• Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create an account.

  • product-image-quickten.png.a40203b506711f7664fc62024e54a584.pngDid you know that these all-volunteer forums are operated by the 501(c)3 not-for-profit Society for Culinary Arts & Letters? This holiday season, consider a tax-deductible Quick Ten Bucks to support the eG Forums and help us remain completely advertising-free. Thanks to all those who have donated so far!

nathanm

Cooking with Liquid Nitrogen

218 posts in this topic

I just talked with Art.  He is out at the Bonneville Salt Flats sending rockets into space.  I think he is a bit of a mad scientist!

Yes, yesterday was spent out on the Bonneville Salt Flats launching rockets. (These are really big rockets -- not those little Estes toys that we all grew up with. Some weigh over 100lbs and fly up to 17,000 feet or so. You have to get FAA clearance in order to fly this high. About two or three miles away, was the "racetrack" which is just as flat as where we were. We could watch cars zoom back and forth at 200mph+

See these links to see some of the more impressive rockets that were launched yesterday:

http://uroc.org/index.php?option=com_conte...1481&Itemid=715

http://uroc.org/index.php?option=com_conte...=528&Itemid=715

Fun fun! Came home and spent the rest of the evening working on getting our new (well, built in the late 20's early 30's) melangeur going. There are some slight mechanical problems that have to be worked out before we can use it in production. It is a very beautiful machine though. In fact, it looks almost exactly like the melangeur in the "Avatar" engraving I use that shows on the left side of my posts.

-Art


Edited by Art (log)

Amano Artisan Chocolate

http://www.amanochocolate.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

read a bit in On Food And Cooking today and it said something along the lines that when you freeze meat, ice crystals forms that kinda punctures the cellular walls and makes the liquid loss during cooking increase.

i know making ice cream with liquid nitrogen eliminates ice crystals, so does the same thing work with meat? would it be worth it at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that freezing via liquid nitrogen does not produce ice crystals, it's just that the ice crystals are smaller. The slower something freezes, the bigger the ice crystals, and analogously, the faster something freezes the smaller the ice crystals. I think it would depend on the choice of meat. If the piece of meat is large, the liquid nitrogen won't be effective in freezing it quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a side note it is possible to freeze water without forming crystals at all, this is often done by submerging very small samples into liquid ethane (freezes things substantially fast than liquid nitrogen). This vitrifies the sample, effectively maintaining the disordered liquid state but as a solid.


Professional Scientist (in training)

Amateur Cook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not that freezing via liquid nitrogen does not produce ice crystals, it's just that the ice crystals are smaller.  The slower something freezes, the bigger the ice crystals, and analogously, the faster something freezes the smaller the ice crystals.  I think it would depend on the choice of meat.  If the piece of meat is large, the liquid nitrogen won't be effective in freezing it quickly.

yeah well nitpicking aside, i think it would be pretty sweet if u could actually freeze, say, salmon fillets or duck or whatever and actually have it thaw up nicely. kinda surprised there isn't more experimentation regarding this. i don't have access to liquid nitrogen sadly, was just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLATANT UNSAFE INFORMATION WARNING: Do you have access to dry ice? If so, break up some into small chunks, put it in a container (not glass) and slowly pour some 190 Everclear in. Let it sit until it quits "boiling" (doesn't take long) and experiment away. This won't be as cold as LN2 (only about -100 f) and in some ways it's less safe (it won't roll off of your skin like LN2 so don't try the little dunking your fingers to move things around thing you see some people do with liquid nitrogen, use tools or cryo gloves and try not to let it drip on you when you remove things from the tank). It does make an effective and fun way to play with quick freezing things though. If you're going to freeze food items that are sealed in plastic and won't be in direct contact with the liquid you can use isopropyl alcohol instead of the Everclear (much cheaper).


It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...n-accident.html

The 24-year-old chef was experimenting with a recipe involving liquid nitrogen, which is used by chefs including Heston Blumenthal to freeze food, when there was suddenly an "enormous explosion", according to a report in the Berliner Morgenpost.

The young man, from Stahnsdorf, near Berlin, lost one hand in the explosion, which occurred at his girlfriend's mother's house.

He was rushed to hospital, where his other hand was amputated and his condition was described as life threatening and he remained on artificial respiration. <snip>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know people who use liquid nitrogen as part of a medical/scientific company, and they have a lot of protocols for handling the nitrogen, canisters, and receptacles. (and they were making ice cream with it back in the 1960's) I get worried when I see people handling it in kitchen situations without safety gear, and using inappropriate containers for the nitrogen and the super-cooled resulting products.

Even really good restaurants occasionally do dumb things (I've seen the youtube videos) with it like dipping 100% metal spoons into a bowl of the liquid while the spoon is being held in a bare hand, or not wearing protective eyegear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that are interested, there is a detailed article (in German) found here.

The money quote is this:

Vermutlich explodierte das Behältnis, weil der Druck darin durch die Erwärmung der Flüssigkeit massiv gestiegen war.

In other words, the liquid nitrogen caused the container it was in to explode, because of the pressure buildup. This is why it is important never to put liquid nitrogen into a sealed container! The German article is, in this and other respects, far from the fear-mongering nonsense that's been propagated in the English-language press.

The article notes that his left hand was ultimately saved, not amputated as previously reported. Also, it's probably important to note that he was working in a house, not a professional kitchen, at the time of the explosion.


Edited by mkayahara (log)

Matthew Kayahara

Kayahara.ca

@mtkayahara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks mkayahara. I was interested in the additional information because the first article left me thinking WTF? It just didn't add up with the information they reported. The stuff doesn't just randomly suddenly explode for no reason at all. An inappropriate container is a whole different jar of gas though.


It's kinda like wrestling a gorilla... you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt any analysis by any news reporter regarding energetic materials. They usually only manage to get their own name correct.

This article came to me via a chemical engineer. There seems to already be a huge hole in the story including the good news that they saved one hand. Meanwhile everyone covers up what they did so we may never find out what actually went wrong. It's all in the name of safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for the article, but in general find that people who work with LNO2 don't respect its dangers as much as they should. This includes friends who are chefs, and friends who are molecular biologists!

Everyone I know is clever enough to prevent an explosion. What's worrisome is lack of eye protection (a small splash in the eyes is bad, bad news) and lack of respect for the problems associated with spills.

There are issues with big spills in enclosed spaces (suffocation). But a more likely problem is small spills that get inside your clothes. People get lulled into complacency by the cool way a blob of nitrogen just beads up and rolls off your hands. They don't stop to think about what happens if it falls inside your shoe and has nowhere to go. The result can be excised, frostbitten flesh, or amputated toes.

At a minimum, people should where lab goggles, roll up their sleeves, and kick off their shoes (or wear open shoes like flip flops).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off. Liquid nitrogen is dangerous. Frying oil is dangerous. Boiling water, pressure cookers, gas grills, fire, knives etc.

E-gullet can be dangerous as well obviously.

Please do not suggest to wear flip flops while working with liquid nitrogen. If you are supposed to wear gloves and goggles to be safe, then lets please suggest that people wear shoes and socks.

And, a drop of nitrogen in your shoe will not cause you to lose your toes or get frost bite.

But go pour some on your feet in flip flops and you could get burned.


Richard Blais

www.blaiscuisine.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please do not suggest to wear flip flops while working with liquid nitrogen. If you are supposed to wear gloves and goggles to be safe, then lets please suggest that people wear shoes and socks.

And, a drop of nitrogen in your shoe will not cause you to lose your toes or get frost bite.

But go pour some on your feet in flip flops and you could get burned.

I strongly disagree. Regular shoes and socks are the least safe thing to wear with liquid nitrogen. You're right that a drop in your shoe won't cause frostbite, but a big splash most certainly will.

There are two safe approaches: protective gear (boots that won't let any liquid in, with an apron or cuffs covering the tops) or no gear at all. Spilling LN02 on bare feet won't hurt you ... it rolls off just as it rolls off your hands. Flip flops are the same.

If you're in a commercial kitchen, obviously bare feet and flip flops are not going to fly ... but working with it at home, that's exactly what I'd do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must be a lot less klutzy than I am! :biggrin: If the options are full protective gear or barefoot, I will absolutely choose protective gear. There are other dangers in even a home kitchen than the liquid nitrogen. Like, the heavy bowl full of that fresh ice cream that I just dropped on my foot. Doh!


Chris Hennes
Director of Operations
chennes@egullet.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you used the word amputated ? And you did say if it fell in your shoes you would get frost bite.

And what's the difference if your at home or in a professional kitchen ? If your cooking then you could spill oil, drop a knife, etc ? Both more dangerous.

And now you suggest to either wear boots, BTW, I've dealt with plenty of LN2 and never in 6 years under the most corporate of circumstance been asked to wear boots. Or, wear no protective gear.

wouldn't wearing partial protective gear be partially safer ?


Richard Blais

www.blaiscuisine.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you used the word amputated ? And you did say if it fell in your shoes you would get frost bite.

And what's the difference if your at home or in a professional kitchen ? If your cooking then you could spill oil, drop a knife, etc ? Both more dangerous.

And now you suggest to either wear boots, BTW, I've dealt with plenty of LN2 and never in 6 years under the most corporate of circumstance been asked to wear boots. Or, wear no protective gear.

wouldn't wearing partial protective gear be partially safer ?

I've had very little actual experience with LN2, but I can see why street shoes would offer little to no protection from a LN2 spill. The liquid nitrogen rolls off when spilled on bare flesh because it rapidly forms a layer of nitrogen gas upon which it floats and provides an insulating effect. In a standard shoe the porous, absorbent nature of the materials shoes are made of would hold the LN2 in contact with the skin where it could cause frostbite. Bare feet, or flip-flops allow the nitrogen to escape, where it is not held in contact with the foot.

I am not saying don't wear shoes and socks in the kitchen. I had an interesting triangular burn on my foot for sometime because I dropped a slice of pizza that had freshly come out of the oven onto my bare foot in my home kitchen. It was an entertaining sight watching me run to the bathroom where I shoved my hot cheese coated foot under the bath spigot.

I'm pretty certain that what happened here was a pressurized vessel exploding. It says he stole the LN2 from his place of employment and I think it highly likely he did not have a Dewar with which to properly transport and store it. So if he put it into a regular vacuum thermos then the pressure would build without release until the thermos ruptured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Compressed Gas Association:

Heavy leather protective gloves, safety shoes, aprons, and eye protection must be worn to prevent possible contact with . . . the cold liquid or boil-off vapors which may result from spilled or splashed liquid.
Equipment and systems designed for the storage, transfer, and dispensing of cryogenic liquids . . . must be equipped with pressure relief devices to prevent excessive pressure buildup do to the vaporization of the cryogenic liquid as heat leaks into the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what's the difference if your at home or in a professional kitchen ? If your cooking then you could spill oil, drop a knife, etc ? Both more dangerous.

I don't know about your home kitchen, but mine is a controlled environment. I'm usually in it by myself, the pace is measured, and I won't get kicked out for failing to comly with the chef's (or OSHA's) rules. If I'm wearing flip flops, which I often do on hot summer days while cooking, I'm all the more careful when tossing food in a hot pan.

BTW, I've dealt with plenty of LN2 and never in 6 years under the most corporate of circumstance been asked to wear boots. Or, wear no protective gear.

Then you're working for people who don't observe even the most basic industry safety rules and recommendations.

wouldn't wearing partial protective gear be partially safer ?

Yes. But street shoes are not protective gear, partial or otherwise, with LN2. They're a hazard. Like wearing a neck tie around a printing press.

(Edited to add: in previous post I wrote "LNO2," which may or may not exist. I meant LN2)


Edited by paulraphael (log)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From the Compressed Gas Association:
Heavy leather protective gloves, safety shoes, aprons, and eye protection must be worn to prevent possible contact with . . . the cold liquid or boil-off vapors which may result from spilled or splashed liquid.
Equipment and systems designed for the storage, transfer, and dispensing of cryogenic liquids . . . must be equipped with pressure relief devices to prevent excessive pressure buildup do to the vaporization of the cryogenic liquid as heat leaks into the system.

This topic seems to have skidded off course. The cryogenic properties of LN2 have no bearing on how some guy in germany lost his hands mishandling the stuff.

The last major incident I could find involving LN2 was a midnite explosion at Texas A&M where the tanks were old, decrepit, and had improperly installed stress relief valves.

It would appear to me that this guy had somehow put the LN2 under pressure or caused it to expand to a volume greater then his container could release the pressure. We can only guess as to what he was doing, but several reports I read indicated that he had taken the LN2 into the bathroom where the container "Blew up". I can only guess that the guy must have added a too warm liduid to the LN2 container to get that type of effect. Or maybe he attempted to flush the LN2 to dispose of it after he was finished using it and it became compressed in the pipe after passing the elbow shaped gas trap.


Edited by RAHiggins1 (log)

Veni Vidi Vino - I came, I saw, I drank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

It would appear to me that this guy had somehow put the LN2 under pressure or caused it to expand to a volume greater then his container could release the pressure. We can only guess as to what he was doing, but several reports I read indicated that he had taken the LN2 into the bathroom where the container "Blew up". I can only guess that the guy must have added a too warm liduid to the LN2 container to get that type of effect. ...

Maybe he just screwed on the top of his ordinary thermos flask, to close it up nice and tight and stop his magic toy leaking away ... ?

It would be quite easy to "explode" any normal container, just by closing it.

Every 56 grams of N2 would like to be 22.4 litres of gas at about room temperature. (Avogadro.)

Translating that into US units, each 2 oz would make about 6 US Gallons of gas. Potentially quite quickly ...

There was a US Administration official who said it badly, but regardless of everything else he may ever have said, he was actually exactly right that it is what you don't know that you don't know that is dangerous.

Ignorance is bliss. But usually not for long.


"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch ... you must first invent the universe." - Carl Sagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe he just screwed on the top of his ordinary thermos flask, to close it up nice and tight and stop his magic toy leaking away ... ?

It would be quite easy to "explode" any normal container, just by closing it.

Yup!

Imagine a thermos with a glass vacuum bottle ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

It would appear to me that this guy had somehow put the LN2 under pressure or caused it to expand to a volume greater then his container could release the pressure. We can only guess as to what he was doing, but several reports I read indicated that he had taken the LN2 into the bathroom where the container "Blew up". I can only guess that the guy must have added a too warm liduid to the LN2 container to get that type of effect. ...

Maybe he just screwed on the top of his ordinary thermos flask, to close it up nice and tight and stop his magic toy leaking away ... ?

It would be quite easy to "explode" any normal container, just by closing it.

Every 56 grams of N2 would like to be 22.4 litres of gas at about room temperature. (Avogadro.)

Translating that into US units, each 2 oz would make about 6 US Gallons of gas. Potentially quite quickly ...

There was a US Administration official who said it badly, but regardless of everything else he may ever have said, he was actually exactly right that it is what you don't know that you don't know that is dangerous.

Ignorance is bliss. But usually not for long.

A thermos, glass or not, would not keep it at room temperature. It would keep it much colder than that since it is in fact an insulated container. I've seen plastic containers that had LN2 poured into it become brittle while frozen. But if a thermos were dropped, what would happen?


Veni Vidi Vino - I came, I saw, I drank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is making more sense now.

Looks like he brought it home in an ISI Siphon or the like (sealed). He then proceeded to try to open said (pressurized) siphon with a screwdriver in the bathroom (why) of his girlfriend's apartment. I'm guessing he had the siphon between his knees at the time since the explosion blew a chunk out of one of his calves and also did significant damage to his naughty bits. Talk about adding insult to injury the local police also will be pressing charges against him.

If not a darwin award winner certainly a runner up.

...Währenddessen wurden neue Details zum Hergang des Unglücks bekannt... Martin E. soll sie in einem Sahnesiphon – einem druckfest verschließbaren Gefäß – in die Wohnung seiner Freundin gebracht haben, für einen solchen Transport ist der Siphon ungeeignet.

Im Badezimmer habe der Koch dann versucht, den Stickstoff umzufüllen, das Gefäß stand wahrscheinlich bereits unter hohem Druck. „Offenbar hatte er versucht, den verschlossenen Siphon mit einem Schraubenzieher aufzuhebeln“, so Laurisch. Dabei kam es zur Detonation, das Badezimmer brannte völlig aus. Gegen den Koch werde nun strafrechtlich ermittelt, sagte Laurisch. „Wenn die körperlichen Schäden über das hinausgehen, was er angerichtet hat, werden solche Verfahren aber gemeinhin eingestellt.“

full article

More on the extent of his injuries


Edited by 6ppc (log)

Jon

--formerly known as 6ppc--

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By May10April
      I know there was a thread on this a few years ago, however it seems these scales are no longer made or newer better models are available.
      As I've become more serious about my baking, I've decided to get a kitchen scale. I'm debating between the My Weigh KD-8000 http://www.amazon.com/My-Weigh-Digital-Weighing-Scale/dp/B001NE0FU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297958394&sr=8-1 or the EatSmart Precision Pro Digital Scale. http://www.amazon.com/EatSmart-Precision-Digital-Kitchen-Scale/dp/B001N0D7GA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1297958443&sr=1-1 Originally I wanted the Taylor Salter High Capacity Scale because it looked cool, but I've noticed it received many mixed reviews. http://www.amazon.com/Taylor-Salter-Aquatronics-Capacity-Kitchen/dp/B004BIOMGU/ref=sr_1_24?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1297958465&sr=1-24
      Here are my requirments:
      -Minimum capacity of 11 lbs
      -Minimum resolution of 1 g
      -Measure in Kg, lb, oz, g
      -Tare feature
      -Preferably have seamless buttons
      I want to get a nice scale. I don't want to get a scale with minimum features only to find in two years that I do enough baking/cooking that requires me to have something more sophisticated.
      Here are a few other questions:
      1. How important is it to have a scale measure fluid ounces?
      2. What about measuring lbs. oz (for example 6 lbs and 4.2 ounces)
      3. Is it important to have a scale measure in bakers %? I'd like to learn how to do these and have a cookbook that shows them next to the measurements. I'm not sure if this is something most people can figure out on their own or it would be handy to have them on a scale. The MW KD-8000 does this.
      The only problem with the MW-KD-8000 is it appears to be big and bulky and I don't have a lot of counter space so I'd probably keep it stored most of the time. The Eat Smart just seems to minimal. The Salter seems like an expensive scale for what it offers and somewhat of a risk.
      Thanks for any help in helping me choose the right scale. I do not know why this is becoming a chore to purchase! I just want to make sure I choose the right one right off the bat.
    • By bhsimon
      Recently cooked whole bone-in lamb shoulder sous vide for 8 hours @ 80°C. The results were like a typical braise. More interestingly, I weighed the different components after cooking for future reference. Here is the breakdown:
       
      Before cooking:
      2.1 kg lamb shoulder – whole, bone-in, untrimmed
       
      After cooking:
      621 g liquid
      435 g bones and fat
      1044 g meat
       
      Almost precisely half of the total weight was meat. Hopefully this will be helpful if you are trying to calculate portions.
       
      As an aside to this: we've been cooking our tough cuts (sous vide) whole, without any trimming at all, and removing fat and bones after cooking. It is so much easier and faster than trimming everything beforehand. The excess fat comes off in large pieces and connective tissue peels away cleanly. Lamb shanks, for instance, are tedious to trim before cooking but easily cleaned up after they come out of the bag. It's luxurious to have big, clean pieces of shank meat although some may prefer on-the-bone presentation. We have tried this with pork shoulder, too, and the unwanted fat is easily removed after cooking with lovely hunks of tender meat remaining for slicing, dicing or shredding.
    • By Franzisaurus_Rex
      FOOD BRETHREN!
      I need some advice. I have one last piece of pork belly confit in the fridge. I brined these bad boys for about 5 days (brine included pink curing salt), vacuum sealed the squares of pork belly with lard and sous vide them at 158 F for 16 hours. I cooked this on 11/10/16 and its been in my refrigerator since. 
      Here is the general recipe I followed, with some modifications based on my taste: https://www.chefsteps.com/activities/...
      The last piece is still vacuum sealed and submerged (mostly) in lard. Any visible pork only has contact with the bag. 
      It's staring at me. And calling my name.
      I want to deep fry this sucker and have a little date night with the handsome devil I see in the mirror every morning, but the last thing I want is spoiled food. I can't find any conclusive information about how long pork confit lasts for. I've only seen references that duck confit or in general that the confit technique will last for months in the fridge. I have found no sources which directly addresses pork confit.
      Questions/Factors I'm Considering:
      - Does pork confit keep for as long as duck confit?
      - Does vacuum sealing have any effect on the length of preservation?
      - Does sous-vide cooking method affect the length of preservation?
      I know I am probably being a bit paranoid, but I thought I would do my due diligence before taking the plunge, so to speak. Any advice on these questions would be extremely helpful and appreciated!
      The Franzisaurus-Rex
      PS - you should totally make this if you are into sous vide, confit, food, or have any respect for the enjoyment of life. Flash-searing these things after cooking was OUT OF THIS WORLD.
    • By FrogPrincesse
      Host's note: this delicious topic is continued from What Are You Cooking Sous Vide Today? (Part 2)
       
       
      Duck breast, 57C for 90 min, pre and post sous-vide sear.
       

       
       

       

       
       
      So the texture was not significantly different from what I get with my usual technique, which is grilling over charcoal. But it's more uniformly pink, and there are no slightly overdone spots. I am pleased with the results even though searing in the house means a ton of smoke and duck fat everywhere!   (I did it on the stove in a cast iron skillet, next time I will place the skillet in the oven)
    • By TdeV
      Is it possible to put a rub on a sous vide item?
       
      I'm cooking pig wings here and I'm trying to figure how to finish them. This looks good but would require a rub.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.