Granule conentration ratios

January 15, 2009

I had a question for those of you with granule expertise.

A collegue of mine who used to sell herbs for one particular company (I won't

say which

one) was told that concentration levels above 5:1 are not possible. This is what

she was

told and what she has been passing on to others:

" When concentrating an herb, scientists use analytical chromotography, more

specifically HPLC (high performace liquid chromotography), to measure the

relative

proportions of analytes. For example, in ginseng the analyte in the highest

concentration

is/are ginsenosides. However, those are not the only active ingredients. There

is also

amadori compounds, algycon sapogenins, etc...

In order for an herb company to produce a 10:1 concentration, they concentrate

the

ginsengocides (the most prevalent analyte), but they have to sacrifice some of

the other

compounds to get it to that high of a concentration. It is not simply a matter

of just

cooking the herbs and reducing until it is a 10:1 concentration. It is much

more

" laboritized " than that. (The company I deal with) go with the 5:1 ratio

because that is as

high as they (anyone) can concentrate without sacrificing the other active

ingredients. "

Anyone know if there is some truth to this? Or is this just some manufacturers

mumbo

jumbo aimed at selling their product?

Cheers,

Trevor

January 15, 2009

We've discussed this a lot in the past on CHA and there are a lot of

issues involved. My understanding is that your friend is basically

correct although there are other considerations based on the herb

itself which is being concentrated. Having a 5:1 ratio as a target

seems reasonable, (perhaps conservative for some herbs) while claiming

more is better (10:1) may rightly be seen as just a marketing factor.

Doug

, " Trevor Erikson "

<trevor_erikson wrote:

>

> I had a question for those of you with granule expertise.

>

> A collegue of mine who used to sell herbs for one particular company

(I won't say which

> one) was told that concentration levels above 5:1 are not possible.

This is what she was

> told and what she has been passing on to others:

>

> " When concentrating an herb, scientists use analytical

chromotography, more

> specifically HPLC (high performace liquid chromotography), to

measure the relative

> proportions of analytes. For example, in ginseng the analyte in the

highest concentration

> is/are ginsenosides. However, those are not the only active

ingredients. There is also

> amadori compounds, algycon sapogenins, etc...

>

> In order for an herb company to produce a 10:1 concentration, they

concentrate the

> ginsengocides (the most prevalent analyte), but they have to

sacrifice some of the other

> compounds to get it to that high of a concentration. It is not

simply a matter of just

> cooking the herbs and reducing until it is a 10:1 concentration. It

is much more

> " laboritized " than that. (The company I deal with) go with the 5:1

ratio because that is as

> high as they (anyone) can concentrate without sacrificing the other

active ingredients. "

>

> Anyone know if there is some truth to this? Or is this just some

manufacturers mumbo

> jumbo aimed at selling their product?

>

> Cheers,

> Trevor

>

January 16, 2009

Trevor,

This is complicated question. I think the best explanation I have seen is

Andy Ellis's paper that appeared while back in the Cinnabar Creek. IS this

in the uploaded files?

Basically, every herb has a different optimal extraction ratio. Some may be

2:1, some maybe 3:1 or 8:1. This depends on the actual herb as well as the

specific batch of herbs used at that moment in time. For example, the ratio

will be dependent on factors such as a given batch's moisture content etc.

Since every batch is essentially different, some companies just pick a

average ratio of the herbs, e.g. 5:1. Andy also points out, as you state,

that one can make an extraction of 5:1. 10:1 or even 20 or 30:1. Note: a

10:1 ratio starts with 10lbs of herb and cooks it down to 1lb. - a 3:1 is

3lbs cooked to 1. At first site, it may seem that the higher numbers are

better, but they are not necessarily. For example, a given company might

determine that a given herb is best extracted at a 4:1. This ratio is

determined so that the constituents profile most closely matches a raw herb

decoction. Consequently, when one uses a 10:1 method one extracts

constituents in an imbalanced manner, creating higher and lower levels (for

better or worse).

Now this optimal extraction ratio is the magical question. As stated this is

partly to do the quality of a given batch. KPC for example, does modify its

extraction ratio batch to batch based on this information. I know there are

other companies that do not.

The other issue is the actual extraction techniques. China claims to have

superior techniques that allow them to perform higher extraction ratios

(without losing sacrificing quality). This may be so. However, one must

always consider the powerful icnetive called marketing.

For clinical comparison, I personally recommend cooking a specific formula

in bulk then comparing them to the various granulars. We have done this at

our office (with 5+ taste testers, and multiple companies) and actually had

unanimous experiences in the nature, quality and " qi " of the products. It

was very clear what we liked and did not. One of big the criteria for us

was, how close did it match the raw formula.

In our office we have both raw/ bulk and granulars. Unfortunately, for the

convenience of our patients, we find that most of the time raw herbs just

outperform granulars. This says to me that the technology in the field is

still developing and has a long way to go to match the efficacy of raw. I am

sure others might disagree, but this is just our opinion.

Eric and I were discussing all of this over tea the other day, and I think

his upcoming (and previous) studies in the field of granulars will be very

enlightening. I look forward to see what new break-through techniques come

about.

(for the record I have no vested interest in any company)

-Jason

On Behalf Of Trevor Erikson

Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:04 PM

Granule conentration ratios

I had a question for those of you with granule expertise.

A collegue of mine who used to sell herbs for one particular company (I

won't say which

one) was told that concentration levels above 5:1 are not possible. This is

what she was

told and what she has been passing on to others:

" When concentrating an herb, scientists use analytical chromotography, more

specifically HPLC (high performace liquid chromotography), to measure the

relative

proportions of analytes. For example, in ginseng the analyte in the highest

concentration

is/are ginsenosides. However, those are not the only active ingredients.

There is also

amadori compounds, algycon sapogenins, etc...

In order for an herb company to produce a 10:1 concentration, they

concentrate the

ginsengocides (the most prevalent analyte), but they have to sacrifice some

of the other

compounds to get it to that high of a concentration. It is not simply a

matter of just

cooking the herbs and reducing until it is a 10:1 concentration. It is much

more

" laboritized " than that. (The company I deal with) go with the 5:1 ratio

because that is as

high as they (anyone) can concentrate without sacrificing the other active

ingredients. "

Anyone know if there is some truth to this? Or is this just some

manufacturers mumbo

jumbo aimed at selling their product?

Cheers,

Trevor

January 16, 2009

I've heard that chemical(s) are used to get to the higher extraction ratios

(x>10:1)...

Is this true?

K.

January 16, 2009

, " Trevor Erikson "

<trevor_erikson wrote:

>

> I had a question for those of you with granule expertise.

>

> A collegue of mine who used to sell herbs for one particular company

(I won't say which

> one) was told that concentration levels above 5:1 are not possible.

I think that this perspective is overly simplistic, to say the least.

While I don't know anything about your friend, the simplicity of the

statement suggests that their perspective is more likely to be

influenced by the specific marketing angle of the company they worked

for, rather than a broad understanding of all the variations in

manufacturing approaches that exist on the market. In fact, the

original post actually reads like it is a marketing attack on a

specific company rather than an informed view of the granule field as

a whole.

Basically every company on the market (Taiwan and mainland China

alike) starts with extracts that are higher than 5:1, though there are

some exceptions with individual substances. While it is true that

some products (ginkgo biloba leaf extracts, for example) do use

isolated marker compounds as a method of determining the

" concentration ratio, " the herbal products that most of us use for

Chinese medicine do not use the concentration of isolated marker

compounds to determine the concentration ratio. Rather, the

concentration ratio is determined as a source:product ratio (S:P).

Thus, 5:1 in this context means that 5 pounds of crude drug produces 1

pound of finished product.

In the general dietary supplement industry (not our Chinese medicine

industry), some products do use the method of isolating active

ingredients. For example, gingko biloba leaf is often extracted with

hexane or other solvents to concentrate the active ingredients to a

concentration of 50:1. This means that the amount of active

ingredients in one gram of extract are equivalent to the amount of

active ingredients in 50 grams of whole leaf. To my knowledge, there

are not any granule companies that produce products for the TCM market

that use this type of calculation. IMHO, anyone bringing up this

extraction approach as a way of comparing the TCM products is

conflating the issue by comparing apples and oranges. The ginkgo

approach is like isolating aspirin from white willow bark, it is a

drug technique that has nothing to do with the full-spectrum extracts

used by TCM companies.

Chinese medicine requires full-spectrum extracts that replicate a

natural water decoction. We use many substances that have multiple

known active ingredients, and we have many other substances that have

unknown active ingredients. Because we don't even know which

constituents are the " active " ones for many TCM substances, there is

no way to produce a full line of granule extracts based on the

concentration of specific active ingredients. Only the full-spectrum

water extract is appropriate for our needs, and only the concentration

ratios of source:product are prominently used in our industry.

Depending on the manufacturing technique, some products use fillers

and some do not. Thus, while nearly all the Taiwanese products start

with a concentration ratio much higher than 5:1, most Taiwanese

companies use 50% starch when creating the final granules; this brings

the final concentration down to anywhere from 7:1 to 2:1. While

different products naturally have different extraction ratios and the

stickiness of different herb extracts may require different amounts of

filler, in actual practice most of the Taiwanese products have either

a 50% or 35% filler proportion across the board, with minimal variety

from product to product.

In Taiwan, most granules are made by making a thick, viscous

semi-liquid extract that is sprayed onto a starch carrier. This method

came from the early generation of Japanese technology used for Kampo.

It is appropriate for the mixing approach that Taiwanese doctors use,

because a fine powder is achieved that mixes evenly and has a good

shelf life. However, because the starting medium is a thick viscous

goo instead of a dry powder, it tends to require more starch filler

than the new technology that is prominent in mainland China.

The Chinese mainland was about 30 years behind Taiwan in its adoption

of granules. This is due in part to the PRC's comparatively later

technological revolution, but the biggest influence was the adoption

of the small extraction machines that were introduced to China from

Korea. These home extractors caught on early and became the most

prominent method of using convenient herbal medicine in China. By

contrast, the convenient Taiwanese delivery forms came from Japan,

and the local trend of combining whole granule formulas with single

herb additions most likely became prominent in Taiwan because of the

Kampo influence. The mainland prescribing style never changed because

the Korean extractors allowed for standard formula construction, and

to this day most Chinese doctors use the formula construction approach

that most of us are trained in (rather than the Taiwanese granule

method).

When granule technology came to China about a decade ago, doctors were

still accustomed to prescribing formulas based upon single ingredients

rather than mixing pre-made classical formulas. The granule products

thus produced there reflected the concentrated forms of standard dose

ranges of single herbs, which are generally packaged in single dose

foil packs. Additionally, extraction technology had advanced

significantly since the 40 year old Japanese technology at the

inception of the granule era, so different options were available to

the Chinese granule factories that set up shop ten years ago.

These two factors led to the creation of dry extracts vs. viscous goo

that needed to be diluted with starch to form a flowing powder. Now,

while the dry extracts nearly always achieve higher than a 5:1 (S:P)

concentration, they clump easily if they are packaged in a way that

allows exposure to air. In the Chinese domestic market, this isn't a

factor because the granules are sold in single dose pouches, which

require no filler. For the export market, the granules are generally

compressed and mixed with starch to dilute them to an even 5:1

concentration, then packaged in 100 or 200g bottles.

The exceptions are products that are exported in single-dose foil

packs or are packaged in gelcaps. Both of these methods seal the

powder without air exposure, which allows them to have a long shelf

life without clumping or filler. A 10:1 extract without filler can

only be packaged in a way that avoids air exposure, the same product

needs to be turned into a 5:1 extract with 50% filler if the storage

and style of use mandates the use of open bottles of powder. (In

fact, whatever company Trevor's friend worked for probably does

exactly this for their 5:1 extracts, assuming that the packaging

method is 100g bottles of loose granules.)

Anyone interested in this topic should be sure to read widely. Don't

rely on the product literature of a single company, read them all,

look between the lines, and try the actual products side by side.

I've been to most of the major granule factories in both Taiwan and

China, and I've been to numerous hospitals in both places that use

these products on hundreds of thousands of patients. Clearly there

are multiple effective methods in use and multiple trustworthy

manufacturers. If you see someone making blanket statements

disparaging one system or the other, consider it as a red flag. The

companies that manufacture these things do not share their trade

secrets with each other, they don't use identical techniques and

methods, but they are generally all bound by law to replicate

traditional water decoctions. I am not aware of any TCM companies

that isolate single active ingredients to determine their

concentration ratios, and I'm deeply suspicious of the motives of

anyone who would say something so broad as " nothing can get stronger

than 5:1. " That's just not true. It is easily refuted with factual

evidence.

IMHO, herbal companies should open label their concentration ratios.

There are a number of great companies with good products, no one has

any reason to hide behind inaccurate and anonymous blanket statements.

All the players should just openly state their methods and their

concentration ratios. I can only think of one or two companies that

voluntarily share this information with their US customers, but I'd

love to see the day when companies openly share the simple facts with

the doctors that use their products, even big pharma handles it better

than this. This subject has been covered again and again on the

Chinese Herbal Medicine, yet I still find myself constantly having to

write pages and pages just to refute basic misinformation. It is

particularly annoying when I am responding to anonymous people

spreading what I consider to be misinformation based on competitive

marketing.

Eric Brand

January 16, 2009

Eric, Jason, and Douglas,

Thanks for your informative replies.

Even though much as been written on this topic, especially by you

Eric, it does seem that many practitioners are still very much in the

dark when it comes to the medicines they use. I was certainly thrown

for a loop when my friend presented what she thought to be very

accurate information. She basically trusted what she was handed and

didn't question the authority of it. Just passed it on as she was told

to do. Now that she is not in a granule selling role anymore, she has

questioned the so called truths which she was handed.

I am thankful for these professional forums, whereby we can all learn

from the educated elite, sharing, growing, and clarifying the constant

bombardment of this information overloaded era :-)

Best,

Trevor

January 17, 2009

, " "

<johnkokko wrote:

>

> I've heard that chemical(s) are used to get to the higher extraction

ratios

> (x>10:1)...

> Is this true?

This is absolutely not true, at least not for all the 10:1

concentrates that I've ever seen on the Chinese or US markets. For

example, Blue Poppy makes 10:1 extracts that do not use any chemical

solvents at all, they are a traditional water decoction that is

concentrated to a dry powder. 10:1 concentrations are made in the

extraction processes of Tianjiang Pharmaceuticals, E-Fong, KPC, Sun

Ten, Quali, Koda, Zhuang Song Rong, Nong's, etc. I can't think of a

single producer that cannot produce a 10:1 concentrate with at least

some Chinese herbs. Some manufacturers may later add filler that

dilutes the extract to below 10:1, but the starting extract regularly

hits 10:1 or higher with pure water alone.

Out of curiosity, where are people hearing this total misinformation?

Eric Brand

January 17, 2009

, " Trevor Erikson "

<trevor_erikson wrote:

I was certainly thrown

> for a loop when my friend presented what she thought to be very

> accurate information. She basically trusted what she was handed and

> didn't question the authority of it. Just passed it on as she was told

> to do.

Scary. I wonder how often this happens.

> I am thankful for these professional forums, whereby we can all learn

> from the educated elite, sharing, growing, and clarifying the constant

> bombardment of this information overloaded era :-)

Thanks for all your participation, I love reading your posts.

Eric

January 18, 2009

Eric,

I think this below statement maybe a bit misleading. Of course any company

can make a 10:1 concentrate, but this 10:1 might not be the most accurate

for a given herb. Consequently, KPC does not make (/hit) 10:1 (/5:1) for the

majority of their herbs.

A large percentage of their herbs are in the range of 3:1-4:1 ratio (and if

you exclude a 50% binder, that is still 6:1-8:1 starting out.) Some of the

herbs are actually in the 2:1-3:1 range. So KPC might start with some herbs

that are 10:1, but that is only a some, they are not just starting all their

herbs out at 10:1. Nor do they want to. This variability is not a problem

clinically, for reasons I am not sure of.

Although, experts that I have talked with say that the more correct ratio

outweighs precise measurements in concentration ratios. Hence they are in

essence more potent / accurate if produced " properly " . They give little

consideration about dosage changes if one herb is 3:1 or 4:1. Remember even

from batch to batch with this style of company they will vary the extraction

ratio based on the quality of the herb. Which is one major reason they do

not label extraction ratios. IT would add an exponential level of confusion

to the matter. For the labeling advocate, how would you use this information

anyway? If one is 3:1 another is 4.5:1 and the next batch was 3.5:1 and 4:1.

IMHO, impossible to make use of.

To play devil's advocate, if we consider this perspective, I wonder how a

company can just produce 10:1 across the board. It seems self-evident that

some herbs require different ratios. This is also well documented in Western

herbalism.

To reiterate the reason why a company produces variable ratios, is because

" they believe " that the accurate ratio of constituents that matches a water

decoction varies from herb to herb. Sometimes this might be low 3:1. But

once there is a 3:1, there is no way to get this to 5:1, although their

company might have a reputation (as most do for marketing) for having a 5:1

straight across the board. Such a 5:1 then is just not true. This isn't as

pretty as every herb having the exact same ratio, but that is not the point.

In regard to taste, we have found that some companies that have higher

ratios do have much stronger tastes (have more power?), but the taste is

strange and does not match what a water decoction tastes like. I have no

idea about clinical differences between such companies. I would like to hear

other's opinion. However, as Eric as stated, there are multiple techniques

out there and one company might have some tricks / knowledge that others do

not. I look forward to more information (Eric?) about how a company (e.g.

Chinese / Blue Poppy) can make straight 10:1. Are they always starting with

10 lbs of herb and reducing to 1 lb. Or do they also use variable starting

amounts like many Taiwanese companies? How does this work with minerals?

-Jason

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

10:1 concentrations are made in the

extraction processes of Tianjiang Pharmaceuticals, E-Fong, KPC, Sun

Ten, Quali, Koda, Zhuang Song Rong, Nong's, etc. I can't think of a

single producer that cannot produce a 10:1 concentrate with at least

some Chinese herbs. Some manufacturers may later add filler that

dilutes the extract to below 10:1, but the starting extract regularly

hits 10:1 or higher with pure water alone.

Out of curiosity, where are people hearing this total misinformation?

Eric Brand

_

January 18, 2009

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

> > She basically trusted what she was handed and

> > didn't question the authority of it. Just passed it on as she was told

> > to do.

>

> Scary. I wonder how often this happens.

>

Are you kidding? This is the standard in our profession!

As students, we simply don't have the width of exposure to assess the

quality of any information. Exceptions would include those who grow up with

a family CM doc or in an herb-savvy culture.

We tend to flock to those authorities who resonate with our expectations,

whatever those may be. Chinese mysticism? I've seen much more of that in the

US than I ever saw in China.

Peer-review and critical thought are not concepts that I ever learned (or

heard of) during my masters program, though they were important ideas in the

DAOM.

January 19, 2009

, " "

wrote:

They give little

> consideration about dosage changes if one herb is 3:1 or 4:1.

In Taiwan, the way Taiwanese doctors dose granules isn't based on a

mathematical calculation to raw herb weights. They give 15-18g to

most patients, typically given as 6g doses TID. Within this dose,

the important thing is the ratios. Whole formulas are combined

together with single herb additions. Every factor, from formula

composition to dosage, is different with the Taiwanese granule

approach.

The variable potency of Taiwanese granules does not offer a major

conundrum for the style of medicine that they practice there, because

the doctors aren't using concentration ratios to calculate the

granule equivalent of their raw dose weight. Instead, they have a

totally different method of formula construction and dosing standards

that are influenced by what their national insurance system will

cover.

In the West, we have no outside factors like insurance dictating

dosage, and we do not use whole formulas in combination as a general

rule. Thus, the way that we use granules is totally different than

the Taiwanese standard. Most of us dose based on raw formula

construction, and we use granules based on a mathematical

relationship of granules to raw herbs. For the way we prescribe in

the US, the increased transparency of open labeling would be an

advantage. If we all prescribed Taiwanese granules the way Taiwanese

doctors did, then maybe your suggestion that we all voluntarily stay

in the dark on issues of labeling and mathematical equivalence would

be a better suggestion. But the way I see people prescribing around

the US, I'd say that a little more information on the math could

hardly be a bad thing.

However, as Eric as stated, there are multiple techniques

> out there and one company might have some tricks / knowledge that

others do

> not. I look forward to more information (Eric?) about how a company

(e.g.

> Chinese / Blue Poppy) can make straight 10:1. Are they always

starting with

> 10 lbs of herb and reducing to 1 lb. Or do they also use variable

starting

> amounts like many Taiwanese companies? How does this work with

minerals?

Blue Poppy's " Classics " line of extracts are a 10:1 concentration, 10

lbs of raw herbs to 1 lb of extract. Some of their custom formulas

are 8:1 or other ratios. All of their products are whole formulas

that are cooked together, so the issue of minerals is not present in

the same way as with single herb extracts.

Keep in mind that companies like Sun Ten and KPC have been in

operation for over 30 years, while the technology used by Blue Poppy

is probably less than 10 years old. There are significant

differences in technology and methods in use, it is comparing apples

and oranges to suggest that the limitations of one company's

technology automatically equate to limitations across the board.

Additionally, there are no fillers/starch used in the Blue Poppy

products, so the concentration ratio can be higher than if the

extract was packaged as a loose powder (also, the initial extract is

a dry powder instead of a viscous goo, so it can concentrate higher

because there is no water weight).

If one is going to single out Blue Poppy in this discussion, the most

obvious thing that is striking about Blue Poppy is this:

Blue Poppy is the only company on the market that openly labels their

concentration ratios and the exact quantities of the different herbs

in the final product.

Blue Poppy is the only company on the market that uses third-party

testing for 100% of their products. All other companies only have

the COA (certificate of analysis) from the factory, whereas Blue

Poppy's products are tested by the factory as well as by independent

US labs. To my knowledge, Blue Poppy is the only company that

willingly provides the COAs of every product they produce to any

customer upon request. These COAs include information on

concentration ratios as well as heavy metals, microbiology, pesticide

residues, etc.

Personally, I generally prescribe loose granules to patients because

I typically work with customized prescriptions. But I have used

their capsules for patients that can't take the taste of herbs, and

I've been happy with the results. At the PCOM clinic, we have used

Blue Poppy's capsules for quite a while and the general consensus is

that they do effectively treat the TCM patterns that they are

indicated for. So no complaints on the clinical side, and if

anything, I would consider them to be a leader in the field by the

fact that they third-party test everything and they openly label all

of their products. They certainly don't participate in competitive

cheap shots like some of the companies seem to be doing with

this " can't get higher than 5:1 " nonsense, so they've got that going

for them as well.

Eric Brand

January 19, 2009

Eric.

Thanks for the response. My issue, though, is much less about the

technology, which at this point seems unclear if one is better than the

other. All that we know is there are differences. I do image though, that if

Taiwanese companies thought the new style was better I am sure they could

use it.

I know you are affiliated somewhat with Blue Poppy so I did not mean to seem

like I was singling them out in a anyway. I just mentioned them because of a

previous post. I do commend them for their transparency and dedication to

the medicine. I do not doubt they get clinical results, but all companies

seem to be able to say this.

However, My question is more about the methodology (vs technology) of using

equal extracts (e.g. 5:1) for every herb (e.g. singles). With such

overwhelming knowledge that herbs require different conditions and ratios

for optimal balance of constituents (for extraction), what is the thinking

behind having every herbs extracted at the same ratio? Sure we can say they

have new technology (less fillers etc) which might allow for higher

extractions, but that doesn't answer the question.

I do think there are cheap shots out there, and I am trying to avoid any of

that. But I think the conversation about what can and cannot be extracted at

higher ratios is very valid. Cleary the opinion of many experts is that

certain herbs should not be extracted to these higher ratios because this

severely changes the ratio of constituents that is extracted. Consequently

making them very different than a traditional water decoction. Obviously a

company can use 20 lbs. of herb and cook it down to 1lb, hence creating a

20:1. Is this better than a 10:1. IS a 10:1 better than a 5:1. IS a 5:1

better than a 2:1. Having this conversation is something that this whole 5:1

- 10:1 ratio debate has avoided. IMO, this is not a cheap shot, but a valid

concern, and something I would like to hear more about.

Finally, I am glad to hear about Blue Poppy's third party testing. But are

you saying that the third party tests the extraction ratios? This seems a

bit odd, how do they do this?