Chemistry of Food and Cooking "Delectable Handmade Pasta"
How can we measure the qualities and desirability of a finished recipe both quantitatively and qualitatively in order to determine the success of our recipe experimentation?
Before measuring a finished recipe qualitatively, we first have to determine what qualities of the food are most desirable to people. For example, most people do not want cookies to be completely soft and falling apart in their hands, so a desirable quality of a cookie is that it sticks together. Then, once we have determined the ideal flavor, consistency, etc., we can measure how close the finished recipe comes to the ideal dish through multiple taste tests.
In order to evaluate a finished recipe quantitatively, we again need to identify what qualities of a dish are desirable and can be measured quantitatively. If stretchiness is an important quality in a pasta dish, the stretchiness of a noodle could be measured by using a ruler to determine how many inches a noodle can be stretched before it breaks. The variation of a finished recipe that comes closest to fulfilling the ideal qualitative and quantitative qualities is the most successful.
In what way(s) is cooking like doing science and in what way(s) are they different? How are a cook and a food scientist similar or different?
Cooking and science are very similar in many ways. One important similarity between the two is that they both require using fixed proportions. In chemistry, when you want to create a chemical reaction, you need certain proportions of ingredients so that they react in the way you want them to. You don’t always get the intended results if you have too much or too little of a reactant, which leads to having limiting and excess reactants. Cooking works the same way. You need to have just the right amount of ingredients in order for the recipe to turn out the way you want it to.
On the other hand, cooks are allowed to be much more spontaneous than scientists, because cooking usually involves less danger than chemistry. The best cooks know the general proportions that they need, but feel confident enough to sometimes make a food without following exact measurements. Scientists on the contrary think more about exact measurements, otherwise they could not be as confident in the results of their experiment. Finally, a cook and a food scientist might have different goals. A cook might rely more on qualitative measurements while a food scientist might rely more on qualitative measurements.
Before measuring a finished recipe qualitatively, we first have to determine what qualities of the food are most desirable to people. For example, most people do not want cookies to be completely soft and falling apart in their hands, so a desirable quality of a cookie is that it sticks together. Then, once we have determined the ideal flavor, consistency, etc., we can measure how close the finished recipe comes to the ideal dish through multiple taste tests.
In order to evaluate a finished recipe quantitatively, we again need to identify what qualities of a dish are desirable and can be measured quantitatively. If stretchiness is an important quality in a pasta dish, the stretchiness of a noodle could be measured by using a ruler to determine how many inches a noodle can be stretched before it breaks. The variation of a finished recipe that comes closest to fulfilling the ideal qualitative and quantitative qualities is the most successful.
In what way(s) is cooking like doing science and in what way(s) are they different? How are a cook and a food scientist similar or different?
Cooking and science are very similar in many ways. One important similarity between the two is that they both require using fixed proportions. In chemistry, when you want to create a chemical reaction, you need certain proportions of ingredients so that they react in the way you want them to. You don’t always get the intended results if you have too much or too little of a reactant, which leads to having limiting and excess reactants. Cooking works the same way. You need to have just the right amount of ingredients in order for the recipe to turn out the way you want it to.
On the other hand, cooks are allowed to be much more spontaneous than scientists, because cooking usually involves less danger than chemistry. The best cooks know the general proportions that they need, but feel confident enough to sometimes make a food without following exact measurements. Scientists on the contrary think more about exact measurements, otherwise they could not be as confident in the results of their experiment. Finally, a cook and a food scientist might have different goals. A cook might rely more on qualitative measurements while a food scientist might rely more on qualitative measurements.
Energy & the Environment Project
Critical Consumer of Science
Rank the sources you cited on your infographic from “Most Reliable and Least Biased” to “Least Reliable and Most Biased”. Provide an explanation for your ranking scheme.
- Science Direct Scientific Journal Article: Most Reliable and Least Biased http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852414013911
This article is the most reliable source because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
- State of Washington Department of Ecology: More Reliable and Less Biased http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/algae/lakes/AlgaeInformation.html
Although this source is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it is still reliable because it is a governmental source.
- Smithsonian Magazine: Less Reliable and More Biased http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/scientists-turn-algae-into-crude-oil-in-less-than-an-hour-180948282/
I wouldn’t say that the Smithsonian Magazine is an unreliable source, but it is less reliable because in this case it isn’t the original source of the information it’s
- The Washington Post: Least Reliable and Most Biased http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303907.html
This source is the least reliable because it is a newspaper article, which could easily contain the bias of the journalist.
Classify all of the sources cited on your infographic as primary, secondary or tertiary. Explain the rationale for your classification for each source.
- Science Direct Academic Article: Primary Source
This article was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
- State of Washington Department of Ecology: Secondary Source
Although it is a governmental agency, this source is not a data set so the information they reported is just gathered from a primary source and not primary itself.
- Smithsonian Magazine: Secondary Source
The Smithsonian Magazine is a science news organization.
- The Washington Post: Secondary Source
The Washington Post is a respected newspaper.
Read over the Abstract from one of the primary sources you used. If you did not consult a primary source for your infographic, find one that is related to your topic and use it for this question.
Who are the authors of this paper, what journal is it published in and when was it published?
Authors:
Elliott DC, Biller P, Ross AB, Schmidt AJ, Jones SB from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Energy Research Institute, University of Leeds
Published in Bioresource Technology in February of 2015
Summarize the key points from the abstract.
This article describes the recent results in hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) continuous-flow processing systems. There is not much previous information on continuous-flow systems using high-moisture biomass feedstocks, which may be useful in designing an improved system with potential for commercialization. This article also provides process costs for commercialization-scale models.
Based on this abstract, what do you think the purpose of an abstract is and what information do you expect to find in the abstract of a scientific journal article?
The purpose of an abstract is to summarize a scientific journal article by describing both the research conducted, its results, and the real-world implications of that research.
Post-Project Reflection
Explain your understanding of the relationship between combusting fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect and climate change in a manner that would be appropriate for teaching a middle school student.
Our country gets 81% of our energy from fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil. When burned, fossil fuels produce “greenhouse gases” that trap heat in the atmosphere. This effect is called the “greenhouse effect”. Life needs the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect in order to survive, but burning fossil fuels intensifies this effect and causes climate change. Climate change is currently causing sea levels to rise and the extinction of many species.
What is the role of scientists and engineers in society? In what ways is life as we know it better (or worse) because of their work either in basic scientific research or the development of implementable technologies?
As humans, we are constantly striving to learn more about human existence and our environment. While the humanities explore this through poetry and philosophy, scientists and engineers do so by asking questions and gathering empirical evidence to answer those questions. Science contributes definite, objective facts to society. It isn’t nebulous. Overall, life is better because of scientific research and the development of technology. We are able to continue to improve our lives because of scientific progress. However, there are times when science can be taken too far. For example, many people believe that genetically modifying life crosses a line ethically. The problem is that everyone’s ethics differ, so it can be difficult to say definitively if certain research or technology does or does not contribute positively to society.
In your opinion, what is the role of innovation in the development of new cleaner energy production/consumption technologies in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the environment?
Right now, we are in a dire situation because of the amount of greenhouse gases we continue to release into the atmosphere. We know the position we’re in, but as a country, we continue to do little to change our habits. Why? Because of a lack of innovation. Scientists can show the public as many projections of the future as they want, but our country will continue to choose what makes sense economically. We’re still spewing out so much harmful gas because we still think that it makes sense economically. We need innovation, to strive for the best technology that will make clean energy cost-effective. That is the only way business-owners will be motivated enough to invest in clean energy and make the drastic changes that are needed if humans want to continue to live and thrive in a healthy world.
Rank the sources you cited on your infographic from “Most Reliable and Least Biased” to “Least Reliable and Most Biased”. Provide an explanation for your ranking scheme.
- Science Direct Scientific Journal Article: Most Reliable and Least Biased http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852414013911
This article is the most reliable source because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
- State of Washington Department of Ecology: More Reliable and Less Biased http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/algae/lakes/AlgaeInformation.html
Although this source is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it is still reliable because it is a governmental source.
- Smithsonian Magazine: Less Reliable and More Biased http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/scientists-turn-algae-into-crude-oil-in-less-than-an-hour-180948282/
I wouldn’t say that the Smithsonian Magazine is an unreliable source, but it is less reliable because in this case it isn’t the original source of the information it’s
- The Washington Post: Least Reliable and Most Biased http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303907.html
This source is the least reliable because it is a newspaper article, which could easily contain the bias of the journalist.
Classify all of the sources cited on your infographic as primary, secondary or tertiary. Explain the rationale for your classification for each source.
- Science Direct Academic Article: Primary Source
This article was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
- State of Washington Department of Ecology: Secondary Source
Although it is a governmental agency, this source is not a data set so the information they reported is just gathered from a primary source and not primary itself.
- Smithsonian Magazine: Secondary Source
The Smithsonian Magazine is a science news organization.
- The Washington Post: Secondary Source
The Washington Post is a respected newspaper.
Read over the Abstract from one of the primary sources you used. If you did not consult a primary source for your infographic, find one that is related to your topic and use it for this question.
Who are the authors of this paper, what journal is it published in and when was it published?
Authors:
Elliott DC, Biller P, Ross AB, Schmidt AJ, Jones SB from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Energy Research Institute, University of Leeds
Published in Bioresource Technology in February of 2015
Summarize the key points from the abstract.
This article describes the recent results in hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) continuous-flow processing systems. There is not much previous information on continuous-flow systems using high-moisture biomass feedstocks, which may be useful in designing an improved system with potential for commercialization. This article also provides process costs for commercialization-scale models.
Based on this abstract, what do you think the purpose of an abstract is and what information do you expect to find in the abstract of a scientific journal article?
The purpose of an abstract is to summarize a scientific journal article by describing both the research conducted, its results, and the real-world implications of that research.
Post-Project Reflection
Explain your understanding of the relationship between combusting fossil fuels, the greenhouse effect and climate change in a manner that would be appropriate for teaching a middle school student.
Our country gets 81% of our energy from fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil. When burned, fossil fuels produce “greenhouse gases” that trap heat in the atmosphere. This effect is called the “greenhouse effect”. Life needs the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect in order to survive, but burning fossil fuels intensifies this effect and causes climate change. Climate change is currently causing sea levels to rise and the extinction of many species.
What is the role of scientists and engineers in society? In what ways is life as we know it better (or worse) because of their work either in basic scientific research or the development of implementable technologies?
As humans, we are constantly striving to learn more about human existence and our environment. While the humanities explore this through poetry and philosophy, scientists and engineers do so by asking questions and gathering empirical evidence to answer those questions. Science contributes definite, objective facts to society. It isn’t nebulous. Overall, life is better because of scientific research and the development of technology. We are able to continue to improve our lives because of scientific progress. However, there are times when science can be taken too far. For example, many people believe that genetically modifying life crosses a line ethically. The problem is that everyone’s ethics differ, so it can be difficult to say definitively if certain research or technology does or does not contribute positively to society.
In your opinion, what is the role of innovation in the development of new cleaner energy production/consumption technologies in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the environment?
Right now, we are in a dire situation because of the amount of greenhouse gases we continue to release into the atmosphere. We know the position we’re in, but as a country, we continue to do little to change our habits. Why? Because of a lack of innovation. Scientists can show the public as many projections of the future as they want, but our country will continue to choose what makes sense economically. We’re still spewing out so much harmful gas because we still think that it makes sense economically. We need innovation, to strive for the best technology that will make clean energy cost-effective. That is the only way business-owners will be motivated enough to invest in clean energy and make the drastic changes that are needed if humans want to continue to live and thrive in a healthy world.