Lachenmeier et al.

SpringerPlus (2015) 4:783

DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1574-6

METHODOLOGY Open Access

Improved automatic steam distillation

combined with oscillation‑type densimetry
for determining alcoholic strength in spirits
and liqueurs
Dirk W. Lachenmeier1*  , Leander Plato1, Manuela Suessmann1, Matthew Di Carmine2, Bjoern Krueger3,
Armin Kukuck3 and Markus Kranz3

Abstract 
The determination of the alcoholic strength in spirits and liqueurs is required to control the labelling of alcoholic bev-
erages. The reference methodology prescribes a distillation step followed by densimetric measurement. The classic
distillation using a Vigreux rectifying column and a West condenser is time consuming and error-prone, especially for
liqueurs that may have problems with entrainment and charring. For this reason, this methodology suggests the use
of an automated steam distillation device as alternative. The novel instrument comprises an increased steam power,
a redesigned geometry of the condenser and a larger cooling coil with controllable flow, compared to previously
available devices. Method optimization applying D-optimal and central composite designs showed significant influ-
ence of sample volume, distillation time and coolant flow, while other investigated parameters such as steam power,
receiver volume, or the use of pipettes or flasks for sample measurement did not significantly influence the results.
The method validation was conducted using the following settings: steam power 70 %, sample volume 25 mL trans-
ferred using pipettes, receiver volume 50 mL, coolant flow 7 L/min, and distillation time as long as possible just below
the calibration mark. For four different liqueurs covering the typical range of these products between 15 and 35 %
vol, the method showed an adequate precision, with relative standard deviations below 0.4 % (intraday) and below
0.6 % (interday). The absolute standard deviations were between 0.06 % vol and 0.08 % vol (intraday) and between
0.07 % vol and 0.10 % vol (interday). The improved automatic steam distillation devices offer an excellent alternative
for sample cleanup of volatiles from complex matrices. A major advantage are the low costs for consumables per
analysis (only distilled water is needed). For alcoholic strength determination, the method has become more rugged
than before, and there are only few influences that would lead to incomplete distillation. Our validation parameters
have shown that the performance of the method corresponds to the data presented for the reference method and
we believe that automated steam distillation, can be used for the purpose of labelling control of alcoholic beverages.
Keywords:  Ethanol, Alcoholic strength, Steam distillation, Oscillation-type densimetry, Experimental design,
Optimisation, Validation

Background as pivotal parameter (Lachenmeier et  al. 2010). Sam-

In the regulatory control of alcoholic beverages, the ple preparation by distillation followed by some form of
determination of the alcoholic strength is considered density measurement (i.e. pycnometry, electronic den-
simetry and densimetry using hydrostatic balance) is still
considered the gold standard and the reference method-
*Correspondence: [email protected] ology for determination of alcoholic strength (European
1
Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt (CVUA) Karlsruhe,
Weissenburger Strasse 3, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany Commission 2000; OIV 2009), even when more rapid and
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© 2015 Lachenmeier et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons
license, and indicate if changes were made.
Lachenmeier et al. SpringerPlus (2015) 4:783 Page 2 of 7

direct methods such as infrared spectroscopy are gain- of specific settings such as distillation time, alcoholic
ing more and more distribution in routine testing labo- strength of sample, sample volume or receiver volume
ratories (López Mahía et al. 1992; Gallignani et al. 1993, (Lachenmeier et  al. 2006). In this paper, we introduce
1994a, b, c; Maudoux et al. 1998; Lachenmeier et al. 2010; the use of a completely new steam distillation device.
Lachenmeier 2007). The device not only comprises an increased steam power
For density measurement, electronic densimetry based but also a redesigned geometry of the condenser, as well
on electromagnetically-induced oscillation of a U-shaped as a larger cooling coil with controllable flow. Based on
glass tube, is superior in performance and accuracy com- a method development and validation study, this paper
pared to pycnometry, hydrostatic balance or hydrometry describes the optimized procedure for alcoholic strength
(Strunk et al. 1979; Mark and Vaughn 1980; Kovár 1981; determination using steam distillation.
Brereton et al. 2003).
The distillation step before the densimetric measure- Methods
ment is required to remove sugars and other solutes Instrumentation
that would otherwise lead to false results, as the tables The automated steam distillations were facilitated with
for converting density to alcoholic strength are based the Gerhardt Vapodest 200 (new device, Fig. 1) in com-
on pure water-alcohol mixtures (European Commission parison to the Gerhardt Vapodest 30 [old device used in
2000; OIV 2009). Only for some very clean spirits such as previous studies (Lachenmeier 2004; Lachenmeier et  al.
vodka a direct densimetric measurement may be feasible. 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007; Bauer-Christoph and Lachen-
The EU reference method states some specifications meier 2005)]. Both devices were equipped with an alco-
for the distillation, which include that the apparatus must hol extension set, which consists of a blind cap for the
be leak-tight, the regularisation of the distillation rate
must be possible, a rapid and complete condensation of
the alcohol vapours must occur, and the first distillation
fractions must be collected in an aqueous medium. As
example, the EU reference method provides a classical
distillation apparatus consisting of a 20-cm Vigreux recti-
fying column, a 10-cm straight-rimmed West condenser
(a variant of a Liebig condenser), and a 40-cm cooling coil
(European Commission 2000). However, other suitable
distillation devices may be applied, e.g. such as specified
by IUPAC (1968). The only method performance require-
ment for the distillation apparatus is that the distilla-
tion of 200  mL of a water-alcohol solution with known
concentration close to 50 % vol must not cause a loss of
alcohol of more than 0.1  % vol (European Commission
2000). The classical distillation is comparably time-con-
suming, difficult to automate and problematic for some
samples (such as liqueurs) that may have problems with
entrainment and charring. For these reasons, our group
has introduced the use of automatic steam distillation
for the purpose in 2003 (Lachenmeier et al. 2003) [Eng-
lish summary version published in 2004 (Lachenmeier
2004)]. Using optimised settings of the steam-distillation
device, the method had a wide application range for alco-
Fig. 1  Automated steam distillation device with setup for the deter-
holic beverages between 2 and 80  % vol with identical mination of alcoholic strength in spirits. (1) Quick clamping device
results to classical distillation. In follow-up studies, we with clamping block, (2) Kjeldatherm digestion tube with sample, (3)
have shown the applicability for complex matrices such PTFE steam inlet tubing, (4) Viton connection stopper, (5) screw caps,
as egg liqueurs (Lachenmeier et  al. 2005), alcohol pow- (6) NaOH inlet (closed with blind cap for alcohol distillation), (7) glass
ders (Bauer-Christoph and Lachenmeier 2005) or cherry- distribution head, (8) screw cap, (9) glass distillation condenser cooled
at 10 °C, (10) screw cap, (11) ventilation valve, (12) control panel, (13)
spirit containing cakes (Lachenmeier et al. 2007). standby switch, (14) USB interface, (15) silicone outlet tubing for
Following the initial experiments with steam distilla- distillate discharge, (16) graduated flask as receiver (filled with small
tion, instruments with increased steam power became volume of water, in which the outlet tubing must be submerged),
available showing a larger optimal range independent (17) receiver table, (18) drip tray
Lachenmeier et al. SpringerPlus (2015) 4:783 Page 3 of 7

NaOH inlet (which is unnecessary for alcohol distillation may be filled in graduated flasks, followed by filling the
and may lead to losses) and an outlet tube with reduced content of the flask into the Kjeldatherm digestion tube.
diameter to facilitate the use of a measuring flask as The residues in the flask then need to be carefully rinsed
receiver. Both instruments were obtained from C. Ger- 3 times with distilled water into the Kjeldatherm diges-
hardt GmbH & Co. KG, Königswinter, Germany. The tion tube.
steam generator water supplies were coupled to tanks
filled with distilled water. The coolant inlets and outlets Optimisation of the distillation procedure
were attached to the laboratory’s central coolant water The influence of all basic operation parameters of the
system temperated at 10  °C. Before every start-up, the method including the steam power of the distillation
steam generators were pre-heated with a water sample device, the time of distillation, sample volume, receiver
at full steam power (according to the manufacturers’ volume, sample preparation (pipetting or measur-
instruction). For the tempering of the sample the heat- ing flask), and cooling water flow through the cooling
ing circulator bath Haake DC10-W26 (Thermo Scientific, coil were examined. As we have previously shown that
Braunschweig, Germany) was used. The determination of some of these settings show interactions, and a partly
density was accomplished with the density meter DE51 non-linear behaviour (Lachenmeier et  al. 2006), experi-
with SC30  sample changer by Mettler-Toledo (Giessen, mental designs using D-optimal or central composite
Germany). The instrument was adjusted with air and designs were used (Montgomery 2005). The designs and
water according to the manufacturer. The adjustment was calculations were conducted using the Design Expert
checked daily using water standards. The sample tem- V7.0.0 software (Stat-Ease Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA).
perature for all measurements was adjusted to 20 °C. The The following experiments were conducted:
alcoholic strength was calculated automatically from the
measured density using the stored official alcohol table 1. Optimal working settings for steam power, sample
data. Between measurements, the connecting tubes were volume and distillation time were initially inves-
purged with air. Before shutdown of the system, the hoses tigated. The same central composite design as
were cleaned with distilled water and purged with ace- described previously (Lachenmeier et  al. 2006) was
tone and air until they were dry. used for this purpose. The steam power was varied
at levels of 40, 45, 65, 85 and 100  %, the distillation
Sample preparation and measurement time was varied at levels of 20, 44, 80, 116 and 140 s,
The sample preparation was conducted as previously and the sample pipetting volume was varied at 5,
described (Lachenmeier et  al. 2006). In short, the sam- 14, 28, 41 and 50 mL. The experiment (n = 20) was
ple was temperated in a water bath at 20  °C. Following conducted at both instruments using the same fruit
this, the sample was pipetted into a 250 mL Kjeldatherm liqueur.
digestion tube. Rests of the sample sticking to the edge 2. The new instrument allows to adjust the setting of
of the tube were rinsed down with distilled water. Sub- coolant flow at 2, 5 and 7 L/min. The standard set-
sequently the tube was clamped in the distillation ting is 5 L/min. To research the influence of coolant
device. After placing a graduated flask filled with 3  mL flow setting, and additionally again the steam power,
of distilled water under the distillate outlet tubing, the a central composite design was used. The cooling
program was started, and the distillation was automati- flow setting was varied at the two levels 5 and 7 L/
cally performed while occasionally shaking the receiver min, while the steam power was varied at levels of 70,
flask. After termination, the receiver and the tube were 75, 85, 95 and 100 %. The experiment was conducted
replaced and the hoses were rinsed with distilled water to only with the new instrument using a cream liqueur
be ready for the next sample. The graduated flask with the (n = 15).
distillate was shaken, temperated in a water bath at 20 °C 3. To research the influence of sample preparation, a
and filled up to the calibration mark with water (20  °C) d-optimal response surface design was used. The
and again shaken. The shaking steps of the flask are abso- sample volume was varied at levels of 10, 25, 50, 100
lutely essential because a considerably inhomogeneity and 200 mL. The receiver volume (volume of gradu-
of the solution has been observed following distillation, ated flask) was set at either exactly the same volume
which may lead to errors up to 5 % vol if the solution is as the sample volume, or at the double volume (for
not carefully homogenized. An aliquot of the distillate example, 25  mL of sample were either distilled into
(about 20  mL) was filled into glass vials placed into the 25 or 50 mL). Finally as third factor, volumetric glass
autosampler and the alcoholic strength was automati- pipettes or graduated flasks were used to transfer the
cally determined with the oscillation-type density meter. sample volume into the Kjeldatherm tube.
As alternative to pipetting, samples (temperated at 20 °C)
Lachenmeier et al. SpringerPlus (2015) 4:783 Page 4 of 7

Validation and statistics Results

As first step of the validation, the requirement of the The basic operating parameters of the steam distillation
EU reference method was verified (European Commis- device were assessed using three experimental designs.
sion 2000). For this, non-denatured food-grade neutral By means of response surface analysis, the regression
alcohol (96 % vol) was diluted to 50 % vol and measured coefficients of the models are determined and the statisti-
before and after distillation using density measurement. cal analysis of variance (ANOVA) approach calculates the
The absolute loss of the distillation step was then calcu- individual significance of each coefficient. Table  1 lists
lated to compare with the requirement of a loss of alcohol the regression coefficients of all experiments.
of not more than 0.1 % vol. The first experiment investigated steam power, sam-
Linearity in the working range of liqueur analysis was ple volume and distillation time. The factors are given in
assessed by diluting non-denatured food-grade neutral coded values, which make the models directly compara-
alcohol (96 % vol) with distilled water to concentrations ble between each other and offer the opportunity to find
between 0.5 and 35  % vol. The alcoholic strength of the the importance of each regression term in the model.
dilutions was determined before and after distillation Significant differences between the two steam distillation
using density measurement. Linear regression analysis devices were found. The old instrument (Vapodest 30)
was used to compare both measurement series. The root showed a significant influence of steam power and distil-
mean squared error (RMSE) was calculated to estimate lation time, an additional quadratic influence of distillation
bias. time, as well as an interaction between steam power and
To determine the performance of the method, pre- distillation time. The new instrument (Vapodest 200) only
cision as expressed by the relative standard deviation showed a significant influence of distillation time as well as
(RSD  =  standard  deviation  (SD)/mean  ×  100) of ana- an additional quadratic influence of distillation time.
lyzing authentic samples was determined under repeat- In the second experiment, the influence of the new
ability conditions (analysis within short time intervals), possibility to regulate the coolant flow was investigated
and under within-laboratory reproducibility condi- (which was not possible with the old instrument). The
tions (analysis on different days). As further validation results (Table  1) show that the coolant flow indeed has
parameters, the repeatability (r) and reproducibility (R) a slight but significant influence. The higher setting (7 L/
were calculated as SD × 2.8. min) improved the alcohol recovery. The second experi-
All calculations were conducted with Origin Pro v7.5 ment also confirmed the lack of influence of the steam
software (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, power for the new instrument.
USA). Statistical significance was assumed at below the The third experiment (Table  1) showed that the sam-
0.05 probability level. ple preparation has small but significant influence on the

Table 1  Regression coefficients in coded values for the optimisation of steam distillation on different instruments
Regression Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3
coefficient A-Steam power A-Steam power A-Sample volume
B-Distillation time B-Coolant flow B-Receiver volume
C-Sample volume C-Pipette/flask

Device Vapodest 30 Vapodest 200 Vapodest 200 Vapodest 200

Matrix Liquorice liqueur Cream liqueur Cream liqueur
Intercept 16.89 19.96 16.77 16.63
A 1.92** 1.39 0.03 0.43**
B 3.26*** 4.41*** 0.02* −0.25*
C −0.20 −0.70 – −0.35**
A2 −0.82 −0.33 −0.04 −0.084
B2 −2.34*** −2.87*** no effect –
C2 −0.21 −0.09 – –
AB −1.57* −1.45 −0.02 0.30*
AC −0.85 −1.10 – 0.31*
BC 0.36 −0.18 – 0.14
r2 0.947** 0.949*** 0.605* 0.842**
* P ≤ 0.05, ** P ≤ 0.01, *** P ≤ 0.001
Lachenmeier et al. SpringerPlus (2015) 4:783 Page 5 of 7

results. The highest influence was found for the sample device, we had always recommended to fill an amount of
volume. Using only 10 mL of sample was found to result water in the receiver to avoid evaporation at the begin-
in more imprecise measurements. Small differences were ning of the distillation, when the liquid was comparably
found for receiver volume (double volume is better) and warm with high concentrations of ethanol. With the new
the use of pipettes or flasks for sample transfer (pipette device, we have upheld this protocol to fill water into the
use is better). Some interactions were found between receiver, so that the distillation outlet tube is immersed
sample volume and receiver volume (at lower volumes, in the water. Experiments (data not shown) have found
the use of smaller receiver volumes is overproportionally that the water in the receiver is not absolutely necessary
worse) and between sample volume and use of pipettes due to the improved condenser, but we have decided to
or flasks (at lower volumes, the use of flasks is overpro- still follow the old protocol to be on the safest possible
protionally worse than the use of pipettes). side and to allow the switching between devices without
The method validation was conducted using the follow- changes in the standard operating procedure that may
ing parameters based on the optimization experiments: lead to operator errors.
steam power at 70 %, sample volume 25 mL transferred The significant influence of distillation time (includ-
using pipettes, receiver volume 50 mL. The absolute loss ing a quadratic influence) also corroborates our previous
of alcohol for a solution at 50 % vol was 0.10 % vol. The findings (Lachenmeier et al. 2006). It is clearly deleterious
determination was linear over the whole working range to remove the receiver too early during the distillation,
(R2 = 0.9999, p < 0.0001) with a RMSE of 0.03 % vol. when the ethanol transfer is not complete. No changes
The optimised procedure was validated with 4 differ- in alcohol content were observable at distillation times
ent liqueurs covering the typical range of these products of 80 s or longer, but we typically recommend to distil as
between 15 and 35 % vol (Table 2). For all analysed prod- long as just below the calibration mark of the receiver to
ucts, the method shows an adequate precision, with rela- ensure a complete distillation, e.g. also in cases of spirits
tive standard deviations below 0.4 % (intraday) and below with higher alcoholic strengths (such as absinthes). For
0.6  % (interday). The absolute standard deviations were the same reason, it appears to be advantageous to shake
between 0.06 and 0.08 % vol (intraday) and between 0.07 the receiver during the distillation process, which may
and 0.10 % vol (interday). reduce the vapour pressure of ethanol due to immediate
dilution, especially at the start of the distillation, and also
Discussion reduce the volume due to the volume contraction effect
A major difference between the old and the new device of ethanol–water mixtures.
was the improvement of the power of the steam genera- The influence of sample volume may derive from a
tion (old device: 1600 W, new device: 2200 W), which led larger volume error at smaller volumes, rather than
to a robust and complete alcohol distillation that now is problems in the distillation itself. It is suggested to use
almost independent of the steam power setting. These volumes of more than 10  mL. This confirms our previ-
results confirm our previous finding using a steam distil- ous results on egg liqueur, which showed inacceptable
lation device of another manufacturer (2200  W), which precision if only 5 or 10 g of sample were used (Lachen-
showed a similar improvement in distillation behaviour meier et  al. 2005). While we found no significant differ-
(Lachenmeier et  al. 2006). The setting of 70  % steam ences for a volume of 200 mL, we believe that such high
power for our further experiments was chosen to avoid a volumes should not be used, because especially for spirits
very rapid distillation at the beginning of the distillation, and liqueurs with higher alcoholic strengths, the distilla-
which could potentially exceed the capacity of the con- tion time may not be sufficient to recover the complete
denser leading to a warmer distillate and potential losses amount of alcohol. For the same reason, we suggest to
(especially for high-strength beverages). Using the old use a larger receiver volume than the original sample

Table 2  Validation results for alcoholic strength measured with steam distillation and oscillation-type densimetry
Sample Repeatability conditions (n = 10) Within-laboratory reproducibility conditions (n = 30)
Mean (% vol) SD (% vol) r (% vol) RSD [%] Mean (% vol) SD (% vol) R (% vol) RSD [%]

Cinnamon whisky liqueur 33.46 0.06 0.17 0.18 33.44 0.10 0.28 0.30
Black currant liqueur 15.18 0.05 0.14 0.33 15.15 0.07 0.20 0.46
Liquorice liqueur 20.20 0.08 0.22 0.40 20.15 0.09 0.25 0.45
Whisky cream liqueur 17.19 0.06 0.17 0.35 17.17 0.10 0.28 0.58
Lachenmeier et al. SpringerPlus (2015) 4:783 Page 6 of 7

volume. The error increase due to dilution appears to be extraction (which requires extraction tubes). Besides for
compensated by the more complete distillation. alcohol distillation, we expect that the new devices may
Due to the instrumental improvements, the method also improve other challenging steam distillation applica-
has become more rugged than before, and there are only tions such as the determination of formaldehyde (Jendral
few influences that would lead to incomplete distillation. et al. 2011) or dithiocarbamates (Rai et al. 2012).
The major parameters are monitored by the software dur-
Authors’ contributions
ing operation and in case of deviations (e.g. lack of steam DWL conceived of the study, designed the experiments, coordinated the
power) warnings are displayed. Our validation parame- work, supervised the analyses, and drafted the manuscript. BK, AK, MDC, LP
ters have shown that the performance of the method cor- and MS contributed to the experimental design and carried out the analyses.
MK, BK and AK conceived the development of the steam distillation device,
responds to the data presented for the reference method and contributed to the experimental design. All authors read and approved
and we believe that automated steam distillation, while the final manuscript.
not strictly mentioned in the reference procedure, can be
Author details
used for the purpose. 1
 Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt (CVUA) Karlsruhe, Weissen-
The excellent reproducibility of the procedure can be burger Strasse 3, 76187 Karlsruhe, Germany. 2 Lab Synergy, 374 Pulaski High-
explained by the full automation of the distillation as well way, Goshen, NY 10924, USA. 3 C. Gerhardt GmbH & Co. KG, Cäsariusstraße 97,
53639 Königswinter, Germany.
as the density measurement. A manual density measure-
ment (either by pycnometry or by manual oscillation- Acknowledgements
type densimetry) was previously found as leading to Hannelore Heger is thanked for her excellent technical assistance. No funding
was specific to the production of this manuscript. The salaries for authors were
higher errors (Lachenmeier et al. 2005). provided by the affiliated organizations.
The validation data with repeatability limits (r) in the
range of 0.14–0.22  % vol compare well to the repeat- Competing interests
DWL, LP, and MS declare that they have no competing interests. Neither DWL,
ability limits found in the literature. For example, the LP, and MS nor the CVUA Karlsruhe received funding from C. Gerhardt GmbH
German reference procedure [distillation/pycnometry & Co. KG. BK, AK and MK are employed by C. Gerhardt GmbH & Co. KG, the
(Anon. 1982)] reported r = 0.19 % vol, while the EU ref- manufacturer of the instrument described in this article. MDC is employed by
Lab Synergy, the US distributor of the instrument described in this article.
erence method (European Commission 2000) reported
r  =  0.30  % vol (distillation/pycnometry) and r  =  0.12  % Received: 10 September 2015 Accepted: 1 December 2015
vol (distillation/electronic densimetry). Our previous vali-
dation data using steam distillation (old instrument) were
also very similar [r range 0.15–0.23  % vol (Lachenmeier
et al. 2003)]. Because the method’s precision was already References
very high using the old instrument, and further improve- Anon (1982) Ermittlung des Äthanolgehalts in Alkohol und alkoholhaltigen
Erzeugnissen aller Art (außer Wein und Bier) mit dem Pyknometer
ment was not detectable using the new instrument, it is (Referenzmethoden). L37.00-1. Amtliche Sammlung von Untersuchungs-
suggested that the major part of the method uncertainty verfahren nach §64 LFGB. Beuth Verlag, Berlin
derives from factors apart from the distillation step such Arzberger U, Lachenmeier DW (2008) Fourier Transform infrared spectroscopy
with multivariate analysis as a novel method for characterizing alcoholic
as the uncertainty of the density measurement as well as strength, density, and total dry extract in spirits and liqueurs. Food Anal
the volumetric errors in pipetting and filling up the gradu- Methods 1:18–22
ated flaks with the distillate, which appear to have the Bauer-Christoph C, Lachenmeier DW (2005) Pulverformige Alkopops. Neue
Problematik nach der Marktbereinigung durch das Alkopopsteuergesetz.
highest influence. Indirect evidence for this finding is also Deut Lebensm Rundsch 101:389–391
provided by the fact that infrared spectroscopic methods Brereton P, Hasnip S, Betrand A, Wittkowski R, Guillou C (2003) Analytical meth-
for quantifying alcoholic strength (which are conducted in ods for the determination of spirit drinks. Trends Anal Chem 22:19–25
Commission European (2000) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2870/2000 lay-
the beverage itself without any need for sample prepara- ing down Community reference methods for the analysis of spirits drinks.
tion) usually had a much lower repeatability [for example, Off J Europ Comm L333:20–46
r  =  0.02  % vol for both spirits (Lachenmeier 2007) and Gallignani M, Garrigues S, de la Guardia M (1993) Direct determination of
ethanol in all types of alcoholic beverages by near-infrared derivative
wine (Patz et al. 2004), and 0.05 % vol for liqueurs (Arz- spectrometry. Analyst 118:1167–1173
berger and Lachenmeier 2008)]. Gallignani M, Garrigues S, de la Guardia M (1994a) Derivative Fourier-transform
infrared spectrometric determination of ethanol in alcoholic beverages.
Anal Chim Acta 287:275–283
Conclusions Gallignani M, Garrigues S, de la Guardia M (1994b) Derivative Fourier-transform
Improved automatic steam distillation devices offer an infrared spectrometric determination of ethanol in beers. Analyst
excellent alternative for sample cleanup of volatiles from 119:1773–1778
Gallignani M, Garrigues S, delaGuardia M (1994c) Stopped-flow near-infrared
complex matrices. The major advantages are the low spectrometric determination of ethanol and maltose in beers. Anal Chim
costs for consumables per analysis (only distilled water Acta 296:155–161
is needed) compared to techniques such as liquid–liquid IUPAC (1968) A standardization of methods for determination of the alcohol
content of beverages and distilled potable spirits. Pure Appl Chem
extraction (which requires solvents) or solid-phase 17:273–312
Lachenmeier et al. SpringerPlus (2015) 4:783 Page 7 of 7

Jendral JA, Monakhova YB, Lachenmeier DW (2011) Formaldehyde in alcoholic Lachenmeier DW, Godelmann R, Steiner M, Ansay B, Weigel J, Krieg G (2010)
beverages: large chemical survey using purpald screening followed by Rapid and mobile determination of alcoholic strength in wine, beer and
chromotropic acid spectrophotometry with multivariate curve resolution. spirits using a flow-through infrared sensor. Chem Cent J 4:5
Int J Anal Chem. Article ID 797604 López Mahía P, Simal Gándara J, Paseiro Losada P (1992) Validation of ethanol
Kovár J (1981) Oscillating U-tube density meter determination of alcoholic determination in alcoholic beverages by infrared spectrophotometry
strength: analysis of parameter errors. J AOAC 64:1424–1430 using orthogonal and derivative functions to correct for water-absorp-
Lachenmeier DW (2004) Application of steam distillation for the rapid determi- tion. Vib Spectrosc 3:133–138
nation of alcoholic strength of spirit drinks. Int Lab News 34:10–13 Mark FG, Vaughn TE (1980) Determination of proof of alcoholic beverages
Lachenmeier DW (2007) Rapid quality control of spirit drinks and beer using using oscillating U-tube density meter. J AOAC 63:970–972
multivariate data analysis of Fourier transform infrared spectra. Food Maudoux M, Yan SH, Collin S (1998) Quantitative analysis of alcohol, real
Chem 101:825–832 extract, original gravity, nitrogen and polyphenols in beers using NIR
Lachenmeier DW, Sviridov O, Frank W, Athanasakis C (2003) Schnellbestim- spectroscopy. J Near Infrared Spectrosc 6:A363–A366
mung des Alkoholgehaltes in Emulsionslikören und anderen Spirituosen Montgomery DC (2005) Design and Analysis of Experiments. Wiley, Hoboken
mittels Wasserdampfdestillation und Biegeschwinger. Deut Lebensm OIV (2009) Compendium of international methods of wine and must analysis.
Rundsch 99:439–444 Edition 2009. International Organisation of Vine and Wine, Paris
Lachenmeier DW, Burri PA, Fauser T, Frank W, Walch SG (2005) Rapid determi- Patz CD, Blieke A, Ristow R, Dietrich H (2004) Application of FT-MIR spectrom-
nation of alcoholic strength of egg liqueur using steam distillation and etry in wine analysis. Anal Chim Acta 513:81–89
oscillation-type densimetry with peristaltic pumping. Anal Chim Acta Rai JK, Keshavayya J, Rai SK (2012) A new method for the estimation of dithi-
537:377–384 ocarbamates using Vapodest. Int J ChemTech Res 4:867–869
Lachenmeier DW, Walch SG, Kessler W (2006) Using experimental design to Strunk DH, Hamman JW, Timmel BM (1979) Determination of proof of distilled
optimise precision of steam distillation for determining alcoholic strength alcoholic beverages, using an oscillating U-tube density meter. J AOAC
in spirits. Eur Food Res Technol 223:261–266 62:653–658
Lachenmeier DW, Sohnius EM, Zipfel K (2007) Bestimmung des Kirschwas-
seranteils in Schwarzwalder Kirschtorte. Deut Lebensm Rundsch
103:557–561