Top Three Ways SCIEX has fun with Halloween Candy

Oct 31, 2015 | Blogs, Food / Beverage | 0 comments

Halloween is the time for lots of trick or treats ranging from chocolate bars to lollipops and oh so good candy corn. However, come October 31, it is time to mind sneaky ingredients that have the best disguise of all. From pork extracts, artificial sweeteners, to stuff that is hard to pronounce, SCIEX digs up some of our recent Food and Beverage studies for some ghoulishly good fun.

Where do Gummy Bears get their Squishiness From?

Gummy bears have to get their gelatinous shape from somewhere, and that somewhere happens to be collagen extracted from skin, bones and connective tissue of cows, chickens, pigs, and fish. ELISA testing, which is typically used to detect these animal proteins in your favorite gummy treats, can produce false negatives or positives in that animal protein markers may not be detected or accurately identified. Now, if only the wrapper read it was tested in a lab using LC-MS/MS could you be more certain your gummy bears and any other candies containing gelatin were pork-free. Read the complete study here.

What do Plastics and Candy have to do with One Another?

Up next are Phthalates, a chemical agent found in plastics that makes them more bendable or harder to break. What does this have to do with candy? Some derivatives are used in wrappers and while it is unknown how much exposure can cause a health risk, some forms have been blamed for endocrine disruption in rats. However, it is not just candy wrappers you will find phthalates in, as it migrates from most packaging to foods.  If you are interested in knowing how LC-MS/MS can enhance the detection of phthalates in food and beverage samples, we have the study for you.

Artifical Sweeteners Be Gone

Then there are artificial sweeteners that are better for your teeth and waistline but could cause your trick or treater to crave even more sweets. Sigh. To be sure the label is as true as its ingredients reliable detection is needed. This is where one SCIEX study proved useful as LC-MS/MS proves to be five times faster as well as more than 100 to 1000 fold more sensitive than traditional LC methods.

What are the differences between EPA methods 533 and 537.1?

With the risk of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination and accumulation in humans and wildlife on the rise, it is important to continuously improve and demonstrate capabilities for accurate and precise low-level quantification in research and...

Rescheduling a Schedule I substance, and the Delta-8 controversy

Did you know that in the US, drugs and other chemicals are classified into 5 distinct categories depending on the drug’s acceptable medical use and its potential for abuse or dependency?  Drugs federally classified as Schedule I substances by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) are considered to have the highest potential for abuse and for creating severe psychological and/or physical dependence. In addition to heroin, LSD and MDMA (ecstasy), cannabis is classified as a Schedule I substance in the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, which means it has no approved medical usage.

The pros and cons of using solid phase extraction and direct injection methods for PFAS testing

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Defense (DoD) methods for testing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water require using solid phase extraction (SPE). SPE has been used extensively in environmental contaminant analysis both for concentrating large sample volumes (improving method sensitivity) and removing matrix interferences (sample cleanup).

Posted by

0 Comments

Submit a Comment