Destructive and non-destructive mechanical characterisation of chocolate with different levels of porosity under various modes of deformation
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Chocolate exhibits a complex material response under the varying mechanical loads present during oral processing. Mechanical properties such as Young’s modulus and fracture stress are linked to sensorial attributes such as hardness. Apart from this link with hardness perception, these mechanical properties are important input parameters towards developing a computational model to simulate the first bite. This study aims to determine the mechanical properties of chocolate with different levels of micro-aeration, 0–15%, under varying modes of deformation. Therefore, destructive mechanical experiments under tension, compression, and flexure loading are conducted to calculate the Young’s modulus, yield, and fracture stress of chocolate. The values of Young’s modulus are also confirmed by independent ultrasonic mechanical experiments. The results showed that differences up to 35% were observed amongst the Young’s modulus of chocolate for different mechanical experiments. This maximum difference was found to drop with increasing porosity and a negligible difference in the Young’s modulus measurements amongst the different mechanical experiments is observed for the 15% micro-aerated chocolate. This phenomenon is caused by micro-pores obstructing the microscopic inelastic movement occurring from the early stages of the material’s deformation. This work provides a deeper understanding of the mechanical behaviour of chocolate under different loading scenarios, which are relevant to the multiaxial loading during mastication, and the role of micro-aeration on the mechanical response of chocolate. This will further assist the food industry’s understanding of the design of chocolate products with controlled and/or improved sensory perception.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Material Properties and Processing · Food Chemistry and Fat Analysis · Polysaccharides Composition and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (71)
Show source-provided references
1. Sun Q et al (2019) Failure mechanisms of cross-ply carbon fiber reinforced polymer laminates under longitudinal compression with experimental and computational analyses. Compos B Eng 167:147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.12.04110.1016/j.compositesb.2018.12.041 ↗
2. Pimenta S, Pinho ST (2011) Recycling carbon fibre reinforced polymers for structural applications: technology review and market outlook. Waste Manage 31(2):378–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.09.01910.1016/j.wasman.2010.09.019 ↗
3. Hsieh CL, Tuan WH (2005) Elastic properties of ceramic–metal particulate composites. Mater Sci Eng, A 393(1–2):133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msea.2004.10.00910.1016/j.msea.2004.10.009 ↗
4. Gonabadi H, Oila A, Yadav A, Bull S (2022) Investigation of anisotropy effects in glass fibre reinforced polymer composites on tensile and shear properties using full field strain measurement and finite element multi-scale techniques. J Compos Mater 56(3):507–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021998321105423210.1177/00219983211054232 ↗
5. Li Y, Pimenta S, Singgih J, Nothdurfter S, Schuffenhauer K (2017) Experimental investigation of randomly-oriented tow-based discontinuous composites and their equivalent laminates. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf 102:64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2017.06.03110.1016/j.compositesa.2017.06.031 ↗
6. Gomarasca S, Peeters DMJ, Atli-Veltin B, Dransfeld C (2021) Characterising microstructural organisation in unidirectional composites. Compos Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2021.10903010.1016/j.compscitech.2021.109030 ↗
7. Naderi S, Zhang M (2020) A novel framework for modelling the 3D mesostructure of steel fibre reinforced concrete. Comput Struct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2020.10625110.1016/j.compstruc.2020.106251 ↗
8. Chhorn C, Hong SJ, Lee SW (2018) Relationship between compressive and tensile strengths of roller-compacted concrete. J Traffic Transp Eng (English Edition) 5(3):215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2017.09.00210.1016/j.jtte.2017.09.002 ↗
9. Glicerina V, Balestra F, Dalla Rosa M, Romani S (2016) Microstructural and rheological characteristics of dark, milk and white chocolate: a comparative study. J Food Eng 169:165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.08.01110.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.08.011 ↗
10. Beckett ST, Info L, Records M, Read RSC (2019) The science of chocolate. Royal Society of Chemistry, London
11. Barišić V et al (2019) The chemistry behind chocolate production. Molecules. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules2417316310.3390/molecules24173163 ↗
12. Toker OS, Pirouzian HR, Palabiyik I, Konar N (2021) Chocolate flow behavior: composition and process effects. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.199378210.1080/10408398.2021.1993782 ↗
13. Bikos D et al (2021) Effect of micro-aeration on the mechanical behaviour of chocolates and implications for oral processing. Food Funct 12:4864–4886. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1FO00045D10.1039/D1FO00045D ↗
14. Bikos D (2022) Effect of micro-aeration on mechanical and thermal properties of chocolate and correlation to oral processing, PhD, Imperial College London, London
15. Bikos D et al (2022) Experimental and numerical evaluation of the effect of micro-aeration on the thermal properties of chocolate. Food Funct 13(9):4993–501010.1039/D1FO04049A ↗
16. Bikos D et al (2021) Effect of structure on the mechanical and physical properties of chocolate considering time scale phenomena occurring during oral processing. Food Struct 31:100244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foostr.2021.10024410.1016/j.foostr.2021.100244 ↗
17. Samaras G et al (2020) Measurement of molten chocolate friction under simulated tongue-palate kinematics: effect of cocoa solids content and aeration. Curr Res Food Sci 3:304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2020.10.00210.1016/j.crfs.2020.10.002 ↗
18. Haedelt J, Beckett ST, Niranjan K (2007) Bubble-included chocolate: relating structure with sensory response. J Food Sci 72(3):138–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00313.x10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00313.x ↗
19. Samaras G (2021) Oral processing of micro-aerated chocolates: a computational mechanics, rheological and tribological study. PhD, Imperial College London, London
20. Skamniotis CG, Elliott M, Charalambides MN (2019) Computer simulations of food oral processing to engineer teeth cleaning. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11288-510.1038/s41467-019-11288-5 ↗
21. Reinke SK et al (2016) Synchrotron X-Ray microtomography reveals interior microstructure of multicomponent food materials such as chocolate. J Food Eng 174:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.11.01210.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.11.012 ↗
22. Chen J (2009) Food oral processing- a review. Food Hydrocoll 23(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2007.11.01310.1016/j.foodhyd.2007.11.013 ↗
23. Witt T, Stokes JR (2015) Physics of food structure breakdown and bolus formation during oral processing of hard and soft solids. Curr Opin Food Sci 3:110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2015.06.01110.1016/j.cofs.2015.06.011 ↗
24. van Aken GA, Vingerhoeds MH, de Hoog EHA (2007) Food colloids under oral conditions. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 12:251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2007.07.01110.1016/j.cocis.2007.07.011 ↗
25. Aguayo-Mendoza MG, Chatonidi G, Piqueras-Fiszman B, Stieger M (2021) Linking oral processing behavior to bolus properties and dynamic sensory perception of processed cheeses with bell pepper pieces. Food Qual Prefer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.10408410.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104084 ↗
26. le Révérend B, Hartmann C (2014) Numerical modeling of human mastication, a simplistic view to design foods adapted to mastication abilities. Physiol Behav 124:61–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.10.01210.1016/j.physbeh.2013.10.012 ↗
27. Mohammed IK, Charalambides MN, Williams JG, Rasburn J (2014) Modelling the microstructural evolution and fracture of a brittle confectionery wafer in compression. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 24:48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2013.11.01510.1016/j.ifset.2013.11.015 ↗
28. Vincent JFV (2004) Application of fracture mechanics to the texture of food. Eng Fail Anal 11(5):695–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2003.11.00310.1016/j.engfailanal.2003.11.003 ↗
29. Pascua Y, Koç H, Foegeding EA (2013) Food structure: Roles of mechanical properties and oral processing in determining sensory texture of soft materials. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 18(4):324–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2013.03.00910.1016/j.cocis.2013.03.009 ↗
30. Vincent JFV, Saunders DEJ, Beyts P (2002) The use of critical stress intensity factor to quantify ‘hardness’ and ‘crunchiness’ objectively. J Texture Stud 33(2):149–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.2002.tb01341.x10.1111/j.1745-4603.2002.tb01341.x ↗
31. Çakır E, Daubert CR, Drake MA, Vinyard CJ, Essick G, Foegeding EA (2012) The effect of microstructure on the sensory perception and textural characteristics of whey protein/κ-carrageenan mixed gels. Food Hydrocoll. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2011.04.01110.1016/j.foodhyd.2011.04.011 ↗
32. Harrison SM, Cleary PW (2014) Towards modelling of fluid flow and food breakage by the teeth in the oral cavity using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH). Eur Food Res Technol 238(2):185–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-013-2077-810.1007/s00217-013-2077-8 ↗
33. Manta A, Gresil M, Soutis C (2020) Tensile and flexural behaviour of a graphene/epoxy composite: experiments and simulation. J Phys Mater. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7639/ab52d810.1088/2515-7639/ab52d8 ↗
34. Demircan O, Al-darkazali A, İnanç, Eskizeybek V (2020) Investigation of the effect of CNTs on the mechanical properties of LPET/glass fiber thermoplastic composites. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 33(12):1652–167310.1177/0892705719833105 ↗
35. Shahin A, Barsoum I, Islam MD (2020) Constitutive model calibration of the time and temperature-dependent behavior of high density polyethylene. Polym Test. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.10680010.1016/j.polymertesting.2020.106800 ↗
36. Charalambides MN, Goh SM, Wanigasooriya L, Williams JG, Xiao W (2005) Effect of friction on uniaxial compression of bread dough. J Mater Sci 40(13):3375–3381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-005-2846-210.1007/s10853-005-2846-2 ↗
37. Charalambides MN, Williams JG, Chakrabarti S (1995) A study of the influence of ageing on the mechanical properties of Cheddar cheese. J Mater Sci 30:3959–3967. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0036069410.1007/BF00360694 ↗
38. Lasalle A, Guizard C, Deville S, Rossignol F, Carles P (2011) Investigating the dispersion state of alumina suspensions: contribution of cryo-field-emission gun scanning electron microscopy characterizations. J Am Ceram Soc 94(1):244–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2010.04034.x10.1111/j.1551-2916.2010.04034.x ↗
39. Mohammed MAP (2012) Mechanical characterisation, processing and microstructure of wheat flour dough. London
40. Sánchez-Ayala A, Farias-Neto A, Campanha NH, Rodrigues Garcia RCM (2013) Relationship between chewing rate and masticatory performance. Cranio J Craniomandib Pract 31(2):118–122
41. Meullenet JF, Finney ML, Gaud M (2002) Measurement of biting velocities, and predetermined and individual crosshead speed instrumental imitative tests for predicting cheese hardness. J Texture Stud 33(1):45–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4603.2002.tb01334.x10.1111/j.1745-4603.2002.tb01334.x ↗
42. Carvalho-da-silva AM, van Damme I, Wolf B, Hort J (2011) Characterisation of chocolate eating behaviour. Physiol Behav 104(5):929–933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.06.00110.1016/j.physbeh.2011.06.001 ↗
43. Barnes HA (1999) The yield stress—a review or ‘παντα ρει’—everything flows? J Nonnewton Fluid Mech 81(1–2):133–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0257(98)00094-910.1016/S0377-0257(98)00094-9 ↗
44. Flinn RA, Trojan PK, Trojan F (1975) Engineering materials and their applications. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
45. Ross CTF (1999) Mechanics of solids, 1st edn. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston10.1533/9780857099716 ↗
46. ASTM International, “D7264/D7264M − 15 - standard test method for flexural properties of polymer matrix composite materials,” ASTM Standards, vol. i, pp. 1–11, 2007, https://doi.org/10.1520/D726410.1520/D7264 ↗
47. Mujika F (2007) On the effect of shear and local deformation in three-point bending tests. Polym Test 26(7):869–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2007.06.00210.1016/j.polymertesting.2007.06.002 ↗
48. Mujika F, Carbajal N, Arrese A, Mondragon I (2006) Determination of tensile and compressive moduli by flexural tests. Polym Test 25(6):766–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2006.05.00310.1016/j.polymertesting.2006.05.003 ↗
49. Goh SM, Charalambides MN, Williams JG (2003) Large strain time dependent behavior of cheese. J Rheol (N Y N Y) 47(3):701–716. https://doi.org/10.1122/1.156215310.1122/1.1562153 ↗
50. Luczynski KW, Steiger-Thirsfeld A, Bernardi J, Eberhardsteiner J, Hellmich C (2015) Extracellular bone matrix exhibits hardening elastoplasticity and more than double cortical strength: Evidence from homogeneous compression of non-tapered single micron-sized pillars welded to a rigid substrate. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 52:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.03.00110.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.03.001 ↗
51. Zhao S et al (2018) Standardizing compression testing for measuring the stiffness of human bone. Bone Joint Res 7(8):524–538. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.78.BJR-2018-0025.R110.1302/2046-3758.78.BJR-2018-0025.R1 ↗
52. Povey MJW (1998) Ultrasonics of food. Contemp Phys 39(6):467–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00107519818178410.1080/001075198181784 ↗
53. Mcclements DJ, Povey MJW (1992) Ultrasonic analysis of edible fats and oils. Ultrasonics 30(6):38310.1016/0041-624X(92)90094-3 ↗
54. Afoakwa EO, Paterson A, Fowler M, Vieira J (2009) Microstructure and mechanical properties related to particle size distribution and composition in dark chocolate. Int J Food Sci Technol 44(1):111–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2007.01677.x10.1111/j.1365-2621.2007.01677.x ↗
55. Hibbeler RC (2018) Mechanics of materials, 10th ed. Pearson, 2018. [Online]. Available: www.pearsonglobaleditions.com/hibbeler
56. Matsagar V (2015) Advances in structural engineering: mechanics. Springer, Berlin10.1007/978-81-322-2190-6 ↗
57. Bhagyashekar MS, Rao RMVGK (2010) Characterization of mechanical behavior of metallic and non-metallic particulate filled epoxy matrix composites. J Reinf Plast Compos 29(1):30–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/073168440809503410.1177/0731684408095034 ↗
58. Ezema Ike-Eze IC, Uyor UO, Aigbodion VS, Omah AD, Ude SN, Daniel-Nkpume CC (2019) Tensile and compressive strength of palm kernel shell particle reinforced polyester composites. Mater Res Express 6(11):115335. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/ab4afa10.1088/2053-1591/ab4afa ↗
59. Ahmad SN, Hashim J, Ghazali MI (2005) The Effects of Porosity on Mechanical Properties of Cast Discontinuous Reinforced Metal-Matrix Composite. J Compos Mater 39(5):451–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/002199830504709610.1177/0021998305047096 ↗
60. el Ghezal MI, Maalej Y, Doghri I (2013) Micromechanical models for porous and cellular materials in linear elasticity and viscoelasticity. Comput Mater Sci 70:51–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.12.02110.1016/j.commatsci.2012.12.021 ↗
61. Bernardo V, Loock F, Martin-de Leon J, Fleck NA, Rodriguez-Perez MA (2019) Mechanical properties of PMMA-sepiolite nanocellular materials with a bimodal cellular structure. Macromol Mater Eng. https://doi.org/10.1002/mame.20190004110.1002/mame.201900041 ↗
62. Chen X, Wu S, Zhou J (2013) Influence of porosity on compressive and tensile strength of cement mortar. Constr Build Mater 40:869–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.07210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.072 ↗
63. Gonzalez-Gutierrez J, Scanlon MG (2012) Rheology and Mechanical Properties of Fats. Struct Funct Anal Edible Fats. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814041-3.00005-810.1016/B978-0-12-814041-3.00005-8 ↗
64. Hellmich C, Katti D (2015) Multiscale mechanics of biological, bioinspired, and biomedical materials. MRS Bull 40(4):309–313. https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2015.6510.1557/mrs.2015.65 ↗
65. Sachin SR, Kannan TK, Rajasekar R (2020) Effect of wood particulate size on the mechanical properties of PLA biocomposite. Pigm Resin Technol 49(6):465–472. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRT-12-2019-011710.1108/PRT-12-2019-0117 ↗
66. Li BW, Zhao HP, Feng XQ, Guo WW, Shan SC (2010) Experimental study on the mechanical properties of the horn sheaths from cattle. J Exp Biol 213(3):479–486. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.03542810.1242/jeb.035428 ↗
67. Meyva-Zeybek Y, Kaynak C (2021) A comparative study for the behavior of 3D-printed and compression molded PLA/POSS nanocomposites. J Appl Polym Sci 138(16):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/app.5024610.1002/app.50246 ↗
68. Ma W, Liu F (2012) Effects of porosity on ultrasonic characteristic parameters and mechanical properties of glass fiber reinforced composites. Int J Mod Phys Conf Ser 06:646–651. https://doi.org/10.1142/s201019451200391110.1142/s2010194512003911 ↗
69. Kováčik J (1999) Correlation between Young’s modulus and porosity in porous materials. J Mater Sci Lett 18:1007–1010. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100666991494610.1023/A:1006669914946 ↗
70. Wang JC (1984) Young’s modulus of porous materials - Part 1 Theoretical derivation of modulus-porosity correlation. J Mater Sci 19(3):801–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0054045110.1007/BF00540451 ↗
71. Nakajima H (2007) Fabrication, properties and application of porous metals with directional pores. Prog Mater Sci 52(7):1091–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2006.09.00110.1016/j.pmatsci.2006.09.001 ↗