A classification scheme for interfacial mass transfer and the kinetics of aroma release

Abstract

Background: The study of aroma release has gained popularity in food science. Nowadays, experiments become increasingly more complex. However, an application of theories on mass transfer, which may help to better explain the results, is lagging behind on these developments. Scope and approach: The goal of this review is to get together, in a concise way, the state of the art on fundamental knowledge of mass transfer in aroma release plus creating an extension of theory with a comprehensible classification that is useful for food scientists. The existing mathematical model is simplified and points that have received little attention are identified. Key findings and conclusions: An overview of experimental studies that focus on the influence of viscosity on aroma release show that there is heterogeneity in results and no consensus exists on the influence of viscosity. Such heterogeneity may be better understood with the effects of mass transfer. These effects are summarized by describing three implications based on non-proportional relationships between the partition coefficient and (A) the overall mass transfer coefficient, (B) the depletion and saturation timescales , and (C) the peak value of the aroma concentration in the head space. A classification scheme is made to enable food scientists and technologists to apply the complex description in shorter and simpler terms that can be communicated and compared more easily. The scheme depends on a classification in two dimensions based on a thermodynamic factor, the partition coefficient, and a kinetic factor which divides aroma's and experiments into four different classes.

In Vivo Aroma Release and Dynamic Sensory Perception of Composite Foods

“…Increasing mayonnaise viscosity by adding more xanthan resulted in lower aroma release and perception (LF-LV vs LF-HV). Viscosity is known to play a relevant role in aroma release, as the diffusion rate of aroma compounds is hindered by an increase in viscosity. , In addition, xanthan has been suggested to physically interact with hydrophobic aroma compounds by trapping them into a so-called “hydrophobic cavity” . Decreasing mayonnaise fat content while keeping the same viscosity resulted in decreased aroma release and perception (FF-HV and LF-HV).…”

Yeast mannoproteins: Organoleptic modulating functions, mechanisms, and product development trends in winemaking

“…The viscous effect is induced by the H‐bonds formed between the MP molecules (the hydrophilic parts) and the major solvents in wines (H 2 O, ethanol), which leads to a decrease of free H 2 O/ethanol molecules and an increase of viscosity in the wine matrix (Doyennette et al., 2011; Jones et al., 2008; Qiao et al., 2022) and disrupts the H 2 O–H 2 O and H 2 O–ethanol networks that are responsible for the fluidity of wine (Hollowood et al., 2002). For the sensory active components that are less active toward MPs, their mass transfer rates in the wine matrix will decrease, and their concentrations in the remaining free H 2 O/ethanol molecules will increase, their original equilibriums in wines before the addition of MP products are consequently modified (Robinson et al., 2009; Weterings et al., 2020).…”

“…The overall wine aroma perception is affected by the composition, the gas/liquid partition coefficient (GLPC) and the mass transfer coefficient (MTC) of ACs in wines (Pozo‐Bayón & Reineccius., 2009; Robinson et al., 2009; Seuvre et al., 2000). For wine samples of similar ACs composition, the GLPC reflects the ratios of AC concentrations in the gas phase and liquid phase, and the MTC reflects the speed that AC molecules released from the liquid phase into the gas phase, both coefficients explain the differences in wine aroma intensity and persistence, and are affected not only by the physicochemical properties of ACs, but also the presence of other components in the matrix, such as ethanol, phenols, proteins, polysaccharides, salivary components, and the environmental factors (temperature, viscosity) (Jones‐Moore et al., 2022; Mitropoulou et al., 2011; Pozo‐Bayón et al., 2016; Weterings et al., 2020).…”

Drivers of the In-Mouth Interaction between Lupin Protein Isolate and Selected Aroma Compounds: A Proton Transfer Reaction–Mass Spectrometry and Dynamic Time Intensity Analysis

“…Instead, oral processing involves a continuous state of equilibrium, reflecting a dynamic mass transportation phenomenon. The kinetic release of the aroma compounds from food systems is influenced by their molecular structure, thermodynamics, physicochemical characteristics, and the barrier to mass transfer from the food matrix to the air phase. − …”