| CAS No.: | 137-08-6 |
|---|---|
| Color: | White |
| Appearance: | Powder |
| Quality: | High |
| Transport Package: | Paper |
| Specification: | large |
| Samples: |
|---|
Suppliers with verified business licenses
Audited Supplier Maltol, ethyl maltol (Figure 5.12), and are weak mutagens. However, relatively large amounts of the substances are present in the diet. The usual levels of maltol added to baked goods, ice creams, and candy are approximately 110 ppm. Levels on the order of 80 ppm are added to certain beverages. Ethyl maltol, a more potent flavor enhancer than maltol, is generally used in concentrations of about 20 ppm in these foods.
Figure 5.12. Structures of maltole and ethyl maltole.
In the United States, the average daily intake of maltol and ethyl maltol from all food categories for individuals 2-65 years old is estimated to be 29 and 5 mg, respectively. In certain individuals, the actual levels of consumption may be several times these averages. However, there is no evidence of ill effects in humans from normal dietary consumption of these substances. Results of experiments with dogs indicate that maltol and ethyl maltol are rapidly and efficiently absorbed following oral administration and converted to the glucuronide conjugate. Similar processes probably occur in humans.
Maltol, ethyl maltol, and are representatives of the 1,2-dicarbonyl class of chemicals. The total daily human doses of mutagenic 1,2-dicarbonyl compounds are likely to be much greater than estimates based on known levels of maltol, ethyl maltol, andOther 1,2-dicarbonyl compounds such as intermediates in enzymatic and nonenzymatic browning reactions in foods are weakly mutagenic in the Ames test. No conclusive evidence showing the carcinogenic activities of these substances has been presented.
M. Gascon, in Modifying Flavour in Food, 2007
Ethyl maltol, 3-hydroxy-2-ethyl-pyran-4-one, is an analogue of maltol. It is the obvious choice when it comes to flavour enhancers. It has a sweet caramel-like odour and fruity taste, and it is a lot more powerful than maltol (Leffingwell, 2004). This material is almost the same in its odour and flavour profile as Maltol except it is about five times stronger in effect (Arctander, 1969), and is included on the GRAS list of approved flavouring agents by the FDA (Leffingwell, 2004).
Matthew D. Talbot, Lewis L. Jones, in Flavour Science, 2014
maltol were not detected by any method of analysis, suggesting they were retained to a large degree in the gel matrix. The relative detected amounts of each compound varied between techniques, and were not consistent with predictions from respective air/water partition coefficients. This may be due to a combination of matrix effects from the gelatine gels, as well as the selective absorption of analytes.
Generally, SPME with the CAR-PDMS fiber was the most sensitive technique, whilst static headspace was the least sensitive but gave the most linear response for the investigated compounds.
Variability between injections was greater for later eluting compounds. This was particularly true for dynamic headspace-thermal absorption techniques, possibly due to the poor retention of some analytes onto the absorbant traps.
The headspace techniques investigated are suitable for the analysis of gel-based matrix samples; however, no single method will give the complete headspace aroma profile for all sample types. Multiple methods may need to be applied, with specific method development to optimize analyte sensitivity in each sample type. Air/water partition coefficients can only be used as a rough approximation for analytes under investigation as they will differ greatly due to matrix and absorption effects.
Suppliers with verified business licenses
Audited Supplier 
){kind=link}
){kind=link}