Chemicals- Smell, Taste, Structure

June 11, 2020 By Scott Rackham

Chemicals- Smell, Taste, Structure

There are Chemicals in everything we eat. All foods are made up of chemicals, whether they occur in nature or are made in a lab. That means everything we smell or taste is a response to chemicals.

Cinnamon is a spice that is used in both sweet and savory foods.

For example, the characteristic smell of cloves, comes from one chemical called eugenol. Cinnamon, which is just the dried inner-bark of specific trees, gets its aroma and flavor from the compound cinnamic aldehyde. In nature, vanillin comes from an orchid. The process of extracting this pure, natural chemical is extremely lengthy and expensive. The compound vanillin is responsible for the flavor and smell of vanilla. So scientists found a way to make a synthetic version of vanilla in a lab.

Both artificial and natural flavors contain chemicals

If both artificial and natural flavors contain chemicals, what’s the difference? The distinction between natural and artificial flavors is the source of chemicals. Natural flavors are created from anything that can be eaten.

According to the FDA, “Natural flavor is the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional.”

Artificial flavors come from anything that is inedible. For example, from petroleum that is processed to create chemicals of flavorings. For the FDA, the definition of an artificial flavor is any substance that does not meet the definition of a natural flavor

Artificial vs. Natural

Most times a chemical flavoring can be made from either natural or artificial sources — the resulting molecule is the same, but the route to making is different. So which are “safer” or “better” for you, artificial or natural flavors? The answer is probably not what you think.

Since the chemicals for natural flavors are derived from organic sources, they can carry a higher risk of contamination. It’s not that it is slowing down interest in natural flavors, it’s just the opposite. Demand for natural flavors in expected to continue to grow.

So if the demand for natural flavors is increasing, why use artificial flavors at all? Synthetic chemicals that make up artificial flavors generally cost less to produce than finding and extracting the chemicals from natural sources.

Contact our flavor chemists to get started with your flavor today.

Download a copy of our chemical presentation here

Flavor Descriptors: Facts About Flavors

June 11, 2020 By Scott Rackham

Flavor Descriptors: Facts About Flavors

Ever wonder what really makes up flavors and smell? Not all molecules are detectable through olfaction, but some odorous molecules create a chemical stimulus in the brain that we called “smell.” How, you ask? These specific molecules bind to receptor proteins extended from cilia, initiating an electric signal to the brain.

An aroma is caused by one or more volatilized (changing into a gas state) chemical compounds, generally at a very low concentration, that humans or other animals perceive by the sense of olfaction. Aromas can be pleasant and unpleasant.

Smell vs. Taste

Approximately 80% of what we perceive as taste is in fact, due to our sense of smell. This occurs with both nasal (through the nose) and retro-nasal (through the back of the throat) olfaction or smell.

Taste is the sensation produced when a substance in the mouth reacts with our taste receptor cells located on our taste buds in the mouth, mostly on the tongue. A few known taste sensations: Bitter, Sweet, Salty, Acid (Sour), Umami (Savory) and possibly Kokumi (Hearty/Starchy).

Flavor

We could define flavor as the blend of taste and smell sensations induced by a substance in the mouth. Taste and Smell vary depending on genetic makeup, gender, health, training, environmental factors and fatigue… BUT we don’t just sense flavor with our tongues. We also use touch, sight, sound, temperature, trigeminality to create the sensation in our brains that we call FLAVOR.

Supertasters

Most people are average tasters, but some people have many more taste buds than the rest of us. We call them Supertasters. It doesn’t mean they’re flavor connoisseurs or foodies (sorry about that), but it does mean they are extra sensitive to bitter tastes. Supertasters often report that foods like broccoli, cabbage, spinach, grapefruit and coffee taste very bitter.

Flavor Description and Evaluation

We can affect the flavor of food by how it is described. For example, protein bars might taste less desirable if they are described as soy protein and yogurt. And ice cream is perceived to be more flavorsome when described as full fat or high fat. In order to evaluate flavors, there’s a few suggestions that will help your accuracy. Evaluate the taste in a room free of smells, sounds and other sensory stimuli. Do not smoke, or drink coffee or alcohol prior to flavor tasting. Closing your eyes when tasting or smelling is helpful. Most importantly, if you need assistance with flavor description, consult Sensapure Flavor Descriptors for a description of the aroma profile that describe what you are tasting. We also recommend using the Sensapure Tasting Notes when evaluating flavors.

Flavor Fatigue

Particularly in the afternoons, as the day progresses, our sense of smell and taste can change, and most of the time is diminished. Avoid evaluating flavors late in the afternoon or after consecutive tastings. If you experience flavor fatigue, go outside to get a fresh breath of air. Eating unsalted soda crackers is also a very effective way of neutralizing aftertaste.

Contact our certified flavor chemists to get started finding the perfect description of your flavor today. We have just the right tools and terminology to add that wow factor to your flavor.

Download a copy of our flavor facts here

Flavor Descriptors Training

June 11, 2020 By Scott Rackham

Speaking Our Language: Flavor Descriptors Training

flavor descriptors for strawberries

Can you describe the flavor of a strawberry WITHOUT using flavor descriptors? Pretty difficult, right? Flavor Descriptors are a vital tool used by flavor chemists.

When tasting and smelling, one is actually describing a flavor profile. Do not overthink. Just try to describing what you perceive during the tasting. There are many flavor descriptors that exist in the industry, such as our Sensapure Flavor Attributes. Take a look below at some of our flavor descriptors, or check out more of our flavor fans here.

flavor descriptors fans

blue raspberry fan

candy descriptors

flavor fans

Download our flavor presentation here

Measuring Flavor and Sensory Protocols

June 9, 2020 By Scott Rackham

Measuring Flavor and Sensory Protocols

When we are measuring flavor and sensory protocols, there’s a few questions we like to ask. Are we trying to find differences between samples? Or are we trying to understand consumers’ preference? Understanding the purpose of the tasting helps to select and apply the appropriate sensory tests.

How to Conduct a Taste Test

When we conduct a taste test, there are a few things that we look for:

Define the purpose of the tasting
Choose the correct test protocol accordingly
When comparing new flavors to existing ones, the most useful protocol is Triangle Test
For new products, use Preference and Hedonics protocols

We also have a few different materials we use when we are measuring flavor and running sensory protocols. Surprisingly, many of the things we use are simple items you can find around your house, such as paper towels, labels, crackers, gloves.

Sample Coding and Tasting Sequence

Samples can NOT be coded with simple one-digit number or letter to avoid subconscious bias (A is better than D). Because of this, a common method is to use random three-digit numbers. For example 142, 852, 296, 370 are numbers that can be used. It’s important to remember NOT to allocate the two identical samples in a triangle test the same three-digit number. Also, it is a standard practice to rotate the order of the samples so each taster has a difference sequence.

When you’re running taste tests, it’s recommended to run three different tests with volunteers:

A: Provides introduction at the beginning of the taste-tests to participants and presents tasting cups
B: Prepares food and beverage samples and recruits participants to take taste tests
C: Collects evaluation forms, cleans up used cups and trash in between samples and after test

If you’re running a preference test, the taster is presented with at least two samples. However, the samples do not need to look or taste similar. The taster simply decides which option (sample) he or she likes best. Make sure that you rotate the samples ensuring some testers taste different first samples.

Full confidence in measuring flavor

If 100 people participated in a preference test, how many need to choose one product over another for you to feel confident that most people in the public prefer the same product? The answer may be surprising. Scientists are usually satisfied with a conclusion when they are confident that they will get the same result 95 times out of 100.

The Triangle Test – Discrimination Test

Another popular test is the triangle test. In this test, the taster is presented with three samples: two are the same and one is different. Often the differences between the two samples are small. The tester is asked to tell which sample is different. As in the preference test, offering different testers different orders of samples to test is important. For the triangle taste test, six different orders of samples are possible: AAB, ABA, BAA, BBA, BAB, and ABB.

In this test, can the tester tell the difference between the products? As in the preference test, the number of correct choices for the results to be statistically significant depends on the sample size. While 95% significance is best, scientists sometimes report results with 80% significance. Since getting correct responses with the triangle taste test is difficult (depending on how similar the samples taste), 80% significance may be the best outcome.

Measuring Flavor through Hedonic Taste Tests

These tests try to answer the question of which product people prefer, or how much the product is liked. The tasters included in these tests are current consumers of the product or potential ones. There is no need for taster training. Optimally, there are more than 30 panelists. There are several types of preference and acceptance tests. A common one is the 9-point hedonic scale.

In comparing the hedonic to the preference taste test, there’s a few notable differences. The hedonic test is set up in the same manner as the preference taste test. At least two samples are compared to determine which product people prefer. A large number of similar responses must be obtained to determine that people prefer one product more than the other. The minimum number of similar responses needed to determine if the preference is significant is based on the total number of responses obtained, and helps determine a 95% significance.

The hedonic scale is used to determine degree of acceptability of one or more products. This scale is a category-type scale with an odd number (five to nine) categories ranging from “dislike extremely” to “like extremely.” A neutral midpoint (neither like nor dislike) is included. Taster rate the product on the scale based on their response.

Ranking Test

If more than two samples are evaluated, a preference ranking test is performed. Usually three to five samples are the most that can be efficiently ranked by a taster. This test asks the taster to order the samples based on preference, with a ranking of “1” meaning most preferred.

Download a copy of our presentation on measuring flavor here

Partnership and Expertise: The Sensapure Difference

June 9, 2020 By Scott Rackham

Partnership and Expertise: The Sensapure Difference

The Sensapure Leadership partnership and expertise is unmatched. We have a powerful combination of applications expertise and flavor technologies.

Looking at our past experience shows our history of skilled leadership. Our leadership team built and scaled a successful nutrition manufacturing business. Also, we customized the ERP System that was developed over 10 years to meet industry needs. Sensapure’s global sourcing expertise helps us get resources to our clients fast.

We have a world class R&D/Manufacturing facility located in Salt Lake City, Utah. Salt Lake is a major U.S. hub of direct selling and active nutrition brands and manufacturers. Because of this, we created a fast track flavor program with global brands and industry leading manufacturers.

Our impressive flavor library contains over one thousand proprietary formulas. Want to check them out for yourself? We have hundreds of samples available, as well as a mobile flavor lab and a tasting app.

The Sensapure Tasting App: Our Expertise

The Sensapure Tasting App allows us to gather specific, measurable feedback from any sized group, anywhere in the world, to better understand how flavor is experienced by each participant. Because of this solid data, our flavor chemists can better translate your individual and group tasting experiences into more accurate flavor edits – and faster flavor approvals.

We have built the Sensapure Tasting App on a cloud platform that allows real-time, on site or remote, taste testing on any device. The Tasting App will walk you and your team through the specific taste testing experience you are working on. Triangle Tests (matching), Flavor Attribute and Hedonic (preference) Tests are custom-built for your project to gather feedback from small groups to large tasting panels. Then, results are available to review instantly with your team and our chemists to make any needed changes right away

In today’s world of global distribution and influencers and decision makers living and working across continents, the power of a cloud-based, mobile taste testing application becomes obvious. With a little prep, we can have product and flavor samples sent to your team around the world and conduct a Global Tasting Webinar where everyone’s input is captured and analyzed in real time.

“Group Think” and “If The Boss Likes It,” have never been the best ways to taste, edit or approve flavors in finished goods. Because taste is such a subjective experience, involving more taste buds is always a good idea. In conclusion, more data, from more sources, with specific actionable feedback will get your product from development to approval to your customers – in fewer step; saving you time and money.

So, what do customers really want in a partnership?

We surveyed our clients and found the top outcomes customers desire:

100% on-time, in-spec order fulfillment
Reduced overall GOGS of finished goods
Reduced finished good inventory (carrying costs can equal 18 – 22% of COGS)
Reduced risk of obsolescence of finished good inventory
Shorter lead-times

Close-up of the liquid filling in production line about healthcare and medicine.

Because our customer’s needs are our primary focus, our unique partnering approach allows us to help our customers create a significant competitive market advantage. There are three types of partnerships and expertise that customers generally experience: The lowest level—Dysfunctional—represents a relationship that is non-productive and possibly destructive. On the other hand, the highest level—Integrated—is a mutually beneficial relationship that is highly productive and fulfilling. Open sharing of information and developing integrated partnerships with our clients is the best avenue to mutual success.

After looking at these types of partnerships and expertise, know that we strive to partner in integrated partnerships. Our customer’s action plans facilitate open dialogue. The goal is to earn client trust to get the communication. We agree to operate at a higher level – to develop a CONCORD. Because we use forecasts and stocking arrangements, it helps reduce lead times or supply chain interruptions. Our goal is to become an extension of their R&D team.

Access to Our Second-to-none Flavor Applications Lab

Whether it’s hard to flavor projects, cost engineering formulas, or too much work in-house, our apps lab services top tier and we want to be an extension of you.

Full Support from Our R&D Lab

When we can’t formulate with current flavors in the apps lab, we have flavor chemists to custom engineer flavor for your exact application. These can be done very rapidly (and they have even been done during client visits!).

Investments in Flavor Matching

In conclusion, if you have supply chain concerns or are looking for exact matches to high volume flavors, we have the technical capabilities to help you reduce your supply chain risk or COGS through our technology and flavor chemists.

If this type of partnership and expertise sounds like a good fit for you, give us a call today!

Click here to download a copy of our partnering presentation

Bioavailability of CBD Greatly Increased with ANANDA Scientific’s Nano-Enhanced CBD

May 18, 2020 By Scott Rackham

Bioavailability of CBD Greatly Increased with ANANDA Scientific’s Nano-Enhanced CBD

Cannabidiol (CBD) from industrial hemp is a multi-functional molecule, and the bioavailability of CBD is greatly increased because of ANANDA.
Scientific studies indicated that it may be a more powerful antioxidant than either Vitamin C or E, and CBD offers the prospect of successfully fighting chronic inflammation and protecting brain cells from reactive oxygen species (1-2).

CBD’s beneficial potential is discussed in numerous published papers. Further, it has promise in stabilizing and even reducing blood sugar levels; as a pain killer; for reducing the risk of artery blockage; in suppressing muscle spasms, seizures, and convulsions; for fighting varied cancers; and more (3-8).

Such promise is accompanied by a major limitation to its usefulness — low bioavailability. Because of this, any beneficial effects from CBD become patchy or erratic due to problems in getting CBD into the body in adequate amounts (9-14).

For a supplement taken by mouth, bioavailability means the proportion of a dose that enters the bloodstream from the small intestine (15-17). Therefore, once in the blood, the supplement can find its way to the target organ or body system, where it then goes to work in supporting health and wellness.

On average, only 5-6% of almost any CBD preparation gets into the bloodstream. As a result, the rest is wasted. Such poor oral bioavailability guarantees variable or unpredictable effects, along with increased costs from having to take larger doses to compensate.

Appropriate formulation strategies that assist in getting into the bloodstream are thus mandatory for CBD to attain its health-giving potential, as well as in a cost-efficient or economical fashion.

ANANDA Scientific’s research & development has yielded a patented CBD technology using GRAS ingredients that resolve CBD’s bioavailability problem. This patented technology is the first of its kind. “GRAS” means that a substance is Generally Recognized As Safe by the US Food and Drug Administration to be used in foods and beverages (18).

Figure 1. ANANDA Scientific’s patented, proprietary technology (nextCBD) involves highly-ordered constructs made from GRAS compounds into which CBD is affixed. Therefore, this technology makes nextCBD very bioavailable when taken by mouth.

Purpose.

This study compares the bioavailability of CBD and ANANDA Scientific’s enhanced CBD in laboratory rats. The bioavailability of substances taken by mouth are comparable between rats and humans (19-28).

Methods.

This demonstration looks at the plasma contents of cannabidiol (CBD) after a single oral dose administered by gavage (through a tube leading down the throat to the stomach; 29) of regular CBD and ANANDA Scientific’s enhanced CBD over a 24-hour period.

In this example, female Sprague-Dawley rats (240-265 gm body weight) were used. The study design and animal usage were reviewed and approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) for compliance with regulations prior to study initiation. Animal welfare for this study with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal Welfare Act (9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3) and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (30).

A 50-mg CBD/kg body weight model was examined in animals given ANANDA Scientific’s nano-enhanced pure CBD and a control group for which powdered pure CBD in the same amount was fed. Ten animals were in each group.

Blood samples were taken immediately prior to gavage as well as 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, 12.0 and 24.0 hours after dosing. Venous blood was collected in an EDTA blood collection tube. Next, plasma was separated from red blood cells by centrifugation at 400 g for 15 min., transferred to a fresh microcentrifuge tube, and stored at −80°C.

CBD was quantified using validated high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectroscopy (LC-MS-MS) in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode.

Findings.

The results verify that ANANDA’s enhanced methods greatly improves bioavailability of CBD. It was significantly more bioavailable than regular CBD at 0.5 and 2 hours.

As a result, far lower dosing is needed for enhanced CBD versus regular CBD. The results also intimate that products containing the regular, non-enhanced CBD found in most products may suffer from low bioavailability and a consequent ineffectiveness.

References

1. Burstein, S. 2015. Cannabidiol (CBD) and its analogs: a review of their effects on inflammation. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry 23(7):1377-1385.

2. Couch, D.G., H. Maudslay, B. Doleman, J.N. Lund, and S.E. O’Sullivan. 2018. The use of cannabinoids in colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Inflammatory Bowel Disease 24(4):680-697.

3. Campos, A.C., M.V. Fogaça, A.B. Sonego, and F.S. Guimarães. 2016. Cannabidiol, neuroprotection and neuropsychiatric disorders. Pharmacological Research 112:119-127.

4. Mannucci, C., M. Navarra, F. Calapai, E.V. Spagnolo, F.P. Busardò, R.D. Cas, F.M. Ippolito, G. Calapai. 2008. Neurological aspects of medical use of cannabidiol. CNS & Neurological Disorders Drug Targets 16(5):541-553.

5. McAllister, S.D., L. Soroceanu, and P.Y. Desprez. 2015. The antitumor activity of plant-derived non-psychoactive cannabinoids. Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology 10(2):255-267.

6. Pisanti, S., A.M. Malfitan, E. Ciaglia, A. Lamberti, R. Ranieri, G. Cuomo, M. Abate, G. Faggiana, M.C. Proto, D. Fiore, C. Laezza, and M. Bifulco. 2017. Cannabidiol: state of the art and new challenges for therapeutic applications. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 175:133-150.

7. Robson, P.J. . 2014. Therapeutic potential of cannabinoid medicines. Drug Testing and Analysis 6(1-2):24-30.

8. Russo, E.B. 2008. Cannabinoids in the management of difficult to treat pain. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 4(1):245-259.

9. Agurell, S., S. Carlsson, J.E. Lindgren, A. Ohlsson, H. Gillspie, L. Hollister. 1981. Interaction of THC with cannabinol and cannabidiol following oral administration in man. Assay of cannabinol and cannabidiol by mass fragmentography. Experientia 37:1090–1092.

10. Gaston, T.E., and D. Friedman. Pharmacology of cannabinoids in the treatment of epilepsy. Epilepsy & Behavior 70(Pt. B):313-318.

11. , F. 2003. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabinoids. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 42(4):327-360.

12. McGilveray, I.J. 2005. Pharmacokinetics of cannabinoids. Pain Research and Management 10(Suppl. A):15A-22A.

13. Ohisson, A., J.E. Lindgren, S. Andersson, S. Agurell, H. Gillespie, L.E. Hollister. 1986. Single-dose kinetics of deuterium-labeled cannabidiol in man after smoking and intravenous administration. Biomed Environ Mass Spectrometry 13:77–83.

14. Samara, E., M. Bialer, R. Mechoulam. 1988. Pharmacokinetics of cannabidiol in dogs. Drug Metabolism and Disposition 16:469–472.

15. Bhattaram, V.A., U. Graefe, C. Kohlert, and H. Derendorf. 2002. Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of herbal medicinal products. Phytomedicine 9 (Suppl 3):1-33.

16. El-Kattan, A.F. 2017. Oral Bioavailability Assessment: Basics and Strategies for Drug Discovery and Development (Wiley Series on Pharmaceutical Science and Biotechnology: Practices, Applications and Methods). First Edition. Wiley, New York, 448 p.

17. Hu, M., and X. Li. 2011. Oral Bioavailability: Basic Principles, Advanced Concepts, and Applications. First Edition. Wiley, New York, 568 p. 18. GRAS Substances (SCOGS) Database. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/SCOGS

19. Akonur, A.I., C.J. Holmes, and J.k. Leypoldt. 2014. Predicting the peritoneal absorption of icodextrin in rats and humans including the effect of β-amylase activity in dialysate. Peritoneal Dialysis International 35(3)288-296.

20. Fagerholm, U., M. Johansson, and H. Lennernäs. 1996. Comparison Between Permeability Coefficients in Rat and Human Jejunum. Pharmaceutical Research 13(9):1336-1342.

21. Lawless E., B.T. Griffin B, A. O’Mahony A, and C.M. O’Driscoll. 2015. Exploring the impact of drug properties on the extent of intestinal lymphatic transport – in vitro and in vivo studies. Pharmaceutical Research 32(50:1817-1829.

22. Nagahara, N., Y. Akiyama, K. Higaki, and T. Kimura. 2006. Animal models for predicting potency of oral sustained-release adhesive microspheres in humans. International Journal of Pharmacy 331(1):46-53.

23. Pang, K.S. 2003. Modeling of intestinal drug absorption: roles of transporters and metabolic enzymes. Drug Metabolism and Disposition 31(12):1509-1517.

24. Salphati, L., K. Childers, L. Pan, K. Tsutsui, and L. Takahashi. 2001. Evaluation of a single-pass intestinal-perfusion method in rat for the prediction of absorption in man. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 53(7):1007-1013.

25. Stewart, B,H., O.H. Chan, R.H. Lu, E.L. Reyner, H.L. Schmid, H.W. Hamilton, B.A. Steinbaugh, and M.D. Taylor. 1995. Comparison of intestinal permeabilities determined in multiple in vitro and in situ models: relationship to absorption in humans. Pharmaceutical Research 12(5):693-699.

26. Zenghui Teng , Z., C. Yuan , F. Zhang, M. Huan, W. Cao, K. Li, J. Yang, D. Cao, S. Zhou, and Q. Mei. 2012. Intestinal absorption and first-pass metabolism of polyphenol compounds in rat and their transport dynamics in Caco-2 cells. PLoS One 7(1):e29647.

27. Zakeri-Milania,P., H. Valizadeha, H. Tajerzadehc, Y. Azarmia, Z. Islambolchilara, S. Barzegara, and M. Barzegar-Jalalia. 2007. Predicting human intestinal permeability using single-pass intestinal perfusion in rats. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences 10(3):368-379.

28. Zhang, D., and L._X. Gang. 2012. Preclinical experimental models of drug metabolism and disposition in drug discovery and development. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B 2(6):549-561.

29. Andrews, K., and S. McErla. 2012. Oral dosing (gavage) in adult mice and rats. University of British Columbia Animal Care Guidelines, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) ACC-2012-Tech09.

30. National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies. 2011. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Eighth Edition. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 246 p.