Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists

The Science of Beer

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujbc20

Top of the Ferrous Wheel – The Influence of Iron

Ions on Flavor Deterioration in Beer

Thijs Van Mieghem, Filip Delvaux, Sven Dekleermaeker & Scott J. Britton

To cite this article: Thijs Van Mieghem, Filip Delvaux, Sven Dekleermaeker & Scott J. Britton
(2022): Top of the Ferrous Wheel – The Influence of Iron Ions on Flavor Deterioration in Beer,
Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists, DOI: 10.1080/03610470.2022.2124363

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03610470.2022.2124363

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 13 Oct 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1217

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujbc20
Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists
https://doi.org/10.1080/03610470.2022.2124363

Review Article

Top of the Ferrous Wheel – The Influence of Iron Ions on Flavor

Deterioration in Beer
Thijs Van Mieghema, Filip Delvauxa, Sven Dekleermaekerb and Scott J. Brittonc,d
a
Biercentrum Delvaux, Neerijse, Belgium; bBrouwerij De Koninck, Antwerp, Belgium; cBrewery Duvel Moortgat, Research & Development,
Puurs-Sint-Amands, Belgium; dInternational Centre for Brewing and Distilling, Institute of Biological Chemistry, Biophysics and
Bioengineering, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Beer inherently contains a diverse combination of metal ions, a part of which is iron. Brewers Beer; Fenton reaction; flavor
strive to keep iron levels as low as possible in wort and beer due to its negative influence on stability; free radical chemistry;
iron; metal ions; oxidation
beer stability. Iron occupies a prominent role within the Fenton reaction, where Fe(II) ions are
oxidized to Fe(III) by hydrogen peroxide, forming a hydroxyl radical and a hydroxyl ion. The
accumulation of reactive oxygen species in wort and beer is detrimental to its oxidative stability,
as their presence will accelerate many of the oxidation reactions commonly associated with the
onset of unwanted flavor, aroma, and appearance. Aside from iron’s adverse influence on oxidative
stability, iron concentrations as low as 0.05 mg/L can also impart an unpleasant metallic off-flavor.
This review discusses the points of entry for iron across the brewing process, the role of iron in
the oxidative deterioration of beer, and how iron contributes to metallic off-flavors.

Introduction compounds that reduce Fe(III) to detrimental Fe(II) and

Innately, beer contains various metals, each able to influence
the brewing process and affect the overall quality of the
finished product positively or negatively. For instance, vary-
ing calcium and magnesium ion concentrations can influence
the isomerization kinetics of hop-derived α-acids to cis- and
trans-iso-α-acids and the resultant cis/trans ratio.1 Further,
sufficient levels of calcium ions will contribute to a lower
mash pH, positively influence α-amylase activity, and pro-
mote yeast flocculation.2–5 Metals, such as magnesium, cal-
cium, zinc, manganese, potassium, and copper, are inherently
present in wort and play a crucial role in the metabolic
regulation of yeast throughout biomass accumulation and
fermentation.6–9 While select metals may serve a beneficial
function to the brewer, the occurrence of other metal ions
in beer is often less desirable and deleterious. For example,
elevated iron, copper, and manganese concentrations can
negatively influence beer’s oxidative stability by acting as
catalysts in the Fenton and Haber-Weiss reactions, in which
stable oxygen is activated into highly reactive oxygen species
(ROS) such as hydroxyl radicals and hydroxyl ions. 10–12
These ROS are responsible for accelerating beer staling reac-
tions, such as ester and iso-α-acid degradation, lipid oxida-
tion, and ethanol oxidation.13 This flavor deterioration of
beer is a significant concern for brewers, as the loss of
sensorial quality could impact the consumer experience and
consequently lead to a decrease in market demand. Therefore,
iron is an important target for both pro-oxidative
anti-oxidative metal-chelating compounds.
Iron levels in beer are primarily contributed by malt, and
although higher concentrations of the heavy metal are found
in hops, due to the sheer quantity of malt used in the beer
production process, a majority of the iron in beer comes
from malt.14,15 A lot of iron originating from the raw mate-
rials is lost and removed along with the spent grains, nev-
ertheless the extent of the iron entering the final product
depends significantly on the grain bill.14,16,17 During mashing,
high concentrations of iron, and elevated oxygen levels and
temperatures will result in significant radical formation that
will negatively impact the finished beer’s oxidative stabil-
ity.16,18 Further loss of iron is also observed during fermen-
tation, due to iron uptake by the yeast, so practically only
a minor fraction of the initial input ends up in the
final beer.10
In this review, the points of entry for iron across the
brewing process, the detrimental influence of iron on oxi-
dative stability, and how iron contributes to metallic
off-flavors are discussed.
Sources of iron in wort and beer
The most prevalent metal ions in beer are calcium, potas-
sium, sodium, and magnesium. However, trace amounts of
aluminum, barium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper,
iron, manganese, nickel, lead, strontium, and zinc are also

CONTACT Scott J. Britton scott.britton@duvel.be; sjb7@hw.ac.uk

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed,
or built upon in any way.
2 T. VAN MIEGHEM ET AL.

present (Table 1).19–22 The inclusion of metal ions arises
from various endogenous and exogenous sources (Figure 1).
Endogenous sources of the metals include malt, hops, water,
and yeast, but also adjuncts (e.g., corn, rice) and additives
(e.g., caramel).14,22–24 Exogenous sources include brewing
equipment, fermentation vessels, and packaging material.25,26
For example, the mild acidity of beer can liberate aluminum
from beer cans leading to a measurable increase, between
0.1 and 0.5 mg/L over 5 months, depending on the storage
temperature.27
It has been described that the concentration of iron in
beer appears to be influenced by the beer type (e.g., alco-
holic vs. non-alcoholic and pale vs. dark).16,28,29 Results show
iron in beer ranging from below 0.1 mg/L to more than
1 mg/L. Different analytical methods exist for detecting iron
in beer28–32 and the most commonly used are Atomic
Absorption Spectroscopy and Inductive Coupled
Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry.
The iron levels in finished beer were previously shown
to be driven primarily by the malt, mashing conditions, and
spent grain removal.17,33 An investigation was carried out
by Wietstock and associates, where concentrations of Fe,
Ca, Zn, Cu, and Mg were measured in the raw materials,
process by-products (spent grains, hot break, and fermen-
tation solids), and finished beer in both laboratory-scale
Table 1. Average concentration with standard deviation for the
most significant metals in beer (mg/L).
Alcázar et al.19 Bellido-Milla et al.20
Ca 57.12 ± 23.04 50.63 ± 29.03
Mg 87.39 ± 50.07 77.80 ± 23.05
K 405.6 ± 124.5 124.7 ± 66.39
Na 39.01 ± 25.64 21.88 ± 16.68
Al 0.16 ± 0.12 – 0.538 ± 0.610
Zn 0.088 ± 0.162 0.047 ± 0.091
Fe 0.224 ± 0.218 0.142 ± 0.091
Cu – 0.030 ± 0.021
Mn 0.115 ± 0.064 0.110 ± 0.048
and industrial trials.14 Malt accounted for the majority of
the metal ions entering from incoming raw materials and
was responsible for roughly 96% of all metal ions entering
the brewing process.14 While the spent grains were shown
to contain the highest concentration of metal ions of all the
by-products (88.2% of all metal ions).14 With iron, 97.5%
entering the process originated from the malt, and 95.2%
was subsequently recaptured by the spent grains. In this
investigation, only 0.1% of the input iron remained in the
finished beer of the laboratory trials (Table 2). Nonetheless,
a low residual amount of iron in beer can still play a sizeable
role in the beer’s quality, given that a concentration of
0.01 mg/L is sufficient to catalyze the oxidation reactions.11
Similar data were obtained from the industrial trial, where
the iron percentages were consistent with those noted in
the laboratory study.14
On the other hand, the iron content of malt is reported
to be between 13.4 and 32 mg/kg.10,34 This would translate
to a mash that potentially contains 4.5 to 10.7 mg/L of iron,
if the mash thickness is 3 liter/kg. Additionally, typical values
in cold wort have been reported to be between 0.1 and
0.5 mg/L, since most of the iron is retained by the spent
grains.10,17 A slight further decrease is seen for iron in the
final beer, which ranges on average between 0.05 and
0.30 mg/L.10,20 These numbers indicate that the amount of
iron that ends up in the final beer is closer to 1% of the
total iron input from the raw materials, instead of the 0.1%
reported by Wietstock et al.14
Bettenhausen et al.35 measured the chemical composition
Voica et al.21 of different malts coming from a diverse set of barley gen-
30.9 ± 12.8 otypes across multiple suppliers. A statistically significant
61.4 ± 18.5
112.1 ± 38.1
variation was measured for different metals (including Fe,
31.6 ± 34.7 Mg, Ca, Mn, and Zn) across the different malts. Nevertheless,
these results did not translate to significant differences in
0.152 ± 0.173
1.5 ± 1.2
metal concentrations within the final beers. A similar study
0.051 ± 0.012 investigated the influence of wheat malt on the ion content
0.081 ± 0.051 of wort. Although the authors discovered a higher (~10%)

Figure 1. Schematic overview of the iron flow during beer production (Based on Wietstock et al., 2015).14

Table 2. Proportional iron distribution in raw materials, by-products, and finished products during a
laboratory-scale trial conducted by Wietstock et al.14
Raw materials By-products
Metal ion Yeast Hops Malt Water Spent grains Fermentation sediments Hot break Beer
Ca 0.1% 3.1% 96.2% 0.5% 86.3% 0.6% 6.7% 6.3%
Mg 7.9% 2.3% 86.6% 3.2% 77.6% 4.5% 2.9% 15.1%
Fe 1.1% 1.4% 97.5% 0.1% 95.2% 1.0% 3.7% 0.1%
Cu 0.4% 5.0% 94.3% 0.4% 61.8% 4.8% 30.4% 3.1%
Zn 18.9% 0.7% 79.8% 0.7% 86.2% 9.5% 3.9% 0.4%

initial iron concentration in wheat malt than in barley malt,
the iron content of finished wort (i.e., cooled down hopped
wort) was comparable between those containing wheat malt
and those without.34 Here, the authors assert that iron levels
in sweet wort (i.e., wort after spent grain separation) depend
more on iron removal due to wort filtration than initial
iron levels originating from raw materials.34 Likewise,
Frederiksen et al.16 tested the potential of spent grains to
remove iron by supplementing the mash with Fe(II)SO4.
After the addition of 50 µM (2.8 mg/L) Fe(II) to the mash,
a minimal increase of 0.4 µM (0.02 mg/L) Fe was measured
in the sweet wort. Similar results were substantiated by
Pagenstecher and colleagues,17 where Fe added at the start
of mashing did not increase sweet wort iron levels after
lautering. Consequently, these studies reveal that most iron
entering the mash is retained and removed by the spent
grains during wort filtration. The retention of iron ions in
spent grains during wort filtration appears to have the most
significant influence on the concentration of iron in the
finished wort.
While it was shown that the utilization of wheat malt34
or diverse barley sources35 did not significantly influence
the iron concentration in the sweet wort, the addition of
roasted malts resulted in elevated iron levels compared to
those produced only with pilsner malt.17,36,37 One study
demonstrated that using roasted pilsner malt in the mash
lowered the leveling effect of lautering on iron levels com-
pared to the unroasted pilsner malt. The results also showed
a linear correlation between the amount of roasted malt
and the iron levels in the sweet wort.17
It is hypothesized that an equilibrium exists between the
iron in wort and spent grains, suggesting that wort and
spent grains have metal-binding capacity.16,17,37 The affinity
for iron by both the wort and the spent grains was later
confirmed with spent grain filtration tests utilizing Fe-spiked
wort and water, where the results revealed that spent grains
could absorb all the Fe dosed into the water, but much
lesser amounts from pilsner wort. 17 The metal binding
capacity of spent grains is due to functional groups (e.g.,
amino groups, alcohol groups, and carboxyl groups) of lig-
nin, cellulose, hemicellulose, and insoluble proteins present
in spent grains.38,39 While in wort, melanoidins, phytosid-
erophores, and phytates can also chelate and bind met-
als.17, 40–42
It has been shown that dark worts contain more Fe com-
pared to their pale reference worts, which is possibly the
result of the increased presence of metal chelation melanoi-
dins in dark wort.17,36,41 Conversely, Cu content is decreased
in dark wort, due to the lower Cu affinity of wort containing
roasted malts.36,37
Another study examined the impact of unmalted rice
and corn adjuncts on the iron in wort. The results showed
that replacing a portion of the malt with unmalted adjuncts
led to a decrease in the iron content of the sweet wort.23
While Wietstock et al.14 indicated that the most significant
reduction in iron is observed during lautering, another study
suggested that the most considerable portion of Fe is lost
throughout fermentation because of iron uptake by the
yeast.10 In the latter, Fe, Cu, and Mn were added into cold
Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists 3
wort; however, after fermentation, the levels for iron were
not significantly higher than in the reference beer. Conversely,
adding Cu and Mn prior to fermentation led to higher levels
in the final beer.
Other studies have investigated the effect of different
mashing parameters on the metal ion content of wort. In
one investigation, the influence of mash temperature, pH,
mashing time, mash concentration, and malt modification
on K, Na, Ca, Mg, Co, Fe, Mn, and Zn were monitored.43
The results revealed that higher mash pH, a higher mash
temperature, and longer mashing times led to wort with
lower Fe concentrations.43 A recent investigation confirmed
the impact of mash pH on iron content in wort by demon-
strating a strong negative correlation between mash pH and
iron content in the sweet wort.33 These results revealed that
decreasing the mash pH from pH 6 to 5 led to a 230%
increase of iron in the sweet wort. The results could possibly
be explained by comparing the behavior of iron ions in
aqueous solutions. Spontaneous chemical oxidation of Fe(II)
to Fe(III) in the presence of oxygen shows strong pH depen-
dence between pH values of 5 and 8. Different soluble fer-
rous hydroxide species exist in this pH range, namely
Fe(II)2+, Fe(II)(OH)+, and Fe(II)(OH)2. These species are
readily oxidized to Fe(III). However, oxidation occurs faster
for hydrolyzed ferrous ion species due to the stabilizing
effect of the OH--ligands on the ferric product that is
formed.44 Since the concentration of hydrolyzed ferrous spe-
cies is higher at a higher pH, between the pH of 5 − 8, the
oxidation rate of Fe(II) to Fe(III) escalates with increasing
pH.44 After oxidation, Fe(III) will occur under different
ferric hydroxide forms in aqueous solutions: Fe(III)OH2+,
Fe(III)(OH)2+, Fe(III)(OH)3, Fe(III)(OH)4-, Fe(III)2(OH)24+.
However, all the hydroxide forms display low solubility in
water and precipitate readily out of solution.45,46 These water
chemistry results can help us understand what might happen
with iron during brewing. In the mash, Fe(II) will likely be
oxidized to Fe(III) because of the presence of oxygen at a
rate that intensifies with increasing pH, especially for typical
mash pH values ranging from pH 5.2 to pH 5.6.33,43 However,
Fe(III) ions might form hydrolyzed ferric species and pre-
cipitate out due to their low solubility, leading to an iron
loss in wort.33 An essential remark on these reactions is the
complex matrix of wort with the presence of malt com-
pounds, as these could influence the oxidation of Fe(II) by
chelating Fe(II), Fe(III), or reacting with the hydroxyl
groups. Therefore, behavior of iron species in the mash will
be different from a water matrix.
On the other hand, there are studies that declare that a
lower mash pH will reduce lipoxygenase activity, and there-
fore increase the oxidative stability of beer.47,48 This brings
up the roles of enzymatic oxidation and auto-oxidation,
which will be discussed in detail in the following section.
Kieselguhr, also called diatomaceous earth, is a standard
filtration aid used in brewing to clarify beer following lager-
ing. However, kieselguhr contains beer-soluble iron typically
ranging from 5.5 to 27 mg/kg.49,50 Reports of kieselguhr con-
taining more than 100 mg/kg of iron have been published.51
Depending on the contact time, and the temperature and
the pH of the beer, almost all of the soluble iron can be
4 T. VAN MIEGHEM ET AL.
picked up by the beer during filtration.51 Another filtration
aid used in beer filtration is perlite, which has a slightly
lower soluble iron content of 2.5 to 10.4 mg/kg.49 On the
other hand, perlite has a lower filtering capacity and results
in lower beer clarity compared to kieselguhr.52 Alternate
separation methods regularly used by larger breweries fol-
lowing lagering include centrifugation or cross-flow mem-
brane filtration, which eliminates the need for filtration aids
that could add unwanted iron to the beer.53,54 More tradi-
tionally, to obtain sufficient beer clarity, sedimentation in
finished beer (i.e., cask beer) is also frequently practiced,
with the optional use of fining agents such as isinglass.55,56
Beer oxidation and the role of iron
A constant concern for all brewers is the oxidative stability of
packaged beer, which is directly affected by temperature, light
exposure, and dissolved oxygen content, as well as the oxidation
reactions occurring during the brewing process.13, 57,58
Oxygen is considered highly detrimental to overall beer
stability; however, oxygen in its electronic ground state, an
allotrope known as triplet oxygen (3O2), is stable. It is only
upon activation by heat, light, or the catalytic activity by
transition metal ions that oxygen begins to engage in oxi-
dation reactions. The transition metals that were previously
demonstrated to accelerate the oxidation of beer are iron,
copper, and manganese.10 Using electron spin resonance
(ESR) measurements in beers spiked with the metals, it was
determined that iron gave the biggest increase in radical
levels, while copper showed faster radical formation.
Manganese is also detrimental to beer oxidative stability;
however, typical concentrations in wort and beer are lower
than Fe concentrations.11,21 While this review focuses on the
impact of iron as catalyst during beer oxidation, copper and
manganese also play a very important role as catalysts
during the formation of radicals.
A proposed mechanism suggests oxygen (3O2) is activated
to superoxide (O2°-) as Fe(II) is oxidized to Fe(III). Due to
the pH of standard beer, ranging from 4.2 to 4.8, the super-
oxide is easily protonated to hydroperoxyl radical (°OOH),
since it is more likely that O2°- is protonated to °OOH
instead of an additional reduction to O 22-. Although,
Figure 2. Activation of oxygen via the Fenton reaction. Based on Uchida and Ono (1996).60
O22- can still be formed, which then will quickly be pro-
tonated, to H2O213,59 (Figure 2). Next, H2O2 produces the
hydroxyl radical (°OH) in another metal-catalyzed reaction,
such as the Fenton or Haber-Weiss reaction system. These
reaction systems have been described to produce hydroxyl
radicals; in the Fenton reaction, °OH is produced from the
interaction between H 2 O 2 and Fe(II), while in the
Haber-Weiss reaction, the iron-catalyzed reaction between
superoxide (O2°-) and H2O2 forms O2, °OH, and OH-.
Fenton reaction system:
Reaction A :
Fe  II   H2O2  Fe  III   OH   OH  kA  63 M1s 1
Reaction B :
Fe  III   H2O2  Fe  II   O2  2H  kB  0.01M1s 1
Haber-Weiss reaction system:
Reaction c : Fe  III   O2  Fe  II   O2
Reaction D : Fe  II   H2O2  Fe  III   OH   OH 
Fe
c  D : O2  H2O2  O2  OH   OH 
Reaction A of the Fenton reaction system occurs at a much
higher rate than reaction B, at 63 M−1s−1 and 0.01 M−1s−1 respec-
tively.59 Therefore, the limiting step in the Fenton reaction is
the reduction of Fe(III) to Fe(II) (Reaction B). However, there
are Maillard reaction products and phenolic compounds in
beer, such as 1,2-enediol and ferulic acid, which can participate
in reducing Fe(III).59,61 These compounds are commonly known
as reductones, and they exhibit pro-oxidant activity by increas-
ing oxygen activation, ROS formation, and subsequent beer
oxidation reactions.36,59,62,63 In this mechanism, Fe(II) is oxi-
dized during oxygen consumption to Fe(III). Afterward, Fe(III)
will again be reduced by reductones, making Fe(II) available
again for catalytic activity. This process is known as redox
cycling.63–65 In wine, iron also plays a crucial role in oxidation.
In general, the iron content of wine ranges from 0.5 to 10 mg/L,
which is higher than beer.64,66–69

Regarding the oxidation state of Fe ions in wort and
beer, one study suggests that fresh beer contains predomi-
nantly Fe(II) and that the equilibrium will slowly shift to
Fe(III) as the beer ages and oxidizes.12 Another study mea-
sured only Fe(II) in fresh beer and failed to detect any
Fe(III) using cloud point extraction.70 As for the Fe balance
in wort, little is described in the literature about the balance
between Fe(II) and Fe(III).
The hydroxyl radical (°OH) can react with a wide range
of compounds; however, due to the high concentration in
beer, and its strong reactivity, ethanol is the preferred com-
pound with which the hydroxyl radical will react, most
often resulting a 1-hydroxyethyl radical. This ethanol radical
will most likely react with another oxygen molecule, pro-
ducing acetaldehyde and a hydroperoxyl radical (°OOH),
enabling the radical reaction cycle to begin again.71,72 The
reaction of OH° with other beer compounds can also result
in lipid oxidation and aldehyde formation, hop acid degra-
dation, and ester formation and degradation.13 Lipid oxida-
tion is especially detrimental for beer quality, as the
short-chained aldehydes that are formed have a very low
flavor threshold, in the part-per-trillion range, giving beer
the stale aroma of paper and cardboard.73 This subject has
received extensive research, both the enzymatic lipid oxida-
tion and the auto-oxidation by ROS. Auto-oxidation can be
divided in three steps: initiation, propagation, and termina-
tion.74,75 During initiation, a hydroxyl radical (°OH) will
abstract a hydrogen from linoleic acid (LH), resulting in a
H2O-molecule and a linoleic acid radical (L°). The free
radical is stabilized in the aliphatic chain because of the
presence of double bonds, also allowing for double bond
rearrangement. During propagation, oxygen is bound to the
fatty acid radical, giving the formation of a peroxyl radical
(LOO°). This radical is highly reactive, therefore it will
abstract a hydrogen from another molecule, e.g., another
lipid molecule, allowing for the continuation of the cycle
in with oxygen is incorporated into fatty acid radicals.
Meanwhile, the formed fatty acid hydroperoxide (LOOH)
can degrade into short-chain aldehydes, for example
9-hydroperoxy linoleic acid will break down into trans-2-
nonenal or 13-hydroperoxy linoleic into hexanal.76,77 As an
alternative, the fatty acid radicals (L° or LOO°) can undergo
termination, which means that two radical molecules will
form a covalent bond, which results in a non-radical
molecule.
Antioxidants in beer can quench (i.e., capture and sta-
bilize) hydrogen peroxide and organic peroxides. Other
reactive oxygen species, including the hydroxyl radical, are
highly unstable and will react instantly with any organic
compound; therefore, as the concentration of antioxidants
is far lower than other organic materials in beer, it is far
more probable that these radicals will react with beer com-
pounds before encountering an antioxidant.57,71
Naturally occurring compounds in beer, such as certain
phenolic compounds (e.g., catechin78–81), Maillard products,62,
82
and hop compounds (e.g., α- and β-acids, or flavonoids83)
have been described to exhibit both anti- and pro-oxidative
effects. For instance, two studies concluded that polyphenols
have an anti-oxidative character, as they are able to chelate
Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists 5
metal ions and stabilize radicals via the resonance of their
carbon ring.84,85 However, certain phenolic compounds have
also been said to reduce metal ions leading to increased
radical formation.22,61 Additionally, one study also demon-
strated that increasing polyphenol concentrations in beer
through spiking, or lowering through the addition of poly-
vinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP) during the boil, does not influ-
ence radical formation.72
As for Maillard products and caramelization products in
beer, varied opinions are mentioned in the literature. Several
studies refer to a positive correlation between wort/beer
color and antioxidant activity, as a result of the
radical-reducing nature of Maillard compounds.82,84,86–89
Meanwhile, other studies state that intermediate Maillard
products actually increase radical species formation and
reduce the oxidative stability of beer resulting from the
reduction of Fe(III) by pro-oxidative products.17,36,59,62,63
One factor that is fully agreed upon is sulfite being a
potent antioxidant, and a compound in beer capable of
extending the "lag phase" and delaying the onset of radical
formation in stored beer.62,90,91 Here, the "lag phase" is
defined as the initial stage of beer aging, where no radicals
are detected, due to the quenching response by antioxidants.
This is typically tested in wort and beer using ESR. Here,
radical formation is measured via the addition of spin trap
molecules, which react covalently with the short-lived radical
products to form more stable adducts that will allow the
quantification of radical formation.16,71 Additionally, sulfite
can form reversible adducts with staling aldehydes through-
out fermentation, which prolongs the shelf life of the beer.
However, these adducts will in time dissociate throughout
beer aging, and the released aldehydes will once more con-
tribute a stale flavor to the beer.92
Meanwhile, ascorbic acid is not unanimously accepted as
a proficient antioxidant. On the one hand, it has been stated
that ascorbic acid contributes to the antioxidant capacity of
beer by radical scavenging.93,94 On the other hand, others
have indicated that the compound is a pro-oxidant, and the
addition of ascorbic acid to beer will stimulate radical for-
mation. It is stated that the enediol structure of ascorbic
acid can participate in the reduction of Fe(III) to Fe(II),
allowing for increased radical formation.59,72,95 This enediol
structure is also found in reductones, the intermediate
Maillard products that have been shown to accelerate radical
formation by reducing transition metal ions.59
Free radicals are not only formed during beer aging, but
can also develop during the malting and the mashing pro-
cess.16,33,36,96,97 The presence of oxygen, transition metal ions,
and elevated temperatures accelerate the formation of rad-
icals.11,17,18, 58,98 However, before high temperatures inactivate
their activity, multiple malt enzymes have also been shown
to quench radicals. A number of these enzymes have an
anti-oxidative function, namely superoxide dismutase, cata-
lase, and peroxidase.99,100 While lipase and lipoxygenase are
also native to malt, they are pro-oxidative enzymes, as they
catalyze lipid degradation by radical compounds, which ulti-
mately leads to the development of trans-2-nonenal.101,102
Trans-2-nonenal has received great attention in beer research,
since it is identified as a major contributor of stale flavor
6 T. VAN MIEGHEM ET AL.

in oxidized beer.73 The aldehyde imparts a papery off-flavor,
starting at a very low threshold of 0.1 µg/L.103,104
Despite the many discussions regarding the anti- and
pro-oxidative capacity of different chemical species in beer,
one fact remains clear: iron has been shown to influence
the long-term oxidative stability of beer negatively. Different
studies have shown that adding iron to beer will decrease
the lag phase, increase radical formation, and reduce oxi-
dative stability.10–12,17,58 Since Fe(II) catalyzes the activation
of oxygen and its subsequent radical formation, it is an
important target for both metal chelating antioxidants such
as polyphenols, hop bitter acids, and melanoidins, and, oxi-
dized metal-reducing pro-oxidants such as reductones, spe-
cific phenolic compounds, or ascorbic acid.36,59,63,72,99,105,106
Metallic off-flavor
On occasion, beer can possess a metallic off-flavor.104 This
undesirable flavor aspect is caused by metal ions, the most
common being iron, which has been described as rusty,
coin-like, tinny, and blood-like flavors in water. 107
Traditionally, a flavor threshold of 1 mg/L was reported for
iron in beer;104 however, more recently, concentrations as
low as 0.05 mg/L have been attributed to metallic off-flavors.10
However, much more extensive research has been con-
ducted on metallic flavor in water (Table 3). In water, Fe(II)
solutions showed a metallic taste, but no orthonasal odor.
It was also observed that the flavor threshold increased
when the nose was occluded during the tasting. These obser-
vations suggest that retronasal smell is the main contributor
to perceived metallic flavor.107–110 Besides Fe(II), also Cu(I)
and Cu(II) can contribute metallic flavor to water. 108
Interestingly, aqueous solutions supplemented with Fe(III)
are deficient in metallic flavor.109–111
Glindemann et al.112 studied the metallic odor resulting
from contact with metallic items. This investigation
revealed that the reaction between Fe(II) and lipid perox-
ides on the skin’s surface yields Fe(III) and odor-active,
volatile carbonyl compounds as by-products. Therefore,
iron is not detected directly, but carbonyl compounds are
formed in the reaction between Fe(II) and skin lipids. It
is the volatile lipid degradation products that are respon-
sible for the metallic odor, but Fe(II) is required for the
reaction. Conversely, Fe(III) did not induce a metallic odor
due to their non-reactive nature with lipids.110,111,113 Since
then, studies have supported that metallic taste is caused
by the interaction of Fe(II) and lipids leading to the gen-
eration of volatile carbonyls, which are subsequently
detected by the olfactory organ via retronasal olfac-
tion110,111,114–117 (Figure 3). Lipid peroxides can be formed
from lipids present on the skin through the activity of
lipoxygenases or oxidative stress. These lipids include var-
ious unsaturated fatty acids, including linoleic acid (C18:2),
the most likely precursor for the lipid degradation products
responsible for metallic flavor.112, 118–120
This fatty acid is present on human skin, in human saliva,
but also in barley, malt, wort, and beer. 114,119,121–124
Interestingly, linoleic acid is also the source for aldehydes
such as trans-2-nonenal and hexanal during lipid oxidation
in the mash and boil. These aldehydes, arising from enzy-
matic oxidation or iron-catalyzed auto-oxidation, are the
principal compounds associated with aged beer, contributing
paper and cardboard-like aromas.75,123
Three carbonyl compounds have been identified for the
metallic odor (Figure 4):
1-octen-3-one (OEO) has been reported as the most odor-active
compound from the degradation products of the reaction
between Fe(II) and lipids. Its aroma is described as metallic
and mushroom-like.112,125,126 It has also been identified in mush-
rooms and fungi, which is likely the product of lipoxygenase
activity on linoleic acid.120
4,5-epoxy-(E)-2-decenal (ED) was found in freshly squeezed
grapefruit juice, contributing to metallic flavor.127 Another study
heated phospholipid samples rich in linoleic acid and found
ED and OEO as the most odor-active compounds out of all
the degradation products. The aroma was described as metallic,
fishy, green, fatty, and fried.125
1,5-octadien-3-one (ODO) has been detected in beer, where
it is responsible for the metallic off-flavor of beer, alongside
OEO and ED.128

Table 3. Flavor thresholds for different Fe(II) salt solutions in water,

expressed in µM and mg of Fe per liter.
Epke and Lim and Ömur-Özbek and
Lawless108 Lawless107 Dietrich109
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the senses of smell and taste.
Fe(II)SO4 30 µM 99.2 µM 0.55 µM
1.68 mg Fe/L 5.54 mg Fe/L 0.031 mg Fe/L
Since iron is not volatile, Fe(II) in a water solution is not detected
Fe(II)Cl2 64 µM 66.0 µM via orthonasal olfaction. However, when the solution is tasted, Fe(II)
3.57 mg Fe/L 3.69 mg Fe/L will react with lipids on the skin and in the saliva, resulting in
Ferrous gluconate 20.5 µM volatile carbonyl compounds responsible for the metallic odor. Our
(Fe(II)C12H22O14) 1.14 mg Fe/L olfactory organ detects these compounds via retronasal olfaction.

Figure 4. Carbonyl compounds that have been identified in beer
and have a metallic odor: 1-octen-3-one (a), 1,5-octadien-3-one
(b), 4,5-epoxy-(E)-2-decenal (c).
All three volatile carbonyls have been detected in beer
at minimal concentrations, in the range of parts-per-tril-
lion.128 As likely degradation products of linoleic acid pres-
ent in barley, wort, and beer, this could explain why beer,
rich in Fe and the right precursor lipids, can have a metallic
smell, while water does not.121–123
Impact on foam stability
Beer foam can be an extremely rich source of iron in beer
due to the metal’s affinity for hop iso-α-acids accumulating
in the foam.106,129,130 The stability and quality of beer foam,
particularly head retention and lacing, are improved by iron
and other compounds, such as proteins and iso-α-acids.
Broadly, the most essential foam components are the
barley-derived proteins identified as protein Z, LTP1, and
other hordein-derived species.131,132 Furthermore, iso-α-acids,
isohumulones, and other modified hop extracts enable
cross-linking between foam proteins, improving structural
stability.133,134 Iron can form reversible complexes with other
divalent cations and iso-α-acids, strengthening the bubble
film, promoting beer foam stability, and supporting lacing
on the beer glass.129 Due to these positive aspects, through-
out the second half of the 20th century, it was not uncom-
mon to add iron sulfate to beer to improve foam stability,
despite the detrimental impact on beer flavor stability.134
However, this processing method to improve foam is no
longer practiced due to the growing concerns of beer oxi-
dative stability, and the increasing alternative products to
improve foam. For example, propylene glycol alginate is
frequently used as a suitable alternative to improve foam
stability, 135–137 as well as reduced hop acids, such as
tetrahydroiso-alpha-acids.138
Conclusion and future considerations
It has been long established, since the end of the 1930s,
that iron is detrimental to beer quality. 139 Elevated iron
concentrations impart an undesirable metallic off-flavor,
due to the creation of volatile carbonyl compounds, and
the beer’s oxidative stability is significantly reduced.
Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists 7
Concentrations as low as 10 µg/L in beer can already
impact flavor stability. Fe(II) acts as a catalyst in the
formation of reactive oxygen species via the Fenton reac-
tion and the Haber-Weiss reaction. Following free radical
formation, interactions between radicals and beer com-
pounds, such as esters, fatty acids, phenolic compounds,
and hop molecules, initiate a cascade of oxidation reac-
tions typically associated with the sensorial profile of stale,
oxidized beer. Other transition elements, such as copper
and manganese, also function as catalysts in the formation
of radicals, albeit at a slightly lower impact compared
to iron.11
Most iron entering the beer production process comes
from malt; however, a majority remains behind and is elim-
inated along with the spent grains. Therefore, iron levels
present in the mash are generally elevated compared to
those observed in beer. The iron content in the mash is in
the range of 10 mg/L, while typical values in cold wort are
between 0.1 and 0.5 mg/L, since most of the iron is retained
by the spent grains.10,17 A small further decrease is seen for
iron in the final beer, which ranges on average between
0.05 and 0.30 mg/L.10,20
With the increased temperature of the mash and elevated
oxygen levels, it is very likely that radical formation already
takes place during malting and mashing. Additionally, mash-
ing conditions have a significant influence on the iron levels
of the final wort. A low mash pH and the use of special
malts can lower the Fe absorption of the spent grains, and
therefore lead to more iron in the final wort.
It is evident from the existing literature that Fe(II) is
responsible for metallic flavor and the radical formation;
however, little literature exists about the ionic states of iron
present in wort and beer. As the balance between Fe(II)/
Fe(III) can significantly impact the oxidative stability of the
beer, more research is required to confirm the ionic states
in which iron is present in wort and throughout the entire
product lifecycle.
To conclude, iron is harmful to beer and should be kept
as low as possible throughout the production process.
Appropriately selecting raw materials, such as selective use
of roasted and caramel grains, high mash pH, and avoiding
exposure to iron-rich kieselguhr and corroded piping and
vessels can be effective ways to mitigate the influx of iron
into the beer production process.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Scott J. Britton http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0874-3699
Literature cited
[1] Jaskula, B.; Aerts, G.; De Cooman, L. Potential Impact of Medium
Characteristics on the Isomerisation of Hop α-Acids in Wort
and Buffer Model Systems. Food Chem. 2010, 123, 1219–1226.
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.05.090.
8 T. VAN MIEGHEM ET AL.
[2] Taylor, N. W.; Orton, W. L. Calcium in Flocculence of
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Inst. Brew. 1975, 81, 53–57. DOI:
10.1002/j.2050-0416.1975.tb03661.x.
[3] Buckow, R.; Weiss, U.; Heinz, V.; Knorr, D. Stability and Catalytic
Activity of a-Amylase From Barley Malt at Different Pressure
– Temperature Conditions. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2007, 97, 1–11.
DOI: 10.1002/bit.21209.
[4] Barth, R.; Zaman, R. Influence of Strike Water Alkalinity and
Hardness on Mash pH. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2015, 73, 240–
242. DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-2015-0621-01.
[5] Soares, E. V.; Seynaeve, J. Induction of Flocculation of Brewer’s
Yeast Strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by Changing the
Calcium Concentration and pH of Culture Medium. Biotechnol.
Lett. 2000, 22, 1827–1832. DOI: 10.1023/A:1005665427163.
[6] Brady, D.; Glaum, D.; Duncan, J. R. Copper Tolerance in
Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1994, 18, 245–250.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.1994.tb00860.x.
[7] Bromberg, S. K.; Bower, P. A.; Duncombe, G. R.; Fehring, J.;
Gerber, L.; Lau, V. K.; Tata, M. The Science of Beer Requirements
for Zinc, Manganese, Calcium, and Magnesium in Wort. J. Am.
Soc. Brew. Chem. 1997, 55, 123–128. DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-
55-0123.
[8] Walker, G. M.; Maynard, A. I. Accumulation of Magnesium Ions
during Fermentative Metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J.
Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1997, 18, 1–3. DOI: 10.1038/sj.
jim.2900356.
[9] Mochaba, F.; O’Connor-Cox, E. S. C.; Axcell, B. C. Effects of
Yeast Quality on the Accumulation and Release of Metals Causing
Beer Instability. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 1996, 54, 164–171. DOI:
10.1094/ASBCJ-54-0164.
[10] Zufall, C.; Tyrell, T. The Influence of Heavy Metal Ions on Beer
Flavour Stability. J. Inst. Brew. 2008, 114, 134–142. DOI: 10.1002/
j.2050-0416.2008.tb00318.x.
[11] Jenkins, D.; James, S.; Dehrmann, F.; Smart, K.; Cook, D. Impacts
of Copper, Iron, and Manganese Metal Ions on the EPR
Assessment of Beer Oxidative Stability. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem.
2018, 76, 50–57. DOI: 10.1080/03610470.2017.1402585.
[12] Kaneda, H.; Kano, Y.; Koshino, S.; Ohya-Nishiguchi, H. Behavior
and Role of Iron Ions in Beer Deterioration. J. Agric. Food Chem.
1992, 40, 2102–2107. DOI: 10.1021/jf00023a013.
[13] De Schutter, D. P.; Saison, D.; Delvaux, F.; Derdelinckx, G. The
Chemistry of Aging Beer. Beer Heal. Dis. Prev. 2009, 375–388.
[14] Wietstock, P. C.; Kunz, T.; Waterkamp, H.; Methner, F. J. Uptake
and Release of Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, and Zn during Beer Production.
J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2015, 73, 179–184. DOI: 10.1094/
ASBCJ-2015-0402-01.
[15] Chrisfield, B. J.; Hopfer, H.; Elias, R. J. Impact of Copper
Fungicide Use in Hop Production on the Total Metal Content
and Stability of Wort and Dry-Hopped Beer. Beverages 2020, 6,
1–17. DOI: 10.3390/beverages6030048.
[16] Frederiksen, A. M.; Festersen, R. M.; Andersen, M. L. Oxidative
Reactions during Early Stages of Beer Brewing Studied by
Electron Spin Resonance and Spin Trapping. J. Agric. Food Chem.
2008, 56, 8514–8520. DOI: 10.1021/jf801666e.
[17] Pagenstecher, M.; Maia, C.; Andersen, M. L. Retention of Iron
and Copper during Mashing of Roasted Malts. J. Am. Soc. Brew.
Chem. 2021, 79, 138–144. DOI: 10.1080/03610470.2020.1795609.
[18] Arts, M. J. T. J.; Grun, C.; De Jong, R. L.; Voss, H.-P.; Bast, A.;
Mueller, M. J.; Haenen, G. R. M. M. Oxidative Degradation of
Lipids during Mashing. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 7010–
7014. DOI: 10.1021/jf070505+.
[19] Alcázar, A.; Pablos, F.; Martín, M. J.; González, A. G. Multivariate
Characterisation of Beers according to Their Mineral Content.
Talanta 2002, 57, 45–52. DOI: 10.1016/S0039-9140(01)00670-1.
[20] Bellido-Milla, D.; Moreno-Perez, J. M.; Hernández-Artiga, M. P.
Differentiation and Classification of Beers with Flame Atomic
Spectrometry and Molecular Absorption Spectrometry and
Sample Preparation Assisted by Microwaves. Spectrochim. Acta,
Part B At. Spectrosc. 2000, 55, 855–864. DOI: 10.1016/
S0584-8547(00)00164-6.
[21] Voica, C.; Magdas, D. A.; Feher, I. Metal Content and Stable
Isotope Determination in Some Commercial Beers from
Romanian Markets. J. Chem. 2015, 2015, 1–10. DOI: 10.1155/
2015/192032.
[22] Pohl, P. Metals in Beer. Beer Heal. Dis. Prev. 2008, 349–358.
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-373891-2.00033-x.
[23] Maia, C.; Cunha, S.; Debyser, W.; Cook, D. Impacts of Adjunct
Incorporation on Flavor Stability Metrics at Early Stages of Beer
Production. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2021, 1–12. DOI:
10.1080/03610470.2021.1993054.
[24] Kamuf, W.; Nixon, A.; Parker, O.; Barnum, G. C. J. Overview of
Caramel Colors. Am. Assoc. Cereal Chem. 2003, 48, 65–69.
[25] Ivušić, F.; Gjeldum, M. S.; Nemet, Z.; Gracin, L.; Marić, V.
Aluminium and Aroma Compound Concentration in Beer during
Storage at Different Temperatures. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2006,
44, 499–505.
[26] Jaganathan, J.; Sumer, D. M. Atomic Absorption Spectrometric
Determination of Copper in Malt Beverages. At. Spectrosc. 1997,
18, 156–159.
[27] Vela, M. M.; Toma, R. B.; Reiboldt, W.; Pierri, A. Detection of
Aluminum Residue in Fresh and Stored Canned Beer. Food
Chem. 1998, 63, 235–239. DOI: 10.1016/S0308-8146(97)00236-7.
[28] Asfaw, A.; Wibetoe, G. Direct Analysis of Beer by ICP-AES: A
Very Simple Method for the Determination of Cu, Mn and Fe.
Microchim. Acta 2005, 152, 61–68. DOI: 10.1007/
s00604-005-0424-6.
[29] Pires, L. N.; de, S.; Dias, F.; Teixeira, L. S. G. Assessing the
Internal Standardization of the Direct Multi-Element
Determination in Beer Samples through Microwave-Induced
Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2019,
1090, 31–38. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2019.09.033.
[30] Pires, L. N.; Almeida, J. S.; Dias, F.; de, S.; Teixeira, L. S. G.
Sequential and Simultaneous Determination of Chlorine, Iron,
and Silicon in Beer Samples by High-Resolution Continuum
Source Graphite Furnace Molecular and Atomic Absorption
Spectrometry. Food Anal. Methods 2020, 13, 1746–1754. DOI:
10.1007/s12161-020-01787-3.
[31] Sancho, D.; Blanco, C. A.; Caballero, I.; Pascual, A. Free Iron in
Pale, Dark and Alcohol-Free Commercial Lager Beers. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 2011, 91, 1142–1147. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.4298.
[32] Voica, C.; Kovacs, M.; Vadan, M. Volatile Organic Compounds
and Trace Metal Level in Some Beers Collected from Romanian
Market. AIP Conf. Proc. 2013, 1565, 313–316.
[33] Mertens, T.; Kunz, T.; Wietstock, P. C.; Methner, F. J. Complexation
of Transition Metals by Chelators Added during Mashing and
Impact on Beer Stability. J. Inst. Brew. 2021, 127, 345–357. DOI:
10.1002/jib.673.
[34] Poreda, A.; Bijak, M.; Zdaniewicz, M.; Jakubowski, M.;
Makarewicz, M. Effect of Wheat Malt on the Concentration of
Metal Ions in Wort and Brewhouse By-Products. J. Inst. Brew.
2015, 121, 224–230. DOI: 10.1002/jib.226.
[35] Bettenhausen, H. M.; Barr, L.; Broeckling, C. D.; Chaparro, J.
M.; Holbrook, C.; Sedin, D.; Heuberger, A. L. Influence of Malt
Source on Beer Chemistry, Flavor, and Flavor Stability. Food Res.
Int. 2018, 113, 487–504. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.07.024.
[36] Hoff, S.; Lund, M. N.; Petersen, M. A.; Jespersen, B. M.; Andersen,
M. L. Influence of Malt Roasting on the Oxidative Stability of
Sweet Wort. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 5652–5659. DOI:
10.1021/jf300749r.
[37] Pagenstecher, M.; Bolat, I.; Bjerrum, M. J.; Andersen, M. L.
Copper Binding in Sweet Worts Made from Specialty Malts. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 69, 6613–6622. DOI: 10.1021/acs.
jafc.1c01582.
[38] Lu, S.; Gibb, S. W. Copper Removal from Wastewater Using
Spent-Grain as Biosorbent. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 1509–
1517. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.04.024.
[39] Piggott, C. O.; Connolly, A.; Fitzgerald, R. J. Application of
Ultrafiltration in the Study of Phenolic Isolates and Melanoidins
from Pale and Black Brewers’ Spent Grain. Int. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 2014, 49, 2252–2259. DOI: 10.1111/ijfs.12540.

[40] Minihane, A. M.; Rimbach, G. Iron Absorption and the Iron
Binding and Anti-Oxidant Properties of Phytic Acid. Int. J. Food
Sci. Tech. 2002, 37, 741–748. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2621.2002.
00619.x.
[41] Morales, F. J.; Fernández-Fraguas, C.; Jiménez-Pérez, S.
Iron-Binding Ability of Melanoidins from Food and Model
Systems. Food Chem. 2005, 90, 821–827. DOI: 10.1016/j.food-
chem.2004.05.030.
[42] Ma, J. F.; Higashitani, A.; Sato, K.; Takeda, K. Genotypic Variation
in Fe Concentration of Barley Grain. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2004,
50, 1115–1117. DOI: 10.1080/00380768.2004.10408583.
[43] Holzmann, A.; Piendl, A. Malt Modification and Mashing
Conditions as Factors Influencing the Minerals of Wort. J. Am.
Soc. Brew. Chem. 1977, 35, 1–8. DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-35-0001.
[44] Morgan, B.; Lahav, O. The Effect of pH on the Kinetics of
Spontaneous Fe(II) Oxidation by O2 in Aqueous Solution – Basic
Principles and a Simple Heuristic Description. Chemosphere 2007,
68, 2080–2084. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.02.015.
[45] Stefánsson, A. Iron (III) Hydrolysis and Solubility at 25 Degrees
C. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 6117–6123. DOI: 10.1021/
es070174h.
[46] Hem, J. D.; Cropper, W. H. Survey of Ferrous-Ferric Chemical
Equilibria and Redox Potentials. Chem. Iron Nat. Water 1962,
1, 268.
[47] Doderer, A.; Kokkelink, I.; van der Veen, S.; Valk, B. E.; Schram,
A. W.; Douma, A. C. Purification and Characterization of Two
Lipoxygenase Isoenzymes from Germinating Barley. Biochim.
Biophys. Acta 1992, 1120, 97–104. DOI: 10.1016/0167-4838
(92)90429-H.
[48] De Rouck, G.; Jaskula-Goiris, B.; De Causmaecker, B.; Van
Opstaele, F.; De Clippeleer, J.; De Cooman, L.; Aerts, G. The
Impact of Wort Production on the Flavour Quality and Stability
of Pale Lager Beer. BrewingScience 2013, 66, 1–11.
[49] Mussche, R. A.; Pauw, C. Total Stabilisation of Beer in a Single
Operation. J. Inst. Brew. 1999, 105, 386–391. DOI:
10.1002/j.2050-0416.1999.tb00030.x.
[50] Freeman, G. J. Separation Technologies in Brewing. Separation,
Extraction and Concentration Processes in the Food, Beverage and
Nutraceutical Industries; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Sawston,
2010. DOI: 10.1533/9780857090751.2.430.
[51] Čejka, P.; Kellner, V.; Čulík, J.; Jurková, M.; Horák, T.; Ratkoš,
M. Level and Impact of Metals in Kieselguhr. Kvasný Průmysl.
2004, 50, 97–101. DOI: 10.18832/kp2004007.
[52] Slaby, M.; Sterba, K.; Oslovska, J. Filtration of Beer – A Review.
Kvas. Prum. 2018, 64, 173–184.
[53] Chlup, P. H.; Bernard, D.; Stewart, G. G. The Disc Stack
Centrifuge and Its Impact on Yeast and Beer Quality. J. Am. Soc.
Brew. Chem. 2007, 65, 29–37. DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-2007-0116-02.
[54] Fillaudeau, L.; Carrère, H. Yeast Cells, Beer Composition and
Mean Pore Diameter Impacts on Fouling and Retention during
Cross-Flow Filtration of Beer with Ceramic Membranes. J. Memb.
Sci. 2002, 196, 39–57. DOI: 10.1016/S0376-7388(01)
00568-3.
[55] Walker, S. L.; Carmen Donet Camarena, M.; Freeman, G.
Alternatives to Isinglass for Beer Clarification. J. Inst. Brew. 2007,
113, 347–354. DOI: 10.1002/j.2050-0416.2007.tb00761.x.
[56] Morris, T. M. The Effect of Cold Break on the Fining of Beer.
J. Inst. Brew. 1986, 92, 93–96. DOI: 10.1002/j.2050-0416.1986.
tb04380.x.
[57] Vanderhaegen, B.; Neven, H.; Verachtert, H.; Derdelinckx, G.
The Chemistry of Beer Aging – A Critical Review. Food Chem.
2006, 95, 357–381. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.01.006.
[58] Marques, L.; Espinosa, M. H.; Andrews, W.; Foster, R. T.
Advancing Flavor Stability Improvements in Different Beer Types
Using Novel Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Area and Forced
Beer Aging Methods. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2017, 75, 35–40.
DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-2017-1472-01.
[59] Kunz, T.; Strähmel, A.; Cortés, N.; Kroh, L. W.; Methner, F. J.
Influence of Intermediate Maillard Reaction Products with
Enediol Structure on the Oxidative Stability of Beverages. J. Am.
Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists 9
Soc. Brew. Chem. 2013, 71, 114–123. DOI: 10.1094/
ASBCJ-2013-0429-01.
[60] Uchida, M.; Ono, M. Improvement for Oxidative Flavor Stability
of Beer – Role of OH-Radical in Beer Oxidation. J. Am. Soc.
Brew. Chem. 1996, 54, 198–204. DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-
54-0198.
[61] Truong, D. H.; Thi, N.; Nhung, A.; Dao, D. Q. Iron Ions
Chelation-Based Antioxidant Potential vs. Pro-Oxidant Risk of
Ferulic Acid: A DFT Study in Aqueous Phase. Comput. Theor.
Chem. 2020, 1185, 112905. DOI: 10.1016/j.comptc.2020.112905.
[62] Nøddekaer, T. V.; Andersen, M. L. Effects of Maillard and
Caramelization Products on Oxidative Reactions in Lager Beer.
J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2007, 65, 15–20. DOI: 10.1094/
ASBCJ-2007-0112-02.
[63] Carvalho, D. O.; Øgendal, L. H.; Andersen, M. L.; Guido, L. F.
High Molecular Weight Compounds Generated by Roasting
Barley Malt Are Pro-Oxidants in Metal-Catalyzed Oxidations.
Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2016, 242, 1545–1553. DOI: 10.1007/
s00217-016-2655-7.
[64] Nguyen, T. H.; Waterhouse, A. L. Redox Cycling of Iron: Effects
of Chemical Composition on Reaction Rates with Phenols and
Oxygen in Model Wine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2021, 72, 209–216.
DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2021.20024.
[65] Minotti, G.; Aust, S. D. Redox Cycling of Iron and Lipid
Peroxidation. Lipids 1992, 27, 219–226. DOI: 10.1007/BF02536182.
[66] Santos Neto, J. H.; Porto, I. S. A.; Schneider, M. P.; dos Santos,
A. M. P.; Gomes, A. A.; Ferreira, S. L. C. Speciation Analysis
Based on Digital Image Colorimetry: Iron (II/III) in White Wine.
Talanta 2019, 194, 86–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.09.102.
[67] Ferreira, S. L. C.; Ferreira, H. S.; Jesus, R. M.; De, J. V. S.; Santos,
G. C.; Brandao, A.; Souza, S. Development of Method for the
Speciation of Inorganic Iron in Wine Samples. Anal. Chim. Acta
2007, 602, 89–93. DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2007.09.002.
[68] Cristina, A.; Kaewta, D.; Víctor, C. Automated Spectrophotometric
Multi-Pumping Flow System for the Determination of Total Iron
in Wine Automated Spectrophotometric Multi-Pumping Flow.
Anal. Lett. 2020, 53, 2775–2783.
[69] Danilewicz, J. C. Mechanism of Autoxidation of Polyphenols and
Participation of Sulfite in Wine: Key Role of Iron. Am. J. Enol.
Vitic. 2011, 62, 319–328. DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2011.10105.
[70] Filik, H.; Giray, D. Cloud Point Extraction for Speciation of Iron
in Beer Samples by Spectrophotometry. Food Chem. 2012, 130,
209–213. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.07.008.
[71] Andersen, M. L.; Skibsted, L. H. Electron Spin Resonance Spin
Trapping Identification of Radicals Formed during Aerobic Forced
Aging of Beer. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 1272–1275. DOI:
10.1021/jf9708608.
[72] Andersen, M. L.; Outtrup, H.; Skibsted, L. H. Potential
Antioxidants in Beer Assessed by ESR Spin Trapping. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 2000, 48, 3106–3111. DOI: 10.1021/jf000354+.
[73] Baert, J. J.; De Clippeleer, J.; Hughes, P. S.; De Cooman, L.;
Aerts, G. On the Origin of Free and Bound Staling Aldehydes
in Beer. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 11449–11472. DOI:
10.1021/jf303670z.
[74] Kamimura, M.; Kaneda, H. Off-Flavors in Beer. Dev. Food Sci.
1992, 28, 433–472.
[75] McClements, D. J.; Decker, E. A. Lipids. In Fennema’s Food Chemistry;
Damodaran, S., Parkin, K. L., Eds.; Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis
Group, LLC, 2017; pp. 173–230. DOI: 10.1201/9781315372914.
[76] Hughes, P. Beer Flavor. In Beer: A Quality Perspective; Bamforth,
C. W., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, 2008; pp. 61–83.
[77] Galliard, T.; Phillips, D. R.; Reynolds, J. The Formation of Cis-3-
Nonenal, Trans-2-Nonenal and Hexanal from Linoleic Acid
Hydroperoxide Isomers by a Hydroperoxide Cleavage Enzyme
System in Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) Fruits. Biochim. Biophys.
Acta 1976, 441, 181–192. DOI: 10.1016/0005-2760(76)90161-2.
[78] Šibalić, D.; Planinić, M.; Jurić, A.; Bucić, A.; Marina, K. Analysis
of Phenolic Compounds in Beer: From Raw Materials to the
Final Product. Chem. Pap. 2021, 75, 67–76. DOI: 10.1007/
s11696-020-01276-1.
10 T. VAN MIEGHEM ET AL.
[79] Walters, M. T.; Heasman, A. P.; Hughes, P. S. Comparison of
(+)—Catechin and Ferulic Acid as Natural Antioxidants and
Their Impact on Beer Flavor Stability. Part 1: Forced-Aging. J.
Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 1997, 55, 83–89. DOI: 10.1094/
ASBCJ-55-0083.
[80] Chvátalová, K.; Slaninová, I.; Březinová, L.; Slanina, J. Influence
of Dietary Phenolic Acids on Redox Status of Iron: Ferrous Iron
Autoxidation and Ferric Iron Reduction. Food Chem. 2008, 106,
650–660. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.06.028.
[81] Khokhar, S.; Owusu Apenten, R. K. Iron Binding Characteristics
of Phenolic Compounds: Some Tentative Structure-Activity
Relations. Food Chem. 2003, 81, 133–140. DOI: 10.1016/
S0308-8146(02)00394-1.
[82] Coghe, S.; Gheeraert, B.; Michiels, A.; Delvaux, F. R. Development
of Maillard Reaction Related Characteristics during Malt Roasting.
J. Inst. Brew. 2006, 112, 148–156. DOI: 10.1002/j.2050-0416.2006.
tb00244.x.
[83] Cao, G.; Sofic, E.; Prior, R. L. Antioxidant and Prooxidant
Behavior of Flavonoids: Structure-Activity Relationships. Free
Radic. Biol. Med. 1997, 22, 749–760. DOI: 10.1016/
S0891-5849(96)00351-6.
[84] Shopska, V.; Denkova-Kostova, R.; Dzhivoderova-Zarcheva, M.;
Teneva, D.; Denev, P.; Kostov, G. Comparative Study on Phenolic
Content and Antioxidant Activity of Different Malt Types.
Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1124. DOI: 10.3390/antiox1007
1124.
[85] Piazzon, A.; Forte, M.; Nardini, M. Characterization of Phenolics
Content and Antioxidant Activity of Different Beer Types. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 10677–10683. DOI: 10.1021/
jf101975q.
[86] Vandecan, S. M. G.; Daems, N.; Schouppe, N.; Saison, D.;
Delvaux, F. R. Formation of Flavor, Color, and Reducing Power
during the Production Process of Dark Specialty Malts. J. Am.
Soc. Brew. Chem. 2011, 69, 150–157. DOI: 10.1094/
ASBCJ-2011-0626-01.
[87] Liguori, L.; De Francesco, G.; Orilio, P.; Perretti, G.; Albanese,
D. Influence of Malt Composition on the Quality of a Top
Fermented Beer. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 2295–2303. DOI:
10.1007/s13197-020-04740-8.
[88] Echavarría, A. P.; Pagán, J.; Ibarz, A. Melanoidins Formed by
Maillard Reaction in Food and Their Biological Activity. Food
Eng. Rev. 2012, 4, 203–223. DOI: 10.1007/s12393-012-9057-9.
[89] Coghe, S.; Vanderhaegen, B.; Pelgrims, B.; Basteyns, A.; Delvaux,
F. R.; Coghe, S.; Vanderhaegen, B.; Pelgrims, B.; Basteyns, A.;
Coghe, S.; et al. Characterization of Dark Specialty Malts: New
Insights in Color Evaluation and Pro- and Antioxidative Activity.
J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2003, 61, 125–132. DOI: 10.1094/
ASBCJ-61-0125.
[90] Guido, L. F. Sulfites in Beer: Reviewing Regulation, Analysis and
Role. Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.) 2016, 73, 189–197. DOI:
10.1590/0103-9016-2015-0290.
[91] Lund, M. N.; Krämer, A. C.; Andersen, M. L. Antioxidative
Mechanisms of Sulfite and Protein-Derived Thiols during Early
Stages of Metal Induced Oxidative Reactions in Beer. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 2015, 63, 8254–8261. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.
5b02617.
[92] Wauters, R.; Britton, S. J.; Verstrepen, K. J. Old Yeasts, Young
Beer—The Industrial Relevance of Yeast Chronological Life Span.
Yeast 2021, 38, 339–351. DOI: 10.1002/yea.3650.
[93] Horn, P. A.; Bagattoli Pedron, N.; Junges, L. H.; Martinez Rebelo,
A.; Hercílio Higino da Silva, F.; Bertarello Zeni, A. L. Antioxidant
Profile at the Different Stages of Craft Beers Production: The
Role of Phenolic Compounds. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247,
439–452. DOI: 10.1007/s00217-020-03637-2.
[94] Zhao, H.; Chen, W.; Lu, J.; Zhao, M. Phenolic Profiles and
Antioxidant Activities of Commercial Beers. Food Chem. 2010,
119, 1150–1158. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.08.028.
[95] Brezová, V.; Polovka, M.; Staško, A. The Influence of Additives
on Beer Stability Investigated by EPR Spectroscopy. Spectrochim.
Acta – Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2002, 58, 1279–1291. DOI:
10.1016/S1386-1425(01)00717-X.
[96] Bamforth, C. W.; Muller, R. E.; Walker, M. D. Oxygen and
Oxygen Radicals in Malting and Brewing: A Review. J. Am. Soc.
Brew. Chem. 1993, 51, 79–88. DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-51-0079.
[97] Carvalho, D. O.; Gonçalves, L. M.; Guido, L. F. Overall
Antioxidant Properties of Malt and How They Are Influenced
by the Individual Constituents of Barley and the Malting Process.
Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2016, 15, 927–943. DOI:
10.1111/1541-4337.12218.
[98] Zazo, J. A.; Pliego, G.; Blasco, S.; Casas, J. A.; Rodriguez, J. J.
Intensification of the Fenton Process by Increasing the
Temperature. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 866–870. DOI:
10.1021/ie101963k.
[99] Filipowska, W.; Jaskula-Goiris, B.; Ditrych, M.; Bustillo Trueba,
P.; De Rouck, G.; Aerts, G.; Powell, C.; Cook, D.; De Cooman,
L. On the Contribution of Malt Quality and the Malting Process
to the Formation of Beer Staling Aldehydes: A Review. J. Inst.
Brew. 2021, 127, 107–126. DOI: 10.1002/jib.644.
[100] Clarkson, S. P.; Large, P. J.; Bamforth, C. W. Oxygen-Scavenging
Enzymes in Barley and Malt and Their Effects During Mashing.
J. Inst. Brew. 1992, 98, 111–115. DOI: 10.1002/j.2050-0416.1992.
tb01096.x.
[101] Liégeois, C.; Meurens, N.; Badot, C.; Collin, S. Release of
Deuterated (E)-2-Nonenal during Beer Aging from Labeled
Precursors Synthesized before Boiling. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002,
50, 7634–7638. DOI: 10.1021/jf020617v.
[102] Kuroda, H.; Furusho, S.; Maeba, H.; Takashio, M. Characterization
of Factors Involved in the Production of 2(E)-Nonenal during
Mashing. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2003, 67, 691–697. DOI:
10.1271/bbb.67.691.
[103] Drost, B. W.; van den Berg, R.; Freijee, F. J. M.; van der Velde,
E. G.; Hollemans, M. Flavor Stability. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem
1990, 48, 124–131. DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-48-0124.
[104] Meilgaard, M. C.; Reid, D. S.; Wyborski, K. A. Reference
Standards for Beer Flavor Terminology System. J. Am. Soc. Brew.
Chem. 1982, 40, 119–128. DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-40-0119.
[105] Puppo, A. Effect of Flavonoids on Hydroxyl Radical Formation
by Fenton-Type Reactions; Influence of the Iron Chelator.
Phytochemistry 1992, 31, 85–88. DOI: 10.1016/0031-
9422(91)83011-9.
[106] Wietstock, P. C.; Kunz, T.; Pereira, F.; Methner, F. J. Metal
Chelation Behavior of Hop Acids in Buffered Model Systems.
BrewingScience 2016, 69, 56–63.
[107] Lim, J.; Lawless, H. T. Detection Thresholds and Taste Qualities
of Iron Salts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006, 17, 513–521. DOI:
10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.06.006.
[108] Epke, E. M.; Lawless, H. T. Retronasal Smell and Detection
Thresholds of Iron and Copper Salts. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 92,
487–491. DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.04.022.
[109] Omur-Ozbek, P.; Dietrich, A. M. Retronasal Perception and
Flavour Thresholds of Iron and Copper in Drinking Water. J.
Water Health 2011, 9, 1–9. DOI: 10.2166/wh.2011.157b.
[110] Dietrich, A. M. The Sense of Smell: Contributions of Orthonasal
and Retronasal Perception Applied to Metallic Flavor of Drinking
Water. J. Water Supply Res. Technol. – AQUA 2009, 58, 562–570.
DOI: 10.2166/aqua.2009.122.
[111] Ömür-Özbek, P.; Dietrich, A. M.; Duncan, S. E.; Lee, Y. W. Role
of Lipid Oxidation, Chelating Agents, and Antioxidants in
Metallic Flavor Development in the Oral Cavity. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 2012, 60, 2274–2280. DOI: 10.1021/jf204277v.
[112] Glindemann, D.; Dietrich, A.; Staerk, H. J.; Kuschk, P. The Two
Odors of Iron When Touched or Pickled: (Skin) Carbonyl
Compounds and Organophosphines. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.
2006, 45, 7006–7009. DOI: 10.1002/anie.200602100.
[113] Minotti, G. Sources and Role of Iron in Lipid Peroxidation.
Chem. Res. Toxicol. 1993, 6, 134–146. DOI: 10.1021/tx00032a001.
[114] Hong, J. H.; Kim, K. O. Operationally Defined Solubilization of
Copper and Iron in Human Saliva and Implications for Metallic
Flavor Perception. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2011, 233, 973–983.
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-011-1590-x.
[115] Epke, E. M.; McClure, S. T.; Lawless, H. T. Effects of Nasal
Occlusion and Oral Contact on Perception of Metallic Taste from

Metal Salts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2009, 20, 133–137. DOI: 10.1016/j.
foodqual.2008.08.001.
[116] Lawless, H. T.; Schlake, S.; Smythe, J.; Lim, J.; Yang, H.; Chapman,
K.; Bolton, B. Metallic Taste and Retronasal Smell. Chem. Senses
2004, 29, 25–33. DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjh003.
[117] Skinner, M.; Lim, M.; Tarrega, A.; Ford, R.; Linforth, R.; Thomas,
A.; Hort, J. Investigating the Oronasal Contributions to Metallic
Perception. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 1299–1306. DOI:
10.1111/ijfs.13417.
[118] Green, S. C.; Stewart, M. E.; Downing, D. T. Variation of Sebum
Fatty Acid Composition among Adult Humans. J. Invest.
Dermatol. 1984, 83, 114–117. DOI: 10.1111/1523-1747.
ep12263287.
[119] Ziboh, V. A.; Cho, Y.; Mani, I.; Xi, S. Biological Significance of
Essential Fatty Acids/Prostanoids/Lipoxygenase-Derived
Monohydroxy Fatty Acids in the Skin. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2002,
25, 747–758. DOI: 10.1007/BF02976988.
[120] Combet, E.; Eastwood, D. C.; Burton, K. S.; Combet, E.; Henderson,
J.; Henderson, J.; Combet, E. Eight-Carbon Volatiles in Mushrooms
and Fungi: Properties, Analysis, and Biosynthesis. Mycoscience
2006, 47, 317–326. DOI: 10.1007/S10267-006-0318-4.
[121] Evans, D. E.; Goldsmith, M.; Redd, K. S.; Nischwitz, R.; Lentini,
A. 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. 2012, 70, 39–49. DOI:
10.1094/ASBCJ-2012-0103-01.
[122] Cozzolino, D.; Degner, S. An Overview on the Role of Lipids
and Fatty Acids in Barley Grain and Their Products during Beer
Brewing. Food Res. Int. 2016, 81, 114–121. DOI: 10.1016/j.
foodres.2016.01.003.
[123] Cozzolino, D.; Roumeliotis, S.; Eglinton, J. Relationships between
Fatty Acid Contents of Barley Grain, Malt, and Wort with Malt
Quality Measurements. Cereal Chem. 2015, 92, 93–97. DOI:
10.1094/CCHEM-04-14-0071-R.
[124] Gordon, R.; Power, A.; Chapman, J.; Chandra, S.; Cozzolino, D.
A Review on the Source of Lipids and Their Interactions during
Beer Fermentation That Affect Beer Quality. Fermentation 2018,
4, 89–89. DOI: 10.3390/fermentation4040089.
[125] Lin, J.; Blank, I. Odorants Generated by Thermally Induced
Degradation of Phospholipids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51,
4364–4369. DOI: 10.1021/jf034300m.
[126] Lubran, M. B.; Lawless, H. T.; Lavin, E.; Acree, T. E. Identification
of Metallic-Smelling 1-Octen-3-One and 1-Nonen-3-One from
Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists 11
Solutions of Ferrous Sulfate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53,
8325–8327. DOI: 10.1021/jf0511594.
[127] Buettner, A.; Schieberle, P. Characterization of the Most
Odor-Active Volatiles in Fresh, Hand-Squeezed Juice of Grapefruit
(Citrus paradisi Macfayden). J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47,
5189–5193. DOI: 10.1021/jf990071l.
[128] Kishimoto, T.; Noba, S.; Yako, N.; Kobayashi, M.; Watanabe, T.
Simulation of Pilsner-Type Beer Aroma Using 76 Odor-Active
Compounds. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2018, 126, 330–338. DOI: 10.1016/j.
jbiosc.2018.03.015.
[129] Luykx, J. M. M. Influence of Metal Ion on Beer Properties, with
Special Reference to Foam. J. Inst. Brew. 1960, 66, 399–407. DOI:
10.1002/j.2050-0416.1960.tb01732.x.
[130] Simpson, W. J.; Hughes, P. S. Stabilization of Foams by
Hop-Derived Bitter Acids. Chemical Interactions in Beer Foam.
Cerevisiae Biotech. 1994, 19, 39–44.
[131] Niu, C.; Han, Y.; Wang, J.; Zheng, F.; Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Li, Q. Malt
Derived Proteins: Effect of Protein Z on Beer Foam Stability.
Food Biosci. 2018, 25, 21–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.fbio.2018.07.003.
[132] Perrocheau, L.; Rogniaux, H.; Boivin, P.; Marion, D. Probing
Heat-Stable Water-Soluble Proteins from Barley to Malt and Beer.
Proteomics 2005, 5, 2849–2858. DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200401153.
[133] Maeda, K.; Yokoi, S.; Kamada, K.; Kamimura, M. Foam Stability
and Physicochemical Properties of Beer. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem.
1991, 49, 14–18. DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-49-0014.
[134] Bishop, B. L. R.; Whitear, A. L.; Inman, W. R.; Brewery, M. A
Scientific Basis for Beer Foam Formation and Cling. J. Inst. Brew.
1974, 80, 68–80. DOI: 10.1002/j.2050-0416.1974.tb03585.x.
[135] Pfenninger, H. B.; Anderegg, P.; Vykoukal, E. Alginate
Determination in Beer. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 1983, 41, 40–42.
DOI: 10.1094/ASBCJ-41-0040.
[136] Bamforth, C. W. The Foaming Properties of Beer. J. Inst. Brew.
1985, 91, 370–383. DOI: 10.1002/j.2050-0416.1985.tb04359.x.
[137] Ryder, D. S. Processing Aids in Brewing. In Handbook of Brewing;
Stewart, G. G., Russell, I., Anstruther, A., Eds.; Boca Raton:
Taylor & Francis, 2018; pp. 287–328. DOI: 10.1038/213765a0.
[138] Kunimune, T.; Shellhammer, T. H. Foam-Stabilizing Effects and
Cling Formation Patterns of Iso-α-Acids and Reduced Iso-α-Acids
in Lager Beer. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 8629–8634. DOI:
10.1021/jf8011079.
[139] Gray, P. P.; Stone, I. M. Direct Determination of Iron in Malt
Beverages. Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 1938, 10, 415–417. DOI:
10.1021/ac50124a005.