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 byothers 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 normalFor 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