| Literature DB >> 35956436 |
Andrei Borșa1, Mircea Valentin Muntean2, Liana Claudia Salanță3, Maria Tofană3, Sonia Ancuța Socaci3, Elena Mudura1, Anamaria Pop1, Carmen Rodica Pop3.
Abstract
Special beers, known as artisanal, are progressively gaining consumer preference, opening up competition, and acquiring more space in the market. Considering that, exploration for new formulations is justified and plants represent a source of novel compounds with promising antioxidant activity for this beer segment. This paper aims to evaluate the current knowledge on the role of botanical ingredients on the final yield of bioactive compounds in special beer, and how these molecules generally affect the sensory profile. Furthermore, the estimated difficulties of implementation, taking into account the new processes and the relative cost, are discussed. The addition of plants to beer could serve the interests of both the industry and consumers, on one hand, by improving the functional properties and offering a unique flavor, and on the other hand by adding variety to the craft beer landscape. This paper provides guidance and future directions for the development of new products to boost the brewing industry. Brewing processes might affect the valuable compounds, especially the phenolic content. Consequently, future studies need to identify new methods for protecting the level of bioactive compounds in special beer and increasing the bio-accessibility, along with optimization of the sensory and technological properties.Entities:
Keywords: craft beer; low-alcohol beers; natural antioxidant; non-alcoholic beer; sensorial profile
Year: 2022 PMID: 35956436 PMCID: PMC9370188 DOI: 10.3390/plants11151958
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Studies regarding the production of special beer and their total phenolic (TPC) and total flavonoid content (TFC).
| Plant Added | Type of Beer | Brewing Process Stage | Conventional Beer TPC (mg GAE/L) | Enriched Beer TPC (mg GAE/L) | Conventional beer TFC (mg QE/L) | Enriched Beer TFC (mg QE/L) | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dried leaves | American Porter | maturation | 413.21 | 480.16–800.64 | 333.47 | 346.67–601.12 | [ | |
| peel | Craft | fermentation | 516.4 | 515.9–726.6 | - | - | [ | |
| peduncule | 640.9–722.3 | - | - | |||||
| Propolis | extract | Golden ale | maturation | 242.0 | 253–306.5 | 16.9 | 19.6–26.9 | [ |
| Prokupac grape | fruit | Craft | fermentation | 467.78 | 550–569.3 | - | - | [ |
| White grape | pomace | Lager | fermentation | 219.028 | 321.584–501.459 | - | - | [ |
| seeds | Non-alcoholic | wort boiling | 208.66 | 221.64–271.24 | 20.65 | 24.29–30.85 | [ | |
| fruit | Amber ale | fermentation | 335 | 357–623 | - | - | [ | |
| calices powdered extract | Ale | maturation | 294.18 | 410.62–743.16 | - | - | [ | |
| peel extract | Lager | after maturation | 0.416–0.426 | 0.433–0.631 | 0.063–0.065 | 0.074–0.175 | [ | |
| fruit/pulp | Craft | fermentation | 187.4 | 218.6–267.6 | - | - | [ | |
| fruit | Amber ale | maturation | 13.47 | 15.9–17.55 | - | - | [ | |
| root | Pale ale | wort boiling | 210.92 | 218.38–230.5 | 17.53 | 16.02–21.31 | [ | |
| fruit and juice | American Saison | fermentation | 200 | 279.6–410.1 | - | - | [ | |
| leaves | Craft | fermentation | 291.2 | 359–371.9 | - | - | [ | |
| extract | Lager | after packaging | 280.26 | 316–384 | - | - | [ | |
| Extract microencapsulate | Pilsner beer | after packaging | <300 | <600 | - | - | [ |
“-” not determined.
Comparison of antioxidant capacity of special beer samples.
| Plant Added | Brewing Process Stage | Control Beer—DPPH Assay | Enriched Beer—DPPH Assay | Control Beer—FRAP Assay | Enriched Beer—FRAP Assay | Control Beer—ABTS Assay | Enriched Beer—ABTS Assay | Control Beer—ORAC Assay | Enriched Beer—ORAC Assay | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dried leaves | maturation | - | - | 1.88 mM TE | 2.17–5.46 mM TE | 1.15 mM TE | 1.38–3.34 mM TE | 7.86 mM TE | 10.14–30.58 mM TE | [ | |
| peel | fermentation | - | - | - | - | 1604.7 µM/L | 1580.06–1736.9 µM/L | - | - | [ | |
| peduncle | - | - | - | 1567.9–1725.1 µM/L | - | - | |||||
| Propolis | extract | maturation | 0.533 mmol TE/L | 0.491–0.576 mmol TE/L | 1415.0 µmol TE/L | 1555.0–1892.5 µmol TE/L | 0.629 mmol TE/L | 0.687–0.808 mmol TE/L | - | - | [ |
| Prokupac grape | fruit | fermentation | 0.73 mM TE | 1.02–1.05 mM TE | 1.28 mM TE | 2.64–2.65 mM TE | - | - | - | - | [ |
| White grape | pomace | fermentation | 0.482 mmol TE/dm³ | 0.6–1.4 mmol TE/dm³ | 1.5 mmol TE/dm³ | 1.8–3.6 mmol TE/dm³ | 1.581 mmol TE/dm³ | 1.2–4.1 mmol TE/dm³ | - | - | [ |
| seeds | wort boiling | 4.52 mMol/TE | 4.70–4.86 mMol/TE | 0.94 mMol/TE | 1.16–1.48 mMol/TE | - | - | - | [ | ||
| fruit | fermentation | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8.87 mmol/L TE | 10.03–16.84 mmol/L TE | [ | |
| calices powdered extract | maturation | - | - | - | - | 3.94 mmol TE/L | 5.71–6.67 mmol TE/L | - | - | [ | |
| peel extract | after maturation | 0.926 mmol TE/mL | 1.244–1.333 mmol TE/mL | - | - | 0.086 mmol TE/mL | 0.084–0.140 mmol TE/mL | - | - | [ | |
| fruit/pulp | fermentation | 1.44 mmol TE/L | 1.44–2.05 mmol TE/L | 1.04 mmol TE/L | 1.32–1.69 mmol TE/L | 0.97 mmol TE/L | 1.25–1.74 mmol TE/L | - | - | [ | |
| root | wort boiling | 18.79 IC50 (μL) | 16.05–18.69 IC50 (μL) | - | - | - | - | - | - | [ | |
| fruit and juice | fermentation | 0.352 mmol TE/L | 0.443–2.175 mmol TE/L | 0.512 mmol TE/L | 0.869–1.35 mmol TE/L | 0.936 mmol TE/L | 1.356–2.041 mmol TE/L | - | - | [ | |
| leaves | fermentation | 30.09 % inhibition | 34.0–69.9 % inhibition | - | - | - | - | - | - | [ | |
| extract | after packaging | 2.54 mM TE | 3.05 mM TE | 4.15 mM TE | 4.51 mM TE | - | - | - | - | [ | |
| 3.72 mM TE | 4.71 mM TE | ||||||||||
| 2.85 mM TE | 4.25 mM TE | ||||||||||
| 3.14 mM TE | 4.55 mM TE | ||||||||||
| 2.83 mM TE | 4.27 mM TE | ||||||||||
| extracts of seed and cob | - | - | 23.93 IC50 gmL−1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | [ |
“-” not determined.
Technical specific characteristics.
| Plant Added | Brewing Process Stage | Type of Beer | Additional Tech Specifics | Extra Antioxidant Compounds | Sensory Enhancements | Disadvantages to Overcome | Difficulty of Implementation | Cost of Implementation | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| maturation | Dark | Added dried leaves in steps in a straining bag similar to the dry hopping process | - | light herbal flavor | increased astringency |
|
| [ | |
| fermentation | Ale | 5 g/L fresh fruit peel added to beer during the first step of the fermentation process | flavonoids catechin and rutin | higher quality, more stable flavor and aroma, foam stability and longer shelf life | increased acidity, higher pH, lesser total soluble solid |
|
| [ | |
| - | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Propolis | maturation | - | 0.25 g/L ethanolic extract of propolis by | coumaric acid, cinnamic acid, and caffeic acid | Natural preservatives for beer. | Allergic reactions |
|
| [ |
| Prokupac grape | fermentation | Ale | Up to 30% of grape mash from crushed/pressed fruit | - | higher rate of fermentation, higher alcohol % | Increase of lightness of beer or shifts to redness |
|
| [ |
| White grape | fermentation | Ale | 200 g/l fresh fruits added to beer during the first step of the fermentation process | Catechin, Resveratrol | higher quality, more stable flavor and aroma, foam stability and longer shelf life | increased concentration of |
|
| [ |
| wort boiling | Pils | 30% quinoa wort | Ethyl acetate, Methyl acetate and ethyl propionate | Higher antioxidant potential more volatiles, increasing the flavor | Decreased enzyme concentration, reduced ethanol content |
|
| [ | |
| fermentation | Ale | 50 g/L ground goji 1 h boiling at 100 °C | rutin and 2-O-β-D-glucopyranosyl-L31 ascorbic acid | lower turbidity, high color intensity, caramel and coffee-like taste | Reddish color, plant odor |
|
| [ | |
| after maturation | Lager | 10 mg/mL extract from eggplant peels | anthocyanins delphinidin-3-rutinoside, delphinidin-3-glucoside and delphinidin-3-rutinoside-5-glucoside | Good stability | reddish color because of the presence of anthocyanin pigments |
|
| [ | |
| fermentation | Light beer | heated homogenate of raw fruit pieces or mango leaves, followed by pasteurization at 15 PU | Maltol, 4 H-Pyran-4-one, 2,3-dihydro-3,5-dihydroxy-6-methyl, 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural, Furan-2-carboxaldehyde, 5-(1-piperidinyl) | lower pH, higher micro stability | increased risk of beer contamination, [ |
|
| [ | |
| wort boiling | Pale Ale/LAB | sweet potato flakes dried in the absence of light replacing 50% of grist (crushed malt) and previously held for 1 h at 62 °C for starch gelatinization | High anthocyanin and β-carotene content | balance between flavor and aroma; cheaper costs | - |
|
| [ | |
| fermentation | Ale | 10% ( | - | reduces the pH, improves the aroma compounds | Less foaminess |
|
| [ | |
| fermentation | Lager/NAB | aqueous extract at 0.1% (m/v) added after the fermentation step | - | increased shelf-life performance | - |
|
| [ | |
| after packaging | Pils | Ethanol-water extraction from leafs | flavonoids, rosmarinic acid and triterpenes | improved antimicrobial and antioxidative properties | - |
|
| [ | |
|
| Wheat beer | flavonoids and triterpenes | - | ||||||
|
| Pils | lectins, sterols (β-sitosterol), lignans. | Plant/Herbal flavor | ||||||
| Lager | flavonoids, tannins, oligomeric proanthocyanidins | - | |||||||
| Blond, red | flavonoids, tannins, oligomeric proanthocyanidins | - | |||||||
| - | Chicha Morada NAB | Added Seed and cob, boiled at 100 °C for approximately 20 min; cheaper row material | Anthocyanins cyanidin-3-glucoside, pelargonidin-3-glucoside, peonidin-3-glucoside | purple color | The degradation of anthocyanins in beer is related to the thermal process. |
|
| [ |
Difficulty of implementation: easy; moderate; hard. Increases in the brewing time process: slight; significant. Additional cost of implementation: cheap; moderate.