The Science of Cooking - NYT

Here's an interesting article in the NY Times Science section about cooking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/science/06cook.html

Thanks for the link, Howie. Generally, it's an interesting article, though are a few nits I wish to pick. Sugar doesn't absorb water; rather, it changes the osmotic pressure of the solution, reducing the amount of cells that rupture. He is, however, dead wrong about labeling fructose as a reducing sugar. Of the ones he lists, only glucose is a reducing sugar, though fructose does contain a carbonyl and thus can engage in the Maillard reaction. The criterion for a reducing sugar is different, depending on the Tollens test (one of the most fun experiments to run): treat a solution of the sugar in water with a silver salt such as silver iodide; if it's a reducing sugar, a metallic silver "mirror" will be deposited on the glass of your reaction vessel. It's a beautiful reaction and an unmistakable outcome. Finally, the wine removes the fishy flavor because it's so acidic. It's really no different from treating it with lemon juice or vinegar.

Mark Lipton

The article is wrong when it claims that ethanol (alcohol) is a non-polar solvent capable of solution both in water and in non-polar liquids. It is less polar than water, but still polar enough that oils and other non-polar compounds don't dissolve significantly in it.

-Paul W.

The article is wrong when it claims that ethanol (alcohol) is a non-polar solvent capable of solution both in water and in non-polar liquids. It is less polar than water, but still polar enough that oils and other non-polar compounds don't dissolve significantly in it.

It's just a bit fuzzy of a statement. Ethanol does act to extract certain hydrophobic molecules into water, as is evident in winemaking: Chaptalization is important to get enough ethanol into the wine to extract pigment and polyphenolics out of the skins.

Mark Lipton