how do silicone muffin pans compare to traditional metal pans?

How do silicone muffin pans compare to traditional metal pans?

Nelson Barber, Janice Boyce, Margaret Binkley and Charles Broz

PO Box 41162, Department of Nutrition, Hospitality and Retailing, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,TX 79409, USA

Correspondence:Nelson Barber, PO Box41162, Department ofNutrition, Hospitalityand Retailing, Texas TechUniversity, Lubbock, TX79409, USA. Tel: (806)742 3068; Fax: (806)742 3042; E-mail:[email protected]

Keywords:baking characteristics,muffin pans, nonstick,silicone bakeware

Abstract

Research on the efficiency of silicone bakeware is limited. Manufacturersclaim that silicone bakeware is nonstick, has easy product release and evenheat distribution. This study attempted to replicate consumer baking con-ditions through a comparison of muffins baked in silicone pans to muffinsbaked in nonstick, anodized aluminum dark-colored metal pans (‘nonsili-cone’). Using a consumer corn-muffin mix, structured baking proceduresand controlled tests were performed, such as measures of the top surfacebrowning, texture, water activity and heat transfer coefficient of the pans.The results of the tests indicated that silicone muffin pans did not producea better product; rather, they were moister, had greater volume, with top-crust texture and color significantly less than muffins baked in nonsiliconemuffin pans.

Introduction

During the past decade, the introduction of sili-cone bakeware has resulted in a debate onwhether these products can deliver a betterproduct. The manufacturers of silicone bakewareclaim that their new products are ‘perfect release’,nonstick and easy to store. However, very littleresearch on the performance of these siliconeproducts, compared to traditional metal, glass orceramic bakeware, has been performed. A recentstudy by Barber et al. (2007) found that non-silicone cake pans produce a darker and betterdeveloped crust, while the silicone cake pans hadsignificantly greater cake volume, showing thatthe silicone pans do not deliver a better product.Both of these variations are the direct result of therate of heat transfer through the pans.

Consumers expect a consistent-finish bakedproduct and time-honored characteristics, suchas volume, moisture content, crust color andtexture; these characteristics are all important to

consumer acceptance. To test these accepted char-acteristics, the following measurements are gener-ally applied.

Volume and measurement

In the evaluation of most baked products, volumeis an important quality characteristic, relating tothe underlying structural and/or crumb develop-ment. There are two standard methods that havebeen approved by the American Association ofCereal Chemists for determining the volume of abaked product: rapeseed displacement and cross-sectional tracings, which is an indirect measure ofvolume (Funk et al. 1969; Whitaker & Barringer2004).

Water activity (aw) in food and measurement

Water activity (aw) plays an important role in thepreservation of food as well as in controllingmicrobial growth, especially pathogens. Water

Original article

© 2007, The Authors

Journal compilation © 2007, Blackwell Publishing Journal of Foodservice, 18, pp. 218–226

218

mailto:[email protected]

activity (aw) also has an affect on the food’stextural and storage properties (Food ScienceAustralia 2005). Foods with high water levels aredescribed as being moist, juicy, tender and chewy,and foods with low water levels have character-istics such as dryness, staleness and hardness. Thewater activity (aw) of a food is not the same as itsmoisture content. Although moist foods are likelyto have greater water activity (aw) than are dryfoods, this is not always so; in fact, a variety offoods may have exactly the same moisturecontent and yet may have quite different wateractivities, as in baked bread, for example (FoodScience Australia 2005).

There are two basic types of water activity (aw)analysis. The first is commonly measured usinga Decagon Aqua lab (Decagon, Pellman, WA)CX-2 instrument (Wilson 2001), and the secondmethod uses desiccators, glass vacuum ‘jars’ witha hydrometer.

Crust color and measurement

Crust color and development depend on caramel-ization of the sugar and crust surface dehydra-tion, or Maillard reactions. However, for the crustto brown, sufficient moisture must be releasedfrom the baked product to allow the temperatureat the crust to rise sufficiently to allow this cara-melization to occur (Potter 1973). The rate atwhich moisture leaves baked products is directlyrelated to the rate of heat entering the bakedproducts, which in turn depends on the thermalconductivity of the pan (Barber et al. 2007).

The use of color measurement equipment is themost common method for determining the crustcolor of baked products. There are three differenttypes of measuring equipment: the HunterLabAssociates (Reston, VA), the Natural ColorSystem (NCS; Scandinavian Colour Institute,Stockholm, Sweden) and the Munsell color solid(Boston, MA).

Compressibility (texture) of the crumband measurement

Many of the methods described by investigatorsfor measuring compressibility, or texture, of abaked product are based on the same principle(Funk et al. 1969). A sample of a given baked

product is subjected to a specific weight for agiven time, and the amount of depression is thenmeasured. According to Funk et al. (1969), thecompressibility of a baked product is measuredusing instruments such as a penetrometer or aprecision universal penetrometer, each fittedwith a disk to measure the depression of thecrumb.

Importance of conductivity

For bakeware to deliver an acceptable consumerproduct, its material should conduct heat quicklyand evenly. Materials conduct heat differently andare affected by either speed or thickness. Materi-als that are thin conduct heat quickly, while thosethat are thicker conduct heat more slowly, as seenin Fig. 1 (Hawks 2003; Barber et al. 2007).Because of its purity, silicone combined withhigh-quality manufacturing processes assuresconsistent heat distribution. The use of high-density silicone in combination with very evenwall thickness allows for even heat distribution,promoting even baking and browning.

Manufacturers’ data on silicone

Silicone products are relatively new to theconsumer market. Silicone represents a class ofinorganic rubbers of various compositions andformulas made by linking silicon atoms variouslybonded to oxygen and other organic groups.Silicone was developed for its superior reliability,combined with the temperature and chemicalresistance of glass and the versatility of plastics.Exposure to extreme temperatures will not cause

Conductivity - Coefficients

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Glass

Glass - Ceramic

Steel/Stainless Steel

Cast Iron

Aluminum

Copper

Coefficients

Figure 1 Heat conductivity for selected materials.Source: Barber et al. (2007).

219Silicone muffin pans vs. metal pans N. Barber et al.



it to lose its shape or break down (DVO Enter-prises, Inc. 2003). The melting point of silicone is500°C; however, the maximum sustained tem-perature use is 357.2°C, meaning that the bake-ware can be left at 357.2°C indefinitely withoutbreaking down. Silicone bakeware also can beused at temperatures as low as -50°C (Dow2007).

Purpose of the study

Using a consumer brand of corn-muffin mix,this study examined whether silicone bakewarelives up to manufacturers’ claims of nonstick andeasy removal, and whether silicone bakeware candeliver a better product that would meet con-sumer expectations for crust color, volume, mois-ture and texture when compared to nonsiliconemetal bakeware.

Materials and methods

Bakeware materials

There are various styles of bakeware made froma variety of different materials, each affectingthe outcome of a baked product. Some of thecommon bakeware materials are glass, stainlesssteel and anodized aluminum (Hormel Foods2005). Each of the materials used for this studyare discussed next.• Dark-colored, anodized aluminum, 12-cupmuffin pan – aluminum is an excellent materialfor bakeware because of its good heat conductiv-ity, which results in even baking, especially whencolor is an important characteristic. For example,a dark-colored surface will cause the food tobrown more easily because it absorbs the heat ofthe oven, rather than reflecting it. Aluminumbakeware should be made of heavy-gauge alumi-num rather than thinner, flimsy aluminum. Forthis study, two consumer nonstick, 12-cup, dark-colored, anodized aluminum muffin pans (WorldKitchen, Reston, VA) were purchased from a con-sumer retail establishment.• Silicone – silicone is a fairly new product. It ismade of a flexible and bendable silicone materialthat can be used in the oven, microwave andfreezer. The silicone bakeware does not absorbthe heat like other bakeware but allows the heat

to transfer evenly to the food. The thermalconductivity of pure silicon, 105 W/m°K(Almazoptics 2006), is less than half of the 240 W/m°K of aluminum but is more than six and a halftimes the 16 W/m°K of stainless steel (Perry et al.1997). The cooking process stops immediatelywhen food is removed from the oven, preventingadditional browning of the bottom and edges ofthe food. It can withstand temperatures rangingfrom -14 to 357°C (Dow 2006). The bakewarecan be folded for convenience in storing withoutdamaging the material. For this study, two con-sumer 12-cup silicone muffin pans (Lifetime HoanCompany, Westbury, MA) were purchased from aconsumer retail establishment.

Muffin preparation

Four 3 ¥ 4 (12 cup) muffin pans – two siliconeand two heavy-gauge dark-colored, anodizedaluminized (‘nonsilicone’) – and two 40-oz(1133.98 g/2 lb, 8 oz) institutional-size boxes ofJiffy corn-muffin mix (Chelsea Milling Company,Chelsea, MI) were used for each of the threetests. This muffin brand was selected because itrepresents approximately 85% of the consumercorn-muffin market. One institutional 40-oz(1133.98 g) box of muffin mix will yield 24muffins, measured into two 12-cup muffin pans.

The following control preparation methods oftesting were performed. First, the corn-muffinmix package instructions noted adjustmentsfor high-altitude (above 3500 ft) baking. Theresearch was conducted at approximately3200 ft. Therefore, no adjustment was made.Next, following the preparation instructions onthe back of the corn-muffin mix box, 11/3 cups(302.39 g) of milk were poured into the mixingbowl. Four eggs were added along with the 40 ozof muffin mix. Using a Kitchen Aid 3-quart mixer(Kitchen Aid, St. Joseph, MI) with paddle attach-ment, the batter was mixed at low speed for 30 s;the sides were scraped down using a rubberspatula, and the batter was mixed a second timeat low speed for 30 s.

According to the silicone muffin-pan manufac-turer, for a perfect release, they recommend thatthe silicone muffin pan be lightly coated with avegetable oil cooking spray. In order to test theeasy release claim of the manufacturer, one sili-

220 Silicone muffin pans vs. metal pans N. Barber et al.



cone pan was sprayed with Pam (InternationalHome Foods, Parsippany, NJ), and one was not.To avoid any possible heat variation during thebaking process, the silicone muffin pans weretested together. Using a 2-oz (56.70-g) measuringspoon (1/4 cup), the mixed batter was placed intoeach of the two 12-cup muffin pans.

Baking

The muffins were baked on the same oven shelf,according to the corn-muffin mix instructions –primarily to mimic a typical consumer bakingenvironment, for 17 min in a preheated 204°Cconventional electric oven (Kenmore 30’ free-standing range), turning the pans 180° at 7.5 min.The silicone pan instructions indicated a need toadjust the cooking time compared to metal pans.However, no indication on how to calculate thattime difference was provided. Therefore, theresearchers baked the silicone pans following theinstructions on the corn-muffin mix box. Oncethe baking tests were completed for the siliconemuffin pans, the two nonsilicone pans were testedfollowing the same procedures outlined earlier.

Measurement of muffin and muffinpan characteristics

For this study, three separate tests were performedwith the four muffin pans. The following con-trolled tests, modified from Barber et al. (2007),were designed to evaluate the differences amongmuffin pans.• Nonstick (ease of removal) – following stan-dard baking procedures, the muffins were cooled20 min before removal (Jooste 1951). Then, avisual comparison of muffin pans was made afterthe muffins were removed to determine the extentto which the muffins stuck to the pans. Digitalphotographs were taken of each of the fourmuffin pans after release.• Crust color and development – using a KonicaMinolta Chroma Meter CR-400 (Konica MinoltaHolding, Inc., Tokyo, Japan), with Munsell colorsolid light spectrum, top surface samples fromtwo muffins located along either side of eachmuffin pan were compared for color.• Volume measurement – the volume was mea-sured using the rapeseed (Canola seed) displace-

ment method. While the muffins cooled, acontainer was premeasured with rapeseed. Thevolume of this container was measured as1180 mL. The container was then emptied intoanother container. After the muffins were cooledfor 20 min, one muffin was removed from amuffin pan and placed in the first premeasuredcontainer. The container was then filled withthe rapeseed from the second container so thatthe rapeseed was level with the top edge of thecontainer. The remaining rapeseed in the secondcontainer was measured in whole milliliters usinga graduated cylinder or equivalent measuringdevice. This measure was subtracted from theoriginal measured volume of the first container.The weight was calculated in terms of wholegrams using a Mettler PE2000 Scale (MettlerInstrumente, Greifensee, Switzerland). Thismeasurement process was performed with twomuffins from each pan.

The specific volume will be calculated asfollows (USDA 2004):

Volume ofrapeseed inthe emptycontainer

Volume of therapeseed in t

−

hhevoid space in the

containercontaining the

productWeight of produuct

Specificvolume

=

• Water activity (aw) – a muffin sample from eachstyle pan (silicone and nonsilicone) was selectedand placed in a desiccator glass vacuum jar with ahydrometer and was measured for 1 week.• Texture of muffins – measured using a Voland-Stevens-LFRA texture analyzer (Voland Corp.,Fisher Scientific, New York, NY) with a cylinderprobe. The texture analyzer applied a knownforce onto the top crust of the muffin samples tomeasure the resistance to that pressure. Thetexture test settings were the following: test,5 mm/s; rupture test, 1 mm; distance, 5 mm;force, 2000 g; time, 5 s; and trigger force, 4 g.Two top-crust samples, one from opposite sides ofeach pan, were selected for testing.• Heat transfer coefficient of the muffin pans –estimated by placing the muffin pans in a fullhotel pan filled with hot water. The water tem-perature as well as the inside surface of themuffin pans were measured with a calibrated




thermometer and the muffin pans with an ST ProSeries infrared thermometer (Raytek Corpora-tion, Santa Cruz, CA). Once steady state wasreached, the ratio of the heat leaving the two panswas calculated based on the pan temperatures andthe air temperature. These calculations assumedthat the convection coefficient was approximatelythe same for both muffin pans. The ratio of theheat leaving both pans was used to calculate theratio of the overall heat transfer coefficient forthe two muffin pans.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed using t-tests and analysisof variance (SAS release 9.1 TS level 02M0, SASInstitute, Cary, NC) to determine whether therewas a significant difference (P < 0.05) between thesilicone and the nonsilicone pans, using the fourbaking characteristics of water activity, color,texture and volume. Post hoc testing usingTukey’s test was performed if the results weredetermined to be significant.

Results and discussions

Expectations of testing

Based upon prior studies (Barber et al. 2007),overall, the silicone muffin pans were notexpected to perform better compared with thenonsilicone muffin pans because they do not rep-resent an improvement in baking technology.Rather, the only benefit to consumers is anapparent value through their flexibility andattractiveness.

Visual testing by researchers

The results on color and volume were noticeable.The muffins baked in the nonsilicone pans had a

uniform golden brown crust color with no visible‘frying’ around the edges, where the muffinsbaked in the silicone pans were lighter in colorand had little color around the sides and edges. Inaddition, the muffins baked in the silicone panswere perceptibly moister than those baked in thetraditional muffin pans.

The pictures in Fig. 2 show excessive ‘sticking’of the muffins on the sides and bottom of eachpan. Silicone muffin pan #1 was lightly coatedwith the vegetable oil cooking spray. Siliconemuffin pan #2 was not coated with the vegetableoil. The nonsilicone muffin pan #1 was coatedwith the vegetable oil spray, while the nonsiliconemuffin pan #2 was not.

The manufacturers of the silicone muffin pansclaim they have an ‘an unbeatable release’. Thepresence of residue on the bottom and sides ofboth silicon muffin pans in Fig. 2 indicates thatthey are neither as ‘naturally’ nonstick nor havethe perfect release that the manufacturersclaimed, which was confirmed by the level ofdifficulty in removing muffins from each of thesilicone pans.

Objective measurements

Physical testing

The physical testing included water activity (aw),crust color, texture and volume measurements.The results are reflected in Figs. 3–5.

Figure 3 presents the differences in wateractivity between the nonsilicone and siliconebakeware.

The objective testing procedures for muffinwater activity (aw) did not result in significantdifferences between silicone and nonsiliconemuffin pans, although the muffins baked in the

Silicone #1 with spray Silicone #2 with no spray Nonsilicone #1 with spray Nonsilicone #2 with nospray

Figure 2 Photographs of test pans.




silicone muffin bakeware tended to have morereported water activity (aw).

Figure 4 presents the differences in colorbetween the nonsilicone and silicone bakeware.

The objective testing for crust color and brown-ing indicated significant differences (P = 0.012) inmeasurement between the silicone and nonsili-cone muffin pans with the brown color factor(YR) the least for muffins baked in the siliconemuffin pans, thus indicating a light-colored crust.

Figure 5 presents the testing differences intexture between muffins baked in the nonsiliconeand silicone muffin bakeware.

The objective testing for muffin texture usedtwo samples from each of the four muffin pans.The results showed significant differences

(P = 0.004) between the silicone and nonsiliconemuffin pans, with the nonsilicone pans showingthe greatest amount of force. This would indicatethese muffins are not as tender as those baked insilicone pans, which is an expected characteristicof consumer corn-muffin products.

Table 1 presents the specific volume results ofthe rapeseed displacement testing. Two muffinsfrom each of the four pans were used for thisobjective measurement method.

The results showed a significant difference involume (P = 0.0183), with muffins from the sili-cone pans having a larger increase in volume. Thiswas expected, as the muffins baked in silicone hada softer crust development, allowing these muffinsto continue to expand during the baking process.

The results of the final test, to determine therelative overall heat transfer coefficient, areshown in Table 2. Three readings were takenfrom different muffin ‘cups’, one on the left,middle and right of the muffin pan, and the resultswere then averaged. The 10th reading (steadystate) was used to calculate the ratio of overallheat transfer coefficient for the silicone and alu-minum pans. The overall heat transfer coefficientfor the silicone muffin pan was 22% of that forthe aluminum muffin pan.

Conclusions

According to Gothard (1951), a good corn muffinshould be light, golden brown, with a round andsomewhat pebbled surface, and the inside having

Silicone #1

Silicone #2

Nonsilicone #1

Nonsilicone #2

0.75

0.76

0.77

0.78

0.79

0.8

0.81

0.82

Water Activity

Mu

ffin

Bakew

are

Figure 3 Average water activity vs. muffin bakeware(trials = 3).

Nonsilicone #2 (b)Nonsilicone #1 (b)

Silicone #2 (a)

Silicone #1 (a)

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

Muffin Bakeware Type

To

p Y

R V

alu

e

Figure 4 Top YR value vs. muffin bakeware type(trials = 6). Columns with different letters (a,b) aresignificantly different (P < 0.05). YR, brown colorfactor.

Silicone #1 (a) Silicone #2 (a)

Nonsilicone #2 (b)Nonsilicone #1 (b)

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

Muffin Bakeware Type

Fo

rce (

gra

ms)

Figure 5 TA force vs. muffin bakeware (trials = 12).Columns with different letters (a,b) are significantlydifferent (P < 0.05).




a slightly grainy and crumbly texture. The visualand physical testing showed significant differencesin the volume, texture and crust color, and devel-opment between the silicone and nonsiliconebaked muffins. The results of this study showedthe nonsilicone pans did produce a darker andbetter developed crust, while the silicone bake-ware had significantly greater volume. Both ofthese variations are a direct result of the rate ofheat transfer through the pans.

Crust color and development depend on Mail-lard reactions, caramelization of the sugar andcrust surface dehydration, and in order for thecrust to brown, sufficient moisture must leavethe baked product to allow the temperature at thecrust to increase at a sufficient rate to allow Mail-lard reaction to occur. The rate at which moisture

leaves a baked product is directly related to therate of heat entering the product, which dependson the thermal conductivity of the pan (Potter1973). If heat enters the product quicker, themoisture will be driven off faster, and the prod-ucts will brown faster. Based on the higher degreeof browning for the muffins in the nonsiliconepan, the results of this test are as expected.

Given the results of the heat transfer testing, theslower rate of heat transfer through the siliconepan affected the baking results. However, theinternal temperatures of muffins sampled fromeach pan were the same at the end of the approxi-mately 17 min of baking time. While the heattransfer rate through the silicone was slower, itwas fast enough to keep up with the rate that themuffins were capable of accepting the heat, which

Table 1 The mean results of rapeseed displacement volume testing (specific volume)

Trial Silicone pan #1 Silicone pan #2 Nonsilicone #1 Nonsilicone #2

1 0.307 0.308 0.220 0.2412 0.286 0.308 0.241 0.2193 0.265 0.287 0.263 0.2184 0.306 0.310 0.198 0.2625 0.307 0.285 0.219 0.2436 0.328 0.264 0.221 0.2207 0.309 0.240 0.241 0.2428 0.286 0.265 0.220 0.2199 0.285 0.287 0.197 0.241Mean 0.297a 0.284a 0.224b 0.234b

Means with different letters are significant at P < 0.05.

Table 2 Muffin pan heat conductivity testing

ReadingLapsedtime (s)

Temperature readings (°C)

Silicone pan Water temperature Aluminum pan Water temperature

Initial reading 0 24.4 83.3 22.7 84.41st reading in water 5 86.1 83.3 91.1 84.42nd reading 5 87.7 83.3 91.6 84.43rd reading 5 91.1 85.0 92.2 85.04th reading 5 92.2 85.0 93.9 85.05th reading 5 91.6 84.4 94.4 85.06th reading 5 92.2 85.0 95.0 85.07th reading 5 91.6 85.0 94.4 85.08th reading 5 92.2 85.0 95.0 85.09th reading 30 91.6 85.0 95.0 85.010th reading 30 91.6 85.0 95.0 85.011th reading 30 90.5 84.4 96.1 85.0




means the silicone muffin pan interface (transferand acceptance of heat) would be at a lower tem-perature than that for the aluminum. This lowerinterface temperature could have an impact onthe browning that occurred. In fact, the alumi-num muffin pan held a relatively constant tem-perature as compared to the silicone muffin panfrom the fifth reading to the steady state (seeTable 2), which supports an even baking processby the aluminum muffin pans. Indeed, the muffinsbaked in the silicone pans had less crust forma-tion at the pan interface. These results confirm thestudy by Barber et al. (2007) wherein they founda lower heat transfer rate for silicone cake panscompared with nonsilicone metal pans.

The silicone pans, it appears, did not performon par with more conventional bakeware. It wasexpected that the muffins would have a firm, darksurface, with a slightly dry and crumbly insidetexture. Rather, they were light in color, with asofter crust texture and a moister inside crumb.The degree of browning and resulting insidetexture (less moist, more crumbly) could havebeen improved if the muffins were baked longer;however, this would have affected their othercharacteristics (e.g. bottom color and texture).Despite the manufacturers’ claim of a perfectrelease when the silicone muffin pans were coatedwith a nonstick vegetable spray, the sticking char-acteristics were much worse than when comparedto the nonsilicone pan receiving the sametreatment.

The flexible nature of the silicone pans gener-ally made them harder to handle than the rigidnonsilicone pans. For example, metal sheet panscould have been used to support the siliconemuffin pans while in the oven; however, this mayhave impacted the heat transfer, thereby changingthe results. In addition, the purpose of this studywas to replicate consumer home use, and manyconsumers may either not have sheet pans or theymay not consider the heat transfer impact whenbaking at home.

To determine the true value of using siliconepans, additional testing to determine performanceof the pans using convection ovens at differenttemperatures utilizing varying cooking times maybe beneficial. Although this was a pilot study,future research may benefit from subjectivetesting of the textural characteristics evaluated

above (color, crumb and moisture) through asensory panel.

Managerial implications

The results of this study indicate that muffinsbaked in consumer-grade silicone bakeware didnot produce a better product. In fact, the resultspoint to a concern for manufacturers of muffinmixes. A review of consumer baking mixes sold inretail stores around Lubbock, TX, shows that nomajor brand indicates how baking results maydiffer when using silicone bakeware. It may bepossible that the average consumer could blamethe mix and not the silicone bakeware for theresulting poor product. Therefore, it may benefitmuffin mix manufacturers to put a disclaimer ontheir packages that alerts consumers to the pos-sible outcomes when using silicone bakeware.

Acknowledgements

The researchers would like to recognize the TexasTech University Experimental Foodservice Labfor use of its conventional ovens and testingequipment (Konica Minolta Chroma MeterCR-400/410, Voland-Stevens-CFRA texture ana-lyzer and the desiccator glass vacuum jars). Theresearchers would also like to acknowledge thecontribution by Mr. Howdy Holmes, CEO ofthe Chelsea Milling Company, for providing theJiffy muffin mix.

References

Almazoptics (2006). Available at: http://www.almazoptics.com/si.htm (accessed 5 May 2006).

Barber N, Scarcelli J, Almanza BA, Daniel JR, NelsonD (2007). Silicone bakeware: does it deliver a betterproduct? Journal of Foodservice 18:43–51.

Dow Corning Corporation (2007). Rubber physicaland chemical properties. Available at: http://www.dowcorning.com/content/rubber/rubberprop/rubber_thermal.asp.

DVO Enterprises, Inc. (2003). Silicone bakeware – thenewest advance in cooking. Available at: http://www.dvo.com/silicone.html.

Food Science Australia (2005). Water activity.Available at: http://www.foodscience.afisc.csiro.au/water_fs.htm (accessed 30 November 2006).

Funk K, Zabik M, Elgidaily D (1969). Objectivemeasurements for baked products. Journal of HomeEconomics 61:119–23.




http://www

http://www.dowcorning.com/content/rubber/rubberprop

http://www.dowcorning.com/content/rubber/rubberprop

http://www.dvo.com/silicone.html

http://www.dvo.com/silicone.html

http://www.foodscience.afisc.csiro.au

Gothard M (1951). The quality and practicability of arefrigerated prepared dry corn meal muffin mix.Journal of Home Economics 43:713.

Hawks L (2003). Cook Tops and Cookware. UtahState University: Logan, UT. Available at: http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/HI_12.pdf (accessed 6 December 2006).

Hormel Foods (2005). Types of bakeware. TestraSystems Corporation. Available at: http://www.Typesof Bakeware.htm (accessed 16 October 2006).

Jooste ME (1951). Cake structure and palatability asaffected by emulsifying agents and baking tempera-tures. MS Thesis, Food and Nutrition, Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, OR. Available at: http://food.oregonstate.edu/ref/bake/jooste/index.html(accessed 30 November 2006).

Perry RH, Green DW, Maloney JO (1997).Table 2-374 Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook,

7th edn. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc: New York,NY.

Potter N (1973). Food Science, 2nd edn. The AVI Pub-lishing Company, Inc.: Westport, CT.

USDA (2004). A-A-20126E February 26, 2004,SUPERSEDING A-A-20126D September 30, 1998.Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fqa/aa20126e.pdf (accessed 10 November 2006).

Whitaker AM, Barringer SA (2004). Measurement ofcontour and volume changes during cake baking.Cereal Chemistry 81:177–81.

Wilson P (2001). Determination of water activity usingthe Decagon Aqua lab CX-2 and Series 3. Labora-tory Procedure MFLP-66, Health Products andFood Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency.Available at: http://hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats/hpfbdgpsa/pdf/res-rech/mflp66_e.pdf (accessed 30November 2006).




http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication

http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication

http://www.Types

http://food.oregonstate.edu/ref/bake/jooste/index.html

http://food.oregonstate.edu/ref/bake/jooste/index.html

http://www.ams.usda.gov/fqa

http://hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/alt_formats

how do silicone muffin pans compare to traditional metal pans?

Documents