A Study of Popcorn Kernel to Flake Density through

Vapor Induced Puffing

By
Lee Brandt
August 24, 2015
Gus White
Aliza Dixon
Emily Bernier

Brandt 2

Objective:
The objective of this experiment was to synthesize vapor-induced puffing
through the application of heat to popcorn kernels.
Procedure:
1) To begin the experiment gather the following materials
1 Calculator
5 Popcorn Kernels of one brand
1 250mL Erlenmeyer Flask
1 Single-hole rubber stopper
1 Hot plate
1 pair of tongs
1 Glass stirring rod
1 electronic balance
1 100mL Graduated Cylinder
20-25 ml dry sea sand
sample holder
tweezers
2) After gathering the materials, create a sample holder. This is best done
with a piece of paper and a pen by drawing a circle and labeling them 1
through 5. Then place one kernel in each sample space.
3) individually weigh kernel on the electronic balance and note kernel mass
in the lab book
4) turn on hot plate to 8 and place one kernel in a 250mL Erlenmeyer Flask.
Using the tongs, place flask on hot plate and begin moving the flask to roll
the kernel inside the flask. Continue this process until kernel has popped.
Note: this high heat process pops the kernel the fastest, but does not
necessarily create the biggest flake. This high temperature was the only
method which popped the kernel in our experiment. Also be careful not to
burn kernel or flake by moving the kernel constantly and inverting the
Erlenmeyer flask as soon as the kernel pops.
5) using glass stirring rod, pull the flake out of the flask and weigh it on the
electronic balance.
6) In a 100mL graduated cylinder place flake and pour in 20mL of dry sea
sand.
7) measure volume and then subtract original sea sand volume (20mL).
Record flake volume.
8) Repeat steps 3-7 for all 5 kernels
9) After all kernels have been popped, weighed, and volume measured, take
a picture of all 5, labeled, for record.
10) clean up and put away materials.

Brandt 3
Note: this procedure or one of equal product was used to create all the data
for this report using three different brands of popcorn: Cousins Willies, Jolly
Time, and Orville Redenbacher popcorn.
Data and Calculations:
For Raw Data on Cousins Willies Popcorn, please see Appendix 1.
For Raw Data on Orville Redenbacher, please see Appendix 2
For Raw Data on Jolly Time Popcorn Popcorn, please see Appendix 3
Using Excel, Flake Density was calculated using the following Equation:
D=M(g)/V(mL)
Cousins Willies
Flake
(g)

Volume
(mL)

Densit
y
(g/mL)

0.1544

0.6

0.2573

0.0935

0.8

0.1169

0.1493

0.7

0.2133

0.1324

0.9

0.1471

0.1651
0.1406

0.7
1

0.2359
0.1406

0.118

0.5

0.236

0.0867

0.5

0.1734

0.1615

0.1615

0.1569

1.5

0.1046

0.8

0.1784

0.223

0.7

0.1266

0.181

0.5

0.1454

0.2908

0.9

0.1406

0.1562

0.7

0.146

0.2096

0.0752

0.073

Flake
(g)
0.187
1
0.121
2
0.095
7
0.152
5
0.155
2
0.124
0.121
6
0.147
6
0.186
7
0.142
3
0.189
5

Jolly Time
Densi
Volu
ty
me
(g/mL
(mL)
)
1.4

0.13

1.7

0.071

1.1

0.09

1.1

0.14

0.9
5

0.17
0.248

0.9

0.135

0.147

0.187

1.9

0.075

0.1

0.137
0.172
4

0.05

0.09

0.15
0.141
1
0.168
6

0.08

0.1

0.5

0.34

Orville Redenbacher
Flake
(g)
0.131
6
0.112
9
0.101
9

Volume
(mL)

Density
(g/mL)

1.9

0.07

0.6

0.19

1.1

0.09

0.19
0.086
8
0.113
0.160
3
0.120
1

1.3

0.15

0.9
1

0.1
0.11

0.08

0.06

0.179
0.163
5
0.168
7
0.136
5

0.06

0.08

0.1687

0.9

0.15167

0.175

1.5

0.1168

0.4

0.3388

0.4

0.37

0.175
0.175
2
0.135
5
0.149
7

Brandt 4

0.136

0.8

0.17

0.1446

0.4

0.362

0.1859

0.2

0.9295

0.180
8
0.170
6
0.156
6

0.1567

0.1567

0.166

Chart 1

2.2

0.082

1.3

0.13

0.078

0.083

Chart 2

0.128
3
0.166
9
0.176
1
0.170
6
0.156
1
0.144
2
0.131
4
0.116
3
0.143
9

0.2

0.64

0.6

0.28

0.8

0.25

0.7

0.24

1.3

0.1209

0.5

0.288

0.5

0.263

0.5

0.232

0.7

0.206

Chart 3
Chart 1 is an Excel Chart calculating Density of Cousins Willies Flakes
Chart 2 is an Excel Chart calculating Density of Jolly Time Flakes
Chart 3 is an Excel Chart calculating Density of Orville Redenbacher Flakes

Brandt 5
Using Excel, percent mass lost was also calculated using the following
equation:
%m=(mi-mf)/mi*100
Cousins
Willies
Kernel
(g)

Flake
(g)

0.1681

0.1544

0.1019

0.0935

0.1688

0.1493

0.1458

0.1324

0.1795

0.1651

0.1587

0.1406

0.131

0.118

0.0983

0.0867

0.1843

0.1615

0.1714

0.1569

0.1862

0.8

0.1338

0.7

0.1547

0.5

0.1508

0.9

0.1627

0.7

0.0835

0.0752

0.1488
0.1554

0.136
0.1446

Jolly
Time
% mass
lost
8.1499107
67
8.2433758
59
11.552132
7
9.1906721
54
8.0222841
23
11.405166
98
9.9236641
22
11.800610
38
12.371134
02
8.4597432
91
329.64554
24
423.16890
88
223.20620
56
496.81697
61
330.23970
5
9.9401197
6
8.6021505
38
6.9498069

Kernel
(g)

Flake
(g)

0.202
0.131
4
0.103
3

0.1871

0.105
2
0.171
7
0.168
8
0.134
3
0.16
0.203
1
0.188
3

0.1212
0.0957
0.1525
0.1552
0.124
0.1216

7.376237
624
7.762557
078
7.357212
004
44.96197
719
9.609784
508
26.54028
436
9.456440
804

0.1423

7.75
8.074839
98
24.42910
25

0.205
4

0.1895

7.740993
184

0.148
1

0.137

7.494935
854

0.186
8

0.1724

7.708779
443

0.15

8.592321
755

0.164
1
0.155
1
0.184
5
0.199
9
0.187

0.1476

% mass
lost

0.1867

0.1411
0.1686
0.1808
0.1706

9.026434
558
8.617886
179
9.554777
389
8.964781

Brandt 6

0.1927

0.1859

0.1708

0.1567

Chart 4

5
3.5288012
45
8.2552693
21

4
0.169
5
0.187
7

0.1566
0.166

217
7.610619
469
11.56100
16

Chart 5

Chart 4 is an Excel Chart calculating the percent mass lost of Cousins Willies
Kernels after popping
Chart 5 is an Excel Chart calculating the percent mass lost of Jolly Time
Kernels after popping

Brandt 7

Orville
Redenbacher
Kernel
(g)
0.1480
1

Flake
(g)
0.1316

0.1252

0.1129

0.1154

0.1019

0.2121

0.19

0.0935

0.0868

0.1258

0.113

0.1794

0.1603

0.1352

0.1201

0.2061

0.179

0.1909

0.1635

0.1874

0.1687

0.1527

0.1365

0.1929

0.175

0.1603

0.1752

0.1456

0.1355

0.1676

0.1497

0.1378

0.1283

0.1813

0.1669

0.1944

0.1761

0.1876

0.1706

0.1738
0.1563

0.1561
0.1442

% mass
lost
11.08708
871
9.824281
15
11.69844
021
10.41961
339
7.165775
401
10.17488
076
10.64659
978
11.16863
905
13.14895
682
14.35306
443
9.978655
283
10.60903
733
9.279419
388
9.295071
74
6.936813
187
10.68019
093
6.894049
347
7.942636
514
9.413580
247
9.061833
689
10.18411
968
7.741522

Brandt 8

0.1502

0.1314

0.1322

0.1163

0.1596

0.1439

713
12.51664
447
12.02723
147
9.837092
732

Chart 6
Chart 6 is an Excel Chart calculating the percent mass lost of Orville
Redenbacher Kernels after popping

Figure 1
Figure 1 is a picture of the Flakes from the experiment. As you can see, some
of the flakes broke while being measured for volume.
Graphs and Figures:
Upon Reviewing Data Calculations and consulting the lab introduction, any
kernels gaining mass after popping were thrown out as outliers on basis that
popping is caused by the release of water vapor from the kernel. Considering
said indicated kernels in the lab data would skew results.

Brandt 9

Cousins Willies
Kernel mass vs Flake mass

f(x) = 0.94x - 0
R = 0.99

Graph 1

Jolly Time
Kernel mass vs Flake mass

Kernel mass (g 0.0001)

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0

f(x) = 0.87x + 0
R = 0.86

Graph 2

Brandt 10

Orville Rednbacher
Kernel mass vs. Flake mass

f(x) = 0.88x + 0
R = 0.94

Graph 3
Graph 1 shows the relation of Cousins Willies Kernel mass to Flake mass with
linear trend line.
Graph 2 shows the relation of Jolly Time Kernel mass to Flake mass with
linear trend line.
Graph 3 shows the relation of Orville Redenbacher Kernel mass to Flake mass
with linear trend line.

Cousins Willies
Kernel mass vs Flake Volume

f(x) = - 0.05x + 0.78

R = 0

Graph 4

Brandt 11

Jolly Time
Kernel mass vs Flake Volume

f(x) =
R = 0

Graph 5

Orville Rednbacher
Kernel mass vs Flake Volume

f(x) = 7.41x - 0.14

R = 0.11
0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

Flake Volume (ml 0.1)

Graph 6
Graph 4 shows the relation of Cousins Willies Kernel mass to Flake volume
with linear trend line.
Graph 5 shows the relation of Jolly Time Kernel mass to Flake volume with
linear trend line.
Graph 6 shows the relation of Orville Redenbacher Kernel mass to Flake
volume with linear trend line.

Brandt 12
Conclusion:
This experiment tests two hypotheses:
1) The mass of the flake is proportional to the mass of the kernel
2) The volume of the flake is proportional to the mass of the kernel
Data indicates a positive correlation for the first hypothesis. Which
confirms a linear relationship of kernel mass to flake mass. This is seen
through graphs 1, 2, and 3 which reject the null hypothesis that the flake
mass is not correlated to kernel mass and support the first hypothesis. This
can be confirmed by evaluation the R-values of each of the three brands. All
three R-values are above .5 which suggests a correlation. The strongest
brand to suggest the strongest correlation is Cousins Willies with an Rvalue=.98554. The brand with the least correlation, Jolly Time, still shows a
strong correlation between the flake mass and kernel mass with an Rvalue=.86284.
The second hypothesis however is rejected because the relationship of
flake volume to kernel mass has little to no correlation. The graph does not
indicate any linear trend. In fact, the results vary wildly and the linear
correlations in graphs 4, 5, and 6 all support the null hypothesis for the
second hypothesis, that there is no strong correlation between kernel volume
and kernel mass. While both Cousins Willies and Jolly Time show a slight
negative correlation between kernel mass and flake volume, the R-value of
these equations are much to small to consider it a correlation.
While only one hypothesis was confirmed, the experimental data apart
from obvious outliers, was statistically sound. There is strong data supporting

Brandt 13
hypothesis one, but almost none supporting hypothesis two. This however
does not poise a problem or question of the experimental conditions because
of the strong correlation shown for hypothesis one.
Interestingly, the most of the popcorn kernels used in this experiment
contained less than the optimal 12-14% water composition that aids in vapor
induced puffing. Many kernels contained less than 10% water, which could
attribute to the struggle of getting kernels to pop that many groups
experienced. Another factor possibly affecting the popping of individual
kernels was kernel hull strength. This can vary widely between brands and
individual kernels. This factor could explain some of the variation seen in the
results. Another factor is the evenness with which the interior of the kernel is
heated. To achieve better results, we took care to heat evenly by never
letting the kernel stop moving, so that all sides were heated as evenly as
possible. While high heat was used, the beaker never stopped, and thus the
high head did not affect the popping results. If a high and hot flame were
used however, the kernel has more of a possibility to burn or heat unevenly
even possibly causing burning or scorching, which would affect the kernels
ability to pop correctly thus diminishing the volume of a kernel.
Many flakes did not fit with the linear correlation between flake volume
and kernel mass, while heavier kernels may contain larger amounts of starch,
many other factors can contribute to added weight. Thus the volume is not
directly correlated to mass. Flakes are also unique; no two are alike. This

Brandt 14
deviation and diversity affect the ability to draw a correlation between flake
volume and kernel mass.
One additional experimental error is the variation in heat and heating
techniques used by groups gathering data. Many different hot plates
temperatures and brands were used giving many kernels distinct differences.
In looking at the raw data, one can see similarities in groupings of five,
suggesting that different methods were used to achieve successful popping.
This factor could lead to question if there might be a correlation between
flake volume and flake mass. A possible follow-up experiment might look at
different popping temperatures/methods in their affect on flake volume and
mass compared to kernel mass.

Brandt 15
Appendix:

Appendix 1

Brandt 16

Appendix 2

Brandt 17

Appendix 3