What Would Happen To Bourbon Run Through A Britta Filter?

[GaryT]

That's an honest question, because I don't have any idea!  BUT - I've got bourbon, and a Britta - so seems like a mystery that can be resolved!  I'm thinking of running maybe 50 mL of various bourbons (and maybe others?) through the filter 2 or 3 times.  Trying bourbons from across a spectrum (like 1792 FP to HH 6yr "Old Style" 90 proof), just to see if there is much consistency in what it does.  Might it leech out more of certain flavors than others?  Or just make it all taste like garbage (hence the small samples!)?  The goal would be to run a sample through 2 or 3 times, then run water between samples, and bottle the samples for a later blind SBS against the original.  My guess is that the filtered version will clearly stand out.  Or, maybe a better approach is to just sample all of the filtered versions blind and make notes, and compare the notes to the original?

 

What do folks think the results might be?  Or any suggestions/recommendations on what to run through?  

[Flyfish]

One reason to like unfiltered bourbons is that all of the congeners or fatty acids are left in--for good or ill. It seems to me that removing them to eliminate cloudiness (as some distillers do) is trading flavor for clarity. With that said, I applaud your idea on scientific principles. I'm not willing to sacrifice my bourbon on the altar of science but all of mankind benefits from the selflessness of pioneers like you. ("Pioneer" defined as the guy way out in front with arrows sticking in his butt.)

[GaryT]

40 minutes ago, Flyfish said:

One reason to like unfiltered bourbons is that all of the congeners or fatty acids are left in--for good or ill. It seems to me that removing them to eliminate cloudiness (as some distillers do) is trading flavor for clarity. With that said, I applaud your idea on scientific principles. I'm not willing to sacrifice my bourbon on the altar of science but all of mankind benefits from the selflessness of pioneers like you. ("Pioneer" defined as the guy way out in front with arrows sticking in his butt.)

 

Agree - I much prefer non-filtered or NCF whiskey, so my expectations are that it will not help the whiskey in terms of improving it.  

 

And, I tried to search if this had been done, but since I can't spell - I totally missed this thread were @bad_scientist had already sacrificed for us.  So this wouldn't be breaking any new ground.  Reviewing his experience, I'm wondering about the new filter piece (although a new filter costs $5-$6, and even with a new filter you need to run a few pitchers of water through it).  And the water is something I'm also curious about (how much water from the filter comes out, and how much is it lowering the proof).  

 

Based on that thread, I'm thinking I might try this on just one bourbon to see what happens, before setting up multiple samples.  If it just completely ruins it, we'll call this the second sample to @bad_scientist original experiment  

 

 

 

[Richnimrod]

I would postulate that since all flavors (along with aromas) are actually molecules of various things that make up the flavors and aromas we attribute to Bourbon... some very much appreciated, some rather less so, I'd be very careful.

Anyway, these molecules some being larger than others, are subject to filtration/removal, from water, which is a pretty small molecule.    Now removing 'em from ethanol (alcohol), which is a considerably larger molecule is a different matter.

I have no idea what 'micron' size a Britta filter would remove; but one might hazard a guess about what sorts of things might be removed, if one understood the size of the various (there are a great many) molecules along with water and ethanol that are contained in Bourbon.    My fear would be that some very desirable flavors/aromas would likely be removed.      In general most of us prefer 'complex' Bourbons, which I'm fairly sure result from having MORE, not less of the different molecules that originate from the process (a large amount, I'm sure, from the wood).   So . . .  "Filter at the peril of the Bourbon being filtered"; I'd say.

[Harry in WashDC]

Well, years ago (2007, actually), Jeffery Morgenthaler posted an article on his blog about making your own gin by adding spices to 100 proof vodka, aging it for a week or two, straining it to remove the big solids, then running it through a Brita filter. The process, arguably, is called "cold compounding".  I've done this several times with Smirnoff 100 and various mixes of spices.  Some are better than others, of course.

 

I've also tasted the result before straining to remove the solids, after straining but before running through the Brita, and (OF COURSE!) after running it through the Brita.  Other than getting bits of coriander or cardomom stuck in my teeth or feeling the grittiness from the tiny solids floating in the liquid when tasting before and after straining, respectively, but before running it through the Brita, I didn't notice a difference in actual taste post-filtering.

 

I did not measure the proof, but judging from the relative buzz we get when consuming the final product, I don't think it dropped much from 100 after running it through the previously soaked Brita filter.  This is true, I suppose, because we are dealing with running 1500 MLs through the filter so the amount of water picked up from the filter likely is comparatively small.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Harry in WashDC
Changed The to This in the last sentence.

[GaryT]

I'm thinking that with volume, the proof difference would be pretty insignificant.  Which I think is another vote for "run something cheap through first idiot!".  

 

Actually, that might be the first part of the experiment.  Run 2 oz through and set aside,  Then run another 2 oz through and set aside.  I'll have to see what the minimum volume I can have to use my hydrometer (the graduated cylinder I have is such that the minimum volume to measure something around 100 proof would be around 100-120 mL, but need to look at some other options).  I've got about 300 mL of HH Old Style 6yr left.  If I can find a vessel to accommodate the hydrometer and let me get closer to 60 mL, I think I'll try measuring the proof first (just to baseline the tool), run it through, measure, run it through again, measure, etc.  Then throw that sample away and run a clean 60 mL sample through and see how it compares with the original.  

[The Black Tot]

Charcoal filtering - maybe you end up with Jack Daniel's...

[Richnimrod]

7 minutes ago, The Black Tot said:

Charcoal filtering - maybe you end up with Jack Daniel's...

HA!   Only if the charcoal is Maple briquets, though, eh?

[jsrudd]

On 9/4/2016 at 10:14 AM, Richnimrod said:

HA!   Only if the charcoal is Maple briquets, though, eh?

And if he takes a quick trip across the border to Tennessee before filling the Brita. 

[Gillman]

I initiated a similar thread some years ago. I was filtering some particularly congeneric white dog through and found virtually no difference. Later, I learned the Brita charcoal isn't the correct type to filter alcohol.

 

Gary

[Harry in WashDC]

4 hours ago, Gillman said:

I initiated a similar thread some years ago. I was filtering some particularly congeneric white dog through and found virtually no difference. Later, I learned the Brita charcoal isn't the correct type to filter alcohol.

 

Gary

Thanks, Gary.  Hadn't thought about this, really.  The color of my filtered infused gin run through a Brita didn't change much from the unfiltered gin.  In previous filterings of well- water, the Brita did not remove classic mid-Atlantic clay, meaning that the water still had a slightly orange tint.  Reading the specs for the filter, it likely removed the dangerous stuff but left the inert, micro-particles.  When we get down to that "micron" level, I don't think reasonably priced, basic retail filters go "small" enough.

[Gillman]

On 9/19/2016 at 8:22 PM, Harry in WashDC said:

Thanks, Gary.  Hadn't thought about this, really.  The color of my filtered infused gin run through a Brita didn't change much from the unfiltered gin.  In previous filterings of well- water, the Brita did not remove classic mid-Atlantic clay, meaning that the water still had a slightly orange tint.  Reading the specs for the filter, it likely removed the dangerous stuff but left the inert, micro-particles.  When we get down to that "micron" level, I don't think reasonably priced, basic retail filters go "small" enough.

 

It's possible Harry, I can't recall the specific reason. It may be though that the particles are too small! If too small, they don't trap oily molecules, e.g. the charcoal in the Tennessee leaching vats is something like a half-pea in size...  But hard to know without drilling down.

 

Gary

Edited September 21, 2016 by Gillman