Home Distiller

DAD300 wrote:The worst possible combination would be stainless boiler, with a copper condenser. All the precursors would make it to the copper and drop into the distillate.

And that is exactly what many members here have but bring up the use of polyurethane to seal a pot and all hell breaks loose.

bearriver wrote:I have no dog in this fight. But, at this point y'all are arguing for the sake of arguing to no benefit to this forum. Been there myself. I get it. We know your opinions already. This is turning into a pissing match and nobody is going to give ground. Respectfully agree to disagree already.

If your not posting links to academic research and data, then I see no reason to keep posting at all. If you must argue, doing it in a PM would save the rest of use from having to sift through it all for something tangible. Please.

I am getting plenty from this thread. My attitude has gone from "snore- another pantywaist "hazard" thread" to "okay, this is reasonable and should be taken into account".
If it is of no interest to you, don't read it.

DAD, thank you for your ongoing efforts to get this across. It has been most edifying.

I want to add, I will be doing more research about the health dis-benefits of the various other esters and alcohols present in double pot-stilled spirits, as I am interested in the comparative dangers.

Unsuprisingly my point completely escaped you Dan. You seem have enjoyed stirring up shit wherever possible recently. Good for you

Thanks again for the thread Dad...

I don't suppose another spurious post on the long term health effects of consuming alcohol would lighten the mood around here would it?

I have a new one http://www.scocia.com/newsite/Scotch_an ... ey.pdf.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Page 27
" In the 1980s ethyl carbamate, a naturally-occurring component of many alcoholic drinks, was identified as being undesirable. Canada specified by regulation a maximum limit for ethyl carbamate in whisky spirit of 150 ppb and the US set guidelines of 120 ppb. Control of this compound was only possible after the processes resulting in its presence in spirit were fully understood. Extensive research in Scotland revealed the mechanism of ethyl carbamate production and facilitated the introduction of very effective control measures."

"Two control strategies may be used to prevent ethyl carbamate reaching the final spirit. Firstly, some varieties of barley produce low levels
of the glycoside EPH (Cook, 1990), and plant breeders are now concentrating on incorporating this character in all varieties for the
distilling industry. The second strategy relies on the low volatility of ethyl carbamate. Control of distillation conditions eliminates all the volatile precursor formed by copper mediated reactions. Non-volatile substances are formed prior to the final distillation in malt distillation or before rectification in grain distillation. Thus, ethyl carbamate can be minimized in the final spirit."

The Barley idea is cool but doesn't help with rum/sugar. Seems minimal for us.

"Before rectification" so I'll bet they are removing the precursors and EC's in the first distillation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ese-ees/default.asp ... C24225A8-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow
"Copper has been shown to be able to catalyze the formation of ethyl carbamate in whisky and it has been implicated in the conversion of cyanide (fruit fermentations) to ethyl carbamate in distilled spirits (Aresta et al. 2001)"

cat·a·lyze
ˈkadlˌīz/
verb
cause or accelerate (a reaction) by acting as a catalyst.
cause (an action or process) to begin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patent issued for a device

"Copper is involved in ethyl-carbamate-formation reactions, and the replacement thereof by stainless steel in distillation equipment, with the aim of preventing the formation of said compound, results in a beverage of poor sensory quality owing to the presence of dimethyl sulphide. A reduction in the concentration of sulphurated compounds in the final product may be achieved by the placing of a copper device (Patent No. 8206688) inside the dome of a stainless-steel alembic. It is therefore appropriate to verify the efficiency of using other forms of catalysts that, in addition to reducing ethyl-carbamate levels, are able, likewise, to trigger other catalytic actions that allow the production of a distillate of good sensory quality. Silver is the noble metal most used in industry and, on account of the catalytic properties thereof, it is ideal for use as a catalyst in oxidation reactions. The subject matter of the present invention comprises a method involving the use of silver in the distillation of alcoholic beverages, such as sugar-cane rum, which reduces ethyl-carbamate contamination of the end-product."

I'm sure I said before that all the major commercial still vendors offer a copper catalyst or packing for the top of their boilers. I wonder if they pay this guy a royalty on his international patent?

No hard feelings, I promise.

I do however understand some hard facts of humanity. He who yells the loudest is often perceived as the leader/most knowledgeable/expert. Oh, and you have to shake your head up and down while saying it. I don't like that. And if no one takes the time to counter it...

COPPER is NOT inert!

We get hung up on copper because we can get it at Lowes and Home Depot!

In and of itself it can poison you. It can also react with other things to poison you.

It can have good reactions. As a catalyst, in the top of any still it can remove sulfur compounds (make spirits taste better) and it can remove carcinogenic compounds (cyanide, ethyl carbamate).

As you guys find new or better pubs I would love to see it.

So, Copper in the Ascending Path is GOOD and in the Descending Path is BAD.

bearriver wrote:Unsuprisingly my point completely escaped you Dan. You seem have enjoyed stirring up shit wherever possible recently. Good for you

It is unfortunate that you are upset, and it is true that your point did escape me. What was your point? That this thread should end because you say so?
I don't understand. This has been a pretty enlightening thread, and it challenges some sacred cows, so it's unsurprising that there should be some controversy.

DAD300 wrote:No hard feelings, I promise.

I do however understand some hard facts of humanity. He who yells the loudest is often perceived as the leader/most knowledgeable/expert. Oh, and you have to shake your head up and down while saying it. I don't like that. And if no one takes the time to counter it...

COPPER is NOT inert!

We get hung up on copper because we can get it at Lowes and Home Depot!

In and of itself it can poison you. It can also react with other things to poison you.

It can have good reactions. As a catalyst, in the top of any still it can remove sulfur compounds (make spirits taste better) and it can remove carcinogenic compounds (cyanide, ethyl carbamate).

As you guys find new or better pubs I would love to see it.

So, Copper in the Ascending Path is GOOD and in the Descending Path is BAD.

Amen brother!

Copper on the descending path may be BAD but if you distill twice it may be OK (my reading of it).

The studies showed that distilling twice (strip run, spirit run) resulted in EC levels closer to that of a stainless still. You will leave 85% of the created EC in the pot, even if you get greedy on the tails. I find this interesting. In that, if copper always causes EC, each run would add more EC. But it doesn't. My conjecture is that there is only so much of the precursor compounds to catalzye. So you basically create all the EC you're going to create in the first run. So a second run doesn't create more. It leaves most of the existing EC in the boiler.

That is similar to my take to humbledore and @ bear chill dude your choice to read the thread or not but the language has been civil to the point of cordial for the most part. There are opposing views on some of the points raised, that simple

humbledore wrote:My conjecture is that there is only so much of the precursor compounds to catalzye.

Seems correct.

My point is that the HD often stands against things that "may" be unsafe. People might do single runs with copper on the down side, which would be unsafe.

I know a lot want to gloss over the fact that high levels of EC were produced in stainless stills but that won't change that fact ....So what is it you are proposing, no rules, no distilling what? . Adequate copper in the ascending path voids this argument either way so maybe let's not go down the anything goes route, enough of them on the net now

I don't think you can say it's unsafe. Maybe less safe. It would result in more EC for sure. We don't know what levels unless it's measured.

NOT exactly...copper in the descending path, hot ethanol goes across it, it deposits copper in the distillate. Copper in the distillate long term aging and you have EC's again.

humbledore wrote:I don't think you can say it's unsafe. Maybe less safe. It would result in more EC for sure. We don't know what levels unless it's measured.

And since the levels can't be measured for what every member of the HD makes, to err on the side of caution means that the HD can't condone the use of copper on the down side.

At least that is the logic given for other materials.

DAD300 wrote:NOT exactly...copper in the descending path, hot ethanol goes across it, it deposits copper in the distillate. Copper in the distillate long term aging and you have EC's again.

Then why would a second run have less EC than the first?

DAD300 wrote:NOT exactly...copper in the descending path, hot ethanol goes across it, it deposits copper in the distillate. Copper in the distillate long term aging and you have EC's again.

Could it be that oak or products that result from aging plus any copper deposited end up creating EC.

I have had distillate with a slight blue tinge well after the fores cut, which is why I don't trust croweater's "don't drink fores" answer to the problem.

Drawing a very long bow indeed to come to that conclusion from that, a number of things can cause a blue colourization not related to copper oxides

Look at the chart humbledore posted...the EC's continued to form in the aging spirits that were ran on the copper still and not on the glass still.

If copper alone were the answer to getting rid of EC's, I would think the copper pot still perfect.

Copper still 10ppm at distillation and 60 ppm in 48 hours.

Glass still less than 5ppm and no gain over 48 hours.

I wish they showed longer time frame, but an other study showed it rising to 220ppm in rum.

I did find that the EU set 60ppm as the max allowable in commercial beverages and the U.S set 120ppm.
I hope non of us are going to drink fore. And fores may have a higher concentration of copper salts as they clean the copper condenser, but hearts and tails still show dissolved copper.

Again I ask would commercial booze through a 0.5 micron filter catch copper?

so what's the go here, only findings that support the theory proposed are spoken to. EC produced what no copper was present as stated in your first post is some error made by the whole whisky industry , never happened. We are all aware there are a great many ways to interpret any given piece of data, There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of false conclusions draw up on data easy to do if you have a predetermined result you wish to convey, ignore a couple of fact and variables and the sky's the limit. this type of logic would say that data that showed 10% of drivers are killed at 10 kms then 100% will be killed that do 100 kms, its a false projection just as has occurred here in the argument. it happens when you focus on one result

I find this thread very interesting. I haven't decided which way I am leaning based on the data, but I did notice a little error when referencing the chart that Humblebore posted. The chart is in ppb or ( parts per billion) and it was referenced as ppm or (parts per million) that is a substantial difference.
Also is there a filter as fine as .5 micron. Not to be confused with 5 micron
5 micron=.00019 in
.5 micron=.000019 in
5 micron filters a common in water filtration and I have seen 1 micron filters for fish tanks I think. These points and questions were not meant t be a smarta$$ just trying to keep up

The table photo I posted earlier is low wines...first run. So yes, the EC increased over time. I'm focused here on the effect double runs on a copper pot still. I don't have a pot still. It's just the only info I can find. As I referred to an an earlier post, one study produced this data:

Mean content of EC in all samples - 160mg L-1
double distilled in copper - 17mg L-1
single distilled copper - 145mg L-1
single distilled in stainless - 11mg L-1
continuous column - 320mg L-1

The measurement showed a marked decrease in the second (spirit) run in a copper pot still. It was nearly as low as the single run in stainless.

Another had this to say about redistilling. The first sentence refers to the natural tendency for EC to increase over time in low wines. But then read on:

The second or low wines distillation apparently eliminates
the time-dependent factor and ethyl carbamate formation
proceeds as soon as sufficient heat is applied to the still.
Fortuitously ethyl carbamate, once formed, does not readily
distill when the alcohol concentration is high. This means that
only small proportion, approximately 1-2 per cent of the
total available ethyl carbamate, will distill over during
collection of potable spirit. As the alcohol strength drops
from 64 per cent v/v to about 1.5 per cent v/v, further 15 per
cent of the available ethyl carbamate will be collected with
the feints. Clearly, the elimination of 84 per cent of the total
available ethyl carbamate with the spent lees prevents
substantial accumulation in the feints. This is significant
feature of the current work, since the practice within the pot
still whisky industry is to recycle the feints.

As stated earlier, you are leaving 85% (OK 84%) of the EC created in the boiler. Now what you want to do with the feints is up to you. Because if you put all those feints together you have a lot of EC. But again on second distilling you leave 85% behind if you are at sufficient strength ABV.

FYI both studies referred to here were linked in my first post (Sorry Wiley but if you don't want people to link you shouldn't allow google to find your full text articles).

DAD300, you want some reading?

On double distillation and reduction of EC in a copper still.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10 ... b4aa225682" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

On ec in stone fruits, and I note;
5.3 Distillation equipment
21. Distillation equipment and the distillation process should be suitable, to ensure that hydrocyanic acid is not transferred into the distillate.
a) Use of a copper still will limit carryover of ethyl carbamate–forming precursors into the distillate.
b) The distillation equipment should preferably include automatic rinsing devices and copper catalytic converters. The automatic rinsing devices will keep the copper stills cleaned while the copper catalytic converters will bind hydrocyanic acid before it passes into the distillate.
c) Automatic rinsing devices are not necessary in the case of discontinuous distillation. The distillation equipment should be cleaned by systematic and thorough cleaning procedures.
d) When copper catalytic converters or other dedicated cyanide separators are not available, copper (I) chloride preparations can be added to the fermented fruit mash before distillation. The purpose of these preparations containing copper (I) ions is to bind hydrocyanic acid before it passes into the distillate. Copper (II) ions are without effect and should not be used.
22. While copper ions can inhibit formation of ethyl carbamate precursors in the mash and in the still, they can promote formation of ethyl carbamate in the distillate. Therefore, use of a stainless steel condenser at the end of the distillation device rather than a copper condenser will limit presence of copper in the distillate and reduce the rate of ethyl carbamate formation.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Translations/Ru ... P_070e.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

And another,
Note;This work has shown that all collected vodka samples produced in Brazil complied with the Brazilian regulations for total congeners and contaminants (methanol, copper, and lead). With regard to ethyl carbamate (EC) in vodka, unregulated in Brazil, all samples contained below 0.01 mg/L (analytical detection limit) and therefore complied with the international upper limit (0.15 mg/L) established or recommended by several countries for distilled spirits. Considering that a large proportion of Brazilian vodkas are made from sugarcane, it can be assumed that volatile cyanide and other possible nitrogen EC precursors present in sugarcane are adequately fixed by distillation apparatuses, most likely via a column rectification system. The implementation of EC regulations for Brazilian vodka is therefore not relevant at present. Another larger study is currently underway to investigate other alcoholic beverages from Brazil (e.g. rum, whisky, brandy, sake, mixed spirit drinks) that may contain EC.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S01 ... ci_arttext" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow


This proves nothing more than I scoured the internet to find papers that support a different view.
Once again, the internet can be your friend or your enemy. You can find shit that will support the fact you have an itch means you got cancer. Use your common sense.
Stone fruit distillates, yogurt, bread and many other foods we eat contain EC. Managed properly they are a low risk. Copper can remove EC if used properly with knowledge. Stainless has not been proven to reduce EC more than copper. I will continue to use and make copper stills with copper on the downhill side.

By the way, i found more studies involving copper than stainless, this says to me there is more information on copper that the unstudied stainless

This thread has been good to enlighten us of the possible EC content of some foods and beverages, nothing more. It dosn't show stainless still fix the problem.
What I learned was theres stuff all EC in grain based distilled drinks and lots more EC in foods than we are told

So, if the purveyors of stainless stills think they are on a winner....Bztttt!...sorry. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

EDIT TO ADD, I also found mention that sugar cane is known to be a carcinogen, does that men all sugar washes are bad because one paper mentioned them? On the other hand, I found stories saying juglans (walnuts) can cure cancer....should I believe them?

emptyglass this is from your first quote. I think it supports what we are saying...they are recommending a stainless condenser to reduce EC. I don't think anyone is saying throw your copper out...at least I'm not. Just getting more knowledge on the different variables involved.

emptyglass wrote: 22. While copper ions can inhibit formation of ethyl carbamate precursors in the mash and in the still, they can promote formation of ethyl carbamate in the distillate. Therefore, use of a stainless steel condenser at the end of the distillation device rather than a copper condenser will limit presence of copper in the distillate and reduce the rate of ethyl carbamate formation.

thecroweater wrote:Drawing a very long bow indeed to come to that conclusion from that, a number of things can cause a blue colourization not related to copper oxides

Again, "err on the side of caution". There is a reason why that is the standing safety policy here.

Still, I know better than anyone else what the liquid came in contact with.

thecroweater wrote:so what's the go here, only findings that support the theory proposed are spoken to.

The only finding that you are basing your claim on is a sentence which doesn't really go into detail about the entire set up with "ss columns" (only one part of the still). Do you have anything else?

ETA: Just in case you haven't noticed the theory proposed is to keep copper on the ascending side. You keep bringing up "all ss" stills.

I apologize for my typo ppm vs ppb...

Perfect...I really feel better if others research and quote.

emptyglass,
"Therefore, use of a stainless steel condenser at the end of the distillation device rather than a copper condenser will limit presence of copper in the distillate and reduce the rate of ethyl carbamate formation."

CR33G3R,
I have not seen a .5 micron filter but have read it is SOP for commercial bottlers to use a 5 micron followed by a .5 micron filter before bottling.

humbledore,
This is one of my points here...I definitely am NOT saying toss all copper. But copper is not inert. It can help or hurt us.

The Wiley Library is weird, some is free and some is pay only.

So, Copper in the Ascending Path is GOOD and in the Descending Path is BAD.

rockchucker22 wrote:Wasn't that established in the first page, sometimes I really dislike redundancy. Especially when it leads to fights like this. Is it really necessary to force people to see things only one way?

It is the spirit of the forum to only promote safe practices.

If something upsets you ignore it, life's too short to have continued pissing matches in my opinion.

I don't see a pissing match. I see someone comparing apples to oranges and others trying to point out the discrepancy.

We are all adults and should act as such.

If "we" could do that there would not have been a need for Rule 8. Just saying.

rockchucker22 wrote: As far as safety goes, yes it's priority #1 but we are still making poison no mater how you look at it.

I notice most people like to ignore this fact. We are punishing our organs guzzling large quantities (well some of us, ) of toxic ethanol and arguing about how pure it is.

Interesting thread none the less. Does peak my interest in a SS condenser........