European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 244, Issue 5, pp 903–912 | Cite as

Influence of gluten-free adjuncts on beer colloidal stability

  • Stefano Buiatti
  • Stefano Bertoli
  • Paolo Passaghe
Original Paper


This work deals with issues related to the colloidal stability of craft beers. It is generally known that haze in beer is directly related to the formation of complexes resulting from the interaction of haze active polyphenols and protein fractions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. How some variables in the malting process and formulation can contribute to the colloidal stability of the final beer have been considered. Micro malting tests on four glutenfree cereals/pseudocereals (millet, amaranth, buckwheat and quinoa) were carried out in order to identify the optimal conditions for obtaining malts suitable for brewing. Quality of malts was checked analysing diastatic power, beta glucans content and Kolbach Index. The gluten-free malts were under-modified if compared to traditional malts, but potentially suitable as adjuncts (especially buckwheat). Nine beers with different formulations were produced in the laboratory using the malts obtained from the micro malting tests. The evaluation of beer stability was carried out analyzing indices validated by European Brewery Convention (sensitive proteins and cold turbidity) and two unconventional methods (gluten analysis and antioxidant activity). Moreover, three beers (the reference obtained with 100% malted barley, the other two with the buckwheat malts) were subjected to CE analyses (Capillary Electrophoresis) in order to define their protein content. According to the results the use of gluten-free adjuncts, besides relevant process conditions (i.e. alkalinized first steeping water in the malting process), can lead to more stable final products with a gluten content less than 100 mg/L and so potentially suitable by coeliacs according to EU regulation 828/2014.


Colloidal stability Craft beers Gluten-free adjuncts Gluten-free beers 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Wu MJ, Rogers PJ, Clarke FM (2012) 125th anniversary review: the role of proteins in beer redox stability. J Inst Brew 118:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lewis MJ, Bamforth CW (2006) Essays in brewing science. Springer, New York, p 183Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briggs DE, Boulton CA, Brookes PA, Stevens R (2004) Brewing science and practice. Wood head Publishing Limited, Cambridge, p 863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bamforth CW (1999) Beer haze. J Am Soc Brew Chem 57:81–90Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McMurrough I, O’Rourke T (1997) New insight into the mechanism of achieving colloidal stability. Tech Q Master Brew Assoc Am 34:271–277Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hough JS, Briggs DE, Stevens R, Young TW (1982) Malting and brewing science, vol 2. In: Hopped wort and beer, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, London, p 877Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doner LW, Becard G, Irwin PL (1993) Binding of flavonoids by polyvinylpolypyrrolidone. J Agric Food Chem 41:753–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siebert KJ, Lynn PY (1998) Comparison of polyphenol interactions with polyvinylpolypyrrolidone and haze-active protein. J Am Soc Brew Chem 56:24–31Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leiper KA, Stewart GG, McKeown IP, Nock T, Thompson MJ (2005) Optimising beer stabilisation by the selective removal of tannoids and sensitive proteins. J Inst Brew 111:118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siebert KJ, Lynn PY (1997) Mechanisms of beer colloidal stabilization. J Am Soc Brew Chem 55:73–78Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fontana M, Buiatti S (2009) Amino acids in beer. In: Beer in health and disease prevention, Elsevier Inc., London, pp 273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chapon L (1993) Nephelometry as a method for studying the relations between polyphenols and proteins. J Inst Brew 99:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jurková M, Horák T, Hašková D, Čulík J, Čejka P, Kellner V (2012) Control of antioxidant beer activity by the mashing process. J Inst Brew 118:230–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siebert KJ, Lynn PY (2006) Comparison of methods for measuring polyphenols in beer. J Am Soc Brew Chem 64:127–134Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siebert KJ, Lynn PY (2007) The effect of beer pH on colloidal stabilization with adsorbents. J Am Soc Brew Chem 65:52–58Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siebert KJ, Lynn PY (2008) On the mechanisms of adsorbent interactions with haze-active proteins and polyphenols. J Am Soc Brew Chem 66:48–54Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aron PM, Shellhammer TH (2010) A discussion of polyphenols in beer physical and flavour stability. J Inst Brew 116:369–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siebert KJ, Troukhanova NV, Lynn PY (1996) Nature of polyphenol–protein interactions. J Agric Food Chem 44:80–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang JI, Siebert KJ (2001) Development of a method for assessing haze-active protein in beer by dye binding. J Am Soc Brew Chem 59:172–182Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Di Ghionno L, Sileoni V, Marconi O, De Francesco G, Perretti G (2017) Comparative study on quality attributes of gluten-free beer from malted and unmalted teff [Eragrostis tef (zucc.) trotter]. LWT Food Sci Technol 84:746–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayer H, Ceccaroni D, Marconi O, Sileoni V, Perretti G, Fantozzi P (2016) Development of an all rice malt beer: gluten free alternative. LWT Food Sci Technol 67:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    European Brewery Convention (1998–2007) (ed) Analytica-EBC. Fachverlag Hans Carl, NürnbergGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pelembe LAM, Dewar J, Taylor JRN (2002) Effect of malting conditions on pearl millet malt quality. J Inst Brew 108:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wijngaard HH, Ulmer HM, Arendt EK (2005) The effect of germination temperature on malt quality of buckwheat. J Am Soc Brew Chem 63:31–36Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wijngaard HH, Ulmer HM, Neumann M, Arendt EK (2005) The effect of steeping time on the final malt quality of buckwheat. J Inst Brew 111:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zarnkow M, Keßler M, Burberg F, Back W, Arendt EK, Kreisz S (2007) The use of response surface methodology to optimise malting conditions of Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) as a raw material for gluten-free foods. J Inst Brew 113:280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Alvarez-Jubete L, Wijngaard H, Arendt EK, Gallagher E (2010) Polyphenol composition and in vitro antioxidant activity of amaranth, quinoa buckwheat and wheat as affected by sprouting and baking. Food Chem 119:770–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Meo B, Freeman G, Marconi O, Booer C, Perretti G, Fantozzi P (2011) Behaviour of malted cereals and pseudo-cereals for gluten-free beer production. J Inst Brew 117:541–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Briggs DE (1998) Malts and malting. Blackie Academic and Professional/Gaithersburg, Aspen Publishing, London, p 796Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krahl M, Back W, Zarnkow M, Kreisz S (2008) Determination of optimised malting conditions for the enrichment of rutin, vitexin and orientin in common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench). J Inst Brew 114:294–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Müller C, Kleinwächter M, Selmar D, Methner FJ (2014) The influence of elevated germination temperatures on the resulting malt quality and malting losses. BrewingScience Monatsschr Brauwissenschaft 67:18–25Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Müller C, Methner FJ (2015) An accelerated malting procedure—influences on malt quality and cost savings by reduced energy consumption and malting losses. J Inst Brew 121:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zanker G, Benes R (2004) Analytical device for measuring the ethanol concentration in beer based on NIR absorption. Brauwelt Int 22:110–113Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tubaro F, Micossi E, Ursini F (1996) The antioxidant capacity of complex mixtures by kinetic analysis of crocin bleaching inhibition. JAOCS 73:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tian M, Zhang J, Mohamed AC, Han Y, Guo L, Yang L (2014) Efficient capillary electrophoresis separation and determination of free amino acids in beer samples. Electrophoresis 35:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nunnally B, Park SS, Patel K, Hong M, Zhang X, Wang S-X, Rener B, Reed-Bogan A, Salas-Solano O, Lau W, Girard M, Carnegie H, Garcia-Cañas V, Cheng KC, Zeng M, Ruesch M, Frazier R, Jochheim C, Natarajan K, Jessop K, Saeed M, Moffatt F, Madren S, Thiam S, Altria K (2006) A series of collaborations between various pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities concerning the analysis of biomolecules using capillary electrophoresis. Chromatographia 64:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nic Phiarais BP, Wijngaard HH, Arendt EK (2005) The impact of kilning on enzymatic activity of buckwheat malt. J Inst Brew 111:290–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Goode DL, Rapp L, Schober TJ, Ulmer HM (2005) Development of a new rheological laboratory method for mash systems—its application in the characterization of grain modification levels. J Am Soc Brew Chem 63:76–86Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Goode DL, Wiltschko EA, Ulmer HM, Arendt EK (2005) Application of the rapid visco analyser as a theological tool for the characterisation of mash viscosity as affected by the level of barley adjunct. J Inst Brew 111:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wijngaard HH, Arendt EK (2006) Optimisation of a mashing program for 100% malted buckwheat. J Inst Brew 112:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kunz T, Methner F-J (2009) The influence of radical reactions on the haze formation in stabilized beer. In: Proceedings of the 32nd European Brewery Convention, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kunz T, Diniz P, Methner F-J (2010) The influence of metallic ions oxidation states and the pH value on the haze formation in beer. In: Proceedings of the 73rd ASBC annual meeting, ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dienstbier M, Gabriel P, Sladký P, Sigler K (2011) Prediction of colloidal stability of highly stabilized beers by a modified Chapon tannoid content test. J Inst Brew 117:329–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thoufeek Ahamed N, Singhal RS, Kulkarni PR, Pal M (1998) A lesser-known grain, Chenopodium quinoa: review of the chemical composition of its edible parts. Food Nutr Bull 19:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Arendt EK, Dal Bello F (2008) In: Gluten free cereal products and beverages. Academic Press, New York, pp 120–150Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Buiatti
    • 1
  • Stefano Bertoli
    • 2
  • Paolo Passaghe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural, Food, Animal and Environmental SciencesUniversity of UdineUdineItaly
  2. 2.Baladin, Independent Italian Farm BreweryPiozzoItaly

Personalised recommendations