𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞
𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐜𝐨𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬.
.
With the increasing popularity of reduced or no-alcohol beverages, many equipment manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon to develop and market dealcoholisation processes. Typically, each process is marketed as the latest innovative breakthrough, next generation, most efficient, most versatile, lowest energy consumption, lowest operating temperature, fully automated, etc., etc. This has resulted in a perplexing array of processes to choose from for alcoholic beverage manufacturers wishing to enter this growing market.
We hope to shed some light on the scene to enable sensible selections to be made.
A quick word on Logichem’s credentials in this business. Logichem is a South African chemical engineering technology firm established in 1989. We are a scientifically based organization, specialising in heat transfer and distillation, particularly in the alcohol industry. Applying sophisticated process simulation techniques developed for the petro-chemical industries to the alcohol distillation industry, we were able to transform the primarily historic designs into modern, high-capacity, and energy-efficient operations, first in South Africa, and subsequently internationally. Our first encounter with alcohol reduction of wine came in 2011 when one of our clients expressed interest in this then-nascent idea for beverage wine. Although dealcoholisation had been fairly established in the beer industry at that time, in the wine industry it had solely been used for purposes of excise reduction and taste profile adjustments, so-called sweet-spotting. After evaluating the existing available dealcoholisation techniques, we developed and patented our novel GoLo™ dealcoholisation process, addressing the shortcomings and disadvantages of existing techniques. Multiple GoLo™ plants have since been installed in South Africa, California, France, Spain, and Australia.
.
Where it started
Reviewing the history of dealcoholisation applications will be helpful in understanding the differences in some of the techniques on offer. With the exception of membrane techniques, all others are carried out under vacuum to reduce the boiling point of the wine.
As mentioned above, beer dealcoholisation was the trailblazer, initially down to the legal non-alcoholic limit of 0.5% ABV, and subsequently to the alcohol-free, so-called “zero”, 0.05% limit. From a dealcoholisation point of view, the most important differences between beer and wine, with reference to beer, are lower starting alcohol content, high carbonation level, non-volatile flavour components, and water addition being allowed. So typically, the process would involve a vacuum flash vessel for removal of the CO2 and other volatile components, followed by alcohol removal in a column where the beer is stripped by a rising stream of steam which is either generated autogenously, or culinary steam generated externally (since water addition is allowed). The early beer dealcoholisation processes were typically adaptations of fruit juice evaporation technology which is still evident in some cases today by the choice of equipment such as falling film evaporators for generating autogenous steam.
Membrane processes have gone through various stages of innovation, but all rely on the principle of reverse osmosis where alcohol-bearing water (permeate) is forced through a membrane at high pressure, thus reducing the alcohol content of the feed stream. Typically it is a multi-pass process, continued until the desired alcohol content is reached. Membrane processes are mainly used for sweet-spotting, and are not capable of efficiently reducing alcohol content to below 7% without continued dilution of the permeate.
The trailblazer for the wine industry was undoubtedly the adaptation of the Spinning Cone Column to wine dealcoholisation by ConeTech in California, initially mainly for excise tax reduction, but subsequently also for non-alcoholic beverage wine. In this process the alcohol stripping column is equipped with an internal stack of cones mounted on a central shaft that is spun to expose the wine, spread in a thin film, to rising steam generated from the dealcoholised product. What set the SCC apart from the other processes available at the time was the so-called “essence recovery” from the wine prior to the dealcoholisation stage. This was achieved in a two-pass process, where volatile aroma compounds, the essence, were first evaporated off in a partial stripping process, and recovered. The de-aromatized wine is then fed in a second pass to achieve the extent of dealcoholisation desired.
This is what we were confronted with when we set out to develop wine-focussed dealcoholisation technology capable of achieving “zero” alcohol-free product, while recovering volatile aromas for subsequent use. Our alcohol distillation and heat transfer experience enabled us to achieve these objectives, employing more fit-for-purpose distillation equipment, while also rectifying the by-product alcohol to 85 – 92% ABV, all in a single pass. We were able to achieve >98% essence recovery.
Today there are a plethora of choices, some are improvements of older processes, some new, and many copies. What does a prospective investor look at?
.
How to choose
If you do not intend producing a product with <7% alcohol, a membrane process can be considered. If not, the first choice an investor needs to make is whether essence recovery is important in its business model. If it is, beer-based technology is unlikely to be suitable. Unlike wine, where the essence hits you in the nose when you open a bottle, beer’s taste is much less volatile, and most of the flavour is retained in the dealcoholised product. Accordingly, beer-based technology generally has inferior essence recovery capability compared with its wine counterparts.
The SCC remains capable of producing an acceptable quality of product, but suffers from higher capital, operating and maintenance costs, and reduced comparative capacity due to its two-stage nature. It’s 65% ABV stripped alcohol by-product is also a disadvantage. Apart from being lower value than a rectified spirit, it represents a loss of vinous water which could otherwise be retained in the dealcoholised product to provide a higher yield. These concerns do not necessarily justify shutting down existing SCC’s but are a consideration for a new investment.
So how do we deal with the claims made by the rest of the wine-focussed vacuum-distillation competitors?
.
Setting the record straight
The first requirement is to recognise that every technology provider is likely to describe its process as the best, as referred to in our opening paragraph. These claims are not only intended to impress a new prospect, but is also an attempt to differentiate its process from competitors.
Different claims need to be interrogated differently, so we propose splitting the claims into three classes.
Firstly, unquantified, general claims such as: best, innovative, revolutionary, unique, game changer, highly efficient, superior, next generation, etc. – these claims have to be interrogated for credible back-up evidence (preferably scientifically based and quantified). Where better is claimed, ask “compared with whom?” What guarantees are offered? None of these are obstacles for genuine claims, and is a good first filter.
Secondly, there are claims that don’t mention the penalty for their purported benefits; the most common is lower operating temperature than competitors. Operating temperature is primarily determined by operating vacuum, nothing clever about it. It is generally accepted that operating temperature should preferably not exceed 50°C, although in the SCC a portion of the wine is heated to 65°C in its external heater while still producing acceptable results. A 50°C operating temperature requires a vacuum of 10 kPaa. Claims of 45°C would require operation at 7 kPaa. There are two penalties for operating at a deeper vacuum. Firstly, equipment size, and hence cost, increase to accommodate the lower density of the vapour phase. Volume increases by 27% in this example, also resulting in a bigger vacuum pump absorbing more power. The other “hidden” penalty is the drop in condensing temperature at the lower vacuum. This increases the size of condensing equipment, and significantly increases the demand on the chilling utility power consumption. In our opinion 50°C is a sensible selection that has widely produced acceptable results.
Strange as it may sound, some claims defy known physics, such as: superior flavour separation by extraction of heavy aromas (tails) from a 92% spirit fraction. In alcohol distillation it is common knowledge that to enable separation of heavy aromas from ethanol in a continuous process, it needs to be rectified to at least 95%, and preferably >96% ABV. The difference is not trivial; going from 92 to 96% requires significant extra rectification and energy. This claim is even inferred for the 65% ABV aroma product, which if properly produced, contains no heavy aromas. We view the claim: reintegrate volatiles to produce alcohol-free products that retain the flavour, aroma, and mouthfeel of the original in the same light. Unless the aroma fraction is alcohol-free, it cannot be blended back to produce an alcohol-free product. The normal aroma product is >60% alcohol. Such claims need to be treated with caution.
Then there are what we would class as opportunistic claims, such as a heat pump option. Have they sold one? What does their system entail? For example, does it require an intermediary fluid circuit? Logichem spent two years to conceptualise, design and test its heat pump. The key benefit was a 70% reduction in energy requirement. Recently, Logichem’s heat pump-equipped GoLo™ in Australia was awarded the accolade of groundbreaking, world-first, fossil-fuel-free dealcoholisation facility at the IWSC in London. It is not a mere add-on. It needs to be seamlessly integrated with the dealcoholisation plant’s automation system to monitor and track operating load changes, while remaining transparent to the operator.
.
So, our advice is
Don’t be seduced by claims, interrogate them. And like the proof of the pudding lying in the eating, the proof of the technology lies in the quality of product produced. Ask for references (on wine!) and contact their clients for feedback. Don’t sacrifice product quality for price or promises. You are considering a substantial investment that needs to work for you for the next 20 years at least.
𝘼𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙗𝙮 𝙎𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙠 𝙒 𝙋𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙖𝙖𝙧, 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙂𝙤𝙇𝙤™ 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙤𝙧.