Start with the job the tomato powder must do. A seasoning may need tomato flavour and colour without much thickening; a sauce may also depend on tomato solids for body. Agusa describes its cold-break spray-dried powder as fresher-tasting and lower in viscosity, and its hot-break powder as thicker with a more cooked tomato flavour.[1] This is the manufacturer’s product positioning, not an independently verified sensory or performance comparison.
Use that distinction to choose samples. Then compare them in the food you intend to make—not just in water, and not solely by the largest viscosity number on a specification sheet.
What the break label tells you
In Agusa’s description, both powders start with tomato paste. For hot break, heating deactivates pectin-degrading enzymes before concentration and spray drying. For cold break, the supplier describes higher enzyme activity before drying.[1] That wording does not specify residual enzyme activity in the delivered powder. Nor does “hot break” mean that the powder must be mixed with hot water.
Agusa positions cold-break powder for dry seasoning blends, snack coatings and beverages; hot-break powder is positioned for sauces, soups, ready meals and seasoning systems requiring body or cooked tomato notes.[1] These are useful directions, not exclusive application rules. A soup may need little extra thickening, while a snack seasoning may deliberately seek a cooked flavour.
Our selection advice: set separate targets for flavour, colour and texture. If another ingredient already supplies the required body, maximum tomato viscosity need not be the priority. If tomato solids must build the sauce structure, approve the sample only after your hydration, mixing and heating steps.
What paste research adds—and what it does not
One laboratory study compared conventional thermal breaks at 65°C and 90°C with ultrasound-assisted breaks at 22°C and 65°C, each lasting 10 minutes. After cooling and screening, the juices were vacuum-concentrated at 65°C for 120 minutes to 24.00 ± 0.02°Brix.[2] The ultrasound treatments therefore were not low-temperature processes from start to finish.
The researchers tested wet concentrated paste, not spray-dried powder after reconstitution. Apparent viscosity was measured at 25°C after 300 seconds of equilibration, then averaged over 120 seconds at a shear rate of 50 s⁻¹.[2] Their Results report the order US-Break-65 > US-Break-22 > Break-90 > Break-65.[2] The hotter conventional break produced the more viscous paste, but the ultrasound-treated pastes exceeded both conventional treatments under this method.
This is a reason not to rank every tomato ingredient by break temperature alone. It is not evidence that a commercial ultrasound-treated powder will outperform a hot-break powder: this study did not test that comparison.
More pectin, or larger pectin molecules?
The following three rows are selected from the study’s Table 1. They describe serum pectin, not powder composition. The untreated-juice control is omitted so that the four processed pastes can be compared.[2]
| Serum-pectin property | Break-65 | Break-90 | US-Break-22 | US-Break-65 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serum-pectin propertyPectin content, mg GalA/g serum | Break-6514.65 ± 1.11 d | Break-9022.85 ± 2.17 c | US-Break-2226.37 ± 1.33 b | US-Break-6531.50 ± 3.81 a |
| Serum-pectin propertyDegree of methoxylation (DM), % | Break-6520.89 ± 1.71 c | Break-9036.63 ± 2.30 a | US-Break-2219.53 ± 1.43 c | US-Break-6527.75 ± 2.91 b |
| Serum-pectin propertyWeight-average molecular weight (Mw), kDa | Break-6567.27 ± 9.77 d | Break-90161.23 ± 10.88 b | US-Break-2274.09 ± 1.89 d | US-Break-65131.38 ± 4.19 c |
Values are means ± SD; the paper reports triplicate experiments, not three independent industrial batches. Compare letters only within a property row: values sharing a letter are not identified as significantly different by the reported grouping. Methods specify Tukey’s test at p < 0.05; the original table footnote prints the malformed “p < 0.0.5”. Letters are retained as published.[2]
The measurement bases matter:
- Pectin content is reported as galacturonic acid equivalents per gram of serum—the liquid phase—not per gram of paste or powder.[2]
- DM and Mw characterize the recovered serum-pectin fraction. The extraction method dilutes 50 g of paste with 200 mL of water, centrifuges and filters it, then precipitates material from the filtrate with ethanol.[2] Mw is a molecular-weight average for that fraction, not a concentration or the molecular weight of all material in the tomato. DM is the paper’s methyl-esterification measure, not the mass percentage of methoxyl groups or pectin in the powder.[2]
Break-90 has a higher serum-pectin Mw than US-Break-65, yet the reported whole-paste viscosity order goes the other way.[2] The authors discuss changes in both the suspended particles and the serum pectin.[2] Because these changed together, the comparison does not establish that either one alone caused the viscosity increase. It also does not show that a finer dry powder must make a thicker sauce.
Make viscosity comparisons on the same basis
The same study reports shear-thinning behaviour: apparent viscosity decreased as shear rate increased across the tested 0.01–500 s⁻¹ range.[2] A viscosity value without the measurement conditions is therefore an incomplete basis for comparison.
For purchasing trials, we recommend agreeing these conditions before exchanging results:
- Composition and concentration: identify tomato-derived solids, moisture and any other ingredients. Record powder dose, water addition and the method used to determine concentration. Do not treat a °Brix reading as a complete measurement of all tomato solids.
- Preparation: use a specified water temperature, mixing sequence, mixing intensity and hydration time. For a heated sauce, include the intended heating and cooling steps.
- Measurement: record sample temperature, instrument and geometry, shear rate or instrument speed, and measurement duration. A stated rpm is not automatically a shear rate in s⁻¹. Keep flow-distance tests and rotational-viscosity measurements as separate results unless a relationship has been established for the particular product and methods.
- Acceptance: compare the instrumental result with the required pour, spoon coating or mouthfeel. Set limits from an acceptable finished-product reference rather than importing the paper’s laboratory conditions as a universal target.
These are proposed qualification steps, not results from a completed powder trial.
Choose the trial that matches the application
Dry seasoning or snack coating. Start at the intended use level, keeping the rest of the blend and the coating process unchanged. Compare flavour and colour, and decide whether cooked tomato notes are wanted or should be avoided. Include a cold-break sample because of the supplier’s flavour positioning, not because the label guarantees a preferred sensory score.[1]
Sauce or soup. First compare candidate powders at a declared, comparable tomato-solids input where the composition data allow it. Assess flavour, colour and body after the full process. Then optimise the dose of each candidate to reach the same finished-product target. This separates an ingredient comparison from the later formulation decision; equal powder mass alone does not establish equal tomato input.
Replacing concentrated paste. Obtain the composition and solids basis of both materials before calculating a starting formulation. Then check flavour and texture after reconstitution and processing. The cited paste study provides neither a universal paste-to-powder replacement ratio nor a viscosity-retention factor: its freeze-dried samples were prepared for compositional analysis, not a matched spray-drying and reconstitution trial.[2]
A practical sample request is:
We are selecting tomato powder for a heated sauce. Please identify the upstream break route, full powder composition and the preparation and measurement conditions behind your texture data. We will compare samples after our mixing and heating sequence at a fixed measurement temperature, alongside our current sauce reference.
The buying decision
Choose hot break and cold break as useful starting points for sampling. Let flavour requirements determine which profiles belong in the trial, and let the finished sauce or seasoning determine which sample passes. Paste research explains why processing history and measurement conditions deserve attention; only a suitable powder trial can establish performance in your formulation.
For broader formulation planning, see food application requirements.
Sources
[1] https://www.agusa.biz — Agusa spray-dried tomato powder
[2] https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC8535101/fullTextXML — Effects of Breaking Methods on the Viscosity, Rheological Properties and Nutritional Value of Tomato Paste