University of Birmingham

Influence of Ethanol on Emulsions Stabilized by Low Molecular Weight Surfactants Ferreira, Ana C; Sullo, Antonio; Winston, Scott; Norton, Ian T; Norton-Welch, Abigail B

DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.14947 License: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC BY)

Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (Harvard): Ferreira, AC, Sullo, A, Winston, S, Norton, IT & Norton-Welch, AB 2020, 'Influence of Ethanol on Emulsions Stabilized by Low Molecular Weight Surfactants', Journal of Food Science, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 28-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.14947

Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal

General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law.

•Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.

When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

If you believe that this is the case for this document, please contact [email protected] providing details and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate.

Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 dium, provided the original work is properly cited. studies conducted using differentof types emulsifiers or have different shown that combinations the each presence emulsifier reacts of differently ethanol to (BurgaudBrathwaite, & Fairley, Dickinson, & 1990; McClements, Coupland, & 1997; Stainsby, Dickinson, 1989;Nakajima, Narhan, Nabetani, Dickinson, Iwamoto, & Ritzoulis, Liu,both 2001). & proteins For instance, and Povey, when 1999; lowpresent molecular in Xu, weight an (LMW) emulsion it surfactants can are lead to loss of stability (Dickinson rate has been consistentlyDickinson, reported (Dickinson Ritzoulis, & Yamamoto, Golding,Scanlon, & 1998; 2013; Logan, 1999; Radford,Gibis, Fischer, Espinosa Dickinson, & Weiss, & & 2012).per It Golding, is se not 2004; that just influenceson the Zeeb, continuous the the phase stability solubility of(McClements, of 2015). an Various the emulsion, studies emulsifier have butinteraction been also its between published ethanol on needs effect the and to1996; proteins Dickinson, be (Agboola 1987; considered & Dickinson& Dalgleish, & Woskett, Golding, 1988; 1998;Medina-Torres Donnelly, Dickinson et 1987; al., Espinosa 2009),change & it in Scanlon, is, the 2013; therefore,in solvent well quality protein-stabilized known can thatDickinson emulsions have a & enormous (Agboola Woskett, repercussions proteins 1988). & (Dalgleish, As 1997), Dalgleish, ethanol above a30 is certain 1996; to concentration a 40% (usually poorto EtOH), solvent precipitation, the for which proteinsGolding, in 1998). will However, turn not start all causesconcentrations to reactions are instability below aggregate adverse, that (Dickinson in leading causing fact,can & in protein actually precipitation, enhance ethanol 1988). emulsion It stability has (Dickinson beenthe & showed interfacial that Woskett, tension theoil presence between phase of the ethanol (Dickinsondroplet continuous reduces & size phase Woskett, (Medina-TorresStokes’ and 1988) et equation the resulting al., in improves 2009),creaming/sedimentation rates the a which (Espinosa & emulsion smaller according Scanlon, to stability 2013). Other by retarding published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Institute of Food Technologists ´ an, Journal of Food Science ´ alez-Laredo, & Rocha-Guzm Vol. 85, Iss. 1, 2020 doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.14947 r 2019 The Authors. C Formation and stability of food-grade emulsions in the presence of ethanol. , Antonio Sullo, Scott Winston, Ian T. Norton, and Abigail B. Norton-Welch The effect of ethanol on oil-in-water emulsions stabilized with low molecular weight surfactants was investi- ethanol, droplet size, interfacial tension, oil-in-water emulsion, low molecular weight surfactant water as a nonideal mixture from a thermodynamic +

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any me Journal of Food Science

Keywords: Practical Application: Abstract: two phases in order toevidence for reduce the the formulation effect of of stable creaming/sedimentation emulsions and containing improve a stability. range This of study ethanol provides form scientific 0 to 40%. increases. Viscosity measurements showviscosity that the of change the in continuousThe viscosity phase, density of as of the the well continuous final as phase emulsion the decreases is with change the the in addition result of solubility of ethanol of the and the it change is surfactants in possible due to match to the the densities addition of the of ethanol. with different emulsifiers (Tweenmeasurements 20, were carried Tween 80, out. The andthe droplet Lecithin). size addition of of Droplet emulsions ethanol size, stabilized toin viscosity, by the droplet each density, size aqueous of and is the phase interfacial accompanied surfactants showing by studied a tension a decreased minimum decrease with at in a the concentration interfacial of tension ethanol between around water 40%. and oil The as trend the ethanol concentration gated. Oil-in-water emulsions were prepared containing varying percentages of ethanol and sunflower oil, and stabilized In the case of alcoholic products, this requires an understanding Oil-in-water emulsions are ubiquitous dispersed systems present JFDS-2019-0868 Submitted 6/3/2019, Accepted 10/14/2019. Authors Ana C. soluble disperse phase throughcontaining the high concentrations continuous of phase. ethanol,the where In oil the systems solubility in of the aqueous phase increases, an increase in the ripening are affectedconsideration by is the the phenomenona presence of well-known process of Ostwald that Ripening.at involves ethanol. This the the growth is Another expense of of larger important droplets smaller droplets due to the mass transport of as a result,and they stability have ofCalderas, a emulsions Gallegos-Infante, Gonz (McClements, significant 2015; impact2009), Medina-Torres, on so the it preparation is important to determine how these properties Stainsby, 1987; Khattab, Bandarkar,Properties, Fakhree, & such Jouyban, as 2012). example, viscosity, vary surface considerably with tension, the and addition density, of for ethanol and, 1990). Dickinson and Stainsbyethanol have described thepoint binary system of view,properties of due the mixture to as more the ethanol is nonlinear present (Dickinson changes & of the physical of the effect ofand compositional concentration, parameters, as such as wellsolvent properties surfactant as, of type the the continuous effect phase (Burgaud that & Dickinson, ethanol has on the within an acceptable range is abased key products for with the desired production of properties emulsion- suchand as stability. texture, appearance, in a wide range of food products. Controlling the droplet size 28 Introduction

Ana C. Ferreira Influence of Ethanol on EmulsionsLow Stabilized Molecular by Weight Surfactants Winston are from Diageo,Direct Unit inquiries D to Woodside, author Bishops Ferreira Stortford, (Email: CM23 [email protected]). 5RG, UK. Ferreira, Ian T. Norton,Engineering, and Univ. Abigail of B. Birmingham, Norton-Welch Edgbaston are B14 from School 2TT, of UK. Chemical Authors Sullo and

New Horizons in Food Research ae na es rpiae n r eotda h vrg fthree of average pre- the were as reported Samples are parameter. and triplicates this least at to in volume-weighted refers pared The always otherwise, achieved. stated size was unless droplet and 5% obtained, ob- was an to (D[4,3]) until diameter the 3 mean rpm of of 1300 dis- calculation approximately rate was the at scuration sample water for the distilled used measurement, in was persed For oil distribution. for size 1.467 droplet 1.33 and of small water index manual refractive for A SM attached. Hydro unit a dispersion sample with volume UK) Panalytical, (Malvern 2000 overall the to refer always emulsion. percentages W/W), otherwise (% stated percentage unless weight and a All as percentages. calculated required were the mix- concentrations in by a emulsifier, prepared and with was ethanol, temperature), water, phase Sil- (room ing continuous rpm a The 4000 screen. on at emulsor (SO) min fine oil 10 sunflower for L5M with verson phase continuous premixed a rpe iemeasurements size Droplet preparation Emulsion Materials Methods and Materials selected—Lecithin. was industry, comprehensive food different more the structurally in surfactant, a used third have also a and to effect, ethanol order longer the In of a view has 20. Tween 80 only Tween than where differ length, chain surfactants chain two hydrocarbon These their for emulsion in structure. chosen on chemical 80—were close Tween 80%) their and to two 20 (0 end, surfactants—Tween this To concentrations investigated. LMW is effect ethanol surfactant the food-grade of by article, stabilized emulsions range this simple In a on surfactants. of ethanol LMW of with al., effect solely have the et stabilized studies on (Coupland no published knowledge, interface yet aqueous best the been authors’ the at the with accumulate to However, associated not 1997). only do are and ethanol, phase as molecule small such that indicated alcohols, has More surfactant study 1989). different proteins al., a LMW the et though, recently (Dickinson and the layer layer, secondary and adjacent interfacial an ethanol formed primary the the formed conditions molecules these suggested in been has that it Previously actually emulsions. can of surfactants stability the LMW improve of amount of “modest” combination the a ethanol, with al. proteins of proteins et presence the Dickinson the However, in 2004). with that, showed al., compete (1989) et will (Wilde area they tension interfacial so interfacial for 1999), lower al., a et produce (Dickinson concentrations 2004), al., higher et (Wilde at proteins and surfactants than active LMW surface 2004). more typically Morris, are & the Gunning, by (Wilde, Husband, proteins destabilization the Mackie, competitive of as displacement known process the a to due surfactants, is This 1999). al., et . . . ethanol with Emulsions h ae sdi h rprto faleusoswspassed was system. water emulsions milli-Q a all then of and unit preparation osmosis the reverse a All in modification. through supermarket. or used purification local water further the The no with from used purchased were was materials Sun- UK). (SO) (Lancashire, oil Aesar Lecithin flower Alfa and from pur- UK), purchased were was (Gillingham, 80 (Refined) Ltd and Sigma-Aldrich 20 Tween from (UK), chased Scientific Fisher from chased h rpe iewsmaue yaMlenMseszrMS Mastersizer Malvern a by measured was size droplet The combining by in prepared were emulsions (O/W) Oil-in-water (Absolute, Ethanol ࣙ 98,aayia egn rd)wspur- was grade) reagent analytical 99.8%, u otepeec fehnli h otnosphase. continuous the in in ethanol but of content, decrease presence SO the of the independent to that is due believe instability later to plots and the authors size as droplet the SO leads of percentages which 14.04, overlap, different were the values between observed the be ethanol 12.36 without and systems 13.14, (in SO 45% for efre ntilctsadteaeaevle swl stestan- the as well calculated. as value, was average deviation, were the dard and measurements triplicates All in performed Germany). GmbH, (Kruss Tensiometer swl sasadr eito,wscalculated. was deviation, standard value, a average as an well and as triplicates in performed were measurements nefca measurements Interfacial Density measurements Viscosity months. 10 after and preparation after immediately taken were measurements size Particle measurements. rpe size Droplet Discussion and Results hs vrtehge est hs.Tets a odce over conducted density was lower test the The the phase. between pipetting density mm. interface higher carefully 3 the an by over of phase created detected, depth was been a phases to has two phase surface density the plate higher The Once the method. in plate immersed Wilhelmy was the with Germany), GmbH, – (DE0601 probe measuring s 100 to 0.1 from profile rate shear a geometry gap using double with UK), Panalytical, (Malvern Rheometer bandaon 0 tHi h otnospae ihval- with phase, were continuous sig- values the 5.21 a lowest of in observe the ues EtOH to until 40% possible size around is droplet obtained it the values in 1, on decrease Figure focus nificant In will any ethanol. draw discussion to 45% this authors below reason, the by this used For in be ethanol conclusions. not 45% will above phase obtained continuous results the formulations, showed other irreproducibility the consequent SO, by and ethanol 45% instability containing 45% the formulations above to due the results and for obtain phase to continuous the possible in those not for was reported deviation It standard which samples. high unstable, the became behind eventually reason the and is showed size emulsions droplet the in concen- of increase each At an 40%, ethanol. than 40% higher around ethanol concentration value of trations ethanol minimum a with reach decreases then size to 1 droplet Figure the 20. Tween that 1% this shows with in considered stabilized were not were emulsions 50% The with study. than samples higher emulsion, oil of (W/O) oil- concentrations from water-in-oil inversion, to phase (O/W) of complication in-water 35, the percentages—15, avoid To SO different 45%. three and with ethanol of per- size centages varying droplet containing therefore, samples size, on droplet performed important were the measurements is affects it it how surfactants, determine LMW to by stabilized emulsions (O/W) deviation, standard the as well calculated. as was value, in average performed the were and measurements triplicates All temperature. room at s 3600 nefca eso a esrdo 10Tnimtr(Kruss Tensiometer K100 a on measured was tension Interfacial solid a of consisting set, density a using measured was Density Pro Kinexus a using performed were measurements Viscosity oudrtn h feto tao EO)o oil-in-water on (EtOH) ethanol of effect the understand To µ o 5 O 3.99 SO, 15% for m o.8,Is ,2020 1, Iss. 85, Vol. µ ,rsetvl) osgicn hne can changes significant No respectively). m, ρ = .3 g/cm 2.330 µ r o 5 O n 3.43 and SO, 35% for m ora fFo Science Food of Journal 3 ,o 10Kruss K100 a on ), − 1 ,at25 ° .All C. µ 29 m

New Horizons in Food Research , • 45% m) at around 35, and µ ࢟ ) on the droplet size 15, m) was reached with • µ , and Lecithin ࢟ Figure 1–Comparison of the droplet sizeemulsions of prepared with sunflower oil and 1% Tween 20,of in varying the percentages presence of ethanol (0-55%). Emulsions were prepared on a highand shear droplet mixer size was measured bydiffraction. laser Error bars represent one standard deviation; where not visible error barssmaller are than the symbols. Figure 2–Comparison of the effect ofdifferent three LMW surfactants (1% Tween 20 Tween 80 of emulsions prepared with varying percentages of ethanol (0-55%) and 35% sunflowerNote oil. that it was not possiblebeyond to 40% obtain EtOH results for Lecithin. Emulsionsprepared were on a high shear mixerwas and measured droplet by size laser diffraction. Errorrepresent bars one standard deviation; where not visible error bars are smaller than the symbols. a higher percentage ofAs ethanol previously in seen, after theemulsions the formulation, become smallest around droplet increasingly 46%. size unstable,rapid is as increase achieved, in it the droplet is sizeemulsions observed and stabilized by the with related the Lecithin largelower showed error percentages a bars. larger of The droplet ethanolTween size when 80, at compared but to reach Tween 20 a and similar small size (3.76 meaning that the lower droplet size (3.21 40% ethanol in the continuous phase, like the other surfactants. Vol. 85, Iss. 1, 2020 r Journal of Food Science In order to assert the effect of ethanol on the stability of emul- with those of Tween 20that (see compared Figure 2). with Itdisplays the was a possible previously to similar tested observe behavior, Tween 20, with Tween only 80 a small shift in the trend, pare the results obtainedmercially with other available food-grade – surfactantsformulations Tween com- for 80 35% and SOand Lecithin. were 1% repeated, Lecithin To as but this substitute with surfactants, end, 1% and the Tween the 80 results compared sions stabilized with LMW surfactants, it was important to com- Emulsions with ethanol . . . 30

New Horizons in Food Research g fS rsn.Hwvr twsas osbet bev that observe to possible also was it percent- However, the SO present. with of SO increases of percentages viscosity age the different that and showed 3A) 20 Tween (Figure The 3). with (Figure percentage prepared ethanol rate samples the shear against single plot a ethanol, to of selected effect was the illustrate pur- better to comparison and for poses Therefore, prepared behavior. emulsions Newtonian the a all displayed components, individual the to similarly Viscosity molecules therefore, Both are, and solubility. interface. phase the in continuous from the displaced change in the soluble higher more of ethanol become because of concentrations 40% at unstable than become shown 2, 80, Figure Tween and in ethanol. 20 Tween of by percentages stabilized higher emulsions for Similarly, emulsifier lose cause an to as seems 40% functionality Lecithin than why its explains higher which precipitate, ethanol & to of Lecithin Aserin, Yaghmur, Concentrations 1998; 2002). Gradzielski, Garti, 1996; Gasco, Caputo, & (Aramaki, Marengo, Ugazio, Cavalli, size 1999; droplet Kunieda, reducing & monolayer Yamaguchi, on Olsson, effect surfactant interfacial an the and having curvature both into optimum tension, its penetrate in to change dramatic the able a exhibit causing is concentrations samples 40%, at the ethanol, to the all close that as suggests This dominant size. effect be droplet the same to 40%, appears around ethanol ethanol of of concentrations apparent for less finally, is and, surfactants different with samples among difference at surfactant the of interphase. partition the the impacts which for unfavorable groups, thermodynamically non-polar by less solutions phase aqueous aqueous in the alters monomers making This surfactants ethanol. the by of replaced solubility is of the water properties more solvent as the phase droplet in aqueous change the the the on by ethanol explained partially of is effect size The ethanol. was 40% obtained above size Lecithin droplet the ethanol 70 become 45% around emulsions at 40%, and than unstable higher highly ethanol of concentration At . . . ethanol with Emulsions hr o iil ro asaesalrta h symbols. the than smaller are ( bars oil error sunflower visible of not percentages where different three with A ethanol: of percentages different with prepared ࢟ emulsion of viscosity of 3–Comparison Figure .Eusoswr rprdo ihsermxradvsoiywsmaue narttoa hoee.Errbr ersn n tnaddeviation; standard one represent bars Error rheometer. rotational a on measured was viscosity and mixer shear high a on prepared were Emulsions ). 5 and 35, icste eeotie o l h omltospeae and, prepared formulations the all for obtained were Viscosities stecnetaino tao nrae ntesse,the system, the in increases ethanol of concentration the As AB µ 5)adBpeae ih3%snoe i n tblzdwt he ifrn ufcat 1 we 20 Tween (1% surfactants different three with stabilized and oil sunflower 35% with prepared B and 45%) ,frti esn iue2de o nld ausfor values include not does 2 Figure reason, this for m, hnicesswt h diino tao ecigvle shigh as values reaching ethanol of as addition the with increases then 25 at that, values the in variation greater a was for ( ( there values together ethanol 45% viscosity closer at are the whereas SO ethanol, of 0% EtOH percentages At 45% different phase. around the continuous reaches with it the increases until in viscosity present ethanol the of percentage, percentage SO same the within Density h omltoswt ihrpretgso tao hwdsome showed but ethanol expected, with of percentages as formulations higher creaming with the for- showed formulations that the the ethanol observe on of depending to percentages days, possible lower or was hours it few mulation, a After instability. for iswudb iia.Lcti,hwvr hw lgtyhigher slightly a viscosi- shows the however, Tween that Lecithin, and expected similar. was 20 be Tween it would since molecules, ties and similar used, very have surfactant 80 the differ- in same, slightly the a only are has ing compared but trend formulations same The viscosity. the Tweenhigher follows from still difference Lecithin whereas no comparison 20, shows but SO, 80 a Tween of shows percentage emulsifiers. same 3B different the Figure with prepared 3A). emulsions (Figure between change viscosity can higher layer results in which interfacial interaction, droplets-droplets the or of droplets-solvent surfactant the the properties of the solubility the therefore, on containing has and, samples ethanol the effect the of SO, at case of especially the 45% viscosity, of overall In volume. the viscosity phase in in dispersed role change low a The plays mPa.s. phase reaches 1.1 aqueous it of the until ethanol again for decreases viscosity it the before ethanol, 45% to responds ethanol the bevto faLcti eietwe h ocnrto of concentration the when the sediment by 50%. reached confirmed Lecithin ethanol also a is This of viscosity. thus, in observation droplets, increase of an soluble flocculation in promoting less resulting aggregate become to Lecithin starts ethanol, it and of 40%. concentrations approaching high ethanol of At concentration at especially viscosity ࣈ ࣈ olwn h rprto fteeusos hywr checked were they emulsions, the of preparation the Following o1 P.) rvosatcepbihdo h icst of viscosity the on published article previous A mPa.s). 19 to 4 . P. taon .5ml rcino tao,wihcor- which ethanol, of fraction mole 0.25 around at mPa.s 2.4 ° + ,wtrhsavsoiyo .9mas h viscosity the mPa.s, 0.89 of viscosity a has water C, ae iaymxue(hta ta. 02 shows 2012) al., et (Khattab mixture binary water o.8,Is ,2020 1, Iss. 85, Vol. r ora fFo Science Food of Journal ࢟ we 80 Tween , ࣈ o8mPa.s), 8 to 2 • n Lecithin and , • 15, 31

New Horizons in Food Research wa- + water with 1% + Figure 5–Graph of densities of different percentages of ethanol Tween 20, and comparison with densitysunflower of oil. Error bars represent astandard single deviation; where not visible, error bars are smaller than the symbols. Figure 4–Emulsions containing varying percentages of ethanol, 3 days after preparation, showing different creaming and sedimentation rates. ´ c, 2008; Fisher, Mitchell, & Parker, 1985; Mousavichoubeh, It was suggested that the decrease in droplet size for ethanol tain the values of interfacialLiterature tension values between for 30 the and interfacial 80%vary tension ethanol. between between 21.2 SO and to water 27boer, 1987; mN/m Dragosavac, (De Sovilj, Feijter, Kosvintsev, Holdich, Benjamins,jevi & & Vladisavl- Tam- Shariaty-Niassar, & Ghadiri, 2011;2013; Santana, Xu, Perrechil, Nakajima, & Nabetani, Cunha, Ichikawa,ing & to Liu, approximately 2001), 5 decreas- mN/m in the presence of small nonionic percentages up to 40facial to tension 45% caused by was the duephase. presence In to of order a ethanol in to decreaseof the confirm in continuous the the this, a inter- systems studyniques was of to carried the measure interfacial interfacial outin tension tension this (Figure currently work, available 6). rely and on(Drelich, However, used Fang, the differences & of tech- White, density 2015).of to As shown this create in article, the the the interface previous densityter section of can certain be percentages of veryvalues ethanol similar of to density the between density both of phases, SO. it So was due not to possible the to ob- close Interfacial tension ethanol mixture + Vol. 85, Iss. 1, 2020 r Journal of Food Science 32 change in the densityence of of ethanol. the As continuous it(Khattab has phase et been due al., demonstrated 2012), to in the a the previous density pres- article of a water sedimentation. It was also observed that some40% formulations, ethanol around in the continuousing/sedimentation phase showed much (Figure slower cream- 4). This appears to correlate with a Emulsions with ethanol . . . reaching a value close47% to EtOH. the density The ofclose value the to measured the SO value at at of approximately this SO measured, point which was was 0.917. 0.919, very support this claim, densityof measurements ethanol of and different water, with percentages 1%pared Tween 20, with were obtained the and density com- of of the SO. As continuous shown phase in decreases Figure with 5, the the density addition of ethanol, droplets would remain suspendedreduction in in the creaming/sedimentation would, continuous incoalescence phase. turn, and This lead more to stable less emulsions (McClements, 2015). To changes depending onmixture. the At percentage a of certain percentage ethanolthe of present continuous ethanol, in phase where the the matchesseem density that plausible of of that the the oil buoyancy droplets, would it be would eliminated and the

New Horizons in Food Research uu,&Sro,21;Dagua,T Duangsuwan, 2011; report Sermon, (Duangsuwan, SO & mN/m Tuzun, and 2.33 approximately ethanol of tension between interfacial an tension the in interfacial found values for The 2014). lowerliterature Cunha, even & is (Ushikubo of Lecithin mN/m value 1.2 with at literature (LCT) The water/oil 2013). of al., tension Mousavi- et interfacial 2014; Santana 2011; Spyropoulos, al., & & et Waghmare, choubeh Norton, Ware, Lloyd, Kothekar, 2007; 2018; 2008; Momin, Cunha, al., & et (Dragosavac Costa, 80 Tween Gomes, and 20 Tween like surfactants . . . ethanol with Emulsions eso sdmntdb h rsneo tao tteinterphase. interfacial the in at ethanol decrease of the presence the ethanol, by conclude of dominated to value is tension authors certain values the a the above leads to that This similar surfactant. very are inter- without the surfactant obtained 80%, above with surfactant fact, values the In tension effect. ethanol, an facial having of be to percentages seem need high not interface does At the at considered. surfactant effects the be other of to adsorption that of indicates containing rate the which samples as apparent, of such less tension much interfacial is the The Lecithin on observed. ethanol size de- droplet of Tween in- in effect containing decrease ethanol the sample of explains for absence concentration which creases, tension the the interfacial As in the used. on 6, creases, based surfactant Figure tension of in interfacial type shown different the show As emulsions 1. ethanol, ethanol Figure droplet of in of in decrease notice- percentage the shown a with the size correlates identify as which to 6), tension (Figure possible interfacial increases still in values was decrease the it able than lower but above, consistently were mentioned authors the by measured oils and the impurities in Sj present to & surfactants (Kralova due occurring tension naturally of interfacial amounts lower small a current show the in often Lecithin oils of unrefined available presence al., commercially be- Nevertheless, the tension available. et in literature interfacial (Xu for SO value mN/m and a ethanol find 1.76 tween to was possible of not literature was presence in It the 2001). found between In SO tension surfactant. interfacial and of of ethanol value absence the the surfactant, nonionic in small 2001) al., et Xu bo,20) o hsrao,teitrailtension interfacial the reason, this For 2009). oblom, ¨ uz ¨ n emn 2009; Sermon, & un, ¨ ogtr tblt—rpe ieatr1 months 10 after size stability—Droplet Long-term et fehnl tcnetain fehnlhge hn40%, than con- higher high the ethanol to of due concentrations ripening At Ostwald ethanol. by of caused that tents size be At droplet to 8). in likely (Figure increase emulsions is an old was months there however, 10 ethanol, for 38.5% and fresh remained for size droplet same signs the the no as showed creaming, ethanol from and apart of stable destabilization were of percentages emulsions lower the 23.1%), for and sep- (7.7% that phase not revealed the emulsions of arated measurements size Droplet appeared separated. but completely phase were creaming con- samples some Emulsions the 40% showed above however, 7B). stable, ethanol, otherwise (Figure 40% emulsion to stable up a taining form to possible the of at displacement molecules the interface. ethanol in the of results form Tween presence the addition co-surfactants the as the with acting as, phase to well interphase aqueous due Tween, as the of of ethanol, sepa- solubility polarity of phase of increased to in the change started that the had thought samples is the possible It as not rate. was size it droplet in ethanol, measure increase 40% to to Above due small content. ripening ethanol a Ostwald 10-month high with was associated and the be there fresh could the ethanol, that for size 38.5% droplet same At the was emulsions. size old cream- droplet from the apart destabilization as of ing, sign forms no other was or there other- 25%, coalescence approximately were of to they Up 8). creamed (Figure emulsions stable emulsions separated wise the phase although not that, the revealed separation. of phase measurements of size form Droplet the in to possible destabilization, was extensive it observe however, expected the ethanol, and was 40% Above dispersed This phase. the to continuous phase. between up differences continuous density creaming the the of considering in levels ethanol different 40% showed about 80 Tween with lized for temperature room at kept were months. Lecithin 10 and 80 Tween with ntecs fLcti,i h bec fehnl twsnot was it ethanol, of absence the in Lecithin, of case the In stabi- emulsions 7A, Figure from observe to possible is it As prepared emulsions the of samples preparation, their Following o.8,Is ,2020 1, Iss. 85, Vol. mle hntesymbols. the than are smaller bars error visible not where standard deviation; one represent bars Error EtOH. and 80% 30 between values interfacial the to obtain possible not was it similarities, density surfactant of absence the in and ewe ae n i,i h rsneo 1% of 20 presence Tween the in oil, and water between tension interfacial of 6–Comparison Figure ࢟ %Ten80 Tween 1% , r ora fFo Science Food of Journal %Lecithin, 1% , • u to Due . ♦ 33

New Horizons in Food Research Figure 8–Comparison of droplet size ofprepared just (closed symbols) and 10 months(open old symbols) emulsions, circles represent 1% Tween 80 and triangles represent 1%Error Lecithin. bars represent one standard deviation; where not visible error bars arethe smaller symbols. than Figure 7–Emulsions containing different percentages of ethanol and stabilized withTween (A) 80 and (B) Lecithin, 10preparation. months after Despite the different types of surfactant used, emulsions showed in interfacial tension. The effectof to ethanol changes is rationalized in inits terms the impact solvent on propertiessolutions the and, of solubility consequently, its the of partition aqueous surfactant at the phase monomers interphase. and ina aqueous similar droplet sizeat at concentrations 40% ethanol closetant suggesting to monolayer that causing 40% thevature, a ethanol may and dramatic be interfacial change tension. present in This in its is the also optimum supported surfac- cur- by the fact around 40%. The change in droplet size is mirrored by the change Vol. 85, Iss. 1, 2020 r Journal of Food Science This study has provided additional evidence on the effect of ethanol on the formationstabilized and by stability LMW ofaqueous oil-in-water surfactant. phase emulsions significantly The decreases the presencesion, droplet of size which of ethanol the reaches emul- in a the minimum at a concentration of ethanol 34 Conclusions samples were completely phase separated.Lecithin At becomes such insoluble concentrations, and eventually precipitatesin as samples observed containing 53.9% of ethanol (Figure 7B). Emulsions with ethanol . . .

New Horizons in Food Research ikno,E,Nra,S . tisy .(99.Saiiyo ra iuuscontain- liqueurs cream of Stability (1989). G. Stainsby, & K., S. emul- Narhan, oil-in-water E., of stability Dickinson, on alcohol of Influence (1998). M. pro- Golding, of & displacement E., Dickinson, Adsorption (1987). (1987). E. M. Dickinson, Tamboer, & J., Benjamins, A., J. Feijter, De tHethanol EtOH ages,D .(97.Asrto fpoenadtesaiiyo emulsions. of stability the and protein of Adsorption (1997). G. D. Dalgleish, ihd l uhr ge ob conal o l set fthe of re- aspects all and for pub- data accountable be be to the to version work. of agree final authors the interpretation of approved All lished. and the A. design manuscript and in and the Norton vised assisted conception and I. work, the manuscript, published. the the to be revised to contributed work, version Norton-Welch the final con- of the the approved to design contributed Winston and S. and ception Sullo A. manuscript. the Pelan Council discussions. Eddie helpful Research Professor for thank funded Mills Sciences Tom to Dr. part Physical and wish also also and was We (EP/K030957/1). research Engineering This the UK. by Diageo, from project opad .N,Bahat,D,Fily . clmns .J 19) feto tao on ethanol of Effect (1997). J. D. McClements, & P., Fairley, D., Brathwaite, N., J. Coupland, ki- the on ethanol and pH of Effects (1996). G. D. Dalgleish, & O., S. Agboola, References Interest of Conflict Abbreviations Contributions Author Acknowledgments emul- the droplet in creaming, change no some stability with months, for long-term size. 10 except after fact, stable In that, remained sions stable. shown be have ethanol to tests 40% proved under essen- Nonetheless, emulsions con- were interface. samples surfactants the the as the of same that displaced the indicating tially ten- is ethanol, interfacial tension only reducing interfacial taining become of the emulsions all and capable ethanol, unstable is 40% above own concentrations At its sion. on ethanol that . . . ethanol with Emulsions ugu,I,&Dcisn .(90.Eusfigefcso odmcooeue in alcohols macromolecules of effect The food (1996). R. M. of Gasco, & E., effects Ugazio, O., Caputo, Emulsifying E., Marengo, R., Cavalli, (1990). E. Dickinson, al- & water-soluble I., of Effect Burgaud, (1999). H. Kunieda, & Y., Yamaguchi, U., Olsson, K., Aramaki, M o oeua egtsurfactant weight molecular low LMW / water-in-oil W/O oil-in-water O/W 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1989.tb08572.x surfactants. low-molecular-weight ing caseinate. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.1997.5221 sodium containing sions emulsions. oil-in-water in https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-6622(87)80340-2 surfactants by teins cec n Technology and Science h ouiiaino yrcro mlindolt nnnoi ufcatmicelles. surfactant Science nonionic Interface in and droplets Colloid emulsion hydrocarbon of solubilization the proteins. milk Agriculture and containing Food emulsions of oil-in-water Science of the destabilisation of of netics ihdfeetsrcue ntefraino amOWmicroemulsions. O/W Technology warm and of Science formation the on structures different with ethanol. j.1365-2621.1990.tb05257.x of system. presence C12EO8 the in aggregation https://doi.org/10.1021/la9900573 surfactant on cohols 1097-0010(199612)72:4 h uhr aen oflc fitrs odeclare. to interest of conflict no have authors The drafted and data the interpreted and analyzed, collected, Ferreira this for support financial acknowledge gratefully authors The Osnoe oil sunflower SO odeusosadfoams and emulsions Food , , 8 17 ora fFo Science Food of Journal 1,16 https://doi.org/S0924-2244(97)01001-7 1–6. (1), < 7,7774 https://doi.org/10.1080/01932699608943535 717–734. (7), , 448::AID-JSFA676 190 1,7–5 https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.1997.4862 71–75. (1), ora fClodadItraeScience Interface and Colloid of Journal ora fFo Science Food of Journal , 72 abig,U:Woha Publishing. Woodhead UK: Cambridge, . 4,4844 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI) 448–454. (4), > , 3.0.CO;2-I 55 olisadSurfaces and Colloids 3,8586 https://doi.org/10.1111/ 875–876. (3), , Langmuir 54 1,7–1 https://doi.org/ 77–81. (1), , , 15 , 27 ora fDispersion of Journal 1) 6226–6232. (19), 197 13,243–266. (1–3), rnsi Food in Trends 1,133–141. (1), ora of Journal Journal ikno,E,Rtols . aaoo . oa,H 19) swl ieigo protein- of ripening Ostwald (1999). H. Logan, & Y., Yamamoto, C., Ritzoulis, E., Dickinson, only .J 18) tao tblt fcsi ouin srltdt trg tblt of stability storage to related as the solutions at casein casein of stability of Ethanol adsorption (1987). on J. alcohol W. of Donnelly, Effect (1988). M. C. foams. Woskett, and emulsions & food E., of formulation Dickinson, the in Progress (1987). G. Stainsby, & E., Dickinson, both containing emulsions of Stability (1999). W. J. M. Povey, & C., Ritzoulis, E., Dickinson, osvcobh . hrayNasr . hdr,M 21) h feto interfacial of effect The (2011). M. Ghadiri, & M., Shariaty-Niassar, M., Mousavichoubeh, rgsvc .M,Svl,M . ovnsv .R,Hlih .G,&Vladisavljevi & G., R. Holdich, R., S. Kosvintsev, N., M. Sovilj, M., M. Dragosavac, eiaTre,L,Clea,F,Gleo-nat,J . Gonz A., J. Gallegos-Infante, F., rotat- Calderas, during L., Medina-Torres, effects Processing (2014). F. (2015). J. D. Spyropoulos, McClements, & T., I. Norton, M., D. Lloyd, siuo .Y,&Cna .L 21) tblt ehnsso iudwtri-i emulsions. water-in-oil liquid of mechanisms Stability (2014). L. R. Cunha, & Y., F. emulsifications Ushikubo, low-energy and High- (2013). emulsions L. of R. Cunha, rheology & A., and F. Perrechil, Stability C., R. (2004). Santana, M. Golding, & E., Dickinson, J., S. Radford, oe,A,Csa .L . uh,R .(08.Ipc foltp n P/we 0ratio 80 WPI/Tween and commercial type oil of of Impact (2018). tensions L. R. Interfacial Cunha, & (1985). R., L. S. A. Costa, N. A., Gomes, Parker, & E., E. Mitchell, R., L. Fisher, emulsions: dairy alcohol-containing of Characterization (2013). G. M. Scanlon, & P., G. Espinosa, bubbles air single of T dynamics W., Duangsuwan, The (2011). A. P. Sermon, & U., fluid-fluid Tuzun, in W., tension Duangsuwan, interfacial of Measurement (2015). L. C. White, & C., Fang, J., Drelich, ohkr .C,Wr,A . ahae .T,&Mmn .A 20) oprtv nlssof analysis Comparative (2007). A. S. Momin, & T., J. Waghmare, M., and viscosity, A. Ware, Density, C., S. (2012). Kothekar, in A. Jouyban, elasticity & A., bending A. M. the Fakhree, F., on Bandarkar, S., structure I. Khattab, cosurfactant the of Effect (1998). M. Gradzielski, eb . ii,M,Fshr . es,J 21) nuneo nefca rprison properties interfacial of Influence (2012). J. Weiss, & L., based Fischer, microemulsions M., of Gibis, behavior B., Zeeb, Phase (2002). N. Garti, & A., Aserin, A., Yaghmur, con- ethanol of effects The (2001). X. Liu, & S., dispersion Iwamoto, H., the Nabetani, and of M., Nakajima, Effect Q., Proteins (2001). Xu, X. (2004). Liu, V. & S., Ichikawa, Morris, H., Nabetani, & M., P., Nakajima, Q., Gunning, Xu, F., Husband, A., Mackie, P., Wilde, rlv,I,&Sj & I., Kralova, tblzdeusos feto rnguaiaecrosslinking. transglutaminase of Effect emulsions: stabilized https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.1998.6078 ar-ae looi beverages. alcoholic dairy-based 005X(88)80017-1 interface. oil—water Technology Food 12 20. Tween and caseinate sodium eso nscnaydo omto neetocaecneo ae rpesi oil. in droplets water of electro-coalescence Science in Engineering formation drop secondary on tension time. storage Aspects and temperature of tion 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.tb06621.x Guzm Press. CRC FL: Raton, 1016/j.memsci.2014.04.035 emulsification. membrane ing odHydrocolloids Food parameters. process on https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-013-9065-4 focus A applications: food for alcohol. and Science calcium Interface ionic of and effects Combined caseinate: sodium containing tteolwtritrae dopin nefca hooyadeuso features. emulsion and Biointerfaces rheology B: interfacial Surfaces Adsorption, interface: oil-water the at water. 1111/j.1365-2621.1985.tb13052.x with oils vegetable systems. solution-oil-ethanol International caseinate sodium of diagrams phase Pseudo-ternary https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2009.02.053 3147–3158. temperatures. various at oil sunflower https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.12324 in drops alcohol and Press. CRC FL: Raton, Boca (Ed.), 2966–2980). Somasundaran P. In systems. emulsification. membrane https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.05.026 seed cell pumpkin stirred unrefined containing using emulsions oil oil-in-water of production Controlled (2008). cec n Technology and Science Technology and Arlacel-80. Science and persion Arlacel-60, Tween-80, Tween-60, Tween-20, of properties the water of tension surface 1021/la980074c microemulsions. oil-in-water nonionic swl ieigi rslne utlyrdoli-ae emulsions. oil-in-water multilayered Science crosslinked Interface in ripening Aspects alcohols. Ostwald Engineering short-chain and and polyols Physicochemical of A: 10.1016/S0927-7757(02)00168-1 Effect Surfaces surfactants: and nonionic food-grade on Society Chemists’ emulsions. oil-ethanol Oil vegetable American of s11745-001-0411-z stability the the of on concentration Journal agent emulsifying and tent stability. emulsion and activity surface Science on Interface surfactant and nonionic a of behavior interfaces. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2003.10.011 liquid at emulsifiers i/loo a-iudcmon rp nvgtbeoil. vegetable in drops compound gas-liquid air/alcohol Engineering 36,1916 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7765(98)00070-8 139–146. (3–6), n .(09.Saiiyo looi mlin otiigdfeetcsiae safunc- a as caseinates different containing emulsions alcoholic of Stability (2009). N. an, ´ , 352 , , 13,3–6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2009.09.046 38–46. (1–3), 29 53 bo,J 20) ufcat sdi odidsr:Areview. A industry: food in used Surfactants (2009). J. oblom, ¨ , 6,8287 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-011-0239-6 812–817. (6), , 1,4–5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.03.006 49–55. (1), 387 41 , uz , ¨ , , 34 9,74–81. (9), 66 1,6–3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2012.07.054 65–73. (1), 274 242 n . emn .A 20) ofiuain n yaiso single of dynamics and Configurations (2009). A. P. Sermon, & U., un, ¨ , 4–5.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.11.016 145–153. , 2) 3053.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2011.07.019 5330–5337. (21), , 30 odHydrocolloids Food o.8,Is ,2020 1, Iss. 85, Vol. 164 2,6366 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2003.12.045 673–686. (2), 2,4349 https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.2001.7820 443–449. (2), odeusos rnils rcie,adtechniques and practices, Principles, emulsions: Food 9,16–33 https://doi.org/10.1080/01932690902735561 1363–1383. (9), + tao itrsfo 9 o323K. to 293 from mixtures ethanol 7–8.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.01.032 272–280. , , ora fFo Science Food of Journal 28 3,4744 https://doi.org/10.1080/01932690601108045 477–484. (3), ora fMmrn Science Membrane of Journal dacsi oli n nefc Science Interface and Colloid in Advances ora fFo Science Food of Journal ora fClodadItraeScience Interface and Colloid of Journal nylpdao ufc n oli cec,tidedition third science, colloid and surface of Encyclopedia olisadSrae :PyiohmcladEngineering and Physicochemical A: Surfaces and Colloids , Langmuir 2 3,1714 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268- 187–194. (3), , 78 ora fMmrn Science Membrane of Journal 1) 1519.https://doi.org/10.1007/ 1185–1190. (12), , r , 14 ora fFo Science Food of Journal odEgneigReviews Engineering Food 50 2) 0764.https://doi.org/10. 6037–6044. (21), 4,10–22 https://doi.org/10. 1201–1202. (4), , hmclEgneigScience Engineering Chemical , 52 olisadSrae :Biointerfaces B: Surfaces and Colloids , 209 Ih Journal AIChE 466 2,3933 https://doi.org/ 389–393. (2), alez-Laredo,R.F.,&Rocha- ´ 1,7–1 https://doi.org/ 71–81. (1), –7 https://doi.org/10. 8–17. , oenJunlo Chemical of Journal Korean 3d lut d) Boca ed.). illustr (3rd, ora fClodand Colloid of Journal , , , ora fDispersion of Journal 212 , 322 108-109 ora fColloid of Journal 57 ora fColloid of Journal , 5 2,466–473. (2), 4,897–910. (4), 1,178–188. (1), ora fDis- of Journal 2,107–122. (2), odResearch Food olisand Colloids 63–71. , , Chemical ,G T. G. c, ´ Colloids 64 (13), 35 (pp. ,

New Horizons in Food Research