European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 245, Issue 3, pp 521–533 | Cite as

Inhomogeneity in the lauter tun: a chromatographic view

  • Martin Hennemann
  • Martina GastlEmail author
  • Thomas Becker
Review article


The purpose of lautering in beer brewing is to separate the wort, which contains soluble malt components from the solids, the brewer’s spent grains. Lautering is a critical point in wort production and its primary objective is the efficient recovery of extract. Lautering is a special type of cake filtration; the particle sedimentation behavior of the mash results in an inhomogeneous filter cake whose structure has an impact on its chemical composition. Components of interest within the filter cake are polysaccharides, such as starch byproducts, β-glucan, and arabinoxylan, as well as proteins, lipids, polyphenols, and metal ions. The distribution of these components within the inhomogeneous filter cake is presented in this review. Lautering is a combination of separation and extraction. During extraction, the solubility of each filter cake component is different. Therefore, in this paper, lautering is considered from a new angle—a chromatographic viewpoint. The initial concentration of the components in malt is compared to their degree of retention in the filter cake and extraction into the wort. Differences in the analyses of brewer’s spent grains due to different sampling points within the filter cake are addressed in this review. This new information is important for the use of spent grains in biotechnological processes and enables a more accurate comparison of components from different brewer’s spent grain analyses.


Brewer’s spent grains Cake filtration Chromatography Extraction Inhomogeneity Lautering 



This IGF Project of the FEI was supported via AiF (19359N) within the programme for promoting the Industrial Collective Research (IGF) of the German Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), based on a resolution of the German Parliament.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.


  1. 1.
    Echavarría AP, Torras C, Pagán J, Ibarz A (2011) Fruit juice processing and membrane technology application. Food Eng Rev 3(3–4):136–158. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Girard B, Fukumoto LR (2000) Membrane processing of fruit juices and beverages: a review. Crit Revs Biotechnol 20(2):109–175. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Urošević T, Povrenović D, Vukosavljević P, Urošević I, Stevanović S (2017) Recent developments in microfiltration and ultrafiltration of fruit juices. Food Bioprod Process 106:147–161. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tippmann J, Becker T (2016) Das Zusammenspiel von Verfahrenstechnik und Technologie in der Brauerei. Chem Ing Tech 88(12):1857–1868. Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tippmann J, Scheuren H, Voigt J, Sommer K (2010) Procedural investigations of the lautering process. Chem Eng Technol 33(8):1297–1302. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aliyu S, Bala M (2011) Brewer’s spent grain: a review of its potentials and applications. Afr J Biotechnol 10(3):324–331. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guido LF, Moreira MM (2017) Techniques for extraction of brewer’s spent grain polyphenols: a review. Food Bioprocess Technol 10(7):1192–1209. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lynch KM, Steffen EJ, Arendt EK (2016) Brewers’ spent grain: a review with an emphasis on food and health. J Inst Brew 122(4):553–568. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mussatto SI (2014) Brewer’s spent grain: a valuable feedstock for industrial applications. J Sci Food Agric 94(7):1264–1275. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mussatto SI, Dragone G, Roberto IC (2006) Brewers’ spent grain: generation, characteristics and potential applications. J Cereal Sci 43(1):1–14. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steiner J, Procopio S, Becker T (2015) Brewer’s spent grain: source of value-added polysaccharides for the food industry in reference to the health claims. Eur Food Res Technol 241(3):303–315. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Becher T (2016) Die Läuterarbeit in Brauereien: Status quo und künftige Entwicklungsziele. Chem Ing Tech 88(12):1904–1910. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greffin W, Krauß G (1978) Schroten und Läutern. II. Arbeit mit konventioneller Trockenschrotmühle und Läuterbottich—eine Literaturübersicht. Monatsschrift für Brauwissenschaft 31(6):192–212Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muts GCJ, Pesman L (1986) The influence of raw materials and brewing process on lautertun filtration. In: EBC monograph XI, symposium on wort production. MaffliersGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Engstle J, Briesen H, Först P (2017) Mash separation in the lauter tun—a particle size dependent separation process. Brew Sci 70:26–30Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laitila A, Manninen J, Priha O, Smart K, Tsitko I, James S (2018) Characterisation of barley-associated bacteria and their impact on wort separation performance. J Inst Brew 124(4):314–324. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wu D, Cai G, Li X, Li B, Lu J (2018) Cloning and expression of ferulic acid esterase gene and its effect on wort filterability. Biotechnol Lett. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu D, Zhou T, Li X, Cai G, Lu J (2016) POD promoted oxidative gelation of water-extractable arabinoxylan through ferulic acid dimers. Evidence for its negative effect on malt filterability. Food Chem 197(Pt A):422–426. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malfliet S, De Cooman L, Aerts G (2010) Application of thermostable xylanases at mashing and during germination. Brew Sci 63:133–141Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jin Y-L, Speers R, Paulson T, Stewart AJ R (2004) Effects of β-glucans and environmental factors on the viscosities of wort and beer. J Inst Brew 110(2):104–116. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jin Y-L, Speers RA, Paulson AT, Stewart RJ (2004) Barley β-glucans and their degradation during malting and brewing. MBAA Tech Q 41(3):231–240Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li X, Gao F, Cai G, Jin Z, Lu J, Dong J, Yin H, Yu J, Yang M (2015) Purification and characterisation of arabinoxylan arabinofuranohydrolase I responsible for the filterability of barley malt. Food Chem 174:286–290. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu J, Kang J, Wang D, Qin Q, Liu G, Lin Z, Pavlovic M, Dostalek P (2016) Mathematical model for assessing wort filtration performance based on granularity analysis. J Am Soc Brew Chem 74(3):191–199. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krause D, Holtz C, Gastl M, Hussein M, Becker T (2015) NIR and PLS discriminant analysis for predicting the processability of malt during lautering. Eur Food Res Technol 240(4):831–846. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Holtz C, Krause D, Hussein M, Gastl M, Becker T (2014) Lautering performance prediction from malt by combining whole near-infrared spectral information with lautering process evaluation as reference values. J Am Soc Brew Chem 72(3):214–219. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarx HG (2002) Influence of malt quality on the lauter process. Brauwelt Int 6:378–380Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Andrews J (2004) A review of progress in mash separation technology. MBAA TQ 41(1):45–49Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bamforth CW (2006) Brewing: new technologies. Woodhead publishing series in food science, technology and nutrition, 1st edn. Woodhead Publishing Limited, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tippmann J, Voigt J, Sommer K (2011) Measuring particle size distribution of mash with laser diffraction to evaluate the process success. Brew Sci 64:13–21Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Engstle J, Reichhardt N, Först P (2015) Filter cake resistance of horizontal filter layers of lautering filter cakes. MBAA Tech Q 52(2):29–35. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bühler TM, McKechnie MT, Wakeman RJ (1996) A model describing the lautering process. Monatsschrift für Brauwiss 7/8:226–233Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mathmann K, Kuhn M, Briesen H (2014) Application of micro-computed tomography in food and beverage technology using the examples of textured vegetable protein and filtration steps in the brewing process. In: Proceedings of conference on industrial computed tomography (iCT2014). Wels, ÖsterreichGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harris JO (1968) Filtration in brewing—a review. J Inst Brew 74(6):500–510. Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schwill-Miedaner A (2011) Verfahrenstechnik im Brauprozess. Fachverlag Hans Carl GmbH, NürnbergGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Narziß L, Back W (2009) Die Bierbrauerei: Band 2: Die Technologie der Würzebereitung, vol 8. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Barrett J, Clapperton JF, Divers DM, Rennie H (1973) Factors affecting wort separation. J Inst Brew 79(5):407–413. Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moonen JHE, Graveland A (1987) The molecular structure of gelprotein from barley, its behaviour in wort-filtration and analysis. J Inst Brew 93:125–130Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lewis MJ, Oh SS (1985) Influence of precipitation of malt proteins in lautering. MBAA Tech Q 22(3):108–111Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barrett J, Bathgate GN, Clapperton JF (1975) The composition of fine particles which affect mash filtration. J Inst Brew 81(1):31–36. Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kunze W (2004) Technology brewing and malting. VLB, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bathgate GN, Clapperton JF, Palmer GH (1973) The significance of small starch granules. In: Paper presented at the proceedings of the European brewery convention congress, SalzbergGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kong D, Choo TM, Narasimhalu P, Jui P, Ferguson T, Therrien MC, Ho KM, May KW (1995) Variation in starch, protein, and fibre of Canadian barley cultivars. Can J Plant Sci 75(4):865–870. Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Holtekjølen AK, Uhlen AK, Bråthen E, Sahlstrøm S, Knutsen SH (2006) Contents of starch and non-starch polysaccharides in barley varieties of different origin. Food Chem 94(3):348–358. Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Betts NS, Wilkinson LG, Khor SF, Shirley NJ, Lok F, Skadhauge B, Burton RA, Fincher GB, Collins HM (2017) Morphology, carbohydrate distribution, gene expression, and enzymatic activities related to cell wall hydrolysis in four barley varieties during simulated malting. Front Plant Sci 8:1872. Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Faltermaier A, Negele J, Becker T, Gastl M, Arendt E (2015) Evaluation of mashing attributes and protein profile using different grist composition of barley and wheat malt. Brew Sci 68:67–77Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Celus I, Brijs K, Delcour JA (2006) The effects of malting and mashing on barley protein extractability. J Cereal Sci 44(2):203–211. Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Han J-Y (2000) Structural characteristics of arabinoxylan in barley, malt, and beer. Food Chem 70(2):131–138. Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vis RB, Lorenz K (1998) Malting and brewing with a high β-glucan barley. LWT Food Sci Technol 31(1):20–26. Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kupetz M, Procopio S, Sacher B, Becker T (2015) Critical review of the methods of β-glucan analysis and its significance in the beer filtration process. Eur Food Res Technol 241(6):725–736. Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Anderson IW (1990) The effect of β-glucan molecular weight on the sensitivity of dye binding assay procedures for β-glucan estimation. J Inst Brew 96(5):323–326. Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Munck L, Jorgensen KG, Ruud-Hansen J, Hansen KT (1989) The EBC methods for determination of high molecular weight β-glucan in barley, malt, wort and beer. J Inst Brew 95(2):79–82. Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Manzanares P, Navarro A, Sendra JM, Carbonell JV (1991) Selective determination of β-glucan of differing molecular size, using the calcofluor-fluorimetric flow-injection-analysis (FIA) method. J Inst Brew 97(2):101–104. Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lee Y-T, Bamforth CW (2009) Variations in solubility of barley β-glucan during malting and impact on levels of β-glucan in wort and beer. J Am Soc Brew Chem 67(2):67–71. Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    O’Rourke T (2002) Malt specification & brewing performance. BREWER Int 2(10):27–30Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kühbeck F, Dickel T, Krottenthaler M, Back W, Mitzscherling M, Delgado A, Becker T (2005) Effects of mashing parameters on mash β-glucan, FAN and soluble extract levels. J Inst Brew 111(3):316–327. Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Evans DE, Goldsmith M, Dambergs R, Nischwitz R (2011) A comprehensive revaluation of small-scale congress mash protocol parameters for determining extract and fermentability. J Am Soc Brew Chem 69(1):13–27Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Viëtor RJ, Voragen AGJ, Angelino SAGF (1993) Composition of non-starch polysaccharides in wort and spent grain from brewing trials with malt from a good malting quality barley and a feed barley. J Inst Brew 99(3):243–248. Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kiszonas AM, Courtin CM, Morris CF (2012) A critical assessment of the quantification of wheat grain arabinoxylans using a phloroglucinol colorimetric assay. Cereal Chem 89(3):143–150. Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Debyser W, Derdelinckx G, Delcour JA (1997) Arabinoxylan and arabinoxylan hydrolysing activities in barley malts and worts derived from them. J Cereal Sci 26(1):67–74. Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Krahl M, Müller S, Zarnkow M, Back W, Becker T (2009) Arabinoxylan and fructan in the malting and brewing process. Qual Assur Saf Crop Foods 1(4):246–255. Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Preece JA (1940) Pentosans and related products in malting and brewing. J Inst Brew 46:38–48. Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Egi A, Speers RA, Schwarz PB (2004) Arabinoxylans and their behavior during malting and brewing. MBAA Tech Q 41(3):248–267Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Vieira E, Rocha MAM, Coelho E, Pinho O, Saraiva JA, Ferreira IMPLVO, Coimbra MA (2014) Valuation of brewer’s spent grain using a fully recyclable integrated process for extraction of proteins and arabinoxylans. Ind Crops Prod 52:136–143. Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Li Y, Lu J, Gu G (2005) Control of arabinoxylan solubilization and hydrolysis in mashing. Food Chem 90(1–2):101–108. Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wu X, Du J, Zhang K, Ju Y, Jin Y (2015) Changes in protein molecular weight during cloudy wheat beer brewing. J Inst Brew 121(1):137–144. Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yamashita H, Kühbeck F, Hohrein A, Herrmann M, Back W, Krottenthaler M (2006) Fractionated boiling technology: wort boiling of different lauter fractions. Brew Sci 59:130–147Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ye L, Huang Y, Li M, Li C, Zhang G (2016) The chemical components in malt associated with haze formation in beer. J Inst Brew 122(3):524–529. Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jones BL, Budde AD (2003) Effect of reducing and oxidizing agents and pH on malt endoproteolytic activities and brewing mashes. J Agric Food Chem 51:7504–7512. Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jones BL, Marinac L (2002) The effect of mashing on malt endoproteolytic activities. J Agric Food Chem 50(4):858–864. Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jones BL, Budde AD (2005) How various malt endoproteinase classes affect wort soluble protein levels. J Cereal Sci 41:95–106. Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Gorinstein S, Zemser M, Vargas-Albores F, Ochoa JL, Paredes-Lopez O, Scheler C, Salnikow J, Martin-Belloso O, Trakhtenberg S (1999) Proteins and amino acids in beers, their contents and relationships with other analytical data. Food Chem 67(1):71–78. Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Osborne TB (1924) The vegetable proteins. Longmans, Green and Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mussatto SI, Roberto IC (2005) Acid hydrolysis and fermentation of brewer’s spent grain to produce xylitol. J Sci Food Agric 85(14):2453–2460. Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Fărcaş AC, Socaci SA, Dulf FV, Tofană M, Mudura E, Diaconeasa Z (2015) Volatile profile, fatty acids composition and total phenolics content of brewers’ spent grain by-product with potential use in the development of new functional foods. J Cereal Sci 64:34–42. Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Fumi MD, Galli R, Lambri M, Donadini G, De Faveri DM (2011) Effect of full-scale brewing process on polyphenols in Italian all-malt and maize adjunct lager beers. J Food Compos Anal 24(4–5):568–573. Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lewis MJ, Serbia JW (1984) Aggregation of protein and precipitation by polyphenol in mashing. J Am Soc Brew Chem 42(1):40–43. Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    McMurrough I, Delcour JA (1994) Wort polyphenols. Ferment 7:175–182Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Stefanello FS, dos Santos CO, Bochi VC, Fruet APB, Soquetta MB, Dorr AC, Nornberg JL (2018) Analysis of polyphenols in brewer’s spent grain and its comparison with corn silage and cereal brans commonly used for animal nutrition. Food Chem 239:385–401. Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Anness BJ, Reed RJR (1985) Lipids in the brewery-a material balance. J Inst Brew 91:82–87. Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Rettberg N (2018) Lipids in beer. Paper presented at the 51. Technologisches Seminar, Weihenstephan, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Holtz C, Gastl M, Becker T (2015) Turbidity potentials of single long-chain fatty acids and gelatinised starch in synthetic lautering wort. Int J Food Sci Technol 50(4):906–912. Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wackerbauer K, Bender G, Poloczek K (1983) Die Beeinflussung der freien Fettsäuren durch die technologischen Parameter bei der Sudhausarbeit. Monatsschrift für Brauwissenschaft 1:18–25Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Evans DE, Goldsmith M, Redd KS, Nischwitz R, Lentini A (2012) Impact of mashing conditions on extract, its fermentability, and the levels of wort free amino nitrogen (FAN), β-glucan, and lipids. J Am Soc Brew Chem 70(1):39–49. Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kanauchi O, Keiichi M, Yoshio A (2001) Development of a functional germinated barley foodstuff from brewer’s spent grain for the treatment of ulcerative colitis. J Am Soc Brew Chem 59(2):59–62Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Comrie AAD (1936) Ash, silica and iron in malts. J Inst Brew 42(4):350–351. Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Montanari L, Mayer H, Marconi O, Fantozzi P (2009) Minerals in beer. In: Preedy VR (ed) Beer in health and disease prevention. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 359–365Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Šterna V, Zute S, Jākobsone I (2015) Grain composition and functional ingredients of barley varieties created in latvia. Proc Latv Acad Sci Sect B 69(4):158–162. Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Gibson BR (2011) 125th anniversary review: improvement of higher gravity brewery fermentation via wort enrichment and supplementation. J Inst Brew 117(3):268–284. Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wietstock PC, Kunz T (2015) Uptake and release of Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, and Zn during beer production. J Am Soc Brew Chem 73(2):179–184. Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Jacobsen T, Lie S (1977) Chelators and metal buffering in brewing. J Inst Brew 83(4):208–212. Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Poreda A, Bijak M, Zdaniewicz M, Jakubowski M, Makarewicz M (2015) Effect of wheat malt on the concentration of metal ions in wort and brewhouse by-products. J Inst Brew 121(2):224–230. Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Vecseri-Hegyes B, Fodor P, Hoschke A (2005) The role of zinc in beer production I.: wort production. Acta Aliment 34(4):373–380. Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Daveloose M (1987) An investigation of zinc concentrations in brewhouse worts. MBAA Tech Q 24(3):109–112Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Narziß L, Barth D, Yamagishi S, Heyse K-U (1980) Über den Einfluss des Maischverfahrens auf die Lösung von Stickstoffsubstanzen und Zink in Maische und Würze. Brauwissenschaft 33(9):230–237Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Bożym M, Florczak I, Zdanowska P, Wojdalski J, Klimkiewicz M (2015) An analysis of metal concentrations in food wastes for biogas production. Renew Energy 77:467–472. Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ault RG, Whitehouse AGR (1952) Determination of zinc in beer and brewing materials. J Inst Brew 58(2):136–139. Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Svetlana N, Özcan MM (2016) Mineral contents of malted barley grains used as the raw material of beer consumed as traditional spirits. Indian J Traditional Knowl 15(3):500–502Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sadosky P, Schwarz PB (2002) Effect of arabinoxylans, β-glucans, and dextrins on the viscosity and membrane filterability of a beer model solution. J Am Soc Brew Chem 60(4):153–162Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Stewart DC, Hawthorne D, Evans DE (1998) Cold sterile filtration: a small scale filtration test and investigation of membrane plugging. J Inst Brew 104:321–326Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Sun J, Lu J, Xie G (2018) Secretome analysis of trichoderma reesei CICC41495 for degradation of arabinoxylan in malted barley. J Inst Brew 124(4):352–358. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Hennemann
    • 1
  • Martina Gastl
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Becker
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität München, Chair of Brewing and Beverage TechnologyFreisingGermany

Personalised recommendations