Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 128130 (2006) 267 272

www.elsevier.com/locate/cis

Review: Mechanism of oil uptake during deep-fat frying and

the surfactant effect-theory and myth
Dina Dana, I. Sam Saguy
Institute of Biochemistry, Food Science and Nutrition, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Quality Sciences,
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, P.O. Box 12, 76100 Rehovot, Israel
Available online 29 December 2006

Abstract
Three mechanisms have been previously proposed to explain the complex process of oil uptake during deep-fat frying. The mechanisms
reviewed are water replacement, cooling-phase effect and surface-active agents. The former mechanism describes mainly oil uptake of
relatively large voids in the fried food created due to water evaporation. The second mechanism furnishes an explanation for the significant
amount of oil absorbed when the food is removed from the fryer. At this point, product surface characteristics and oil viscosity play paramount
roles. Surface- active agents formation provides only a limited explanation for the increased oil uptake during prolonged frying. Reviewed
literature, theory and
new data show contradicting values and do not support the myth that during extended frying time the surfactants generated reduce the contact
angle and/or the interfacial tension, and consequently, influence oil uptake significantly. Higher oil uptake after extended frying time is
probably related to higher oil viscosity caused by polymerization reactions and oil adherence to the product surface. Further research is
needed for establishing the interrelationships between surface-active agents formation and their effect on fried product oil uptake and quality
to resolve this myth.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Contact angle; Surface-active agents; Viscosity; Interfacial tension

Contents
1.
2.
3.

4.

Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 267
Oil uptake............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 268
Oil-uptake mechanism.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 268
Water replacement................................................................................................................................................................................. 269
Cooling-phase effect.............................................................................................................................................................................. 269
Surface-active agents............................................................................................................................................................................. 269
Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 271
References........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 271

1. Introduction
Frying is a widespread process, as reflected by extensive
sales and a large spectrum of products. The palatability of
fried foods lies in their unique organoleptic characteristics,
including flavor, texture and appearance. Deep-fat frying is
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +972 8 9489019.
E-mail address: ssaguy@agri.huji.ac.il (I.S. Saguy).
0001-8686/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cis.2006.11.013

the most common unit operation in food preparation, as

evidenced by the worldwide annual production of more than
20 million tons of frying oil [1]. As this figure might suggest,
fried foods comprise a significant part of the western diet, and
their importance is most likely to continue. However,
increasing consumer awareness of the relationship between
nutrition and health has become a driving force for reducing
oil consumption. A better understanding of the mechanisms
controlling oil uptake during deep-fat frying is paramount to

268

D. Dana, I.S. Saguy / Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 128130 (2006) 267272

implementing a potential reduction in the oil content of fried

foods. Our overall aim is to review selected topics related to
oil uptake during the deep-fat frying of food products,
emphasiz- ing the various mechanisms suggested to underlie
this complex phenomenon and offering explanations to clarify
some of the related myths.
2. Oil uptake
Deep-fat frying is a unit operation involving the immersion
and cooking of foods in hot oil. The frying process involves
heat and mass transfer, and its purpose is to combine short
cooking times with unique characteristics such as color, taste,
flavor, crust and texture. In essence, frying is a dehydration
process in which high oil temperature (e.g., 160 to 180 C)
enables rapid heat transfer and a short cooking period.
However, the temperature inside the fried-food product does
not rise above 100 C and as a consequence, the leaching
of water-soluble components from the food is minimal [2,3].
The mechanisms of
oil uptake and various means of reducing the oil content in
fried-food products have been studied extensively [48].
Nonetheless, to date, most fried foods still contain
considerable amounts of oil (Table 1).
The frying process, product characteristics and oil quality
are key factors affecting oil absorption. At higher frying
tempera- tures, oil absorption is usually reduced, as the
process is shorter and the enhanced crust formation acts as a
physical barrier for oil penetration [10,11]. For instance,
potato crisps fried at 120 C have higher oil content than their
counterparts fried at 180 C [6]. However, in some studies,
higher frying temperature increased [12], or had no effect [13]
on the oil content of French fries.
Exposing the product to pre-frying processes also has an
effect. For instance, pre-drying treatments with potato crisps
reduced their final oil content, and this was found to be related
to the reduction in the initial moisture [14]. Pre-drying also
significantly decreased oil uptake of blanched potato slices
[6]. Possible explanations for this reduction include a smaller
surface area, reduced moisture content [15], surface
smoothing [16] and structural changes [17]. On the other
hand, blanching prior to frying increased potato-slice oil
content, probably due to surface wetting [18]. Coatings
contribute to a product's added value, its holding capabilities
and crispness, and may also have opposite effects on oil
uptake [19]. For instance, methylcellu-

Table 1
Mean oil content of selected deep-fried foods (compiled from [9])
Food item

Mean oil content

(g/100 g edible portion)

Potato chips
Tortilla chips
Donuts
Fried tofu
Onion rings
Chicken, battered/breaded, light meat
French fries
Shrimp, breaded
Fish fillet, battered/breaded

37.5
23.4
22.9
20.2
18.7
18.1
17.1
15.2
12.3

lose coatings reduced oil absorption of dough discs and potato

strips by 35 and 40%, respectively [20]. On the other hand, a
porous coating could enhance oil uptake.
Many studies claim that higher initial moisture content
increases oil uptake, as demonstrated in tortilla chips [21].
Higher surface area and surface roughness increase oil uptake
[16]. Product shape and size have a pronounced effect on oil
uptake, as demonstrated in thicker potato strips with lower
final oil content [12]. It is not surprising that reducing a
product's surface area-to-weight ratio would reduce uptake.
Indeed, increasing the thickness of restructured potato chips
reduced oil uptake significantly [22]. Another factor that plays
a significant role is product porosity. A linear relationship was
found between product porosity prior to frying and oil
absorption. Both porosity and oil uptake increased during the
frying process in a dependent manner [23]. Food composition
also plays a significant role in fat absorption. Leavening
agents increase oil uptake due to the formation of gas cells
that could be filled with oil during frying. Adding salt to the
batter increases the oil content of fried battered squid, and
partial substitution of wheat flour with corn flour decreases
the amount of absorbed oil [24]. It is worth noting that uptake
is not influenced by the oil's origin, although oil quality does
play a significant role [25].
During most deep-fat frying processes crust is formed,
influencing heat and mass transfer, as well as oil intake. Crust
formation is a result of several changes (e.g., physical
changes, gelatinization and protein denaturation). When a
product is cut, it normally forms a rough surface and
releases intracellular material. Frying temperatures cause
chemical changes, such as starch gelatinization and protein
denaturation. Additionally, rapid water evaporation, browning
and oil uptake produce the unique and highly palatable crust
of fried foods [17]. Numerous studies have shown that oil
absorption of non-reformed
products is localized mainly in the crust [10,17,2628]. Food
microstructure is a major factor determining the amount of oil
absorbed by the fried product [17]. In restructured products, a
potato product in this particular example, a lower
deformability modulus prior to frying resulted in increased
crust thickness and oil uptake. Moreover, the gel strength of
the non-fried restructured product affected crust porosity,
which decreased linearly with frying time [10].
Microstructure has been shown to determine oil distribution
within the crust, as anisotropic porous network develops
during frying, influencing oil location and penetration depth
[17].
The data reported here evidence a plethora of studies
highlighting the fact that oil uptake during deep-fat frying is a
complex phenomenon affected by a gamut of factors. Hence,
to be able to control these complex phenomena, the oiluptake mechanism(s) need to be considered.
3. Oil-uptake mechanism
Overall, three main possible mechanisms have been
proposed in various studies to describe oil absorption
phenomena, namely, water replacement, cooling-phase effect
and surface-active agents.

D. Dana, I.S. Saguy / Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 128130 (2006) 267272

Water replacement
During frying (basically a drying process), oil replaces the
water that has evaporated. When the food is exposed to frying
temperatures, water evaporates rapidly, the outer surface
becomes dry and a crust forms. Moisture within the fried
product is converted to steam, creating a positive pressure
gradient. The steam escapes through cracks, defects, open
capillaries and channels in the cellular structure and membranes. As the process progresses, oil adheres to the food,
entering the large voids, product imperfections and crevices
left by the changes in structure due to frying and water
evaporation. As the voids are quite large, there is no inner
resistance due to positive water vapor pressure. This
mechanism could furnish a possible explanation for the direct
relationship observed between water loss and oil uptake
[29]. Oil that enters the voids left by the evaporated water
could play a dual role, as it also helps maintain structural
integrity by preventing shrinkage and collapse. Consequently,
oil uptake may also play a role in water loss [4]. However,
this mechanism offers only a partial explanation for oil
uptake, since several studies have shown that oil absorption
occurs mainly during the cooling phase [14,26]. Hence, the
water replacement mechanism is mainly related to large
voids, cracks and crevices that typically characterize reformed
and battered, as well as many starchy products.
It is worth noting that in non-reformed products, most of
the capillaries that were initially filled with water may not fill
with oil as long as water continues to evaporate. Initially, this
phenomenon can be described as an explosion created
when a higher steam pressure forces its way out from the
product into the oil bath. If the capillary is closed on one
side, oil cannot
penetrate, as the inner steam pressure prevents it. This can be
easily demonstrated by inserting a glass capillary into a hot oil
bath and observing how the evaporating water leaves an
empty capillary. It is only when the capillary is removed
from the fryer that the oil is sucked inside, due to cooling and
water vapor condensation. The fact that oil penetration was
reported to be limited to the immediate crust layer of
non-reformed
products [10,17,27,30] indicates that capillaries are not
playing a major role in the uptake mechanism.
Cooling-phase effect
When frying is completed, the food is removed from the
fryer and the product starts to cool, leading to water vapor
condensation and a subsequent decrease in internal pressure.
Oil adhered to the food surface is sucked in due to the
consequent vacuum effect. Therefore, oil uptake is a surface
phenomenon, involving equilibrium between adhesion and
drainage of oil as
the food is removed from the oil bath [26]. Because the
surface plays such an important role, oil uptake and its
distribution are determined by the crust microstructure
developed during the frying process [17]. It is worth noting
that even at this stage the oil is restricted to the immediate
crust and product surface [10,17,27,30]. Also note that oil
viscosity increases consider- ably with extended frying time.

269

For instance, soybean oil viscosity values rose from 53.2 to

208.3 mPa s for fresh oil and

60-h degraded oil, respectively. Olive oil viscosity increased

from 50.0 to 100.4 mPa s after 16-h heating at 200 C [32].
This typical rise is attributed to the formation of
polymerization products as oil quality deteriorates [31,32].
The increased viscosity and the product's surface
characteristics are probably the most critical factors leading
to higher oil uptake when food is removed from the fryer,
because of the decreased drainage of oil from the fried
product. Two effective approaches could be utilized to
reduce effectively oil uptake after frying. The first is to use
hot air or superheated steam that blows away most of the
surface oil and simultaneously maintains the product
temper- ature preventing cooling and vacuum. The second is
blotting the surface with an adsorbent paper [28]. The former
is widely utilized by the food industry, while the other is
very effective for home usage.
Surface-active agents
As the frying process progresses, the oil degrades and
changes from a basically pure mixture of triglycerides to
a mixture of hundreds of compounds [33]. Water
evaporating from the food during frying causes hydrolytic
reactions, which involve the cleavage of bonds between
glycerol and fatty acids. High frying temperature accelerates
hydrolysis and subsequent- ly, the formation of diglycerides,
monoglycerides, free fatty acids and glycerol [34]. Monoand diglycerides are surface- active agents and polar
compounds that increase the foaming tendency of the frying
oil. Foaming entraps steam bubbles released from the food

for longer periods and thus further accelerates the hydrolytic

reactions. Some of the degradation compounds reduce the
interfacial tension between the oil and the food, act as wetting
agents and are also considered surface- active agents.
Surfactant formation enhances the contact between the food
and the frying oil, resulting in excessive absorption. Surfactant
formation also affects heat transfer at the
oilfood interface and reduces the surface tension between the
two immiscible materials. According to the Surfactant Theory
of Frying [35], surfactants are responsible for the surface and
interior differences in fried-food quality induced by aging oil.
As contact time between the food and the frying oil increases,
more heat is transferred from the frying oil to the food,
causing higher dehydration at the surface and water migration
from the core to the exterior of the fried food. Thus higher
surfactant concentrations produce oil-soaked products with an
overcooked exterior and undercooked interior [35,36].
This hypothesized mechanism is based on the observation
that monoglyceride mixtures cause a significant decrease in
interfacial tension in vegetable oil/water systems.
Monoglycer- ides reduce interfacial tension between frying oil
and water due to their degree of unsaturation and molecular
structure. Monostearin, which has no double bonds, can align
at the interface in a more ordered manner [37].
To test this hypothesized mechanism, the effect of
prolonged deep-fat frying of French fries on the surface and
interfacial tension of canola oil was studied [38]. Contactangle measure- ments can be correlated with interfacial
tension. However, as most practical surfaces are rough and
non-ideal, the only

270

D. Dana, I.S. Saguy / Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 128130 (2006) 267272

measurable value on such surfaces is the apparent contact

angle, ap [39]. The apparent contact angle of canola oil was
measured on fluorinated ethylenepropylene (FEP) Teflon
surfaces (type VF-81, FEP Teflon film with vinyl backing,
Bytac, PA) utilizing a top-vibration system [40]. The
experimental setup included canola oil (4.75 L) heated at 180
5 C in a domestic fryer for 40 h (8 h per day on 5
consecutive days). Frozen
French fries (200 g) were fried for 3 min every hour. The
surface tension, interfacial tension between the water and
canola oil and apparent contact angle are presented in Table 2.
These data show that surface tension was not affected even
after 40 h of repeated frying. A significant decrease in the
surface tension of soy oil after 40 h of frying had been
previously reported, yet it is worth noting that the data showed
only a minor change (i.e., from 30.1 to 29.3 mN/m; [31]).
Hence, surface tension could not play a major factor affecting
oil uptake. It is also worth noting that at typical frying
temperatures, the surface tensions are expected to be lower
than those measured at ambient temperature, and the reported
values should be used as indicators for actual conditions in the
frying oil.
A marked decrease in interfacial tension was measured
within the first 10 h of frying (Table 2). This finding agrees
with previous interfacial values reported for canola oil (i.e.,
26.1 mN/ m; [37]). However, it contradicts the assumption
that changes in interfacial surface tension are accelerated
when frying time is extended. Similarly, interfacial tension of
partially hydrogenat- ed soybean oil used for donut frying
decreased from 20.8 to
8.4 mN/m after the first day of frying, and reached a value of
4.8 mN/m after 5 days of frying [41]. The combined data
clearly contradict the hypothesis that oil uptake is enhanced
by a decrease in interfacial tension when frying time is
extended.
Another critical aspect of this theory is related to the effect
of frying on contact angle. For instance, after 36 h of frying in
corn oil, the contact angle on polystyrene surfaces decreased
from 17.5 to 13.1 [42]. Indeed, the effect of contact angle
on oil uptake could be very significant as it affects wetting
and the oil penetration. The commonly used approach to
quantify contact angle is to characterize a solid surface by the
advancing (maximum) contact angle or the receding
(minimum) one. This is an empirical approach since the
theory of hysteresis on real three-dimensional solid surfaces
is not sufficiently developed yet to enable a calculation of
the ideal contact angle from hysteresis measurements.
Recently, a new method for the measurement of apparent
contact angles at the global energy minimum on real surfaces
was developed. It consists of vibrating the surface, taking
top-view pictures of the drop,

Table 3
Advancing (ad), receding (re) and apparent (ap) contact angles of canola oil
on Teflon FEP surfaces during frying (n = 3; 25 2 C; [38])
Frying time (h)

ad ()

re ()

0 (fresh)
10
20
30
40

68.7 1.2
68.8 0.6
69.1 0.2
69.8 1.3
70.2 0.3

55.0 0.6
54.9 2.2
57.1 0.9
55.2 1.1
57.3 1.4

ap
()
63.4
0.1
63.8
0.2
63.3
0.1
63.2
0.1
63.3
0.6

monitoring the drop's roundness, and calculating the contact

angle from the drop diameter and weight. The resultant
derived values are significantly different from those
approximated by the average of the advancing and receding
angles, ad and re, respectively [40]. Two fundamental
requirements have to be satisfied in order to identify and
measure the contact angle when using a top or side view: (a)
the drop should be vibrated to enable overcoming energy
barriers, and (b) the drop size should be sufficiently large,
relative to the scale of the surface roughness. Under these
conditions, the drop should be axisymmetric [39]. Although
most food surfaces are rough, the aforementioned requisites
were not considered. Moreover, most measurements using
side or top views have not verified that the drop is indeed
axisymmetric. Hence, some values reported in the literature
are probably debatable. Nevertheless, they could possibly be
used as approximations. Typical data measured on a Teflon
FEP surface using the standard advancing and receding
method (CAM200, KSV, Helsinki, Finland), and the vibrating
method [40] are listed in Table 3.
These data are significantly different from those previously
reported on a polystyrene surface [42]. One possible explanation is related to the fact that the free energy of polystyrene is
significantly higher than that of Teflon (i.e., 33 and 18 mN/m,
respectively). Therefore, the derived contact angles on polystyrene surfaces are expected to be lower. Moreover, the
essential requirement that the surface free energy of the solid
surface used should be lower than the liquid surface tension in
order to obtain more accurate contact angles [43,44], was not
fulfilled. Nevertheless, the contact angle of argan oil on potato
samples did not change after 26 h of frying and a value of 23
3 was measured [45]. As expected this value is much
lower than ours, nevertheless, it supports our observation
that the contact angle remains practically unchanged during
frying. It should be noted, however, that most contact-angle
values related to frying oil were derived using non-standard
equipment and due to the difficulties related to contactangle measure- ments, the values are not certain. In addition,
knowledge about interfacial free-energy interactions is
necessary to be able to understand and model many surface
and interface processes that involve wetting phenomena.
However, despite several decades

Table 2
Effect of frying (180 5 C) time on interfacial tension and apparent contact
angle of canola oil (n = 3; at ambient temperature of 25 2 C; [38])
Frying time
(h)

Surface tension
(mN/m)

Interfacial tension
(mN/m)

ap ()

of struggle, actual formulation of the surface free energy and

its determination are still problematic [46]. Recently, soil
water
0 (fresh)

32.6 0.2

24.4 0.3

63.4 0.1

10
0.2
20
0.1
30
0.1
40
0.6

32.6 0.2

16.5 0.2

63.8

32.5 0.2

15.0 0.2

63.3

32.5 0.1

14.3 0.3

63.2

32.6 0.1

13.0 0.2

63.3

potential was reported to induce considerable shifting of contact

angle. Noteworthy, that soil samples with small contact angles
at low water potentials have larger contact angles at higher
water potentials [47]. These new data should be carefully
considered as the food water content is changing continuously

D. Dana, I.S. Saguy / Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 128130 (2006) 267272

during frying and dynamic assessments may be therefore

required. Furthermore, measurements of contact angle done
on the raw food may not be representing the fried product.
The formation of surface-active agents causes excess
foaming during frying. It has been shown that oil consisting
of medium-chain fatty acids foams less than long-chain fatty
acids [48]. Silicones, especially dimethylpolysiloxane
(DMPS), are typically added to increase frying-oil stability
along with a decreased foaming tendency. This protective
effect was only reported when the silicone oil was insoluble in
the fat and the viscosity values were 20 cSt or more. It was
suggested that DMPS forms a monolayer on the oil surface
that inhibits convection currents contributing to oxygen's
entrance into the oil [49]. The addition of DMPS during
discontinuous frying had a protective effect on oil quality
[50], and autooxidation of soybean oil was inhibited in the
presence of methyl silicone (5 and 10 ppm). It has been
suggested that polymerization inhibition is responsible for the
prevention of oil deterioration [51]. However, the effect of
silicone additives on oil surface tension was not reported.
The effects of adding the surfactants Silicaid F-1000
(Aidchim, Israel), DMPS (Aldrich, WI), and a mono- and
diglyceride mixture (Sharon Laboratories, Israel) on the
interfacial tension between water and canola oil are presented
in Table 4.
These data show that the addition of Silicaid F-1000
(10 ppm), DMPS (2 ppm) and mono- and diglycerides
(10 ppm) had only a minor impact on the surface and
interfacial tensions. Data concerning changes in interfacial
tension due to the addition of silicone to edible oils is scarce
in the literature. The addition of mono- and diglycerides at a
higher concentra- tion (100 ppm) was reported to decrease the
interfacial tension between water and soybean oil from 21 to
20 mN/m [41].
The effect of added silicone (Silicaid F-1000) on contact
angles is listed in Table 5.
Again, these data demonstrate that the added surfactants
have no effect on the apparent contact angle, even at high
concentrations.
Surfactant addition (Tween 80) to a batter mix significantly
increased oil uptake of coated chicken breast. The higher oil
absorption was attributed to the decrease in interfacial tension
between the oil and the coating [52]. Similar results were
shown when a potato product was dipped in an emulsifier
prior to frying, causing complete wetting and significantly
lowering the interfacial tension. The lower initial interfacial
tension resulted in higher oil uptake due to increased surface
hydrophobicity [4]. However, these data were obtained when
the surfactants were

Table 4
Surface tension and interfacial tension between water and fresh canola oil with
or without additives (n = 3; 25 2 C; [38])
Additive
None
Silicaid F-1000 (10
ppm) DMPS (2 ppm)
Mono- and diglycerides (10
ppm)

Surface
tension
(mN/m)
32.6 0.2
28.6 0.7
32.5 0.0
32.5 0.0

Interfacial
tension
(mN/m)
24.4 0.3
20.8 0.3
24.2 0.4
23.8 0.4

271

Table 5
The effect of added Silicaid F-1000 on advancing (ad), receding (re) and
apparent (ap) contact angles of canola oil (n = 3; 25 2 C; [38])
Concentration (ppm)

ad ()

re ()

N
o
n
250

68.7 1.2
68.3 1.2
66.1 1.3

55.0 1.7
55.8 2.2
48.9 1.2

ap
()
63.4
0.1
63.2
1.4

added to the batter or the product was dipped in the emulsifier.

These conditions are far from representing the frying process,
mainly because the surfactant concentration at the product
interface may be significantly higher than that typically
obtained during frying.
4. Conclusions
The various mechanisms proposed to explain the complex
process of oil uptake were reviewed; however, none of them,
taken alone, could provide a complete description of the oilabsorption phenomenon. The water-replacement mechanism
describes mainly oil uptake by relatively large voids in the
fried food. Most of the oil is absorbed when the food is
removed from the fryer, and the product's microstructure and
surface characteristics, as well as the oil's viscosity, play key
roles in affecting the amount of oil uptake. The formation of
surface- active agents provides only a partial explanation for
the increased oil uptake during prolonged frying. Neither
reports in the literature nor our data support the myth that
during extended frying, the generated surfactants reduce the
contact angle and/or the interfacial tension and
consequently, play a major role affecting oil uptake. Higher
oil uptake during extended frying is probably related to
increased oil viscosity caused by polymerization reactions
taking place in the degrading oil. Further research is needed
to establish the relationship between the formation of surfaceactive agents and their effect on the fried product's oil uptake
and quality to resolve this myth.
References
[1] Gertz C. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 2004;106:713.
[2] Saguy IS, Ufheil G, Livings S. Ocl-Oleagineux Corps Gras Lipides
1998;5:30.
[3] Saguy IS, Pinthus EJ. Food Technol 1995;49:142.
[4] Pinthus EJ, Saguy IS. J Food Sci 1994;59:804.
[5] Bouchon P, Pyle DL. J Food Sci 2004;69:E115.
[6] Pedreschi F, Moyano P. Lebensm Wiss Technol 2005;38:599.
[7] Saguy IS, Dana D. J Food Eng 2003;56:143.
[8] Moreira R, Sun X, Chen Y. J Food Eng 1997;31:485.
[9] USDA. USDA national nutrient database for standard reference. http://
www.ars.usda.gov2005 [Release 18].
[10] Pinthus EJ, Weinberg P, Saguy IS. J Food Sci 1995;60:770.
[11] Dobarganes C, Marquez-Ruiz G, Velasco J. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol
2000;102:521.
[12] Krokida MK, Oreopoulou V, Maroulis ZB. J Food Eng 2000;44:39.
[13] Bouchon P, Aguilera JM, Pyle DL. J Food Sci 2003;68:2711.
[14] Gamble MH, Rice P, Selman JD. Int J Food Sci Technol 1987;22:233.
[15] Krokida MK, Oreopoulou V, Maroulis ZB, Marinos-Kouris D. J Food
Eng
2001;49:347.
[16] Rubnov M, Saguy IS. IFT annual meeting: book of abstracts; 1996. p. 172.

272

D. Dana, I.S. Saguy / Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 128130 (2006) 267272

[17] Bouchon P, Hollins P, Pearson M, Pyle DL, Tobin MJ. J Food Sci
2001;66:918.
[18] Pedreschi F, Moyano P. J Food Eng 2005;70:557.
[19] Rayner M, Ciolfi V, Maves B, Stedman P, Mittal GS. J Sci Food Agric
2000;80:777.
[20] Garcia MA, Ferrero C, Campana A, Bertola N, Martino M, Zaritzky N.
Food Sci Technol Int 2004;10:339.
[21] Moreira RG, Xiuzhi S, Youhong C. J Food Eng 1997;31:485.
[22] Bouchon P, Pyle DL. J Food Sci 2004;69:E115.
[23] Pinthus EJ, Weinberg P, Saguy IS. J Food Sci 1995;60:767.
[24] Llorca E, Hernando I, Perez-Munuera I, Fiszman SM, Lluch MA. Eur
Food Res Technol 2001;213:448.
[25] Rimac-Brncic S, Lelas V, Rade D, Simundic B. J Food Eng 2004;64:237.
[26] Ufheil G, Escher F. Food Sci Technol 1996;29:640.
[27] Saguy IS, Gremaud E, Gloria H, Turesky RJ. J Agric Food Chem
1997;45:4286.
[28] Aguilera JM, Gloria H. J Agric Food Chem 1997;45:781.
[29] Rice P, Gamble MH. Int J Food Sci Technol 1989;24:183.
[30] Tangduangdee C, Bhumiratana S, Tia S. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf
2004;31:73.
[31] Tseng YC, Moreira R, Sun X. Int J Food Sci Technol 1996;31:287.
[32] Benedito J, Mulet A, Velasco J, Dobarganes MC. J Agric Food Chem
2002;50:4531.
[33] Fritsch CW. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1981;58:272.
[34] O'Brien RD. Fats and oils: formulating and processing for applications.
Lancaster: Technomonic Publishing Company; 1998 [chapter 3].

[35] Blumenthal MM. Food Technol 1991;45:68.

[36] Blumenthal MM. Cereal Foods World 2001;46:352.
[37] Gaonkar AG. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1989;66:1090.
[38] Dana D, Saguy IS. Innovative industrial and domestic frying technologies
for safe production. Unpublished work; 2003.
[39] Wolansky G, Marmur A. Colloids Surf A 1999;156:381.
[40] Meiron TS, Marmur A, Saguy IS. J Colloid Interface Sci 2004;274:637.
[41] Gil B, Handel AP. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1995;72:951.
[42] Dasilva MG, Singh RR. J Food Process Preserv 1995;19:259.
[43] Mittal KL. Adhesion measurement of films and coatings. Leiden: VSP;
1995 [chapter 1].
[44] Mieke CL, Frens G. Adv Eng Mater 2002;4:280.
[45] Yaghmur A, Aserin A, Mizrahi Y, Nerd A, Garti N. Lebensm Wiss
Technol 2001;34:124.
[46] Chibowski E, Perea-Carpio R. Adv Colloid Interface Sci 2002;98:245.
[47] Goebel MO, Bachmann J, Woche SK, Fischer WR, Horton R. Soil Sci
Soc
Am J 2004;68:383.
[48] Negishi S, Itakura M, Arimoto S, Nagasawa T, Tsuchiya K. J Am Oil
Chem Soc 2003;80:471.
[49] Marquez-Ruiz G, Velasco J, Dobarganes MC. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol
2004;106:752.
[50] Jorge N, Marquez Ruiz G, MartinPolvillo M, Ruiz Mendez MV,
Dobarganes MC. Grasas y Aceites 1996;47:20.
[51] Onal-Ulusoy B, Hammond E, White P. J Am Oil Chem Soc 2005;82:433.
[52] Maskat MY, Kerr WL. Int J Food Prop 2004;7:341.