| Literature DB >> 27312884 |
Mei Liu1,2,3, Shaorong Xie1,3, Ji Ge1,3, Zhensong Xu3, Zhizheng Wu1, Changhai Ru1,4, Jun Luo1,3, Yu Sun1,3.
Abstract
Monitoring the quality of frying oil is important for the health of consumers. This paper reports a microfluidic technique for rapidly quantifying the degradation of frying oil. The microfluidic device generates monodispersed water-in-oil droplets and exploits viscosity and interfacial tension changes of frying oil samples over their frying/degradation process. The measured parameters were correlated to the total polar material percentage that is widely used in the food industry. The results reveal that the steady-state length of droplets can be used for unambiguously assessing frying oil quality degradation.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27312884 PMCID: PMC4911549 DOI: 10.1038/srep27970
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a) Schematic of the microfluidic device for measuring frying oil quality. Q1 and Q2 are respectively the rate of the inner (deionized water) flow and sheath flow (frying oil). W is width of the microchannel, L is the steady-state length of the droplet, and l and d are the dynamic length and width of the droplet. (b,c) Mass-damper-spring vibration system for modeling droplet dynamics, and the impulse response of the mass-damper-spring system with ξ ≥ 1, where x is the displacement of droplet surface from the balance position, ξ is the damping ratio of the system, and t0 is the time instance when the droplet has the largest deformation.
Physical properties of the oil samples studied in this work.
| Oil sample | Density ρ (g/mL) 22 °C | Viscosity η (mPa·s) 24.1 ± 0.1 °C | Interfacial tension γ (mN/m) 22.7 ± 0.3 °C | TPM (%) 43.0 ± 0.4 °C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FO0 | 0.93 ± 0.01 | 62.9 ± 0.4 | 22.2 ± 0.3 | 6.5 ± 0 |
| FO1 | 0.94 ± 0.02 | 67.0 ± 0.6 | 13.5 ± 0.2 | 9 ± 0 |
| FO2 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 70.9 ± 0.9 | 11.8 ± 0.3 | 11.6 ± 0.2 |
| FO3 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 80.5 ± 0.3 | 10.3 ± 0.3 | 14.5 ± 0 |
| FO4 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 90.1 ± 0.4 | 9.5 ± 0.2 | 19.6 ± 0.2 |
Figure 2Experimentally measured TPM vs. experimentally measured interfacial tension and viscosity values of the tested oil samples.
Figure 3(a) Droplet deforming process. (b) Droplet deformation index vs. time. Q1 = 0.05 mL/h, Q2 = 1.2 mL/h. (c) Zoom-in of the trough areas in (b). Time zero is the time instance when the rear of the droplet reaches zero point labeled in Fig. 1. Error bars indicate the positions of t0.
Figure 4Normalized steady-state length of the droplets vs. different flow rate ratios, Q1/Q2.
Q2 was set at 1.2 mL/h. n > 32 for each data point.
Figure 5(a) Correlation between theoretical and experimentally measured L/W and experimentally measured TPM. The relationship is highly linear and proves that L/W is a suitable parameter for discriminating oil samples FO0-FO4. L/W reaches 332 μm (by experiment)/335 μm (by prediction) when TPM reaches 24%. (b) Correlation between theoretical and experimentally measured t0 and experimentally measured TPM. Data presented in this figure were collected with Q1 = 0.05 mL/h, Q2 = 1.2 mL/h.