Filtration rarely makes it onto the tasting notes of a beer label. Yet, for brewers, it’s one of the most important ingredients in maintaining consistency, quality, and regulatory compliance.
Whether brewing on an industrial scale or crafting small-batch beers for a loyal local following, the challenges remain the same: controlling contamination, protecting flavour, and keeping operational costs in check. Process filtration plays a central role in meeting all three goals.
From raw water treatment through to final packaging, modern breweries face a complex range of filtration demands - from quality assurance and stringent beverage safety regulations to the growing pressure to reduce energy and waste. As production demands increase and quality expectations remain high, decisions around filter type, sizing, and installation are playing a larger role in shaping both quality and profitability.
Throughout the brewing process, contaminants can be introduced via air, water, steam, and CO2. These are all essential utilities, but each presents its own risks. Compressed air used during bottling, for example, may carry dust or microorganisms. CO2 used for carbonation must be purified to avoid imparting off-notes or haze. Even the steam used to sterilise pipes and tanks needs to be filtered to remove particles that could actually contaminate the very equipment it was supposed to be sterilising.
While brewers are no strangers to hygiene regulations, the expectations continue to climb. Both EU Regulation No. 1935/2004 and the US FDA’s Title 21 CFR set strict standards for materials used in food and beverage production. Filtration systems must not only meet these hygiene criteria but also maintain mechanical and thermal stability throughout continuous use. For this reason, selecting the correct filter specification for each process stage is more than a box-ticking exercise. It is a strategic decision that can affect uptime, product recall risk, and even the longevity of a brand.
In practical terms, beer production typically involves multiple filtration stages. These include water treatment before brewing, sterile air supply for wort aeration and yeast handling, clarification post-fermentation, and microbial filtration prior to packaging. Pre-filters might remove larger particulates early in the process, while sterile membrane filters—often with pore sizes as low as 0.45 microns—are deployed closer to the filling line to eliminate yeast and bacteria.
Neglecting any one of these stages can lead to product spoilage, shorter shelf life, or failure to meet health and safety requirements. But filtration is not just a defensive measure. It also offers efficiency gains when well-implemented. Filters that clog prematurely can increase maintenance workloads and result in production downtime. By contrast, high-capacity, backwashable filters can remain in service longer, require fewer change-outs, and reduce consumables spend.
That was the situation faced by a large brewery in Eastern Europe producing well-known international brands. Their existing filtration system, based on string-wound elements, needed frequent replacement. This was not only labour-intensive but also increased waste and introduced too much variability into the process. After assessing the costs associated with downtime, consumables, and waste disposal, the brewery decided to investigate alternatives.
The solution came in the form of pleated polypropylene filter elements, specifically designed for backwashing and extended dirt-holding capacity. With the new filters in place, the brewery achieved longer operating cycles between change-outs, reduced labour time, and significantly lowered its annual filter spend. Just as importantly, it aligned more closely with the brewery’s sustainability goals by cutting down on filter waste.
At the other end of the spectrum, a small family-owned brewery in Spain encountered similar pressures during a period of planned expansion. As demand for their craft beer increased, so too did the operational cost of maintaining high-quality standards at higher volumes. Trap filtration proved a particular pain point, with frequent filter changes disrupting production and straining resources.
In their case, selecting a filter system capable of backwashing and offering greater surface area provided a straightforward route to savings. With fewer interruptions to production and less staff time devoted to maintenance, the brewery saw a 12 percent reduction in overall filtration costs. Perhaps more importantly, the improvements gave them the confidence to scale up production without compromising quality—a key concern for any business built on reputation and taste.
These examples highlight a broader trend across the brewing sector. Process filtration is increasingly seen not just as a compliance tool, but as a lever for operational performance. With rising energy costs and growing demand for resource efficiency, many breweries are now examining filtration as part of a wider effort to drive down the total cost of ownership.
This conversation often culminates in a decision between sterile filtration and pasteurisation at the final stage of production. Both methods are designed to ensure microbiological stability. But they differ markedly in their approach, impact on flavour, and implications for energy use.
Pasteurisation uses heat to neutralise spoilage organisms and is often favoured by breweries distributing over long distances or into environments with less predictable storage conditions. The process can be carried out using flash or tunnel pasteurisation systems, both of which involve heating the beer to defined temperatures before cooling it again. While effective, this approach does carry the risk of altering the sensory profile of the beer.
Sterile filtration, by contrast, relies on specialised membranes to remove micro-organisms without applying heat. For breweries concerned with preserving the nuanced flavour of their products, this can be a decisive advantage. Sterile filtration also tends to consume less energy, making it attractive to operations with sustainability targets. That said, it requires a high level of process control and filtration expertise to be implemented effectively.
Deciding which route to take depends on a number of factors. These include the brewery’s distribution model, the desired shelf life, the characteristics of the beer itself, and the brand’s positioning in the market. Mass producers may lean towards pasteurisation for consistency and resilience. Independent or craft brewers may prioritise flavour retention and opt for sterile filtration, accepting the need for tighter process management in return.
Regardless of the approach, the filtration systems used must be robust, hygienic, and suited to the specific conditions of the brewery. In both large and small operations, the best results are achieved when filter selection is informed by a detailed understanding of flow rates, microbial load, cleaning protocols, and compatibility with other equipment.
Atlas Copco has worked with breweries around the world to optimise their filtration strategies. These include high-volume production facilities in Europe as well as smaller, independent brewers looking to expand or refine their process. While the scale and pressures differ, the goal is the same: to ensure clean, consistent, high-quality beer reaches the consumer, batch after batch.
Filtration will never define a brand’s identity in the way that hops, water or yeast do. But it is a vital enabler of the consistency, safety, and efficiency that define long-term success in brewing. As pressures mount from regulators, retailers, and consumers alike, more breweries are beginning to see filtration not as a hidden utility but as a foundation of modern beer production.