## 3 Results and Discussion
### Storage-Related Haze Changes
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Filter Sheet** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Storage Time** \\ **@4 \({}^{\circ}\)C** \\ \end{tabular} & **LA-01** & **LoNa** & **W-34/70** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{AF 11} & filter outlet & 39.3 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 1.5 & 71.5 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.5 & 1.28 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & 1 week & 37.0 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.3 & 62.0 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 1.0 & 3.62 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & 2 weeks & 43.8 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 1.3 & 68.4 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.6 & 4.02 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{AF 31} & filter outlet & 0.34 \({}^{\dagger}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.20 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.90 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & 1 week & 0.87 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.44 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.71 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & 2 weeks & 0.80 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.68 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.75 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{AF 71} & filter outlet & 0.11 \({}^{\dagger}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.20 \({}^{\rm h}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.83 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & 1 week & 0.60 \({}^{\rm d}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.47 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.70 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & 2 weeks & 0.56 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.49 \({}^{\dagger}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.76 \({}^{\rm b}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{AF 101} & filter outlet & 0.19 \({}^{\dagger}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.21 \({}^{\dagger}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.79 \({}^{\rm ab}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\  & 1 week & 0.76 \({}^{\rm bc}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.48 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.73 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2 weeks & 0.82 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.60 \({}^{\rm d}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.83 \({}^{\circ}\)\(\pm\) 0.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Turbidity changes in NABs filtered with various filter sheet setups and measured after different storage times; superscript letters indicate LS mean groupings (Fisher LSD, \(p\) \(<\) 0.05). Further analysis of the NABs filtered with AF 31, AF 71, and AF 101 showed that all remained below the critical threshold of 2 EBC, beyond which bears typically exhibit visible haziness [18; 45]. Interestingly, despite starting with lower turbidity values in these filtration trials, LA-01 and LoNa exhibited a greater increase in haze over time compared to W-34/70 (Table 3). The latter, which initially recorded turbidity readings between 0.8 and 0.9 EBC, ultimately reached similar final turbidity values after two weeks of storage at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C. This suggests that yeast strain selection and filtration type play crucial roles in determining haze stability. From a broader brewing perspective, the findings underscore the importance of filtration in maintaining haze levels below 2 EBC during short-term storage at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C. However, stabilization methods are necessary to ensure prolonged haze stability and extended shelf life. Beer is rarely stored continuously at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C in commercial distribution and retail settings, making it susceptible to varying temperature conditions that can accelerate haze formation. To better simulate real-world storage conditions, forced aging methods are commonly employed in brewing science to assess beer stability under stress conditions to simulate flavor variations [53; 66] or turbidity-related changes [67]. Such methods for assessing turbidity-related changes involve exposing the beer to elevated temperatures for a defined period in combination with lowering the temperature [67] to force protein-polyphenol-related turbidity, accelerating the aging process and providing insights into long-term haze development.