Milk Foaming Comparison of Subminimal Nanofoamer and BonsenKitchen Foamer

Nanofoamer BonsenKitchen Foam

With a wide range of milk foamers available on the market, varying in type and price, we set out to evaluate the performance of a premium handheld foamer – the NanoFoamer V2 by Subminimal. This device claims to be:

“The only AA battery-operated handheld milk foamer capable of making premium café-quality microfoam milk for latte art at home”

To assess this bold claim, we selected a more affordable alternative, the BonsenKitchen handheld milk foamer, for comparison. Using our advanced physical characterisation techniques, we put both foamers to the test with our KRUSS Dynamic Foam Analyser to offer data-driven evidence to determine whether the NanoFoamer V2 lives up to its premium promise.

How do Milk Foamers Work, and Why Use a Dynamic Foam Analyser?

Handheld milk foamers operate on a simple principle, wherein they aerate milk to introduce air, creating microbubbles that give milk a light, creamy texture. However, not all foamers perform equally, as some produce a finer, more stable microfoam, whereas others create larger, less uniform bubbles that coalesce quickly.

The Dynamic Foam Analyser provides a detailed, time resolved analysis of key foaming characteristics, including:

  1. Bubble Count – the number of bubbles per unit area, indicating the compactness of the foam. More bubbles suggest better microfoam formation.
  2. Bubble Size Distribution – a measure of how bubble sizes vary within the foam. A tighter distribution of smaller bubbles indicates a more effective foamer.
  3. Foam Stability Over Time – by analysing changes in bubble count and size at different time intervals, we can assess how well the foam holds up. Less coalescence suggests a more stable and superior foam.

A high-performing foamer should create a large number of fine, evenly sized bubbles that remain stable over time. As foam naturally degrades, bubbles coalesce, increasing the mean bubble size whilst also reducing the overall bubble count. By using the Dynamic Foam Analyser, we can objectively measure these changes, identifying which foamer maintains better microfoam consistency for longer.

Methods

To perform analysis on our KRUSS Dynamic Foam Analyser, samples had to be prepared before use. Initially, milk was heated to 60°C and foamed as per the manufacturer instructions for 60 seconds in total. The milk was then poured into the analyser to perform a 10-minute foam stability test, where images were taken as soon as the milk was foamed, and then 10 minutes after the foam had been formed.

Results

Initially, the NanoFoamer shows a clear advantage, producing a significantly higher bubble count per mm² and a smaller mean bubble size when compared to the BonsenKitchen foamer.

 

 

After 10 minutes, the stability of the NanoFoamer’s bubbles becomes readily apparent. While its bubble count decreases to 103 bubbles/mm² this is still comparable to the initial performance of the BonsenKitchen foamer. The BonsenKitchen’s bubbles show significant coalescence, with a drastic reduction to just 28 bubbles/mm², and a much larger mean bubble size of 0.0361mm².

The bubble size distribution graphs further highlight the differences between the two foamers. As shown in the Figure above, the y-axis shows the bubble frequency, and it is clear that the NanoFoamer exhibits around triple the frequency of bubbles compared to the BonsenKitchen. The NanoFoamer exhibits a much tighter bubble size distribution over time, indicating that it maintains smaller bubblers for longer, contributing to a more stable microfoam. In contrast, the BonsenKitchen foamer shows a wider bubble size distribution, meaning a greater number of larger bubbles are present.

Animations showing how bubble size distribution changes over time

Overall, the results show that the NanoFoamer produces not only finer, denser microfoam, but it is also significantly more stable than the foam produced by the BonsenKitchen foamer. This supports the NanoFoamer’s claim of delivering superior microfoam.

Summary

It is clear that the NanoFoamer excels in creating fine, dense microfoam, making it a clear choice for those seeking premium café-quality coffee. However, it does require more effort to use, which may make it more suited for the avid coffee lover who values the art of frothing.

On the other hand, the BonsenKitchen foamer presents a quick and easy option, which may be more suitable for individuals who are less concerned about having premium coffee at home and are simply looking to whip up a coffee with minimal hassle.

At the Centre for Industrial Rheology, our advanced physical characterisation techniques allow us to put these bold manufacturer claims to the test. If you have a product you want to evaluate, we can help. In addition to this, we can compare your product to market leaders or competitors to assess how it performs, providing valuable insights to help manufacturers adapt and optimise products to ensure that they stand out in the market.

 


Be warned – the Centre for Industrial Rheology is here, ready to test bold claims and reveal the true performance behind products. Don’t hesitate to reach out to use for physical characterisation services that could provide insights to give your product the edge it needs.

Contact Us