Viscosity of Aqueous Carbohydrate Solutions at Different Temperatures and Concentrations
Viscosity of Aqueous Carbohydrate Solutions at Different Temperatures and Concentrations
To cite this article: V.R.N. Telis , J. Telis-Romero , H.B. Mazzotti & A.L. Gabas (2007) Viscosity
of Aqueous Carbohydrate Solutions at Different Temperatures and Concentrations, International
Journal of Food Properties, 10:1, 185-195, DOI: 10.1080/10942910600673636
H.B. Mazzotti
UNESP–Universidade Estadual Paulista, Departamento de Engenharia e Tecnolo-
gia de Alimentos, São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo, Brazil
A.L. Gabas
USP–Universidade de São Paulo, Departamento de Engenharia de Alimentos,
Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil
Experimental viscosity values of sucrose, glucose, and fructose aqueous solutions in a large
range of temperatures (0 to 85°C) and concentrations (10 to 60% w/w) that might be
encountered in food processes were obtained in order to contribute to extending the avail-
able database of food properties. The temperature dependence of viscosity could be ade-
quately described by the Arrhenius model, and the activation energy was well represented
by a unique function of the solute volume fraction, valid for sucrose, glucose, and fructose
solutions.
INTRODUCTION
Viscosity is a relevant property of fluids when designing flow systems and industrial
processes involving heat or mass transfer. Aqueous solutions of sucrose, glucose, or fruc-
tose at different temperatures and concentrations are found in several food processes, such
as in crystallization and osmotic dehydration, as well as being the basis to formulation of a
number of food products or ingredients in the bakery, ice cream, and confectionary indus-
tries. There is not a unique source of data that reports sugar solutions viscosities, and their
dependence on temperature and concentration in a wide range of these variables. We
found a relatively small number of works reporting sugar solutions viscosities in limited
ranges of temperature and concentration. Kinematic viscosities of glucose aqueous solu-
tions in the range of 20 to 50°C and molalities between 1.0 and 5.0 moles/kg (15.27 to
185
186 TELIS ET AL.
47.39% w/w) were measured with the objective of being applicable in osmotic dehydra-
tion.[1] A similar work was carried out with sucrose solutions and kinematic viscosity data
were reported from 20 to 50°C and molalities in the range of 0.5 to 4.5 moles/kg (14.61 to
60.64% w/w).[2]
Based on the fact that both viscosity and water activity may provide important infor-
mation about the state and behavior of water in food products, Mazurkiewicz et al.[3]
investigated the relationship between these properties in aqueous solutions of sucrose or
glucose. Viscosities were determined at 25°C in the molality range of 0.1 to 1.8 moles/kg
(3.4 to 61.6% w/w) for sucrose, and in the range of 1.2 to 7.5 moles/kg (21.6 to 135.1% w/w)
for glucose. Bui and Nguyen[4] adjusted an empirical equation to viscosities of glucose
aqueous solutions as a function of temperature. The temperature varied from 25 to 75°C,
and the concentration between 1.5 to 10.5 mol/L. Rampp et al.[5] investigated the depen-
dence of viscosity and self-diffusion coefficients as functions of temperature and concen-
tration of fructose solutions between 0 and 50°C and 30 to 85% w/w.
The rheological behavior of supersaturated solutions of glucose and/or fructose solu-
tions[6] was investigated in a range of temperatures and concentrations selected to result in
high viscosity systems with the objective of comparing different models—Arrhenius,
Williams-Landel-Ferry (WLF), Vogel-Taumman-Fulcher (VTF), and power law — to fit
experimental data. In the studied range of temperature and concentration, the VTF model
resulted in the best fitting. Quintas et al.[7] studied the rheology of sucrose supersaturated
solutions with concentrations between 70 and 85% (w/w) and temperatures from 0 to 90°C.
We concluded that, at sucrose concentrations lower than saturation, the Arrhenius model is
satisfactory to reproduce experimental data, whereas at higher concentrations, the WLF
model is suited to describe the observed behavior. The rheology of inverted liquid sugar at
different percentages of inversion (59.68 and 89.88%) and at different temperatures was
evaluated by Gratão et al..[8] The temperature dependence was described by the Arrhenius
model, and the activation energy was higher for the sugar with higher inversion degree. The
aim of the present article was to determine experimental values of viscosities for sucrose,
glucose and fructose aqueous solutions as a function of temperature and concentration. The
presentation of a viscosity dataset that includes solutions of these three commonly used
sugars in tabular form, covering a wide range of temperatures and concentrations that might
be found in food processing, could contribute to extend the available database of food proper-
ties and constitute an useful tool for engineers and researchers dealing with sugar solutions.
fructose solutions, in concentrations of 10, 50, and 60% (w/w), at temperatures in the range of
0 to 50°C, were measured in a Brookfield digital viscometer, model HADV – I+ (Brookfield
Engineering Labs., Inc., USA) fitted with a Spiral Adapter SA70 spindle, rotating at 20 rpm
Additional viscosity data of sucrose, glucose and fructose solutions, in concentrations of
10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60% (w/w), at temperatures in the range of 0 to 85°C, were
obtained from flow curves (shear stress versus shear rate) determined using a Rheotest 2.1
(MLW, Germany) rheometer, Searle type, equipped with a coaxial cylinder sensor system
(radii ratio, R c = 1.04 ). A thermostatic bath was used to control the working temperature.
Rb
The speed of the rotating cylinder varied from 0.028 to 243 rpm. The instrument was oper-
ated at 44 different speeds, which were changed stepwise with a selector switch. Shear
stress (σ) were obtained by multiplying torque readings by the viscometer constant,
whereas shear rate (γ) were obtained according Krieger and Elrod.[9]
Concentration
(% w/w) 10 20 30 40 50 60
*Data from this line below were obtained in the Brookfield viscometer.
measurements carried out in the in the viscometer were determined at only one rotating
speed (20 rpm). The longer measurement time elapsed when using the rheometer could
have resulted in some degree of sugar crystallization in the concentrated solutions exposed
for a long time at low temperatures, decreasing solution concentration and leading to
lower viscosities. In the case of fructose, which has a high solubility, there was not great
differences between the two sets of data. The viscosities of sugar solutions — when com-
pared at the same temperature and concentration — decreased in the following order of
solutes: sucrose, glucose, and fructose. These differences, however, were reduced with
increasing temperature and decreasing solution concentration.
⎡E ⎛ 1 1 ⎞⎤ (1)
η = ηref exp ⎢ a ⎜ − ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝
R T Tref ⎠ ⎦
VISCOSITY OF CARBOHYDRATE SOLUTIONS 189
Concentration (% w/w) 10 20 30 40 50 60
*Data from this line below were obtained in the Brookfield viscometer.
where η is the viscosity; T is the temperature; Ea the activation energy; R the gas constant;
and, ηref the fluid viscosity at a reference temperature Tref, was fitted to experimental data
to describe viscosity dependence of temperature. The model fitting was carried out by
non-linear regression. The Arrhenius model is quite applicable to non polar liquids. Nev-
ertheless, in fluids constituted of molecules that interact through hydrogen bridges,
dipoles or covalent bonds, for instance, a deviation from this model may occur, mainly,
due to temperature influence.[12] Although fluid foods could hardly be considered as con-
stituted by non polar molecules, the Arrhenius model has been often and successfully
applied to describe the temperature dependence of rheological properties of fluid foods,
such as fruit juices,[13–15] coffee extract,[16] and honey.[10,17]
Values of the parameter Ea, corresponding to the fitting of Eq. (1) for all tested solu-
tions are presented in Table 4. The selected reference temperature was 45°C (318.15 K),
since the use of a middle temperature in the studied range has been recommended.[7] It is
observed that the activation energy, Ea, increased with increasing concentration as
reported by other authors.[18] The same trend and order of magnitude was observed by
Zuritz et al.[13] when studying the dependence of clarified grape juice activation energy as
function of the juice soluble solids content (about 93% of reducing sugars). The increase
in activation energy with solute concentration indicates that the temperature influence on
the viscosity is higher as the solution concentration increases.[19]
190 TELIS ET AL.
Concentration
(% w/w) 10 20 30 40 50 60
*Data from this line below were obtained in the Brookfield viscometer.
Table 4 shows that there was a high degree of agreement between values of activa-
tion energy, Ea, calculated for the different solutes in solutions with same concentration.
Based on this observation it was possible to describe the activation energy dependence on
concentration as a function only of the solute content, regardless of the type of sugar
present in the solution. This was possible by expressing the solute content as an effective
volumetric fraction of solute, ,[20] which depends on the solute type and solution concen-
tration, and was calculated as:
φsf (2)
φ=
(1 + φsf )
where
w MH2 O Vsolute
φsf = (3)
(1 − w) Msolute V H2 O
VISCOSITY OF CARBOHYDRATE SOLUTIONS 191
150
η (mPa.s)
100
50
0
260 280 300 320 340 360 380
Temperature (K)
Figure 1 Viscosities of 60% (w/w) sucrose and fructose solutions as affected by temperature.
Table 4 Activation energy for sucrose, glucose, and fructose solutions at different
concentrations.
Concentration Volumetric
(% w/w) molar fraction φ Ea (J/mol) RMS (%)
Sucrose
10 0.075 16058.32 9.16
20 0.155 19969.57 6.40
30 0.239 22289.66 3.32
40 0.329 26064.10 15.40
50 0.424 33047.32 8.46
60 0.524 40696.29 12.36
Glucose
10 0.078 16563.87 14.00
20 0.161 19954.77 6.51
30 0.247 22167.32 2.64
40 0.338 26067.95 16.02
50 0.434 33122.79 13.43
60 0.535 40248.21 16.80
Fructose
10 0.078 16368.30 9.03
20 0.161 20084.74 6.71
30 0.247 22467.50 9.58
40 0.338 26058.44 16.01
50 0.434 32727.51 6.60
60 0.535 40285.72 14.92
192 TELIS ET AL.
and φsf = solute free volumetric fraction; w = mass solute fraction (w/w); M = molar mass
(g/mol); and, V = Van der Waals molar volume (cm3/mol). The adjusted model to
express activation energy is given by:
(1 + 0.5φ )
Ea = Ea0 (4)
(1 − φ )
where Ea0 is an adjustment constant. A common value of Ea0 = 15080.24 ± 86.12 J/mol —
with a correlation coefficient, r, of .997 — was obtained when correlating activation ener-
gies against volumetric fractions of all the three considered solutes. Eq. (4) is similar to
the Einstein’s equation that predicts the viscosity of a solution or suspension of spherical
particles,[20] differing only by the power in the denominator that in the Einstein’s equation
is of second order. Values of the effective volumetric fraction corresponding to different
solutes and concentrations are included in Table 4, whereas the values of Van der Waals
molar volumes and molar mass of sucrose, glucose, fructose and water used in Eq. (3) are
given in Table 5. The Van der Waals molecular volume is determined by adding up the
individual volumes of each fragment that constitute the molecule.[21] The molar volumes
presented in Table 5 were obtained from Peres and Macedo.[22]
A good agreement was observed between activation energy values predicted by Eq.
(4) and those calculated by fitting viscosity data to the Arrhenius model (Fig. 2) regardless
of the considered solute. The quality of the adjustment was evaluated by the distributions
of residuals and by the root mean square, RMS,[23] presented in Table 4 and given by:
RMS = 100
∑ ⎡⎣(ηobs − ηpred ) / ηobs ⎤⎦ (5)
N
where ηobs and ηpred are, respectively, the experimental and predicted viscosities; and, N is
the number of available experimental points. Values of RMS were lower than 17% for all
the tested solutions. Lewicki[23] considered RMS = 25% as the maximum limit for accep-
tance of the adjustment of theoretical or empirical models to sorption isotherms experi-
mental data. Eq. (4) has also the advantage of being a correlation with a unique adjustment
parameter and valid for the three types of sugars studied.
CONCLUSIONS
Experimental viscosity values for aqueous solutions of sucrose, glucose, and
fructose were obtained in a wide range of temperatures and solute concentrations and
Newtonian behavior was observed for all tested samples. The viscosities of sugar
Table 5 Van der Waals molar volume for sucrose, glucose, fructose and water.
45000
sucrose
40000 glucose
fructose
35000
Ea (J/mol)
30000
25000
20000
15000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Volumetric fraction (φ)
Figure 2 Parameter Ea as a function of molar volume fraction for sucrose, glucose, and fructose.
NOMENCLATURE
Ea Activation energy (J/mol)
Ea0 Constant of equation 4 (J/mol)
M Molar mass (g/mol)
N Number of experimental points
R Gas constant (J/mol.K)
Rb Radio of internal cylinder (m)
Rc Radio of external cylinder (m)
RMS Root mean square (%)
T Temperature (K or °C)
Tref Reference temperature (K or °C)
V Van de Waals molar volume (cm3/mol)
w Solute mass fraction
194 TELIS ET AL.
Greek Letters
φ Solute volumetric fraction
φsf Solute free volumetric fraction
γ& Shear rate (1/s)
η Viscosity (Pa.s)
ηobs Experimental viscosity (Pa.s)
ηpred Predicted viscosity (Pa.s)
ηref Viscosity at the reference temperature (Pa.s)
σ Shear stress (Pa)
REFERENCES
1. Moreira, R.; Chenlo, F.; Pereira, G. Viscosities of Ternary Aqueous Solutions with Glucose
and Sodium Chloride Employed in Osmotic Dehydration Operation. J. Food Eng. 2003, 57,
173–177.
2. Chenlo, F.; Moreira, R.; Pereira, G.; Ampudia, A. Viscosities of Aqueous Solutions of Sucrose
and Sodium Chloride of Interest in Osmotic Dehydration Processes. J. Food Eng. 2002, 54,
347–352.
3. Mazurkiewicz, J.; Tomasik, P.; Zaplotny, J. Relationships Between Water Activity and Viscos-
ity of Solutions. Food Hydrocolloids 2001, 15, 43–46.
4. Bui, A.V.; Nguyen, M.H. Prediction of Viscosity of Glucose and Calcium Chloride Solutions.
J. Food Eng. 2004, 62 (4), 345–349.
5. Rampp, M.; Buttersack, C.; Lüdemann, H.-D. c,T-Dependence of the Viscosity and the Self-
Diffusion Coefficients in Some Aqueous Carbohydrate Solutions. Carbohydrate Research 2000,
328, 561–572.
6. Recondo, M.P.; Elizalde, B.E.; Buera, M.P. Modeling Temperature Dependence of Honey
Viscosity and of Related Supersaturated Model Carbohydrate Systems. J. Food Eng. 2006,
77 (1), 126–134.
7. Quintas, M.; Brandão, T.R.S.; Silva, C.L.M.; Cunha, R.L. Rheology of Supersaturated Sucrose
Solutions. J. of Food Eng. 2006, 77 (4), 844–852.
8. Gratão, A.C.; Berto, M.I.; Silveira Júnior, V. Reologia de Açúcar Líquido Invertido: Influência
da Temperatura na Viscosidade. Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos 2004, 24 (4), 652–656.
9. Krieger, I.M.; Elrod, H. Direct Determination of the Flow Curves of Non-Newtonian Fluids. B.
Shearing Rate in the Concentric Cylinder Viscometer. J. Appl. Phy. 1953, 24, 134–136.
10. Lazaridou, A.; Biliaderis, C.G.; Bacandritsos, N.; Sabatini, A.G. Composition, Thermal and
Rheological Behaviour of Selected Greek Honeys. J. of Food Eng. 2004, 64, 9–21.
11. Perry, R.; Chilton, C. Manual de Engenharia Química, 5a ed., Guanabara Dois, Rio de Janeiro, 1986.
12. Moore, W.J. Physical Chemistry, 4th Ed; Prentice Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, 1972.
13. Zuritz, C.A.; Muñoz Puntes, E.; Mathey, H.H.; Pérez, E.H.; Gascón, A.; Rubio, L.A.; Carullo,
C.A.; Chernikoff, R.E.; Cabeza, M.S. Density, Viscosity and Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
of Clear Grape Juice at Different Soluble Solid Concentrations and Temperatures. J. Food Eng.
2005, 71 (2), 143–149.
14. Zainal, B.S.; Rahman, R.A.; Ariff, A.B.; Saari, B.N.; Asbi, B.A. Effects of Temperature on the
Physical Properties of Pink Guava Juice at Two Different Concentrations. J. Food Eng. 2000, 43
(1), 55–59.
15. Telis-Romero, J.; Telis, V.R.N.; Yamashita, F. Friction Factors and Rheological Properties of
Orange Juice. J. Food Eng. 1999, 40 (1–2), 101–106.
16. Telis-Romero, J.; Cabral, R.A.F.; Gabas, A.L.; Telis, V.R.N. Rheological Properties and Fluid
Dynamics of Coffee Extract. J. Food Eng. 2001, 24 (4), 217–230.
17. Yanniotis, S.; Skaltsi, S.; Karaburnioti, S. Effect of Moisture Content on the Viscosity of Honey
at Different Temperatures. J. Food Eng. 2006, 72, 372–377.
VISCOSITY OF CARBOHYDRATE SOLUTIONS 195
18. Rao, M.A. Rheological Properties of Fluid Foods. In Engineering Properties of Foods; Rao,
M.A.; Rizvi, S.S.H.; Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, 1986; 1–47.
19. Holdsworth, S.D. Applicability of Rheological Models to the Interpretation of Flow and Pro-
cessing Behavior of Fluid Food Products. J. Text. Stud.1971, 2, 393–418.
20. Morison, K.R.; Mackay, F.M. Viscosity of Lactose and Whey Protein Solutions. Intl J. Food
Prop. 2001, 4 (3), 441–454.
21. Kodaka, M. Correlation between Molecular Size and Packing Density of Solvents. J. Phys.
Chem. B 2004, 108, 1160–1164.
22. Peres, A.M.; Macedo, E.A. Phase Equilibria of D-Glucose and Sucrose in Mixed Solvent Mix-
tures: Comparison of UNIQUAC–Based Models. Carbohydrate Research 1997, 303, 135–151.
23. Lewicki, P.P. Raoult´s Law Based Food Water Sorption Isotherm. J. Food Eng. 2000, 43, 31–40.