Hofmann joins Ultra Additives
Ultra Additives, Inc., has announced that Dr. jurgen Hofmann has joined the Bloomfield, N.J.=based, company in a newly created position of European sales manager for induitrial Fluids.
Prior to joining Ultra Additives Hofmann spent more than 10 years with Castrol where he started as a development chemist. He later became a laboratory manager for water-soluble cutting fluids, responsible for business development and sales.
Hofmann has a doctorate in chemistry from Friedrich-Alexander University, Erlangen-Nurnberg and also received his MBA from City University in Seattle at the Frankfurt, Germany, site.
Multifunctional Additives For Metalworking Fluids
Metalworking fluids provide many advantages and benefits to their users. However, they are subject to stringent requirements with regard to their technical characteristics and environmental properties. In order to adjust the performance and ancillary properties of metalworking fluids, the formulator needs high quality additives. Most of these additives are surface/interface active molecules or formulations.
Goldschmidt Chemical Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Degussa Corporation, and its Industrial Specialties business line have a long history in the development and production of surface/interface active products using organic chemistry or organomodified polysiloxanes (OMS). As a result, Goldschmidt has a unique molecular construction set available that enables us to offer additives to meet the specific requirements of the metalworking fluid formulator. Further, our products are developed to ensure ease of formulation while eliminating in-use issues such as metal and process incompatibility.
The following overview provides a summary of the product classes Goldschmidt’s Industrial Specialties business line can provide.
GOLDSCHMIDT EMULSIFIERS
For water miscible metalworking fluids it is essential to use good emulsifiers in order to maintain stable dilutions in water. Due to the fact that metalworking fluid emulsions are typically formed without specific mixing equipment, the concentrates must be selfemulsifiable in waten In addition to being self-emulsifiable, good emulsifiers should also be readily soluble in base oils, demonstrate lubricating properties and prevent dermatologicai and toxicological issues.
Although Goldschmidt has a complete line of emulsifiers based on natural raw materials like fatty acid amides, fatty alcohol ethoxylates and vegetable oil-based polyglycolesters, our focus is on specialty emulsifiers based on glycerol fatty acid esters and sorbitan fatty acid esters see Figure 5 (page 25).
In addition to providing excellent emulsifying properties in the base oils typically used in metalworking fluids, emulsifiers based on glycerol fatty acid esters demonstrate excellent toxicological, ecological and dermatologicai properties. Goldschmidt emulsifiers based on glycerol fatty acid esters, such as TAGAT® V 20 have especially good solubility in vegetable oils and synthetic esters. Therefore, they are particularly recommended for the formulation of environmentally-friendly metalworking fluids based on renewable resources.
Goldschmidt emulsifiers can be used alone or in combination with other emulsifiers to optimize the performance of a wide variety of metalworking fluids. Goldschmidt emulsifiers ensure the spontaneous formation of finely dispersed, stable oil-in-water emulsions. Additionally, Goldschmidt can provide custom-made products for specific applications based on our customer’s requirements.
GOLDSCHMIDT ANTIFOAMS
The main requirement of a metalworking fluid antifoam is high efficiency with regard to foam suppression and foam knock down. The negative consequences of foam in a metalworking fluid operation are numerous, including poor lubrication, inadequate cooling and diminished ability to visually inspect parts during the metalworking operation.
In addition to high efficiency, other critical success factors must be considered when selecting an antifoam. The antifoam must be stable in the metalworking fluid concentrate and should not separate during storage. Stability can especially be a problem in metalworking fluids with high water content. Not only the water content, but the overall composition of the metalworking fluid is crucial for the stability of the antifoam. For example, certain antifoams are very effective in soluble oils and not in synthetics. Other antifoams are best chosen on the basis of the operating conditions to which the formulated metalworking fluid will be subjected. Considerations include in-use water quality and system filtration. Furthermore, the antifoam should not negatively influence subsequent treatments of processed metal parts, such as painting, electro plating and gas nitrating or gas carbonization.
All antifoam classes are characterized by different properties. Organic oil antifoams have a high surface tension (> 30 mN/m), making them comparatively less efficient than silicone antifoams. However, they offer the advantage of good process compatibility.
Silicone oil antifoams are characterized by a very high efficiency due to their low surface tension (~21 mN/m). However, they can not be used in many critical applications since unmodified silicone oil is hydrophobic and oleophobic at the same time. Due to this incompatibility, silicone oil antifoams can cause problems during subsequent plating and painting operations.
Antifoams based on organo-modified siloxanes combine the high compatibility of organic oil antifoams with the high efficiency of the silicone oil antifoams. Organo-modified siloxanes, like silicone oils, are based on a polysiloxane backbone to ensure low surface tension which is essential for efficient defoaming activity. Additionally, substantial physical and physico chemical characteristics are achieved by organic side chains which are not present in silicone oils. By careful selection of organic substituents, it is possible to adjust antifoams based on organo-modified siloxanes to meet demanding performance requirements. Goldschmidt applies this approach to tailor make anitfoams for specific applications.
Additions & withdrawals
COLO.: Denver, HKBP Montclair. FLA.: Ft. Myers, Peace. MINN.: Buffalo, Spirit of Joy. N.C.: Elizabeth City, Good Shepherd. N.Y.: Roslyn, Kalam. ORE.: Woodburn, House of Zion. PA.: Wilmerding, Holy Angels. TEXAS: Houston, First; Weatherford, Messiah.
2003 withdrawals of ELCA congregations:
ILL.: Chicago, Tabor. IOWA: Altoona, Cross. MINN.: Minneapolis, Christ Latvian. PA.: Landisburg, Mt. Zion; Loysville, Tressler Memorial. WASH.: Waterville, United. WIS.: South Wayne, Jordan & Our Savior.
COLO.: Denver, New Beginnings; Lafayette, Rejoice. FLA.: Jacksonville, Spirit of Life. GA.: Alpharetta, Living Faith. ILL.: Chicago, Mission of Christ; Lake in the Hills, Shepherd of the Prairie. MD.: Baltimore, Peoples Community. N.C.: Wilmington, Water of Life. NEV.: Henderson, New Song. PA.: Denver, Faith United.
2004 withdrawals:
FLA.: Jacksonville, Christ; Sarasota, Holy Cross. GA.: Augusta, Ascension. IOWA: Swea City, Immanuel. IDAHO: Kellogg, American. ILL.: Ashkum, Zion; Gifford, St. Paul; Melvin, St. Peter. MINN.: Brownton, St. Matthew; Stacy, Salem. MO.: Grandview, Prince of Peace. N.D.: Dodge, St. Paul; Fargo, Atonement; Golden Valley, Golgotha; Kindred, West Prairie; Zap, Immanuel. S.D.: Waubay, Egeland. TEXAS: Odessa, Risen Lord. UTAH: Brigham City, Holy Cross; Sandy, Good Shepherd. WIS.: Dresser, Bethesda; Scandinavia, Scandinavia; Waupaca, Farmington & Shepherd of the Lakes.
Amedia Secures Additional Financing
HOLMDEL, N.J. — Amedia Networks, Inc. (OTCBB: AANI), a provider of Ethernet ultra-broadband solutions for the Triple Play Access Market, today announced that it has sold to institutional investors additional shares of its newly designated Series B 8% Convertible Preferred Stock for gross proceeds of $1.765 million, thereby increasing to $7.765 million the gross amount that Amedia raised from its recently announced private placement of Series B shares in April 2005. Management intends for these funds to be used for marketing and customer support infrastructure, advanced feature development, and for other business operations.
“We believe that the enthusiasm of these additional institutions to participate in this funding is a strong endorsement of the opportunity that Amedia represents,” commented Frank Galuppo, President and Chief Executive Officer of Amedia. “The total amount of the investment continues to fit within our original parameters for this raise and is consistent with our overall funding philosophy.”
The newly placed convertible Series B shares contain the same substantive terms and conditions as the Series B shares that were sold in the first round on April 26, 2005, including an initial conversion rate of $1.01 per share, subject to certain specified adjustments, and 50% warrant coverage. The new investors received five-year warrants to purchase up to approximately 873,760 shares of Amedia’s common stock at an initial per share exercise price of $1.50, which is also subject to certain adjustments. As with the amount raised in April, half of the gross proceeds from this round ($882,500) were deposited into the existing escrow account, pending the approval by Amedia’s stockholders of an increase in the number of shares of common stock that Amedia is authorized to issue at the 2005 annual stockholders meeting which, as provided in the recently circulated proxy statements sent to the shareholders, is currently scheduled for June 9, 2005.
The common stock underlying the newly placed Series B shares and the related warrants will be included in the registration statement that Amedia anticipates filing within 60 days of the close of the initial round in April.
This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of these securities in any state in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to the registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state.
About Amedia Networks
Amedia designs, develops, and implements Ethernet solutions for the ultra-broadband access market. These secure and flexible solutions are used by network operators deploying Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) and/or Fiber-to-the-Node (FTTN) infrastructures to offer their residential and business subscribers high-speed data, video, and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services in a highly cost effective manner. For more information about Amedia, Networks, please visit www.amedia.com.
This press release may contain “forward-looking” statements as that term is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. A number of factors could cause Amedia’s actual results to differ from anticipated results expressed in such forward-looking statements. Such factors are addressed in Amedia’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (available at www.sec.gov). Amedia assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements.
Paint additive hammers coral
Ocean corals around the world are ill or dead for reasons that remain mysterious. One of the first signs of sickness is bleaching, in which reef-building animals lose the symbiotic algae that give them color and nutrients (SN: 1/30/99, p. 72). New laboratory experiments indicate that one contributor to coral decline may be the paint additive tributyl tin (TBT).
For decades, ships throughout the world relied on TBT to limit the growth of drag-inducing barnacles, algae, and other organisms on their hulls. Although the United States is among nations that have banned the toxic additive, many foreign ships still ply the seas wearing TBT-impregnated skins, notes Jai Dwivedi of St. John’s University in Jamaica, N.Y. He adds that such marine paints are designed to slowly leach the pesticidal additive from their hulls.
When those ships run aground on coral reefs, says Dwivedi, they leave paint debris. Reports of high concentrations of TBT in sediment 8 years after the 1992 grounding of a ship on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef prompted his team to investigate the additive’s potential impact on coral.
Dwivedi incubated staghorn coral (Acropora semoensis) and its symbiotic algae in aquarium water containing TBT concentrations from 5 to 100 nanograms per liter. Such amounts could easily be encountered at ship-grounding sites, he says.
All treated corals immediately showed a decline in their symbiotic algae. Aquarium tanks with low TBT concentrations lost 30 percent of their algae, while the A. semoensis in tanks with high TBT concentrations lost 80 percent of their algae.
Skin cells of individual corals quickly began sloughing off in the aquariums at all doses, but high TBT doses produced the most severe skin shedding. Underlying muscle cells in the animals also showed signs of damage. Within 12 hours of exposure, animals in tanks with even the lowest TBT concentrations were dead.
Dwivedi’s team is now trying to identify biochemical changes in coral tissues chronically exposed to TBT. With such markers, scientists might discern whether coral illnesses such as bleaching are an early indication of TBT poisoning or some other threat.–J.R.
Allergy to food additives
While there are many reports in the literature suggesting adverse effects, intolerance, or allergy to food additives, not many studies have used skin-prick or scratch tests with food additives. Researchers from the University of Turku in Finland report on the use of this standard technique, in combination with oral provocation tests, as a method of determining which patients with urticaria and angioedema might benefit from an additive-free diet. The study group consisted of 91 subjects suffering from chronic or recurrent urticaria or recurrent angioedema with a duration of two months or more, and a control group of 247. Skin-prick and scratch tests were performed on all subjects and controls with preservatives (sodium benzoate, benzoic acid, sodium glutamate, p-aminobenzoic acid, parabens, propionic acid, sorbic acid, citric acid, sodium metabisulfite) and nine food colors. Subjects and controls were selectively given oral provocation tests, in some cases with increasing doses. Skin tests showed at least one positive reaction in 24/91 subjects with urticaria or angioedema and 24/247 controls. Oral provocation tests on 10 of the skin-test positive patients showed only one positive reaction, to benzoic acid. All 91 subjects were advised to follow an additive-free diet, to be evaluated by a retrospective postal survey. Seventy subjects returned the questionnaire: among the 23 skin-test positive subjects responding, 18 had followed the diet, and 16 of them had experienced marked relief. Among skin-test negative subjects, 42/47 followed the diet and 17/42 reported significant improvement. Among the self-selected adherents to the additive-free diet, there was a favorable response both in the skin-test positive and negative subjects. Based on these results, the authors suggest that skin test results may have a predictive value in identifying patients who may respond to an additive-free diet.
Making taste claims: between product development and effective marketing is the murky, often confounding world of regulations
A creative, cost-effective product formulation emerges from the test kitchen, the consumer panels are off-the-charts, and marketing is ready to showcase the new product using a claim that conveys an irresistible taste. From test kitchens, brand managers and advertising agency conference rooms, one question inevitably arises: How much of the ingredient/flavor must I add, and does it matter if I use the “real” ingredient or an artificial ingredient that delivers the same taste profile?
How Much?
Functionality and cost are but two of the many factors limiting the amount of an ingredient that might be added to a food. There is, for better or worse, no magic answer as to the minimum level of an ingredient necessary to justify a taste claim. Quantity does not correlate to taste, as is evident if one compares enzyme-modified cheese powder with cheddar cheese, lemon juice to apple juice or vanillin to vanilla extract. Two threshold determinations should be considered in evaluating whether a taste claim would be false or misleading: technical and sensory.
First, the merit of a taste claim should be evaluated based on what is known about the ingredient. Many flavor houses, ingredient vendors and in-house food scientists will often know the minimum level of an ingredient necessary to impart a given taste/flavor in a particular food. Second, it is prudent to conduct some form of objective evaluation to ascertain if the touted taste is recognizable in the finished product (e.g., expert taste panel, consumer testing).
How Do I Describe The Taste or Flavor?
FDA has a long-standing regulation that governs the appropriate terminology when identifying flavors on the food label (21 CFR 101.22(i)), one of the most complicated of all the labeling requirements. The rule is premised on the simple notion that consumers value “the real thing” versus a close substitute and should be able to rely on the label to readily distinguish between the two. This consumer protection objective is relevant to taste claims conveyed in advertising as well.
How a taste/flavor claim is communicated depends on the nature and contribution of the various ingredients that impart the claimed taste. For example, if there is enough of the characterizing ingredient to impart the characterizing, featured flavor/ taste, then no qualification is necessary. If other ingredients are added to complement or enhance the characterizing flavor, FDA requires various qualifying statements (e.g., “flavored,” “with other natural flavors”). How the flavor is identified in the claim also is critical to ensuring legal compliance (e.g., “strawberry” versus “strawberry flavor with artificial flavors added” or “milk chocolate” versus “chocolate coating”).
What Proof is Required?
When taste claims must be proven presents a vexing question that can only be addressed in the context of the specific product and the manner in which the claim is fashioned. Some claims, such as “great taste” or “cool and refreshing,” are “puffery,” but there is often temptation to view virtually any claim relating to taste as mere puffery. A taste claim that is capable of being objectively measured requires actual proof (e.g., enjoy the hickory smoked flavor of …). Whether the marketer goes beyond the validation suggested above depends on the nature of the claim and how it is conveyed.
Comparative taste claims will almost always have to be substantiated through consumer testing. There are many different forms of comparative taste claims–a claim of parity (”tastes as good as”) or superiority (”best tasting)–where no competitive product is mentioned or when a head-to-head claim is made comparing products X and Y. There are many ways to measure and validate a comparative taste claim, each with its own in limitations and advantages. Just remember, if marketers can prove the taste preference of cats (they can!) then be sure that support for a taste claim is considered and obtained in advance of making the claim.
Taste claims represent a product development and marketing triumph. An appreciation of the regulatory framework that governs such claims at the outset of a new product development or reformulation effort will ensure this success.
Emulsifiers reach beyond the interface: lowering interfacial tension is one of the principle factors associated with emulsifiers, but this class of ingredients offers many other functional advantages
Although it often has been said that “oil and water don’t mix,” food science professionals know better. Not only can oil and water be mixed, but the so-called emulsion can be stabilized by incorporating a type of ingredient known as a surfactant, or surface active agent.
Emulsions are formed when one immiscible phase is dispersed in another through mechanical action such as homogenization. Oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions are formed when oil is dispersed in an aqueous phase (e.g., mayonnaise) while water becomes the dispersed phase in water-in-oil (W/O) emulsions (e.g., margarine). Surfactants help keep the immiscible phases in an emulsion together because they are amphiphilic and thus have properties that are compatible with both the hydrophilic and lipophilic portion of the mixture. Non-polar ends of an emulsifier align themselves within the lipid phase, while the polar ends align in the water phase. As a result, an electrically charged surface forms between the two immiscible phases, or at the interface, causing particles to repel one another rather than coalesce.
The reduction of interfacial surface tension is just one possible function of an emulsifier. Other functions associated with this class of ingredients are varied and application-specific. A product developer’s decision on which emulsifier or combination of emulsifiers to use often is determined by the complexity of the food matrix and other processing-related issues.
Mixtures of immiscible fluids are not only stabilized by amphiphilic molecules composed of lipids that have been chemically modified through esterification with alcohols and acids, but also by proteins. Proteins, which are large, complex molecules containing various amino acids with different degrees of hydrophobicity, exhibit their surface active tendencies by adsorbing at the interface that lies between the two immiscible phases. It is during the adsorption process that the protein begins to unfold, thereby exposing its more hydrophobic groups to the hydrophobic phase of the emulsion.
The stabilization mechanism for lipid-based emulsifiers differs somewhat from proteins in that proteins form a viscoelastic gel at the interface as they interact with one another. This viscoelastic gel stretches and deforms as it accommodates deformations in the interface and, as such, prevents coalescence. On the other hand, lipid-based emulsifiers provide stability by causing the rapid diffusion of liquid from areas of high surface tension to regions of low tension, which occurs when there is a gradient in the surface tension at the interface. This phenomenon is known as the Gibbs-Marangoni effect. (See sidebar “Protein and Surfactants 101.”)
Destabilization of an emulsion can occur in various ways. Creaming is a gravitational separation of phases (i.e., oil phase floats to the surface). During flocculation, clumping occurs without a disruption to the interfacial film, whereas with coalescence, the interfacial film is disrupted as droplets collide and form a separate phase. Flocculation is reversible, while coalescence is not.
The complexity of emulsion stability is compounded by the many factors that influence it. Aside from interfacial tension, emulsion stability is affected by the viscosity of the continuous phase; density differences between phases (e.g., ester gum added to flavor oil in beverages to “weight it” and prevent ringing); droplet size in the internal phase (i.e., the smaller the size, the more stable the emulsion); temperature extremes and the presence of solids (i.e., finely divided solids “wetted” equally well by both phases at the interface will stabilize the emulsion, whereas a higher percentage of solids dispersed in the internal phase will destabilize the emulsion).
Multi-tasking
Stabilization of emulsions is just one function associated with emulsifiers. Whey ingredients, for instance, aid in the dispersion of fat in sauces and soups, which enhances the perception of creaminess, reports Dairy Management Inc. Thus, efficient dispersion of oil can help reduce the fat level in certain formulations of sauces, soups and salad dressings. Confections such as mousse, meringue and nougat also benefit from whey proteins’ ability to stabilize whipping and foaming action where the protein aligns itself at the interface between air and aqueous phase.
Most hydrocolloid gums stabilize emulsions by increasing the viscosity of the continuous aqueous phase (i.e., water phase in an O/W emulsion such as salad dressing), notes Mar Nieto, PhD, director of technical services for an ingredients company specializing in gum technology. “In a high-oil product such as mayonnaise, the emulsification of the oil with an emulsifier such as egg yolk and/or lecithin results in significant viscosity buildup; hence, a ‘viscofier’ is not needed,” adds Nieto.
Nieto also points out that certain gums, such as propylene glycol alginate, gum Arabic and tragacanth gum are amphoteric in nature and thus function as true emulsifiers.
The hydrophilic/lipophilic balance (HLB) is one of the means used to select the appropriate emulsifier for a particular type of food or beverage application. HLB values range from 0 to 20 and dictate the relative amphiphilicity of a surfactant. Low HLB ingredients are more oil-soluble, while those with higher values are more water-soluble. “An oil/fat continuous product would need a lower HLB emulsifier, and an aqueous system would require a higher HLB,” explains Bruce R. Sebree, PhD, manager of emulsifiers and texturizers for an ingredients company specializing in a range of products including emulsifiers, baking enhancers and acidulants. “Many times, a median HLB emulsifier may work well in both systems. The developer needs to keep in mind that several types of emulsifiers have modified versions (physical blends, chemically modified, enzymatically modified, etc.) available, which widens the HLB offerings and, in turn, broadens the range of possibilities for that emulsifier type. Lecithin, monoglyceride, polyglycerol esters and sucrose esters are among the more common emulsifiers that have multiple HLB versions available. At times, high-HLB/low-HLB combinations are required, as are mixtures of charged/uncharged or large/small molecular weight emulsifiers. Coverage of the oil/water interface is essential in emulsion systems, and a combination of unlike emulsifiers can improve packing [i.e., molecule arrangement at the surface] by sitting differently at the interface.”
Emulsifiers also perform a variety of other essential functions in food and beverage applications. These ingredients act as aerating and foaming agents, defoaming agents, crystallization promoters or inhibiters, viscofiers, dispersants, dough strengtheners and even as flavor moderators. For instance, while lecithin’s main use is to improve hydration and dispersion of a cocoa powder in an aqueous system, it also reduces bitterness [of the cocoa-flavored product], notes Sebree.
As the previous example illustrates, it is not uncommon for an emulsifier to perform multiple functions. The current trend of removing trans-fatty acids from existing fats and oils presents another example of how an emulsifier must multitask within its intended system. “Removal of trans fatty-acids changes the crystallinity of fat in a system, as it mimics saturated fat, but not quite,” explains Sebree. “The emulsifier system needed for low-trans products may need to promote crystallization of the fat in the product (e.g., distilled monoglyceride).”
Rising to the Challenge
It would be simple to merely say, “If you use this particular emulsifier in this application, all of your problems will be solved,” but the reality is often far more complex for product developers who must choose the right ingredient for their formulation. The product developer must consider the oil and water content of the food to determine whether the emulsion is an O/W or W/O type, as the usage level of the emulsifier depends on the oil-to-water ratio, notes Nieto. Other considerations include the viscosity of the finished emulsion, the temperature (i.e., emulsifiers are usually unstable at high temperature and will tend to separate if the wrong emulsifier is used), the flavor profile of the application to ensure that the emulsifier does not impart a taste to it and whether or not an “all natural” label is required. The selection of an emulsifier needs to be compatible not only with the other ingredients used in the product, but with the equipment available in manufacturing, adds Sebree.
Kemin Industries Inc. entered into a strategic alliance with Camlin Limited from India, whereby Camlin will supply Kemin key synthetic antioxidant molecules
Kemin Industries Inc. entered into a strategic alliance with Camlin Limited from India, whereby Camlin will supply Kemin key synthetic antioxidant molecules. Kemin also announced the formation of its newest company, Kemin Food Ingredients Inc. (KFI), a global company providing shelf-life solutions to preserve the freshness and enhance the quality of human food.
Robertet Flavors Inc
Robertet Flavors Inc. added Jared Hamill as associate food technologist, and promoted Leslie Evans to senior key accounts executive, Diana Furey to manager of flavor applications, and Edna Alston Scott to food technologist.