The enhanced susceptibility of alcohol‐free and low alcohol beers to microbiological spoilage: implications for draught dispense

The spoilage of six alcohol‐free (AFB, ≤ 0.05% ABV) and two low alcohol beers (LAB, ≤ 1.2% ABV) was assessed by challenge testing with microflora from draught beer. Spoilage of AFB and LABs was greater (2‐5 x) than two ‘control’ premium lager beers (4.5% ABV). Measurement of spoilage by challenge te...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the Institute of Brewing 2021, Vol.127 (4), p.406-416
1. Verfasser: Quain, David E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 416
container_issue 4
container_start_page 406
container_title Journal of the Institute of Brewing
container_volume 127
creator Quain, David E.
description The spoilage of six alcohol‐free (AFB, ≤ 0.05% ABV) and two low alcohol beers (LAB, ≤ 1.2% ABV) was assessed by challenge testing with microflora from draught beer. Spoilage of AFB and LABs was greater (2‐5 x) than two ‘control’ premium lager beers (4.5% ABV). Measurement of spoilage by challenge testing was reproducible irrespective of the source of draught beer microflora (public house, date, or beer style). Spoilage was correlated with the level of ‘fermentables’ (glucose + fructose + maltose) in the product but was also dependent on the availability of micronutrients. The addition of ethanol (2‐8% ABV) to three AFBs and a LAB resulted only in a modest inhibition of spoilage (collectively 24% at 8% ABV) and, it is suggested, that the complexity of the product composition provides protection. Given the vulnerability of AFBs and LABs to spoilage and susceptibility to microorganisms that are usually supressed by ethanol, it is strongly recommended that low or alcohol‐free beer styles are not offered to consumers in the on‐trade by conventional long line dispense systems. It is suggested that AFB and LABs in a draught format require innovative, hygienically designed stand‐alone dispense systems that remove or significantly minimise the risk of microbiological contamination, growth and associated product spoilage. © 2021 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jib.670
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2593337787</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2593337787</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2890-aca6d1ca9008fbf3efb0dbb07bc2ec970d13bef2ac40a4de2c692547a6ed52ee3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10MtKw0AUBuBBFKxVfIUBFy4k9WRya9xp8VIpuKnrMJczzZRpJs4klO7EJ_AZfRIj1aWrAz8f53B-Qs5jmMQA7HptxCQv4ICMGGQQQRrnh2QEkOZRWWRwTE5CWANkKYuzEflY1kixqXkjUdHQB4ltZ4SxpttRpym30tXOfr1_ao9IeaOoddu_mApEH2jn6MZI74Rx1q2M5JaG1hnLV3hDzaa1Q9QZ1wSqnafK835Vd1SZ0GIT8JQcaW4Dnv3OMXl9uF_OnqLFy-N8druIJJuWEHHJcxVLXgJMtdAJagFKCCiEZCjLAlScCNSMyxR4qpDJvGRZWvAcVcYQkzG52O9tvXvrMXTV2vW-GU5WLCuTJCmKaTGoy70a_gnBo65abzbc76oYqp-Cq6Hgaih4kFd7uTUWd_-x6nl-96O_AcUigK4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2593337787</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The enhanced susceptibility of alcohol‐free and low alcohol beers to microbiological spoilage: implications for draught dispense</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Quain, David E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Quain, David E.</creatorcontrib><description>The spoilage of six alcohol‐free (AFB, ≤ 0.05% ABV) and two low alcohol beers (LAB, ≤ 1.2% ABV) was assessed by challenge testing with microflora from draught beer. Spoilage of AFB and LABs was greater (2‐5 x) than two ‘control’ premium lager beers (4.5% ABV). Measurement of spoilage by challenge testing was reproducible irrespective of the source of draught beer microflora (public house, date, or beer style). Spoilage was correlated with the level of ‘fermentables’ (glucose + fructose + maltose) in the product but was also dependent on the availability of micronutrients. The addition of ethanol (2‐8% ABV) to three AFBs and a LAB resulted only in a modest inhibition of spoilage (collectively 24% at 8% ABV) and, it is suggested, that the complexity of the product composition provides protection. Given the vulnerability of AFBs and LABs to spoilage and susceptibility to microorganisms that are usually supressed by ethanol, it is strongly recommended that low or alcohol‐free beer styles are not offered to consumers in the on‐trade by conventional long line dispense systems. It is suggested that AFB and LABs in a draught format require innovative, hygienically designed stand‐alone dispense systems that remove or significantly minimise the risk of microbiological contamination, growth and associated product spoilage. © 2021 The Institute of Brewing &amp; Distilling</description><identifier>ISSN: 0046-9750</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2050-0416</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jib.670</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Institute of Brewing &amp; Distilling</publisher><subject>Alcohol ; alcohol‐free ; Beer ; Brewing ; Contamination ; Distillation ; draught beer ; Ethanol ; Lager ; Low alcohol ; Maltose ; Microbial contamination ; microbiological spoilage ; Microflora ; Micronutrients ; Microorganisms ; Nutrient availability ; quality ; Spoilage</subject><ispartof>Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 2021, Vol.127 (4), p.406-416</ispartof><rights>2021 The Institute of Brewing &amp; Distilling</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2890-aca6d1ca9008fbf3efb0dbb07bc2ec970d13bef2ac40a4de2c692547a6ed52ee3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2890-aca6d1ca9008fbf3efb0dbb07bc2ec970d13bef2ac40a4de2c692547a6ed52ee3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1343-3019</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjib.670$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjib.670$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,4010,27900,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Quain, David E.</creatorcontrib><title>The enhanced susceptibility of alcohol‐free and low alcohol beers to microbiological spoilage: implications for draught dispense</title><title>Journal of the Institute of Brewing</title><description>The spoilage of six alcohol‐free (AFB, ≤ 0.05% ABV) and two low alcohol beers (LAB, ≤ 1.2% ABV) was assessed by challenge testing with microflora from draught beer. Spoilage of AFB and LABs was greater (2‐5 x) than two ‘control’ premium lager beers (4.5% ABV). Measurement of spoilage by challenge testing was reproducible irrespective of the source of draught beer microflora (public house, date, or beer style). Spoilage was correlated with the level of ‘fermentables’ (glucose + fructose + maltose) in the product but was also dependent on the availability of micronutrients. The addition of ethanol (2‐8% ABV) to three AFBs and a LAB resulted only in a modest inhibition of spoilage (collectively 24% at 8% ABV) and, it is suggested, that the complexity of the product composition provides protection. Given the vulnerability of AFBs and LABs to spoilage and susceptibility to microorganisms that are usually supressed by ethanol, it is strongly recommended that low or alcohol‐free beer styles are not offered to consumers in the on‐trade by conventional long line dispense systems. It is suggested that AFB and LABs in a draught format require innovative, hygienically designed stand‐alone dispense systems that remove or significantly minimise the risk of microbiological contamination, growth and associated product spoilage. © 2021 The Institute of Brewing &amp; Distilling</description><subject>Alcohol</subject><subject>alcohol‐free</subject><subject>Beer</subject><subject>Brewing</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Distillation</subject><subject>draught beer</subject><subject>Ethanol</subject><subject>Lager</subject><subject>Low alcohol</subject><subject>Maltose</subject><subject>Microbial contamination</subject><subject>microbiological spoilage</subject><subject>Microflora</subject><subject>Micronutrients</subject><subject>Microorganisms</subject><subject>Nutrient availability</subject><subject>quality</subject><subject>Spoilage</subject><issn>0046-9750</issn><issn>2050-0416</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10MtKw0AUBuBBFKxVfIUBFy4k9WRya9xp8VIpuKnrMJczzZRpJs4klO7EJ_AZfRIj1aWrAz8f53B-Qs5jmMQA7HptxCQv4ICMGGQQQRrnh2QEkOZRWWRwTE5CWANkKYuzEflY1kixqXkjUdHQB4ltZ4SxpttRpym30tXOfr1_ao9IeaOoddu_mApEH2jn6MZI74Rx1q2M5JaG1hnLV3hDzaa1Q9QZ1wSqnafK835Vd1SZ0GIT8JQcaW4Dnv3OMXl9uF_OnqLFy-N8druIJJuWEHHJcxVLXgJMtdAJagFKCCiEZCjLAlScCNSMyxR4qpDJvGRZWvAcVcYQkzG52O9tvXvrMXTV2vW-GU5WLCuTJCmKaTGoy70a_gnBo65abzbc76oYqp-Cq6Hgaih4kFd7uTUWd_-x6nl-96O_AcUigK4</recordid><startdate>2021</startdate><enddate>2021</enddate><creator>Quain, David E.</creator><general>Institute of Brewing &amp; Distilling</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>P64</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1343-3019</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2021</creationdate><title>The enhanced susceptibility of alcohol‐free and low alcohol beers to microbiological spoilage: implications for draught dispense</title><author>Quain, David E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2890-aca6d1ca9008fbf3efb0dbb07bc2ec970d13bef2ac40a4de2c692547a6ed52ee3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Alcohol</topic><topic>alcohol‐free</topic><topic>Beer</topic><topic>Brewing</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Distillation</topic><topic>draught beer</topic><topic>Ethanol</topic><topic>Lager</topic><topic>Low alcohol</topic><topic>Maltose</topic><topic>Microbial contamination</topic><topic>microbiological spoilage</topic><topic>Microflora</topic><topic>Micronutrients</topic><topic>Microorganisms</topic><topic>Nutrient availability</topic><topic>quality</topic><topic>Spoilage</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Quain, David E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics &amp; Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of the Institute of Brewing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Quain, David E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The enhanced susceptibility of alcohol‐free and low alcohol beers to microbiological spoilage: implications for draught dispense</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the Institute of Brewing</jtitle><date>2021</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>127</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>406</spage><epage>416</epage><pages>406-416</pages><issn>0046-9750</issn><eissn>2050-0416</eissn><abstract>The spoilage of six alcohol‐free (AFB, ≤ 0.05% ABV) and two low alcohol beers (LAB, ≤ 1.2% ABV) was assessed by challenge testing with microflora from draught beer. Spoilage of AFB and LABs was greater (2‐5 x) than two ‘control’ premium lager beers (4.5% ABV). Measurement of spoilage by challenge testing was reproducible irrespective of the source of draught beer microflora (public house, date, or beer style). Spoilage was correlated with the level of ‘fermentables’ (glucose + fructose + maltose) in the product but was also dependent on the availability of micronutrients. The addition of ethanol (2‐8% ABV) to three AFBs and a LAB resulted only in a modest inhibition of spoilage (collectively 24% at 8% ABV) and, it is suggested, that the complexity of the product composition provides protection. Given the vulnerability of AFBs and LABs to spoilage and susceptibility to microorganisms that are usually supressed by ethanol, it is strongly recommended that low or alcohol‐free beer styles are not offered to consumers in the on‐trade by conventional long line dispense systems. It is suggested that AFB and LABs in a draught format require innovative, hygienically designed stand‐alone dispense systems that remove or significantly minimise the risk of microbiological contamination, growth and associated product spoilage. © 2021 The Institute of Brewing &amp; Distilling</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Institute of Brewing &amp; Distilling</pub><doi>10.1002/jib.670</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1343-3019</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0046-9750
ispartof Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 2021, Vol.127 (4), p.406-416
issn 0046-9750
2050-0416
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2593337787
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Alcohol
alcohol‐free
Beer
Brewing
Contamination
Distillation
draught beer
Ethanol
Lager
Low alcohol
Maltose
Microbial contamination
microbiological spoilage
Microflora
Micronutrients
Microorganisms
Nutrient availability
quality
Spoilage
title The enhanced susceptibility of alcohol‐free and low alcohol beers to microbiological spoilage: implications for draught dispense
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T06%3A03%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20enhanced%20susceptibility%20of%20alcohol%E2%80%90free%20and%20low%20alcohol%20beers%20to%20microbiological%20spoilage:%20implications%20for%20draught%20dispense&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20Institute%20of%20Brewing&rft.au=Quain,%20David%20E.&rft.date=2021&rft.volume=127&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=406&rft.epage=416&rft.pages=406-416&rft.issn=0046-9750&rft.eissn=2050-0416&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jib.670&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2593337787%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2593337787&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true