Effects of Varying Homogenization Pressure on the Physical Properties of Vanilla Ice Cream

K. A, S C H M I D T and O. E. S M I T H University of Minnesota Department of Food Science and Nutrition 1334 Eckles Avenue St. Paul 55108 ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

This study was done to determine how various homogenization conditions affect the physical properties of a 10% milk fat vanilla ice cream. The homogenization pressures studied were double stage 281-35; 141-35, 70-35; 35-35 kg/cm 2 (4000-500, 2000-500, 1000-500, and 500-500 psi) and single stage 281; 141; 70 and 35 kg/cm 2 (4000, 2000, 1000, and 500 psi). An unhomogenized sample was also included. Experimental samples made without an emulsifier were compared to a reference sample, homogenized at 141-35 kg/cm 2 (2000-500 psi) containing an emulsifier system. Factors measured included gloss, overrun, stiffness, fat destabilization, and mix viscosity. All experimental samples were determined to be the same as the reference sample for overrun and stiffness. Differences were found for gloss with 281-35 and 281 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 and 4000 psi) samples rated as glossier than the reference sample. Differences were found for fat destahilization, the 281-35 and 281 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 and 400 psi) samples showing less fat destabilization and the unhomogenized sample more fat destabilization than the reference sample. F o r mix viscosity, the 281-35 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 psi) sample was less viscous than the reference sample.

Received October 8, 1987. Accepted September 1, 1987. , Published as Paper Number 15, 631 of the Scientific Journal series of the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station on research conducted under Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Project Number 18-24, supported by Hatch funds. The University o f Minnesota Computer Center also supplied funding for the research. 1989 J Dairy Sci 72:378-384 3 78

In the 1920's, Reid et al. (8, 9) studied the effects of homogenization on the quality of ice cream. Their results showed that homogenization, a process where pressure is applied to a liquid system, is necessary to produce a high quality ice cream. These early workers defined high quality ice cream as having desirable whippability, proper air incorporation, proper overrun, and a viscosity that was not too thick or too thin. With proper homogenization, uniform breakdown of fat globules occurs, ensuring that the ice cream mix and resulting ice cream have the desirable viscosity, overrun, and whippability. Based on their studies, these investigators recommended double-stage homogenization with settings of 176 kg/cm 2 [2500 pounds per square inch (psi)] on the first stage and 35 kg/cm 2 (500 psi) on the second stage. With these pressures, a high quality ice cream would be produced. These pressures are still recommended for the ice cream mix manufacturing industry today (1). In 1949, Snyder (11) proposed the incorporation of commercially prepared emulsifiers into ice cream mix. He recommended using a variety of emulsifiers; such as mono- and diglycerides, polysorbates, and tweens. He theorized that using emulsifiers would disperse fat better, which would result in a more stable mix emulsion as well as a more stable ice cream product. Also, emulsifiers would allow for proper air incorporation and discourage fat clumping as the ice cream is frozen, the end result being a high quality ice cream. In 1958, Keeney and Josephson (4) investigated the function of commercially prepared emulsifiers in ice cream. They found that, as the product was frozen in the batch freezer, emulsifiers aided the fat destabilization in the ice cream. When an emulsifier was used in the ice cream mix, the fat globules would clump together faster, forming small clusters, and the

HOMOGENIZATIONPRESSURE EFFECTS ON ICE CREAM ice cream discharged from the ice cream freezer was "drier" and "stiffer". These two properties are indicative of a good ice cream product. Other physical properties monitored on ice cream included the ice cream mix viscosity, surface tension, fat destabilization, and overrun. Most of Keeney and Josephson's work was done with batch freezers. With a batch freezer, dwell time can be manipulated so that the optimal amount of fat destabilization occurs, producing a high quality ice cream. In a continuous ice cream freezer, dwell times are not so easily changed to produce optimum fat destabilization (2). Thus, emulsifiers are used to enhance fat destabilization. Because homogenization settings can also affect fat globule size and distribution, it has been suggested (5, 12) that different pressures may be used to enhance the fat destabilization process, thus lowering processing or ingredient cost. Therefore, this study was undertaken to determine if ice cream without added emulsifiers and processed at different homogenization pressures would have comparable physical qualities to ice cream manufactured by contemporary procedures and ingredients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Homogenization Pressures

3 79

made under normal manufacturing conditions, was defined as having double-stage homogenization at pressure of 141 and 35 kg/cm 2 (2000500 psi) on first and second stages, respectively, and containing a commercially prepared emulsifier.
Product

To investigate the effects of changes in homogenization pressure on the physical characteristics of vanilla ice cream, a variety of homogenization settings were selected as shown in Table 1. Double-stage, single-stage, and no homogenization treatments were studied. The reference treatment, representing a product

Minimum fat vanilla ice cream products of the compositions shown in Table 2 were used for the experimental and reference ice creams. The only differences between the two formulations were the use of a commercially prepared emulsifier (80% mono- and diglycerides and 20% Polysorbate 80) and the decrease in the amount of water blended into the mix (to compensate for the emulsifer) in the reference sample. Processing. Ingredients were weighed, mixed, and heated to 43C. Thirty-two kilograms of mix were removed from the initial 320-kg batch, and the emulsifier was incorporated into this sample. Each batch was pasteurized at 68.3C for 30 min. After pasteurization, the mixes were homogenized at the stated pressures on a Manton Gaulin homogenizer (Model 12583MF12A-8DSM Everett, MA). Following homogenization, mixes were cooled on a surface heat exchanger to 3C, collected into 37.3-L stainless steel milk cans, and placed in a IC cooler for 2 to 3 h. Mixes were flavored with a Category II vanilla extract (Gold Label Vanilla-Vanillin Extract, Northville Laboratories Inc., Northville, MI). Mixes were frozen in random order in a Cherry Burrell (Model V-301 Cedar Rapids, IA) continuous freezer. Ice cream samples were packaged in two 1.89-L

TABLE 1. Homogenization pressures used to process ice cream mixes. Treatments Single-stage homogenization Double-stage homogenization Unhomogenized Reference 1All pressures are kg/cm~. Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 72, No. 2, 1989 Conditions I

281 281-35

141 (no emulsifier added)

70

35 35-35

141-25 70- 35 (no emulsifier added) Pumped through the homogenizer without pressure applied 141-35 (emulsifier added)

380

SCHMIDT AND SMITH

TABLE 2. Ice cream formulations subjected to various homogenization pressures. Ingredient Experimental (%) Serum solids a Fat 2 Sugar a Corn syrup solids 4 Stabilizer s Emulsifier 6 Water 11% 10.2% 13% 4% .25% .0% 61.5% 11% 10.2% 13% 4% .25% .075% 61.47% Reference

1Nonfat dry milk, Mid America Dairymen Inc., Springfield, MO. 2 Cream, fresh pasteurized, Kohler Mix Specialty, White Bear Lake, MN. 3 Beet sugar, American Crystal Sugar Co., Moorhead, MN. 4 Dry corn syrup solids 36 dextrose equivalent, Grain Processing Co., Muscatine, IA. 5 Locust bean gum 45%, guar gum 45%, carboxymethylcellulose 10%, Germantown Manufacturing Co., Broomall, PA. 6 Mono- and diglycerides 80%, Polysorbate 80 20%, Germantown Manufacturing Co., Broomall, PA.

c o n t a i n e r s and in six .94-L containers. Samples w e r e placed in the - 3 2 C h a r d e n i n g r o o m w h e r e t h e y r e m a i n e d f o r a m i n i m u m of 4 8 h b e f o r e a n y testing was done. Ice c r e a m trials w e r e replicated o n five d i f f e r e n t days to secure d a t a for statistical analysis of t h e v a r i a t i o n b e t w e e n trials ( r e p l i c a t i o n days),

Measurements

Gloss. To evaluate t h e gloss c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e ice c r e a m samples, t h e f o u r e x p e r i e n c e d ice c r e a m m a k e r s w h o m a d e t h e ice c r e a m t h r o u g h o u t t h e e x p e r i m e n t g r a d e d a s a m p l e f r o m each t r e a t m e n t . W h e n h a l f o f each b a t c h was r u n t h r o u g h t h e freezer, a l 1 3 - m l dixie cup was filled w i t h ice cream. T h e ice c r e a m was leveled in t h e cup b y scraping a k i t c h e n spatula, held p e r p e n d i c u l a r t o t h e ice c r e a m surface, across t h e t o p o f t h e cup. T h e f o u r e x p e r i e n c e d ice c r e a m m a k e r s r a t e d t h e sample f o r its gloss c h a r a c t e r on a scale 0 to 5. Z e r o r e p r e s e n t e d an excessively d r y ice c r e a m s a m p l e and 5 repres e n t e d a very glossy, w e t ice c r e a m sample. All e v a l u a t i o n s w e r e m a d e at t h e same l o c a t i o n in t h e p i l o t p l a n t so t h a t lighting differences were n o t an i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r in t h e gloss ratings. Overrun. W h e n packaging t h e ice cream, two 1.89-L c o n t a i n e r s were filled first a n d t h e n t h e six .94-L c o n t a i n e r s were filled. T h e s e c o n d
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 72, No. 2, 1989

1.89-L c o n t a i n e r was used to m e a s u r e overrun. O v e r r u n was m e a s u r e d w i t h a P e l o u z e Ice C r e a m Scale (Model Y80, B r a n s t o n , IL). T h e scale was t a r e d f o r a p a p e r half-gallon c o n t a i n e r . T h e o v e r r u n m e a s u r e m e n t was read and recorded. Stiffness. Stiffness of the ice c r e a m was m e a s u r e d w i t h a recording a m m e t e r . T h e a m m e t e r was c o n n e c t e d in series with t h e m o t o r t h a t t u r n e d t h e d a s h e r in t h e freezer barrel. Since t h e speed o f t h e freezer was k e p t constant throughout the e x p e r i m e n t , the a m m e t e r m e a s u r e d t h e energy necessary to t u r n t h e dasher. T h e stiffer t h e ice cream, t h e m o r e e n e r g y is n e e d e d to t u r n t h e d a s h e r to keep t h e freezer r u n n i n g at a c o n s t a n t speed. T h e maxi m u m peak o f t h e r e c o r d e d a m p e r a g e used f o r e a c h h o m o g e n i z a t i o n t r e a t m e n t was used as t h e stiffness value. Fat Destabilization. F a t d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n was m e a s u r e d as d e s c r i b e d b y K e e n e y a n d J o s e p h son (4). One g r a m o f ice c r e a m m i x or ice c r e a m was w e i g h e d out. A 1 t o 5 0 0 - m l d i l u t i o n was m a d e w i t h distilled water. F r o m this d i l u t i o n , 10 ml was c e n t r i f u g e d using the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C e n t r i f u g e (Model UV, I n t e r n a tional E q u i p m e n t Co., N e e d h a m , MA) at 1000 r p m f o r 5 min. T u b e s were set for 10 m i n at room temperature without agitation and then measured for percent absorbance on a Coleman

HOMOGENIZATIONPRESSURE EFFECTS ON ICE CREAM Junior II Spectrophotometer (Model 6/20) Coleman Instruments, Maywood, IL) at 540 rim. Distilled water was used as the blank and was set at 0 absorbance. Fat destabilization was measured by turbidity as: [(1 - absorbance of the ice cream)/absorbance of the mix] x 100 = % fat destabilization. Duplicate samples were made on both mix and ice cream samples. Values for the mix and ice cream were averaged separately, then fat destabilization was calculated. Viscosity. Mixes were kept at 5C and measured for viscosity within 48 h after production. Viscosity was measured at 5C with a Haake Rotovisco II Viscometer (Haake-Buchler, Saddlebrook, NJ) fitted with a MVII sensor system and a size 50 head. A Haake 86A refrigerated water bath was used to maintain temperatures and a Hewlett Packard plotter (Model 1040A) was used to record viscosity readings. Apparent viscosity was compared at a shear rate of 90 s- 1 . Duplicates were run on all samples and averaged. Microscopic Evaluation. All ice creams were evaluated microscopically for fat globule size and dispersion. Ice creams were evaluated within 72 h after production. A 1-g sample of product was diluted with 4 g of 2C distilled water. The mixture was mixed carefully with a glass stirring rod. A drop was placed on a microscope slide, covered with a cover slip, and viewed under 400x magnification with a Fisher Light Microscope (Micromaster Model E Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA). Photographs of three different fields of each slide were taken. A Nikon F camera with Kodak Plus X film was used for the photographs.
Experimental Design

381

P<~.05, a difference between that homogenization treatment sample and the reference sample would be reported. For gloss, a split plot design was used. The homogenization pressures were the whole plot treatments, the 5 d of replication were the blocks, and the four judges were the split plot treatments. The same analysis procedure just described was used to compare the experimental samples to the reference.
RESULTS

For overrun, stiffness, viscosity, and fat destabilization, the experimental design was set up as a complete randomized block. The 10 different homogenization samples were the treatments and the 5 d of replication were the blocks. Initially, ANOVA (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) was done on the raw data. Homogenization treatments with P>.05 were not analyzed further, and no differences among the treatments were reported. If the homogenization treatment P<.05, further testing was done using a Bonferroni multiple comparison (7) procedure with ~ = .05. If the calculated Bonferroni

Mean scores and their standard errors are shown in Table 3 for viscosity, stiffness, overrun, fat destabilization, and gloss. Pictures of some of the diluted ice creams are shown in Figure 1. Differences in fat globule size and distribution were much more noticeable when extreme homogenization pressure samples were compared. The extreme homogenization pressure samples, reference, 281-35 kg/cm 2, 35 kg/cm 2, and unhomogenized are shown in Figure 1. From the ANOVA results, no differences were found among homogenization treatments (P>.05) for stiffness and overrun. Differences were found (P<.05) for viscosity, fat destabilization, and gloss. Bonferroni tests were done for these characteristics and the results are summarized in Table 3. For viscosity, a difference (P<.01) was found for the 281-35 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 psi) sample only. This sample was less viscous than the reference sample. All other samples had the same viscosity as the reference sample. For fat destabilization, differences were found for three samples: 281-35 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 psi) (P<.01); 281 kg/cm 2 (4000 psi) (.Ol<P<.05); and the unhomogenized sample (.01<P<.05). The 281-35 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 psi) sample and the 281 kg/cm 2 (4000 psi) sample had less fat destabilization than the reference sample, while the unhomogenized had more fat destabilization than the reference sample. All other samples were measured to have the same amount of fat destabilization as the reference sample. The 281-35 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 psi) (P<.01) and the 281 kg/cm 2 (4000 psi) (P<.01) were rated as glossier than the reference sample. All other samples were rated as having the same amount of gloss as the reference sample.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 72, No. 2, 1989

382

SCHM1DT AND SMITH

D ISCUSSI ON

._~ g~ e~ o N

o o

=-

d .=
O

~d

'

U
~d
m
.^

<

The photographs in Figure 1 illustrate the differences between the extreme treatments for fat globule size and distribution. These photographs indicate that different homogenization settings were utilized throughout the study. When the settings are relatively close to each other, there is not much difference in the fat globule size or distribution. Therefore, extreme samples were selected to be shown. Differences in the fat globule size and distribution can be seen between the 281-35 kg/cm 2 sample and 35 kg/cm 2 sample. The 281-35 kg/cm 2 sample has smaller and more fat globules than the 35 kg/cm 2 sample. The unhomogenized sample shows large fat globules that clump together. One sample was found to have a different viscosity than the reference sample. Sample 281-35 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 psi) was less viscous than the reference sample, whereas the remaining samples had the same viscosity as the reference treatment. At the homogenization pressure of 281-35 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 psi), fat globules have smaller diameters than at the lower or lesser homogenization treatments. Viscosity is affected by concentration, temperature, and dispersion of the particles. Because concentration and temperature were held constant throughout the study for alI samples, the factor that caused the viscosity difference was the dispersion of the fat globules. With smaller fat globules, internal resistance is less than with larger fat globules or linear chains of fat globules, thus accounting for the lowered viscosity. Differences for fat destabilization can also be explained by fat globule size and distribution (Figure 1). At high homogenization treatments [e.g., 281-35 kg/cm 2 and 281 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 and 4000 psi)], the fat globules are smaller and more finely dispersed, thus making it difficult to destabilize the emulsion. With large fat globule diameters, as in the unhomogenized sample, fat globules are easily destabilized due to their size and lack of ability to form a fine stable emulsion. Samples treated at higher homogenization pressures were found to have low fat destabilization values, while the unhomogenized showed very high fat destabilization values. Differences were also found for gloss, a reflectance property that is difficult to measure.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 72, No. 2, 1989

HOMOGENIZATIONPRESSURE EFFECTS ON ICE CREAM

383

Figure 1. Milk fat globules in ice cream at 1:4 dilution with distilled water: A) reference sample, 141-35 kg/cm2 with emulsifier; B) unhomogenized; C) 281-35 kg/cm 2 ; D) 35 kg/cm2. 800.

Currently, there is no instrument that has been demonstrated to accurately measure the gloss of a partially frozen food product, even though there are visible differences in the gloss character of partially frozen food (e.g., ice cream), as it is discharged from the freezer. These differences are thought to be dependent on processing conditions, fat destabilization, ingredient choices, etc. Generally, a glossy ice cream product is associated with an ice cream that has poor melting quality (e.g., it melts quickly, which is considered undesirable). Therefore, gloss is an important characteristic to monitor when investigating ice cream processing conditions. Two samples, 281-35 and 281 kg/cm 2 (4000-500 and 4000 psi) had more gloss than the reference sample. Again, these samples have smaller and more dispersed fat globules than the reference sample. Because of the smaller fat globule size and better dispersion, more light may be reflected, thus contributing to the glossy characteristic of these samples. When looking at the mean scores for gloss, the unhomogenized sample also had a relatively high gloss score. This would indicate that increased glossiness does not necessarily correspond to decreased fat destabilization, but rather, at excessive or minimal fat destabilization, ice cream gloss values may be high. No differences were observed for overrun and stiffness. This was attributed to the use of a

continuous freezer. With a continuous freezer, freezer speeds, draw temperatures, and air incorporation can be regulated to produce a consistent product. When a consistent product is made (e.g., freezer speeds, formulations, throughput, etc. remain the same as they did in this study), then overrun and stiffness will not be affected by homogenization pressure, at least not within the pressure range studied. This study showed that stiffness does not appear to be affected by fat globule size, distribution, or fat destabilization. This observation may not hold true if changes in sweeteners, total solids, or draw temperatures occur. These factors are critical in determining the stiffness of discharged ice cream. Because these conditions were held constant throughout the study, it could be concluded that homogenization pressure did not affect the stiffness of the ice cream. From previous studies (5, 6), it has been suggested that stiffness and gloss were dependent on the amount of fat destabilization. In our study, this does not appear to be true. Gloss may have some relation to fat destabilization with less fat destabilization producing a glossier ice cream product. However, there does not appear to be a direct relationship between the amount of fat destabilization and stiffness, indicating that other factors may be more critical in controlling the stiffness characteristic Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 72, No. 2, 1989

384

SCHMIDT AND SMITH perties o f t h e l o w e r h o m o g e n i z a t i o n pressure samples w e r e similar to t h e r e f e r e n c e ice cream.

t h a n fat d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n , such as m i x f o r m u l a tion, freezer o p e r a t i o n , i n g r e d i e n t choices, etc.

Conclusion

H o m o g e n i z a t i o n a f f e c t e d t h e viscosity o f t h e ice cream mix. However, even a t higher h o m o g e n i z a t i o n pressures, w h i c h p r o d u c e a lower viscosity mix, t h e r e were n o difficulties in freezing t h e mix. H o m o g e n i z a t i o n ( b y c h a n g i n g t h e f a t g l o b u l e size and d i s t r i b u t i o n ) a f f e c t e d fat d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n a n d gloss. Higher h o m o g e n i z a t i o n pressures 281-35 and 281 k g / c m 2 ( 4 0 0 0 - 5 0 0 and 4 0 0 0 psi) p r o d u c e d a p r o d u c t t h a t h a d less fat d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n and a glossier a p p e a r a n c e d u e to t h e d i f f e r e n c e in fat g l o b u l e d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d dispersion. T h e o b j e c t i v e was to d e t e r m i n e if c h a n g i n g h o m o g e n i z a t i o n pressures to m a n i p u l a t e t h e f a t globule size a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n could p r o d u c e a p r o d u c t w i t h similar physical p r o p e r t i e s as ice c r e a m m a n u f a c t u r e d u n d e r c u r r e n t c o m m e r c i a l practices. It does seem feasible t h a t decreases in h o m o g e n i z a t i o n pressures m a y allow f o r p r o d u c t i o n o f an e q u i v a l e n t q u a l i t y ice cream. Samples 35-35 k g / c m 2 a n d 35 k g / c m 2 ( 5 0 0 - 5 0 0 psi or 5 0 0 psi) w e r e rated as b e i n g t h e same f o r gloss, o v e r r u n , stiffness, viscosity, a n d fat d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n as t h e r e f e r e n c e sample. L o w e r h o m o g e n i z a t i o n pressures s h o u l d result in an e n e r g y savings f o r t h e ice c r e a m m i x m a n u f a c t u r e r . F r o m this s t u d y it does seem feasible t o l o w e r h o m o g e n i z a t i o n pressures a n d o m i t t h e e m u l s i f i e r to p r o m o t e m o r e fat d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n , thus p r o d u c i n g a n ice c r e a m p r o d u c t t h a t is of similar physical characteristics as one m a n u f a c t u r e d c o m m e r cially. Results r e p o r t e d previously b y S c h m i d t a n d S m i t h (10) i n d i c a t e d t h a t sensory pro-

REFERENCES

1 Arbuckle, W. S. 1984. Mix Processing. Pages 208--238 in Ice cream. 3rd ed. AVI, Westport, CT. 2 FerraI1, A. 1952. Ice cream freezing equipment. Pages 248--279 in Dairy engineering. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 3 Keeney, P. G. 1961. What makes a dry ice cream and why excessive melt resistance and churning are caused. Ice Cream Field 78(1):20, 21, 40--42. Keeney, P. G., and D. V. Josephson. 1958. A measure of fat stability and dryness in ice cream. Ice Cream Trade J. 54(10): 32-36, 64, 98. 5 Kloser, J. J., and P. G. Keeney. 1959. A study of some variables that affect fat stability and dryness in ice cream. Ice Cream Trade J. 55(10):26, 32, 8 6 - 9 2 , 121. 6 Knightly, W. H. 1959. The role of liquid emulsifier in relation to recent research on ice cream emulsification. Ice Cream Trade J. 55(6):24. 7 Neter, J., and W. Wasserman. 1974. Analysis of factor effects Pages 4 8 0 - 4 8 2 in Applied linear statistical models. Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Homewood, IL. 8 Reid, W.H.E., and W. K. Moseley. 1926. The effects of processing on the dispersion of fat in an ice cream mixture. Univ. Missouri Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 91, Univ. Missouri, Columbia. 9 Reid, W.H.E., and G. R. Skinner. 1929. The effects of homogenization at different pressures on the physical properties of an ice cream mixture and the resulting ice cream. Univ. Missouri Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 127, Univ. Missouri, Columbia. 10 Schmidt, K. A., and D. E. Smith. 1988. Effects of homogenization on sensory characteristics of vanilla ice cream. J. Dairy Sci. 71:46. 11 Snyder, W. E. 1949. Emulsifiers are useful. Milk Plant Monthly. 38(6): 30-33, 43, 44. 12 Thomas, E. L. 1981. Structure and properties of ice cream emulsions. Food Technol. 35(1):41, 44, 46, 48.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 72, No. 2, 1989