rsl12

Three part question:

1. Does alcohol really evaporate when you heat it up? I mean, I know you won't get a buzz when you add wine to frying onions, but does it really become ethyl alcohol vapor, or does the alcohol convert to sugar or something?

2. if it really does turn to vapor, what are the effects of breathing the vapor?

3. Does the process of alcohol boiling off differ from lighting vodka on fire? How?

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

rockzilla

I'm no scientist, but I cook with a lot of booze, so I'll give this a shot.

1 - Yeah, the alcohol evaporates, it's got a lower boiling point than water, what's left behind is the esthers and other such flavour compounds. There may be a few other chemical changes in there, but I could never stay awake long enough in high school chemistry to tell you what they were.

2 - You'd have to fry up a lot of booze for it to have any kind of effect on you.

3 - Only spirits that are more than 100 proof (50% alcohol) can be lit on fire. I'm not qualified to give you a better answer than that.

frankdrebben

I am not sure about all of the chemistry, but I will tell you from first hand experience that #3 of rsl12's post is not completely correct. If you deglaze a hot pan with wine (which is less than 100 proof) and then turn the pan into the flame (if you are cooking with gas) or light it, it will flame up. I believe that regardless of the proof of the alcohol that you use, when the pan is hot enough, it must volatize the alcohol and allow it to flame up. I believe that whenever you add the flame to the equation, all of the alcohol is gone for sure...I am not sure when you do not add the flame. It seems only logical that it would slowly evaporate/volatize.

Let us know if you find anything out. Harold McGee's book, On Food & Cooking would have it, but I am at work and that book is at home.

nothingx

Here's a little something about alchohol and food... some flavors are only disolvable in alchohol and cannot be tasted without using it. Tomatoes, for example, have certain compounds that can only be tasted when disolved this way. Try mixing a little wine in your pasta sauce (or even a shot of vodka) and see how it comes out.

hotdogg

You can absolutely create a flame with alcohol that is less than 100 proof...True, the more alcohol you have the more volitile it becomes. When creating bannanas foster for instance, you ad rum and bannana liquer to brown sugar/bannanas and butter...If the pan is hot it will definitely go up in a big flame...Alcohol does evaporate quickly...a few minutes over high heat and its gone.

mtsgsd

According to many references I've read over the years, and cooking shows I've watched, you will never get rid of ALL the alcohol. Seems to me you can get rid of so much that what remains is statisticly irrelevant though. Unless you're on that drug that causes you to be sick when ingesting alcohol. Have a brother in law that can tell you that you'll still get sick.

Average-Joe

three part answer



1. Yes. it will evaporate just the same as any liquid.

2. when you breath the vapor after de-glazing the pan, depending on the type of alcohol your lungs will burn along with your eyes. ouch!

3. Yes. boiling/simmering takes longer, like rockzilla said "it's got a lower boiling point than water" so the alcohol is gone before your sauce, leaving just the flavor compounds...........when lit it burns off almost instantly, once the flame is gone so is the alcohol

rsl12

average-joe:

a fire generally means combustion is going on. that is, alcohol + oxygen -> carbon dioxide + water + other byproducts.. do you know what those byproducts are, if any? does this reaction not occur at all when the alcohol boils off?

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

rsl12

btw, i took a look in the harold mcgee book--surprisingly, he does not address this topic!

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

Average-Joe

to answer your question the best I know how.....ummmmmmm *feeling silly* im a cook not a scientist *smiles* however my assumption stands boiling = evaporation....... if ya want to know the origins of prociuttos or how to prepare fine cuisine im your man.

im sure some of these smart guys on this board who are studying chemistry will answer your question further.

rsl12

I did a little more reading on this...

First of all, apparently you *can* get an effect by inhaling alcohol vapor, though it does take quite a bit of effort to get that effect.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6011716/
As for the burning, I found this site with the combustion equation. It notes that in real life, combustion is incomplete; however, it doesn't state what are the possible other products that are produced. In any case, I feel reasonably confident now that you're not producing sugar or anything else that would affect flavor (since sugar should burn!). Since what's really burning is the alcohol vapor, and not the alcohol in the liquid form, I don't expect that the flavor of a food would change whether you boil off the alcohol or burn it off.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

little_tippler

I just thought I'd comment on the rsl12's comment that you can only get an effect from breathing alcohol vapour in large quantities. If you want a qucik rush and a different way to drink a shot of vodka, cointreau or others like that:

Get a tall glass and a coaster. Pour your spirits into the tall glass and cover with the coaster. Place your hand firmly over the coaster and proceed to shake the glass vigorously up and down. When you stop, quickly uncover the glass and place your mouth over it, inhaling a big gulp! Woooosh!!! then Quickly drink your spirits but don't swallow. Instead, swill the drink vigorously around your mouth like it's mouth wash. When you just can't take it anymore, swallow. This is pretty guaranteed to almost jknock you out! It's a fun thing to do if you're bored. Don't do to many, be good now.

__________________
Whether we write or speak or do but look
We are ever unapparent. What we are
Cannot be transfused into word or book.
Our soul from us is infinitely far.
However much we give our thoughts the will
To be our soul and gesture it abroad,
Our hearts are incommunicable still.
In what we show ourselves we are ignored.
The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged
By any skill of thought or trick of seeming.
Unto our very selves we are abridged
When we would utter to our thought our being.
We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams,
And each to each other dreams of others' dreams.

Fernando Pessoa, 1918

Rodney

Booze can make a dish intoxicating, but only if you add the alcohol after the cooking's basically done, or if there was no cooking at all; drenching an already-baked cake in rum or amaretto (food of the gods) makes a delightful concoction. And then there's "Mellow Jello" with vodka, and other things.

snowy

For instance, a traditional trifle, if made correctly, will get you buzzed Definitely one of my personal faves.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rodney

My wife just made one of those, but I didn't get to eat any of it :-( . It went to some virtuous charity function. She poured half a cup of Godiva chocolate liquere (sp?) into it, too.

JustJess

When you boil a liquid, what's happening is that the electrons are accepting heat energy and are becoming so excited that they jump to higher orbitals until the whole molecule absorbs enough heat energy to jump to the air. The heat is just an accelerator - the molecules would eventually jump to the air by themselves (evaporation).

That being said, even with heat energy added, not all molecules will jump, though MOST will. So there will be a neglible amount of alcohol left, but nothing to worry about (unless you're mtsgsd's bro in law). And yes, alcohol has a lower specific heat than water or many other substances, so it's more likely to jump first.

As for No. 2, I don't know, but I read that article about inhaled drinks too. Weird.

No. 3, yes, it is different. In boiling alcohol, the molecules are simply excited into the air. If you burn alcohol, it is used as a fuel itself, thus undergoes a chemical reaction - aka a change in its chemical makeup. What the byproducts are, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. But they are likely no longer alcohol molecules.

Does that help?

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

Cynthetiq

when in highschool we used to take a small sip of vodka, swish it around the mouth swallow. Exhale from the nostrils, and then inhale as much air as possible from the mouth...

gave good buzz for little money.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

rsl12

Hi Justjess:

Actually, I was more wondering if there was any difference in terms of the food that you're cooking! I realize that burning is different than boiling in terms of the chemical reaction that occurs--the question is, does your banana flambe taste any different if you can't find a lighter?

I've just about convinced myself that the answer is no. What you're burning, if you do set the thing on fire, is alcohol vapor coming off the food, and not anything that was going to be staying in the food. It's almost like the difference between sending your trash to a dump or to an incinerator--your trash can is going to be empty the same way in both cases. However, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if someone can tell me why.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

rsl12

Sounds like fun! I'll try it, maybe new years at the midnight hour before I kiss my date

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

Forever

For the first part, no, all of the alcohol does not evaporate away. There was a study done about this, took me a while to remember where to find it, but here's a table with the summary:

http://www.canoe.ca/HealthMayeMuskColumns/011009.html

shakran

If nothing else the flame will caramelize any sugars in the food. That's why a creme brule's sugar coating (you caramelize it with a kitchen torch (not mapp gas as I discovered once ) ) tastes very different than if you just sprinkled the sugar on top and left it as is.

JustJess

^^ Yes, that's the difference. You'll change the consistency of the other substances in the food!

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

rsl12

I don't think this is right--again, to use the trash analogy, blowtorching the top of a creme brulee is like blowtorching the contents of a trash can directly--instead of an empty trash can, you'll end up with a pile of ash.

Broiling or blowtorching a creme brulee heats up the sugar past its melting point (146 C, or 300 F) and to the point where caramelizing reactions occur (I don't know what temp this is). The suger isn't combusting--it's just being heated up, liquifying, undergoing some kind of caramel (non-combusting) reaction, and then recrystallizing. All of this is possible to do without a flame--candy factories don't need actual fire to make caramel or hard candies.

The flame in creme brulee is heating up the creme brulee itself. Or, more specifically, just the top of it, while the delicate custard below stays intact. That the end of a blowtorch is flaming is not important--what's important is that the end of the blowtorch is very very hot! This allows you to heat up the surface to the necessary temperatures without subjecting the custard below to the heat. In contrast, the flame from a sauce with alcohol should have little heating effect on the food itself. It's the mix of alcohol vapor and oxygen that makes the reaction possible--the flame occurs *above* the food, not on it, and since heat rises, I doubt that it heats up your food more than what your frying pan can produce on its own (after all, if you have a gas range, your frying pan is already sitting on top of a flame). Moreover, the flame is short-lived--I've never had one from a sauce last longer than 10 seconds. When making a creme brulee, you can spend a minute with a blowtorch to get the right reaction!

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

rsl12

Thanks for the link Forever. I may have to check out that study--it mentions that alcohol may be 'changed', but not what it can change to. Also--that sounds like very high retention rates! Why doesn't that add up to an effect when you actually eat an apple/brandy dessert? I'm curious about the study.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

shakran

??? Hard candies and burnt sugar are two different things. The caramel you are thinking of (caramel creme) is different from caramelized sugar. These factories don't need actual fire to make those two candies because they are not anything like a caramelized sugar coating.



I'm confused as to what your point is. The reason you use flame is not just because it is hot, but because it is hot in a localized area. If you stuck a creme brule in the oven, you wouldn't get the same result because 1) the entire dish would be heated evenly and 2) the flame is hotter.

Why? Stick your hand in the bowl the next time you ignite brandy and you'll see that, in fact, alcohol does not produce heatless fire.

First, "heat" does not rise - heated gasses are more bouyant than non-heated gasses. Infrared radiation goes which ever way it is pointing. If your premise were correct, fast food restaurants would stick burgers under heat lamps and end up with cold burgers. If you want to demonstrate this, go stick your hand under a match. You'll find that infrared radiation does indeed travel downward as well. So you are getting a heating effect on the food from the fire above it.

And you'll notice that you are not getting burnt granules with your alcohol-flamed sauces.

rsl12

Hi shakran, I agree with a lot of your points, but my conclusion is still the same.

True. Most caramels aren't really 'caramelized'. Peanut Brittle would have been a better example. But see this link. What's important in caramelizing is not the flame--it's that sugar is subjected to a temperature surpassing 338F.

yes, I agree. My point was that the flame isn't important--it's the localized heat.

If you could somehow actually stick your hand in the brandy without subjecting the rest of your arm to the flames above the glass, my guess is that the brandy would feel like it was just about room temperature--maybe slightly warmer. I will try and prove this tonight, by lighting a glass filled to the brim with alcohol of some sort ('to the brim' keeps the top of the glass from warming up and tranferring heat), and then feeling the liquid right after.
you're right--I mispoke. Radiation would go all directions. I still don't think the heat is anything substantial as to cause a significant change in the flavor of your vodka bananas. I'll tell you the results of my experiment later this week. (even without doing this experiment--if the heat was anything significant, wouldn't you see the water in the alcohol at the top of the glass heating to 100C and boiling even a little bit? Or, for that matter, the alcohol in the ...umm..alcohol heating to 80C and boiling? )

EDIT: now that I'm looking at the link, when most people are talking about 'caramelization' in regards to cooking, it seems like they're really talking about the malliard reaction. Maybe I don't stand corrected on that point! Critical temp for malliard reaction = 245F.

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

Sage

oooo yes, malliard reaction. very important for your seared steak to taste right, at least according to Tako the Octipus (www.eightlegged.com)

Anywho, it seems to me that if the only thing being burned off when you light alcohol on fire in food is the alcohol, which is the same molecule no matter what it's derived from, then what will be left over would be the flavors from whichever whatever was fermented in the first place. So the alcohol wouldnt' be flavoring the food (althought, as with tomatoes, it might be used to bring out flavor charastics), it would be that which becomes the flambe`.

__________________

kutulu

you don't need a torch for creme brulee. you can stick them in hte oven under hte broiler. the torch is faster, and more localized but it isn't needed.

Suave

The major byproduct of burning alcohol seems to be carbon dioxide. I haven't found any research on ethanol, but butanol burns completely into CO2. Both being relatively simple alcohols, I imagine the byproducts are the same. Hence, you shouldn't get any flavour change in your food. At worst, you might get a miligram of carbon or something left behind in your food.

__________________
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato