Any comments on the best wrapping for storage of chocolate?
Aluminum foil would be convenient, but aluminum is amphoteric
(attacked by both acids and bases). I'm worried that a raw
aluminum surface could be corroded by the chocolate, giving
it an off flavor.

Aluminum is good for forming an air-tight seal (when folded
over a couple times) and for resisting penetration by
atmospheric oxygen and for preventing volatile flavor
molecules from diffusing out.

Are my fears misplaced? Would it make sense to have an
inner paper wrapper to prevent contact between the
chocolate and the foil? Or would the introduction of an
off flavor from the paper be more likely than an interaction
between the chocolate and the foil?

I think the best course to take is to examine how the many chocolate makers
wrap theirs, because it has to keep for a recommended shelf storage life.

I've sampled at least one each of all the brands sold on chocosphere.com,
and many do use aluminum foil. Many also use foil-backed paper, the paper
side enclosing the chocolate. Some use paper alone, most notably Dolfin
(which, I might add, makes many excellent varieties of chocolate, not a bad
one in the bunch). Dolfin uses paper to wrap the chocolate, then places
this "envelope" in another plastic envelope which wraps around and then
seals.

The hitch here is that neither you nor I know what kind of paper these
manufacturers use. Presumably it is not off-the-shelf printing paper, but
perhaps it is...I would hope they would use archival-quality low-sulphur
paper, the type used by coin collectors to prevent the formation of silver
sulphide (tarnish) on coins.

That's all I know - hopefully this helps!

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Any comments on the best wrapping for storage of chocolate?
> Aluminum foil would be convenient, but aluminum is amphoteric
> (attacked by both acids and bases). I'm worried that a raw
> aluminum surface could be corroded by the chocolate, giving
> it an off flavor.
>
> Aluminum is good for forming an air-tight seal (when folded
> over a couple times) and for resisting penetration by
> atmospheric oxygen and for preventing volatile flavor
> molecules from diffusing out.
>
> Are my fears misplaced? Would it make sense to have an
> inner paper wrapper to prevent contact between the
> chocolate and the foil? Or would the introduction of an
> off flavor from the paper be more likely than an interaction
> between the chocolate and the foil?
>
>
>
>

Bud Fuddlacker wrote:

> I've sampled at least one each of all the brands sold
> on chocosphere.com, and many do use aluminum foil.

Have you examined the foil carefully enough to know
whether it has a coating on it, or whether it presents
a raw metal surface to the chocolate?

I haven't, and that's a good idea, but I'm willing to bet there's no special
treatment for the foil. I do believe it's aluminum, not another metal
(since most other metals would not be good to use with food).

Aluminum is a pretty active metal, but in foil form it probably won't react
with chocolate easily. Aluminum powder would be different!

One thought on the chemical nature of chocolate prepared for eating. By
nature, cocoa mass is acidic. That's the reason it's often processed with
alkali to make "Dutch chocolate", a sweeter, non-acidic cocoa.

Aluminum may react with both acids and bases, but in my experience with
explosives, aluminum is most likely to be implemented with an oxidizer -
that is, it works really well with anything that will help it to become
aluminum oxide.

All that to say, I think aluminum is safer to package with something acidic
than something basic...my opinion only, of course.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Have you examined the foil carefully enough to know
> whether it has a coating on it, or whether it presents
> a raw metal surface to the chocolate?

at Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:11:11 GMT in >,
(Mark Thorson) wrote :

>Any comments on the best wrapping for storage of chocolate?
>Aluminum foil would be convenient, but aluminum is amphoteric
>(attacked by both acids and bases). I'm worried that a raw
>aluminum surface could be corroded by the chocolate, giving
>it an off flavor.
>
First, wrap the chocolate in parchment (it's about the lowest-odour non-
sticky paper.

Take that bundle and wrap it with a single thickness of Charmin Ultra
toilet paper.

Then wrap the whole in aluminum foil.

And for ultimate protection, put the foil-wrapped chocolate in a small box.

To store chocolate well, you want a defence against odours, heat, and
light. I agree with your concerns about foil wrt adding unwanted flavours
(and possibly terrifying health side effects in addition), so it's best not
to have the foil in direct contact with the chocolate. Ever smelled foil?
It has a very definite industrial-metallic smell.

Some papers will contribute odours, particularly ones which have been
heavily processed with chemicals. Parchment is nice because it's generally
odour-free and doesn't stick to the chocolate - some papers have a nasty
habit of embedding fibers or other parts into your chocolate - not good.

The Charmin layer adds (odour-free) insulation against temperature,
mechanical stress, and moisture. Since it's absorbent, it will soak up any
excess moisture in the air, preventing it from getting near your chocolate.
And with a lot of air trapped in it, it insulates against excessive
temperature cycling. Finally, it's a nice cushion, preventing cracking or
breaking.

Finally, the foil blocks radiative heat transfer, and as you suggest, makes
a gas-tight seal. You can even brush the external seams with a little bit
of melted beeswax, if you like, to make *sure* it's a gas-tight seal.

For the truly obsessed, you can then slide the whole wrapped bundle inside
a small box so as to prevent the foil from being pierced or torn. At that
point you have a chocolate that is virtually impervious to harm.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex Rast wrote:

> First, wrap the chocolate in parchment (it's about the lowest-odour non-
> sticky paper.
>
> Take that bundle and wrap it with a single thickness of Charmin Ultra
> toilet paper.
>
> Then wrap the whole in aluminum foil.
>
> And for ultimate protection, put the foil-wrapped chocolate in a small box.

....

Alex,

I take it from your description you are against wrapping or vacuum
packing in plastic wrap? Is this bad under all conditions?

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

I would use a zip lock bag then if u want u can use foil too.....or u could
use plastic wrap then foil if u have a concern about the chocolate to foil
contact.


"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Any comments on the best wrapping for storage of chocolate?
> Aluminum foil would be convenient, but aluminum is amphoteric
> (attacked by both acids and bases). I'm worried that a raw
> aluminum surface could be corroded by the chocolate, giving
> it an off flavor.
>
> Aluminum is good for forming an air-tight seal (when folded
> over a couple times) and for resisting penetration by
> atmospheric oxygen and for preventing volatile flavor
> molecules from diffusing out.
>
> Are my fears misplaced? Would it make sense to have an
> inner paper wrapper to prevent contact between the
> chocolate and the foil? Or would the introduction of an
> off flavor from the paper be more likely than an interaction
> between the chocolate and the foil?
>
>
>

at Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:31:06 GMT in
>, (Reg)
wrote :

>Alex Rast wrote:
>
>> First, wrap the chocolate in parchment (it's about the lowest-odour
>> non- sticky paper.
....
>Alex,
>
>I take it from your description you are against wrapping or vacuum
>packing in plastic wrap? Is this bad under all conditions?
>

Packaging in plastic is a disaster. Plastic off-gasses, and so any
chocolate wrapped in plastic will take on a plasticky odour. It's always a
"few points off" in my opinion when a manufacturer chooses to wrap
chocolate in plastic. The worst is when companies making organic chocolate
wrap in plastic, and then proudly advertise on the plastic wrapper -
"without aluminum". As if wrapping in plastic made the situation better!
No, of course, it makes it WORSE. Much worse.

A few companies use cellulose, which looks a lot like ordinary plastic but
is much kinder indeed. Cellulose doesn't off-gas and doesn't permeate the
chocolate with its own flavour. I've seen a few health-food stores who sell
small cellulose bags, and that's another practical way to store chocolate.
The disadvantage is that unlike aluminum you can't get a gas-tight seal.

Most of the top-end manufacturers use a double-sided foil, the inner side
being coated with brass (or is it gold?) Anyway, that's a pretty good
solution as well. Actually, the very, very best coating would be iridium,
which is hideously expensive per oz but since you'd only need a few microns
thickness could probably be achieved practicably.


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex Rast wrote:

> Actually, the very, very best coating would be iridium, which
> is hideously expensive per oz but since you'd only need a few
> microns thickness could probably be achieved practicably.

I don't think you could make a foil wrapper
out of a platinum-group metal. Those metals are
all quite hard. What's wrong with gold,
which is very ductle?

at Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:45:27 GMT in >,
(Mark Thorson) wrote :

>Alex Rast wrote:
>
>> Actually, the very, very best coating would be iridium, which
>> is hideously expensive per oz but since you'd only need a few
>> microns thickness could probably be achieved practicably.
>
>I don't think you could make a foil wrapper
>out of a platinum-group metal. Those metals are
>all quite hard. What's wrong with gold,
>which is very ductle?
>
No, you'd coat the foil with a very, very thin layer of the Pt-group metal.
I agree that a solid iridium foil would be stiff and rather useless.

Gold is slightly more reactive - it does resist oxidation but it is
susceptible to some chemical attack - and in addition is extremely soft. If
you coated a foil wrapper with gold, it would wear off very quickly, or get
small holes. You could of course go with a solid gold wrapper, but then the
price of the wrapper itself would be appreciable compared to the contents -
probably considerably more.


--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

Alex Rast wrote:

> Packaging in plastic is a disaster. Plastic off-gasses, and so any
> chocolate wrapped in plastic will take on a plasticky odour. It's always a
> "few points off" in my opinion when a manufacturer chooses to wrap
> chocolate in plastic. The worst is when companies making organic chocolate
> wrap in plastic, and then proudly advertise on the plastic wrapper -
> "without aluminum". As if wrapping in plastic made the situation better!
> No, of course, it makes it WORSE. Much worse.

....

Thanks for the excellent, in-depth explanation. Let me know if you decide to
write a book on the subject, I'm in for one.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com