How much can we know by simply reading the nutrition facts on the back of any packaged foods? Certain nutrition facts are given and in most cases the most important or common, such as the amount of sodium, amount of protein, the total fat, and the amount of calories among others. But what guarantees that these nutrition facts given are correct or accurate? It is known that not everything on the nutrition labels may be true. Little do people know that not everything on the nutrition facts is accurate which are mandated by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
There is a law that requires that values of specific nutrients be reported in a standardized format. This act is known as the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) (1). This act only allows beginners a margin of error of up to 20 percent. For example, a 100 calorie pack can have up to 120 calories without violating the law. It is known that the state of Florida is the only state that tests for accuracy in these nutrition facts (3). For that reason, the government and food industries have implemented quality control regulations, as well as other procedures to examine compliance of products.
Therefore, the experiment was performed to conduct quality control analysis on two commercial products to determine the amount of acid or base active in these two products and then compare the results to those of the manufacture. This was done through the preparation of standardized acid solution and standardized base solution, and through titration. The purpose of titration was to determine the concentration levels of the commercial products being used. Methods and Materials Week One: the experiment started off by preparing 250mL of NaOH solution. About 0. 5 grams of NaOH were measured and then inserted into a 250mL volumetric flask.
Once the NaOH was in the flask, it was then filled up to the 250mL line using deionized water. After the water was put in the flask, the solution was then mixed well until the NaOH dissolved well in the water. The second solution that was prepared was KHP. This was done by measuring 1 gram of KHP. After that was completed, the KHP was put in a beaker and filled up using 50mL of demonized water and mixed well until the KHP dissolved well in the water. Three drops of the indicator phenolphthalein were put in the KHP solution. Once the solutions were prepared, the equipment for the titration was set up.
The burette and funnel were rinsed well with water and dried off. The burette was then clamped vertically and the funnel was placed on top. An empty beaker was placed under the burette to use for anything being disposed of. About 5mL of the NaOH solution was inserted into the burette and used to rinse the burette once more. Once that was done, the burette was then filled up with some more NaOH solution. The titration was started by releasing 1mL of NaOH at a time and the results were recorded. The same process was repeated two more times and the results were recorded.
For the base titration, the HCI solution was prepared in a volumetric flask using 16. 7mL of HCI and 83. 3mL of deionized water to have a total 100mL of HCI solution. The burette was then rinsed off using water and the water was disposed of in a cleaned beaker that was placed under the burette. It was then rinsed a second time using 5mL of the HCl solution. The burette was then filled up with the HCI solution. About 10mL of the NaOH solution that was already prepared was put in a beaker along with three drops of the indicator bromothymol blue.
The solution was mixed well and placed under the burette containing the NaOH solution. mL of the HCl solution was released at a time into the beaker with the NaOH solution until a change was observed. The results recorded. The process was repeated two more times and the results were recorded. After all the titration processes were completed, the remaining of the NaOH and the HCl solutions were each placed in a plastic bottle and put away to use for week two. All glassware and other equipment were cleaned and put back in the proper place. The lab area was then cleaned up. Week Two: For week two, baking soda powder and lemon juice were used for the titrations.
For the firsts three sets of titration trials of baking soda powder was used. About 0. 3 grams of baking soda powder were measured and mixed with 20mL of deionized water in a beaker. Three drops of the indicator bromothymol blue were put in the baking soda solution and mixed well. A burette and funnel were rinsed off using water and cleaned well. The burette and funnel were rinsed a second time using 5mL of the HCl solution that was prepared the previous week and disposed of in a clean beaker.
The rest of the HCl solution was then put in the burette. The beaker containing the baking soda solution was placed under the burette. mL of the HCl solution was released at a time into the beaker with the baking soda until a change was observed. The results were recorded. The process was repeated three more times and the results were recorded. For the second sets of titration trails, fresh squeezed lemon juice was used. 5mL of lemon juice were used and three drops of the indicator phenolphthalein were put in the juice. The burette was then rinsed off with water and rinsed off a second time using NaOH and disposed of in a clean beaker.
The rest of the NaOH solution was put in the burette and the beaker containing the lemon juice was placed under the burette. mL of the NaOH solution were released at a time into the beaker containing the lemon juice until changes were observed. The results were recorded. The processes was repeated two more times and the results were recorded. All glassware and other lab equipment were cleaned off well and placed back in the proper place. The lab area was then cleaned up (2). Week One: The first trials of titration were done using KHP. NaOH solution was eased into the KHP. 1 mL of the NaOH was released at a time. After about 10mL of NaOH was released, a change in the color of the KHP solution was observed as shown in Table One.
When the process was repeated a second time, a color change occur after 10mL of NaOH was drained into the KHP. The same results were obtain for the third time the process was repeated. For the second set of titrations, HCl solution was used, but this time the HCl was was released into the NaOH. 1mL of the HCl solution was eased into the NaOH solution at a time until a change was observed. A change in the color of the NaOH solution occur after 13mL of the HCl solution were released as shown in Table 2. It took the same exact amount of HCl drained into the NaOH, 13mL, for the second and third repetition of the process to have a color change.
For week two, the first set of titration trials were done using baking soda powder. 1mL of the HCl solution were released into the baking soda solution until changes were observed. Changes occur after 7mL of the HCl solution was released. The process was repeated two more times. For the second trial, a change occur after 7. 5mL of HCl was released. For the third trial, a change occur after 7mL of HCl was released as seen on Table 3. The second set of titration trials was done using lemon juice and the NaOH solution from the previous week. 1mL of the NaOH solution was released at a time into the lemon juice until a change was observed.
A change in the color of the lemon juice occur after 9mL of the NaOH solution were released. The process was repeated two more times and for both times the same results occur as showed in Table 4. For both titration processes, everything went as planned and as wanted. During the experiment there was no errors, whatsoever. Everything went well and the correct data was gathered. Conclusion The experiment involved conducting quality control on two commercial products and comparing the results to those on the nutrition labels of the manufacturer of the products being used.
The first week involved standardizing both a acid and base solution through titration. During the second week of the experiment, baking soda powder and lemon were titrated using the standardized solutions that were made during the first of the experiment. Conducting these titrations helped compare the results obtained to the nutrition labels of the products used. Research Connection Agribusinesses and food manufacturers in the state of California have guaranteed millions of dollars to the campaign against a proposition where foods would be required to carry labels including the genetically modified (GM) content.
The people that support the fact that the GM contents should be added to food labels believe that people have the right to know what is contained in the foods they consume. While on the other hand, the people that believe that this information should not be included in the food labels believe that it would become a problem money wise because food prices would increase and people would expose the manufactures to lawsuit if there was incorrect information on the labeling.
It is said that labeling would reach consequences. For example, about 94% of soya beans and about 88% of maize that is grown in the United States is genetically engineered to be able to resist herbicides, insect pests, or even both which affect thousands of brand would name products. After a serious of votes were performed, it was voted that food labels should be used including the GM content (4)