Form No. 22-152-01 The economics of antifoam by J. |. Evans, M.Sc. Dow Corning Limited, Barry, Glamorgan, U.K.The economics of antifoam Beer is one of those products where foam is both an essential sales feature of the finished product and a very real source of financial loss during its Production. The stability of the foam head on a glass of beer is widely (but wrongly?) considered by the consumer to reflect on the quality of the product, and in Continental Europe it is often the Practice todispense the beer ina fashion deliberately intended to generate a foam head occupying up to 50 per cent of the glass. The British drinker is rather suspicious of such flourishes, says J. 1. Evans of Dow Corning Ltd., but still expects some foam particularly if it exhibits a lacing effect on the sides of the glass as it is drained. Here, he examines the economics of using a foam control agent, and some of the problems involved. jelopment of cylindro-conical fermenting vessels—such as this 1.000 id the Crawley works of A.P.V.—the problems of foam yo caTeR for the British drinker and his liking for foam (the origins of which it is now difficult to identify), the brewer faces some major engineering and pro- cessing problems. For example, in the {op fermentation process for English ales itis often the practice to run the ferment ing vessels only 5 per cent-65 per cent full to allow space forthe foam generated during fermentation, Not only does this foam occupy useful vessel capacity, but it inevitably contains the most surface active species in the wort, i. those com- ponents that subsequently would help to stabilise the foam in the consumer's silass. These vital ingredients will be lost ‘hen the yeast cap is removed, by skim- ‘ming or they may be irreversibly changed in the foam, for example by oxidation. Cylindro-conical vessels Each time the wort ar beer foams dur- ing production or processing some of its foaming propensity is lost forever. With the recent development of the Nathan type eylindro-corical vessels this. prob- Jem has become even more acute and great care is necessary in their filling and emptying. Several proposals have been made for minimising foam formation, for example, by attention to design of the vessels or by mechanical methods of foam breaking, but there has always been a reluctance 10 ‘more fundamental changes, probably because the exact nature and the source of the foam stabilising ingredients have been improperly understood, ‘A novel method of resolving the prob- Jems associated with foam which requires the deliberate addition of a foam control additive, has been successfully used on plant scale by a major brewery and is at an advanced. stage of development byothers both in the U.K., Continental Europe and in the U.S.A Before examining, in. more detail, the results of these trials, it may be useful briefly to revise some of the surface chemistry aspects of foam. Foam production Pure liquids, with rare exceptions, do rot foam. Any air bubbles that become ‘entrained for example in water, have only a transient existence when they reach the Surface. This reluctance to form a stable foam is based on a fundamental thermo- dynamic principle: all systems move 10 ‘a condition of minimum energy. As the tenergy of a system is directly related to its surface area and foams have high surface area, foams have an intrinsic inclination to collapse. But it is common observation that many liquids, beer amongst them, do form stable foams. The explanation is found in the presence of soluble materials that are positively adsorbed at surfaces land hence lower the surface tension, or surface energy, of the surface. With the Tower surface’ energy there is now a greater possibility for foam formation: if there is also an interaction between the molecules of this surface layer, for ‘example by hydrogen bonding, then the stability of the foam is greatly enhanced by the increased viscosity of this surface layer. “The surface viscosity produced by ‘lycoproteins is probably an important Feature in stabilising beer foam, Surface elasticity Some surfactants also contribute su- Jace elasticity, sometimes known as Gibbs-Marangoni_ elasticity; this is a term describing a phenomenon in which the Tiquid film between two gas bubbles resists further thinning at a point of ‘weakness, The degree of film elasticity is determined by the rate of migration of the surfactant molecule from the bulk to the surface, a relatively slow rate being most favourable for foam stability. In beer this effect is probably secondary 10 surface viscosity in determining foam stability Many of the studies of beer foam stability have attempted 10 relate foam character to the presence of certain natural surfactants and to variations in wort composition, mashing techniques, and the presence of additives. There is still much to be done, particularly in defining the foum in terms of true sur- face parameters rather than quasi= scientific terms, such as Sigma Value. Foam control The surfactants that contribute to foam stability are often termed head- positive substances by the brewer: in WWorts there are also head-negative sub- stances, such as lipids, which tend to detract from foam stability. Some pub- lished work by Whitbread’s suggested that these natural ingredients reduced the volume of foam during fermentation without detracting from the head reten~ tion of the finished beer. These fatty ‘materials are probably extracted from the grist during mashing, but their concentration depends on’ the actual technique of separating the wort from the grist and also on the quality of the ‘rain. Considerable practical difficulties are involved in isolating and identifying these head negative substances and for this reason, and probably because of unreliability in regular production, his technique is not of universal applica- bility Notwithstanding these observations, it was a major step to propose (as in BP. 1,290,444) that a foam control agent, not naturally present in brewing raw materials, be deliberately added to wort in order to minimise foam during wort boiling and fermentation. This aid to brewing, for such itis, not only increases available fermenter capacity but produces Improved hop utilisation Production experience Much practical experience has now been accumulated by Dow Corning with a silicone brewing aid in a variety of beer and lager types. The greatest im- provement in fermenter utilisation has ‘been found in cylindro-onical vessels, although significant reductions in foam hheight have been achieved in rectangular fermenters. Some typical results with English ale in a Nathan type cytindro- conical fermenter are summarised in Table The substantial reduction in yeast-cap during fermentation also resus in easier land more efficient in-place cleaning of these vessels. ‘The improved utilisation of the « acid from the copper hops has. been ‘demonstrated also in lager fermentations. ‘Some work by Lupotresh (Germany) is illustrated in Table HI. Foam height ‘The foam height of the control is, of ‘course, much lower than with English ale land there is consequently less. oppor tunity for spectacular reductions. Nevers theless, there are valuable improvements in hop utilisation, while the foam stability (of the experimental lager is also margin- ally better than the control. Control of, Contrat 30 ppm. of browing aid Rudin method. Table tt ect of browing aid in Contol 4ppmof | 05, brewing aid foam is also of potential benefit in wort boiling: the quantity of foam developed at this stage is determined to some extent by the composition of the wort. Hop materials can inhibit foam forma- tion, but with the trend to post-fermen- tation addition of isomerised hop x= tracts foam in the copper is more often & problem. The same additive as used in fermentation is also effective in wort boiling but itis completely removed with the hot break and a further addition has to be made prior to fermentation. The foam control additive that has sven these substantial benefits is based ‘on a polydimethyl siloxane fluid, better known simply as silicone fluid. These fluids are clear and colourless with virtually no odour: they have very low levels of (oxicity and have been accepted as food additives by the Food and Drug ‘Administration in the U.S., by our own MAFF. and by the regulatory bodies of various other countries as acceptable food additives. “The other ingredients in the complete formulation—silica, emulsifiers and sta- bilisers-all contribute to the all round effectiveness of the product and are equal ly acceptable as food additives. [Removal ofthe brewing aid ‘A significant feature of the brewing aid is the ease with which it is removed by subsequent processing. Some adsorption ‘occurs on the yeast but it was considered fesential that an additional process, acceptable to the brewer, was available to remove residual silicone and hence restore the head retention to normal levels, The usual fining procedure may fot be sufficient for this purpose, but experiments showed that standard Kiesel- {Bubr filtration, particularly in conjunction With silica adsorbents, removes all measurable residues of silicone. This is Convincingly illustrated by a laboratory ‘experiment in which the silicone brewing ‘id is added to lager and then removed by contacting with Lueilite, followed by filtration through a Kieselguhr filter ‘Such an experiment also aptly demon- strates how the absence of foam during transfer or pumping retains the foam stabilising ingredients in the beer. Foam Half lite" (aecs) 98-114 95-111 Bite (E-8.C. units 36-37 38-40 (€.8.C. units) 258 Normal 30-1 Slightly better than normalFor example, in our laboratory we added 20 p.p.m. of silicone brewing aid to lager, etaining some as control, and then repeatedly foamed the lager samples by ‘mechanical agitation, each time separat ing the liquid from the foam. After such operations we determined the head retentions of the samples and compared them with the original (Table 1D. Proof of removal Absolute proof of removal of the sil- cone by analytical techniques is, of ‘course, dificult to obtain, At the level under discussion, ie. less than 0-25 p.p.m., the precision of the methods becomes slightly unreliable, especially in the presence of background of siliceous ‘materials normally present in the beer. Some people have argued, understand- ably, that i is a futile exercise to prove the absence of a material which has no measurable effect on the product and Which is acceptable as a food additive at some forty times the level of detection. Nevertheless, my colleagues are per- fectionists and work continues to refire analytical procedures. At present the ‘most promising technique involves sol- vent extraction of the additive and sub- sequent silicon determination by atomic absorption spectroscopy. We have already said that some at least of the silicone is adsorbed on the yeast and concern has been expressed regarding its effect on yeast. viability land metabolism. There is at present no evidence of adverse effects; twenty repitchings of a strain of saccharomyces cetivisie, in the presence of silicone brewing aid, have shown no ill effects on the yeast in laboratory experiments. On. plant scale a year's experience of using fa silicone has confirmed the absence of any demonstrable effect. Current Studies The physiolosy of adsorption of silicone ‘by yeast is currently being studied by Professor A. H. Rose and a team of students at the University of Bath. They are using a strain of sacchiaro- rmyces cerivisiae and their work so far suggests that wall adsorption is the main site in intact cells, Non-growing suspen- sions of cells in phosphate buffer re- Quire up to three hours to become Saturated with silicone. The kinetics of silicone adsorption on cells are hardly affected by variations in temperature between 15-35 deg. C. and pH values in the range 4:5-7-6. These studies are con- tinuing and serve to outline the care and thoroughness with which this project is being pursued, Legislative aspects Reception of this new development by the brewing industry has varied markedly between countries, In the U.K. there has been almost universal interest in the positive aspects of a novel technique. Difficulties were not underestimated but the potential process and cost advantages were acknowledged and many are under taking practical work to determine wheth- ‘er there is any advantage in it for them. In the US. there is polite interest accompanied by an obvious mistrust, probably inculeated by the early German bbrewmasters. Nevertheless, the American passion for innovation “has in some instances overcome prejudice and some trials are in progress. In Continental Europe, outside of Spain, traditional practice looms large and seems to inhibit the acceptance of new departures. “The German industry appears to be torn between a desire to make technical progress and perhaps an understand- able reluctance to offend against the Rheinkeitsgebot. But there are still hopes that the argument of complete removal will eventually be accepted. In the light of these experiences it is ‘easy to understand the complexities of the task facing the Commission of the European Communities in its attempt (0 harmonise the legislation relating 10 beer, Proposals were submitted to the Council in 1970; the implications of this document, which has caused consider able controversy, were discussed by the secretary general of the CM.BA. at a ‘event Symposium, ‘There now seems considerable doubt when, oF even if, these proposals will be accepted by the’ Nine. In their present orm there is a good case for arguing that the silicone brewing aid should be acceptable as a substance “with a mecha- nical or absorbent properties” (Article 5, para. 3), ‘Summary ‘The major features of using a silicone brewing aid may be summarised as follows: It provides foam control during wort boiling and fermentation, allowing. in- creased working capacity. Better hop utilisation as less bitter material is lost, hop usage may be re- duced. Final head retention values are similar to or possibly slightly better than normal levels (Gee table II) because less natural foaming agents are lost by foam frac- tionation. Hence the use of synthetic foam stabilisers may be reduced. Faster fermentation, yeast otation ‘with top fermentation may be controlled 0 that yeast remains longer in the bulk. ‘There is no effect on the yeast, which may be repitched according to normal practice. Easier cleaning of fermenter. Complete removal of the silicone is achieved during the fltration stage. Tis safe to use and extensive laboratory ‘and plant trials have indicated no ad- verse effect on flavour or aroma. C1] moval of silicone by filtration, HRV. (sees) Rudin Method ‘Samp Control 130 408 105 Draught lager After six agtations Ate fivation 20 p.p.m. brewing aid DOW CORNING INT, LTD, CHAUSSEE DE LA HULPE, 177, 8:1170 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM Diisecort Keutsford (UK) Rietfontein (South Arica) ‘Agonts and distributors ia most countries. eit Malmaizon (Paris) Munich Rotterdam Reading (U.K.) ‘Vieana DOW CORNING so/smyi073