Formulation and Flavor Optimization of Functional Chewing Gum

client

Chewing Gum

Our Role

We redefined fast-casual loyalty

Today’s Task

What We did Today?

Event: Development and evaluation of two functional chewing gum flavor variants to assess their taste, texture, chewing characteristics, and formulation performance.

 

Today’s task focussed on systematically optimizing the formulation of two functional chewing gum variants by establishing suitable gum base, sweetener, flavor, and functional active ingredient levels. The trials were planned to refine chewability, flavor release, sweetness balance, and texture, followed by TPA and sensory assessment to identify formulation conditions that meet the targeted sensory, functional, and product-performance requirements.

😊 How I Felt Before Starting

Before starting, I anticipated technical challenges in balancing the gum base, sweetener, flavor system, and functional active ingredients without compromising chewability, texture, or flavor persistence. I planned to manage these challenges through controlled formulation trials, incremental ingredient adjustments, TPA-based texture assessment, and structured sensory evaluation to identify the most suitable formulation conditions for both variants. These are aligned as per the applicable FSSAI standards of the product.

Chewing Gum
Chewing Gum
Chewing Gum
Chewing Gum

🧪 What We Did Today?

Product Evaluation Plan

The Strawberry (V1) and Mint (V2) chewing gum formulations were developed and evaluated through controlled formulation, flavor, texture, and sensory testing to optimize their functional and sensory performance.

  1. Gum Base & Sweetener Optimization
    The gum base and sweetener levels were standardized for Strawberry (V1) and Mint (V2) through controlled formulation trials, while incorporating functional active ingredients such as vitamins, minerals, botanical extracts, or nutraceutical actives at suitable levels to achieve the desired chewability, sweetness, ingredient uniformity, and functional performance.
  2. Flavor Optimization
    Strawberry and mint flavor systems were incorporated at controlled concentrations and adjusted through iterative trials to achieve the desired flavor intensity, balance, and aftertaste profile.
  3. Texture Analysis
    The formulated gum samples were evaluated using Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) with a texture analyzer to assess hardness, cohesiveness, and springiness, which provide chewing texture and structural consistency.
  4. Sensory Evaluation
    Both variants were evaluated under controlled sensory conditions for flavor intensity, sweetness, mouthfeel, and overall acceptability, following ISO 8589:2007 for sensory test-area conditions and ISO 4121:2003 for sensory rating/scaling.

📚 What I Learned?

Observations & Learnings

  • Achieved approximately 80–85% flavor intensity after optimization, with balanced sweetness and acceptable flavor persistence during chewing.
  • The optimized formulation achieved approximately 85–90% flavor intensity, with stronger flavor persistence and a pronounced cooling perception.
  • Sweetener adjustment reduced perceived sweetness variation between trials to approximately 5–8%, supporting a more consistent sensory profile.
  • Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) indicated approximately 10–15% variation in hardness between formulation trials, helping identify a suitable gum-base structure.
  • Both variants maintained approximately 85–90% of the targeted chewability profile during evaluation, indicating acceptable gum-base performance.

Outcome (Analysis Table)

Interpretation

Texture Profile Analysis and sensory evaluation of the chewing gum variants showed V1 (Strawberry) with hardness of 82%, cohesiveness of 84%, springiness of 86%, and chewability of 85%, while V2 (Mint) recorded 88%, 87%, 90%, and 89%, respectively. Sensory evaluation recorded overall acceptability scores of 7.9/9 for V1 and 8.2/9 for V2, with V2 showing stronger flavor intensity, mouthfeel, and flavor persistence, while V1 achieved a slightly higher sweetness score of 7.6/9. Overall, V2 demonstrated stronger texture resilience, chewability, flavor persistence, and overall sensory performance, while V1 provided a slightly sweeter and balanced flavor profile.

chewing gum1 chewing gum1

✅ What Went Well?

  • Controlled gum-base selection and mixing produced suitable chewability and structure, with 82–88% hardness, 84–87% cohesiveness, and 86–90% springiness across the two variants.
  • Adjusting the sweetener level achieved balanced sweetness without masking the flavor profile, resulting in 6/9 sweetness for V1 and 7.4/9 for V2.
  • Controlled strawberry and mint flavor incorporation delivered 8/9 and 8.2/9 flavor intensity, respectively, with Mint achieving stronger 8.3/9 flavor persistence.
  • Optimizing the gum base-to-formulation balance supported 85% chewability for V1 and 89% for V2, indicating good chewing resilience.
  • The optimized ingredient combinations produced overall acceptability scores of 9/9 for V1 and 8.2/9 for V2, confirming good flavor, mouthfeel, and overall product acceptance.

⚠️ What Could I Have Done Better?

  • Further optimize the gum base-to-plasticizer ratio to reduce the remaining hardness variation and improve consistent chewability across both variants.
  • Fine-tune the sweetener-to-flavor ratio to improve sweetness balance, particularly for V2, while maintaining its stronger mint flavor persistence.
  • Optimize flavor concentration and release kinetics to maintain flavor intensity throughout the chewing period rather than primarily at the initial chewing stage.
  • Evaluate active ingredient loading and uniformity more closely to ensure consistent distribution without affecting gum texture, flavor, or chewability.
  • Conduct extended stability and sensory testing under different storage conditions to confirm flavor retention, texture stability, and overall acceptability throughout the intended shelf life.

What made to choose FRL

We help you to comply with guidelines and attain certifications that you need.

What made

Choose
FRL

caramel

Caramel

saudi

Thank you for the Update and effortd caramel. We Appreciate the detailed trials and variations you've conducted. Please Ensure the flavor alignment is testes accordingly. I look forward to the final version and appreciate your continued dedication.

Project Code:24FRL-BEV-NPD 4577-01
Name:Mohammad Hassan
pasta

Pasta

united kingdom

Very First thing, You all should feel proud yourself that you made something that do not exist in market. Heat and eat pasta with bold flavours.

Project Code:24-FRL-FOD-NPD-2462-02
Name:Miral
protein_biscuit

Protein Biscuits

India

V19 plain is the best anf finalized from our side. It is accurate in taste(plain), texture, and after tastte is also not bitter at all, He loved it as a plain flavour. V19 cardomon should add more flavour rest everything is fine.

Project Code: 24-FRL-FOD-NPD-3449-01
Name: Mehul Molir
cola

Cola

Nigeria

Hello, I am using the oppurtunity to appreciate the teams effort we will be picking V1 for cola, So far we don't have any complain about it, I will like to know the type of sweetner use, during the taste test some said it too sweet while some said it for orange we are picking V2, no complain too, thank you once again

Project Code: 24-FRL-BEV-REV-2878-01
Name: Esther
Energy Candy

Energy Candy

India

Since a year Ago, we statrted this journey of developing energy candy and we took different steps to develop the product. I am really happy to see endless efforts you people have done to develop an energy candy, Hats off to you and your didication towards unbiased work

Project Code: 24-FRL-NPD-FTP-PMR-2660-02
Name: Harshad