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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the Institute of Brewing 2021, Vol.127 (4), p.406-416 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & 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 & 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 & Distilling</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Institute of Brewing & 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 |