Cooking Noodles with Boiling Water & Salt

[arcnets]

Hi all,
there's so many forums here, I really don't know if this is the right one. However...

Today, I cooked some noodles.
The water was boiling low, just simmering.
I had a taste, and decided the noodles needed more salt.
So I added some salt.
And, can you believe, where I put in the salt, the water started to boil & bubble very intensely for a second or so, then went back to normal.
I became curious, and repeated this several times with the same result.
Later (eating some very salty noodles), I wondered what's behind this.
Any ideas? Thanks!

 

[mceddy2001]

Before I explain let me tell you this. If you see a ||||| do not be allarmed. It is to prevent my diagram from being squashed into meaningless rubish by the server as ot will automatically remove mutliple spaces from this post reply.

Understanding what's going on here will require you know about
1)The polar nature of water and salt
2)What actually happens when something changes state(state in terms of liquid, gas or solid)

I will explain theses two concepts to you and then combine them to give a conclusion (this will be the answer to your question)

A water molecule consists of 2hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. The hydrogen atoms each contain 1 proton and 1 electron. The oxyen atom contains 8 protons and 8 elctrons. Since the electrons effectively (and i use effectively in the broadest sense) fill up the shells in the fashion 2,8,8,8,8,etc... The first 2 electons fill up the first shell and the other 6 almost fill the second shell. The oxygen steals the electron from each of the hydrogen atoms in order to fill its second shell. This creates positively chared hydorgen atoms and a negatively charged oxygen atom. Since opposites attract they do so froming a water molecule.

A water molecule is called a polar molecule because it has a positive end and a negative end as depicted by the diagram bellow where the + is the oxygen and the 2 -'s are the hydrogens.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||+
Water is a polar molecule||_|/\ _

Now if we look at salt which is also polar

|Cl||Na
|+|||-

you can see how the hydrogens on the water would be attraced to the clorine in the salt and would orient itself accordingly and the same with the oxygen and the Sodium(Na).

Here is another concept. The heat of a particle is literally how much it is vibrating. If a group of water molecules has hardly any heat energy then they assume the solid state as their particles have not got enough engergy to vibrate and escape the strong attractive forces between the moleucles. So they stick together to form a solid. If they have more heat energy they now have enough heat energy to vibrate a little away from each other. They can now slide over each other (a liquid). Heat them some more and they have completely escaped the attractive force binding them and therefore move to someextent, independent of each other ( a gas).

Combining these two concepts we can see how adding salt to water would distort the system of acctraction and repulsion forces between the molecules. We can see that since the relationship of these forces has been affected, the heat energy required to break free from these them (turn into gas or evaporate) would be different. So in an area of the water where the water has not got enough energy to turn into gas, you are changing the amount of energy required to change the water into steam so that the required energy level is below the actual energy level of the water in the saucepan. (when i say energy level i am referring to the amount of heat energy in the saucepan)

Its been an honour answering your question. Was my answer usefull to you? please tell me by emailing me mceddy2001@hotmail.com

 

[Bystander]

And, for a more pedestrian explanation, the salt furnishes nucleation sites for boiling of superheated water --- try it with sugar, sand, baking soda, ground glass --- you'll get the general picture.

 

[arcnets]

Thanks Bystander and especially mceddy2001!
That was very helpful.

I still have some questions:

mceddy2001:
Let's assume it's the attraction between H+ and (another molecule's) O--, which is mainly responsible for the high boiling point of water. (This sounds reasonable, since e.g. pure oxygen has a much lower boiling point.)
Now, if I add the salt, there is also attraction between Na+ and O--, and also between Cl- and H+. I can see that this changes the energy needed for a water molecule to escape, but I can't see why this necessarily decreases that energy.
After all, you could argue that both Na and Cl are heavy atoms compared to H₂O, so a water molecule should be held down by their attraction, just as if a heavy weight was being attached to it...

Bystander:
You seem to suggest that his works with the other substances, too. Well, one should expect that, with sand, the effect will NOT vanish after a second or so. Because the sand will not dissolve, as the salt does. I'll try when I find the time. Or maybe someone else?

 

[Integral]

Originally posted by mceddy2001
Before I explain let me tell you this. If you see a ||||| do not be allarmed. It is to prevent my diagram from being squashed into meaningless rubish by the server as ot will automatically remove mutliple spaces from this post reply.

Understanding what's going on here will require you know about
1)The polar nature of water and salt
2)What actually happens when something changes state(state in terms of liquid, gas or solid)

I will explain theses two concepts to you and then combine them to give a conclusion (this will be the answer to your question)

A water molecule consists of 2hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom. The hydrogen atoms each contain 1 proton and 1 electron. The oxyen atom contains 8 protons and 8 elctrons. Since the electrons effectively (and i use effectively in the broadest sense) fill up the shells in the fashion 2,8,8,8,8,etc... The first 2 electons fill up the first shell and the other 6 almost fill the second shell. The oxygen steals the electron from each of the hydrogen atoms in order to fill its second shell. This creates positively chared hydorgen atoms and a negatively charged oxygen atom. Since opposites attract they do so froming a water molecule.

A water molecule is called a polar molecule because it has a positive end and a negative end as depicted by the diagram bellow where the + is the oxygen and the 2 -'s are the hydrogens.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||+
Water is a polar molecule||_|/\ _

Now if we look at salt which is also polar

|Cl||Na
|+|||-

you can see how the hydrogens on the water would be attraced to the clorine in the salt and would orient itself accordingly and the same with the oxygen and the Sodium(Na).

Here is another concept. The heat of a particle is literally how much it is vibrating. If a group of water molecules has hardly any heat energy then they assume the solid state as their particles have not got enough engergy to vibrate and escape the strong attractive forces between the moleucles. So they stick together to form a solid. If they have more heat energy they now have enough heat energy to vibrate a little away from each other. They can now slide over each other (a liquid). Heat them some more and they have completely escaped the attractive force binding them and therefore move to someextent, independent of each other ( a gas).

Combining these two concepts we can see how adding salt to water would distort the system of acctraction and repulsion forces between the molecules. We can see that since the relationship of these forces has been affected, the heat energy required to break free from these them (turn into gas or evaporate) would be different. So in an area of the water where the water has not got enough energy to turn into gas, you are changing the amount of energy required to change the water into steam so that the required energy level is below the actual energy level of the water in the saucepan. (when i say energy level i am referring to the amount of heat energy in the saucepan)

Its been an honour answering your question. Was my answer usefull to you? please tell me by emailing me mceddy2001@hotmail.com

This post is mostly hot air, with little that applies to this problem. Read Bystanders post, it says all that needs to be said.

 

[mceddy2001]

well if you take a look at the structure of how water groups, the molecules cluster very close together forming a sperical blob. If you look at http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/clusters.html you can see how 280 water molecules arrange in a blob. By looking at this diagram you can get an idea of how disruptive adding ions into the blob arrangement would be.

By looking at the blob you can see why water has got such a high boiling point, because they are tightly packed and therefore the residual electro static forces attracting the paticles together needs to be overcome by being heated to 100 deg C or 373K to be politically correct.

It is my belief that adding salt weakens this K'nex Ferrice wheel, making it easier to change the state.

__________________________________________________________________-

 

[joc]

mceddy: adding impurities like salt to water *raises* the latter's boiling point. no real controversy there. but what the original poster is referring to here is the phenomenon of vigorous localized bubbling, not a general change in the melting point. bystander has the short, sweet, and correct answer.

[post corrected; apparently i don't know my chemistry]

 

[Njorl]

Adding salt raises the boiling point of water. It does not lower it. The sudden boiling is a short-term effect. Once the salt dissolves, it winds up raising the boiling point.

Njorl

 

[joc]

! sorry 'bout that. i'll correct my post.

 

[mceddy2001]

Im sorry I am a physician not a chemist, I oviously stand corrected.

 

[arcnets]

Thanks for the response everybody.
Njorl, are you sure? Yes I know salt water is denser than pure water which backs up your statement, but please consider this:

When it's sub zero in winter, and the sidewalk has frozen over, you can scatter some salt upon it, and the ice will eventually melt. Because adding the salt lowers the melting point, right? Couldn't it be that my little effect comes from a similar mechanism - salt lowering the boiling point? (AFAIK, a substance with lower melting point also has a lower boiling point, or am I naive here...?)

In another experiment, you use a mixture of icicles & water, and add a LOT of salt - temperature will go down to -20°C or so without the mixture freezing solid.

Both experiments will obviously not work with sand, etc. So maybe Bystander's 'nucleation sites' theory is not the whole story... well I'm not sure at all...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Humm, I have literally dropped hundreds of tons of salt, onto highways covered with snow, or ice. When salt and water mix, the salt dissolves into the water, releasing heat. (exothermic reactions)

As for the responce to the initial question, AFAIK (from chemistry) Bystander has it right.

 

[joc]

very fine sand, or ground glass, would probably give a similar effect. although salt has admittedly a bit more going for it, since dissolution is net exothermic.

impurities generally *raise* boiling points and *lower* melting points.

 

[Artman]

The boiling point of the salt water is higher because part of the pressure of the liquid comes from the impurities added to the water (the total pressure at the boundary of water and air is the same, only now some of that boundary is occupied by the solutes) and so it reduces the vapor pressure by that amount.

Water boils when the vapor pressure exceeds the atmospheric pressure. With the pressure from vapor reduced because of the impurities added to the water, the vapor pressure has to rise farther before the water can boil.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Artman
The boiling point of the salt water is higher because part of the pressure of the liquid comes from the impurities added to the water (the total pressure at the boundary of water and air is the same, only now some of that boundary is occupied by the solutes) and so it reduces the vapor pressure by that amount.
Water boils when the vapor pressure exceeds the atmospheric pressure. With the pressure from vapor reduced because of the impurities added to the water, the vapor pressure has to rise farther before the water can boil.

Good points just that the impurities are not already in the water, they are being added to it while it is right near boiling temp, "just simmering" was what the poser of the question (arcnets) had stated.

Perhaps it is the exothermic reation that excites the water to boil instantly and/but only slightly, upon introduction, coupled with nucleation? perahaps?

 

[Artman]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

Perhaps it is the exothermic reation that excites the water to boil instantly and/but only slightly, upon introduction, coupled with nucleation? perahaps?

Could be. Also the surface tension is being broken at the point where the salt is being added. The combination of nucleation, exothermic reaction (which should cause an associated rise in the vapor pressure), occurring at the very point where the surface tension has been broken, probably culminates in boiling the water instantly.

 

[arcnets]

Thanks for all the input. I'll do more experiments when I find the time.

 

[Bystander]

"... net exothermic ...," and "... surface tension being broken ..." are incorrect. Thanks for playing "Guess That Thermodynamic Property," and come back to play again some time. There are libraries full of tabulated measurements of these properties. In the future, please consult the tables for quantitative information rather than assuming qualitative values to support arm-waving rationalizations.

 

[Artman]

Originally posted by Bystander
"... net exothermic ...," and "... surface tension being broken ..." are incorrect. Thanks for playing "Guess That Thermodynamic Property," and come back to play again some time. There are libraries full of tabulated measurements of these properties. In the future, please consult the tables for quantitative information rather than assuming qualitative values to support arm-waving rationalizations.

Breaking the surface tension into smaller areas is exactly what is happening, bystander. The salt is providing nucleation points, without which the water would continue to heat into one large bubble with a single surface (as can happen with a smooth vessel heated in a microwave or a container of water boiled in space where gavity does not force the bubbles to separate).

 

[joc]

sorry for the misinformation. would 'thermodynamically favourable' be correct?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

One of the phenomenons that I recall is the simple one of hot and cold.

Take a pot of boiling water, and drop in an ice cube, and you will basically get an explosion due to the difference in temperature alone.

(Please be CAREFUL if you try that one, SAFTEY FIRST!, wear goggles, oven mitts, have a splatter protector to keep from getting splattered by boiling water, that kind of stuff!)

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by arcnets
Thanks for the response everybody.
Njorl, are you sure? Yes I know salt water is denser than pure water which backs up your statement, but please consider this:

It isn't a matter of density. I don't recall the exact reason, but I have everified it experimentally.

When it's sub zero in winter, and the sidewalk has frozen over, you can scatter some salt upon it, and the ice will eventually melt. Because adding the salt lowers the melting point, right? Couldn't it be that my little effect comes from a similar mechanism - salt lowering the boiling point? (AFAIK, a substance with lower melting point also has a lower boiling point, or am I naive here...?)

It is naive.
Consider your car's coolant. It freezes well below water's freezing point, and boils well above water's boiling point even though it is more than 1/2 water.

Njorl

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Njorl
(SNIP)[/color] It is naive.
Consider your car's coolant. It freezes well below water's freezing point, and boils well above water's boiling point even though it is more than 1/2 water. Njorl (SNoP)[/color]

Probably because it is ethelyne glycol (SP?) not water, and it is under about 15 psi generated pressure, when heated/heating, hence can achieve a non boiling point of at least 265° F and the max percentage of "Antifreeze to Water" is about 70% as over this the "Glycol/Water" mix, is too viscous to be moved around properly by the water pump.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by joc
sorry for the misinformation. would 'thermodynamically favourable' be correct?

"The solution process is thermodynamically favorable?" Sure, and the solution processes for ground glass, boiling stones, sand, CaF₂ are unfavorable. The problem with using adjectives to describe the difference between the initial and final states of the system (solvent + solute = solution) is that "favorable" means so many different things in different circumstances --- the solubility of fluorite in water might be regarded as "favorable" by dentists looking at naturally fluoridated water supplies (don't quote me on that, because I have no idea what minerals are dissolving in this case), and "unfavorable" by chemists trying to get sufficient fluoride into solution to do whatever they want to do.

Bottom line, the enthalpy of solution of NaCl in water at these temperatures is small, and, therefore, not terribly relevant to the analysis of the mechanism of "accelerated boiling," or whatever we decide to call the phenomenon observed by arcnets (and anyone else who's been in a kitchen).

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Artman
Breaking the surface tension into smaller areas is exactly what is happening, bystander. The salt is providing nucleation points, without which the water would continue to heat into one large bubble with a single surface (as can happen with a smooth vessel heated in a microwave or a container of water boiled in space where gavity does not force the bubbles to separate).

Could you rephrase "Breaking the surface tension into smaller areas..." for us? It's a bit unclear what you're saying --- I doubt very much that you're asserting that NaCl emulsifies water. Please keep in mind that the intuitive dependence of evaporation rate on surface tension has been examined for liquids, isotropic solids, and anisotropic solids, and demonstrated to be non-existant --- Langmuir's model for rate of mass transfer to the vapor phase still holds.

By the by, surface tensions of "most" electrolyte solutions are GREATER than that of pure water; non-electrolytes generally reduce surface tension in aqueous solution.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Humm enthalpy of NaCl, Humm doesn't work on ice at -18° C as it no longer generates enough heat, to melt, well, you it does, but exeedingly slowly. Raise the temp to ~ -5° C and the salt will melt into the ice with much greater rapidity, as a matter of fact the dissolution rate at, or near, those temperatures, increases with the temperature increase.

Perhaps in the Boiling water the dissolution rate is quick enough to generate many nucleation sites, hence the apperance of "accelerated boiling"
(Rapid Vapor Generation)

 

[S = k log w]

What about duterium and tritium? If memory serves me correctly, they are acids.

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by S = k log w
What about duterium and tritium? If memory serves me correctly, they are acids.

duterium and tritum are isotopes of Hydrogen.

Duterium and tritium are not acids in the same way that steel is not a hovercraft.

 

[S = k log w]

Originally posted by NateTG
duterium and tritum are isotopes of Hydrogen.

Duterium and tritium are not acids in the same way that steel is not a hovercraft.

Would they make H20 an acid, or am I wrong?

 

[Bystander]

Wrong --- what effect are you proposing for boiling water and salt?

 

[arcnets]

I have done some more experiments.
First, I used pure water (just simmering) and tried to reproduce the effect with salt, then with sand.
Observation: No effect(!)
Then I remembered, in the original experiment I had some molten butter in the water.
I tried to reproduce that.
Observation: With salt only a small effect (if any), with sand no effect.
Next, I thought, what else was there in the original experiment? The noodles, of course. But also 2 spoons of 'Instant Fleischbrühe' (German for 'meat extract powder').
Sorry to bother you with these 'unphysical' ingrediences, but what influences may they have?

Still puzzled...

 

[S = k log w]

Originally posted by Bystander
Wrong --- what effect are you proposing for boiling water and salt?

If it were so that duteurium and tritium were acids, depending on their chemical reactions, it might change the soln., and perhaps, it's boiling point. Do light water v heavy water NaCl solutions have different boiling points?

 

[Artman]

Originally posted by Bystander
Could you rephrase "Breaking the surface tension into smaller areas..." for us? It's a bit unclear what you're saying --- I doubt very much that you're asserting that NaCl emulsifies water. Please keep in mind that the intuitive dependence of evaporation rate on surface tension has been examined for liquids, isotropic solids, and anisotropic solids, and demonstrated to be non-existant --- Langmuir's model for rate of mass transfer to the vapor phase still holds.

By the by, surface tensions of "most" electrolyte solutions are GREATER than that of pure water; non-electrolytes generally reduce surface tension in aqueous solution.

No, nothing that exotic. I was just suggesting that the salt aides the formation of bubbles, the formation of bubbles relies on surface tension to hold the bubble together and the bouyancy of the bubbles breaks the surface tension at the surface of the water.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by S = k log w
If it were so that duteurium and tritium were acids, depending on their chemical reactions, it might change the soln., and perhaps, it's boiling point. Do light water v heavy water NaCl solutions have different boiling points?

Yes, higher --- and, I'm not going to look up exact numbers for you --- "deuteroim oxide" Googles 4.5k sites, "tritium oxide" 450 --- have at 'em.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Artman
No, nothing that exotic. I was just suggesting that the salt aides the formation of bubbles, the formation of bubbles relies on surface tension to hold the bubble together and the bouyancy of the bubbles breaks the surface tension at the surface of the water.

Surface tension is NOT a "breakable" quality --- surface tension is an intensive thermodynamic variable used to describe systems. The product of surface tension and area is surface free energy which is significant only in cases where a phase is in very finely divided condition, aerosols, mists, Pt on a platinized electrode --- aggregate dimensions measured in 10s of microns or less. Increases in surface area, bubble formation, require an INCREASE in free energy over that of a "bulk" material.

Phase separations, bubble formation, droplet formation, crystallization, depend upon some nucleation process --- in pure phases, nucleation is limited to the "fluctuations" or fluctuation phenomena of statistical mechanical arguments (as far as current understanding goes). In the everyday world, dust motes, scratches, divots, and other irregularities furnish nucleation sites for phase transitions.

Actual formation/growth of bubbles/droplets/crystals is driven by the difference in chemical potential of the system undergoing the phase change and the chemical potential it would have at equilibrium at the same conditions. Boiling ALWAYS indicates superheating of a liquid phase; addition of nucleation sites always results in an increase in the rate of boiling; if the nucleation site population is "permanent," as in the case of boiling stones, the degree of superheat is reduced, that is, the temperature measured in a boiling liquid for a given heat transfer rate is less than that measured for the same liquid without the stones.

The actual mechanisms for nucleation are NOT terribly well understood; Adamson is a great place to start for anyone who is interested in pursuing an introduction to surface chemistry/physics.

 

[Bystander]

Originally posted by arcnets
I have done some more experiments.
First, I used pure water (just simmering) and tried to reproduce the effect with salt, then with sand.
Observation: No effect(!)
Then I remembered, in the original experiment I had some molten butter in the water.
I tried to reproduce that.
Observation: With salt only a small effect (if any), with sand no effect.
Next, I thought, what else was there in the original experiment? The noodles, of course. But also 2 spoons of 'Instant Fleischbrühe' (German for 'meat extract powder').
Sorry to bother you with these 'unphysical' ingrediences, but what influences may they have?

Still puzzled...

Several points (of many possible): 1) you are dealing with a heat transfer process, and the degree of superheat you can establish in the pan/pot/cauldron is going to be proportional to the magnitude of the enhanced boiling effect you observe --- translated to English, turn the burner up to full blast; 2) the butter and noodles may have contributed to the superheat at simmer by quenching the pot's built in nucleation sites with butter, and by reduced thermal conductivity of the water-butter-noodle system; 3) butter on the surface is probably going to quench nucleation sites on sand as it enters the mix; 4) "3)" suggests a couple other experiments you can try (I hope you're treating this with the respect due something that can scald you rather severely) --- at full heat (max superheat), try the salt, the sand, and wetted salt and wetted sand (I'd say a slurry in a teaspoon with enough water that you can dump the slurry rather than having to snap it into the water); 5) once you get the sand to work, if you've got a thermometer that let's you read to tenths of a degree at 100 C, try measuring temperature at the bottom of the pan for a) water, b) water plus salt, c) water plus salt plus sand, and d) for the last mess after you've let it cool, and brought it back to a boil.

Don't run your utility bill up too much, but have fun.

 

[arcnets]

Bystander,
thanks indeed for your very detailed analysis on my little 'crazy cooking scientist' experiment. Don't worry, I won't burn myself - I have enough experience with making e.g. 'fish in beer batter' in a pan full of oil (boy, can that stuff explode... ).

OK. If I read you correctly, then the thermometer should show well above 100°C because of the fat, and the salt/sand is there to provide nucleation sites to make the water evaporate, right? Let's see...

 

[S = k log w]

What noodles are you using? What is the gluten content? Are you using rice noodles? Have the noodles been artificially colored? Do they contain eggs? Have you considered the fact that they may contain insect parts? Are you sea level? (See Boyle's law).

 

[markci]

The nucleation theory IS the whole story.

Adding salt to water RAISES the boiling point. Period. In fact, adding _anything_ that dissolves will raise the boiling point of any solvent.

 

[Bystander]

"The thread that wouldn't die." Absolute statements have the absolutely nasty habit of turning around and biting people who make them --- depending upon the solute, the boiling temperature of an aqueous solution at 1 atm can be increased, decreased, or totally unaffected; the partial pressure of water measured over such a solution may be greater than, equal to, or less than the product of water mole fraction and the vapor pressure of pure water at the temperature of the boiling solution. Interested parties may consult King, Rowlinson, Lewis & Randall, Klotz, Glasstone, or PM me for a longer bibliography of less commonly available sources on the topic (dead serious interest in the topic for the latter case --- I ain't digging into that mess for free).

 

[arcnets]

I feel I should give an exact recipe that guarantees to reproduce this effect. I'll try...

 

[Bystander]

"Nucleate(d) boiling" is a heat transfer problem, and been the subject of much study for the past century and a half or so, remains the subject of much study, and will remain such; don't kick yourself too hard if you can't come up with a precise recipe --- if you do, don't report it here, patent it and sell it to the chemical process industries. You were more than specific enough in your description of the phenomenon of interest --- anyone who's ever been near a kitchen with eyes and ears open has seen and heard the water in a clean pot "bump."