Main Gas Chromatographic Detectors Used in Brewing Analytics

Significance of the Topic

Gas chromatography is a cornerstone technique in brewing analytics for quantifying flavor‐active compounds and potential contaminants. Its sensitivity and selectivity allow brewers and maltsters to monitor final product quality and to optimize new processing methods.

Objectives and Study Overview

This article reviews the fundamental operating principles, strengths and limitations of the three most common gas chromatographic detectors in brewing analytics: flame ionization detector (FID), electron capture detector (ECD) and flame photometric detector (FPD). It compares their dynamic range, selectivity, temperature effects and practical considerations for routine beer analysis.

Methodology and Instrumentation

The authors present a theoretical and practical evaluation of each detector type, drawing on official analytical methods (EBC, MEBAK, IOB, ASBC) and on in‐laboratory experiments. Detector performance is illustrated by response profiles for representative analytes under varying operating conditions.

Instrumentation Used

• Thermo Scientific Trace GC Ultra gas chromatograph equipped with FID, ECD and FPD modules.
• Nickel‐63 radioactive source for ECD.
• Standard carrier gases: helium or nitrogen, hydrogen for FID and FPD combustion, air or oxygen for FID, and high‐purity nitrogen as ECD make‐up gas.

Main Findings and Discussion

• FID provides a wide linear range and universal carbon response; optimal electrode spacing and voltage ensure complete ion collection with minimal temperature dependence.
• ECD offers high sensitivity and selectivity toward electronegative compounds; detector temperature critically influences dissociative vs. non-dissociative capture mechanisms, requiring careful optimization and gas purity to maintain standing current.
• FPD enables selective detection of sulfur and phosphorus compounds by monitoring 394 nm and 526 nm emissions. Its non-linear square-law response in sulfur mode demands stable retention times and controlled flame conditions to minimize noise.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• Routine determination of alcohols, esters, aldehydes and sulfur volatiles for quality control.
• Trace analysis of vicinal diketones, halogenated hydrocarbons, chlorophenols and process by‐products.
• Selective detection simplifies sample preparation and reduces chromatographic separation requirements.

Future Trends and Applications

The decreasing cost and growing availability of mass spectrometric detectors will expand multi‐detector and hyphenated techniques. Advances in selective detection chemistry and miniaturized GC systems promise faster throughput and on-site brewing analytics.

Conclusion

Despite innovations in detector technology, FID, ECD and FPD remain fully adequate for routine brewing analytics. Their well-understood operation, reliability and compliance with official methods ensure continued widespread use in quality assurance and process development.

References

1. European Brewery Convention, Analytica EBC, Method 9.24.2, 5th update, 2005.
2. Institute of Brewing, IOB Methods of Analysis, Vol. 1, Method 9.32, 1997.
3. MEBAK, Brautechnische Analysenmethoden, Band II, Method 1.1.1, 1996.
4. American Society of Brewing Chemists, ASBC Methods of Analysis, Beer 29, 2009.
5. Čulík J., Figalla K., Horák T., Kellner V.: Determination of higher sensory alcohols in beer by SPE-GC, Kvasny Prum. 45, 1999.
6. Horák T., Čulík J., Jurková M., Čejka P., Kellner V.: Fatty acids in beer by SPME, Kvasny Prum. 51, 2005.
7. European Brewery Convention, Analytica EBC, Method 9.24.2 – Vicinal diketones, 2005.
8. Institute of Brewing, IOB Method 9.22 – Vicinal diketones, 1997.
9. Institute of Brewing, IOB Method 9.23 – Vicinal diketones, 1997.
10. MEBAK, Method 1.2.1 – Vicinal diketones, 1996.
11. ASBC, Method 25E – Diacetyl, 2009.
12. Horák T. et al.: Vicinal diketones by SPME, Kvasny Prum. 47, 2001.
13. MEBAK, Method 1.2.4 – Acetoin, 1996.
14. Čulík J. et al.: Halogenated hydrocarbons in beer by headspace, Kvasny Prum. 41, 1995.
15. Horák T. et al.: Chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons in beer, Kvasny Prum. 45, 1999.
16. Horák T. et al.: SPE for chlorophenols in brewing water, Kvasny Prum. 54, 2008.
17. Čulík J. et al.: Disinfection by-products in brewing water and beer, Kvasny Prum. 56, 2010.
18. Horák T. et al.: PAHs and PCBs in beer, Kvasny Prum. 45, 1999.
19. Institute of Brewing, IOB Method 9.33 – Dimethyl sulphide, 1997.
20. MEBAK, Method 1.3.1 – Free DMS in wort and beer, 1996.
21. MEBAK, Method 1.3.2 – DMS precursors in wort, 1996.
22. MEBAK, Method 1.3.3 – DMS precursors in malt, 1996.
23. Hill P. G., Smith R. M.: Sulphur compounds in beer by SPME-GC-PFPD, J. Chromatogr. A 872, 2000.
24. Xiao Q. et al.: Comparison of HS-SDME and HS-SPME for volatile sulphur in beer, J. Chromatogr. A 1125, 2006.
25. Harley J., Pretorious V.: Flame ionization detector, Nature 181, 1958.
26. McWilliams I. G., Dewer R. A.: Gas Chromatography 1958, Butterworths.
27. Ongkiehong L.: Gas Chromatography 1960, Butterworths.
28. Desty D. H. et al.: Gas Chromatography 1960, Butterworths.
29. Calcote H. F., King I. R.: Combustion studies, Fifth Symposium, 1955.
30. Schuler K. E., Weber J. J.: J. Chem. Phys. 22, 1954.
31. Swan D. F. K.: Three Selective Detectors, Pye Unican, 1975.
32. Grant D. W.: Gas Chromatography 1958, Butterworths.