer.
With the advent of modern brewing technology and the subsequent improvement of biological
and colloidal stability the focus shifted to improving flavour stability of the beer during storage.
After the beer is bottled it immediately starts to age and with that to alter its flavour in several
ways. The concentration of certain flavor active compounds is increased and new ones are
being formed which can mask other important flavour molecules or lead to off flavors when a
flavor threshold is surpassed. [1] However, the oxidation of the beer has a lag time that
corresponds to the endogenous antioxidant capacity of the beer. This means that it is protected
by antioxidants present in the beverage (e.g. SO2) for a certain time until they are oxidized.
The reactions that lead to flavour deterioration are sped up by the dissolved oxygen content in
the beer and the storage temperatures. The approximate doubling of the reaction rate by an
increase of 10K in temperature as shown by the Van’t Hoff equation applies to the reactions
occurring in bottled beer as well (see Fig. 2). Therefore in order to minimize this effect beer is
stored at the lowest temperature that is economically viable.
Other detrimental influences on the finished beer flavour include the sunstruck aroma that stems
from 3-methyl-2-butene-1-thiol which is cleaved from isohumulon by UV-light, melanoidins that
are formed during wort boiling which can oxidize the alcohol in the beer into the respective
aldehydes as well as oxidized lipids from the barley that can form fatty aldehydes.[10]
Furthermore the type of beer influences the reactions of the flavour changes and the impact of
them on the stored product as the strong flavour of dark beers tends to mask other unwanted
aromas.
3
A very high influence on the reactions has the amount of oxygen that is present in the beverage.
An example for this is shown in the work of Kaneda et al. (see Fig. 1) who reports an tenfold
increase of free radicals when air was present in the headspace of bottled beer. [2]
Fig. 1: Effect of headspace air on the production
of free radicals in beer. Beer was incubated at
60°C, ●headspace in the vial contained air, ▲
headspace air was replaced with CO [2]
Fig. 2: Effect of incubation temperatures on the
production of free radicals in beer
○ 0°C, ■ 20°C, ▲ 40°C, ● 60°C [2]
These radicals influence the production of unwanted flavour active volatiles. This includes the
formation of carbonyls like trans-2-nonenal (the dreaded cardboard flavour) and strecker
aldehydes (e.g. 2-methylbutanal) as well as vicinal diketones (e.g. diacetyl).
Compounds that are degraded during storage include esters like isoamyl acetate (banana like
flavour) and α-acids (influencing the bitterness) leading to a diminished flavour sensation. [1]
2.1.1 Production of ROS
Molecular oxygen is rather stable and does not easily react with organic compounds. This
however is not valid for the activated forms, called reactive oxygen species or short ROS
(consisting of O2ˉ, HOO•, H2O2 and HO•). The hydroxyl and peroxyl radicals (HO•, HOO•),
products of the Haber-Weiss and Fenton reactions (see Fig. 4) are highly reactive. These
reactions are catalyzed by the presence of metal ions such as Fe2+ and Cu+.
4
Fig. 3: Pathway of ROS production [1]
Several methods of reducing the oxidation of beer have been proposed and implemented. An
overview of where they reduce the production of radicals can be seen in Fig. 3.
Intermediates of hydrogen peroxide can be scavenged (for example by SO2 or ascorbic acid)
thus reducing the ROS precursors. The metals aiding the Fenton and Haber-Weiss reactions
can be chelated leading to a reduction of the ROS production. Furthermore the ROS itself can
be quenched (see Fig. 4).
5
2.2 Antioxidants
Chemical antioxidants include sulphite which can bind molecular oxygen thus forming sulphate
as seen in equation I and effectively reducing the ROS precursors in the beer.
2 SO2-3 + O2 → 2 SO2-
4 I
Fig. 5: Reaction mechanism of sulphite oxidation [11]
The overall reaction mechanism can be seen in Fig. 5, although this is just a proposition from
Bäckström. [11]
Fig. 4: Oxidation schemata with possibilities of reduction [3]
6
SO2 is produced by the yeast during fermentation but is limited by its flavour threshold and the
fact that excessive amounts can lead to allergic reactions in humans [4]. Reductones as well as
melanoidins are products of the Maillard reactions and serve (under certain conditions, e.g. at
malting temperatures below 150°C [12]) as antioxidative agents as well. They scavenge
molecular oxygen by oxidizing an endiol group to a carbonyl (as seen in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7
below). Even though ascorbic acid is not a product of a Maillard reaction it is a reductone as
well and is used throughout the food and beverage industry as a strong antioxidant. It has to be
added to most of those products as it is seldom a byproduct of the respective production
process.
Fig. 6: Ascorbic acid [13] Fig. 7: Dehydroascorbic acid [13]
Scavenging the already formed ROS radicals can be done by introducing the enzyme
Superoxiddismutase (SOD) to the brewing process. SOD is present in yeast cells and can be
enriched by genetic overexpression of certain genes or aerobe living conditions. Cell lysis
releases the enzyme. SOD catalyses the formation of hydrogen peroxide and molecular oxygen
from two superoxide ions. Limiting the antioxidative power of SOD is the low pH of wort and
beer as well as the fact that the produced radical precursors are not bound by the enzyme. [15]
Glucose oxidase (GOD) catalyses the oxidation of glucose to gluconic acid. During this process
hydrogen peroxide is formed as well and needs to be dismantled to prevent the inhibition of the
GOD. This is done by catalase that has to be present. Its antioxidative power is also dependent
on a glucose substrate, ambient oxygen levels and temperature as well as the pH value (with an
optimum around 4,5-5,5 Attachment 1).[14]
7
2.2.1 Hop derived antioxidants
The German purity law prohibits the use of any
exogenous antioxidants (e.g. ascorbic acid and
enzymes like GOD and SOD). Recent studies
indicate that hops derived antioxidants may play a
vital role for flavour stability as well.
Originally hops was added to the wort to increase the
foam stability and antimicrobiological potency as well
as for the bitterness it adds to the beverage. [5]
Wietstock et al.. showed that worts that were boiled
without the addition of hops had a much higher
amount of free radicals and that the antioxidative
effect of hop originated polyphenols compared to the
effect of the hop α- and β-acids was negligible. Fig. 8 shows this as well as the fact that iso α-
acids seem to have pro oxidative properties, aiding in the formation of ROS during the Fenton
reaction by donating electrons. This was further investigated by Wietstock et al. and the results
Fig. 8: results of Wietstock et al. [5]
Fig. 9: Influence of wort boiling with different hop
products on the antioxidative capacity
Fig. 10: Influence of wort boiling with different amounts
of α-acids on antioxidative the capacity
8
showed that a higher degree of isomerisation reduced the antioxidative power of the compound.
Other trials showed that adding hop products during wort boiling resulted in an immediate drop
of ESR signal intensity and therefore a rise in the antioxidative capacity of the wort (see Fig. 9)
which is dependent on the amount of hops added (see Fig. 10). Further results of this study
were that hopped beers contained lower values of Strecker aldehydes, an index for aging
related off flavours, than the unhopped reference and that longer exposure to heat (e.g. lower
heating rates) lead to an increase of ROS formation.
Ting et al. [7] and Liu et al. [8] proposed that its antioxidative properties were linked to the ability
to chelate metals and the scavenging of hydroxyl radicals respectively.
Further studies done by Wietstock et al.
determined that α- and iso α-acids deriving
from hops are able to chelate transition metals
such as iron and copper rather than scavenge
hydroxyl radicals. This can be seen in Fig. 11
that shows the overall oxidative degradation of
a solution containing hydroxyl radicals that
were formed before the addition of the
antioxidants. α- and iso α-acids show no
scavenging activities. The chelating of iron
(Fe2+) was attributed to an increase of the
autoxidation rather than to the formation of iron
complexes, demonstrated by further trials. [9]
The role of polyphenols remains ambiguous.
While polyphenols such as flavan-3-ols have
the property to scavenge ROS and to chelate transition metals and therefore serve as
antioxidants there are also polyphenols that can reduce Fe3+ to Fe2+ and Cu2+ to Cu+ and thus
aiding the catalysis of the Fenton reaction. Aron et al. suggests that polyphenols deliver the
majority of the reducing potential to the final beer. [6]
2.3 Hops and bitterness yield
In the process of wort boiling the extraction and isomerisation of hops substances plays a major
role, since hops and hop products are one of the most expensive raw materials of the beer
Fig. 11: Oxidative degradation influenced by different
antioxidants
9
production. Though hops or rather bitter substances and α-acids are really high priced and the
yield of these products is rather low. Under normal conditions an average yield of bitter
substances is about 30% of the total bitter substance content of the hops or the hop product.
There are several possible causes for this fact. The bitter substances of the hops are defined as
the amount of α-acids, β-acids and the total of resins in the hops. While boiling these
substances dissolve in to the wort and the α-acids are isomerised. The β-acids play a minor role
since these substances have a bad solubility. That is why the amount of β-acids in the wort is
about 10% of the amount of alpha acids. [20]
To raise the yield of bitter substances in beer it is important to have an intensive extraction. To
improve the extraction it is possible to increase the boiling temperature and time. But this also
causes a loss of wort quality. Another way to improve the extraction is to reduce the hops or hop
products to small pieces in order to get an enlargement of the surface of these substances. So if
an extract is used it dissolves better if the drops are as small as possible. A possible way to
ensure this is to intensify the stirring during boiling. However this will cause more turbidity and
therefore trub which adsorbs the bitter substances and causes a decrease of the yield. [16]
Furthermore a high concentration gradient is needed. This gradient decreases when more bitter
substances are in solution until the equilibrium level is reached. That is why a complete
extraction of bitter substances cannot be reached with the normal addition of hop products to
the wort. Moreover the extraction decelerates with declining concentration gradient. That is why
it is also possible that the equilibrium level is not reached at the normal wort boiling process.
Also the use of improved hop products does not improve the yield of bitter substances. These
products just speed up the dissolution of bitter substances in the wort and so the reaching of the
equilibrium level, too. To lower the amount of dissolved α-acids a quick isomerisation of these
substances is needed.
Temperature is a factor of large importance at solution of (bitter) substances. For example is the
solubility of α-acids at 60°C 50% higher than at 25%. [17] This shows quite well that the
solubility limit depends on the temperature. That is why the α-acids which are dissolved while
boiling sediment while cooling down to pitching temperature down to the “new” solubility limit.
The solubility limit is reached sooner if the amount of hop products added to the wort is higher
and / or the pH of the wort is a bit higher. And since the solubility limit is a characteristic of every
mixture there is according to the German purity law no possibility to influence this factor.
10
Also the pH-value is important. That is why dissolved bitter substances sediment at the lowering
of the pH while fermentation. These α-acids are adsorbent bound to the turbidity molecules
such as proteins and are removed while filtration. A higher pH value does not only improve the
solubility of the bitter substances but does also increase the isomerisation of these substances.
Isomerised α-acids also remain in solution if the pH drops while fermentation.
A great source of loss of bitter substances is the adsorbent binding to turbidity molecules. The
more turbidity molecules are in the wort the more bitter substances are removed. And since a
higher original gravity level and / or malts which have a high amount of proteins cause more
turbidity these factors also cause a high loss of bitter substances. A possible method to
decrease the formation of turbidity is to lower the intensity of boiling and / or the boiling
temperature. But this also causes a decrease of the quality of the wort. For example an
enhancement of 4-5 ° Plato causes a decrease in the yield of bitter substances of 5%.[19] Since
α-acids are less polar these substances are more often bound to the turbidity molecules.
Another possible cause for loss of bitter substances is their evaporation as bitter substances are
detectable in the excess vapor. But these detectable amounts are only the 0.003 times of total
amount of bitter substances. In other words, if the total evaporation is about 15% it causes a
loss of bitter substances of about 0.5%. So this cause for the loss of bitter substances is
insignificant.
Since the measures of updating a sub process in order to decrease the loss of bitter substances
causes a decrease of efficiency of another sub process, other ideas are needed. For example
does the company Hertel GmbH produce a pre-isomeriser which promises a yield of bitter
substances up to 60%. [19, 21] Overall it can be said there are a lot factors that influence the
yield of bitter substances all with a varying degree of importance.
11
3. Materials and Methods
The students were divided in four groups. Each group did one brewing run which differs from
the other runs either in the time of hops addition or in the hop product which was added or in the
temperature at which the run was mashed off.
Following methods were tested:
1. Reference run
2. Mashing off at 95 °C
3. Mashing with addition of CO2extract
4. Mashing with addition of spent hops
3.1 Wort production and fermentation
Wort was produced in the pilot brewery of the TU Berlin (see Fig. 12). In each run 20 kg of malt
were been milled and mashed in with 60 L of water and 15 g of CaCl2. In one run also 420 g of
spent hops was added and in another run instead of spent hops 12 g of CO2 extract was added
(see equation 3). After mashing in the mash was heated to 66 °C and this temperature was kept
for 30 minutes. The next step was to heat the mash to 72 °C which was also kept for 20
minutes. After this the mash in three of the four runs was heated to 78 °C and pumped in the
lauter tun. One run was heated to 95 °C before it was pumped in to the lauter tun. After this the
mashing kettle was purged with 10 L water and the lautering break was held for 15 minutes.
Then the lautering took place with two additions of 40 L sparging water and one times 20 L.
After heating this liquor it was boiled for 60 minutes under addition of hops (see Calculation 3).
Then it was pumped to the whirlpool there separated from the trub and then cooled down for the
fermentation.
The fermentation lasts 7 days and samples were taken every day to measure the extract and
the pH. After maturation it the beer was filled into bottles and then analysed
12
Fig. 12: Brewing equipment used for the wort production
Fig. 13: Sketch of the brewing equipment used to produce the wort
Calculation 1: Volume of the lauter and mashing tuns
The sketch has been interpreted to that the volume under the false bottom and the volume of
the cone both comes to addition to the V1, so that the lauter tun has a larger volume than the
mash tun.
13
𝑉 =𝑑² × 𝜋
4× ℎ
𝑉1 = 5,45 𝑑𝑚 2 × 𝜋
4 × 7,05 𝑑𝑚
𝑉1 = 164,46 𝐿
Mash tun:
𝑉𝑀𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝑡𝑢𝑛 = 𝑉1 + 𝑉𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑒 = 164,46 𝐿 + 4,5 𝐿
𝑉𝑀𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝑡𝑢𝑛 = 168,96 𝐿
Lauter tun:
𝑉𝐿𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑢𝑛 = 𝑉1 + 𝑉𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 𝑉𝐹𝑎𝑙𝑠𝑒 𝑏𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑚 = 164,46 𝐿 + 5 𝐿 + 8 𝐿
𝑉𝐿𝑎𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑢𝑛 = 177, 46 𝐿
Calculation 2: Calculation of hops addition during mashing
Hops addition calculation on the example of group 3.
200 ppm of CO2extract was added to the mash which was produced with 60 L water.
200 𝑝𝑝𝑚 = 200 𝑚𝑔
𝐿 × 60 𝐿 = 12 𝑔
So 12 g of CO2extract were added to the mash
Calculation 3: Calculation of hops addition during boiling
Hops calculation on the example of group 3.
1𝐵𝐸 = 1 𝑚𝑔 𝛼 − 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑
𝐿
It was aimed to have 30 BE in the beer and the usual bitterness yield is 1/3.
30 𝐵𝐸 = 30 𝑚𝑔 𝛼 − 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑
𝐿 →1
3 𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
14
→ 30 𝐵𝐸 = 90 𝑚𝑔 𝛼 − 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑
𝐿
The extract which was used has an α-acid content of 44.3 %.
1 𝑚𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 = 0.443 𝑚𝑔 𝛼 − 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑
𝑥 𝑚𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 = 1 𝑚𝑔 𝛼 − 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑
𝑥 𝑚𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 = 1 𝑚𝑔 𝛼 − 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑 × 1 𝑚𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡
0.443 𝑚𝑔 𝛼 − 𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑑= 2.257 𝑚𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡
So 2.257 mg of the used extract have 1 mg α-acid in content and 90 mg of α-acid is needed in
1 L beer.
2.257 𝑚𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 × 90 𝑚𝑔 α − acid
𝐿 = 203.16 𝑚𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡
𝐿
To get a bitterness value of 30 BE 203.16 mg extract per liter are needed. The calculated
volume of the cast wort was 119 L.
203.16 𝑚𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡
𝐿 × 119 𝐿 = 24.2 𝑔 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡
So 24.2 g extract had to been added to the wort to get a bitterness value of 30 BE.
3.2 Laboratory analysis
Analyses were done in the laboratories of the TU Berlin. The next table summarizes all
measurements conducted.
Table 1: Methods used for the wort and beer analysis
Parameter Method
Original gravity [%] cf. MEBAK 2.9.2.3
pH cf. MEBAK 2.13
Color [°EBC] cf. MEBAK 2.12.2
15
Turbidity H90 cf. MEBAK 2.14.1.2
Turbidity H25 cf. MEBAK 2.14.1.2
Viscosity [mm²/s] cf. MEBAK 2.25.3
Free Amino Nitrogen [ppm] cf. Skalar, Kat.-Nr.: 149-202
Total Nitrogen [ppm] cf. MEBAK 2.6.1
Total polyphenols [ppm] cf. Skalar, Kat.-Nr.: 521-004
Anthocyanogens [ppm] cf. Skalar, Kat.-Nr.: 176-003
IBU cf. Skalar, Kat.-Nr.: 191-001
c(iso-alpha-acids) [ppm]
c(beta-acids) [ppm]
c(alpha-acids) [ppm]
cf. American Society of Brewing
Chemists, Beer 23-C. Iso-alpha-
acids by solid phase extraction
and HPLC. In Methods of
Analysis, 9th ed.; American
Society of Brewing Chemists: St.
Paul, MN, 2004.
T600 value [ESR signal intensity *10^6] cf. MEBAK 2.15.3
Iron content [ppm] cf. MEBAK 2.24.6.1
Alcohol [% v/v]
Head foam
cf. MEBAK 2.9.6.3
cf. MEBAK 2.18.2
Carbon dioxide [g/l] cf. MEBAK 2.26.1.3
SO2 [g/l] cf. MEBAK 2.21.8.3
16
4. Results
4.1 Wort Analysis
All worts where analyzed in the laboratory according to the methods mentioned above. From all
four experiments (reference, mashing off at 95°C, mashing with CO2 extract and mashing with
spent hops) wort samples at three different stages of the process were taken and directly frozen
for later analysis. Analyzed were first of all the so called “full kettle wort” before boiling, then the
wort after boiling “end of boiling” and finally the wort before yeast was added “pitching wort”.
Original gravity of the wort
Fig. 14: Original gravity of the wort at different process stages
The original gravity of the wort gets higher as the boiling process advances. This pattern can be
observed in the diagram as the full kettle worts show the lowest gravity followed by worts at the
end of boiling and finishing with higher gravity of the pitching worts. This pattern is observed in
the majority of the worts, independent from the mashing conditions temperature and hops
addition as the only exception is the pitching wort when mashing was done with spent hops.
pH of the wort
9.5
10
10.5
11
11.5
12
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
Ori
gin
al g
ravi
ti [
%]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
17
Fig. 15: pH of the wort at different process stages
The diagram shows that independent from the experiment the pH of the wort always drops after
boiling and then again shortly before pitching. The reference wort and the one mashed off at
95°C show an extremely similar pH tendency. On the other hand wort treated with CO2 hops
extract shows an unusual higher pH and contrary to this the one treated with spent hops shows
an unusual lower pH on all stages of the process.
Color of the wort
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
pH
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
18
Fig. 16: Color of the wort at different process stages
As expected the color of the wort rises after boiling, the values also show that the pitching wort
had a color value increase from the freshly boiled wort. It can be distinguished that on average
wort mashed of at 95°C and mashed with spent hops addition show higher EBC values than the
others.
Turbidity H90 of the wort
Fig. 17: Turbidity H90 of the wort at different process stages
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
Co
lor
[°EB
C]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
Turb
idit
y H
90
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
19
Only the turbidity according to H90 of the pitching wort was measured. It can be observed that
when mashing at such a high temperature as 95°C the turbidity of the wort increases noticeably,
on the other hand the turbidity values decreases on worts to which hops extract and spent hops
were added. This decreasing trend can be observed as well when mashing with the addition of
spent hops.
Turbidity H25
Fig. 18: Turbidity H25 of the wort at different process stages
For the turbidity values according to H25 the same trends as the H90 turbidity can be observed.
Again only the values of the pitching wort were measured. The turbidity increment when
mashing at 95°C is not that extreme, as is the drop on worts to which hops extract and spent
hops were added.
Viscosity of the wort
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
Turb
idit
y H
25
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
20
Fig. 19: Viscosity of the wort at different process stages
The pitching worts viscosity was measured and it can be concluded that when mashing off at a
higher temperature than usual the viscosity experiences a small increment. It can also be
observed that when mashing with the hops addition no noticeable change on the turbidity takes
place.
Free amino Nitrogen (FAN) in the wort
Fig. 20: FAN in the wort at different process stages
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
Vis
cosi
ty [
mm
3/s
]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
FAN
[p
pm
]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
21
In this diagram it is shown that the amount of FAN in the wort is affected by the mashing
conditions. The average FAN in all the reference worts is 176 ppm. On every process stage it is
observed that when mashing off at high temperatures or adding CO2 hops extract to the mash
the FAN content decreases. Overall it decreases to an average of 146 ppm. On the other hand
when adding spent hops to the mash there is a little increment of the FAN to an overall average
of 178 ppm. Moreover it can be recognized that the final pitching wort has a higher content of
FAN compared to the first wort of the process, the full kettle wort.
Total Nitrogen in the wort
Fig. 21: Total Nitrogen in the wort at different process stages
The total nitrogen reflects the same trend behavior as the FAN. The processes of mashing off at
a high temperature and adding CO2 extract the decrease nitrogen values to an average of 871
ppm. On the other hand when adding spent hops the values slightly increase to 1037 ppm.
These values are almost identical to the average nitrogen normal value in reference worts, 1035
ppm.
Total polyphenol content in the wort
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
Tota
l Nit
roge
n [
pp
m]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
22
Fig. 22: Content of polyphenols in the wort at different process stages
As the process advances an increased polyphenol concentration can be measured. From the
diagram it can be read that there is a small significant difference in the polyphenol content
between the different treated worts. A slight increase is notices for when mashing off at high
temperature and when treating the mash with spent hops, values of the pitching wort increase
from the reference 204 ppm to a 236 and 228 ppm respectively. As for when adding CO2 extract
to the mash no significant difference is recorded compared to the reference.
Anthocyanogens in the wort
0
50
100
150
200
250
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
Tota
l po
lyp
he
no
ls [
pp
m]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
23
Fig. 23: Anthocyanogens in the wort at different process stages
The anthocyanogene levels correspond to the total polyphenol levels. The content in the
reference wort and the wort treated with CO2 extract during mashing is almost identical and
changes only slightly during the boiling process. Compared to these the other worts show a
higher anthocyanogene content. All levels rise between 2 and 4 ppm.
International bitter units (IBU) of the wort
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
An
tho
cyan
oge
ns
[pp
m]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
IBU
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
24
Fig. 24: IBU of the wort at different process stages
The IBU values of all worts increase as the process advances. The major increase of the IBU
values occurs while boiling but there is also a small increase while cooling down to pitching
temperature. It is noticeable that the relationships between the worts remain constant excluding
the corelation between mashing off 95 °C and mashing w/ spent hops. While the mashing off 95
°C full kettle wort has a lower IBU value than the mashing w/ spent hops full kettle wort, it
increases more while boiling. So at the end of the boiling the mashing off 95 °C wort has a
higher IBU value. The diagram also shows that the wort mashing off 95 °C always has a higher
IBU value than the reference wort, which has the lowest value of all. The mashing w/ CO2-
extract has the highest IBU value.
Isomerized alpha acids of hops in the wort
Fig. 25: Iso-alpha-acids in each wort at different process stages
The Iso-alpha-acids-value also increases as the process advances. The diagram also shows
that in the full kettle worts mashing w/ spent hops and w/ CO2-extract already isomerised alpha-
acids exists. It is also noticeable that the mashing off 95 °C wort has a higher amount of iso-
alpha-acids than the reference wort.
Alpha acids of hops in the wort
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
[iso
-alp
ha-
acid
s] [
pp
m]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
25
Fig. 26: Alpha acids of hops each wort at different process stages
The diagram shows that only in the mashing w/ CO2 extract- full kettle wort alpha acids are
already dissolved. At the end of the boiling process the amount of alpha-acids in all worts is
similar. Except for the mashing w/ spent hops run all other worts show an increase in the
amount of alpha acids in the wort after the end of the boiling process.
Beta acids content of the wort
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
[alp
ha-
acid
s] [
pp
m]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
26
Fig. 27: Beta acids content of each wort at different process stages
The diagram shows that only when mashing w/ CO2 extract in the full kettle wort the alpha acids
are already dissolved. At the end of the boiling process the amount of alpha-acids in all worts is
similar. Except for the mashing w/ spent hops pitching wort, the amount of alpha acids in the
wort increases after the end of the boiling process.
T600 value of the pitching wort
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
[be
ta-a
cid
s] [
pp
m]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
T60
0 v
alu
e [
ESR
sig
nal
inte
nsi
ty *
10
^6]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
27
Fig. 28: T600 value of the pitching wort
The T600 value was only measured in the pitching wort. It is lowest with the CO2 extract wort
and highest with the reference wort. The wort with the spent hops treatment lies just below that
value and is slightly higher than the 95°C mashing off wort.
ESR slope of the worts
Fig. 29: ESR slopes of the worts
The diagram shows that the reference wort and nearly similar the wort which was produced with
addition of spent hops to the mash have the highest T600 value followed by the wort which was
mashed off at 95 °C. The lowest T600 value has the wort which was produced with addition of
CO2extract tot the mash.
Iron content in the wort
28
Fig. 30: Iron content in each wort at different process stages
Initial levels of iron in the different worts differ substantially in some cases. While the iron
content of the 95°C mashing off wort and the wort with the added spent hops is virtually identical
and the iron of the reference wort exceeding those two, the content of the wort treated with the
CO2 extract shows much lower levels at the beginning of the wort boiling step. The overall iron
content of all worts decreases notably during the boiling process but shows only minuscule
changes during the cooling down of the wort. This does not include the 95°C mashing off wort
as its iron content increases during this last step and exceeds all the other samples. The iron
levels of the reference wort and the wort treated with the spent hops are almost identical and
twice as high as the iron in the wort with the added CO2 extract.
4.2 Lautering control
Samples were taken after a definite volume of 12 liters and were analysed for extract. Extract content of the lautered wort
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
Full kettle wort End of boiling Pitching wort
[Iro
n]
[pp
m]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
29
Fig. 31: Extract course during lautering
As expected the first wort out contains a higher extract amount which then decreases as water
sparging is done. The more water is sparged in the less extract containing wort is lautered out.
This pattern can be observed on all samples and can be recognized on the diagram showing
the extract course during lautering performed by all groups.
4.3 Fermentation Control
Samples were taken each day and analyzed for extract and pH values.
Extract content during fermentation process
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 25 50 75 100 125
Extr
act
[%]
Filling quantity [l]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
30
Fig. 32: Extract content available for the yeast during fermentation
It can be recognized that the longer the fermentation goes on the less extract is found in the
beer. The extract content of all worts decreases similarly without major differences. All groups
started with an extract on the range of 11.6% and 11.8% and ended with an average of 3.5%.
pH value during the fermentation process
Fig. 33: pH course of the wort to young beer during fermentation
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 2 4 6 8 10
Extr
act
%
Fermentation days
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0 2 4 6 8
pH
Fermentation days
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
31
A pH drop can be observed within the fermentation days. The slope of the drop of the reference
and the mashing off at 95° are really similar. Here the pH drop is observed mostly from
fermentation day 1 to day 3. When mashing with CO2 hops extract a milder pH slope drop can
be observed as the major drop occurs within 4 and not 3 days. When mashing with spent hops
the pH drop occurs rapidly from fermentation day 1 to day 2 and after that only drops mildly.
Overall the diagram describes the normal pH drop that wort shows when turning into beer. All
groups measured an average pH of 5.8 at the beginning and ended up with a drop to 4.4.
4.4 Beer analysis
The beer samples were analyzed according to the MEBAK methods listed above. This took
place in the laboratories of the TU Berlin and were conducted by the pratical training assistants.
Original gravity and extract content
Fig. 34: Original gravity, apparent and real extract of the different treated worts
The original gravity of the three different produced beers show no real significant difference
compared to the reference. Only a really small increase of gravity on CO2 hops extract treated
beer can be noticed. The real extract is higher than the apparent extract on all cases. Between
beers are both extract contents very similar and do not show any significant differences.
Average of real extract in all beers is 4.7% when of apparent extract only 3.1%.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Original gravity [%]
E (app.) [%] E (real) [%]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
32
Alcohol content
Fig. 35: Alcohol content both in % w/w and % v/v of beers from the different treated worts
In the reference beer there was a final alcohol content of 3.44% w/w or 4.4% v/v. The beers
from worts mashed off at 95°C and treated with spent hops show almost the exact results. Only
the beer whose wort was treated with CO2 hops extract shows a slight increase in alcohol
content to a final percentage of 3.71% w/w or 4.75% v/v.
Attenuation Degree
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Alc. [% w/w] Alc. [% v/v]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
33
Fig. 36: Final apparent attenuation degree in the different treated worts
All beer’s attenuation degrees vary from the reference 74%. In case of the beer whose wort was
mashed off at 95°C the attenuation degree decreases significantly to nearly 70%. As for the
other two beers no significant difference is noticed in the attenuation degree.
pH and color of the beer
Fig. 37: pH values and color in EBC of the different beers
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76A
tte
nu
atio
n D
egr
ee
(a
pp
.) [
%]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
pH Colour [°EBC]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
34
The pH measurements of the different beers show that there is absolutely no significant pH
value difference between them. As the diagram shows the pH values are almost identical for all
three beers against the reference beer. The color of the three different treated beers increases
slightly against the reference; still there is no significant change. The highest increase in color is
shown by the beer from spent hops treated wort which is 8.15 °EBC compared to the 7.4 °EBC
reference.
Turbidity
Fig. 38: Turbidity of the beers according to different measurement methods
The turbidity of the 95°C mashing of beer lies below the rest of the brews and all the values rise
slightly when measured at 0°C. This increase is more prominent in the experimental brews than
in the reference beer.
CO2 concentration
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Turbidity 20°C Turbidity 0°C
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
35
Fig. 39: Carbon dioxide concentration in the different beers
The CO2 content of the beer lies between 4.74 and 4.54 g per liter. The beers produced with
wort mashed with hops show lower values than the reference beer, specifically wort treated with
CO2 extract shows the lowest value. On the other hand beer whose wort was mashed off at high
temperatures is the one with the highest values with 0.17 grams per liter more than the
reference beer.
Viscosity of the beers
Fig. 40: Viscosity of the beers according to different measurement methods
0
1
2
3
4
5
6C
O2
[g/
l]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
1.000
1.100
1.200
1.300
1.400
1.500
1.600
Vis
cosi
ty [
mm
2 /s]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
36
The diagram shows that there is no significant difference between the reference and the beers
treated with hops during the mash. All three find themselves in a range between 1.513 mm2/s
and 1.520 mm2/s. The only beer that stands out and shows a significant but still low viscosity
increase is the one mashed off at high temperatures. This beer shows a viscosity of 1.560
mm2/s
Head foam
Fig. 41: Head foam retention of the beers according to different measurement methods
All three different measurement points of the head foam show the same results trend for the
beers. The head of reference beer is the most stable when the head stability of the other beers
decreases minimally. When mashing with spent hops the decrease is the highest. For example
when comparing head foam at 30 s the reference value decreases from 226 to 211 when using
spent hops in the mash.
FAN and total nitrogen content
0
50
100
150
200
250
Head 10 s Head 20 s Head 30 s
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
37
Fig. 42: Free amino nitrogen and total nitrogen content in the beers from different treated worts
The FAN values in the beers vary from the lowest 96.7 ppm and 139.2 ppm. The lowest value is
read from the beer mashed off at high temperature. There is really no significant difference
between both beers whose worts were treated with hops addition during the mash. As for the
total nitrogen content there is no significant difference only between the reference and the beer
whose wort was mashed with spent hops. In the other two beers lower values in nitrogen
content were measured. The reference is 827 ppm as the other show a value around 710 ppm.
Total polyphenols
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Free Amino Nitrogen [ppm]
Total Nitrogen [ppm]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
38
Fig. 43: Total polyphenols concentration in the different beers
The concentrations of total polyphenols in the final beer in all experimental runs are higher than
the one in the reference brew. During fermentation all concentrations dropped. The level of the
beer with the added CO2 extract during mashing is higher than the 95°C mashing off beer and
is exceeded by the spent hops treated beer.
Anthocyanogens
Fig. 44: Anthocyanogens concentration in the different beers
0
50
100
150
200
250To
tal p
oly
ph
en
os
[pp
m] Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
An
tho
cyan
oge
ns
[pp
m] Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
39
The anthocyanogene concentration, again, correspond to the total polyphenol level. The data
shows that all trial brews exceed the reference beers anthocyanogene concentration in the
same order the total polyphenol concentrations do. Also, the concentration dropped slightly
compared to the pitching wort.
IBU and iso-alpha acids concentration
Fig. 45: International bitter units values and iso-alpha-acids concentration in the different beers
The diagram shows that the IBU values of the beers from the experimental trials are similar and
higher than the value of the reference beer. This is also valid for the amounts of iso-alpha-acids
in those beers. It is noticeable that the amount of iso-alpha-acids in the beer is higher than IBU-
value of the beer.
Alpha-acids concentration
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
IBU [iso-alpha-acids] [ppm]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
40
Fig. 46: Final alpha-acids concentration in the different beers
It is shown that the highest amount alpha-acids is in the beer which was mashed off at 95 °C.
The amounts in the other beers are lower but approximately comparable to another.
EAP, T600 values and SO2 concentration
Fig. 47: Endogenous antioxidative potential, T600 values and SO2 concentration in the different beers
There was no detectable EAP value in any beer and only the brew that carried the added CO2
extract from the mashing process showed noticeable SO2 levels. The T400 value of the
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8[a
lph
a-ac
ids]
[p
pm
]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
EAP value [min] T400 value [ESR signal intensity
*10^6]
SO2 [ppm]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
41
reference beer was 20% higher than that of the beers of the 95°C mashing of run and the one
with the added CO2 extract. Furthermore it was 10% higher than the brew with the spent hops
treatment.
ESR slopes of the beers
Fig. 48: ESR slopes of the different beers
The diagram shows as the esr slope of the worts, too, that the reference beer has the highest
T400 value. It is followed by the beer which was produced with the addition of spent hops to the
mash. The beers which were produced with the addition of CO2 extract to the mash and a
mashing off temperature of 95 °C show a quite similar T400 value.
Iron content
42
Fig. 49: Final iron content in the different beers
The final iron levels of the 95°C mashing off beer and the CO2 extract treated beer are identical
to each other and half as high as the iron content of the reference beer. The beer from the spent
hops run shows an iron content between those two.
5. Discussion
As mentioned before the two goals of this practical course were to increase the hop bitterness
yield and also to improve the beer stability to extend the shelf life.
To increase the hops yield in the beer the first hops addition was already done during the
mashing process leading to an expected increase of the bitterness yield. Moreover a special
experiment was conducted in which a higher mashing off temperature was used so that proteins
precipitate already during mashing. It was expected that because the protein trub is removed
before boiling thus before adding hops the bitter acids would not have proteins to bind to and
therefore no way to precipitate leading to a decreased bitter substance loss during boiling.
Generally results show that the content of the bitter substances and other substances spent by
hops such as polyphenols are higher when altering the mashing process according to the
experiments conducted. As mentioned in the results the content of bitter substances such as
alpha-acids in the wort increases as the process advances. Meaning that the boiling process
and thus temperature plays a major role in the dissolution of these substances leading to higher
contents in the pitching worts. The bitter substances content drops during fermentation because
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05[I
ron
] [p
pm
]
Reference beer
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ Spent Hops
43
of different factors such as the pH drop leading to a decreased dissolution and to the binding of
these substances to yeast and other turbidity molecules. Nevertheless the experimental runs
still show higher bitterness values in the finished beer compared to the reference beer. Even
though the values of the runs with the added hops during the mashing process increased it does
not mean that the yield is higher; because more hops was added in total the yield is not
comparable to the other experiment. This is also shown in the IBU values of the wort and the
beer. The experiments show that when treating the mash wit CO2 extract the IBU value is the
highest of them all (fig. ibu) because the extract contains the least amount of polyphenols which
are directly responsible for the trub formation during the wort boiling; this trub is then
responsible for the loss of bitter and isomerised bitter acids. In other words the less polyphenols
the less trub and therefore less bitter acids loss.
The initial goal of increasing bitterness yield was reached with the method of mashing off at
95°C. This is shown in the increased IBU compared to the reference and stunningly similar
values to the experiments with the extra added hops during mashing. In other words even
though no extra hops was added the bitterness values were increased to the levels of the other
methods.
Other quality aspects were also analyzed as they are more important than the bitterness yield to
guarantee a sellable product. Viscosity, turbidity, total nitrogen, CO2, head retention and color
show no significant difference to the reference and lie within or at least almost within normal
ranges from literature. The especially important parameter pH lies perfectly within the normal
range of 4.2 – 4.6. The average alcohol content of 4.8-5.1 could not be reached probably
because the FAN content in the pitching wort was below the needed amount of between 200-
250 ppm leading to a possible decrease in the yeast metabolism and therefore lowered alcohol
production. Another possibility is that because both the original gravity and the extract content of
the beers are within the literature ranges of 10.87 – 13.06 and 3.52-5.17 respectively and still no
normal alcohol values were reached that a microbiological contamination occurred. Generally
the parameters lie between normal ranges (Literature values Attachment 1) considering that
the methods and equipment to brew were not ideal. The wort was continuously in contact with
the ambient air and the brewers themselves increasing the risk of a microbiological infection.
Furthermore no microbiological analyses and above all no sensory analyses were conducted
proving otherwise.
44
Another goal of the course was to achieve a higher antioxidative capacity in the beer by adding
different hop products during mashing in order to decrease the iron content in the beer thus
decreasing the rate of Fenton reactions that lead to ROS which in turn oxidize beer components
and produce off flavours.
The metal chelating properties of hop products such as α- and iso α-acids were shown by
Wietstock et al. [9]. This can also be seen in our trials as the iron content in the beers are
generally lower in the runs that had elevated levels of α- and iso α-acids as well as IBU
compared to the reference beer. In that regard the addition of CO2 extract paradoxically seems
to be superior at reducing the iron content and lowering the T600 values compared to the spent
hops treatment even though the α- and iso α-acids concentration in the later are higher. This
contradicts the results of Wietstock et al. shown in Fig. 10. Furthermore the IBU of the CO2
extract trial are higher than those of the spent hops trial. This might be attributed to faulty
analytical data,differences in the production process or the influence of another compound on
the decrease of iron.
Fig. 50: Overall reduction of iron content in each wort during wort boiling
The reduction of the iron in the different worts in percent differs only slightly lingering around
68% except for the 95°C mashing off wort, which shows a bigger drop of 10% compared to the
worts that were treated with hops during mashing. This might be explained by the unrealistically
high iron content of the 95°C mashing-out run in the pitching wort seen in Fig. 21 which in turn
might be the result of a mistake that was made while collecting the sample as mentioned in the
brew protocol of that respective group.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Val
ue
s [%
]
Reference
Mashing off 95°C
Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ spent Hops
45
Fig. 51: Iron content reduction during fermentation in percent
This error might also be responsible for the high reduction of iron in the 95°C mashing off run
during fermentation seen in Fig. 51. The beer with the added CO2 extract during mashing
showed no change in iron levels at all while the drop of the reference and the spent hops
treated beer varied between 23% and 33%.
The iron content in the beer correlates with the T600 values (see Fig. 47, Fig. 49), meaning a
lower level of iron results in lower final ESR values. The antioxidative capacity in all
experimental brews was improved with the 95°C mashing off regime and addition of CO2 being
the most efficient since they both share basically the same low T600 value. This leads to the
assumption that the increased yield of the 95°C mashing off trial is as effective at increasing the
antioxidative properties of the beer by 20% as the addition of the CO2 extract which has to be
verified in further trials since the addition of CO2 extract is also the only brew that yielded a
notable SO2 concentration in the beer that acts as an antioxidant as well. No EAP value was
recorded as the oxidation started almost immediately. Nevertheless a reduction of the T600
value means a slower and weaker oxidation process.
The two initial goals of this trial, increasing the yield of the hops by altering the mashing off
temperature and increasing the antioxidative capacity by reducing iron through hops addition,
were reached. The quality of the resulting beers stayed mostly within the standard range and
was similar to the reference beer. The increased yield of bitter substances of the 95°C mashing
off trial provided results similar to the trial with the added CO2 extract. Further trials with higher
volumes are needed to guarantee the possibility of scaling up the results. The addition of spent
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Reference Mashing off 95°C Mashing w/ CO2 Extract
Mashing w/ spent Hops
Val
ue
s [
%]
46
hops during mashing with regard to increasing the antioxidative capacity was only half as
efficient as the addition of the CO2 extract. In the wort it had almost no effect on the ESR slope
whatsoever and the CO2 extract run proved to be superior by decreasing the T600 by 68% and
is to be preferred.
Because of the rather “robust” equipment used and the fact that the 4 trials were done by 4
different groups consisting of at least 9 people the results in general are up for debate. The low
tech approach to the trials and the plethora of ways to involuntarily slightly alter the process
undermine the comparability of the resulting data. Mistakes during bottling and sample taking
can lead to increased O2 intake that might alter the data relevant to this experiment. Moreover
since the brewing took place under atmospheric conditions oxygen was present throughout the
entire process. Insufficient documentation of the brewing process because of the many people
involved hinders tracing errors back to the experiment. The error made by group 2 during the
sample collecting of the pitching wort for example might have had a direct impact on the
analytical data. Furthermore false storage conditions or excessive handling of the samples
(shaking etc.) might influence the results as well. As hops and barley are natural products
fluctuations in the composition can occur that can alter the resulting beer quality and might
influence the overall process, especially in small scale trials like this one.
Possible errors made during the analysis of the samples itself might have had an additional
influence. Since no mistakes made during the analytical steps were reported the inaccuracies in
the data cannot be traced back to this but because samples were only analyzed just once for
each parameter finding possible faulty data is next to impossible.
47
6. Bibliography
1. Vanderhaegen, B., Neven, H., Verachtert, H., Derdelinckx, G.
“The chemistry of beer aging – a critical review”
Food Chemistry 95, 2006, 357-381
2. Kaneda, H., et al..
“The Role of Free Radicals in Beer Oxidation”
ASBC Journal, Vol. 47, Nr. 2, 1989, 29-53
3. Slide 3 of the file PR-Besprechung_WS2011.pdf, provided by Philip Wietstock
4. Martinez-Perinan, E., et al..
“Estimation of beer stability by sulphur dioxide and polyphenol determination”
Food Chemistry 127, 2011, 234-239
5. Wietstock, P., Kunz, T., Shellhammer, T., Schön, T., Methner, F.-J.,
“Behavior of Antioxidants Derived from Hops During Wort Boiling”
J. Inst. Brew. 116(2), 2010, 157-166
6. Aron, P.M., Shellhammer, T.
“A Disscussion of Polyphenols in Beer Physical and Flavour Stability”
J. Inst. Brew. 116(4), 2010, 369-380
7. Ting, P., Lusk, L., Refling, J., Ryder, D.
“Identification of antiradical hop compounds”
J. Am. Soc. Brew. 66, 2008, 116-126
8. Liu, Y., Gu, X., Tang, J., Liu, K.
“Antioxidant activities of hops (Humulus lupulus) and their products”
J. Am. Soc. Brew. 65, 2007, 116-121
9. Wietstock, P., Shellhammer, T.
“Chelating Properties and Hydroxyl-scavenging Activities of Hop α- and Iso α-acids”
ASBC Journal, Vol. 69, Nr. 3, 2011, 133-138
10. Hardwick, W.A.
48
“Beer Flavor Stability”
The Brewers Digest, October, 1978, 42-44
11. Ilett, D.R
“Aspects of the Analysis, Role, and fate of Sulphur Dioxide in Beer · A Review”
MBAA Technical Quaterly Vol.32 No.4, 1995, 213-221
12. Coghe, S., Gheeraert, B.,Michiels, A., Delvaux, F.R.
“Development of Maillard Reaction Related Characteristics During Malt Roasting”
J. Inst. Brew. 112(2), 2006, 148–156
13. Wikipedia Article “Vitamin C“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C
Accessed: March 21, 2012
14. Hartmeier, W., Willox, I.C.
“Immobilized glucose oxidase and its use for oxygen removal from beer “
MBAA Technical Quaterly Vol.18, 1981, 145-149
15. Prieels, J.P., Maschelein, C., Heilporn, M.
“Process for removing oxygen in foodstuffs and drinks”
United States Patent Nr. 4,957,749, 18.9.1990
16. Hertel, M.; Dillenburger, M.
“Measures for raising yield of bitter substances in beer brewing (Part 1)”
Brauwelt International, 2010/II; pp. 92 – 95
17. Hertel, M.; Dillenburger, M.
“Measures for raising yield of bitter substances in beer brewing (Part 2)”
Brauwelt International, 2010/III; pp. 148 – 152
18. Hertel, M.; Dillenburger, M.
“Measures for raising yield of bitter substances in beer brewing (Part 3)”
49
Brauwelt International, 2010/IV; pp. 190 – 192
19. Hertel, M.; Dillenburger, M.
“Measures for raising yield of bitter substances in beer brewing (Part 4)”
Brauwelt International, 2010/V; pp. 278 – 282
20. Hanke, S.; Back, W.; Tauscher, F.
“Die Bittere ist entscheidend – Einflüsse auf die Hopfenausbeute und Trubbildung bei der Würzekochung.”
Brauindustrie 2 / 2008, pp. 34 – 37
21. Hertel, M.; Dillenburger, M.
“Controlled isomerisation – commercial brews using the hop yield enhancer”
Brauwelt International, 2012/I; pp. 47 – 49
50
7. Attachments
Attachment 1: Literature values of beer
Parameter Normal Values Reference
Original gravity [°Plato] 10.87 – 13.06 Jurado 2002a
pH 4,2 - 4,6 Jurado 2002a
Color [°EBC] 2.9 - 8.8 Jurado 2002a
Free Amino Nitrogen [ppm] 80 - 120 MEBAK
Total Nitrogen [ppm] 600-1100 MEBAK
Attenuation degree 56 – 70.2 Jurado 2002a
Anthocyanogens [ppm] 5 – 50 Jurado 2002a
IBU 3.1 – 51.2 Jurado 2002a
Alcohol [% v/v] 4.8–5.1 MEBAK
SO2 [mg/l] 3 - 5 MEBAK