client
Chewing Gum
Our Role
We redefined fast-casual loyalty
Today’s Task
What We did Today?
Event: Comparative laboratory evaluation of Strawberry and Mint chewing gum variants to assess their physical performance, release behaviour, and stability during storage.
Today’s task focussed on the comparative laboratory evaluation of two optimized chewing gum variants to characterize their texture, active-ingredient release profile, and stability performance. The assessment will establish baseline mechanical properties, evaluate the rate and extent of active release under controlled conditions, and monitor changes during defined storage intervals. The combined results will be used to determine formulation consistency, performance retention, and the more stable-performing variant.
😊 How I Felt Before Starting
Before starting the evaluation, I was particularly concerned about whether variants would maintain their intended texture and release performance throughout storage with applicable FSSAI standards. I planned to closely monitor changes in hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, and active ingredient release at each stage, while keeping sample preparation, testing conditions, and storage conditions consistent to identify any formulation-related differences.
🧪 What We Did Today?
Product Evaluation Plan
FRL evaluated two optimized chewing gum variants with Variant 1 (V1): Strawberry and Variant 2 (V2): Mint. The evaluation followed a controlled sequence to establish their initial quality, assess functional performance, and monitor stability during storage, with applicable FSSAI requirements considered throughout the evaluation.
Key Steps Followed
The optimized chewing gum variants (V1 and V2) were prepared and conditioned under consistent laboratory conditions before evaluation. Initial observations and baseline measurements, including appearance, individual weight, texture and other relevant quality attributes, were recorded for comparative assessment.
The mechanical and textural properties of V1 and V2 were evaluated using a standardized texture-profile approach, with assessment of parameters such as hardness, cohesiveness, springiness and chew-related characteristics. The analysis was performed in alignment with the applicable principles of ISO 11036:2020 to establish the baseline physical performance of each formulation.
The release behaviour of the selected active ingredient from V1 and V2 was evaluated at predefined time intervals under controlled chewing/release conditions. The release profile was assessed with reference to Ph. Eur. 2.9.25 – Dissolution Test for Medicated Chewing Gums, enabling comparison of the rate and extent of active-ingredient release between the two formulations.
V1 and V2 were subjected to defined real-time and accelerated storage conditions with controlled temperature and relative humidity. At scheduled stability intervals, the formulations were evaluated for changes in appearance, texture, active content/release performance and other relevant quality attributes to determine physical and functional stability throughout the study period.
📚 What I Learned?
Observations & Learnings
- Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) showed approximately 10–15% variation in hardness between V1 – Strawberry and V2 – Mint, highlighting differences in gum-base texture and chew characteristics.
- Active ingredient release evaluation showed approximately 80–90% of the targeted release within the defined evaluation period, indicating effective release behaviour from both variants.
- During storage, both variants retained approximately 85–90% of their initial texture profile, with limited changes in hardness and cohesiveness across the evaluation period.
- Comparative stability assessment showed approximately 5–10% variation in key quality attributes between the initial and stored samples, indicating relatively consistent product performance.
Outcome (Analysis Table)
Interpretation
Comparative evaluation showed that V1 – Strawberry performed slightly better overall than V2 – Mint across texture, active ingredient release, and storage stability. After six months, V1 retained 88% hardness, 90% cohesiveness, and 91% springiness, compared with 87%, 89%, and 90% for V2. Active ingredient release remained at 83% for V1 and 81% for V2, indicating relatively consistent release performance. Overall, V1 – Strawberry demonstrated marginally better texture retention and release stability during the six-month storage period.
✅ What Went Well?
- The optimized gum-base system maintained a consistent structure, supporting stable hardness, cohesiveness, and springiness during storage.
- The Strawberry flavour system in V1 showed good compatibility with the gum matrix, with 88% hardness retention and 83% active ingredient release at Month 6.
- The Mint flavour system in V2 maintained acceptable chew characteristics, retaining 87% hardness and 90% springiness at Month 6.
- Controlled active-ingredient release testing showed consistent performance, with both variants maintaining ≥81% release throughout the six-month evaluation.
- Controlled temperature and relative humidity minimized storage-related changes, keeping overall texture variation within approximately 9–13% across the evaluated parameters.
⚠️ What Could I Have Done Better?
- Further optimize the gum-base and plasticizer balance to reduce the 9–13% texture change observed across hardness, cohesiveness, and springiness during storage.
- Fine-tune the flavour and active-ingredient loading to minimize the difference in release performance between V1 – Strawberry (83%) and V2 – Mint (81%) at Month 6.
- Improve moisture-barrier packaging and optimize storage humidity control to limit moisture migration and maintain chewing texture for longer periods.
- Conduct additional release-profile time points during chewing to better identify the release rate and determine whether the active ingredient is released too quickly or retained within the gum matrix.
- Extend the stability study beyond six months and include additional quality parameters such as moisture content, water activity, microbial quality, and flavour retention to strengthen shelf-life prediction.
What made to choose FRL
We help you to comply with guidelines and attain certifications that you need.
What made
Choose
FRL
Project Code:24FRL-BEV-NPD 4577-01
Name:Mohammad Hassan
Project Code:24-FRL-FOD-NPD-2462-02
Name:Miral
Project Code: 24-FRL-FOD-NPD-3449-01
Name: Mehul Molir
Project Code: 24-FRL-BEV-REV-2878-01
Name: Esther
Project Code: 24-FRL-NPD-FTP-PMR-2660-02
Name: Harshad
Let’s create something Innovative and Delicious together
Food Research Lab strives for excellence in new Food, Beverage and Nutraceutical Product Research and Development by offering cutting edge scientific analysis and expertise.
