Next Article in Journal
Comprehensive Quality Evaluation for Medicinal and Edible Ziziphi Spinosae Semen before and after Rancidity Based on Traditional Sensory, Physicochemical Characteristics, and Volatile Compounds
Next Article in Special Issue
Postbiotics: Current Trends in Food and Pharmaceutical Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Microbial Evaluation of Ozone Water Combined with Ultrasound Cleaning on Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bioprocessing of Wheat and Amaranth Bran for the Reduction of Fructan Levels and Application in 3D-Printed Snacks
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Different Yeast Strains on Biogenic Amines, Volatile Compounds and Sensory Profile of Beer

1
Department of Food Safety and Quality, Veterinary Academy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Tilzes Str. 18, LT-47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Institute of Animal Rearing Technologies, Faculty of Animal Sciences, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Tilzes Str. 18, LT-47181 Kaunas, Lithuania
3
Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
4
Associate Laboratory in Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
5
Institute of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Agriculture Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaicio Str. 58, LT-44244 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(15), 2317; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152317
Submission received: 14 July 2022 / Revised: 29 July 2022 / Accepted: 29 July 2022 / Published: 3 August 2022

Abstract

:
Nowadays, there are many sorts of beer, however, some of them, despite the good sensory and other quality indicators, could contain high concentrations of undesirable compounds, such biogenic amines (BA). The yeast strain (YS), used for fermentation, can cause desirable as well as undesirable changes in beer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the contribution of different YS (A-Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus, B-Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus, C-Brettanomyces claussenii) on the main quality parameters of beer. In addition, the BA concentration and the volatile compounds (VC, measured by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry) and their relation with beer overall acceptability (OA, evaluated by 20 trained judges) and emotions induced for consumers were analysed. The YS was a significant factor on alcohol formation in beer (p = 0.0001). The highest colour intensity was shown by C beer (10.2 EBC), and the latter beer showed the lowest OA. All of the beer samples induced the highest intensity of the emotion “neutral”, and the main VC of the beer were 3-methyl-1-butanol; L-α-terpineol; hexanoic acid 3-methylbutyl ester; and n-capric acid isobutyl ester. The highest total BAs content was found in beer fermented with C. Finally, all of the tested YS are suitable for beer production, however, taking into consideration the safety aspect of the beer, it should be mentioned that the highest concentration of BAs was found in beer fermented with C strain.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Beer can be derived from malted cereals or grains, along with water, hops and a yeast strain. The prepared wort is fermented with the selected yeast strain, and, during this process, fermentable sugars are converted into alcohol and carbon dioxide. Beer is a very popular beverage [1] and there are many beer sorts, as well as reported studies, about beer quality characteristics and the factors influencing the beer choice of consumers [2].
Although the raw materials used for beer preparation are similar, the secondary metabolites formed during the fermentation process depend on many factors (yeast strain used, temperature, pH, nutrients, among others), with the yeast strain used for fermentation being one of the most important factors. The brewing industry looks toward novel brewing starters to meet the consumer demand for increases in product assortment [3].
It has been reported that Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus has amylolytic activity and, in most cases, causes undesirable changes in beer quality [4]. These changes are explained by its extracellular glucoamylase utilization of dextrins, which represent 10–20% of the total concentration of saccharides in the wort. However, the metabolism of dextrin and starch degradation is strain dependent, and it was reported that S. cerevisiae var. diastaticus yeast strains are suitable for brewing under similar conditions compared with classical brewing culture strains, resulting in desirable, appealing beers with clear taste [5]. Moreover, S. cerevisiae var. diastaticus can be used for a one-step process of starch fermentation to produce beers with low-carbohydrate content, as well as with specific sensory profile [5].
Although S. cerevisiae is the predominant yeast in most fermentation processes, other species of this genus have also been described to be involved in beverages fermentation [6].
The species S. bayanus is very complex, and at least two groups of S. bayanus strains have been reported [7,8,9]. The group S. bayanus var. bayanus includes the species contributing to the lager yeast genome, however, this group shows a very high degree of genetic variability [10].
Another yeast, Brettanomyces, is non-conventional and can be isolated from different sources [11]. In breweries, Brettanomyces are usually recognized as spoilage-causing microorganisms, because their presence can completely change the sensory characteristics of the beverage [12]. However, if applied correctly, Brettanomyces can produce metabolites that possess desirable exotic flavours [13]. Recently, the beer industry has broadened the application of Brettanomyces to create novel flavours in new beer style preparations [14]. The Brettanomyces species shows specific characteristics [14]; they produce limited amounts of glycerol, and can form a significant concentration of acetic acid [15]. In addition to glucose, most Brettanomyces strains can metabolize a variety of mono-, di- and trisaccharides, as well as dextrins [16]. Brettanomyces are suggested for the production of superattenuated and lower energy cereal beverages [17]. The range of amino acids Brettanomyces can use as nitrogen source is wide, glutamine being the most preferred one [18]. During the fermentation process, Brettanomyces produces a broad and complex spectrum of volatile compounds (VC) [19].
Taking into consideration that the different yeast strains could be used for various characteristics in beer preparation, in this study the same technological conditions and raw materials (except yeast strain) were applied for beer preparation and the influence of yeast strain on beer parameters was analysed. In addition to the most important beer characteristics, VC contribution to beer overall acceptability as well as emotions induced for consumers were evaluated. It was reported that food-evoked emotions have been argued to improve predictions regarding consumers’ food choices [20,21,22,23,24]. For this reason, we hypothesize, that the beer VC could contribute to emotions induced for consumers, as well as overall acceptability. In addition, biogenic amines (BAs) are often key flavour and aroma compounds critical to the character of fermented foods and beverages [25]. Furthermore, beer has been commonly reported, among foods and beverages, to be a health risk for some consumers, resulting from BAs intake [26]. The negative effects of BA on health derived from food have been reported, in which the BA content ranged from 301.8 to 500 mg/kg and from 190 to 500 mg/kg for tyramine and histamine, respectively [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. Moreover, synergistic effects of separate BA can increase their adverse effects [35]. Most regulations focus on the most dangerous ones (histamine in certain foods such as fresh fish or enzyme-maturated fish products, allowing up to between 100 and 200 mg/kg, respectively) [36,37], and no regulation has been established for beer. Calculations of the dietary intake of BAs should consider all their potential sources from both foods and beverages. For this reason, control of the BAs in beer is very important, and we hypothesize that the formation of these compounds in beer could be dependent on yeast strain.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the contribution of different yeast strains (Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus and Brettanomyces claussenii) on the main quality parameters of beer (dry matter content, density, acidity parameters, real degree of fermentation (RDF), attenuation (ADF), energy value, ethanol and methanol concentrations, colour coordinates, bitterness units (BU)). In addition, the concentration of biogenic amines (BAs) and the profile of VC and their relationship with beer overall acceptability, as well as emotions induced for consumers, were analysed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials Used for Beer Preparation

Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus yeast were purchased from ERBSLÖH Geisenheim GmbH (Geisenheim, Germany), Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus yeast were obtained from Lallemand Inc. (Montréal, Canada) and Brettanomyces claussenii were bought from White Labs Inc. (San Diego, CA, USA).
The hop varieties Citra brand, Amarillo brand and Mosaic brand were purchased from Yakima Chief Hops SA (Mont-Saint-Guibert, Belgium) and hop variety USA Sorachi Ace brand was bought from BarthHaas GmbH & Co KG (Nuremberg, Germany).
Barley Pilsner, wheat and rye malts were obtained from JSC “Viking Malt” (Panevezys, Lithuania).
The quality certificates for the raw materials are presented in Supplementary file 1.

2.2. Beer Preparation

The principal technological scheme for the beer preparation is given in Figure 1.
All the malts were transferred into the grist mill (model Piccolo 11S, Sommer Maschinenbau GmbH, Elz, Germany) and grounded to mid-size parts. Then the malt grist was transferred to the brewhouse (model BH100, Plevnik, Dobrova, Slovenia) and mixed with water (mashed) (60 °C) in a mash conversion vessel (or mash tun), to give a soluble extract designed according to the recipe and activate the enzymes in the malts. Mashing involved increasing the temperature to the optimum temperature for the enzymes to act and maintaining the rest for a period of time as follows: 65 °C for 45 min for maltose production; 72 °C for 10 min for saccharification; 78 °C final mash temperature. At the end of the mashing process, the mash is transferred to a lauter tun vessel and lautering commences. Lautering is a filtration process in which the spent grain plays the role of the filter material. First, the wort draining occurs, then the spent grain is washed out with sparging hot water (80 °C). The obtained liquid is called wort and is boiled for 1 h. During this time the hops were added in three stages: 60 min for bitterness, 30 min for flavour and 1 min for aroma.
After boiling, the wort is filtered, chilled and transferred to fermentation vessels (FUP 2 × 100, Plevnik, Dobrova, Slovenia). Three fermentation tanks were filled with the same wort to the same volume and temperature, then three different yeast strains (A, B, C) were pitched into each. The fermentation was carried out at 21–23 °C temperature.
After fermentation, all three tanks were chilled to 4 °C, racked of the yeast and left for maturation.
After 0, 30 and 90 days of maturation, beer samples were subjected to analysis of the following parameters: dry matter content, density, pH, titratable acidity, real degree of fermentation (RDF), apparent degree of fermentation—attenuation (ADF), energy value, ethanol and methanol concentrations, colour intensity (EBC), bitterness units (BU), overall acceptability, emotions induced for consumers by beer, volatile compounds (VC) profile and biogenic amines (BA) concentration.

2.3. Evaluation of Beer Quality Parameters

Alcoholic grade (% v/v) was determined according to the standard method described in LST 1572 [38].
The dry matter, density, real degree of fermentation (RDF), apparent degree of fermentation (ADF), and energy value of beer samples were determined with an analyser DMA 4500 M (Anton Paar, Graz, Austria).
The pH was measured using a pH electrode (PP-15; Sartorius, Goettingen, Germany), according to standard LST ISO 4316 [39].
The total acidity (TA, g/L) was determined according to standard LST 1990:2007 [40]. For the titration, a standard solution of sodium hydroxide (titrant) was used. A 50-mL volume of a decarbonated beer sample was pipetted into a 100-mL beaker. A magnetic stir bar was placed in the beaker and the pH probe immersed in the sample. While stirring the beer vigorously, beer was titrated with 0.1 M NaOH to pH 8.2 by adding in portions of about 1.5 mL up to pH 7.6, then in smaller increments of about 0.15 mL until a pH of 8.20 was reached.
Colour intensity (EBC) was analysed spectrophotometrically according to standard LST 1490 [41].
The bitterness (BU) was determined with a LAMBDA™ 25 UV/Vis Spectrophotometer (PerkinElmer, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) according to methodology described by Philpott et al. (1997) [42].
Overall acceptability testing of beer was carried out according to ISO method 8586-1 [43] by 20 trained judges for preliminary sensory acceptability using a 10-point Likert scale ranging from 10 (extremely like) to 1 (extremely dislike).
The beer samples were also tested (by the same 20 trained judges) by applying FaceReader 6.0 software (Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands) (Figure 2), with a scoring scale of eight emotion patterns (neutral, happy, sad, angry, surprised, scared, disgusted, and contempt). The whole procedure is described in detail by Bartkiene et al. [44]. For statistical analysis, the maximum values of the facial expression patterns of the respective sections were used.
The VC of the beer samples were analysed by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) as described by Bartkiene et al. [44], with some modifications which are described below. For headspace extraction, 2 g of degassed sample were used. The VC were identified according to mass spectrum libraries (NIST11, NIST11S, FFNSC2).
The extraction and determination of BAs in beer samples followed the procedures developed by Ben-Gigirey et al. [45]. The BA separation was performed on Discovery ® HS C18 column (150 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm; SupelcoTM Analytical, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, USA). The BA were identified based on their retention times in comparison to their corresponding standards. Linearity of the calibration curves was established by injecting five concentrations of each biogenic amine standard (0.00–0.28 g/L for tryptamine, phenylethylamine, cadaverine, putrescine, histamine, tyramine, and spermidine; 0.01–1.40 g/L for spermine). Good linearity (R2: 0.9963–0.9999) was obtained between peak area and analyte concentration.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was completed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, v26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The results were expressed as the mean values (for beer samples n = 3) ± standard error (SE). In order to evaluate the effects of different yeasts and different maturation duration on beer quality parameters, data were analysed by multivariate analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests as post hoc tests. A linear Pearson’s correlation was used to quantify the strength of the relationship between the variables. The results were recognized as statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Beer Samples’ Quality Parameters

The main quality parameters of the samples are shown in Table 1 and beer pictures are given in Figure 3. Comparing the alcoholic grade during the different stages of maturation, no significant differences were found in the same sample groups, and, on average, in beer group A (fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus) ethanol concentration was 7.92%, in group B (fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus)—6.55%, and in group C (fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii)—7.49%. In comparison different sample groups at the same maturation period, the highest alcoholic grade after 90 days of maturation was found in group A samples (8.14%), on average, 1.58% and 0.49% higher, in comparison with B and C groups, respectively. Multivariate analysis of variance showed that the yeast strain used for fermentation was a significant factor in beer alcoholic grade (p = 0.0001), but the duration of maturation and yeast strain * duration of maturation interaction did not have a significant effect on alcohol formation in beer. Comparing all the density parameters (Plato degrees, density, g/cm and SG), no significant differences were found between the groups, though, yeast strain * duration of maturation interaction did have a significant association with the Plato degree (p ≤ 0.001) of samples. The Plato degree shows the grams of dry extract per 100 g of wort, and 2 g of dry extract can produce, on average, 1 g of ethanol, theoretically [46]. Despite this, no correlation between the Plato degree and alcoholic grade of the samples was established. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the alcohol tolerance of the yeasts is not a fixed characteristic, which could be related with yeast strain, nutrients, sugar availability in the substrate, etc. Despite not finding significant differences in the real degree of fermentation (RDF) in the same samples group during the different periods of maturation, in comparing the different samples groups, a significantly lower RDF was found (after 1, 30 and 90 days of maturation) in group B samples (lower, on average, by 12.50%, 15.04% and 16.88%, respectively). Moreover, no significant differences were found in the same group of samples in the apparent degree of fermentation (ADF), however, comparing different groups at the same maturation period, group B samples showed lower ADF in comparison with both, A and C groups, and group A samples showed the highest ADF after 90 days of maturation (98.85%). Regarding the samples’ pH, the lowest pH (during the whole period of maturation) was found in group C samples, and, significant differences between the A and B groups were not established. Notwithstanding, no correlations were found between the samples’ pH and titratable acidity (TA), and the highest TA, during the whole period, was found in the group C samples. Different tendencies of the colour intensity were established, and, after 90 days of maturation, the highest colour intensity was identified in group C samples (10.2 EBC). Between the colour intensity and beer samples’ density (both, in g/cm and SG) and TA significant correlations were established (r = 0.501, p = 0.008; r = 0.991, p = 0.0001; r = 0.581, p = 0.001, respectively). Colour is a very important characteristic of beer, related to its appearance [46]. Beer colour depends on melanoidins produced in the malting process, and, the type of malt is the main factor for colour formation [47]. In this study, the same raw materials were used for beer preparation, except yeast strain, therefore, it could be stated that the differences in colour were related to the different yeast strains used for fermentation. It has been reported that high fermentation yeasts produce beers with higher values of absorbance due to the browning and oxidation of the melanoidins [47]. Even so, as indicated above, in our case the technological parameters were the same, and colour was related to the yeast strain used for fermentation. Significant differences between the beer samples’ bitterness were not established and beer bitterness showed significant correlations with samples’ density (SG), TA and colour (r = 0.727, p = 0.0001; r = 0.617, p = 0.001; r = 0.765, p = 0.0001, respectively). The parameter used to classify beers according to their bitterness is the IBU (international bittering unit) [46]. Hops are the raw material in beer mainly responsible for beer bitterness [48]. The hops provide α-acids, which during the technological process are transformed into iso-α-acids; the latter are more bitter and, for this reason, the beer shows higher IBU values. Moreover, the addition of hops may simultaneously influence a beer’s bitterness, taste and aroma, and, this is a crucial factor, in that a beer which falls outside of the accepted range for the hop content may be judged as not belonging to the style it is categorized as [49]. By keeping the variety and quantity of hops constant across all beer samples, it could be stated that the yeast strain used for fermentation showed the same capacity to preserve the α-acids from hops, as differences in beer IBU were not found.
No significant differences between the beer energy values were found, and on average, the beer energy value was 58 kCal/100 mL. Finally, analysed factors and their interaction were not significant on the samples’ RDF, ADF, pH, TA, colour intensity and energy value.

3.2. Overall Acceptability and Emotions Induced for Consumers by Beer Samples

Overall acceptability (OA) and emotions induced for consumers by the beer samples are given in Table 2. Comparing OA in the same group samples, no significant differences were found, but after 90 days of maturation, the lowest OA was shown by group C samples (on average, 5.2 points). OA of the beer showed significant positive correlation with the emotions “neutral” and “scared” (r = 0.518, p = 0.006 and r = 0.472, p = 0.013, respectively). Although the correlation between the OA and the emotion “happy” was not established, the emotion “happy” showed moderate negative correlation with the emotion “scared” (r = −0.606, p = 0.001). Regarding the intensity of the emotion “happy”, recorded for 90-day beer samples, the highest expression was achieved by group C samples, which showed the lowest OA. Overall, the highest expressed emotion was “neutral” for all the tested beer samples. Furthermore, the valence of most of the beer samples was negative, except samples A and C after 90 days and samples B after 1 day (0.007, 0.019 and 0.012, respectively).
The results can be explained by the fact that beer is a traditional beverage, so the dominant “neutral” emotion could be explained by the judges being familiar with the tested beverage. Moreover, while bitterness is a characteristic by which beer is commonly characterized, it is not appreciated by all [50,51,52]. It has been reported that women usually prefer less bitterness and more complex flavours in beverages, in comparison with men [53,54]. Further, it was reported that individuals associate happiness and surprise with a sweet-tasting solution more often than with salty, sour or bitter solutions, whereas bitter solutions are associated with disgust [55]. The between-subject test showed that the analysed factors and their interaction were significant on most of the tested emotions induced for consumers, except “happy” (Table 3). Furthermore, the analysed factors were not significant on OA evaluated by the judges. Finally, it could be stated that the specific beer taste, especially bitterness, is associated with the expression of negative emotions, though the highest expression of “neutral” emotion leads to the conclusion that the specific beer taste is familiar to consumers.

3.3. Beer Volatile Compounds Profile

The main volatile compounds (VC) of the beer samples are provided in Table 4, and the whole VC profile is given in Supplementary file 2 (Table S1. Beer volatile compounds profile). It was established that by increasing the duration of maturation, 3-methyl-1-butanol content in beer samples increased, with the highest content in group A beer samples after 90 days of maturation (20.56% of the total VC content). The compound 3-methyl-1-butanol gives a brandy, pleasant, fruity, and wine-like odour. This VC formation was significantly influenced by the duration of maturation (Table 5). Between 3-methyl-1-butanol content in beer samples and beer OA, a moderate positive correlation was established (r = 0.441, p = 0.021). Opposite tendencies of the styrene content in A and C beer group samples were found, and, after 90 days of maturation, its content in beer was reduced, on average, by 1.3 and 1.9 times, respectively. Styrene odour is described as sweet, balsam, floral, and plastic. Both the analysed factors and their interaction showed a significant influence on styrene formation in beer samples (Table 5). β-Myrcene content also showed a tendency to decrease during maturation: in group A samples by 1.6, in group B samples by 1.7, and in group C samples by 1.6 times. β-Myrcene content showed a moderate positive correlation with the intensity of the emotion “happy” (r = 0.575, p = 0.002) induced by beer samples. β-Myrcene formation was significantly influenced by duration of fermentation, and its odour is described as anise, grape, fruity, herbaceous, peach, sweet, vanilla, wine-like, vegetable, woody and green. Hexanoic acid, ethyl ester in beer samples ranged from 0.541% to 3.91% of the total VC content (in group B and C samples, respectively, after 90 days of maturation), and the yeast strain used for fermentation and the interaction of factors (yeast strain used for fermentation and duration of maturation) were significant for its formation. Hexanoic acid, ethyl ester odour is described as sour, fatty, sweat and cheese. The highest content of 2-methylbutylbutanoate in group B samples after 90 days of maturation was established (3.95% from the total VC content). The 2-methylbutylbutanoate content showed positive moderate correlation with beer OA (r = 0.401, p = 0.038). This VC odour is fruity, pear, apricot, apple, tropical, gooseberry, spicy and rummy, and, the yeast strain used for fermentation and duration of maturation interaction showed a significant influence on its formation. L-α-Terpineol was one of the main VC in the beer VC profile, but correlations with this VC content and OA as well as the emotion “happy” were not found. L-α-Terpineol odour is described as pine, terpene, lilac, citrus, woody and floral. Decanal, acetic acid, octyl ester and hexanoic acid 3-methylbutyl ester content in beer samples were lower than 2% of the total VC content, even so, a moderate positive correlation was established between the hexanoic acid 3-methylbutyl ester content in beer samples and OA of the beer (r = 0.403, p = 0.037). Decanal odour is sweet, aldehydic, waxy, orange, peel, citrus and floral; acetic acid, octyl ester odour is described as ethereal acetic, fruity, sweet, berry, and grape; hexanoic acid 3-methylbutyl ester odour is described as sour, fatty, sweat and cheese. All analysed factors and their interaction were significant on hexanoic acid 3-methylbutyl ester formation in beer. Hexanoic acid 2-methylbutyl ester was one of the main beer VC, whose content during the maturation process was slightly reduced in all the group samples, and, after 90 days of maturation, the highest content of this VC was found in group C samples (20.6% of the total VC content). Hexanoic acid 2-methylbutyl ester odour is described as sour, fatty, sweat and cheese, and, both factors: yeast strain used for fermentation and duration of maturation showed a significant influence on this VC formation (Table 5). Acetic acid, 2-phenylethyl ester content in group A and B samples showed a tendency to increase by increasing the duration of maturation, but in group C beer samples, an increase was established after just 30 days, then the acetic acid, 2-phenylethyl ester content started to reduce, and after 90 days of maturation this VC content was the lowest in group C samples, in comparison with group A and B samples. Acetic acid, 2-phenylethyl ester possesses honey, floral, sweet, rosy, green with fatty nuances, powdery, and slightly cinnamic odour. Despite the ethyl trans-4-decenoate content in the beer samples’ VC profile being lower than 2% of the total VC content, this VC showed a moderate negative correlation with samples’ OA (r = 0.459, p = 0.016). Ethyl trans-4-decenoate odour is described as green, fruity, waxy and cognac. Comparing the ethyl 9-decenoate (fruity and fatty odour) content in beer samples’ VC profile, after 90 days of maturation, the lowest content of this VC was found in group A samples (1.79% of the total VC content). Caryophyllene (spicy odour) was established in just four samples, in three of which after 90 days of maturation. α-Humulene was found only in group C samples (after 30 and 90 days of maturation), still a weak moderate correlation was found between this VC content and the emotion “happy” (r = 0.382, p = 0.049). α-Humulene odour is described as woody and slightly bitter. Both analysed factors and their interaction were significant on α-humulene formation in beer. In all the cases, during maturation, capric acid isobutyl ester (oily, sweet, brandy, apricot, fermented and cognac odour) content was reduced, in contrast to ethyl dodecanoate (sweet, clean, waxy, musk and animal odour), whose content showed increasing tendencies.
It was reported that beer fermented with S. cerevisiae var. diastaticus has a good sensory profile, and the capacity to build phenolic off-flavours is yeast strain-specific [5].
Saccharomyces bayanus belongs to the Saccharomyces genus and shows genetic similarity to other species that belong to this taxon, although they may vary in terms of oenological properties and the ability to produce volatile compounds [56]. It was reported that wines fermented with S. bayanus showed higher flavour intensity in comparison with S. cerevisiae [57]. The main differences being that S. bayanus synthesizes higher concentrations of 2-phenylethanol, ethyl lactate, 2-phenylethyl acetate and other acetate esters [57,58], while S. cerevisiae produces higher content of isobutanol, isoamyl alcohol and amyl alcohol [57].
It was reported, that the main differential of Brettanomyces strains is the production of volatile phenols, most notably 4-ethylphenol and 4-ethylguaiacol [14]. These compounds possess a diverse flavour comprising spicy, medicinal, leathery, horse sweat and smoky, among others [59,60]. Among the VC produced by Brettanomyces, esters are the most desired as they contribute a pleasant fruity flavour to beer, however, its formation is related to the Brettanomyces strain [14]. In addition, Brettanomyces shows the property to esterify middle- and long-chain fatty acids, which give a rancid and cheesy odour, into esters, switching the flavour profile towards sweet, grape, apple, and wine-like flavours [14].
Recent studies focusing on yeast strain selections are based on their improvement of ester production [61,62,63].
This study showed that the yeast strain is a significant factor in the main VC formation in beer, and despite some of the VC showing a low concentration in the main VC profile, they have a significant influence on beer OV.

3.4. Biogenic Amines Concentration in Beer Samples

Biogenic amines (BAs) concentration in beer samples is shown in Table 6. Histamine, tyramine, spermine and spermidine in beer samples were not established. In a comparison of the tryptamine (TRY) concentration, in groups A and C, after 30 days of maturation, the TRY concentration in beer samples increased, and in group B samples it remained similar to the first day of maturation. After 90 days of maturation, TRY in beer samples was not found. Opposite tendencies were found for phenylethylamine (PHE), and PHE concentration was increased by increasing the duration of maturation, and the highest concentration of PHE was found in group C samples after 90 days of maturation. Putrescine (PUT) was found in all beer samples after 90 days of maturation, as well as in group B and C beer samples after 30 days of maturation. Furthermore, the PUT concentration in group C samples after 30 and 90 days of maturation was, on average, 15 times higher than that in the group B samples. Cadaverine (CAD) was found only in group C samples after 30 and 90 days of maturation (223.8 and 182.5 mg/kg, respectively). The test of between-subjects effect (multivariate analysis of variance) showed that the yeast strain is a significant factor on PUTR and CAD concentration in beer samples (p ≤ 0.0001). The duration of maturation was a significant factor on all the identified BAs in beer: on TRY, PHE, PUTR and CAD content (p ≤ 0.0001, p = 0.008, p ≤ 0.0001, p ≤ 0.0001, respectively). Moreover, the yeast strain used for fermentation and maturation duration interaction were significant on TRY, PUTR and CAD content in beer samples (p = 0.009, p ≤ 0.0001, and p ≤ 0.0001, respectively). A very strong positive correlation was found between CAD and PUTR (r = 0.997, p ≤ 0.0001). Furthermore, between TRY and PHE, a moderate negative correlation was established (r = −0.432, p = 0.024).
It was reported, that in beer, the presence of BAs is mainly due to the activity of contaminants (mainly Enterobacteria sp.), which are possibly active at the early stage of the fermentation, and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) [64]. Moreover, some S. cerevisiae strains could produce PUTR, spermidine and spermine [64].
Correlations between BA concentration in beer samples and beer overall acceptability and emotions induced for consumers are shown in Table 7. In addition to BAs production, LAB can lead to the formation of organoleptic properties. This study showed, a weak positive correlation between the OA of beer and TRY (r = 0.382, p = 0.049). Between TRY and the emotion “happy” a negative moderate correlation was found (r = −0.552, p = 0.003) and between TRY and the emotion “surprised” a moderate positive correlation was established (r = 0.647, p = 0.0001). PHE, PUTR and CAD showed negative moderate correlations with the emotion “surprised” (r = −0.588, p = 0.001; r = −0.501, p = 0.008, and r = −0.459, p = 0.016, respectively). Furthermore, between the emotion “neutral” and PUTR and CAD negative moderate correlations were found (r = −0.515, p = 0.006, and r = −0.545, p = 0.003, respectively). The concentration of 100 mg/L or 100 mg/kg of BAs is considered a safe dose for most consumers, but in the case of alcoholic beverages this limit is much lower, because, the ethanol may reduce the detoxification mechanism of BAs [65]. Moreover, individuals who are taking MAO and DAO enzyme inhibitor drugs are in a higher risk group for the level of BAs in the diet [66]. It was reported that the main BAs in beer are: agmatine, histamine (HIS), CAD, PUTR, PHE, tyramine (TYR), spermine, spermidine and histamine [67,68,69]. Some BAs (spermine, spermidine, CAD and PUTR) do not affect health, but can form carcinogenic nitrosamines by reacting with nitrites. Furthermore, PUTR and CAD can increase the toxicity of other BAs [70,71,72].
The European legislation does not specify a BAs threshold, but the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has elaborated a scientific opinion on the risk associated with the formation of BAs in fermented products [73]. Based on the mean content in foods and consumer exposure data, fermented food categories were ranked with respect to histamine and tyramine, but the presently available information was insufficient to conduct quantitative risk assessment of BAs, individually and in combination(s). Further research on BAs in fermented foods is needed; particularly on the toxicity and acceptable concentrations, and production-process-based control measures. Beer has also been reported as a possible health risk for some consumers due to BAs intake [74]. Beer is considered as a source of the dietary polyamines, putrescine, spermidine and spermine [75]. Hypertensive crises in patients treated with drugs inhibiting monoamine oxidase after beer consumption have been reported in the literature [76,77,78,79]. Tyramine intake as low as 6 mg within a 4-h period or beers with tyramine content over 10 mg/L were considered as dangerous for consumption [79]. Finally, it is very important to control the concentration of BAs in beer, because, this beverage is very popular in many countries, and could be consumed in high amounts. Especially, taking into consideration that the most popular foods to consume with beer are cheese and some smoked meat products, this could lead to additional doses of the total BAs consumption.

4. Conclusions

The highest alcoholic grade was achieved in beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus strain (8.14%), and the yeast strain used for fermentation was a significant factor on the alcohol concentration in beer (p = 0.0001). The highest colour intensity was shown by beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii (10.2 EBC), and the latter beer samples showed the lowest OA (5.2 points, on average). All beer samples induced the highest intensity of the emotion “neutral”, in comparison with other fixed emotions. The main VC of the beer samples were 3-methyl-1-butanol; styrene; β-myrcene; hexanoic acid, ethyl ester; 2-methylbutylbutanoate; L-α-terpineol; decanal; acetic acid, octyl ester and hexanoic acid 3-methylbutyl ester; hexanoic acid 2-methylbutyl ester; acetic acid, 2-phenylethyl ester; acetic acid, 2-phenylethyl ester; ethyl trans-4-decenoate; ethyl 9-decenoate; caryophyllene; α-humulene; capric acid isobutyl ester; and ethyl dodecanoate. In addition to VC, BAs also showed a tendency to influence beer OA and emotions induced for consumers. Histamine, tyramine, spermine and spermidine in beer samples were not established, but the highest total BAs content in beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii and the yeast strain was a significant factor on PUTR and CAD concentration in beer (p ≤ 0.0001). Finally, it could be stated that all of the tested yeast strains are suitable for beer production, however, concerning the safety aspect of the beer, it should be mentioned that the highest concentration of BAs was found in beer fermented with the Brettanomyces claussenii yeast strain.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods11152317/s1. Supplementary file 1. Characteristics of the raw materials; Supplementary file 2. Table S1. Beer volatile compounds profile.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.B. and M.M.; methodology, M.M., V.S., E.Z., D.K., E.M. and R.R.; software, V.S., E.Z. and G.Z.; validation, M.M., V.S., E.Z., D.K., E.M. and R.R.; formal analysis, M.M.; V.S., E.Z., D.K. and E.M.; investigation, M.M., V.S., E.Z., D.K. and E.M.; resources, E.B. and M.M.; data curation, M.M., V.S., E.Z., D.K. and E.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M., V.S., E.Z., D.K., E.M. and R.R.; writing—review and editing, J.M.R. and E.B.; visualization, V.S., E.Z. and G.Z.; supervision, E.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge COST Action 18101 SOURDOMICS—Sourdough biotechnology network towards novel, healthier and sustainable food and bioprocesses (https://sourdomics.com/; https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA18101/) (accessed on 29 May 2022); the author J.M.R. is the Chair and Grant Holder Scientific Representative, and the author E.B. is the Vice-Chair and the leader of the working group entitled ‘Project design and development innovative prototypes of products and small-scale processing technologies’ and is supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology; https://www.cost.eu/ (accessed on 29 May 2022)), a funding agency for research and innovation networks. Regarding to the author J.M.R., this work was also supported by LA/P/0045/2020 (ALiCE) and UIDB/00511/2020—UIDP/00511/2020 (LEPABE) funded by national funds through FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Beer Guide. Volume of World Beer Production. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20061028165040/http://www.europeanbeerguide.net/eustats.htm (accessed on 17 June 2022).
  2. Köster, E.P. Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Qual. Prefer. 2009, 20, 70–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Iattici, F.; Catallo, M.; Solieri, L. Designing new yeasts for craft brewing: When natural biodiversity meets biotechnology. Beverages 2020, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Štulíková, K.; Vrzal, T.; Kubizniaková, P.; Enge, J.; Matoulková, D.; Brányik, T. Spoilage of bottled lager beer contaminated with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus. J. Inst. Brew. 2021, 127, 256–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Meier-Dörnberg, T.; Kory, O.I.; Jacob, F.; Michel, M.; Hutzler, M. Saccharomyces cerevisiae variety diastaticus friend or foe?—spoilage potential and brewing ability of different Saccharomyces cerevisiae variety diastaticus yeast isolates by genetic, phenotypic and physiological characterization. FEMS Yeast Res. 2018, 18, foy023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. González, S.S.; Barrio, E.; Gafner, J.; Querol, A. Natural hybrids from Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces bayanus and Saccharomyces kudriavzevii in wine fermentations. FEMS Yeast Res. 2006, 6, 1221–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Nguyen, H.-V.; Gaillardin, C. Evolutionary relationships between the former species Saccharomyces uvarum and the hybrids Saccharomyces bayanus and Saccharomyces pastorianus; reinstatement of Saccharomyces uvarum (Beijerinck) as a distinct species. FEMS Yeast Res. 2005, 5, 471–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Nguyen, H.-V.; Lepingle, A.; Gaillardin, C. Molecular typing demonstrates homogeneity of Saccharomyces uvarum strains and reveals the existence of hybrids between S. uvarum and S. cerevisiae, including the S. bayanus type strain CBS 380. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 23, 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rainieri, S.; Kodama, Y.; Nakao, Y.; Pulvirenti, A.; Giudici, P. The inheritance of mtDNA in lager brewing strains. FEMS Yeast Res. 2008, 8, 586–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Naumova, E.S.; Naumov, G.I.; Masneuf-Pomarède, I.; Aigle, M.; Dubourdieu, D. Molecular genetic study of introgression between Saccharomyces bayanus and S. cerevisiae. Yeast 2005, 22, 1099–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Smith, B.D.; Divol, B. Brettanomyces bruxellensis, a survivalist prepared for the wine apocalypse and other beverages. Food Microbiol. 2016, 59, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Malfeito-Ferreira, M. Two decades of “horse sweat” taint and Brettanomyces yeasts in wine: Where do we stand now? Beverages 2018, 4, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Spitaels, F.; Wieme, A.D.; Janssens, M.; Aerts, M.; Daniel, H.-M.; Van Landschoot, A.; De Vuyst, L.; Vandamme, P. The microbial diversity of traditional spontaneously fermented lambic beer. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e95384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Serra Colomer, M.; Funch, B.; Forster, J. The raise of Brettanomyces yeast species for beer production. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2019, 56, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moktaduzzaman, M.; Galafassi, S.; Vigentini, I.; Foschino, R.; Corte, L.; Cardinali, G.; Piškur, J.; Compagno, C. Strain-dependent tolerance to acetic acid in Dekkera bruxellensis. Ann. Microbiol. 2016, 66, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Blomqvist, J.; Eberhard, T.; Schnürer, J.; Passoth, V. Fermentation characteristics of Dekkera bruxellensis strains. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 87, 1487–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Steensels, J.; Daenen, L.; Malcorps, P.; Derdelinckx, G.; Verachtert, H.; Verstrepen, K.J. Brettanomyces yeasts—From spoilage organisms to valuable contributors to industrial fermentations. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 206, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Parente, D.C.; Cajueiro, D.B.B.; Moreno, I.C.P.; Leite, F.C.B.; De Barros Pita, W.; De Morais, M.A., Jr. On the catabolism of amino acids in the yeast Dekkera bruxellensis and the implications for industrial fermentation processes. Yeast 2018, 35, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Joseph, C.L.; Albino, E.; Bisson, L.F. Creation and use of a Brettanomyces aroma wheel. Catal. Discov. Pract. 2017, 1, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cardello, A.V.; Meiselman, H.L.; Schutz, H.G.; Craig, C.; Given, Z.; Lesher, L.L.; Eicher, S. Measuring emotional responses to foods and food names using questionnaires. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 24, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Thomson, D.M.; Crocker, C.; Marketo, C.G. Linking sensory characteristics to emotions: An example using dark chocolate. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 1117–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gutjar, S.; de Graaf, C.; Kooijman, V.; de Wijk, R.A.; Nys, A.; ter Horst, G.J.; Jager, G. The role of emotions in food choice and liking. Food Res. Int. 2015, 76, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dalenberg, J.R.; Gutjar, S.; ter Horst, G.J.; de Graaf, K.; Renken, R.J.; Jager, G. Evoked Emotions Predict Food Choice. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e115388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kuenzel, J.; Zandstra, E.H.; Lion, R.; Blanchette, I.; Thomas, A.; El-Deredy, W. Conditioning unfamiliar and familiar flavours to specific positive emotions. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 1105–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bryan. Fact or Fiction—Biogenic Amines in Beer. Sui Generis Brew. 2019. Available online: https://suigenerisbrewing.com/index.php/2019/01/22/biogenic-amines/ (accessed on 15 June 2022).
  26. Kalač, P.; Šavel, J.; Křížek, M.; Pelikánová, T.; Prokopová, M. Biogenic amine formation in bottled beer. Food Chem. 2002, 79, 431–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. del Rio, B.; Redruello, B.; Linares, D.M.; Ladero, V.; Fernandez, M.; Martin, M.C.; Ruas-Madiedo, P.; Alvarez, M.A. The dietary biogenic amines tyramine and histamine show synergistic toxicity towards intestinal cells in culture. Food Chem. 2017, 218, 249–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fernández, M.; del Río, B.; Linares, D.M.; Martín, M.C.; Alvarez, M.A. Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction for Quantitative Detection of Histamine-Producing Bacteria: Use in Cheese Production. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 3763–3769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Ladero, V.; Calles-Enriquez, M.; Fernandez, M.; Alvarez, M.A. Toxicological Effects of Dietary Biogenic Amines. Curr. Nutr. Food Sci. 2010, 6, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lehane, L.; Olley, J. Histamine fish poisoning revisited. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2000, 58, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Linares, D.M.; del Rio, B.; Redruello, B.; Ladero, V.; Martin, M.C.; Fernandez, M.; Ruas-Madiedo, P.; Alvarez, M.A. Comparative analysis of the in vitro cytotoxicity of the dietary biogenic amines tyramine and histamine. Food Chem. 2016, 197, 658–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. McCabe-Sellers, B.; Frankel, E.H.; Wolfe, J.J. (Eds.) Handbook of Food-Drug Interactions; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-0-429-20832-4. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruiz-Capillas, C.; Herrero, A.M. Impact of Biogenic Amines on Food Quality and Safety. Foods 2019, 8, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Spano, G.; Russo, P.; Lonvaud-Funel, A.; Lucas, P.; Alexandre, H.; Grandvalet, C.; Coton, E.; Coton, M.; Barnavon, L.; Bach, B.; et al. Biogenic amines in fermented foods. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 64, S95–S100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Palomino-Vasco, M.; Rodríguez-Cáceres, M.I.; Mora-Diez, N.; Pardo-Botello, R.; Acedo-Valenzuela, M.I. Biogenic amines profile in red wines regarding aging and storage conditions. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2019, 83, 103295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs (Text with EEA Relevance). 2005. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32005R2073 (accessed on 29 May 2022).
  37. Ladero, V.; Linares, D.M.; Pérez, M.; del Rio, B.; Fernández, M.; Alvarez, M.A. Biogenic Amines in Dairy Products. In Microbial Toxins in Dairy Products; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 94–131. ISBN 978-1-118-82309-5. [Google Scholar]
  38. LST 1572:2004 Beer. Determination of Ethyl Alcohol Concentration, True and Starting Extract (LST 1572, 2004 June)/1K:2008/P:2017). 2004. Available online: https://eshop.lsd.lt/public#!/product/list/home?filter=%7B%22page%22:1,%22pageSize%22:50,%22newlyCreated%22:true%7D (accessed on 21 June 2022).
  39. ISO 4316:1977. Available online: https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/01/01/10185.html (accessed on 20 June 2022).
  40. LST 1990:2007 Beer. Determination of Acidity (LST 1990:2007). 1990. Available online: https://eshop.lsd.lt/public#!/product/list/home?filter=%7B%22page%22:1,%22pageSize%22:50,%22newlyCreated%22:true%7D (accessed on 30 May 2022).
  41. LST 1490:2006 Beer Wort and Beer. Determination of Color by Spectrophotometric Method (LST 1490, 2006 m. April) 2006. Available online: https://eshop.lsd.lt/public#!/product/list/home?filter=%7B%22page%22:1,%22pageSize%22:50,%22newlyCreated%22:true%7D (accessed on 22 May 2022).
  42. Philpott, J.; Taylor, D.M.; Williams, D.R. Critical Assessment of Factors Affecting the Accuracy of the IoB Bitterness Method. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 1997, 55, 103–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. ISO 8586-1:1993 Sensory Analysis—General Guidance for the Selection, Training and Monitoring of Assessors. Available online: https://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/standard/01/58/15875.html (accessed on 15 August 2021).
  44. Bartkiene, E.; Mockus, E.; Mozuriene, E.; Klementaviciute, J.; Monstaviciute, E.; Starkute, V.; Zavistanaviciute, P.; Zokaityte, E.; Cernauskas, D.; Klupsaite, D. The Evaluation of Dark Chocolate-Elicited Emotions and Their Relation with Physico Chemical Attributes of Chocolate. Foods 2021, 10, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ben-Gigirey, B.; Vieites Baptista de Sousa, J.M.; Villa, T.G.; Barros-Velazquez, J. Histamine and Cadaverine Production by Bacteria Isolated from Fresh and Frozen Albacore (Thunnus alalunga). J. Food Prot. 1999, 62, 933–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lasanta, C.; Durán-Guerrero, E.; Díaz, A.B.; Castro, R. Influence of fermentation temperature and yeast type on the chemical and sensory profile of handcrafted beers. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 1174–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kolpin, K.M.; Shellhammer, T.H. The human bitterness detection threshold of iso-α-acids and tetrahydro-iso-α-acids in lager beer. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 2009, 67, 200–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cocuzza, S.; Zarnkow, M.; Stallforth, A.; Peifer, F.; Jacob, F. The impact of dry hopping on selected physical and chemical attributes of beer. Brew. Sci. 2019, 72, 118–124. [Google Scholar]
  49. Łukasz, W.; Marcin, C. What Drives the Development of Craft Beer Production in Poland—Insights from a Hedonic Regression Analysis of the Polish Beer Market. East. Eur. Econ. 2021, 59, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Drewnowski, A. The science and complexity of bitter taste. Nutr. Rev. 2001, 59, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Yang, Q.; Dorado, R.; Chaya, C.; Hort, J. The impact of PROP and thermal taster status on the emotional response to beer. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yoon, E.; Kim, J.; Lee, J. The US Consumers’ Acceptability and Emotion Measures when Consuming Novel Korean Traditional Non-Alcoholic Beverages. J. Sens. Stud. 2016, 31, 256–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Guinard, J.-X.; Uotani, B.; Mazzucchelli, R.; Taguchi, A.; Masuoka, S.; Fujino, S. Consumer testing of commercial lager beers in blind versus informed conditions: Relation with descriptive analysis and expert quality ratings. J. Inst. Brew. 2000, 106, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Donadini, G.; Fumi, M.D.; Kordialik-Bogacka, E.; Maggi, L.; Lambri, M.; Sckokai, P. Consumer interest in specialty beers in three European markets. Food Res. Int. 2016, 85, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Rousmans, S.; Robin, O.; Dittmar, A.; Vernet-Maury, E. Autonomic nervous system responses associated with primary tastes. Chem. Senses 2000, 25, 709–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Blondin, B.; Dequin, S.; Querol, A.; Legras, J.-L. Genome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and related yeasts. In Biology of Microorganisms on Grapes, in Must and in Wine; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 361–378. [Google Scholar]
  57. Gamero, A.; Belloch, C.; Ibáñez, C.; Querol, A. Molecular Analysis of the Genes Involved in Aroma Synthesis in the Species S. cerevisiae, S. kudriavzevii and S. bayanus var. uvarum in Winemaking Conditions. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e97626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Tosi, E.; Azzolini, M.; Guzzo, F.; Zapparoli, G. Evidence of different fermentation behaviours of two indigenous strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces uvarum isolated from Amarone wine. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 107, 210–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Jackson, R.S. Chemical constituents of grapes and wine. Wine Sci. 2008, 270–331. [Google Scholar]
  60. Delfini, C.; Gaia, P.; Mariscalco, G.; Contiero, M.; Pagliara, A. Production of benzaldehyde, benzyl alcohol and benzoic acid by yeasts and Botrytis cinerea isolated from grape musts and wines. Vitis 1991, 30, 253–263. [Google Scholar]
  61. International Organisation of Vine and Wine. Compendium of International Methods of Wine and Must Analysis; International Organisation of Vine and Wine: Paris, France, 2009; Volume 154, p. 196. [Google Scholar]
  62. Abernathy, D.G.; Spedding, G.; Starcher, B. Analysis of protein and total usable nitrogen in beer and wine using a microwell ninhydrin assay. J. Inst. Brew. 2009, 115, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kang, W.; Xu, Y.; Qin, L.; Wang, Y. Effects of different β-d-glycosidases on bound aroma compounds in Muscat grape determined by HS-SPME and GC-MS. J. Inst. Brew. 2010, 116, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nalazek-Rudnicka, K.; Wojnowski, W.; Wasik, A. Occurrence and Levels of Biogenic Amines in Beers Produced by Different Methods. Foods 2021, 10, 2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Lorencová, E.; Salek, R.N.; Černíková, M.; Buňková, L.; Hýlková, A.; Buňka, F. Biogenic amines occurrence in beers produced in Czech microbreweries. Food Control 2020, 117, 107335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Loret, S.; Deloyer, P.; Dandrifosse, G. Levels of biogenic amines as a measure of the quality of the beer fermentation process: Data from Belgian samples. Food Chem. 2005, 89, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tang, T.; Shi, T.; Qian, K.; Li, P.; Li, J.; Cao, Y. Determination of biogenic amines in beer with pre-column derivatization by high performance liquid chromatography. J. Chromatogr. B 2009, 877, 507–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nalazek-Rudnicka, K.; Kubica, P.; Wasik, A. Discrepancies in determination of biogenic amines in beer samples by reversed phase and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. Microchem. J. 2020, 159, 105574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Poveda, J.M. Biogenic amines and free amino acids in craft beers from the Spanish market: A statistical approach. Food Control 2019, 96, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Önal, A. A review: Current analytical methods for the determination of biogenic amines in foods. Food Chem. 2007, 103, 1475–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shalaby, A.R. Significance of biogenic amines to food safety and human health. Food Res. Int. 1996, 29, 675–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Costa, M.P.; Rodrigues, B.L.; Frasao, B.S.; Conte-Junior, C.A. Chapter 2—Biogenic Amines as Food Quality Index and Chemical Risk for Human Consumption. In Hand of Food Bioengineering: Food Quality: Balancing Health and Disease; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 75–108. ISBN 978-0-12-811442-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. EFSA Scientific Opinion on Risk Based Control of Biogenic Amine Formation in Fermented Foods. EFSA. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2393 (accessed on 26 July 2022).
  74. Gardner, D.M.; Shulman, K.I.; Walker, S.E.; Tailor, S.A. The making of a user friendly MAOI diet. J. Clin. Psychiatry 1996, 57, 99–104. [Google Scholar]
  75. Kalac, P.; Krízek, M. A Review of Biogenic Amines and Polyamines in Beer. J. Inst. Brew. 2003, 109, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Lippman, S.B.; Nash, K. Monoamine oxidase inhibitor update. Potential adverse food and drug interactions. Drug Saf. 1990, 5, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Murray, J.A.; Walker, J.F.; Doyle, J.S. Tyramine in alcohol-free beer. Lancet 1988, 1, 1167–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Shulman, K.I.; Tailor, S.A.; Walker, S.E.; Gardner, D.M. Tap (draft) beer and monoamine oxidase inhibitor dietary restrictions. Can. J. Psychiatry Rev. Can. Psychiatr. 1997, 42, 310–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tailor, S.A.N.; Shulman, K.I.; Walker, S.E.; Moss, J.; Gardner, D. Hypertensive episode associated with phenelzine and tap beer: A reanalysis of the role of pressor amines in beer. J. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 1994, 14, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Principal technological scheme for the beer preparation.
Figure 1. Principal technological scheme for the beer preparation.
Foods 11 02317 g001
Figure 2. Analysis of the emotions induced by the beer using FaceReader 6 software (Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands), and further scoring the eight emotion patterns: neutral, happy, sad, angry, surprised, scared, disgusted and contempt.
Figure 2. Analysis of the emotions induced by the beer using FaceReader 6 software (Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands), and further scoring the eight emotion patterns: neutral, happy, sad, angry, surprised, scared, disgusted and contempt.
Foods 11 02317 g002
Figure 3. Pictures of the beer samples.
Figure 3. Pictures of the beer samples.
Foods 11 02317 g003
Table 1. The dry matter content, density, pH, real degree of fermentation (RDF), apparent degree of fermentation (ADF), energy value, ethanol and methanol concentrations, colour intensity, and bitterness of the beer samples (A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii).
Table 1. The dry matter content, density, pH, real degree of fermentation (RDF), apparent degree of fermentation (ADF), energy value, ethanol and methanol concentrations, colour intensity, and bitterness of the beer samples (A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii).
ParametersBeer Samples
ABC
Duration of Maturation
1 Day30 Days90 Days1 Day30 Days90 Days1 Day30 Days90 Days
Alcoholic grade (% v/v)7.67 ± 0.42 a,B7.95 ± 0.36 a,B8.14 ± 0.22 a,C6.55 ± 0.34 a,A6.55 ± 0.43 a,A6.56 ± 0.27 a,A7.32 ± 0.23 a,B7.49 ± 0.34 a,B7.65 ± 0.21 a,B
Dense materials, Plato %15.30 ± 0.40 a,A15.27 ± 0.24 a,A15.29 ± 0.33 a,A15.29 ± 0.35 a,A15.28 ± 0.15 a,A15.30 ± 0.20 a,A15.30 ± 0.21 a,A15.28 ± 0.32 a,A15.26 ± 0.24 a,A
Density, g/cm0.990 ± 0.007 a,A0.990 ± 0.005 a,A0.990 ± 0.006 a,A0.988 ± 0.003 a,A0.989 ± 0.005 a,A0.986 ± 0.004 a,A0.989 ± 0.005 a,A0.989 ± 0.003 a,A0.989 ± 0.002 a,A
Density, SG units1.00 ± 0.08 a,A1.00 ± 0.03 a,A1.00 ± 0.07 a,A1.01 ± 0.02 a,A1.01 ± 0.03 a,A1.01 ± 0.04 a,A1.01 ± 0.05 a,A1.01 ± 0.04 a,A1.00 ± 0.06 a,A
RDF, %76.66 ± 3.43 a,B79.47 ± 2.67 a,B81.29 ± 4.47 a,B65.57 ± 2.75 a,A65.58 ± 2.84 a,A65.59 ± 3.85 a,A73.22 ± 4.4 a,B74.90 ± 3.23 a,B76.52 ± 3.12 a,B
ADF, %92.83 ± 4.91 a,B96.48 ± 3.82 a,B98.85 ± 2.68 a,C78.58 ± 3.23 a,A78.6 ± 3.36 a,A78.61 ± 2.94 a,A88.38 ± 2.84 a,B90.55 ± 4.98 a,B92.65 ± 2.57 a,B
pH4.40 ± 0.03 a,B4.42 ± 0.02 a,B4.36 ± 0.04 a,B4.44 ± 0.04 a,B4.43 ± 0.03 a,B4.40 ± 0.02 a,B4.09 ± 0.02 a,A4.10 ± 0.03 a,A4.09 ± 0.01 a,A
TA (lactic acid), g/L1.00 ± 0.010 c,B0.800 ± 0.030 b,B0.700 ± 0.040 a,B0.400 ± 0.030 a,A0.400 ± 0.020 a,A0.400 ± 0.020 a,A2.10 ± 0.110 c,C1.80 ± 0.140 b,C1.40 ± 0.130 a,C
Colour intensity, EBC8.60 ± 0.07 a,A10.3 ± 0.19 c,A9.70 ± 0.07 b,B10.2 ± 0.04 a,B10.7 ± 0.05 b,C10.2 ± 0.03 a,C10.4 ± 0.04 b,C10.6 ± 0.05 c,B9.30 ± 0.06 a,A
Bitterness, BU37.3 ± 2.80 a,A35.8 ± 2.63 a,A33.5 ± 1.93 a,A34.2 ± 2.40 a,A34.3 ± 2.71 a,A34.1 ± 2.08 a,A35.7 ± 3.16 a,A38.4 ± 2.36 a,A35.7 ± 3.49 a,A
Energy value, kCal/100 mL58.0 ± 1.70 a,A58.0 ± 2.50 a,A58.0 ± 1.60 a,A59.0 ± 2.60 a,A59.0 ± 2.30 a,A59.0 ± 1.80 a,A58.0 ± 1.10 a,A58.0 ± 1.40 a,A58.0 ± 3.70 a,A
Energy value, kJ/100 mL241 ± 3.6 a,A240 ± 4.1 a,A240 ± 5.7 a,A243 ± 3.3 a,A243 ± 2.4 a,A243 ± 3.9 a,A241 ± 2.1 a,A241 ± 3.6 a,A241 ± 2.7 a,A
Data expressed as mean values (n = 3) ± standard error (SE). a–c—mean values in line with beer samples fermented with the same yeast strain; A–C—mean values in line with beer samples fermented with a different yeast strain after the same duration of maturation; the means with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii; RDF—real degree of fermentation; ADF—apparent degree of fermentation. SG units—specific gravity units; TA—titratable acidity.
Table 2. Overall acceptability and emotions induced for consumers by beer samples (A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii).
Table 2. Overall acceptability and emotions induced for consumers by beer samples (A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii).
Beer Samples
ABC
Duration of Maturation
1 Day30 Days90 Days1 Day30 Days90 Days1 Day30 Days90 Days
Overall acceptability from 10 (extremely like) to 1 (extremely dislike)
7.4 ±1.5 a,A8.1 ± 2.3 a,A8.0 ± 1.2 a,B8.1 ± 2.0 a,A8.4 ± 1.5 a,A7.4 ± 1.0 a,B6.9 ± 1.8 a,A7.7 ± 2.4 a,A5.2 ± 1.1 a,A
Emotions induced by the beer (from 0 to 1)
Neutral0.691 ± 0.015 a,A0.743 ± 0.016 b,A,B0.783 ± 0.036 b,B0.686 ± 0.042 a,A0.784 ± 0.051 b,B0.720 ± 0.029 b,A,B0.725 ± 0.020 b,A0.677 ± 0.012 a,A0.676 ± 0.020 a,A
Happy0.056 ± 0.010 b,B0.034 ± 0.011 a,B0.084 ± 0.009 c,B0.098 ± 0.011 c,C0.017 ± 0.002 a,A0.060 ± 0.014 b,A0.028 ± 0.004 a,A0.049 ± 0.007 b,B0.097 ± 0.013 c,B
Sad0.053 ± 0.008 c,A0.034 ± 0.006 b,A0.022 ± 0.002 a,A0.043 ± 0.004 b,A0.033 ± 0.005 a,A0.031 ± 0.003 a,B0.055 ± 0.008 b,A0.036 ± 0.003 a,A0.052 ± 0.004 b,C
Angry0.019 ± 0.003 a,A0.035 ± 0.004 b,A0.021 ± 0.002 a,A0.030 ± 0.004 a,B0.032 ± 0.005 a,A0.057 ± 0.008 b,C0.065 ± 0.009 b,C0.039 ± 0.007 a,A0.033 ± 0.004 a,B
Surprised0.025 ± 0.003 c,B0.013 ± 0.001 b,A0.007 ± 0.002 a,A0.019 ± 0.002 b,A0.018 ± 0.002 b,B0.005 ± 0.003 a,A0.018 ± 0.002 c,A0.010 ± 0.002 b,A0.004 ± 0.003 a,A
Scared0.016 ± 0.004 b,C0.016 ± 0.004 b,B0.004 ± 0.002 a,B0.004 ± 0.001 a,A0.013 ± 0.002 b,B0.007 ± 0.003 a,B0.008 ± 0.002 b,B0.008 ± 0.001 b,A0.002 ± 0.001 a,A
Disgusted0.024 ± 0.005 b,B0.014 ± 0.002 a,A0.012 ± 0.003 a,A0.024 ± 0.005 b,B0.012 ± 0.003 a,A0.009 ± 0.002 a,A0.013 ± 0.002 a,A0.021 ± 0.004 b,B0.019 ± 0.005 b,A
Contempt0.007 ± 0.003 a,A0.004 ± 0.002 a,A0.004 ± 0.002 a,A0.011 ± 0.002 b,A0.008 ± 0.002 b,A0.004 ± 0.001 a,A0.013 ± 0.002 b,A,B0.004 ± 0.002 a,A0.004 ± 0.001 a,A
Valence (from −1 to 1)
−0.034 ± 0.007 b,B−0.055 ± 0.009 a,A0.007 ± 0.003 c,B0.012 ± 0.006 c,C−0.057 ± 0.007 a,A−0.023 ± 0.008 b,A−0.093 ± 0.012 a,A−0.034 ± 0.006 b,B0.019 ± 0.007 c,C
Data expressed as mean values (n = 20) ± standard error (SE). a–c—mean values in line with beer samples fermented with the same yeast strain; A–C—mean values in line with beer samples fermented with different yeast strains after the same duration of maturation; the means with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii.
Table 3. Influence of the analysed factors and their interaction on overall acceptability and emotions induced for consumers by beer samples.
Table 3. Influence of the analysed factors and their interaction on overall acceptability and emotions induced for consumers by beer samples.
FactorDependent Variablep
Yeast strain used for fermentationOA0.225
neutral0.0001
happy0.998
sad0.0001
angry0.0001
surprised0.0001
Duration of maturationOA0.377
neutral0.001
happy0.0001
sad0.0001
angry0.579
surprised0.0001
Yeast strain used for fermentation
* Duration of maturation
OA0.767
neutral0.0001
happy0.0001
sad0.0001
angry0.0001
surprised0.0001
p—significance, analysed factors and their interaction is significant, when p ≤ 0.05.
Table 4. The main volatile compounds of the beer samples (A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii).
Table 4. The main volatile compounds of the beer samples (A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii).
VC, % from the Total VC ContentBeer SamplesCorrelations (r) and Their Significance (p)
ABC between OA and VCbetween ‘H’ and VC
Duration of Maturation
1 Day30 Days90 Days1 Day30 Days90 Days1 Day30 Days90 Days
3-methyl-1-butanol10.52 a,B18.0 b,B20.56 b,B14.41 a,C15.69 a,A21.67 b,B8.47 a,A14.95 b,A17.11 b,Ar0.441 *0.317
p0.0210.108
Styrene4.26 a,B6.13 a,B5.64 a,B9.25 a,B11.89 a,C11.97 a,C1.93 b,A3.28 c,A0.992 a,Ar0.1310.067
p0.5150.740
β-myrcene1.14 b,A1.06 b,A0.718 a,A1.43 b,A1.38 b,A0.820 a,B1.47 b,A1.42 b,A0.911 a,Cr−0.1930.575 **
p0.3360.002
Hexanoic acid, ethyl ester1.10 a,A1.41 a,B1.26 a,B2.33 a,B3.08 b,C3.91 b,C0.931 b,A0.599 a,A0.541 a,Ar−0.130−0.197
p0.5170.324
2-Methylbutylbutanoate2.82 a,B2.89 a,A3.06 a,A,B1.91 a,A2.82 b,A3.95 c,B2.86 a,B2.82 a,A2.49 a,Ar0.401 *−0.228
p0.0380.252
L-α-Terpineol24.7 a,A26.9 a,C23.6 a,B19.6 b,A20.4 b,A16.9 a,A22.3 a,A24.5 a,B24.7 a,Br0.3190.034
p0.1040.867
Decanal1.04 b,B0.353 a,A0.476 a,A0.513 a,A0.969 b,C0.857 b,B1.28 b,B0.582 a,B0.375 a,Ar0.354−0.068
p0.0700.736
Acetic acid, octyl ester0.682 b,A0.430 a,A0.357 a,A0.750 b,B0.607 b,B0.357 a,A0.986 c,C0.682 b,B0.504 a,Br0.178−0.183
p0.3730.360
Hexanoic acid 3-methylbutyl ester0.702 a,B0.705 a,B0.803 b,B0.411 a,A0.377 a,A0.355 a,A1.81 b,C0.796 a,B1.28 b,Cr0.403 *0.052
p0.0370.797
Hexanoic acid 2-methylbutyl ester21.2 b,A15.2 a,A15.6 a,B22.5 A16.7 b,A10.4 a,A27.1 b,B19.9 a,B20.6 a,Cr0.049−0.297
p0.8090.132
Acetic acid, 2-phenylethyl ester3.59 a,B4.75 b,B4.53 b,B2.32 a,A2.88 a,A4.76 b,B3.21 a,B4.05 b,B3.38 a,Ar0.259−0.076
p0.1910.706
Ethyl trans-4-decenoate1.50 a,B1.68 a,B1.85 a,B1.47 a,B1.67 a,B2.31 b,C0.531 a,A0.739 b,A0.715 b,Ar−0.459 *0.131
p0.0160.516
Ethyl 9-decenoate1.21 a,A1.70 b,A1.79 b,A1.84 a,B2.24 a,B2.08 a,B1.64 a,A,B2.25 b,B2.31 b,Br0.1010.223
p0.6160.264
Caryophyllenend0.375 a0.644 b,Andnd0.740 A ndnd1.06 B r0.1840.171
p0.3580.394
α-humulenendndndndndndnd1.48 a2.43 br−0.3440.382 *
p0.0790.049
n-Capric acid isobutyl ester10.3 b,B4.94 a,A4.24 a,A6.17 b,A4.97 a,A4.33 a,A11.1 b,B8.57 a,B7.28 a,Br−0.073−0.047
p0.7170.815
Ethyl dodecanoate5.91 a,C7.75 b,C8.76 c,C3.89 a,B4.71 b,A6.21 c,B2.91 a,A3.95 b,A4.75 c,Ar0.3080.167
p0.1190.404
Data expressed as mean values (n = 5). nd—not determined; OA—overall acceptability; VC—volatile compound; ‘H’—emotion ‘happy’ detected by FaceReader. a–c—mean values in line with beer samples fermented with the same yeast strain; A–C—mean values in line with beer samples fermented with different yeast strains after the same duration of maturation; the means with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). r—Pearson correlation coefficient; p—significance; *—correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Significant correlations are marked in bold letters. A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii.
Table 5. Influence of the analysed factors on beer volatile compounds formation.
Table 5. Influence of the analysed factors on beer volatile compounds formation.
Dependent VariableSignificance (p) of the Influence of Factor and Factors Interaction
Yeast Strain Used for FermentationDuration of MaturationYeast Strain Used for Fermentation
* Duration of Maturation
3-methyl-1-butanol0.1560.0340.539
Styrene0.0010.00010.010
β-Myrcene0.2560.00010.455
Hexanoic acid, ethyl ester0.00010.1070.0001
2-Methylbutylbutanoate0.9740.3070.023
L-α-Terpineol0.3750.6190.637
Decanal0.00010.00010.062
Acetic acid, octyl ester0.0540.0070.505
Hexanoic acid 3-methylbutyl ester0.00010.0030.0001
Hexanoic acid 2-methylbutyl ester0.0020.00010.337
Acetic acid, 2-phenylethyl ester0.0100.1520.886
Ethyl trans-4-decenoate0.00010.0890.722
Ethyl 9-decenoate0.00010.0090.003
Caryophyllene0.0290.0010.093
α-humulene0.00010.00010.0001
n-Capric acid isobutyl ester0.00010.00010.047
Ethyl dodecanoate0.00010.00010.121
Influence of factor and factors interaction is significant when p ≤ 0.05. Significant correlations are marked in bold letters.
Table 6. Biogenic amines concentration of the beer samples (A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii).
Table 6. Biogenic amines concentration of the beer samples (A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii).
Biogenic Amines Concentration, mg/kgBeer Samples
ABC
Duration of Maturation
1 Day30 Days90 Days1 Day30 Days90 Days1 Day30 Days90 Days
Tryptamine42.95 ± 5.63 a,A75.34 ± 8.62 b,And60.56 ± 9.37 a,B66.46 ± 7.03 a,And60.92 ± 7.21 a,B69.51 ± 5.63 b,And
Phenylethylamine18.51 ± 1.29 a,A24.46 ± 3.41 b,A35.37 ± 3.72 c,A22.99 ± 4.54 a,A,B30.54 ± 2.15 b,B36.95 ± 5.02 b,A23.13 ± 2.07 a,A29.31 ± 1.29 b,A,B57.73 ± 5.41 c, B
Putrescinendnd17.58 ± 2.9 And22.27 ± 2.51 a,A20.12 ± 2.13 a,And348.93 ± 9.78 b,B305.1 ± 8.52 a,B
Cadaverinendndndndndndnd223.8 ± 14.2 b182.5 ± 11.3 a
Histaminendndndndndndndndnd
Tyraminendndndndndndndndnd
Spermidinendndndndndndndndnd
Sperminendndndndndndndndnd
Data expressed as mean values (n = 3) ± standard error (SE); nd—not determined. a–c—mean values in line with beer samples fermented with the same yeast strain; A–C—mean values in line with beer samples fermented with different yeast strains after the same duration of maturation; the means with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). A—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. diastaticus; B—beer fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. bayanus; C—beer fermented with Brettanomyces claussenii.
Table 7. Correlation between biogenic amines concentration in beer samples and beer overall acceptability and emotions induced for consumers.
Table 7. Correlation between biogenic amines concentration in beer samples and beer overall acceptability and emotions induced for consumers.
Pearson Correlation and SignificanceTryptaminePhenylethylaminePutrescineCadaverine
Overall acceptabilityPearson Correlation0.382 *0.028−0.269−0.252
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0490.8900.1750.205
Emotion “neutral”Pearson Correlation0.0210.151−0.515 **−0.545 **
Sig. (2-tailed)0.9160.4530.0060.003
Emotion “happy”Pearson Correlation−0.552 **0.3610.2410.233
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0030.0650.2260.242
Emotion “sad”Pearson Correlation0.205−0.2640.1240.156
Sig. (2-tailed)0.3040.1830.5380.439
Emotion “angry”Pearson Correlation0.1000.025−0.015−0.008
Sig. (2-tailed)0.6200.9030.9400.967
Emotion “surprised”Pearson Correlation0.647 **−0.588 **−0.501 **−0.459 *
Sig. (2-tailed)0.00010.0010.0080.016
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matukas, M.; Starkute, V.; Zokaityte, E.; Zokaityte, G.; Klupsaite, D.; Mockus, E.; Rocha, J.M.; Ruibys, R.; Bartkiene, E. Effect of Different Yeast Strains on Biogenic Amines, Volatile Compounds and Sensory Profile of Beer. Foods 2022, 11, 2317. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152317

AMA Style

Matukas M, Starkute V, Zokaityte E, Zokaityte G, Klupsaite D, Mockus E, Rocha JM, Ruibys R, Bartkiene E. Effect of Different Yeast Strains on Biogenic Amines, Volatile Compounds and Sensory Profile of Beer. Foods. 2022; 11(15):2317. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152317

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matukas, Mazvydas, Vytaute Starkute, Egle Zokaityte, Gintare Zokaityte, Dovile Klupsaite, Ernestas Mockus, João Miguel Rocha, Romas Ruibys, and Elena Bartkiene. 2022. "Effect of Different Yeast Strains on Biogenic Amines, Volatile Compounds and Sensory Profile of Beer" Foods 11, no. 15: 2317. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152317

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop