Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
DOI 10.1007/s11947-014-1275-0
REVIEW
Membrane Separation Processes for the Beer Industry: a Review
and State of the Art
Alan Ambrosi & Nilo Sérgio Medeiros Cardozo &
Isabel Cristina Tessaro
Received: 3 October 2013 / Accepted: 29 January 2014 / Published online: 15 February 2014
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Beer is one of the most consumed beverages in the
world, placing the brewing sector in a strategic economic
position in the food industry. Beer production has a series of
physical and chemical steps that are technically intensive
when the production scale is increased. Although the produc-
tion techniques have been improving for hundreds of years,
many breweries still employ traditional techniques. The in-
creasing consumption of beer and the competitive mar-
ket have led the industry to search for alternative tech-
nologies to produce a better beer with reduced prices.
Membrane separation processes are interesting alterna-
tives that may be utilised in several steps of beer
production and may replace some traditional and time-
consuming techniques. The objective of this study is to
summarise and present a literature survey of the mem-
brane separation processes that are currently applied in
the beer industry and those processes that have potential
for future applications. The potential of microfiltration,
ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, pervaporation, and gas sepa-
ration to accomplish almost all solid–liquid–gas separations in
a brewery is discussed, providing a clear outline for re-
searchers on the main aspects and developments of the beer-
membrane field.
Keywords Beer . Brewing industry . Membrane technology .
Membrane separation processes
A. Ambrosi (*) : N. S. M. Cardozo : I. C. Tessaro
Laboratory of Membrane Separation Processes, Department of
Chemical Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,
R. Engenheiro Luis Englert, s/n. ZC 90040-040
Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
e-mail: alan.ambrosi@gmail.com
Introduction
The fundamentals of beer production have nearly remained
the same since the invention of the beverage, with mashing of
a cereal, separation of the wort, and fermentation composing
the main processes used around the world. Additionally, the
standard beer composition is based on the German Purity Law
(or Reinheitsgebot, from Germany), which states that beer can
only be made from malted barley, hops, yeast, and water.
Despite this tradition, the techniques of production, quantity
produced, and ingredients used vary from region to region,
and hundreds of types of beer are normally classified accord-
ing to the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP).
The production of beer holds a strategic economic position
in the food industry. Beer production totalled 185 billion
hectolitres per year in 2010, with almost 92 % of beer brewed
in the 40 main beer-producing countries. China is the top
world producer, with more than 449 million hectolitres,
followed by the USA, Brazil, Russia, and Germany (BMG
2011). The large consumption of beer has motivated research
groups and industry to study and develop new technologies to
produce low-cost and high-quality beers.
Membrane technology has been studied and used in the
brewing industry for many years in a variety of solid–liquid
separation processes, either replacing or being combined with
more traditional methods (Daufin et al. 2001). In general,
membrane separation techniques offer significant advantages
over traditional technologies, including capable separation of
molecules and microorganisms, lower thermal impact on
products, moderate energy consumption, and modular design.
These filtration techniques may be used in different stages of
beer production, including raw water treatment, brewing pro-
cesses, and wastewater/effluents treatment. Microfiltration
(MF) is the most widely used membrane separation process
in the beer industry because the majority of the operations
related directly to the beer involve solid–liquid separation.
922
However, ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis (RO), dialysis
(DI), pervaporation (PV), and gas separation (GS) are being
investigated and/or already utilised in other operations of the
beer industry.
Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to provide a
review of the significant applications of membrane separation
technology in the beer industry considering the state of the art,
limitations, potential applications, and future trends. Emphasis
will be placed on the operations associated directly with the
beer because the use of membranes in raw water treatment and
wastewater/effluent treatment has already been discussed in
detail in the literature.
The Essentials of Beer Brewing
Traditional beers are made with malted barley, water, and
hops. Despite the use of other cereals and unmalted grains in
the elaboration, malted barley is the main cereal in use be-
cause, in addition to possessing husks with the ability to form
a filter bed, this cereal has high contents of starch and enzymes
that degrade starch to fermentable sugars for the yeast
(Bamforth 2006). The hops contribute to the flavour of the
beer with various groups of substances, adding bitterness and
balancing the sweet flavour of the beer.
The water utilised in a brewery is often considered a utility,
but this water should be considered a raw material because it
frequently constitutes more than 90 % of the final beer.
Depending on water quality and the location of the brewery,
the incoming water is typically treated to adjust its composi-
tion, and RO is already one of the preferred techniques to
promote this adjustment (Bamforth 2006; Briggs et al. 2004;
Eumann and Schildbach 2012).
The beer brewing process has a series of steps with the
main objective of converting the starch source into a sugary
liquid called the wort or extract and then converting this sugar
into alcohol by yeast fermentation. These steps include chem-
ical and biochemical reactions that occur during mashing,
boiling, fermentation, and maturation, alternated with solid–
liquid separation stages for the separation of wort, wort clar-
ification, and clarification of the final beer. To summarise,
Table 1 presents the basics of the processes involved in
brewing and the importance of each operation.
Membrane Separation Processes in the Brewery
Membrane separation processes (MSPs) are promising in the
beer brewing process and may replace or be combined with
conventional brewing operations to improve beer quality. This
section presents a review of the current uses of membrane
processes in the beer industry and a discussion of some new
related opportunities. The analysis of the literature available
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
Table 1 Essentials of the beer brewing process
Process stage Description
Milling and Barley malt is milled, generating particles (called
mashing grist) accessible to the mashing water.
A gradual increase in temperature is applied to the
mash to activate enzymes for the malt, promoting
the breakdown of complex and insoluble
carbohydrates into other smaller, simpler
molecules.
The conversion of the starch occurs in
approximately 60 min, and then, the wort is
separated from the grains.
Lautering In the lauter tun, a filtration bed is formed by the
husks of the grains contained in the mash,
promoting wort separation from the solids
The grains are further washed with water at the same
final temperature as the mash (typically 78 °C) to
completely deplete the sugars.
The solid residue generated from the depleted grains
in this step is called BSG.
Wort boiling In a kettle, the wort boils for a period of 60–90 min.
Hops are added to provide bitterness and stabilise the
sweet taste of the wort.
Aside from allowing the evaporation of the water
used to wash the malt, concentrating the wort, this
process serves to inactivate enzymes and sterilise
and coagulate proteins.
Whirlpool The wort enters tangentially and at high velocity in a
large vessel, creating a vortex that leads to the
agglomeration of proteins, hops, and other solids
in the central cone at the base of the whirlpool.
The solid residue formed in this step is called “hot
trub” and is separated from the wort.
Wort cooling Cooling is the last step before fermentation and
occurs as soon as possible to prevent oxidation of
the wort while it is hot.
A heat exchanger is used to reduce the wort
temperature to the desired fermentation
temperature, which must be consistent with the
beer style.
Fermentation Oxygen is bubbled into the wort to help yeast to
reproduce itself at the beginning of fermentation.
Yeast is added, converting sugars into alcohol and
CO2 aside from other components in parallel
reactions. Fermentation of wort can require 3–
15 days to complete.
Part of yeast cells and other by-products settle to the
bottom of the tank and are separated from the
“green beer” after the end of fermentation.
Maturation and The maturation occurs at low temperatures (−1 to
packaging 5 °C) to allow for insolubilisation and settling of
proteins and polyphenols.
The “rough beer” is separated from the tank bottom
deposit and filtered to remove residual haze
precursors.
Beer may be filtered or pasteurized to remove all
microbial contamination and packaged into
bottles or kegs.
on the use of membrane-based systems (MBSs) in the brewing
process indicates two main situations in which membrane
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
techniques play a useful role (Daufin et al. 2001): (1) the use
of MBSs as a technological alternative, replacing convention-
al separation processes, and (2) the use of MBSs as an addi-
tional step in the process, aiming mainly at loss reduction.
These two topics will be addressed separately in the following
sections.
Membrane-Based Systems as Alternatives
to the Conventional Separation Processes Used in the Brewery
Mash Separation
After the mashing process, the wort must be separated from
the barley husks. Although the use of a mash filter is also a
well-established practice for this purpose, most brew houses
utilise the lauter tun technology (as described in Table 1), a
conventional dead-end filtration technique in which a filtra-
tion bed is formed by the husks and non-soluble components
of the grains (which form the brewer spent grain; BSG)
(Bamforth 2006; Galitsky et al. 2003). The wort typically
recirculates until clear, and then, the filtration bed is washed
with pure water to obtain a higher yield of sugars from the
extraction. Because spent grains have to be removed from the
tun after each run, lautering is a batch process, which takes up
to 2 h per batch and thus constitutes a yield-limiting factor in
the brewery (Bamforth 2003, 2006).
In this sense, cross-flow filtration using microfiltration
membranes appears as a “continuous” system option to per-
form the mash filtration and prevent cake formation. Figure 1
illustrates the main differences between conventional dead-
end filtration and cross-flow filtration of the mash.
The application of cross-flow filtration using
microfiltration membranes to promote the mash separation
has been investigated since 1985 (Daoud 1985), but most
attempts to date have been unsuccessful due to the low
Fig. 1 Comparison between
dead-end (a) and cross-flow (b)
filtration of the mash in beer
production
923
filtration rate, high power consumption, and membrane insta-
bility caused by abrasive husks and fouling (Schneider et al.
2005). Few studies have been published on this subject; these
works are listed in Table 2, along with the main process
parameters considered. A patent, which was the first related
to this separation, is also cited to facilitate the discussion.
Daoud (1989) filed the first patent related to mash separa-
tion using cross-flow microfiltration (CFMF), suggesting the
use of a tubular membrane with pore sizes of at least 10 μm
and a four-step process: (1) 40–60 % reduction of the wort
volume; (2) addition of sparge liquor to the mash to recover
the remaining soluble extract and for recovery of the filtrate
(wort) until the specific gravity reaches a prescribed minimum
value; (3) diversion of the weak wort produced by the contin-
ued addition of sparge liquor to a buffer tank that provides
liquor for the following batches; and (4) end of the addition of
sparge liquor.
According to Daufin et al. (2001), microfiltration may
produce high-quality wort, accelerate the operation, exhibit
an economical flux, concentrate the initial amount of solids in
the mash (typically 25–30 %) up to a maximum value, and
extract more than 90 % of the spent grains from the wort.
However, a two-stage process is recommended due to the high
amount of solids present in the mash, which would require
operation under low fluxes to provide complete separation of
wort using a single stage. Daoud (1992) reported high fluxes
and a solid removal rate of up to 95 % using tubular stainless-
steel membranes with a pore size of 70–80 μm at the first
stage, as presented in Table 2. Bühler et al. (1993) suggested
the use of a centrifuge decanter to separate particles larger than
15 μm, followed by the use of CFMF, to clarify the wort and
obtain wort satisfying the quality standards.
Schneider et al. (2005) evaluated beer quality after wort
separation with a dynamic membrane filtration apparatus.
Poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) membranes with a nominal
924
Table 2 Summary of works related to mash separation through cross-flow filtration
Membrane
Module Material
Tubular (i.d. >20 mm) Preferably: stainless steel Suitable:
ceramic or filter cloths
Tubular Stainless steel
Tubular Ceramic
Vibrating membrane PTFE
filtration
TMP transmembrane pressure, p patent, n.m. not mentioned, i.d. internal diameter
pore size of 0.45 μm were able to produce clear wort in terms
of turbidity and solid content. MF was capable of removing
large molecules, such as proteins and β-glucans, from the
wort. These large molecules could lead to gel formation and
reduce the filterability of the final beer when using a conven-
tional cake filtration system. However, aside from these large
molecules, MF also removed substances responsible for foam
enhancement and suffered from fouling caused by the depo-
sition of the β-glucans and protein complexes.
The use of CFMF for the mash separation allows the
brewer to use finer grinds of malt and also other cereals in
the grist, increasing the operating range of the brewery.
Moreover, finer grinds have better yields in the starch
conversion and extraction step, leading to reduced pro-
duction costs. However, lower-quality malts in conjunction
with the conventional mashing procedures lead to increased
β-glucans in the wort/beer, which would be detrimental to
membrane filtration.
β-glucans are responsible for membrane fouling/clogging
in almost all subsequent filtration steps during beer produc-
tion, as shown in the following sections. In this context,
removing part of the β-glucans during the mash separation
could provide benefits to the subsequent beer filtration steps.
Gan et al. (1997) studied the use of enzymes to degrade part of
the polysaccharides and determine the nature of the beer
foulants during beer filtration. These authors observed that
the addition of β-glucanases increased the permeate flux by
20 %, indicating that β-glucans affect permeation perfor-
mance. However, the partial degradation of these polysaccha-
rides may also have an adverse effect in terms of fouling.
Low-molecular-weight β-glucans have more mobility and
thus a higher probability of forming aggregates (van der
Sman et al. 2012). In this sense, additional studies should be
performed to understand the effects of adding enzymes to the
wort during mashing and separating the wort from the mash
by CFMF.
Another possibility for the use of membrane technology in
mash separation is as an additional step to separate compo-
nents from the spent grains. BSG is the major by-product of
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
Process Reference
Pore TMP Temperature Cross-flow
size (atm) (°C) velocity (m s−1)
(μm)
10–100 0.35–2.1 70–80 2–8 Daoud (1989)p
70–80 n.m. n.m. n.m. Daoud (1992)
1.3 1.3 n.m. n.m. Bühler et al. (1993)
0.45 n.m. n.m. n.m. Schneider et al. (2005);
Schneider and Weisser (2004)
the brewing process. This grain is normally sold as animal
feed, but several other uses for this residue have already been
studied (Mussatto et al. 2006). Due to the presence of many
beneficial components, separation of the BSG into its individ-
ual components for both food and non-food applications is
important (Gupta et al. 2010; Tang et al. 2009). Tang et al.
(2009) investigated protein extraction from BSG utilising
alkaline extraction and concentrating/purifying the proteins
by ultrafiltration and obtained promising results. Membranes
of 5 and 30 kDa were evaluated, which retained more than
92 % of the protein content from the extract and improved the
quality of the final product by removing salts.
Clarification of Rough Beer
After the fermentation and maturation steps, in which cold is
used to settle part of the yeast and other particles, rough beer
still possesses substances that tend to form particles and haze
during further commercialisation (Bamforth 2003; Benítez
et al. 2013). The consumer normally associates the clarity of
a product to health, purity, and freshness, and thus, filtration of
beer is a common procedure.
The clarification of rough beer must comply with the haze
specification of the beer to produce a clear, bright beer ac-
cording to the European Brewery Convention (EBC) norms.
Filtration through kieselguhr, a diatomaceous earth rock, has
been successfully used for many years to meet this specifica-
tion. However, clarifiers and other agents used in this filtration
can be considered as hazardous materials such that further use
may conflict with the handling/disposal regulations in many
countries.
The potential of CFMF as an alternative to the use of the
filtration agents has been studied, and successful industrial
applications are already available, with advantages that in-
clude quality, fewer environmental issues, fewer health and
safety concerns, simplicity, flexibility, and lower cost
(Fillaudeau et al. 2006; Gan et al. 2001).
In general, because MF is size selective, the colloidal
constituents of beer are naturally classified into three classes,
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
as shown in Table 3 (van der Sman et al. 2012). Soluble
macromolecules present in beer, such as proteins and carbo-
hydrates, are responsible for foam and sensory attributes, so
these biomolecules must remain in the beer. These particle
sizes justify the typical selective nominal pore diameter (0.45–
0.65 μm) used in practice, with commercial membranes typ-
ically made of poly(ethersulphone) (PES) (Sensidoni et al.
2011; van der Sman et al. 2012).
The clarification of rough beer using microfiltration has
been well studied, especially regarding flux enhancement and
quality control of the permeate (beer). Table 4 summarises the
main studies published on this topic with the main process
parameters utilised by the authors. Depending on the data
available, the Reynolds number is presented instead of
cross-flow velocity to make comparative analysis more
meaningful.
Burrell et al. (1994) used tubular ceramic membranes with
nominal pore sizes of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.3 μm. The 0.5-μm-pore-
size membrane displayed bright filtrates with no significant
removal of the desirable beer components, whereas the
1.3-μm membranes produced filtrates of poorer quality.
Similar results were presented by Gan et al. (1997, 2001)
using ceramic membranes with pore sizes of 0.2, 0.5, and
1.3 μm to clarify a cold-conditioned rough beer. Higher fluxes
were obtained with membranes of lower nominal pore size
according to these authors. This result was attributed to the
higher-pore-size membranes being more affected by internal
pore blockage by particles larger than 0.5 μm. However, the
quality of the obtained permeate with lower pore size (0.2 μm)
was reduced due to the retention of proteins responsible for
foam stability.
The retention of macromolecules and finer colloids during
filtration is responsible for a severe decrease in flux due to
membrane fouling. Fouling of membranes is cited by almost
all researchers that study clarification of beer and has
been investigated extensively (Blanpain and Lalande
1997; Blanpain-Avet et al. 1999a, b; Fillaudeau et al.
2007; Gan 2001). Internal pore blockage, with conse-
quent cake layer formation, was found to be the main
contributor to the increase of hydraulic resistance to flux.
van der Sman et al. (2012) presented a complete review of the
hypotheses for fouling formation during beer clarification
Table 3 Classes of beer colloids reported by van der Sman et al. (2012)
Class Examples Typical size (μm)
Particles Yeast, clarification aids dp,1 ≈5
Colloids Haze particles dp,2 ≈0.5–2.0
Macromolecules Proteins, carbohydrates dp,3 ≈0.4
Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are used to identify/differentiate the class of beer
colloids
dp particle diameter
925
using membranes. For that reason, this topic is not reviewed
in detail in this manuscript.
Different methods have been proposed to improve the
permeate flux, including the back flushing (BF) technique
(Blanpain-Avet et al. 1999a, b; Gan 2001; Gan et al. 2001)
and the more complex rotating and vibrating filtration (RVF)
technique (Fillaudeau et al. 2007). These techniques promote
hydrodynamic instabilities on the membrane surface, delaying
the formation of cake and fouling. Alternatively, Sensidoni
et al. (2011) used a two-step process constituted by a prelim-
inary treatment of the beer with enzymes (cellulase and pro-
tease) and subsequent filtration through PES membranes with
a nominal pore size of 0.45 μm. Their results confirmed that
exogenous enzymes degrade high-molecular-weight polysac-
charides and proteins, improving beer flux and reducing fil-
tration problems. However, the suspended particle size distri-
bution was strongly modified, with a direct effect on product
stability, specifically haze or precipitate formation.
Another important aspect of this issue is the use of mem-
brane cleaning procedures to restore part of the permeate flux
from fouled membranes. Wenten et al. (1994) evaluated inter-
nal and external cleaning procedures and found that a combi-
nation of cleaning agents containing caustic and acid compo-
nents restored the water permeabilities of ceramic and poly-
meric membranes. However, a gradual decrease in the water
permeability as a function of the number of cleaning cycles
(72 for the ceramic and 36 for the polymeric) was observed
due to the modification of the surface chemistry for the ce-
ramic membrane and the formation of scale on the polymeric
membrane surface. Gan et al. (1999) observed a synergy
between the caustic cleaning and oxidation methods using
both NaOH and H2O2 at 80 °C. A fast and effective single-
step cleaning process was able to recover 87 % of the initial
water flux within 8 min of cleaning. In this context, ceramic
membranes have the advantage of being more resistant to
chemicals and high temperatures, enabling harsh cleaning.
Polymeric membranes, although less expensive, typically
have a short product life and limited resistance to changing
temperatures and chemicals (Stopka et al. 2000).
Examples of industrial systems for beer clarification using
membranes are the Pentair BMF, with poly(ethersulphone)
membranes of a 0.5-μm pore size and a filtration capacity of
200 hL h−1 (Pentair 2012, 2013), and the Alfa-Laval/
Sartorius cross-flow system, with poly(ethersulphone) mem-
branes configured as cassette modules (Alfa-Laval 2003,
2007).
Cold Sterilisation of Beer
Flavour instability and haze formation may occur during the
product shelf life if the beer is not microbiologically stabilised.
Pasteurisation is commonly used to ensure sterilisation of
926 Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936

Table 4 Summary of works related to clarification of rough beer through microfiltration

Membrane Process Reference

Module Material Pore size (μm) TMP (atm) Temperature Cross-flow

(°C) velocity
(m s−1) or
Reynolds number

Tubular Ceramic 0.5, 1.0, and 1.3 0.8–3.75 <3 2 Burrell et al. (1994)
Tubular and capillary Ceramic and PES 1.0 (ceramic) 0.6 n.m. n.m. n.m. Wenten et al. (1994)
(polymeric)
Tubular Ceramic 0.2, 0.5, and 1.3 0.35-0.93 <3 <0.75 Gan et al. (1997)
Flat disc PC Track-etched 0.2 0.1 and 1 0 Re=1,550–4,950 Blanpain and Lalande (1997)
Tubular Ceramic 0.5 0.8 <3 2 Gan et al. (1999)
Tubular Ceramic 0.14 0.1–0.8 20 1–5 Blanpain-Avet et al. (1999a, b)
Tubular Ceramic 0.2, 0.5, and 1.3 0.4, 0.8 and 1.2 2±0.9 Re =1,550 Gan et al. (2001)
Tubular Ceramic 0.5 0.8 2 Re=1,550–4,950 Gan (2001)
Tubular Ceramic 0.1, 0.45, 0.8, and 0.2–2.0 −1–2.5 3–6 Fillaudeau and Carrère (2002)
1.4
Flat disc (RVF) Ceramic 0.6–4 <1 0–4 n.m. Fillaudeau et al. (2007)
Tubular Ceramic 0.45 0.5–2.7 0.5–9.6 0.15–1.02 Yazdanshenas et al. (2010)
Flat disc PES 0.45 0.7 2 n.m. Sensidoni et al. (2011)

TMP transmembrane pressure, n.m. not mentioned, RVF rotating and vibrating filtration

beer, but this process requires heating, which accelerates
oxidation reactions and changes the beer character.
Cold sterilisation, also called sterile filtration, is an alterna-
tive to pasteurisation. These processes can lead to a lower
deployment cost and a fresher-tasting product, eliminating the
organoleptic problems induced by heating. Cartridge filters
are typically employed for sterile filtration, with the advantage
that the beer is inserted into a compact system very close to the
package filling head, minimising the risk of recontamination
of the beer (Bamforth 2006).
Cold sterilisation is a potential market for CFMF. For this
proposal, MF must ensure the retention of beer-spoiling or-
ganisms without removing essential beer constituents (Stewart
et al. 1998). Membrane filters used as a final filtration stage
can have a pore size as low as 0.45 μm for the complete
removal of relevant bacteria, yeasts, and moulds, resulting in
microbially stable beer with the longest possible shelf life.
However, producing this beer requires more control to ensure
a proper reduction in microbes and a smooth-operating bot-
tling line (Starbard 2008). In addition, sterile filters are not
absolute filters and require a specification for the maximum
concentration of bacteria spoils and yeasts in the sterile-
filtered beer (Priest and Stewart 2006). Studies on this subject
have been conducted over the last two decades, as presented in
Table 5, but the majority of these studies are more related to
membrane fouling and retention of beer components than to
the microorganism removal itself.
Stewart et al. (1998) used cold sterilisation to understand
how different beer constituents (β-glucan, arabinoxylan,
protein, and polyphenol) that originated from barley malting
affect CFMF efficiency. The results from this study indicated
that arabinoxylan and β-glucan strongly influence beer vis-
cosity and reduce MF efficiency due to the increase of the
viscosity. Polyphenols have the tendency to bind with proteins
and form larger particles, also decreasing MF efficiency.
Blanpain-Avet et al. (1999a, b) investigated membrane
fouling and protein rejection during CFMF of a clarified beer
through 0.2 μm polycarbonate (PC) and aluminium oxide
(ceramic) membranes. Even with different membrane charac-
teristics (porosity and hydrophilicity), the permeate flux decay
for both membranes was governed by two successive fouling
mechanisms caused mainly by protein–membrane interac-
tions: internal pore fouling at the initial stages of filtration,
followed by external surface fouling. The fouling layer was
responsible for enhancing the protein rejection, and the rate of
permeation as a function of time drastically decreased at the
initial phase of filtration, reaching a quasi-steady flux at a
second phase after approximately 20 min of permeation. The
initial rate of flux decline was higher when higher pressure
was applied. These results indicate that operating at lower and
constant pressures would increase the process time due to less
compaction of the solutes on the membrane surface.
However, even when the constant pressure condition is
applied, a decrease in the flux rate is observed. Thus, efforts
to obtain higher and more stable fluxes are needed to expand
the use of MBSs in the brewing industry. In this sense, it is
important to conduct studies on the specific characteristics of
industrial membrane modules and the alternatives for operat-
ing these modules. An example of this observation is the
uniform transmembrane pressure (UTP) principle, whose
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
Table 5 Summary of works related to the cold sterilisation of beer through microfiltration
Membrane Process
Module Material Pore size (μm) TMP (atm)
Flat disc PA 0.45 2 4
Flat disc PC and ceramic 0.2 0.1–1
Flat disc PC and CA 0.22 0.79
Flat sheet n.m. 0.65 n.m.
TMP transmembrane pressure, n.m. not mentioned
application in beer filtration has not yet been studied. The
UTP principle was developed by Sandblom (1978) to avoid
the variation of transmembrane pressure that occurs inside
membrane modules and along the length of the membrane,
which leads to high fouling rates. In the UTP principle, the
permeate is recirculated on the permeate side of the membrane
in the same direction as the retentate flow, creating a pressure
drop corresponding to the flow direction of the filtrate that
maintains a constant pressure difference between both sides of
the filter throughout the entire filter area. This principle was
studied in the filtration of dairy products with promising
results (Hurt et al. 2010; Vadi and Rizvi 2001).
The porosity of membranes is also an important factor to be
considered, as shown by Czekaj et al. (2000). Beer with a high
macromolecular concentration caused more severe fouling in
cellulose acetate (CA) membranes (with high surface porosi-
ty) than in PC membranes (with low surface porosity), indi-
cating that membrane morphology controlled fouling (Czekaj
et al. 2000).
Asano et al. (2007) demonstrated that the use of the
0.65-μm-pore-size membrane was not able to retain beer-
adapted microorganisms, and when the cold sterilisation of
beer is the last barrier to beer contaminants, the evaluation of
membrane filters should be carefully conducted by selecting
appropriate test strains and preculture conditions (i.e. brewers
should select beer-spoilage strains common to the brewery
environments to obtain a practical measure of their filter
integrity) as the physiological characteristics of spoilage con-
taminants differ considerably between strains.
Low-Alcohol and Alcohol-Free Beer Production
The market for non-alcoholic beer has experienced a signifi-
cant increase during the past few years, mainly because of new
driving/drinking rules and health and religious reasons
(Catarino and Mendes 2011). Legal definitions of products
that constitute a low-alcohol or alcohol-free beer vary from
country to country, but a low-alcohol beer typically has an
alcohol content of 0.5 to 1.2 %v/v, whereas an alcohol-free
beer should contain less than 0.5 %v/v of alcohol (Briggs et al.
2004). Both beers can be produced either by biological or
927
Reference
Temperature (°C) Cross-flow velocity (m s−1)
n.m. Stewart et al. (1998)
0 n.m. Blanpain-Avet et al. (1999a, b)
23–25 n.m. Czekaj et al. (2000)
n.m. n.m. Asano et al. (2007)
physical routes. The former includes the use of special yeasts,
arrested fermentation, and cold contact, whereas the latter
includes thermal processes and membrane processes
(Almonacid et al. 2010; Brányik et al. 2012; Kosseva 2010;
Montanari et al. 2009; Sohrabvandi et al. 2010). These two
routes are more commonly known as manipulated fermenta-
tion and alcohol separation after fermentation.
The biological method is the easiest way to produce low-
alcohol or alcohol-free beer because no additional process
steps are required. Worts with low concentrations of ferment-
able carbohydrates are utilised such that the fermentation step
produces almost no ethanol (Montanari et al. 2009). Some
disadvantages of the biological method are a loss of flavours
and aroma compounds and a sweeter taste than conventional
beers (Brányik et al. 2012; Catarino and Mendes 2011;
Montanari et al. 2009). In the physical methods, of which
thermal is the most common, the alcohol is removed after the
fermentation step, resulting in a product with characteristics
similar to conventional beer. Although the thermal process
effectively reduces the alcohol content, this process is also
known to cause a deterioration of the beer quality, specifically
a loss of flavours and liveliness.
Membrane processes provide interesting alternatives for
separating the alcohol after the fermentation process and
include such advantages as lower energy consumption, no
chemical additives, and operation at mild temperatures, there-
fore reducing the impact of heat on the product. DI, RO, PV,
and UF are the membrane techniques used in this field.
However, to the authors' knowledge, the use of UF is men-
tioned only in a U.S. patent for the production of a non-
alcoholic malt beverage from concentrated beer (Tripp et al.
1997). Thus, the three main membrane techniques found in
the production of low-alcohol beer are DI, RO, and PV
for the recovery of natural aroma compounds. The more
relevant works related to these techniques are summarised
in Table 6 and discussed separately in the following
sections.
Production of Low Alcohol Beer by Dialysis In the DI pro-
cess, a concentration gradient induces the selective flux of
components between two solutions of different compositions,
928 Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936

Table 6 Summary of works related to beer dealcoholisation by dialysis and reverse osmosis and to the aroma recovery by pervaporation

Membrane Process Reference

Module Material Pore size TMP (atm) Temperature Cross-flow

(°C) velocity (m s−1)

Dialysis
Hollow fibre Cellulose n.m. 0.1 5 n.m. Moonen and Niefind (1982)
Hollow fibre (DI and UF) Regenerated cellulose 500 Da 0–0.4 5 n.m. Petkovska et al. (1997a, b)
PSf 5,000 Da 0–0.7 5
Reverse osmosis
a
n.m. Cellulosic and non- 3.4–17 5–20 n.m. Light (1986) p
cellulosic materials
a
Spiral Cellulosic 35–50 0 n.m. Pilipovik and Riverol (2005);
a
n.m. CA and PA 15–45 5–20 n.m. Catarino et al. (2006, 2007)
Pervaporation
n.m. PDMS films and a
(5–10)×10−3 35–70 n.m. Brüschke (1990)
composite
Plate and frame PDMS composite a
1×10−3 20 3.3 Karlsson and Tragardh (1996)
a
Flat sheet POMS/PEI composite Permeate—1, 10.5, 5, 10, and 15 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 Catarino et al. (2009); Catarino
and 20×10−3 and Mendes (2011)
Retentate—2

TMP transmembrane pressure, n.m. not mentioned, p patent

a
Reverse osmosis and pervaporation membranes are not characterised according to pore size, as the selective layer is dense

with the membrane acting as a molecular sieve permeable
only to certain molecules. The selectivity with relation to a
specific solute depends on the pore size and the surface
properties of the membrane. In the production of the low-
alcohol beer, alcohol is abstracted from the beer into water by
DI. Hollow fibre modules are more common for beer DI, but
flat film or tubular DI materials may also be used. The prin-
ciple of hollow fibre DI and a typical flow diagram of beer
dealcoholisation by DI are shown in Fig. 2.
To maintain a low alcohol content in the dialysate, the
ethanol must be continuously removed (Briggs et al. 2004).
However, all beer ingredients tend to move from the area of
high concentration (beer) to the area of low concentration
(water), whereas some water will diffuse from the dialysate
to the beer (Brányik et al. 2012). The separation of alcohol
from beer with DI occurs at low temperatures (1–6 °C),
avoiding a thermal impact on the beer. However, losses of
low-molecular-weight volatile compounds (higher alcohols
and esters) to the dialysate solution must be considered. A
transmembrane pressure difference of less than 1 bar is often
applied to compensate for the osmotic pressure, to suppress
transport of water into the beer, and to enhance alcohol trans-
port in the dialysate direction (Petkovska et al. 1997b).
Petkovska et al. (1997b) demonstrated that the convective
and diffusive flows take place simultaneously during the
process; the diffusive component is of primary importance

Fig. 2 Flow diagram of beer

dealcoholisation by dialysis,
where: 1A—principle of hollow
fibre dialysis; 1B—schematic
representation of capillary
membrane module; 2—heat
exchanger; 3—stripper column;
4—original beer; 5—
dealcoholised beer; 6—dialysate;
7—make-up brewing water; 8—
glycol; 9—dialysate pump; 10—
alcoholic condensate; 11—
stripping steam. From Brányik
et al. (2012)
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936 929

for the elimination of alcohol molecules, whereas the convec-

tive component plays an important role in the transport of
large molecules.
A large-scale DI unit for beer dealcoholisation was pre-
sented by Moonen and Niefind in 1982. The unit reduced the
alcohol content of a beer from 5 to 3 % wt. without signifi-
cantly affecting the chemical and physical stability of the beer
(Moonen and Niefind 1982).
Regarding the type of membranes, several polymers have
been used for the synthesis of DI membranes, including
cellulose, polyamides, polysulphone, polycarbonate, copoly-
mers of acrylonitrile and vinyl chloride, polyacetal,
polyacrylate, polyelectrolyte complexes, cross-linked polyvi-
nyl alcohols, and acrylic copolymers, such as Nafion (de Fig. 3 Typical flow chart of a beer dealcoholisation process by reverse
Castro et al. 2008). Porous hydrophilic membranes made of osmosis
cellulose (Cuprophane) are commercially available and are the
most frequently used material for beverage dealcoholisation
during the process was reported by Kavanagh et al. (1991) and
by DI (Barth 1989; Moonen and Niefind 1982; Tilgner and
Stein (1993) and was attributed to the imperfect selectivity of
Schmitz 1987).
membranes (Brányik et al. 2012). In such a case, flavouring
compounds may be added to the processed beer to improve
Production of Low-Alcohol Beer by Reverse Osmosis In the
beer characteristics after dealcoholisation. These compounds
RO process, pressurised beer (20–80 bar) is put in contact with
can be obtained by a primary extraction from the beer itself
a semi-permeable membrane to promote the permeation of
before the dealcoholisation process, as discussed in the next
alcohol and some water to the permeate side, whereas larger
section.
molecules, such as aroma and flavour compounds, virtually
In comparison with DI, the use of RO for ethanol removal
remain on the concentrated side. The amount of water lost is
from beer may present some problems related to the use of
typically recovered and added to the feed or at the end of
high pressures. High energy consumption is one problem that
process for adjustment of the ethanol content in the product.
may raise the costs of production. High-pressure pumping
Permeate flux (water, ethanol, and aroma compounds) in-
also increases the temperature of beer, requiring cooling sys-
creases with the increase of pressure and temperature, and
tems to maintain the temperature at an acceptable level.
high flow rates must be used to reduce concentration
During the dealcoholisation process, the concentration of the
polarisation (Catarino et al. 2007).
beer components may lead to membrane fouling, reducing the
The use of two stages was proposed to reduce the alcoholic
membrane permeability. Another disadvantage is the perme-
contents of a beer from 4 to 1 %v/v, with each stage being
ation of the carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolved in beer, which
responsible for removing 50 % of the initial alcohol content
must be re-injected to the desired level (Priest and Stewart
(Light et al. 1986; Light 1986). Pilipovik and Riverol (2005)
2006).
and Catarino et al. (2006, 2007) demonstrated that the mini-
In DI, the pressures required are much lower, limiting the
mum alcohol content of a dealcoholised beer obtained by RO
need for expensive pumps. Even CO2 remains dissolved,
is approximately 0.5 %v/v using the diafiltration mode, which
decreasing the amount of CO2 required to carbonate the beer.
consists of adding demineralised water or the recovered pro-
However, the porous nature of the DI membranes allows for
cess water to the concentrated beer to wash ethanol out of the
the permeation of compounds with higher molecular weights
beer, reducing the alcohol content to the desired value. After
than those that can permeate through the RO membranes, also
the diafiltration, the beer can be still adjusted to a lower
impacting the beer structure. If a process step to regenerate the
alcohol content or fine-tuned to taste by adding more
dialysate is considered, the process may also have high energy
demineralised water (Brányik et al. 2012).
consumption.
Figure 3 illustrates a flow chart of the RO system used to
remove alcohol from beer.
The membranes used in this application are generally Recovery of Natural Aroma Compounds by Pervaporation
asymmetric in structure, with an active layer made of cellulose
acetate, polyamide, or polyimide, and are placed in modules The loss of aroma and flavour compounds during the
of different geometric arrangements (e.g., planar, tubular, dealcoholisation process decreases the quality of the final
spiral wound) (Light et al. 1986). In fact, a high loss of product, mainly because some of the volatile aroma com-
volatiles (70–80 % of higher alcohols, 80–90 % of esters) pounds are removed together with ethanol. Aroma recovery
930
by distillation, evaporation, condensation, and gas injection
techniques may be employed, as presented by Karlsson and
Tragardh (1996), but these processes are labour intensive and
may thermally impact the aroma compounds. The extraction
of aroma compounds from the original beer before the
dealcoholisation and their subsequent addition back to the
dealcoholised beer has proven effective with the PV technique
(Catarino et al. 2009; Catarino and Mendes 2011).
PV is a process in which a liquid feed contacts one side of a
membrane and permeate is removed as a vapour from the
other side. Transport through the membrane is induced by
the vapour pressure difference between the feed solution and
permeate vapour; the vapour pressure difference is typically
obtained by applying a vacuum on the permeate side while
condensing this side by cooling (Baker 2004).
PV has been studied for the aroma recovery from beer,
wines, and juices with positive results (Diban et al. 2008; Ho
and Sheridan 2002; Karlsson and Tragardh 1996; Tan et al.
2005) and was also studied for the dealcoholisation of beer
(Brüschke 1990). Brüschke (1990) used PV as a first step to
recover aroma compounds for later reinjection in the final beer
and as a second step to remove ethanol to a final concentration
lower than 0.5 %v/v. When the ethanol content was reduced to
approximately 90 %, all of the esters were completely re-
moved, and the higher alcohols were reduced to the same
level as ethanol and the acids were reduced to approximately
60 %.
Catarino et al. (2009) investigated the effect of operating
conditions on the performance of the recovery of aroma
compounds before beer dealcoholisation. These authors found
that the permeate flux increases linearly with the temperature
and increases slightly with the feed velocity while diminishing
with an increase in permeate pressure. The selectivities of the
aroma compounds against ethanol were affected by the oper-
ating conditions. By increasing the temperature, the high
alcohol selectivity is increased due to the higher transport
activation energy of alcohols compared to water, whereas
the selectivities of the esters decreased due to the similar
transport activation energies of esters and water. The increase
in the feed velocity leads to a higher increase in the ester
selectivity than in the higher alcohol selectivity due to the
influence of concentration polarisation effects. An increase in
the permeate pressure results in a decreased high alcohol
selectivity due to the lower saturation vapour pressures of
these alcohols, whereas the ester selectivity increases.
A schematic block diagram of a dealcoholisation process
containing a PV unit for aroma recovery is shown in Fig. 4. In
the first step of the process, a stream fraction of non-
carbonated alcoholic beer is pervaporated to extract the aroma
compounds. The retentate stream of this PV unit is added to
the other fraction of alcoholic beer to feed the dealcoholisation
unit. Finally, the dealcoholised beer is blended with the ex-
tracted aroma compounds (approximately 0.3 vol.%) from the
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
PV unit and a fraction of fresh alcoholic beer (5–10 vol.%) to
balance the aroma profile (Catarino and Mendes 2011).
Gasification and Degasification of Beer
The main goal of beer gasification is the formation of the foam
head when the beer is served. The foam head acts as a gas
exchange surface, pitching aromas toward the drinker’s olfac-
tory sensors that provide the first contact with the quality of
the beer in terms of flavour and freshness (Bamforth 2008;
Delvaux et al. 1995). CO2 is the most common gas used in the
gasification of beer, in a process known as carbonation. A
portion of the required CO2 can be obtained from a secondary
fermentation in a closed tank, in which the beer remains for an
appropriate time, with the produced CO2 dissolving in the
solution. Drawbacks of this method include the CO2 concen-
tration variability from batch to batch, the influence of pres-
sure on yeast growth, and some changes in the flavour char-
acteristics of the beer (Priest and Stewart 2006). Modern
carbonation systems use a carbonation stone to produce fine
bubbles, which are dispersed into beer until the CO2 concen-
tration reaches a specified value. Over carbonation must be
carefully controlled when using this method.
Nitrogen is typically used in conjunction with CO2 to
gasify keg-conditioned beers when these beers are sold on
tap at a bar or restaurant. The gas mixture creates a “smoother”
beer, with a creamier and more consistent head, due to the
lower partial pressure of nitrogen, which produces smaller
bubbles than CO2. Nitrogenation is also a practice in industry
that uses the same carbonation stones to inject nitrogen into
the beer. A disadvantage of this method is that the direct
injection may drag the CO2 out of the beer, requiring more
time and expense with gasification.
Membrane contactors have been used for the gasification/
degasification of beer in a process called non-dispersive dif-
fusion (BRAUWELT 2000; Drioli and Fontananova 2004).
Membrane contactors are devices that allow a gaseous phase
and liquid phase to come into direct contact with each other
for the purpose of mass transfer between these phases without
dispersing one phase into the other. CO2 is removed from beer
to some extent, and nitrogen is continuously transferred to the
beer. The process can also be used to increase the amount of
CO 2 if this component is below the specified value
(BRAUWELT 2000).
Membrane-Based Systems as an Additional Step in Particular
Brewery Operations
Recovery of Beer and Yeast
Two fermentation steps are typically used to produce beer.
The first step is finished when approximately 90 % of the
fermentable matter is consumed; the fermentation is stopped
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
Fig. 4 Block diagram of the
industrial process for producing
non-alcoholic beer, where the
flavour compound is recovered
by PV. Adapted from Catarino
and Mendes (2011)
by rapidly cooling the tank of beer, reducing the yeast activity,
and promoting the sedimentation of yeast, along with the
flocculation of other insoluble particles. After the first fermen-
tation, the beer is called “green beer”, and the bottom tank has
a high yeast cell content and high viscosity. In the second step,
the beer is generally transferred to another tank to mature and
produce part of the carbonation that will remain in the beer,
where new sedimentation occurs. After maturation, the beer is
called “rough beer”, and the tank bottom has high contents of
protein and polyphenols, fewer yeast cells, and low viscosity
(Daufin et al. 2001).
The production of the green and rough beer and yeast
recovery may be carried out using natural sedimentation or
centrifugation, but microfiltration is almost an industrial stan-
dard. Microfiltration of tank bottoms allows for the recovery
of almost 5 % of the produced beer; green beer is responsible
for approximately 1–2 % and may be recycled in the wort or
maturation vessel, whereas the recovered rough beer repre-
sents approximately 1.5–3 % and may be returned to the
maturation vessel or sent to the final clarification (Daufin
et al. 2001).
In the beer/yeast recovery operation from tank bottoms, the
microfiltration process aims to concentrate the high solid
content fluid (approximately 10 %) to more than 20 % of
solids. If subsequent filtration steps will be used to clarify and/
or sterilise the beer, using membranes with more open pores is
preferred to recover the beer, allowing for higher fluxes and
economic benefits. Tank bottoms microfiltration typically re-
quires membranes with a 1.0–2.0-μm pore size. As observed
in other applications, ceramic membranes are preferred due to
their longer useful life. However, the use of polymeric mem-
branes, although being less resistant to chemical cleaning, is
growing in importance because of their lower prices and the
continuous developments in this field.
The tank bottom filtration with ceramic membranes has
been studied by several authors, with most of the observations
indicating, as expected, that increases in pore sizes lead to
improved rough beer filtration rates and declining clarity.
931
O’Reilly et al. (1987) obtained filtrate hazes of 0.5–2.5 SRM
with membranes of 1.8 μm. Using ceramic membranes with a
0.2-μm pore size, Esslinger (1990) obtained sterile filtrates
but also removed high-molecular-weight components. Burrell
et al. (1994) tested membranes of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.3 μm and
observed that the 1.3-μm membrane provided the highest beer
fluxes, but with significant losses of beer components. With
respect to the influence of the initial solid content on filtration
performance, filtration of tank bottoms with less than 1 % dry
weight resulted in high filtrate hazes, 0.75–2.75 SRM, where-
as filtration of tank bottoms with more than 1 % dry weight
resulted in greater clarity of the filtrate, presumably because
the fouling layer acted as a secondary membrane of smaller
pore size (Burrell et al. 1994; Murkes 1986).
van Rijn et al. (1997) presented the recovery of yeast/beer
using microsieve membranes with an industrial case from
Grolsch breweries. A permeate flux of 4,000 L m−2 h−1 was
obtained during a period of at least 5 h without any increase in
the transmembrane pressure. This permeate flux is higher than
those obtained with other membranes. However, fouling of
the microsieve membranes by yeast cells was also observed
by Kuiper et al. (2002) using membranes with pores of 0.8–
1.5 μm to filter a lager beer. The authors verified that other
beer components, such as proteins, were responsible for
blocking the membrane pores, creating a fouling layer along
with the yeasts on the membrane surface.
Examples of industrial applications include (1) the GEA
Westfalia PROFI, which combines centrifugation, decanta-
tion, and filtration through ceramic membranes (GEA 2009,
2013); (2) the Pall Keraflux technology, in which multi-
channel ceramic membranes with a 0.8-μm pore size are used
to concentrate surplus yeast up to a concentration of 20 % w/w
with a transmembrane pressure up to 3 bar (Bock and Oechsle
1999; Pall 2013); and (3) the Alfa-Laval BeerRecover AL,
with 0.45-μm-pore PVDF membranes (Alfa-Laval 2013).
The brewer’s spent yeast (BSY) generated in the fermen-
tation and maturation stages represents the other major by-
product from the brewing industry. This yeast is sold primarily
932
as inexpensive animal feed after inactivation by heat, and
much of this by-product is considered industrial waste
(Shotipruk et al. 2005). The reuse of part of the yeast extract
in subsequent fermentations is also a common procedure
carried out in a brewery for economic reasons and/or to
maintain the same strains for several generations. The BSY
biomass presents several properties (high levels of proteins,
vitamin B complexes, and minerals) that make this yeast
outstanding for industrial use and a potential source of nutri-
ents for human or animal nutrition, microbial growth, and
enzyme extraction (Ferreira et al. 2010).
Matsumoto et al. (1987) studied the concentration of yeast
from fermentation broths and yeast suspensions using cellu-
lose triacetate membranes with a 0.45-μm pore size.
Operation pressure and fermentation conditions (initial yeast
concentration) affected the filtration behaviour, and fouling
was controlled by backwashing with the filtrate for 5 s every
5 min of operation, maintaining a constant permeate flux for
3 h.
Shotipruk et al. (2005) used ceramic membranes with a
0.2-μm nominal pore size in a rotary microfiltration to com-
bine debittering and cell debris separation to produce a yeast
extract from BSY. In the rotary microfiltration, the centrifugal
forces on the fluid give rise to Taylor vortices, which are
thought to reduce the accumulation of a fouling layer on the
membrane surface. The results demonstrated that the permeate
flux increased with an increase of the rotational speed due to
the increased shear rate. However, the debittering efficiency
also decreased, reducing the quality of the product obtained
(Shotipruk et al. 2005).
New Trends for the Use of Membrane Separation
Processes in the Brewery
For hundreds of years, the brewing industry has been a tradi-
tional industry with traditional processes and techniques. For
brewers to maintain their competitiveness, any reduction in
costs, such as minimising water and energy consumption, and
reduction in wastewater generation constitute a real gain for
the balance sheet. However, those opportunities are limited
when considering traditional processes.
In this sense, aside from the established applications
discussed previously, membrane separation processes exhibit
other potential uses in the brewery that may enhance brewery
yield. These uses include the recovery of beer and by-products
and the reduction of waste generation, with a consequent
reduction of losses and environmental impacts.
Extract Recovery from Hot Trub
During wort boiling, tannins extracted from the malt and
added hops promote the coagulation of the protein extracted
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
from the malt. Hop particles, the coagulated proteins, and
simpler nitrogenous constituents that interact with carbohy-
drates and polyphenols precipitate, forming a slurry called hot
trub or hot break (Magalhães et al. 2008). Separation of the hot
trub from the wort is a common practice by using the whirl-
pool system. However, the wort losses in this system are
substantial, particularly in large breweries. Further, the trub
cone generated by the whirlpool often collapses when the wort
is drained, causing residual turbidity of the clarified wort.
Centrifugation is an alternative option, but this process has
high cost and energy consumption (Barchet 1993).
The hot trub particle size varies widely depending on the
raw materials and brewing process utilised, but this size is
expected to be in the range of 0.5-500 μm (Montanari et al.
2009). Therefore, CFMF would allow for the recovery of
high-quality wort from hot trub, although no scientific or
industrial data on this subject have been reported to date.
The wide range of particle sizes, the probable fouling prob-
lems, and the high wort temperature may be limiting factors to
the use of membrane-based systems for this application.
Extract Recovery from Cold Trub
Wort cooling before fermentation also leads to the formation
of insoluble matter composed of proteins, protein-polyphenol
complexes, and carbohydrates. This insoluble matter is called
cold trub or cold break (Bamforth 2003; Barchet 1994). The
manner in which cold trub removal affects the characteristics
of beer depends on the yeast strain, the number of yeast
generations used, the method and amount of removal, and
the overall brewery characteristics. Although different opin-
ions exist regarding removing the cold trub, there is a consen-
sus that the removal of at least some of the cold trub improves
the yeast viability and finished beer quality, reducing haze
components (Barchet 1994).
Settling tank, flotation, and centrifugation are some
methods used to promote the removal of cold trub (Barchet
1994). CFMF would also be an interesting alternative.
However, the implications of the higher viscosity of the wort
and the smaller particle size compared to the hot wort must be
evaluated.
Recovery of Carbon Dioxide from Fermentation
The CO2 produced in the fermentation step does not constitute
an environmental problem. Because barley crops are renew-
able, the released CO2 is not an addition to the greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere. However, the recovery of this green-
house gas may represent an attractive operation from an
economic point of view because nearly all breweries use
CO2 for final product carbonation, tank blanketing, air remov-
al, purging of lines, and packing operations (Priest and
Stewart 2006; Starbard 2008). In such cases, care must be
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
taken in the collection, purification, and storage of the gas as
potential contamination sources are associated with gas stor-
age, final delivery to the plant, and point of use (Starbard
2008).
Another important aspect is that the introduction of any
oxygen into the beer is also unacceptable, and thus, the CO2
used in the process must contain as little oxygen as possible.
Large breweries commonly coordinate the CO2 collection
time with the fermentation cycle to minimise the oxygen
content after the presence of oxygen is reduced by yeast
metabolism during fermentation. The purification is carried
out through adsorption columns with activated carbon and
dryers, which remove the gaseous impurities (organics and
sulphur compounds), and through compression/liquefaction
of the impure CO2, removing some of the non-condensable
gases (oxygen and nitrogen) (GEA 2012; Mellcom 2012;
Perry and Coleman 1987 ; Wittemann 2012).
Microbiological contamination is typically avoided by using
sterile filtration with hydrophobic PTFE cartridge membranes
with a nominal pore size of 0.2 μm.
The amount of CO2 generated in the fermentation step may
be sufficient to meet the total demand of a brewery and even
leave some surplus for sale. However, with current systems,
the recovery operation provides a yield of only approximately
60 % due to losses and cleaning of the gas (Briggs et al. 2004).
Gas separation by membranes appears to be an appropriate
alternative for separating organic/permanent gases and sul-
phur compounds from CO2. A membrane separation process
requires far less maintenance and energy consumption than a
comparable absorption process for the purification of concen-
trated CO2 streams. A membrane material that either allows
for the selective transport (diffusion) or selective exclusion of
CO2 is desired (Granite and O’Brien 2005).
Numerous studies considered the separation of CO2 from
other gaseous streams, as in natural gas purification (Echt and
Meister 2009; Rufford et al. 2012; Yeo et al. 2012) and CO2
capture and storage (CCS) due to global warming concerns
(Brunetti et al. 2010; Favre 2007; Yang et al. 2008). To the
authors’ knowledge, no work has been published to date
regarding a membrane-based system for CO2 purification
from fermentation processes.
Capturing CO2 from a fermentation process may be com-
pared to the post-combustion approach (from CCS), in which
a flue gas is directly treated after the combustion step.
According to Favre (2007), membranes may compete with
traditional techniques in terms of energy requirements as soon
as CO2 content in the post combustion feed mixture exceeds
20 %, a level that is easily reached after several hours of
fermentation.
The gas temperature at the end of the fermentation step is in
the range of 8–22 °C (limits for fermentations of lager and ale
beers), which is compatible with the operation conditions of
membrane processes. However, pressurisation of the gas
933
stream would be required to obtain an adequate driving force.
Limitations may occur with the presence of other gases gen-
erated during the fermentation, which may have a strong
influence on the separation. Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and hydrogen sulphide (a common by-product of
yeast) will be present in the fermentation tank. As the CO2
becomes more concentrated and the target compound is ob-
tained, maintaining this compound on the concentrated and
pressurised side of the membrane is preferable, whereas the
other gases must permeate through the membrane. Silicon
rubber is a well-known material used to synthesise mem-
branes for VOC recovery from permanent gas streams
(Khan and Ghoshal 2000; Ohlrogge et al. 2010) and could
be used for CO2 recovery from beer fermentation vessels.
Concluding Remarks
Membrane separation processes are becoming increasingly
competitive compared to other traditional technologies.
Aside from such advantages as energy economy and wide-
ranging applications, the modular design and easier operation
enable continuous operation, which may be a future alterna-
tive for the brewing industry to reduce costs and sustain
market competitiveness.
The use of additives to promote beer clarification and
improve beer stability is minimised or even eliminated, as
membranes are able to produce very clear, sterilised, and
stable beer. The resources spent on disposal costs and effluent
treatment may also be diminished once the waste stream
volumes are reduced.
The use of membrane techniques is not restricted to the
brewery itself but is instead also applicable to water treatment
and wastewater/effluent treatment. RO is increasingly used for
water treatment to produce brewery water, allowing the brew-
eries to tailor-make their water for different products, increas-
ing flexibility in the industry. The brewing industry is one of
the largest wastewater producers; thus, the search for new
technologies for the treatment of these streams is not merely
an option but also an obligation. The use of membrane pro-
cesses in wastewater treatment may enable the reuse of water
streams, reducing the acquisition of water and the increasing
associated costs.
Nevertheless, potential contributions to the further progress
of membrane technology in the brewery industry are diverse
and significant. The overall performances of membranes sys-
tems are determined by membrane selectivity and permeate
fluxes, which are dependent on operating conditions and
membrane characteristics. The development of new mem-
branes with characteristics specific to the beer process, mod-
ules with designed spacers and operating conditions to mini-
mise concentration polarisation and the tendency to foul are
also essential. Hybrid processes with traditional techniques
934
and membranes are relatively unexplored but may be econom-
ic alternatives in the near future. To minimise project errors
and obtain the best results, these properties must be well
defined by bench-scale experiments, evaluating the needs for
each specific case.
Finally, the brewing steps and the membrane applications
presented here may change considerably with the size of
brewery, the type of beer produced, and the goals of the
company. A detailed technical, qualitative, and economic
analysis of the potential of this technology, mainly related to
beer quality standards, is mandatory for the successful use of
membrane technology.
Acknowledgements The authors thank the National Council for Sci-
entific and Technological Development (CNPq), the Coordination for the
Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES), and the Research
Support Foundation of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS) of
Brazil.
References
Alfa-Laval. (2003). Innovation in beer filtration gathers momentum.
Lund, Sweden. Retrieved from http://www.alfalaval.com/about-us/
press/product-press/Documents/071106_cross_flow_en.pdf
Alfa-Laval. (2007). Top end beer from cross-flow filters. Filtration &
Separation, 44(2), 40–41. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0015188207700575.
Alfa-Laval. (2013). Alfa Laval beer recovery system. Alfa-Laval.
Retrieved from http://www.alfalaval.com/solution-finder/products/
membrane-filtration-systems/Documents/PCM00069EN_
LOWRES_beer recovery.pdf
Almonacid, S. F., Nájera, A. L., Young, M. E., Simpson, R. J., &
Acevedo, C. A. (2010). A comparative study of stout beer batch
fermentation using free and microencapsulated yeasts. Food and
Bioprocess Technology, 5(2), 750–758.
Asano, S., Suzuki, K., Iijima, K., Motoyama, Y., Kuriyama, H., &
Kitagawa, Y. (2007). Effects of morphological changes in beer-
spoilage lactic acid bacteria on membrane filtration in breweries.
Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 104(4), 334–338.
Baker, R. W. (2004). Membrane technology and applications (2nd ed., p.
545). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Bamforth, C. W. (2003). Beer—tap into the art and science of brewing
(2nd edition, p. 246). New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Bamforth, C. W. (2006). Brewing: new technologies. (C. W. Bamforth,
Ed.) (p. 501). Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc.
Bamforth, C. W. (2008). Beer: a quality perspective (Handbook of
Alcoholic Beverages). (I. Russel, C. W. Bamforth, & G. G. Stewart,
Eds.) (1st Edition, p. 287). California: Academic Press.
Barchet, R. (1993). Hot trub, formation and removal. Brewing
Techniques, 1(4). Retrieved from http://morebeer.com/
brewingtechniques/library/backissues/issue1.4/barchet.html
Barchet, R. (1994). Cold trub: implications for finished beer and methods
of removal. Brewing Techniques, 2(2).
Barth, N. (1989). Process for the production of fermented drinks with
reduced alcohol content. US patent No 4804554.
Benítez, E. I., Amezaga, N. M. J. M., Sosa, G. L., Peruchena, N. M., &
Lozano, J. E. (2013). Turbidimetric behavior of colloidal particles in
beer before filtration process. Food and Bioprocess Technology,
6(4), 1082–1090.
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
Blanpain, P., & Lalande, M. (1997). Investigation of fouling mechanisms
governing permeate flux in the crossflow microfiltration of beer.
Filtration and Separation, 34(10), 1065–1069.
Blanpain-Avet, P., Doubrovine, N., Lafforgue, C., & Lalande, M.
(1999a). The effect of oscillatory flow on crossflow microfiltration
of beer in a tubular mineral membrane system—membrane fouling
resistance decrease and energetic considerations. Journal of
Membrane Science, 152(2), 151–174.
Blanpain-Avet, P., Fillaudeau, L., & Lalande, M. (1999b). Investigation
of mechanisms governing membrane fouling and protein rejection in
the sterile microfiltration of beer with an organic membrane. Food
and Bioproducts Processing, 77(2), 75–89.
BMG. (2011). World beer production increased again in 2010. (B.
Manager, Ed.). Beverage Manager. Retrieved August 28, 2013,
from http://beveragemanager.net
Bock, M., & Oechsle, D. (1999). Beer recovery from spent yeast with
Keraflux membranes. The Brewer, 85(7), 340–345.
Brányik, T., Silva, D. P., Baszczynski, M., Lehnert, R., & Almeida e
Silva, J. B. (2012). A review of methods of low alcohol and alcohol-
free beer production. Journal of Food Engineering, 108(4), 493–
506.
BRAUWELT. (2000). Non-dispersive diffusion for nitrogenation.
Brauwelt International.
Briggs, D. E., Boulton, C. A., Brookes, P. A., & Stevens, R. (2004).
Brewing: science and practice (1st edition, p. 864). Boca Raton:
CRC Press Inc.
Brunetti, A., Scura, F., Barbieri, G., & Drioli, E. (2010). Membrane
technologies for CO2 separation. Journal of Membrane Science,
359(1–2), 115–125.
Brüschke, H. E. A. (1990). Removal of ethanol from aqueous streams by
pervaporation. Desalination, 77, 323–330.
Bühler, T., Burell, K., Eggars, H. U., Reed, R. J. R., & Olajire, A. A.
(1993). The application of membranes for new approach to brewery
operations. In European Brewing Convention Congress (pp. 691–
700). Olso: Oxford.
Burrell, K. J., Reed, R. J. R., Burrell, B. K. J., Hall, L., & Road,
H. (1994). Crossflow microfiltration of beer: laboratory-scale
studies on the effect of pore size. Filtration and Separation,
31(4), 399–406.
Catarino, M., & Mendes, A. (2011). Non-alcoholic beer—a new indus-
trial process. Separation and Purification Technology, 79(3), 342–
351.
Catarino, M., Mendes, A., Madeira, L., & Ferreira, A. (2006).
Beer dealcoholization by reverse osmosis. Desalination, 200,
397–399.
Catarino, M., Mendes, A., Madeira, L. M., & Ferreira, A. (2007). Alcohol
removal from beer by reverse osmosis. Separation Science and
Technology, 42(13), 3011–3027.
Catarino, M., Ferreira, A., & Mendes, A. (2009). Study and optimization
of aroma recovery from beer by pervaporation. Journal of
Membrane Science, 341(1–2), 51–59.
Czekaj, P., López, F., & Güell, C. (2000). Membrane fouling during
microfiltration of fermented beverages. Journal of Membrane
Science, 166(2), 199–212.
Daoud, I. (1985). Crossflow filtration: an alternative for mash separation.
Brewing and Distilling International, 23(5), 31–32.
Daoud, I. (1989). Separation of wort from mash. US patent No 4844932.
Daoud, I. (1992). Crossflow filtration: an alternative mash separation. The
Brewhouse BDI, 5, 18–19.
Daufin, G., Escudier, J. P., Carrère, H., Bérot, S., Fillaudeau, L., Decloux,
M., … Carre, H. (2001). Recent and emerging applications of
membrane processes in the food and dairy industry. Institution of
Chemical Engineers, 79(June), 89–102.
De Castro, M. D. L., Capote, F. P., & Ávila, N. S. (2008). Is dialysis alive
as a membrane-based separation technique? TrAC - Trends in
Analytical Chemistry, 27(4), 315–326.
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
Delvaux, F., Deams, V., Vanmachelen, H., Neven, H., & Derdelinckx, G.
(1995). Retention of beer flavours by the choice of appropriate glass.
Proceedings of the EBC Congress, 25, 533–542.
Diban, N., Urtiaga, A., & Ortiz, I. (2008). Recovery of key components of
bilberry aroma using a commercial pervaporation membrane.
Desalination, 224(1–3), 34–39.
Drioli, E., & Fontananova, E. (2004). Membrane technology and sustain-
able growth. Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 82(12),
1557–1562.
Echt, W., & Meister, P. (2009). Design, fabrication and startup of an
offshore membrane CO2 removal system . (G. P. Association,
Ed.)88th Annual Convention - UOP LLC. Gas Processors
Association.
Esslinger, H. M. (1990). Technological evaluation of various methods for
recovering beer from spent yeast. In E. B. Convention (Ed.),
Proceedings of European Brewing Convention (pp. 140–150).
Leuven - Belgium: The Brewers of Europe.
Eumann, M., & Schildbach, S. (2012). 125th Anniversary Review: water
sources and treatment in brewing. Journal of the Institute of
Brewing, 118(1), 12–21. doi:10.1002/jib.18.
Favre, E. (2007). Carbon dioxide recovery from post-combustion pro-
cesses: can gas permeation membranes compete with absorption?
Journal of Membrane Science, 294, 50–59.
Ferreira, I. M. P. L. V. O., Pinho, O., Vieira, E., & Tavarela, J. G. (2010).
Brewer’s Saccharomyces yeast biomass: characteristics and poten-
tial applications. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 21(2), 77–
84.
Fillaudeau, L., & Carrère, H. (2002). Yeast cells, beer composition and
mean pore diameter impacts on fouling and retention during cross-
flow filtration of beer with ceramic membranes. Journal of
Membrane Science, 196(1), 39–57.
Fillaudeau, L., Blanpain-Avet, P., & Daufin, G. (2006). Water, wastewater
and waste management in brewing industries. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 14(5), 463–471.
Fillaudeau, L., Boissier, B., Moreau, A., Blanpain-avet, P., Ermolaev, S.,
Jitariouk, N., et al. (2007). Investigation of rotating and vibrating
filtration for clarification of rough beer. Journal of Food
Engineering, 80(1), 206–217.
Galitsky, C., Martin, N., Worrell, E., Lehman, B., & Worrel, E. (2003).
Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for
breweries (p. 74). Berkeley: University of California.
Gan, Q. (2001). Beer clarification by cross-flow microfiltration—effect of
surface hydrodynamics and reversed membrane morphology.
Chemical Engineering and Processing Process Intensification,
40(5), 413–419.
Gan, Q., Field, R. W., McKechnie, M. T., Shaughnessy, C. L. O., Bird, M.
R., England, R., … O’Shaughnessy, C. L. (1997). Beer clarification
by cross-flow microfiltration: fouling mechanisms and flux en-
hancement. Institution of Chemical Engineers, 75(1), 6.
Gan, Q., Howell, J. A., Field, R. W., England, R., Bird, M. R., &
McKechinie, M. T. (1999). Synergetic cleaning procedure for a
ceramic membrane fouled by beer microfiltration. Journal of
Membrane Science, 155(2), 277–289.
Gan, Q., Howell, J. . A., Field, R. . W., England, R., Bird, M. . R.,
O’Shaughnessy, C. L., … O’Shaughnessy, C. . (2001). Beer clarifi-
cation by microfiltration—product quality control and fractionation
of particles and macromolecules. Journal of Membrane Science,
194(2), 185–196.
GEA. (2009). 100 Years Beer Separation with GEA Westfalia Separator.
GEA Westfalia Separator Division. GEA Westfalia Separator Gmbh.
Retrieved from http://www.westfalia-separator.com/fileadmin/
Media/PDFs/Digest/SeparatorsDigest-2009-3-EN-100-Years-beer-
separation.pdf.
GEA. (2012). CO2 recovery: Simple application—double profit.
Kitzingen—Germany: GEA Process Engineering. Retrieved
from http://www.geabrewery.com/geabrewery/cmsresources.
935
nsf/filenames/Refrigeration_E_0712.pdf/$file/Refrigeration_E_
0712.pdf.
GEA. (2013). Systems and processes in breweries. GEA Westfalia
Separator Division. Oelde. Retrieved from http://www.westfalia-
separator.com/fileadmin/Media/PDFs/Brochures/Breweries-BE-12-
10-0004.pdf.
Granite, E. J., & O’Brien, T. (2005). Review of novel methods for carbon
dioxide separation from flue and fuel gases. Fuel Processing
Technology, 86(14–15), 1423–1434.
Gupta, M., Abu-Ghannam, N., & Gallaghar, E. (2010). Barley for
brewing: characteristic changes during malting, brewing and appli-
cations of its by-products. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science
and Food Safety, 9(3), 318–328.
Ho, S. V, & Sheridan, P. W. (2002). Membrane process for making
enhanced flavor fluids. US patent No 6419829.
Hurt, E., Zulewska, J., Newbold, M., & Barbano, D. M. (2010, December
1). Micellar casein concentrate production with a 3X, 3-stage, uni-
form transmembrane pressure ceramic membrane process at 50°C1.
Journal of Dairy Science. American Dairy Science Association.
Karlsson, H. O. E., & Tragardh, G. (1996). Applications of pervaporation
in food processing. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 7(3),
78–83.
Kavanagh, T. E., Clarke, B. J., Gee, P. S., Miles, M., & Nicholson, B. N.
(1991). Volatile flavor compounds in low alcohol beers. Technical
Quarterly—Master Brewers Association of the Americas, 28(3),
111–118.
Khan, F. I., & Ghoshal, A. K. (2000). Removal of volatile organic
compounds from polluted air. Journal of Loss Prevention in the
Process Industries, 13(6), 527–545.
Kosseva, M. R. (2010). Immobilization of microbial cells in food fer-
mentation processes. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 4(6), 1089–
1118.
Kuiper, S., van Rijn, C., Nijdam, W., Raspe, O., van Wolferen, H.,
Krijnen, G., et al. (2002). Filtration of lager beer with microsieves:
flux, permeate haze and in-line microscope observations. Journal of
Membrane Science, 196(2), 159–170.
Light, W. G. (1986). Continuous recycling process for the production of
low alcoholic beverages. US patent No 4617127.
Light, W. G., Mooney, L. A., Chu, H. C., & Wood, S. K. (1986). Alcohol
removal from beer by reverse osmosis. AIChE Symposium Series,
82, 1–8.
Magalhães, P. J., Dostalek, P., Cruz, J. M., Guido, L. F., & Barros, A. A.
(2008). The impact of a xanthohumol-enriched hop product on the
behavior of xanthohumol and isoxanthohumol in pale and dark
beers: a pilot scale approach. Journal Institute of Brewing, 114(3),
246–256.
Matsumoto, K., Katsuyama, S. S., & Ohya, H. (1987). Separation of yeast
by cross-flow filtration with backwashing. Journal of Fermentation
Technology, 65(1), 77–83.
Mellcom. (2012). Carbon dioxide recovery plant. New Delhi—India:
Mellcon Engineers Pvt Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.mellcon.
com/co2-recovery-plant.asp
Montanari, L., Marconi, O., Mayer, H., & Fantozzi, P. (2009). Production
of alcohol-free beer. In V. R. Preedy (Ed.), Beer in health and
disease prevention (pp. 61–75). Burlington: Elsevier Inc.
Moonen, H., & Niefind, H. J. (1982). Alcohol reduction in beer by means
of dialysis. Desalination, 41(3), 327–335.
Murkes, J. (1986). Low shear and high shear crossflow filtration.
Filtration and Separation, 23(6), 364–366.
Mussatto, S. I., Dragone, G., & Roberto, I. C. (2006). Brewers’ spent
grain: generation, characteristics and potential applications. Journal
of Cereal Science, 43(1), 1–14.
O’Reilly, S. M. G., Lummis, D. J., & Molzahn, S. W. (1987). The
application of ceramic filtration for the recovery of beer from tank
bottoms and in beer filtration. In Proceedings of European Brewing
Convention (pp. 639–646). Madrid - Spain.
936
Ohlrogge, K., Wind, J., & Brinkmann, T. (2010). Membranes for recov-
ery of volatile organic compounds. In Comprehensive Membrane
Science and Engineering (pp. 213–242). Oxford: Elsevier.
Pall. (2013). Keraflux - TFF System. Pall Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.pall.com/main/food-and-beverage/product.page?id=
53876.
Pentair. (2012). Beverages systems. Pentair Water Process Technology
BV. Retrieved from http://pentair.com/MarketLanding/resources/
images/7662.pdf.
Pentair. (2013). Beer membrane filtration. Pentair Water Process
Technology BV2. Retrieved from http://www.norit-bmf.com/facts
& figures/.
Perry, E. J., & Coleman, A. R. (1987). Purification of carbon dioxide for
use in brewing. US patent No 4699642.
Petkovska, M., Leskosek, I., & Nedovic, V. (1997a). Analysis of mass
transfer in beer diafiltration with cellulose-based and polysulfone
membranes. Institute of Chemical Engineers, 75(4), 247–252.
Petkovska, M., Leskosek, I., & Nedovic, V. (1997b). Analysis of mass
transfer in beer diafiltration with cellulose-based and polysulfone
membranes. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 75(4), 247–252.
Pilipovik, M. V., & Riverol, C. (2005). Assessing dealcoholization sys-
tems based on reverse osmosis. Journal of Food Engineering, 69(4),
437–441.
Priest, F. G., & Stewart, G. G. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of brewing (2nd
Edition, p. 830). Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc.
Rufford, T. E., Smart, S., Watson, G. C. Y., Graham, B. F., Boxall, J., Diniz
da Costa, J. C., et al. (2012). The removal of CO2 and N2 from natural
gas: a review of conventional and emerging process technologies.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 94–95, 123–154.
Sandblom, R. M. (1978). Filtering process. US patent No 4105547.
Schneider, J., & Weisser, H. (2004). Diafiltration of mash. Journal of the
Institute of Brewing, 110(4), 326–334.
Schneider, J., Krottenthaler, M., Back, W., & Weisser, H. (2005). Study
on the membrane filtration of mash with particular respect to the
quality of wort and beer. Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 111,
380–387.
Sensidoni, M., Marconi, O., Perretti, G., Freeman, G., & Fantozzi, P.
(2011). Monitoring of beer filtration using photon correlation spec-
troscopy (PCS). Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 117(4), 639–
646.
Shotipruk, A., Kittianong, P., Suphantharika, M., & Muangnapoh, C.
(2005). Application of rotary microfiltration in debittering process
of spent brewer’s yeast. Bioresource Technology, 96(17), 1851–
1859.
Sohrabvandi, S., Mousavi, S. M., Razavi, S. H., Mortazavian, A. M., &
Rezaei, K. (2010). Alcohol-free beer: methods of production, sen-
sorial defects, and healthful effects. Food Reviews International,
26(4), 335–352.
Starbard, N. (2008). Beverage industry microfiltration: a comprehensive
guide (p. 303). Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stein, W. (1993). Dealcoholization of beer. Technical Quarterly—Master
Brewers Association of the Americas, 30(2), 54–57.
Food Bioprocess Technol (2014) 7:921–936
Stewart, D. C., Hawthorne, D., & Evans, D. E. (1998). Cold
sterile filtration: a small scale filtration test and investigation
of membrane plugging. Journal of the Institute of Brewing,
104, 321–326.
Stopka, J., Schlosser, S., Dömény, Z., & Smogrovicova, D. (2000). Flux
decline in microfiltration of beer and related solutions of model
foulants through ceramic membranes. Polish Journal of
Environmental Studies, 9(1), 65–69.
Tan, S., Li, L., Xiao, Z., Wu, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2005). Pervaporation of
alcoholic beverages—the coupling effects between ethanol and
aroma compounds. Journal of Membrane Science, 264(1–2), 129–
136.
Tang, D.-S., Yin, G.-M., He, Y.-Z., Hu, S.-Q., Li, B., Li, L., … Borthakur,
D. (2009). Recovery of protein from brewer’s spent grain by ultra-
filtration. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 48(1), 1–5.
Tilgner, H. G., & Schmitz, F. J. (1987). Process for reducing alcohol in
fermented beverages by means of dialysis. US patent No 4664918.
Tripp, M. L., Rader, S. R., Rao, S. C., & Ryder, D. S. (1997). Flavored
malt beverages prepared by using ultrafiltration methods. US patent
No 5618572.
Vadi, P., & Rizvi, S. S. (2001). Experimental evaluation of a uniform
transmembrane pressure crossflow microfiltration unit for the con-
centration of micellar casein from skim milk. Journal of Membrane
Science, 189(1), 69–82.
Van der Sman, R. G. M., Vollebregt, H. M., Mepschen, A., & Noordman,
T. R. (2012). Review of hypotheses for fouling during beer clarifi-
cation using membranes. Journal of Membrane Science, 396, 22–
31.
Van Rijn, C. J. M., Nijdam, W., van der Stappen, L. A. V. G., Raspe, O. J.
A., Broens, l., & van Hoof, S. C. J. M. (1997). Innovation in yeast
cell filtration: cost saving technology with high flux membranes. In
Proceedings of the EBC Congress (pp. 501–507).
Wenten, I. G., Taylour, J., Skou, F., Rasmussen, A., & Jonsson, G. (1994).
Membrane cleaning after beer clarification. In Proceedings of
European Brewing Convention (pp. 188–195). Sydney—Australia:
University of New South Wales.
Wittemann. (2012). Carbon dioxide recovery (Brewery). Palm Coast—
USA: Wittemann Company. Retrieved from http://www.
pureco2nfidence.com/launch/images/downloads/literature/brewery/
brewery_recovery_literature.pdf.
Yang, H., Xu, Z., Fan, M., Gupta, R., Slimane, R. B., Bland, A. E., et al.
(2008). Progress in carbon dioxide separation and capture: a review.
Journal of Environmental Sciences, 20(1), 14–27.
Yazdanshenas, M., Soltanieh, M., Tabatabaei, N., Reza, S. A., Fillaudeau,
L., & Tabatabaei Nejad, S. A. R. (2010). Cross-flow microfiltration
of rough non-alcoholic beer and diluted malt extract with tubular
ceramic membranes: investigation of fouling mechanisms. Journal
of Membrane Science, 362(1–2), 306–316.
Yeo, Z. Y., Chew, T. L., Zhu, P. W., Mohamed, A. R., & Chai, S.-P.
(2012). Conventional processes and membrane technology for car-
bon dioxide removal from natural gas: a review. Journal of Natural
Gas Chemistry, 21(3), 282–298.