Evaluates shelf-life limiting factors in CBS-based chocolate, indicating quality declines over time.
This study aimed to determine the shelf-life limiting factors of Cocoa Butter Substitutes (CBS) based milk chocolate stored at 20 °C and 40.0% RH for 330 days by monitoring physico-chemical, rheological, textural, visual, and molecular (FT-IR) changes. Kinetic modeling (zero-order) was applied to quantify the degradation rates (k) of critical quality parameters. Results indicated that the samples exhibited exceptional oxidative and microbiological stability; the Peroxide Value (PV) remained at 0.00 meq O 2 /kg, and no microbial growth was detected throughout the storage period, attributed to the low water activity (aw < 0.400). However, physical and visual degradation emerged as the primary factors limiting shelf life. Moisture content increased from 1.05 to 1.65 g/100 g, which, alongside a rise in free fatty acids, acted as an effective plasticizer, driving a distinct textural softening and drastically reducing the structural product hardness over time. While zero-order kinetic models successfully predicted the rate of deterioration with high regression coefficients ( R 2 > 0.89) for hardness, color, and FFA content, the rheological properties of the molten matrix (Casson and Herschel-Bulkley parameters, thixotropy) exhibited highly fluctuating, nonlinear dynamic behavior. Visual analysis revealed a linear darkening trend; the samples lost luminance and whiteness index (WI), with the total color difference (ΔE) exceeding the sensory perception threshold (ΔE > 5.0) after 240 days. These macroscopic changes were substantiated by molecular analysis; FT-IR spectra indicated shifts in lipid-protein interactions. Consequently, while the product remained chemically safe and oxidatively stable for 11 months, its shelf life based on instrumental quality indicators was effectively limited to 8 months due to visual matting surpassing the human perception threshold and pronounced textural softening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Atalar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: