Effect of storage time on physical properties of sonocrystallized all‐purpose shortening

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of high-intensity ultrasound (HIU) on the physical properties of an all-purpose shortening and to evaluate how these properties changed during storage (48 hr; 4, 12, and 24 weeks) at 5°C and 25°C. Samples were crystallized at 30°C for 60 min with and without the application of HIU (20 kHz; 3.2 mm-diameter tip, 168 μm amplitude, 10 s). After crystallization, physical properties, such as hardness, elasticity, melting behavior, and solid fat content (SFC), were measured. These properties were also measured during storage. The effect of HIU was significant in changing the SFC, hardness, G and G , melting enthalpy, and microstructure of the samples. After 60 min of crystallization, the sonicated samples had higher values of SFC, hardness, elasticity, and melting enthalpy than the ones obtained without sonication (P < 0.05). Changes in these physical properties were associated with the microstructure of the samples since sonication generated smaller, more uniformly sized crystals as well as increased the number of crystals. No differences were observed in the G of the sonicated samples stored at 25°C as a function of storage period. The G of the nonsonicated samples increased until 12 weeks of storage and was maintained up to 24 weeks, suggesting that sonication speed up the formation of a stable crystalline network. Samples stored at 5°C showed higher value in hardness, G and G , and SFC than the ones stored at 25°C.

Ultrasound-assisted gelation of β-carotene enriched oleogels based on candelilla wax-nut oils: Physical properties and in-vitro digestion analysis

“…In our study, oleogels showed more visible crystals under polarized light microscope after HIU treatment. According to previous studies [45] , [46] , [60] , more crystals may indicate denser networks and thus higher oil binding capacity of oleogels. Based on this, it was assumed that this denser network could not only inhibit the oil release in network but also inhibit the enzyme binding to the oil in network.…”

“…After HIU application, the crystal intensities of all 3 kinds of oleogels (peanut, pine nut and walnut oleogels) increased. As HIU treatment was proved to have the potential to create more sites for nucleation [46] , [47] , [60] , it might also facilitate crystal arrangement and crystal interactions which may result in the increase of crystal intensity of oleogels after HIU application.

Fig.

…”

“…The bubbles created by ultrasound collapsed and formed cavities that could generate more sites for nucleation. Thus, these crystallization sites influenced the formation and distribution of crystals [45] , [46] , [47] , [60] , [62] , [63] , [64] . Due to increasing the crystallization sites, more crystals’ clusters were formed gradually as crystals grew and thus could be seen under the PLM.…”

Relationship between oil binding capacity and physical properties of interesterified soybean oil

“…A shift towards low peak temperatures was observed for some sonicated samples including the third peak of the 100% FCR and SCR samples stored at 5 C (Table 4), the 50% FCR sample after 90 min, 3) and the first peak after storage at 5 C (Table 4), the third peak of the 50% SCR sample stored at 5 C (Table 4), the 20% SCR sample at all time points (Table 3), and the 20% FCR sample stored at 22 C (Table 3) (p < 0.05). Previous studies have found similar results where the application of HIU resulted in lower Tpeak due to HIU promoting the cocrystallization of low-melting-point TAGs (da Silva, Cooper, et al, 2020;da Silva, Marsh, et al, 2020;Lee et al, 2018Lee et al, , 2020. Additionally, differences in peak temperature may be due to differences in polymorphic form.…”

“…The sonicated samples may have higher hardness values because they are able to form a more uniform crystal matrix (smaller crystals, Table 2). Previous research has shown that the hardness of a sample increased when smaller crystals were present (Dibildox‐Alvarado et al, 2004; Lee et al, 2020; Suzuki et al, 2010; Ye et al, 2011). The sonicated samples have significantly more and smaller crystals than the non‐sonicated samples (Table 2), thus the sonicated samples are harder even though the SFC is not significantly different between these samples (Figure 4).…”