This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
S.J. Reiner, G.A. Reineccius, and T.L. Peppard
Abstract: The performance of several hydrocolloids (3 gum acacias, 1 modiﬁed gum acacia, and 3 modiﬁed starches) in
stabilizing beverage emulsions and corresponding model beverages was investigated employing different core materials, emulsiﬁer usage levels, and storage temperatures. Concentrated emulsions were prepared using orange terpenes or Miglyol R 812 (comprising medium-chain triglycerides, MCT) weighted 1:1 with ester gum, stored at 25 or 35 ◦ C, and analyzed on days 0, 1, and 3. On day 3, model beverages were made from each emulsion, stored at both temperatures, and analyzed weekly for 4 wk. Stability of concentrated emulsions was assessed by measuring mean particle size and by visual observations of ringing; beverage stability was judged similarly and also by loss of turbidity. Particle size measurements showed concentrated emulsions containing gum acacia or modiﬁed gum acacia with either core material were stable over 3 d storage at both temperatures whereas those made with modiﬁed starches were not, destabilization being faster at 35 ◦ C. Beverages based on orange terpenes, in contrast to Miglyol, yielded smaller mean particle sizes, both on manufacture and during storage, regardless of hydrocolloid used. Visual observations of ringing generally supported this ﬁnding. Modiﬁed gum acacia was evaluated at both recommended and higher usage levels, stability increasing in the latter case. In general, all gum acacia and modiﬁed gum acacia emulsiﬁers were superior in stability to those based on modiﬁed starches, at either temperature, for orange terpene-based beverages. In Miglyol-based beverages, similar results were seen, except 1 modiﬁed starch performed as well as the gum acacia products.
Keywords: beverage cloud emulsion, gum acacia, modiﬁed gum acacia, modiﬁed starch, physical stability
E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties
Beverage emulsions are oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions, which can generally be categorized as either cloud emulsions (imparting opacity) or ﬂavor emulsions (providing ﬂavor in addition to cloudiness) (Tan 1997; McClements 1999; Reineccius 2006). Emulsions are unstable by nature and this represents an ongoing challenge for beverage manufacturers. Beverage emulsions are unique to the food industry, because they are typically sold to beverage manufacturers as emulsion concentrates, whereas they are consumed by the public in a highly diluted state. It is, therefore, essential that beverage emulsions remain stable in both forms, for at least 6 mo according to beverage industry standards. Strategies to increase the stability of beverage emulsions generally comprise the use of homogenization, weighting agents (to raise the density of the oil phase), and emulsiﬁers (with or without additional surfactants). A ﬁnished beverage typically consists of a small percentage of beverage emulsion dispersed in water, along with a number of other ingredients, including caloric and/or high-intensity sweetener, acidulant (to add taste and lower pH), dye (for color), and preservative (to prevent microbial spoilage). Although the emul-
MS 20090724 Submitted 7/28/2009, Accepted 3/2/2010. Authors Reiner and Reineccius are with Dept. of Food Science & Nutrition, Univ. of Minnesota, 1334 Eckles Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108, U.S.A. Author Peppard is with Robertet Flavors, Inc., 10 Colonial Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854, U.S.A. Direct inquiries to author Reineccius (E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org).
sion has been diluted, the beverage as a whole is still inherently unstable and, given unfavorable circumstances, can clear (or “ring”) by means of destabilizing mechanisms such as creaming, ﬂocculation, coalescence, or so-called Ostwald ripening, in all cases tending to form an unsightly product. Gum Arabic (gum acacia) is a hydrocolloid that traditionally has been the material of choice for emulsifying and stabilizing beverage emulsions. While gum acacia comprises mostly arabinogalactan (AG; approximately 90%), its functionality as an excellent emulsiﬁer is generally ascribed to a small but signiﬁcant protein content (1% to 3%) originating mainly from its arabinogalactan protein fraction (AGP; approximately 10%) and to a lesser extent from its glycoprotein fraction (GP; approximately 1%) (Randall and others 1988; Mahendran and others 2008). Recent research has also implicated a low but apparently signiﬁcant level of lipids in helping to explain gum acacia’s reputation as an outstanding emulsiﬁer (Yadav and others 2007a). There are 2 botanical species approved for commercial use as sources of gum acacia: Acacia senegal and Acacia seyal. Gum acacia derived from these species differ in emulsifying capability, with that from A. senegal generally being considered the industry “gold standard” for stabilizing beverage emulsions (Randall and others 1988). There are many issues related to the commercial use of gum acacia as a stabilizer in beverage emulsions, including quality, availability, and cost. As the exported volume of A. senegal from one of its principal sources, Sudan, has decreased in recent years (World Bank 2007), the demand worldwide has increased due to tremendous growth in beverage sales, especially in the United States (Gitlitz and Franklin 2007). Therefore, the price of A. senegal gum
C 2010 Institute of Food Technologists R doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01625.x
Journal of Food Science r Vol. 75, Nr. 5, 2010
Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
has risen dramatically (Purcell 2005). Beverage emulsion preparation Concentrated beverage emulsions were prepared in accordance with manufacturer’s speciﬁcations. senegal include modiﬁed starch.a Emulsiﬁer (trade name) FCC powder Eﬁcacia Bev-101 GR Ticamulsion A-2010 Purity Gum 2000 Purity Gum 1773 Mira Mist 662 Description Pure Acacia senegal Pure gum acaciab Gum acacia blendb Modiﬁed gum acacia Modiﬁed starch Modiﬁed starch Modiﬁed starch Usage level(s) 16% 7%. Materials and Methods Materials TIC Gums. Bridgewater.). all of which make them very attractive to beverage emulsion manufacturers and users alike. 5% FD&C Yellow #6. North Wales.S. For background. They used these oil phases to determine how the polarity and solubility of the oil phase inﬂuence the mechanism (Oswald ripening and coalescence) and the extent of particle size instability. 2%. senegal because it is harvested from a natural source. Chanamai and others (2002) also evaluated the importance of oil type (hexadecane.S. In this work. Ward 2002).S. They found that emulsions made with a very nonpolar and water insoluble oil phase (hexadecane) were quite stable over time irrespective of the type of emulsiﬁer used.9%). U. granulated sugar (Cub Foods.S. β-lactoglobulin. and Ticamulsion R A-2010. N.2%) as measured by gas chromatography.. Mira Mist R 662 (Tate & Lyle.. Emulsions based on an oil phase also having low polarity but relatively greater water solubility (decane) were stable to coalescence but not Oswald Ripening again irrespective of the emulsiﬁer used. sodium caseinate..H. Ward 2002.A. U.).6%).A. respectively.Y. For example.. was purchased from Sasol (Houston.Stability of beverage cloud emulsions . soy and whey protein isolates. A controlling factor in emulsiﬁer performance was how quickly and how efﬁciently a given gum acacia interacted with the oil phase to lower interfacial tension.. The ﬂavor industry generally uses either orange terpenes or medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) as a particulate phase in making cloud emulsions and previous research has demonstrated that the type of oil phase can have a very signiﬁcant effect on how an emulsiﬁer interacts with it affecting both the initial particle size and the subsequent stability (Dickinson and others 1991.) were purchased and used for making beverages from the concentrated emulsions.. Miglyol 812 is a combination of triglycerides based on the following fatty acid composition: C6:0 max.. Vol. Starch Corp.S. (Westbury.A. Separate sets of emulsions were prepared using orange terpenes and Miglyol. 2% and C14:0 max. 1% (Sasol. C10:0 30% to 45%. decanol. For example. C12:0 max. Minn.A. corn ﬁber gum.Y. decane. 16% 16% 7%. potato protein. Louis. Houston. 16% 12% 12% 12% a Emulsion concentrates comprised the noted % of emulsiﬁer. Finally.) and Miglyol R 812. . and octanal (0. Nakauma and others 2008.A. Yadav and others 2007b. Tex. Wis. Tesch and others 2002. seyal. Purity R Gum 2000 and Purity R Gum 1773 (Natl. and consistent emulsiﬁers that could lead to less dependence on gum acacia. Orange oil terpenes were obtained from Citrus and Allied Essences Ltd. α-Pinene (0.S. and sugar beet pectin (Kim and others 1996. weighted 1:1 with ester gum).A. also higher levels (see Table 1). manufacturers are evaluating various alternative materials in the hope of ﬁnding more reliable. 2010 r Journal of Food Science E237 E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties . are highly consistent. However. There is also much variability in the emulsifying capability derived from different batches of A. St. Prediction of solubility and polarity Solubility and polarity values for selected components of Miglyol and orange terpenes were calculated using Molecular Designer V:5. Bev-101 GR. U. namely. readily available. several modiﬁed starches and a modiﬁed A. 10% weighted oil (orange terpenes or Miglyol.). Senegal and the 2 most commonly used oil phases (MCT and orange terpenes). and granulated FD&C Yellow #6 (Sensient Colors. (Belcamp. N.) donated samples of prehydrated gum acacia spray dry FCC powder (A.A. modiﬁed A. U.) were also received as gifts. Calo Co. U. seyal.S. Milwaukee. Md. U. A primary conclusion of this work was that both oil type and emulsiﬁer selection (different gum acacias in this case) inﬂuenced the initial particle size distribution and stability during storage.. C8:0 50% to 65%. N. Nr. or orange oil) and type of gum acacia on the initial and over time droplet size distributions of emulsions. Decatur. Ill. U. the stability of emulsions made with an oil phase with relatively high solubility and polarity (decanol) was dependent upon the emulsiﬁer used. using emulsiﬁers at both recommended and. Thus.A. Dickinson and others (1991) conducted studies evaluating the inﬂuence of oil type (hexadecane. Huang and others 2001.S.S. All emulsions were Table 1–Emulsiﬁers used in study. to 100%. limonene.A. U. and EﬁcaciaTM (Colloides Naturels Intl. Minneapolis. a particular gum acacia gave excellent stability to the hexadecane-based emulsion but performed very poorly with emulsions based on limonene or orange oil.. modiﬁed starch was starch esteriﬁed with octenyl succinic anhydride (OSA) (Tesch and others 2002) while modiﬁed gum acacia (Ticamulsion R ) is a relatively new OSA-modiﬁed A.A. The emulsiﬁers tested. To alleviate these problems.9 (NorGwyn Montgomery Software.). Sodium benzoate and citric acid (Sigma Aldrich. Decanol-based emulsions made with gum acacia were very unstable with both Ostwald Ripening and coalescence occurring.A.). seyal (Ward 2002). Harnsilawat and others 2006.S. 5. Mo. cost-effective. treatment with OSA potentially improves emulsifying capability by increasing overall hydrophobicity (Randall and others 1988. and cost-effective. U. Products that have recently been studied as potential replacements for A. U.S.). Inc.1.. Tex.s. The various emulsiﬁers used in this study are described in Table 1. .8%).8%). The aim of the work described in this article was to evaluate the performance of beverage emulsions formulated using a number of commercially available potential replacements for A.). van Koningsveld and others 2006.S. tech sheet). and distilled water q. Chanamai and others 2002). U. The orange terpenes used were comprised primarily of limonene (95. myrcene (2. in some cases.. Inc. Bridgewater. The primary mode of instability was determined to be coalescence.. sabinene (2. 75.A. In both cases. an MCT. The authors postulated that the more polar oil phase (decanol) did not interact well with gum acacia thereby permitting coalescence to occur. fenugreek. we were interested in studying the efﬁcacy of several commercially available emulsiﬁers with both oil types. b Proprietary composition. (Lake Success. U. N. All solutions and emulsions were prepared using distilled water..J. Pa. Siew and Williams 2008). as core materials.J. most of these products have yet to be commercialized... and decanol:hexadecane blends) and emulsiﬁer type (gum acacia compared with Tween 20) on particle growth in emulsions over time. ester gum was obtained from J. senegal). emulsions based on decanol and stabilized with Tween 20 were stable in the concentrated form but not on dilution..
The MDD of each emulsion concentrate was measured on days 0. 2010 Results and Discussion In searching for a reliable. Visual observations of ringing. Any beverage that formed a ring on storage was considered unstable. Hudson. Mass. The results were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The effects of each emulsiﬁer in the beverage emulsion concentrates were examined by following changes in mean droplet diameter (MDD) and by visual observations of ringing. including 3 gum acacias.. Although this method was chosen for its simplicity. Measurements were recorded using the value (termed MDD throughout manuscript) corresponding to the D[4. Since the added dye increased the absorbance tremendously.. Changes in turbidity of beverages. A 1:1 ratio of oil to ester gum was used to prepare the weighted oil before emulsiﬁcation into starch or gum solutions. The concentrates were mixed before an aliquot was removed and diluted into the beverage base. was investigated using 2 different core materials (orange oil terpenes and Miglyol 812). Va.5% emulsion and were used for the ringing and turbidity tests. and 5 bottles were prepared with 2% emulsion in order to obtain an obscuration sufﬁciently high to permit particle size analysis. Fisher’s least signiﬁcant difference (LSD) test. sodium benzoate (0. Both the beverage concentrates and the resulting beverages were checked for signs of ringing during storage.S. 3 modiﬁed starches. The lower limit of size identiﬁcation for this instrument is 0.. Newton. citric acid (0.. slight variation in sampling technique can often lead to poor reproducibility. as well as when diluted in corresponding model beverages.05. Visual appearance was assessed by means of the so-called “ringing” test.H.S. All starches and gum acacias were thoroughly mixed with distilled water using an overhead mixer prior to homogenization. indicating particle instability (Figure 1).) at a pressure of 13000 psig.Y. They were evaluated for changes in MDD. E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties Beverage preparation Beverages were made from emulsion concentrates 3 d after emulsion preparation according to the following formulation: sucrose (10%). Digital photographs were also taken at each time interval to document any changes.Stability of beverage cloud emulsions . Statistical analysis of particle size data was performed on both emulsion concentrates and beverages. middle): they looked as if they were pseudo bimodal distributions (more will be said about the particle size distributions later in the manuscript). To prepare the dilution. 1. and 3. Spectronic Instruments. MDD was determined using a Mastersizer S (Malvern Instruments. Seven 8 oz. all samples had to be diluted in order to be able to read the absorbance. Granulated Yellow #6 was added by weight to the starch/gum solutions and was thoroughly mixed. U. Rochester.1%). Inc. respectively. Southborough. Of the gum acacias.50 μm and the upper size limit is 900 μm. In an attempt to visualize rings more easily. 5. and 2 storage temperatures (25 and 35 ◦ C). The gum acacia-based emulsions were unimodal in shape. .S. for example.. Microﬂuidics Corp.) at a wavelength of 400 nm. samples were gently mixed (by turning bottles upside-down twice) and then poured into the sample collector until an obscuration of 20% to 25% was reached.A. daily for 3 d and once per week over 4 wk. Stability of beverages and beverage emulsions was studied over.S. The emulsions were mixed before sampling. The MDD of the orange terpene emulsion concentrates on day 0 ranged from 0. now Milton Roy. by monitoring changes in MDD using laser light diffraction. Nr.A. emulsion was added dropwise to the sample collector until the required obscuration was reached. Change in turbidity over time was measured using a spectrophotometer (Spectronic 20. the Ticamulsion product gave a slightly wider particle size distribution than the other gums. U..6).3] volume/mass moment mean (Malvern Instruments 2009) also known as the De Brouckere mean diameter.) at 6000 to 7000 rpm for 2 min.3% or pH 3. N.5% or 2%). All statistical analysis was performed using Statgraphics Centurion XV statistical software (Herndon. economic.A. and high-quality alternative to A. U. Particle size analysis Orange terpene-based concentrated emulsions. U. The performance of these hydrocolloids in emulsion concentrates. Distilled water served as the blank. 75. Emulsion concentrates. generally exhibiting a relatively tight particle size distribution (Figure 2. Beverages were kept in both 22 and 35 ◦ C storage and analyzed weekly for 4 wk.s. unfortunately. beverage emulsion (0. the presence of ringing. . All emulsion samples were analyzed in duplicate.65 μm to 0. Beverage emulsion stability Particle size analysis. and 1 modiﬁed gum acacia. made in duplicate for each oil.) at an obscuration of between 20% and 25%.64 μm for the modiﬁed starches (Figure 1). whereas those based on starches exhibited increases at both temperatures. One bottle was used for each week of particle size analysis so as not to disturb the emulsions during continued storage. formerly Bausch & Lomb. and formation of any undesirable ringing based on visual observation. Following homogenization. . beverages were also stored in glass Babcock bottles. respectively) were the only data chosen for statistical analysis. individual treatments were compared using E238 Journal of Food Science r Vol. Data collected from the end of each storage period (day 3 and week 4. respectively. to 100%).. The preemulsions were prepared by slowly adding the weighted oil to the starch or gum solution using a high-shear mixer (Greerco Corp.A. Rings that formed were easily identiﬁed since they were white in contrast to the dyed solution.) at a signiﬁcance level of α = 0. All samples were then homogenized by passing them once each through a Microﬂuidizer R (Model M-110Y. this did not help. all emulsions were stored in test tubes at both 22 and 35 ◦ C and analyzed on days 0. 1. N.. 4 wk and 3 d. To determine the MDD. A white ring appears at the neck of the bottle when sufﬁcient creaming has occurred in a beverage.95 μm for the gum acacia products and from 0. The gum acacia-based emulsions showed no increase in MDD over 3 d at either storage temperature. All of the modiﬁed starches yielded emulsions with a much broader particle size distribution and a nearly ﬂat top to the peak distribution (Figure 2. and then diluted 1:10 with distilled water. top). Beverages. and 3 (at both 22 and 35 ◦ C). loss in turbidity. 1 mL of beverage was carefully pipetted from the bottom of each bottle so as not to disturb the sample. All samples were analyzed in duplicate. To measure the MDD of beverages. Where there were signiﬁcant differences. plastic bottles were prepared from each emulsion: 2 bottles were prepared with 0. The oil and starch/gum solutions were at room temperature when mixed. different emulsiﬁer usage levels (recommended and higher). senegal for use in stabilizing beverage cloud emulsions. Mass. and distilled water (q. and changes in overall appearance. U.72 μm to 1.S. loss of turbidity by spectrophotometry. a number of hydrocolloids were evaluated.A.
In contrast. 2010 r Journal of Food Science E239 E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties c b . For example. senegal. although it was signiﬁcantly larger than the gum acacia products by day 3 (P < 0. 75. Eﬁcacia 16%. Storage temperature apparently did not affect the gum acaciabased emulsions. senegal. as they showed no change in MDD at either temperature (data not shown). Series with different letters denote signiﬁcant differences between samples at day 3 (P < 0.06 μm. The initial MDD of the orange terpene emulsion-based beverages ranged from 0. senegal. Purity Gum 1773 (PG 1773) had an initial MDD of 1. it appeared that modiﬁed gum acacia was comparable in stability to gum acacia products based on A.96 μm for the gum acacias and from 0. Note: a = A. .05). Modiﬁed gum acacia at either usage level showed no statistical differences from the other 3 gum acacia products after 3 d of storage at either temperature (P > 0.2 2.8 d Figure 1–MDD of orange terpene-based emulsion concentrates over 3 d of storage at 22 ◦ C.92 μm to 1. whereas after 4 wk it had an MDD of 1. Orange terpene-based beverages. Alternatively.6 0 1 2 3 4 Days of Storage During the 3 d of storage. }a 0. which is generally considered small enough to permit stable beverage emulsions (Reineccius 2006). middle compared with bottom). there are numerous data points supporting this result. The MDD of the emulsion concentrates based on modiﬁed starches tended to increase slightly during storage (Figure 1) although the particle size distribution remained similar (Figure 2. the MDD of the modiﬁed starch systems decreased to a greater or lesser extent over 4 wk (again retaining approximately the same particle size distribution as was observed in the freshly made concentrate—data not shown). Similar effects were seen in 35 ◦ C storage (data not shown). Ticamulsion 7%. Vol.2 1. Similar as was observed for the emulsion concentrates. It was also observed that Purity Gum 2000 (PG 2000) had an MDD of <1 μm. senegal Efic 16% Efic 7% Tica 16% Tica 7% PG2000 Bev101 PG1773 Mira Mist 2. We propose that this may be due to loss of hydrocolloid from the surface of particle droplets once placed in Figure 2–Typical particle size distributions of freshly prepared terpenebased emulsion concentrates (top: A. albeit the Bev101 product did show a very slight decrease. Nr. and Ticamulsion 16%.28 μm. 5. the modiﬁed starch emulsions increased their MDD at a slightly faster rate in 35 ◦ C storage compared with storage at 22 ◦ C (Figure 3). . the MDD and particle size distribution of the gum acacia products did not change during the (4 wk) storage period. However.6 1. this apparent anomaly could arise from an and an aged emulsion (bottom: Purity Gum 2000 at 3 d). Since this phenomenon was observed across duplicate samples and at both temperatures.65 μm to 0. A. at either temperature.8 e 1. MDD (um) 1.0 0.0 Mean Droplet Diameter. middle: Purity Gum 2000) a dilute solution compared to the situation in the emulsion concentrate.05).88 μm for the modiﬁed starches (Figure 4).05).Stability of beverage cloud emulsions . Eﬁcacia 7%.4 1.
.0 0. 75. and ab = Ticamulsion 16% and Ticamulsion 7%. However. Dluzewska and others (2005) also produced emulsions using PG 2000 (8%.8 e 1. instrumental issue. a direct relationship between MDD and particle Mean Droplet Diameter.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 d c bc ab a A. but it was statistically different from all of the unmodiﬁed gum acacia products.0 1.5 μm.0 1. However.05). Days of Storage 2.4 1. w/w) and essential oil with an initial MDD of <1 μm.Stability of beverage cloud emulsions . Furthermore.8 0. Since the particle size cutoff for this instrument is 0. senegal. Concerning the appropriate usage level of the 2 specialty gum acacias. .0 0. although the methodology for producing the emulsions (that is. might be an acceptable substitute for A. Note: a = A. since the MDD remained at <1 μm throughout storage.5 μm in dia during storage (at which point they would be counted) this might be expected to skew the MDD just enough to show an overall decrease in comparison to the actual increase in MDD that likely occurred in the modiﬁed starch-based emulsions. 2010 . although all results were statistically similar to each other (P > 0. MDD (um) Mean Droplet Diameter. The work of these 2 groups supports the ﬁndings of the present study. Tesch and others (2002) were able to produce stable emulsions of PG 2000 (5%. The MDD of emulsions made with the modiﬁed starch PG 2000 was statistically similar to both usage levels of modiﬁed gum acacia Ticamulsion (7% and 16%) as well as to the gum acacia blend Bev101. For example.8 0. use/type of weighing agent. Weeks of Storage E240 Journal of Food Science r Vol. To expand upon the inﬂuence of these emulsiﬁers on particle size distribution.8 1.6 1.2 1. in particular. in the event of such under-sized particles growing to above 0.2 2.6 1.6 0 1 2 3 4 Mira Mist 35°C Mira Mist 22°C PG1773 35°C PG1773 22°C PG2000 35°C PG2000 22°C Figure 3–Effect of temperature on the MDD of starch-based emulsion concentrates (orange terpenes) over 3 d of storage. senegal Efic 16% Efic 7% Tica 16% Tica 7% PG2000 Bev101 PG1773 Mira Mist Figure 4–MDD of beverages prepared with orange terpene-based emulsions over 4 wk of storage at 22 ◦ C.2 1. and so forth) varies greatly among studies. Nr. These emulsions were not particularly stable though and MDD increased to approximately 2 μm over 12 wk of storage. 5. usage level of starch and oil. it was determined that Eﬁcacia and Ticamulsion at 16% had smaller MDDs throughout the 4 wk compared with results seen at the 7% usage level. PG 2000 does appear to exhibit characteristics of a stable emulsion. homogenization pressure. Series with different letters denote signiﬁcant differences between samples at week 4 (P < 0.4 1. senegal.05). Eﬁcacia 16% and Eﬁcacia 7%. so direct comparisons are not possible. particles with a diameter smaller than this will not be observed initially. w/w) and vegetable oil with an MDD of 1 μm. several studies have already shown that PG 2000. MDD (um) E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties 2.2 2.
6 0 1 2 3 4 e A. Eﬁcacia (7% and 16%) and Ticamulsion (7% and 16%) in both the emulsion concentrates and beverages. the Miglyol-based emulsions would be greater in density than the equivalent orange terpene-based emulsions. In order to help explain the data obtained.74 to 3. For example. and de = Eﬁcacia 7% and Ticamulsion 7%. The emulsiﬁers that had slightly larger MDD values also had wider particle size distributions.545 × 10−2 7.13665 0. With the addition of ester gum. both oils increase in viscosity (Chanamai and McClements 2000) with Miglyol becoming extremely viscous. the Miglyol was much less soluble and generally more polar than the orange terpenes. Series with different letters denote signiﬁcant differences between samples at day 3 (P < 0.30. Chanamai and McClements Table 2–Predicted solubility and polarity values for selected components of Miglyol 812 and orange terpenes.667 × 10−3 4. MDD (um) 1.04569 6.86732 5. PG 2000 had SDs of 0.0 0. one would expect the Miglyol-based emulsions to be relatively stable to Oswald ripening but potentially more susceptible to coalescence than the emulsion made based on orange terpenes. we considered it necessary to evaluate the performance of these emulsiﬁers with emulsions made with both Miglyol and orange terpenes. it is necessary to consider the solubility and polarity of these 2 oil phases (see predicted values listed in Table 2). Its viscosity without ester gum is in the range of 27 to 33 mPa·s whereas orange terpenes have a viscosity of approximately 1.) A possible reason for the larger MDD is the higher viscosity of Miglyol.05.90 × 10−13 to 6.05). while Mira Mist had a very wide distribution with initial average SDs of 1.364 × 10−1 Polarityc 0. Since the literature has shown that the type of oil phase may strongly inﬂuence the efﬁcacy of an emulsiﬁer. c Orange terpenesa b Solubility (g/L) 6.6 1.97561 1. 2x C8 3x C8 (Tricaprylin) 3x C10 (Tricaprin) 3x C12 (Trilaurin) a Proportions of components b Klopman and Zhu (2001). (In contrast.4 1. senegal Efic 7% Efic 16% Tica 7% Tica 16% Bev101 PG1773 PG2000 Mira Mist Figure 5–MDD of Miglyol-based emulsion concentrates over 3 d of storage at 22 ◦ C.801 × 10−3 2.5998 × 10−10 4. The Miglyol we used was a blend of MCTs ranging in solubility from 4.858 × 10−2 1. . 75.Stability of beverage cloud emulsions . 2010 r Journal of Food Science E241 E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties .60551 listed in Materials and Methods section.8 0. Hansen (2007).47 for the beverage. In the present study. Based on the literature cited previously.2 2.61 to 6. size distribution (expressed as standard deviation [SD] of the particle size distribution in this article) is well documented in the literature (McClements 1999). Miglyol 812a Triglyceride component 1x C6 . Of the modiﬁed starches. a wider distribution indicates a more polydisperse emulsion that is likely to be less stable than a narrowly distributed and monodisperse emulsion having the same MDD.4453 × 10−6 6. 5.2 1. 2. . The relationship between viscosity and efﬁcient droplet disruption during homogenization is that droplets become increasingly more difﬁcult to disrupt when the viscosity ratio (dispersed viscosity [ηD]/continuous viscosity [ηC]) is greater than 5 (Walstra 1996.8 1.735612 0. which might be expected to offer greater rather than lesser stability for the former. The MDDs of the concentrated emulsions made with Miglyol were greater than the corresponding emulsions made with orange terpenes. Note: bc = Purity Gum 2000 and Ticamulsion 16%. The orange terpenes contained components ranging in solubility from 2. Essentially.798991 3. This would tend to make Miglyol-based emulsions less stable than orange terpene-based emulsions. Miglyol-based concentrated emulsions.13 for the concentrate and 0. Thus. The initial SD of the distribution for these emulsiﬁers was 0.3 mPa·s.13 or less.45 × 10−6 g/L and polarities from 4. The higher polarity of the Miglyol would result in poorer interaction with the emulsiﬁers and thereby gives lesser protection against coalescence relative to the orange terpene-based emulsions (Chanamai and others 2002).0 f Mean Droplet Diameter. PG 1773 was “pseudo” bimodal in distribution.70848 6. PG 2000 yielded the smallest MDD and narrowest particle size distribution. senegal.84957 4.31 for the beverage.38 for the emulsion concentrate and 1.8990 × 10−13 Polarity c Orange oil component Limonene Myrcene α-Pinene Sabinene n-Octanal Solubilityb (g/L) 5.87: a material which is extremely insoluble and yet is relatively polar.36 × 10−1 g/L and polarities ranging from 0. Bev101 had an average initial SD of 0. Nr. } de cd } bc b a Days of Storage Vol. both small MDD values and narrow distributions were observed for A.2537 × 10−7 5.67 × 10−3 to 7.
as shown in Figure 8. the very low solubility of Miglyol works against Ostwald ripening being the cause of instability. however. Bev101. it also had the narrowest distribution (<0. middle: Ticamulsion 16%. 5. as discussed earlier. 2010 .) Using either Eﬁcacia or A. 2000). While we recognize that MDD is not an infallible predictor of long-term emulsion stability. we do not have a deﬁnitive explanation for this ﬁnding. PG 2000 had a surprisingly small MDD. Mira Mist and Bev101 exhibited this behavior. we suggest how these different emulsiﬁers may affect the stability of cloud emulsions based on the MDD they produce. The distributions were wider overall compared to those of the orange terpene-based emulsions presented earlier in this article. but it remained at that same size throughout the 3-d storage period. The initial MDD for the Mira Mist beverage was the largest at 2. senegal and with a mean value statistically similar to the latter. Similar to the results observed in the case of orange terpene-based beverages. Additionally. . E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties Changes in turbidity Orange terpene-based emulsions in beverages. 1. Indication of long-term stability based on the initial MDD. MDD is commonly determined after manufacturing to predict emulsion stability. The major difference in Miglyol-based emulsions is that although PG 2000 was the 3rd smallest. in some samples the measured MDD values of Miglyol-based beverages decreased during storage. senegal (P < 0.20 for Eﬁcacia (16% usage level) to 2. For the orange terpene-based emulsions. bottom: Mira 4 wk storage period. Unfortunately.16 μm over the course of 3 d storage at 22 ◦ C. Nr. E242 Journal of Food Science r Vol. and Mira Mist (Figure 9) produced the largest initial MDDs. Using Mira Mist as emulsiﬁer resulted in particles with a much larger mean dia. All of the emulsions were relatively stable over 3 d of storage at 22 ◦ C. The initial MDD of the Miglyol-based emulsion concentrates ranged from 0. which increased to 2.86 μm. As shown earlier. Emulsiﬁer performance (based on MDD) is similar for Miglyol (see Figure 10) although the absolute values (MDD) are slightly higher. PG2000 yielded the smallest MDD of all starch products tested. being statistically similar to that of A. all of the orange terpene-based beverages decreased in turbidity (measured at 400 nm) at both temperatures.30 μm. (However. it increased slightly over time as discussed earlier. PG 1773. A 2nd factor may be the rate at which the emulsiﬁer comes to the lipid:water interface thereby affording protection against coalescence. For example. as noted above. Looking at the results from the storage study. The MDDs of the emulsions in beverages stored at 35 ◦ C were very similar to those stored at 22 ◦ C (data not shown). The initial SDs (of particle size distributions) of both the Miglyol concentrates and beverages ranged from 0. being larger only than Eﬁcacia (16% usage level) and A. Ticamulsion (7% usage level) also appears to have a larger MDD in Miglyol-based emulsions. Over the Figure 6–Initial particle size distributions of Miglyol-based emulsion concentrates (top: Ticamulsion 7%. The particle size distributions of these emulsions were very broad with signiﬁcant proportions of the distribution extending to a droplet dia of 10 um (Figure 6). the MDD of the starch-emulsiﬁed products did increase slightly over time at both temperatures (see Figure 7).Stability of beverage cloud emulsions . Overall. Eﬁcacia (at 16%) had the smallest MDD for both the Miglyol emulsions and beverages. 75. The emulsiﬁers giving the very low initial MDDs likely did so due to their relatively high afﬁnity for the Miglyol phase thereby rapidly moving to the interface and limiting coalescence. we did not gather any data on interfacial tension or rate of change of this factor across emulsiﬁers or oil types so we cannot offer any insight into the role of this factor in causing a larger MDD at the time of manufacture. these are the 3 emulsions that increased the most in MDD during storage in concentrated form.33 μm for all emulsiﬁers except Mira Mist (see Figure 5).49 μm at 22 ◦ C.20 for Mira Mist illustrating the dispersion in the particle size distribution of these emulsions.13). with the rest of the emulsiﬁers producing beverages having MDD values ranging from 0. Mist). storage of the gum acacia emulsions at the higher temperature had little effect on the MDD (data not shown). . In addition.05).99 μm to 1. which demonstrates that it is likely the emulsiﬁer to produce the most stable emulsions. Miglyol-based beverages. In contrast. Eﬁcacia (at the 16% usage rate) was the only emulsiﬁer that produced an emulsion with an MDD of <1 μm. The broad dispersion of the distribution made it difﬁcult to determine if Oswald ripening or coalescence was the primary mode of instability. Again.89 μm to 1. senegal as emulsiﬁers (in each case at the 16% usage rate) produced the smallest observed MDD values of the gum acacia-based emulsions. In the industry.
5 1. and Ticamulsion (7%) concentrated emulsions after 2 wk of storage.3 2. 2010 r Journal of Food Science E243 E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties Visual observations of ringing Orange terpene-based emulsions and beverages. However. Although Ticamulsion beverages (at both usage levels) had very small MDDs.8 0. MDD (um) 1.4 1. This turns out to be consistent with our previous work (Reineccius and Reiner 2008) that found the turbidity of Miglyol-based emulsions to be fairly constant over time and not greatly affected by an increase in temperature. ringing appeared in the Mira Mist. Dluzewska and others (2005) previously noted that gum acacia was able to form beverages with higher turbidity than those based on modiﬁed starch. Eﬁcacia (7% usage level).Stability of beverage cloud emulsions . Ticamulsion . Series with different letters denote signiﬁcant differences between samples at week 4 (P < 0. and Eﬁcacia (at both 7% and 16% usage rates) were more turbid initially and throughout storage compared with the starches and also compared with Ticamulsion (used at 7% or 16%) as indicated in Figure 11. Interestingly.0 0. they were less cloudy overall in comparison to the other gum acacia products.6 0 1 2 3 4 Mira Mist 35°C Mira Mist 22°C PG1773 35°C PG1773 22°C PG2000 35°C PG2000 22°C Figure 7–Effect of temperature on the MDD of starch-based emulsion concentrates (Miglyol) over 3 d of storage.7 1. which were stable during storage. 5. there was little change in overall turbidity at either storage temperature (see Figure 12). senegal. At 35 ◦ C. senegal Efic 7% Efic 16% Tica 7% Tica 16% Bev101 PG1773 PG2000 Mira Mist Figure 8–MDD of beverages prepared with Miglyol-based emulsions over 4 wk of storage at 22 ◦ C. Bev101. MDD (um) 1.9 a 0. . Bev101. indicating emulsion instability.2 1.6 1. Miglyol-based emulsions in beverages. Days of Storage 2. Such differences in turbidity reﬂect the greater or smaller MDD values of these emulsions.9 1. 2. The ring appeared in the Mira Mist emulsion concentrate after just 1 wk of storage.05).0 Mean Droplet Diameter. e de cd bcd bc ab Weeks of Storage Vol.3 1. Note: bcd = Ticamulsion 16% and Bev101. . while rings appeared in the case of Eﬁcacia (7%) and Ticamulsion (7%) by week 2 and for Bev101 (3rd) by week 3. The Mira Mist had the largest MDD.1 0. the MDD data for these concentrates would not have predicted this order of ringing (Figure 9). However. Eﬁcacia (7%). and Mira Mist all showed ringing in the concentrates. Nr. none of the other emulsion concentrates showed ringing. At 22 ◦ C. Bev101 had the 3rd largest.8 1. Ticamulsion (7%).7 0 1 2 3 4 5 A.2 2. In beverages made using Miglyol-based cloud emulsions. A.1 f Mean Droplet Diameter. 75.
all Miglyol-based beverages had formed clearly visible rings in the neck of the bottle (see Figure 13). with Eﬁcacia (7%) and Ticamulsion (7%) actually forming rings on day 1. and Eﬁcacia (7%) had the 7th largest MDD. at either storage temperature. It seems somewhat surprising that ringing was not observed in the Mira Mist beverages. All other concentrates began forming rings between day 3 and week 1 (at 22 ◦ C). Figure 10–MDD of Miglyol-based emulsion concentrates at T = 0. the apparent thickness of the ring in the beverage corresponded more or less to the thickness of the ring in the concentrated emulsion. 5. the rate of creaming in emulsions made using Miglyol was much faster than in emulsions made using orange terpenes as core material. Figure 8) and a tighter particle distribution (no particles >3 um) than the other starch products (substantial proportion of particles up to 10 um) (see Figure 14). yielded the thinnest ring of all starches. the greater instability of Miglyol-based emulsions might nonetheless be predicted based on their larger MDD values and very broad particle size distributions. No ringing was observed in the beverages. the emulsions were not very stable in concentrated form to ringing.95 g/cm3 ) being much closer to that of water than is that of orange terpenes (typically 0. For example. PG 2000. Clearly. at 35 ◦ C storage.) However. This would not be expected based on the speciﬁc gravity of Miglyol (0. Nr. the only emulsion concentrate that did not form a ring was that based on Eﬁcacia (16%). . E244 Journal of Food Science r Vol.Stability of beverage cloud emulsions . (Note this emulsion concentrate had the smallest MDD of all emulsion concentrates [Figure 10]. Interestingly. By week 1. . At 22 ◦ C. 2010 .94 to 0. 75. Miglyol-based emulsions and beverages.89 g/cm3 ). Mira Mist gave the thickest ring in both cases and had the largest MDD and broadest particle size distribution E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties Figure 9–MDD of orange terpene-based emulsion concentrates at T = 0. considering the very large MDD and wide particle size distribution of this emulsion. The beverage containing the modiﬁed starch. their broad particle size distributions. However. which is likely the result of having the smallest MDD (of the starches. ringing became evident even earlier. In general. (7%) had the 5th largest. which most likely is due to their MDD values being >1 μm in all samples except Eﬁcacia (16%) and as noted earlier.85 to 0. irrespective of which hydrocolloid emulsiﬁer was used. At 35 ◦ C. even this system displayed a faint ring.
however. Ticamulsion 16%. senegal also yielded a thin ring in the beverage (2nd smallest MDD). results showed that all gum acacia products investigated yielded superior emulsion stability in Figure 11–Changes in turbidity occurring in beverages containing orange terpene-based clouds over 4 wk of storage at 22 ◦ C.80 Absorbance at 400 nm 0. 5. senegal. while Eﬁcacia (16%) produced a very thin ring in the beverage at either storage temperature. Left to right: A.90 0. 0.) A.55 0.85 0. Eﬁcacia 7%. Purity Gum 1773. Nr.90 0.75 0. Eﬁcacia (16% usage level) appeared to be the most effective emulsiﬁer for controlling creaming in Miglyol-based emulsions.45 0 1 2 3 4 5 Weeks of Storage 0. Vol. .65 0.70 0. Ticamulsion 7%.75 0. Conclusions For all of the emulsions studied. bottom). Weeks of Storage Figure 13–Ringing observed in Miglyol-based beverages stored at 22 ◦ C. Eﬁcacia 16%. but also on the type of oil used as core material.50 0.45 0 1 2 3 4 5 A. 75. physical stability was found to depend not only on the speciﬁc emulsiﬁer employed. Overall. The MDD of emulsions made with orange oil terpenes was consistently smaller than in the case of emulsions made using MCTs (Miglyol). and Mira Mist.50 0.60 0.70 0. senegal Efic 7% Efic 16% Tica 7% Tica 16% Bev101 PG1773 PG2000 Mira Mist Figure 12–Changes in turbidity occurring in beverages containing Miglyol-based clouds over 4 wk of storage at 22 ◦ C.60 0.Stability of beverage cloud emulsions .55 0.65 0. (Figure 14.80 Absorbance at 400 nm 0. Overall.85 0. Purity Gum 2000. . although the ring formed in the concentrate was thicker than in the case of the Eﬁcacia (16%) concentrate. 2010 r Journal of Food Science E245 E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties Bev101 Efic 7% A. (Note the Eﬁcacia 16% had the smallest MDD of all emulsiﬁers and a tight particle size distribution. The result of larger MDD was evidenced by the occurrence of creaming in all Miglyolbased beverages. senegal Efic 16% Tica 7% Tica 16% PG1773 PG2000 Mira Mist . Bev101.
Electron J Pol Agric Univ 7(2).C. The role of the proteinaceous component on the emulsifying properties of gum arabic. D. Hicks KB. 2005. com/ ProcessEng/ systems/ laser_ diffraction/ technology/ technology. org/ INTAFRMDTF/ Resources/ Gum_ Arabic_ Policy_ Note. 378 p. editors. Tesch S. Cambridge. and techniques. Policy note: export marketing of gum arabic from Sudan.K. Stabilization of emulsions by OSA starches. N. Al-Assaf S.).: CRC Press.Y. J Agric Food Chem 48(11):5561–5. 1997. 2002. Fla. J Agric Food Chem 44(5):1308–13. Unpublished data. New York.S. Comparison of sugar beet pectin.J. Tan CT. comparison to that achieved using the modiﬁed starches. Food Hydrocoll 21(7):1022–30. editor.htm. Yadav MP. Ishihara S. E: Food Engineering & Physical Properties Figure 14–Typical particle size distributions of 4-wk-old Miglyol-based beverages (22 ◦ C) (top: Purity Gum 1773. Dept. 2002. Walstra P. 2006. Accessed July 24. Kim YD. Corn ﬁber gum: a potential gum arabic replacer for beverage ﬂavor emulsiﬁcation. Laser diffraction technology focus.A. 2008. Dluzewska E. Reineccius GA. Available from: http://www. Washington. Gitlitz J. Mahendran T. Phillips GO. E246 Journal of Food Science r Vol. Purity Gum 2000 was the better performer.Y. 75. Morr CV. 2008. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41(2):439–45. Nishinari K. p 318–22. Stabilization of model beverage cloud emulsions using protein-polysaccharide electrostatic complexes formed at the oil-water interface. Anderson DMW. In: Flavor chemistry and technology. 2001. Effect of concentration. Of the 2 modiﬁed starches examined. In: Friberg SE. Chemical investigation of the structural basis of the emulsifying activity of gum arabic. U. 2009. 544 p. p 491–524. . of Minnesota. Gruppen H. Schenz TW. Malvern Instruments. Kakuda Y.A.: Container Recycling Institute. Inﬂuence of oil polarity on droplet growth in oil-in-water emulsions stabilized by a weakly adsorbing biopolymer or a nonionic surfactant. U. Nakauma M. Inc. Al-Assaf S. 2010 . Arland T. Food emulsions: principles. 1988. Cui W. In: Fennema OR. Carbohydr Polym 14:373–83. a key ingredient for many commercial products. Role of protein and ferulic acid in the emulsiﬁcation properties of sugar beet pectin. 2008. Phillips GO. U.) for their generous gifts of emulsiﬁers. J Agric Food Chem 56(11):4164–71. Horn G.S. 2009.K. Eﬁcacia (at a usage rate of 16%) and A.J. McClements DJ.: CRC Press. senegal were the best performing gum acacias in both oil systems. McClements DJ. water everywhere: the growth of non-carbonated beverages in the United States. middle: Purity Gum 2000. 2007a. N.A. N. Leszczynski K. Food Hydrocoll 22(7):1254–67. Tate & Lyle (Decatur. Food Hydrocoll 21(2):297–308. Malvern. . Available from: http://www. 3rd ed.waterwater.C. 2007. bottom: Mira Mist).. Univ. McClements DJ. for permission to publish this work. 2009. Huang X.Stability of beverage cloud emulsions .: Malvern Instruments. J Agric Food Chem 54(17):6419–27. Panasiewicz M. Food emulsions. container. St.. van Boekel MAJS. Ill. D.S. Impact of weighting agents and sucrose on gravitational separation of beverage emulsions. Md.. Microencapsulation properties of gum arabic and several food proteins: liquid orange oil emulsion particles. (Bridgewater. Baldwin TC. 2008. 2002. 5. 1996. Phillips GO.pdf. Boca Raton. Acknowledgments We thank TIC Gums. World Bank. Walstra P. Williams PA. Ward FM. Harnsilawat T. malvern. Fla. (Belcamp. 2006. J Agric Food Chem 54(15):5540–7. 2nd ed. Pongsawatmanit R. editors. 1991.: Dekker.S.: Royal Society of Chemistry. Food chemistry. Klopman G. Modiﬁed hydrocolloids with enhanced emulsifying properties. Reiner SJ. 2nd ed.). worldbank. McClements DJ. 3rd ed. Larsson K. Available from: http://siteresources. Beverage emulsions. 1996.A. 2000. Noda S. p 95–155. 2007. Food Hydrocoll 2(2):131–40. Manuel Igartuburu J. 11. Dickinson E. New insights into the structural characteristics of the arabinogalactan-protein (AGP) fraction of gum arabic. Reineccius GA. Hansen CM. Finally. Effects of protein composition and enzymatic activity on formation and properties of potato protein stabilized emulsions. Zhu H. Accessed July 24. 2007b. Part 1: Effect of the nature of the oil phase on the emulsion droplet-size distribution. New York. U.: CRC Press. 1999. Estimation of the aqueous solubility of organic molecules by the group contribution approach. Hansen solubility parameters: a user’s handbook. In: Williams PA. 2006. Food Hydrocoll 15(4-6):533–42. U.. J Amer Botanical Council 65:25–7. Starch Corp. 2001. Emulsifying behaviour of gum arabic. Kuijpers IJ. Hotchkiss J. Fla. Water. Disperse systems: basic considerations. Funami T. Hydrocolloids in emulsions: particle size distribution and interfacial activity. J Food Eng 54:167–74. 2007. Chanamai R. Minn. Ltd. Boca Raton. J Agric Food Chem 56(19):9269–76. Galazka VB. soybean soluble polysaccharide and gum arabic as food emulsiﬁers. Gums and stabilizers for the food industry.pdf. Washington. N.recycling. U. Boca Raton.: The World Bank. References Chanamai R. van Koningsveld GA. Inc. Schubert H. (Bridgewater. 2005. Voragen AGJ. J Colloid Interface Sci 247:167–76. Effect of gum arabic and modiﬁed starch on stability of beverage emulsions. practice. Sudan war impacts availability of gum arabic. It is noteworthy that Eﬁcacia and Ticamulsion offered better performance when used at 16% in both emulsion concentrates and beverages compared with their recommended 7% usage level. of Food Science & Nutrition. pH and salts on the emulsifying properties. Johnston DB. Phillips GO. Paul. Williams PA. Accessed July 24. Herbal Gram. Siew CK. Williams PA. Randall RC.: Marcel Dekker. Yan Y. we thank the ofﬁcers of Robertet Flavors. p 353–9. Purcell K. Nr. 2009. Natl. Nothnagel EA. Gerhards C. org/ assets/ pdfs/ reports/ 2007. Yadav MP. and Colloides Naturels Intl. Franklin P.). Beverage emulsions.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.