Sugar Crystallization

Analysis of varying factors on sugar crystallization within fudge

AE Pietersen

Results

Sensory

Table 1 describes each of the three varying fudge formulations, based on varying detectable attributes and aids in the visual description of each formulation. A key is also provided to aid in the explanation and fundamental understanding of Table 1 and its contents.

Table 1 Sensory Analysis of Fudge |

Attribute | Crystal Size (%) | Hardness (%) | Appearance (gloss) (%) |

Formulation 1 | 30 | 55 | 25 |

Formulation 2 | 90 | 20 | 90 |

Formulation 3 | 10 | 35 | 60 |

Key Table 1 |

Crystal Size: | 0% - No crystals |

| 100% - Very large crystals |

Hardness: | 0% - Very soft |

| 100% - Very brittle |

Appearance: | 0% - Dull |

| 100% - Glossy |

Stereomicroscope

Figure 1 Formulation 1

Medium crystals

Figure 1 Formulation 1

Medium crystals

Figure 3 Formulation 3

Fine crystals

Figure 3 Formulation 3

Fine crystals

Figure 2 Formulation 2

Large crystals

Figure 2 Formulation 2

Large crystals

Discussion

Analysis of Results

Formulation 1 exhibited regular to midsized crystals within the fudge, making the fudges texture smooth with a degree of graininess. The crystal size of each fudge formulation was tested by placing, dissolving and rubbing each one against the upper palette allowing for the texture to be measured. It can be seen in Table 1 that formulation 1 possessed the most desirable hardness out of the three formulations, with a hardness of roughly 50%. Formulation 1 had a level of gloss to it that was neither dull nor extremely shinny, indicating that the fudge formulation was neither to dry nor to moist, which would be considered a desirable attribute (Table 1)

Formulation 2 contained the most numerous amounts of undesirable characteristics. This fudge formulation was excessively grainy, indicating that the crystals formed within the fudge itself were of large nature. It can be seen that Formulation 2 possessed the largest crystals out of the three fudge...