ANALYTICAL & LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
WATER ACTIVITYTEST TIME It’s the sample, not the instrument, explains Dr Brady Carter
Te ideal system should allow the user to set the end-of-test setting to whatever best suits their situation and needs. Te ambiguity in end-of-test settings and their potential impact on testing results even lead ISO to define the end-of-test requirements in the recently revised water activity method ISO18787 (
www.iso.org/standard/63379.html).
COMPARISON TESTING ON REAL SAMPLES To illustrate the potential problems introduced by prematurely ending water activity tests before vapour equilibrium has been achieved, water activity tests were run on samples of cream filling, gummies and beef jerky. Subsamples taken from the same sample were run in a dewpoint instrument in continuous mode and in the Novasina LabMaster Neo with the stability set to fast (least stringent) and slow (most stringent). Fig. 1 provides an illustration of the results. Te difference between the first and second result in the dewpoint instrument was always greater than the 0.003 aw
reported
Fig. 1. Water activity testing results on A) Cream filling B) Gummies and C) Beef jerky using the continuous mode in a dewpoint system and the Fast and Slow end-of-test settings in the LabMaster Neo, compared to the true water activity equilibrium curve. For each of the products, the early test results from the dewpoint system are clearly premature results on the equilibrium curve and six continuous tests are needed to reach true equilibrium. The fast setting of the Neo produces a premature result as well due to its lower stringency but is further along the equilibration curve than the early dewpoint readings. The only setting that produces a true equilibrium water activity is the Neo Slow setting
T
here can be an abundance of confusion with water activity instruments concerning test time. Te truth is that water activity test
time is determined by the sample and not the instrument. Since water activity is an equilibrium measurement, a reading is not complete until vapour equilibrium has been achieved and this process cannot be sped up by an instrument. So, any claim to a specific test time is illogical and would only be true for select samples. Ultra-fast test time claims are based on either a prediction or end-of-
24
www.scientistlive.com
test settings that are not stringent enough to achieve true vapour equilibrium.
END OF TEST REQUIREMENTS To determine when vapour equilibrium has been achieved and a test should end, instrumentation looks for the rate of water activity change to fall below some setpoint. What setpoint is used and how it is determined will impact both test time and reliability. If the setpoint is set to too low of stringency, the test could end prematurely before true equilibrium has been achieved.
accuracy of the instrument for all products indicating the first test result was premature. Further, the graphs clearly indicate that the continuous tests are tracking the equilibration curve, which suggests that the first two-three test results were premature and vapour equilibrium had not been achieved. Alternatively, while the fast setting on the Neo also gave premature results, the slow stability setting fully reflected the true vapour equilibrium. Te evidence presented here clearly shows that substantial time can be needed to achieve true vapour equilibrium during water activity testing and that end-of-test settings that are less stringent will give premature results that do not reflect the true water activity. For a product being made close to the cut-off for microbial growth, premature test data could result in releasing unsafe product. Tere may be justification for using less stringent end-of-test settings for routine testing to improve test times, but this should never be done without first checking on how different these premature results will be from the true water activity. Ten, an informed decision can be made on whether faster test times are acceptable without putting the company at risk of recalling failed product.
Dr Brady Carter is an application scientist with Novasina.
www.novasina.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
