Methanol Mitigation during Manufacturing of Fruit Spirits with Special Consideration of Novel Coffee Cherry Spirits

Abstract

Methanol is a natural ingredient with major occurrence in fruit spirits, such as apple, pear, plum or cherry spirits, but also in spirits made from coffee pulp. The compound is formed during fermentation and the following mash storage by enzymatic hydrolysis of naturally present pectins. Methanol is toxic above certain threshold levels and legal limits have been set in most jurisdictions. Therefore, the methanol content needs to be mitigated and its level must be controlled. This article will review the several factors that influence the methanol content including the pH value of the mash, the addition of various yeast and enzyme preparations, fermentation temperature, mash storage, and most importantly the raw material quality and hygiene. From all these mitigation possibilities, lowering the pH value and the use of cultured yeasts when mashing fruit substances is already common as best practice today. Also a controlled yeast fermentation at acidic pH facilitates not only reduced methanol formation, but ultimately also leads to quality benefits of the distillate. Special care has to be observed in the case of spirits made from coffee by-products which are prone to spoilage with very high methanol contents reported in past studies.

Full text

molecules
Review
Methanol Mitigation during Manufacturing of Fruit Spirits
with Special Consideration of Novel Coffee Cherry Spirits
Patrik Blumenthal 1,2, Marc C. Steger 1, Daniel Einfalt 2, Jörg Rieke-Zapp 1, Andrès Quintanilla Bellucci 3,
Katharina Sommerfeld 4, Steffen Schwarz 1and Dirk W. Lachenmeier 4,*


Citation: Blumenthal, P.; Steger,
M.C.; Einfalt, D.; Rieke-Zapp, J.;
Quintanilla Bellucci, A.; Sommerfeld,
K.; Schwarz, S.; Lachenmeier, D.W.
Methanol Mitigation during
Manufacturing of Fruit Spirits with
Special Consideration of Novel
Coffee Cherry Spirits. Molecules 2021,
26, 2585. https://doi.org/10.3390/
molecules26092585
Academic Editor: Claudio Ferrante
Received: 29 March 2021
Accepted: 23 April 2021
Published: 28 April 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Coffee Consulate, Hans-Thoma-Strasse 20, 68163 Mannheim, Germany; patrik.blumenthal@live.de (P.B.);
marcsteger2@googlemail.com (M.C.S.); joerg.rieke_zapp@yahoo.de (J.R.-Z.);
schwarz@coffee-consulate.com (S.S.)
2Yeast Genetics and Fermentation Technology, Institute of Food Science and Biotechnology, University of
Hohenheim, Garbenstrasse 23, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany; daniel.einfalt@uni-hohenheim.de
3Finca La Buena Esperanza, Pasaje Senda Florida Norte 124, San Salvador, El Salvador; coffeelbe@gmail.com
4Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt (CVUA) Karlsruhe, Weissenburger Strasse 3,
76187 Karlsruhe, Germany; katharina.sommerfeld@cvuaka.bwl.de
*Correspondence: lachenmeier@web.de; Tel.: +49-721-926-5434
Abstract:
Methanol is a natural ingredient with major occurrence in fruit spirits, such as apple, pear,
plum or cherry spirits, but also in spirits made from coffee pulp. The compound is formed during
fermentation and the following mash storage by enzymatic hydrolysis of naturally present pectins.
Methanol is toxic above certain threshold levels and legal limits have been set in most jurisdictions.
Therefore, the methanol content needs to be mitigated and its level must be controlled. This article
will review the several factors that influence the methanol content including the pH value of the mash,
the addition of various yeast and enzyme preparations, fermentation temperature, mash storage,
and most importantly the raw material quality and hygiene. From all these mitigation possibilities,
lowering the pH value and the use of cultured yeasts when mashing fruit substances is already
common as best practice today. Also a controlled yeast fermentation at acidic pH facilitates not only
reduced methanol formation, but ultimately also leads to quality benefits of the distillate. Special care
has to be observed in the case of spirits made from coffee by-products which are prone to spoilage
with very high methanol contents reported in past studies.
Keywords: alcoholic beverages; spirits; methanol; risk mitigation; legal limits; quality control
1. Introduction
Methanol is an alcohol that is typically found in almost all kinds of alcoholic beverages
and some other fermented food products [
1
–
5
]. Methanol may occur in alcoholic beverages
through two major pathways: a natural one (pectin degradation), as well as an artificial
one (adulteration by illegal addition of the pure compound). Only the latter pathway
(adulteration) is typically associated with major morbidity and mortality due to methanol
poisoning [
6
–
9
]. While adulteration is still prevalent and incidences have increased due to
alcohol shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic [
10
], this article will exclusively focus on
the first pathway, the natural content of methanol in spirits and its mitigation. Regarding
the mitigation of problems related to methanol addition, we have recently provided a
separate review [11].
In the human body, methanol may be endogenously present in low concentrations [
12
,
13
],
while in most alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine, the natural content of methanol is also
quite low. This differs with fruit spirits, so that the major focus on methanol reduction measures
lies on this kind of beverage.
Spirits are alcoholic beverages that use fruits or other sugar-containing plant parts as
the raw material. They are produced by alcoholic fermentation followed by distillation [
14
].
Molecules 2021,26, 2585. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26092585 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 2 of 16
In Central European countries and in Russia, but also in Asia and many American countries,
home production or artisanal small-scale production of spirits has a long tradition, while
typically the sugar-containing materials of the region are preferred. For instance, countries
in Central Europe mainly utilize fruits such as cherries, apples, and plums while other
regions focus on grains (Eastern Europe) or sugar cane materials (Central and Southern
America). From all natural materials used for fermentation, fruits are associated with
the highest concentrations of methanol in the end-product, because of their pectin con-
tent. Typically, stone fruits of the genus Prunus (cherries, plums) and pome fruits of the
genera Malus and Pyrus (apples, pears) are associated with the highest methanol levels.
More recently, coffee cherries (genus Coffea) were identified as fruits possibly leading to
comparably high methanol levels in their spirits [15].
Methanol concentrations in spirits are closely linked to enzymatic activities in the
fruits and during the alcoholic fermentation process. Pectin methylesterase activity (1) may
derive endogenously from the fruits themselves but also during alcoholic fermentation by
pectin methylesterase formed from yeast metabolism or from other microorganisms [
16
–
18
].
Pectin methylesterase activity may also be exogenously introduced by addition of certain
pectolytic enzyme preparations. A negligible pathway may be thermic demethylation of
pectins [19].
Pectin +H2OPectin methylesterase
−−−−−−−−−−−−→ Pectic acid +methanol (1)
When methanol has been released from the fruits’ pectin, it inevitably becomes part
of the mash [
20
]. Its level is dependent on the degree of esterification of the pectin inside
the fruits and the fruit-dependent ratio between sugar and pectin [
5
,
21
]. Another pathway
suggested for methanol formation in protein-rich fruits such as jejube (Chinese date,
Ziziphus jujube Mill.) was glycine deamination, followed by decarboxylation and reaction
with nitrite from fertilizer use [22].
The European Union (EU) regulates maximum methanol contents in spirits depen-
dent on the utilized raw materials [
4
,
23
,
24
]. For ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin, the
maximum level of methanol is 30 g/hL of 100% vol alcohol (pure alcohol, pa), while for
vodka it is 10 g/hL pa and the lowest level is defined for London gin with 5 g/hL pa. The
limits are higher for fruit-based materials: for wine spirit 200 g/hL pa, for grape marc and
cider 1000 g/hL pa, for fruit marc 1500 g/hL pa, for fruit spirits in general 1000 g/hL pa,
except 1200 g/hL pa for apples, apricots, plum, mirabelle, peach, pear, blackberry and
raspberry, and 1350 g/hL pa for quince, Williams pear and some other berries [
23
]. While
these EU limits are set to reduce toxic effects on the human body, they were also judged as
being rather low and, for some types of fruit, as challenging to be upheld by small artisanal
distillers [
25
]. Lower limits in other countries such as the USA may also prohibit export of
fruit spirits to these countries [26].
This article will review the possibilities to control and reduce the methanol content in fruit
spirts and also describe some initial observations for the novel spirit made from coffee cherries.
2. Materials and Methods
A database research in January 2021 was conducted in Google Scholar and PubMed
using the keyword combination “methanol, “reduction” and “spirits” or “alcoholic bev-
erages”. It became quickly evident that the indexed international literature contains only
few references about the topic. For that reason, the paper collection of the authors was
screened for the key words to identify the gray literature mostly in German language
industry magazines. The reference lists of all identified articles were screened for missing
references. A narrative review was compiled from the available evidence.
3. Toxicity of Methanol in Alcoholic Beverages
Methanol is a colorless liquid and it is highly flammable. It is the simplest alcohol with
a wide range of industrial applications. Methanol is also a natural ingredient in alcoholic

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 3 of 16
beverages and spirits. To ensure that the residual methanol content present in spirits is
safe, methanol content has to be strictly monitored [2,27].
Methanol is one of the few compounds occurring in foods for which excellent human
toxicity data is available. This data mostly origins from the experience with poisonings
from methanol containing spirits that sadly still regularly occur worldwide in connection
with unrecorded and illicit alcohol consumption [
11
]. Methanol is metabolized in the body
to its toxic metabolites, formaldehyde and formic acid. The accumulation of formic acid
may cause metabolic acidosis including damage to the retina, the central nervous system
and other organs [2,28].
It must be directly noted that such poisonings typically occur from methanol addition
to spirits (mostly found on the illicit market), while the natural content due to fermentation
from fruits does not typically exceed levels causing acute toxicity [11].
Poisoning outbreaks were reported from all regions worldwide, the size of which
ranging from a few to over 800 victims, with fatality rates of over 30% in some instances [
29
].
Paine and Dayan [
2
] reported that the low concentrations of methanol naturally occurring
in most alcoholic beverages are not causing any harm. According to WHO [
29
], methanol
concentration in typical ranges of 6–27 mg/L in beer and 10–220 mg/L in spirits are not harmful.
Paine and Dayan [
2
] also reported that the daily tolerable, virtually safe dose of methanol
for an adult is 2 g and the toxic dose is 8 g. For a drinking volume of 100 mL of a spirit at
40% vol
, the tolerable concentration would be 2% vol methanol (i.e., 5000 g/hL pa). Hence, the
EU general limit for naturally occurring methanol in fruit spirits of 1000 g/hL pa [
23
] offers
a safety margin of about 5 for heavy consumers of fruit spirits. Compared to other toxic food
constituents, this margin is rather low, so that the limits must be strictly controlled and adhered
by industry. Considering the demand for precautionary public health protection, it is obviously
prudent to lower the methanol content in fruit spirits as low as it is reasonably achievable
(ALARA principle).
4. Factors Influencing the Methanol Content of Fruit Spirits
Table 1provides an overview of the major methods and approaches to reduce methanol
in spirits. From their experience in practical work in spirits drinks control and distillation
technology, the authors also provide a judgement about the applicability of the approaches,
considering practical as well as economical aspects. The following sections are considering
each approach in more detail.
Table 1. Summary of major methods to reduce methanol during production of fruit spirits.
Method Methanol Reduction
Potential 1
Authors’ Judgment about
Applicability References
Improvement of quality of
raw material up to 40%
Raw material is extremely important
and the type and quality highly affects
the methanol content. Removal of
pectin-rich fruit parts such as skins may
reduce methanol content.
[4,16,25,30,31]
Acidification of mash up to 50%
Acidification of mash inhibits the
activity of pectin methylesterase. It also
inhibits spoilage microorganisms,
which may produce pectin
methylesterase.
[25,32–36]
Sterilization of mash 40–90%
Temperature treatment efficiently
denaturizes pectin methylesterase
enzymes. High energy requirement and
not feasible for artisanal distillers.
[18,22,31,37–41]
Decreased storage time of
fermented mash before
distillation
up to 50%
Storage time should be avoided or
being minimized as far as possible,
because sharp methanol increases were
reported during storage.
[26,32,33]

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 4 of 16
Table 1. Cont.
Method Methanol Reduction
Potential 1
Authors’ Judgment about
Applicability References
Selection of appropriate yeast
strains up to 25% Yeasts with low capacity of producing
pectin methylesterase to be preferred. [4,30,42,43]
Decreased fermentation
temperature up to 25%
Lower temperatures and the use of cold
fermentation yeast is recommended. [26]
Improvement in distillation
method and conditions up to 80%
Methanol is enriched in tailings. Earlier
cut (not below 50% vol). No recycling
of tailings.
[4,14,20,22,30,32–34,44]
Demethanolization following
distillation 50–90%
Effective in industry but not feasible for
small artisanal distillers, high
expenditure
[39,40,42,44–46]
Avoidance of liquefaction
enzymes up to 20% Avoid pectin methylesterase enzymes
which release methanol. [4,22,26,34,39,42,47]
Application of alternative
liquefaction enzymes up to 88%
Substitute pectin methylesterase
enzymes by pectin lyase enzymes to
reduce the release of methanol
[48,49]
1Authors’ estimation if several studies were available.
4.1. Raw Materials, Mash Preparation and Fermentation
Prior to sensitization of industry regarding the methanol problem and the implemen-
tation of maximum limits by the EU in the first spirits regulation in 1989 [
50
], so-called
liquefaction enzymes were often applied during mash preparation. In addition to the de-
sired pectin hydrolysis activity, these enzymes also had pectin esterase activity, resulting in
methanol formation of up to five to six times higher than in untreated fruit mash [
17
,
51
,
52
].
Such conventional, unspecific enzymes should only be used with caution—if at all—and
only if methanol monitoring is implemented [
51
]. The use of commercial mash enzymes
(i.e., pectolytic enzymes such as pectin methylesterase) always resulted in very high
methanol contents (similar to the maximum methanol release potential) [
25
,
53
,
54
]. In the
case of Rubinette apples, methanol increases between 5.5% and 12% occur after addition
of various pectin enzymes, which are used to liquefy the mashes without adding water,
compared to the untreated sample [
34
]. In quince, the lowest methanol contents were
measured in the mashes blended with 33% water [
25
]. The avoidance of conventional
liquefaction enzymes alone can lead to a 20% reduction in methanol content [
47
]. However,
thick fruit mashes usually require a more or less high addition of water for fermentation
and distillation, which means time and increased energy input during distillation, and at
the same time leads to lower alcohol yields [
34
]. If pectinolytic enzymes have to be applied,
pure lyases should be preferred (see Section 4.1.4). Besides the scrutiny in use of enzymes
the raw material quality, mash preparation and fermentation conditions have potential to
mitigate the methanol release.
4.1.1. Quality and Treatment of Raw Materials
The methanol content is directly related to the fruit type or types used in the fermen-
tation process (mainly dependent on the sugar/pectin ratio) but there are also differences
between cultivars and harvest years [
18
,
19
,
26
,
30
]. For example, in studying distillates
of Bartlett pear between 1978 and 1995, the 1993 vintage was the year with a strikingly
lower methanol content [
44
]. In addition to the fruit type, it is very evident that the fruit
quality used affects the quantity of the methanol formation [
4
,
25
]. At what stage of fruit
development and how it is harvested also effects the methanol content [30].
Early harvest or hard pears led to higher methanol levels [
34
]. For pears and apricots,
other researchers corroborated this finding showing that overripe fruit led to the lowest

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 5 of 16
methanol contents [
16
]. In deviation of this finding, Adam reported an increase of methanol
through advancing maturity of Williams Christ pears [44,47].
Utilization of plum juice leads to lower methanol contents than plum mashes [
30
]. On
the other hand, destoned cherry mashes showed higher methanol contents than mashes
with complete fruits including stones [
55
]. However, in another investigation of the same
research group, destoned cherry mashes showed consistently lower methanol contents [
56
].
The conflicting results currently cannot be explained, other than confounding factors not
controlled in the studies.
As pectins have a major occurrence in the skin layer, the removal of the fruit skins
before fermentation may also reduce the methanol level by about 50% during production of
wine spirits [
31
]. Cores and stems were also described to contain high levels of pectins [
37
].
Peeling and coring of pears, therefore, led to a methanol reduction of up to 42% [
16
].
However, this method is judged as not economically feasible for most spirits.
4.1.2. Inhibition of Pectin Methylesterase by Acidification of Mash
pH is one of the most important factors which highly affects the activity of enzymes.
Pectin methylesterase showed an optimum at pH 8 and 50
◦
C [
57
]. Other authors suggested
pH 5–6 as optimum for pectin methylesterase [
37
,
38
]. Pectin methylesterases from yeast
may have optimal pH values ranging from 3.75 to 6 [58].
Therefore, the proposed pH for fermentations to avoid pectin methylesterase activity
is 2.5 [
32
,
34
] (Figure 1). No large differences were reported between pH 2.8 and 3.3,
however [
47
]. Denes et al. [
59
] stated a decrease to 1% of the enzyme activity by decreasing
the pH to 4.5 (pectin methylesterase from apples).
Figure 1.
Kinetics of methanol formation in Bartlett pear mashes affected by the initial mash pH and fermentation time
(redrawn from [32]).
There is a clear indication from several studies of an up to 50% reduction in methanol
by acidification of fruit mashes [4,22,25,26,33–35].

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 6 of 16
There is not a clear preference about the kind of acid to be used. Gössinger et al.
suggest ortho-phosphoric acid (85%) [
26
,
53
] while Pieper et al. suggested sulfuric acid [
35
].
Commercially available products for acidification often contain mixtures of several acids
such as malic acid/hydroxypropionic acid or phosphoric acid/lactic acid.
Gerogiannaki-Christopoulou used citric acid resulting in a decrease of about 15%
methanol in grape pomace distillate [
36
]. However, while some organic acids such as citric
acid might be depleted during fermentation by their inclusion in metabolic pathways,
inorganic acids appear to be more appropriate. Buffer systems ensuring a long-term
stability of mash pH might be an interesting option for future investigation.
4.1.3. Inhibition of Pectin Methylesterase by Sterilization of Mash
A significant reduction of methanol by 40–90% [
37
,
38
] can be achieved by thermal de-
activation of pectin methylesterase (often referred to as “mash heating”). There are various
suggestions for temperature/time combinations to achieve the enzyme’s denaturation.
Sterilization at temperatures higher than 70
◦
C was generally suggested to effectively
prevent the production of methanol by inactivation of pectin methylesterase [
57
,
60
]. Methanol
can be reduced by targeted thermal deactivation of pectin methylesterase by heating the mash
to 80
◦
C up to 85
◦
C for a holding time of 30 min or to 60
◦
C for 45 min [
31
,
37
,
38
]. Pasteurization
at 72
◦
C for 15 s prevented the production of methanol in fermented plant beverages containing
Morinda citrifolia (noni fruit) [
60
]. In cider spirit, the pasteurization (30 min at 50
◦
C, then
heated to about 85
◦
C) of the apple juice prior to fermentation reduced the methanol content by
34–46% [
18
]. Lower methanol levels were obtained in Williams and plums by heating the mash
to 65 ◦C for 5 min, followed by re-cooling for fermentation [34].
Xia et al. [
22
] confirmed that autoclaving by steam injection of the mash of jujube
reduced the methanol content in the spirit significantly by a factor of about eight. The
authors also determined pectin methylesterase activity confirming that their treatment
method reduced the activity to one-fifth to half of that without treatment.
Further technological approaches for inactivation of methylesterase are thermosoni-
cation (ultrasound plus temperature at 70
◦
led to 30% methanol reduction in plum wine)
or use of microwaves (70
◦
C for 1 min led to 70% methanol reduction in plum wine). The
authors indicated an additional nonthermal effect of both ultrasonication and microwaving
with improved sensory properties of the product [41].
4.1.4. Inhibition and Substitution of Pectin Methylesterase by Certain Additives
Pectinolytic enzymes (pectinase) are classified into esterase and depolymerase (lyase
and hydrolase). Lyase produces oligo- or mono-galacturonate, while esterase produces
pectic acid and methanol [
61
]. The addition of pectin lyase significantly (
α
= 0.01) reduced
the resulting methanol contents in the mash of apricot and quince by 40–71% [
25
,
26
].
Lyase appears to inhibit the activity of the naturally contained pectolytic enzymes. The
mechanism was speculated as being a cleavage of the pectin chains by the pectin lyase
in such a fashion that the pectin fragments are not accessible as substrate for the pectin
methylesterase [
26
]. The effectiveness of lyase enzymes can be increased by dilution of the
mashes with water [
26
]. Similarly, the addition of certain detergents (anionic surfactants)
as well as polyphenols (tannins) has a reducing effect on the release of methanol by full
or partial inhibition of pectin methylesterases [
19
,
34
,
35
,
41
]. However, a large amount
of agents is needed, which are rather expensive so that these methods were not widely
implemented in practice [39].
Substituting the application of liquefying pectin methylesterase enzymes by pectinlysase
reduced the methanol concentrations in apple distillates by 40–88%. The combination
of mash sterilization (Section 4.1.3) and pectinlyase liquefaction resulted in an average
methanol reduction of 94 ±4% in the same distillates [48].

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 7 of 16
4.1.5. Selection of Yeast Strains and Fermentation
Microbiological control of the process could also be used to prevent methanol forma-
tion in fermented beverages. For instance, pure culture inoculation using commercial yeast
in contrast to spontaneous inoculation by wild yeasts should be practiced [
43
]. Mashes
fermented without pure yeast cultures generally lead to higher methanol levels [
34
]. Yeast
culture selection can reduce methanol contents in the distillates by up to 20% [34].
However, the reason why there are significant differences from yeast breed to yeast breed is
hypothetically due to the fact that the individual breeds apparently differ in their ability to inhibit
pectin esterase and thus the release of methanol from pectin [
34
]. Strains of Saccharomyces yeasts
may produce all three types of pectinolytic enzymes (see Section 4.1.4) [
61
]. Selection of yeasts
which do not form pectin methylesterase was suggested to contribute to reduction of methanol
occurrence [
33
]. Selected mutant Saccharomyces cerevisiae S12 exhibited a methanol content
during wine fermentations decreased by 73% compared to that of the wild-type strain [
43
]. On
the other hand, Rodríguez Madrera et al. reported lower methanol concentrations in apple
pomace spirits fermented with indigenous yeast than with commercial wine yeast [54].
In a comparison of three different yeast types (one newly developed strain with
improved genetic and physiological performances and two commercial distillers’ yeasts),
the new yeast showed higher methanol contents in plum and pear mashes, but not in cherry
mashes [
62
]. In another investigation with the same yeast types, the new yeast showed
lower methanol contents in plum mashes but higher in cherry mashes [
55
]. In a third study
with these yeast types, the new yeast showed consistently lower methanol values than the
commercial yeast in cherry spirits [
56
]. These conflicting results were interpreted by other
influences on methanol content rather than a yeast influence. Similarly, different strains of
yeast were used in fermentations but no significant change in the quality or quantity was
noticed over time [4].
Another microbiological method for the control of methanol in fermented beverages,
might be the use of methylotrophic yeast such as Pichia methanolica [
63
] and Candida
boidinii [
64
] which have the capacity of utilizing pectin or the methyl ester moiety of pectin
and methanol, thus preventing the accumulation of methanol in fermented products [
61
].
However, the application of these microorganisms for fermentation of spirits has not been
demonstrated so far.
4.1.6. Fermentation Conditions
The activity of the pectin methylesterase enzyme is directly linked with the tempera-
ture [
65
]. Increasing the temperature of the mash increases the speed of reaction until the
temperature reaches a very high level where the enzyme starts denaturizing (see Section 4.1.3).
Lowering the fermentation temperature from 20
◦
C to 12
◦
C with use of cold fermentation
yeast may result in a 10–24% reduction in methanol release in the mash [
26
], but not in all
cases [25,26].
4.2. Storage of Fermented Mash before Distillation
Generally, the storage time following fermentation has a major influence on the
methanol release (Figure 1) [
32
]. Depending on the pH level, an almost 100% release can
be expected after only some weeks of storage. During mash storage of 4 weeks, methanol
contents increased, in some cases sharply by 15–50% [
25
,
26
]. Therefore, the optimal practice
would be to conduct the distillation as soon as fermentation has been complete or at least
to minimize storage time as far as possible [33].
4.3. Distillation Method and Conditions
4.3.1. Methanol Reduction during Pot Still Distillation
Methanol has a boiling point (64.7
◦
C) that is considerably lower than the ones of
ethanol (78.5
◦
C) and water (100
◦
C). However, it is nevertheless difficult to separate
methanol from the azeotropic ethanol-water mixture [
14
]. When the alcohol mixture is
distilled in simple pot stills such as the ones used by most small-scale artisanal distilleries

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 8 of 16
throughout Central Europe, the solubility of methanol in water is the major factor rather
than its boiling point. As methanol is highly soluble in water, it will distil over more at the
end of distillations when vapours are richer in water. That means, methanol will appear
in almost equal concentration in almost all fractions of pot still distillation in reference to
ethanol (i.e., as g/hL pa), until the very end where it accumulates in the so-called tailings
fraction (Figure 2) [
4
,
5
,
14
,
20
,
32
,
37
,
40
,
47
]. However, even today many professional distillers
believe that methanol concentrates preferably in the first fractions (heads fractions). And
that methanol is the reason that heads fractions smell and taste bad (which is caused
by acetaldehyde and ethyl acetate but not by methanol). It is of note that single studies
that suggested that methanol may be enriched in the first distillation fractions were not
plausible and potentially erroneous (e.g., compare the abstract with the conclusion section
in Xia et al. [
22
], which report completely conflicting information—from the data presented
in the work it can be assumed that the study from China is in fact corroborating the studies
from Europe and the United States that methanol is enriched in the tailings while the
information in the abstract that it is enriched in the heads fractions is most probably a
translation mistake).
Figure 2.
Distillation characteristics of ethanol and methanol affected by different reflux ratios (v) during distillation of
Bartlett pear mashes (redrawn from [32]).
Various distillation tests carried out show that the methanol content in the product
(hearts) fractions can hardly be influenced by different distillation techniques. Even in
experiments with various “catalysts”, no groundbreaking findings have yet emerged. Only
relatively expensive silver wool as adsorbent led to methanol reductions of up to 20% [
34
].
Therefore, the separation of tailings, which also has to be done for sensorial reasons,
is so far the only option for a reduction of methanol during pot still distillation. The
reduction of methanol contents of the product fractions in g/hL pa compared to mash may
be between 20 and 30%. On the other hand, an extremely late separation of tailings can
cause an increase of methanol contents of about 20% in the product fractions [39].
In general, it can be seen that the methanol content in the spirit increases with reflux
ratio increases. That means the higher the reinforcement and the slower the distillation is,
the higher the methanol content in the distillate [
32
,
66
] (Figure 2). Distillation parameters
also had an influence on the methanol content of the distillates. Especially the dephlegmator

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 9 of 16
temperature showed a significant effect on the methanol content. Within the parameters
tested using 150 L still, three trays and one dephlegmator, the decrease in methanol content
varied between 16% and 36% [25].
On the other hand, Scherübel [
20
] suggests the following three measures to reduce
methanol by improvements in pot still distillation:
•
Perform double distillation: it is always advisable to carry out two subsequent distilla-
tions with regard to methanol separation
•
Increase separation efficiency: The methanol separation can be increased by a simple
optional parallel connection of a conventional spirits tube and a more separation-
efficient column. If possible, this column should be at least partially cooled at the top
to increase internal reflux and thus separation efficiency.
•
Cooling at the head: When use of an additional column is not feasible, partial cooling
of the spirits tube at the beginning of the second distillation can also increase the
internal reflux and thus increase the separation efficiency.
In summary, there is still a bit of discrepancy regarding the influence of reflux ratios
between the different studies in the literature. This can probably be explained by the wide
variability of commercially available stills and legal differences (number of plates) for
artisanal distilleries in different jurisdictions.
4.3.2. Methanol Reduction during Large-Scale Distillation
In contrast to pot stills that typically consist of a small column (three or four plates),
industrial-scale distilleries with 15 to 30 plates provide the possibility of continuous distil-
lation and advanced regulation of distillation including processes of demethylation [39].
Methanol content can be decreased during the rectification by using demethanolization
columns [
33
,
40
]. This process is efficient and successfully reduces the methanol content up
to 40–90% in comparison to the starting amount. However, investment is only viable for
rather big businesses with high capacity utilization [39].
A combined evaporation/condensation method to reduce methanol from distillates was
patented by Capovilla [
46
]. The application of the method was found to reduce methanol
in fruit spirits by 58–190 g/hL pa [
42
]. However, such methods may not be economically
viable as they considerably reduce the alcohol content along with the methanol content [
26
].
The promised results of the evaporation/condensation method were also criticized as im-
plausible with independent investigations showing lesser methanol reduction (9–92 g/hL pa)
always connected with inacceptable losses of ethanol (up to 10% vol) [
45
]. All in all evapo-
ration/condensation methods for demethanolization were judged as economically unviable
specifically for smaller businesses.
4.4. Storage of Distillate after Fermentation
Not much evidence is available regarding the methanol evolution during the distillates’
storage and aging process. Botelho et al. [
4
] suggested a tendency for low amounts of
methanol in advanced wood-cask aged spirits, attributable to methanol oxidation and
subsequent acetalization reaction with the formation of diethoxymethane. On the other
hand, methanol is expected to be quite stable in inert containers without the presence
of oxygen. This is also in line with the authors’ experience from validating methods for
methanol determination, which suggested that methanol is a stable compound in bottled
hydroalcoholic solutions [67].
Similar results were observed by Xia et al. [
22
]. The 270-day storage of jujube spirit
in oak barrels significantly reduced its methanol content, while lower reductions were
observed in plastic or stainless-steel containers. The authors explained the reduction by
esterification reactions but were unable to provide explanation for the differences between
container materials.

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 10 of 16
5. Discussion
5.1. Good Manufacturing Practice for Methanol Reduction Leading to Decreased Levels in
Commercial Products
The only currently available review about methanol reduction possibilities has been
provided by Botelho et al. [
4
] in the context of a more general review on quality of fruit
spirits. While being less comprehensive and lacking the coverage of major studies only
available in German language, the major areas influencing the methanol content in fruit
spirits were in agreement with this review, namely, raw material quality, fermentation,
storage, and distillation. Botelho et al. [
4
] concluded that the reduction of the time between
fermentation and distillation being the most effective way to reduce the methanol content
of the final beverage, with that suggestion to be classified as “good manufacturing practice”.
This is also in agreement with the comprehensive book of Adam and Versini published by
the European Commission [39].
The quality of the raw material used is a key factor which defines the quality of the
spirit produced and its methanol content. Alcoholic beverages derived from materials low
in pectin content (such as beer, wine or grain-based spirits such as whiskey) have typically
a much lower concentration of methanol than fruit-based products. Mitigation efforts in
the past were therefore focused on fruit spirits.
Previous results have shown that industry efforts and application of improved fermen-
tation and distillation technology have led to lowered methanol levels in fruit spirits [
1
].
Due to the limits for methanol introduced uniformly throughout Europe in 1989, processes
were developed to reduce this substance in spirits [
1
]. Methanol release during fermenta-
tion and distillation is not a univariate process, but a combination of several measures can
effectively ensure methanol levels below legal limits.
According to Glatthar et al. [
32
], the following mitigation measures are simple and
can be applied even by small, artisanal distilleries:
•Adjust the mash pH before fermentation to pH 2.5–3.0
•Short fermentation using inoculation with yeasts followed by immediate distillation
•Do not recycle the tailings
Using these measures, a methanol content reduced by half, without changing the
sensory quality of the products, can be expected.
Interestingly, all the measures discussed before may have led to considerably decreased
levels of methanol in commercial products on the European market and can be seen as an
excellent example of implementation of research results into practice. This may be evidenced
by the efforts of the researchers to publish their results in addition to the usual peer-reviewed
journals in trade journals in a format readable and understandable by distillers.
Adam and Postel [
68
] showed that cherry brandies tested in 1991 had almost 100 g/hL pa
less methanol than cherry brandies produced before 1986. Adam and Versini [
39
] confirmed
this trend in 1996. Own investigations of 923 cherry spirits (Figure 3), which is one of the
most frequently tested product groups at the CVUA Karlsruhe as this product is traditionally
a specialty of North Baden or the Black Forest, analyzed during the years 1980–2020 confirm
a statistically significant linear decrease in methanol content (r =
−
0.345, p< 0.0001). Mean
methanol contents decreased from an average of 500 g/hL pa in the early 1980s to an average
of 400 g/hL pa at present (for methodology and details on samples 1980–2003, see [
1
]). None of
the samples was found to exceed the EU limit of 1000 g/hL pa.

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 11 of 16
Figure 3. Methanol contents of 923 cherry spirits analysed between 1980 and 2020.
5.2. Coffee Spirits—A Special Case for Methanol Mitigation
Despite some anecdotal evidence that spirits derived from coffee cherries or coffee
by-products were traditionally manufactured in some coffee-producing countries such
as Nepal, there is not only extremely limited evidence on production methods [
69
] but
also on chemical composition and specifically the methanol content of coffee cherry spirits.
Especially the coffee pulp juice from wet-processing with about 3–5% of total sugars is
an adequate substrate for production of ethanol [
70
]. For coffee mucilage from various
Coffea arabica varieties, the pectin yield in the coffee fruit was 0.03–0.09% and methoxyl
esterification degrees of 19–31% were reported [
71
]. Coffee pulp of Coffea canephora contains
2–3% pectin with a methoxyl esterification degree of about 6% [
72
], while higher contents
were reported for Coffea arabica with 15% pectin in dried pulp with a methoxyl esterification
degree of 63% [
73
]. Another study reported 11% pectin in Coffea arabica without specifying
the esterification degree [74].
Depending on species and processing, the pectin content of Coffea by-products could be
higher than the one in most other fruits used for spirits production, such as cherries (0.4%),
apricots (1%), or apples (0.8%) [
75
], while the methoxyl degree of Prunus avium cherries
was between 44% and 91% depending on extraction method and ripening stage [
76
]. Hence,
the capacity for enzymatic methanol formation may be higher in coffee cherries than in
conventional materials for fruit distillate production. From the few studies on spirits
produced from coffee cherries or coffee-by products many did not investigate methanol
contents [
77
–
81
], which is a bit puzzling because methanol is typically included in any
standard spirits analysis [82].
Nevertheless, there are some studies on methanol in fermentations of coffee materials
available (Table 2). Bonilla-Hermosa et al. [
74
] showed comparably low levels of methanol
in coffee pulp mixed with coffee wastewater from the depulping and demucilage process
of Coffea arabica beans. However, only the fermentation mash was analyzed in this case
and no distillation was conducted. A study of spent coffee grounds fermented with

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 12 of 16
added sugar of 180 g/L also showed rather low levels of methanol. On the other hand,
Somashekar and Appaiah [
83
] showed that solid substrate fermentation of coffee cherry
husk from Coffea canephora with Clavispora and Pichia strains may lead to considerable levels
of 7.2–10.8% methanol. The process was intended for technical alcohol production and
appears as completely unsuitable for obtaining products for human consumption. While
the production of technical alcohols from coffee by-products and waste-products could be
an interesting valorization option, this study shows that extreme scrutiny has to be applied
if spirits from coffee by-products are intended to be used as consumer products.
This concern was strengthened by the informative pilot study of Einfalt et al. [
15
]
reporting results of coffee cherry spirit production. The mash was prepared using Coffea
arabica cherries transported in frozen form from Thailand to Germany, where they were
pulped. After lowering the pH to 3.1 using phosphoric acid/lactic acid addition, a com-
mercial pectinase enzyme was added for liquefaction. After addition of commercial yeast,
the mash was distilled after 17 days of fermentation. The methanol content in the hearts
fractions was 2600
±
400 g/hL pa, which considerably exceeded the EU limit of 1000 g/hL
pa and offers a safety margin of less than 2 for the level of acute toxicity of 5000 g/hL pa
(see Section 3). The authors suggested that the application of pectinase and the long storage
had an adverse effect on the methanol concentration [
15
], which is plausible considering
our review results in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.
In a patented method by Bodmer and Ruder [
84
], whole coffee cherries were mashed
with addition of 5% sugar, adjusted to pH 3.0 with phosphoric acid/lactic acid, and pitched
with Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast and diammonium phosphate. After a fermentation
time of 7–14 days, the mash was double-distilled using pot still technique. The methanol
contents of two coffee cherry spirits were 684 and 573 g/hL pa. While the production
method with addition of sugar is not compliant with the EU regulation for fruit spirits,
where the products’ ethanol must exclusively originate from fruits [
23
], this also lowers
the relative methanol content by increasing the ethanol content. Hence, it can be deduced
from the results that a coffee cherry spirit production according to the patented method,
excluding artificial sugar addition, would lead to a methanol limit exceedance similar to
the results of Einfalt et al. [15].
In conclusion, apart from the lack of novel food approval [
85
], none of the coffee cherry
spirits presented so far would have been compliant with the EU spirits regulation. It is
clearly necessary to apply the gathered knowledge about methanol mitigation possibilities
in further research of this interesting novel type of spirit, so that compliant coffee cherry
spirits will hopefully be available in the future.
Table 2. Methanol content in spirits produced from coffee cherries and coffee by-products.
Raw Material Methanol Content Compliance with EU
Regulation for Fruit Spirits 1References
Coffee cherry 2600 ±400 g/hL pa no 2[15]
Coffee cherry + 5% sugar 573–684 g/hL pa no 3[84]
Coffee cherry husk 7–11% (non-food product) [83]
Coffee pulp mixed with coffee
wastewater (1:10) 40–128 µg/L (in mash) (no distillation conducted) 4[74]
Spent coffee grounds + 18% sugar
11 ±3 mg/L
(44 ±12 g/hL pa 5)no 4[86]
1
This does not suggest general compliance with EU food regulations. Novel food approval is needed in the EU for most coffee by-products
and derivative products before being placed on the market [
85
].
2
Exceedance of general methanol limit for fruit spirits of 1000 g/hL pa [
23
].
3
The production method with added sugar is not compliant with EU regulations for fruit spirits; without sugar addition, the methanol
limit of 1000 g/hL pa would have likely been exceeded.
4
Fruit sprit ethanol must exclusively originate from fresh fruits [
23
] and not from
waste products such as spent coffee grounds or wastewater. Potential compliance in another spirit drinks’ category or as a generic ‘spirit
drink’ needs to be checked. 5Recalculation (alcoholic strength at 40% vol).

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 13 of 16
6. Conclusions
The methanol content is among the key parameters for determining the regulatory
compliance of spirits and other alcoholic beverages. The mitigation measures developed
over the last decades allowed industry not only to conform to the EU standards but also to
increase the margin of safety by generally lowering the methanol content in the category of
fruit spirits.
Interestingly, coffee cherry pulp, which is produced in large quantities as a by-product
of coffee manufacturing, was proposed as a material to produce spirits. Very high con-
centrations of methanol were found in coffee cherry spirit compared to other fruit spirits.
Hence it is specifically necessary to mitigate the methanol content in these spirits to uphold
the legal requirements and to protect public health from this potential hazard.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, D.W.L.; methodology, D.W.L.; formal analysis, D.W.L.
and K.S.; investigation, P.B. and M.C.S.; resources, D.W.L.; data curation, D.W.L.; writing—original
draft preparation, D.W.L.; writing—review and editing, P.B., M.C.S., D.E., J.R.-Z., A.Q.B., K.S., S.S.;
visualization, D.W.L.; supervision, D.W.L. and S.S.; project administration, D.W.L. and S.S. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement:
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: Aliazam7786/Fiverr is thanked for redrawing Figures 1and 2.
Conflicts of Interest:
S.S. is owner of and P.B., M.C.S. and J.R.Z. are consultants for Coffee Consulate,
Mannheim, Germany. Coffee Consulate is an independent training and research center. A.Q.B. is
owner of Finca La Buena Esperanza, a coffee plantation in El Salvador. Coffee Consulate and Finca
La Buena Esperanza are currently researching the potential of coffee by-products for production of
spirits. Neither of them are currently commercializing spirits produced from coffee by-products.
Therefore, S.S., P.B., M.C.S., J.R.-Z., and A.Q.B. report no conflict of interest related to the work under
consideration. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Lachenmeier, D.W.; Musshoff, F. Volatile congeners in alcoholic beverages. Retrospective trends, batch comparisons and current
concentration ranges. Rechtsmed 2004,14, 454–462. [CrossRef]
2.
Paine, A.J.; Dayan, A.D. Defining a tolerable concentration of methanol in alcoholic drinks. Hum. Exp. Toxicol.
2001
,20, 563–568.
[CrossRef]
3. Lachenmeier, D.W.; Rehm, J.; Gmel, G. Surrogate alcohol: What do we know and where do we go? Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2007,
31, 1613–1624. [CrossRef]
4.
Botelho, G.; Anjos, O.; Estevinho, L.M.; Caldeira, I. Methanol in grape derived, fruit and honey spirits: A critical review on source,
quality control, and legal limits. Processes 2020,8, 1609. [CrossRef]
5.
Bindler, F.; Voges, E.; Laugel, P. The problem of methanol concentration admissible in distilled fruit spirits. Food Addit. Contam.
1988,5, 343–351. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6.
Belackova, V.; Janikova, B.; Vacek, J.; Fidesova, H.; Miovsky, M. “It can’t happen to me”: Alcohol drinkers on the 2012 outbreak
of methanol poisonings and the subsequent prohibition in the Czech Republic. Nord. Stud. Alcohol Drugs
2017
,34, 385–399.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Neufeld, M.; Lachenmeier, D.; Hausler, T.; Rehm, J. Surrogate alcohol containing methanol, social deprivation and public health
in Novosibirsk, Russia. Int. J. Drug Policy 2016,37, 107–110. [CrossRef]
8.
Davis, L.E.; Hudson, D.; Benson, B.E.; Jones Easom, L.A.; Coleman, J.K. Methanol poisoning exposures in the United States:
1993–1998. J. Toxicol. Clin. Toxicol. 2002,40, 499–505. [CrossRef]
9.
Okaru, A.O.; Rehm, J.; Sommerfeld, K.; Kuballa, T.; Walch, S.G.; Lachenmeier, D.W. The threat to quality of alcoholic beverages
by unrecorded consumption. In Alcoholic Beverages. Volume 7: The Science of Beverages; Grumezescu, A.M., Holban, A.M., Eds.;
Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 1–34. [CrossRef]
10.
Neufeld, M.; Lachenmeier, D.W.; Ferreira-Borges, C.; Rehm, J. Is alcohol an “essential good” during COVID-19? Yes, but only as a
disinfectant! Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2020,44, 1906–1909. [CrossRef]
11.
Lachenmeier, D.W.; Neufeld, M.; Rehm, J. The impact of unrecorded alcohol use on health: What do we know in 2020? J. Stud.
Alcohol Drugs 2021,82, 28–41. [CrossRef]
12.
Haffner, H.T.; Graw, M.; Besserer, K.; Blickle, U.; Henssge, C. Endogenous methanol: Variability in concentration and rate of
production. Evidence of a deep compartment? Forensic Sci. Int. 1996,79, 145–154. [CrossRef]

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 14 of 16
13.
Lindinger, W.; Taucher, J.; Jordan, A.; Hansel, A.; Vogel, W. Endogenous production of methanol after the consumption of fruit.
Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 1997,21, 939–943. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Spaho, N. Distillation techniques in the fruit spirits production. In Distillation—Innovative Applications and Modeling; Mendes, M.,
Ed.; InTechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2017. [CrossRef]
15.
Einfalt, D.; Meissner, K.; Kurz, L.; Intani, K.; Müller, J. Fruit spirit production from coffee cherries—Process analysis and sensory
evaluation. Beverages 2020,6, 57. [CrossRef]
16.
Krapfenbauer, G.; Sämann, H.; Karner, M.; Gössinger, M. Effect of several paramters of harvesting and processing of fruit mashes
on the methanol content and the sensory profile of distillates. Mitt. Klosterneuburg 2007,57, 94–107. (In German)
17.
Zhang, H.; Woodams, E.E.; Hang, Y.D. Influence of pectinase treatment on fruit spirits from apple mash, juice and pomace. Process
Biochem. 2011,46, 1909–1913. [CrossRef]
18.
Hang, Y.D.; Woodams, E.E. Influence of apple cultivar and juice pasteurization on hard cider and eau-de-vie methanol content.
Bioresour. Technol. 2010,101, 1396–1398. [CrossRef]
19.
Tuszynski, T. Changes in the degree of pectin demethylation during fermentation of fruit musts. Nahrung
1989
,33, 183–189.
[CrossRef]
20.
Scherübel, P. The Mystery of Methanol. A Constant Companion in Fruit Brandy? Technische Universität Graz: Graz, Austria, 2018. (In
German)
21. Pieper, H.J.; Bruchmann, E.-E.; Kolb, E. Technologie der Obstbrennerei; Ulmer: Stuttgart, Germany, 1993.
22.
Xia, Y.; Ma, Y.; Hou, L.; Wang, J. Studies of boil treatment on methanol control and pilot factory test of jujube brandy. Int. J. Food
Eng. 2017,13, 20160095. [CrossRef]
23.
European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2019/787 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on
the Definition, Description, Presentation and Labelling of Spirit Drinks, the Use of the Names of Spirit Drinks in the Presentation
and Labelling of Other Foodstuffs, the Protection of Geographical Indications for Spirit Drinks, the Use of Ethyl alcohol and
Distillates of Agricultural Origin in Alcoholic Beverages, and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 110/2008. Off. J. Europ. Union
2019
,
L130, 1–54.
24.
Lachenmeier, D.W.; Schoeberl, K.; Kanteres, F.; Kuballa, T.; Sohnius, E.-M.; Rehm, J. Is contaminated alcohol a health problem in
the European Union? A review of existing and methodological outline for future studies. Addiction
2011
,106 (Suppl. 1), 20–30.
[CrossRef]
25.
Gössinger, M. Influence of Processing Methods on the Methanol Content in Fruit Distillates. 2003. Available online:
https://www.dafne.at/dafne_plus_homepage/index.php?section=dafneplus&content=result&come_from=homepage&
&project_id=975&page=51&limit=20: (accessed on 17 February 2021). (In German).
26.
Gössinger, M.; Krapfenbauer, G.; Sämann, H.; Brandes, W.; Karner, M.; Hick, S.; Neururer, T. Tips for the distiller: Methanol.
Kleinbrennerei 2006,58, 8–11. (In German)
27.
Lachenmeier, D.W. Advances in the detection of the adulteration of alcoholic beverages including unrecorded alcohol. In Advances
in Food Authenticity Testing; Downey, G., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing, Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 565–584.
[CrossRef]
28. Kruse, J.A. Methanol poisoning. Intensive Care Med. 1992,18, 391–397. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. WHO. Information Note. Methanol Poisoning Outbreaks; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
30.
Zhang, H.; Woodams, E.E.; Hang, Y.D. Factors affecting the methanol content and yield of plum brandy. J. Food Sci.
2012
,77,
T79–T82. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31.
Kana, K.; Kanellaki, M.; Papadimitriou, A.; Koutinas, A.A. Cause of and methods to reduce methanol content of Tsicoudia,
Tsipouro and Ouzo. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 1991,26, 241–247. [CrossRef]
32.
Glatthar, J.; Senn, T.; Pieper, H.J. Investigations on reducing the methanol content in distilled spirits made of bartlett. Deut.
Lebensm. Rundsch. 2001,97, 209–216.
33.
Nikicevic, N.; Teševic, V. Possibilities for methanol content reduction in plum brandy. J. Agricult. Sci.
2005
,50, 49–60. [CrossRef]
34.
Bartels, W. Reduction of Methanol in Fruit Spirits with Special Reference to Williams-Christ, Plum and Grape Marc Spirits.
1998. Available online: https://www.landwirtschaft-bw.info/pb/,Lde/Startseite/Service/Reduzierung+von+Methanol+in+
Obstbraenden (accessed on 17 February 2021). (In German)
35.
Pieper, H.J.; Oplustil, E.; Barth, G. Reduction of methanol formation during alcoholic fermentation. Biotechnol. Lett.
1980
,2,
391–396. [CrossRef]
36.
Gerogiannaki-Christopoulou, M.; Kyriakidis, N.V.; Athanasopoulos, P.E. Effect of grape variety (Vitis vinifera L.) and grape
pomace fermentation conditions on some volatile compounds of the produced grape pomace distillate. OENO One
2004
,38,
225–230. [CrossRef]
37.
Tanner, H. About the production of fruit spirits with low methanol content. Schweiz. Z. Obst Weinbau
1970
,106, 625–629. reprinted
in Alk. Ind. 1972,85, 27–29. (In German)
38.
Tanner, H. On the use of mash heating to reduce the methanol content in fruit brandies. Kleinbrennerei
1971
,23, 95–96. (In
German)
39.
Adam, L.; Versini, G. A Study on the Possibilities to Lower the Content of Methyl-Alcohol in Eaux-de-Vie de Fruits; European Commission:
Brussels, Belgium, 1996; Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0b908be6-2673-45a5-8c2f-
b3b6abc1aa37 (accessed on 29 March 2021).

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 15 of 16
40.
Adam, L.; Meinl, J. Methanol reduction in fruit spirits (II). Technological possibilities and their effects. Kleinbrennerei
1995
,47,
107–113. (In German)
41.
Miljic, U.; Puskas, V.; Vucurovic, V. Investigation of technological approaches for reduction of methanol formation in plum wines.
J. Inst. Brew. 2016,122, 635–643. [CrossRef]
42. Scholten, G.; Kacprowski, M. Methanol in spirits—The problem and the solution. Kleinbrennerei 1998,50, 6–8. (In German)
43.
Liang, M.H.; Liang, Y.J.; Chai, J.Y.; Zhou, S.S.; Jiang, J.G. Reduction of methanol in brewed wine by the use of atmospheric
and room-temperature plasma method and the combination optimization of malt with different adjuncts. J. Food Sci.
2014
,79,
M2308–M2314. [CrossRef]
44.
Adam, L. Possibilities of methanol reduction in Bartlett pear distillates using traditional methods of production. Riv. Sci. Aliment.
1995,24, 417–425.
45.
Nusser, R.; Adam, L.; Engel, K.-H. Investigations into the reduction of methanol content in spirits using evaporation processes.
Kleinbrennerei 2000,52, 5–8. (In German)
46. Capovilla, V.R. Process for After-Treatment of Crude Distillate. European Patent EP0812607B1, 13 June 1997.
47.
Adam, L. Methanol reduction in fruit spirits (I). Technological possibilities and their effects. Kleinbrennerei
1995
,47, 76–81. (In
German)
48.
Senn, T. The role of enzyme products—Less methanol in pome fruit mash and distillates. Kleinbrennerei
2017
,69, 4–7. (In German)
49.
Einfalt, D. Process parameters for high quality in fruit brandy production. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference &
Exhibition—Spirit of Rakia, Pula, Croatia, 27–30 March 2019.
50.
European Council. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 Laying Down General Rules on the Definition, Description and
Presentation of Spirit Drinks. Off. J. Europ. Comm. 1989,L160, 1–17.
51.
Andraous, J.I.; Claus, M.J.; Lindemann, D.J.; Berglund, K.A. Effect of liquefaction enzymes on methanol concentration of distilled
fruit spirits. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2004,55, 199–201.
52. Tanner, H. About acid and enzyme treatment of distilling mashes. Schweiz. Z. Obst Weinbau 1980,116, 357–360. (In German)
53.
Gössinger, M.; Krapfenbauer, G.; Sämann, H.; Hick, S.; Karner, M. Influence of different mash and fermentation paramters on the
resulting methanol contents in fruit mashes. Mitt. Klosterneuburg 2006,56, 46–53. (In German)
54.
Rodríguez Madrera, R.; Pando Bedrinana, R.; García Hevia, A.; Arce, M.B.; Suárez Valles, B. Production of spirits from dry apple
pomace and selected yeasts. Food Bioprod. Proc. 2013,91, 623–631. [CrossRef]
55.
Schehl, B.; Lachenmeier, D.W.; Senn, T.; Heinisch, J.J. Effect of the stone content on the quality of plum and cherry spirits produced
from mash fermentations with commercial and laboratory yeast strains. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005,53, 8230–8238. [CrossRef]
56.
Schehl, B.; Senn, T.; Lachenmeier, D.W.; Rodicio, R.; Heinisch, J.J. Contribution of the fermenting yeast strain to ethyl carbamate
generation in stone fruit spirits. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007,74, 843–850. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57.
Do Amaral, S.H.; De Assis, S.A.; De Faria Oliveira, O.M.M. Partial purification and characterization of pectin methylesterase
from orange (Citrus sinensis) cv. pera-rio. J. Food Biochem. 2005,29, 367–380. [CrossRef]
58.
Satora, P.; Tuszynski, T. Influence of indigenous yeasts on the fermentation and volatile profile of plum brandies. Food Microbiol.
2010,27, 418–424. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Denes, J.M.; Baron, A.; Renard, C.M.; Pean, C.; Drilleau, J.F. Different action patterns for apple pectin methylesterase at pH 7.0
and 4.5. Carbohydr. Res. 2000,327, 385–393. [CrossRef]
60.
Chaiyasut, C.; Jantavong, S.; Kuratama, C.; Peerajan, S.; Sirilun, S.; Shank, L. Factors affecting methanol content of fermented
plant beverage containing Morinda citrifolia. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013,12, 4356–4363. [CrossRef]
61.
Ohimain, E.I. Methanol contamination in traditionally fermented alcoholic beverages: The microbial dimension. SpringerPlus
2016,5, 1607. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62.
Schehl, B.; Müller, C.; Senn, T.; Heinisch, J.J. A laboratory yeast strain suitable for spirit production. Yeast
2004
,21, 1375–1389.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
63.
Nakagawa, T.; Yamada, K.; Fujimura, S.; Ito, T.; Miyaji, T.; Tomizuka, N. Pectin utilization by the methylotrophic yeast Pichia
methanolica.Microbiology 2005,151, 2047–2052. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64.
Nakagawa, T.; Miyaji, T.; Yurimoto, H.; Sakai, Y.; Kato, N.; Tomizuka, N. A methylotrophic pathway participates in pectin
utilization by Candida boidinii.Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000,66, 4253–4257. [CrossRef]
65.
Gonzalez, S.L.; Rosso, N.D. Determination of pectin methylesterase activity in commercial pectinases and study of the inactivation
kinetics through two potentiometric procedures. Cienc. Tecnol. Aliment. 2011,31, 412–417. [CrossRef]
66.
Ande, B. Possibilities of Aroma Enrichment and Aroma Improvement in Fruit Brandies with Simple Stills. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Hohenheim, Hohenheim, Germany, 2004. (In German).
67.
Teipel, J.C.; Hausler, T.; Sommerfeld, K.; Scharinger, A.; Walch, S.G.; Lachenmeier, D.W.; Kuballa, T. Application of
1
H nuclear
magnetic resonance spectroscopy as spirit drinks screener for quality and authenticity control. Foods
2020
,9, 1355. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
68. Adam, L.; Postel, W. A new type of cherry spirit? Branntweinwirtschaft 1992,132, 110–114. (In German)
69.
Lopes, A.C.A.; Eda, S.H.; Andrade, R.P.; Amorim, J.C.; Duarte, W.F. New alcoholic fermented beverages—Potentials and
challenges. In Fermented Beverages. Volume 5: The Science of Beverages; Grumezescu, A.M., Holban, A.M., Eds.; Woodhead
Publishing: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 577–603. [CrossRef]

Molecules 2021,26, 2585 16 of 16
70.
Calzada, J.F.; Garcia, R.; Porres, C.; Rolz, C. Integrated utilization of coffee processing by-products and wastes. Int. Biosyst.
1989
,
2, 41–51.
71.
Garcia, R.; Arriola, D.; de Arriola, M.C.; de Porres, E.; Rolz, C. Characterization of coffee pectin. Lebensm. Wiss. Technol.
1991
,24,
125–129.
72.
Manasa, V.; Padmanabhan, A.; Anu Appaiah, K.A. Utilization of coffee pulp waste for rapid recovery of pectin and polyphenols
for sustainable material recycle. Waste Manag. 2021,120, 762–771. [CrossRef]
73.
Reichembach, L.H.; de Oliveira Petkowicz, C.L. Extraction and characterization of a pectin from coffee (Coffea arabica L.) pulp
with gelling properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020,245, 116473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74.
Bonilla-Hermosa, V.A.; Duarte, W.F.; Schwan, R.F. Utilization of coffee by-products obtained from semi-washed process for
production of value-added compounds. Bioresour. Technol. 2014,166, 142–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Baker, R.A. Reassessment of some fruit and vegetable pectin levels. J. Food Sci. 1997,62, 225–229. [CrossRef]
76. Batisse, C.; Fils-Lycaon, B.; Buret, M. Pectin changes in ripening cherry fruit. J. Food Sci. 1994,59, 389–393. [CrossRef]
77.
Tehrani, N.F.; Aznar, J.S.; Kiros, Y. Coffee extract residue for production of ethanol and activated carbons. J. Clean. Prod.
2015
,91,
64–70. [CrossRef]
78. Bassoli, D.G. Spirits Prepared from Cold Brew Coffee Grounds. U.S. Patent 20190390147A1, 26 December 2019.
79.
Navia, D.P.; Velasco, R.J.; Hoyos, J.L. Production and evaluation of ethanol from coffee processing by-products. Vitae
2011
,18,
287–294.
80.
Gouvea, B.M.; Torres, C.; Franca, A.S.; Oliveira, L.S.; Oliveira, E.S. Feasibility of ethanol production from coffee husks. Biotechnol.
Lett. 2009,31, 1315–1319. [CrossRef]
81.
Lopes, A.C.A.; Andrade, R.P.; de Oliveira, L.C.C.; Lima, L.M.Z.; Santiago, W.D.; de Resende, M.L.V.; das Gracas, C.M.; Duarte,
W.F. Production and characterization of a new distillate obtained from fermentation of wet processing coffee by-products. J. Food
Sci. Technol. 2020,57, 4481–4491. [CrossRef]
82.
Lachenmeier, D.W. Rapid quality control of spirit drinks and beer using multivariate data analysis of Fourier transform infrared
spectra. Food Chem. 2007,101, 825–832. [CrossRef]
83.
Somashekar, K.L.; Anu Appaiah, K.A. Coffee cherry husk—A potential feed stock for alcohol production. Int. J. Environ. Waste
Manag. 2013,11, 410–419. [CrossRef]
84. Bodmer, S.; Ruder, F. Coffee Cherries’ Spirit and Its Process of Manufacture. European Patent EP1593735B1, 7 May 2004.
85.
Klingel, T.; Kremer, J.I.; Gottstein, V.; Rajcic de, R.T.; Schwarz, S.; Lachenmeier, D.W. A review of coffee by-products including
leaf, flower, cherry, husk, silver skin, and spent grounds as novel foods within the European Union. Foods
2020
,9, 665. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
86.
Sampaio, A.; Dragone, G.; Vilanova, M.; Oliveira, J.M.; Teixeira, J.A.; Mussatto, S.I. Production, chemical characterization, and
sensory profile of a novel spirit elaborated from spent coffee ground. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2013,54, 557–563. [CrossRef]