anti-cavity toothpaste consumer modeling

ANTI-CAVITY TOOTHPASTE DESIGN

By Michele Johnson, Bonnie Grider

Anti-Cavity ToothpasteWhat’s the problem? •Background on Cavities

What’s the solution? •Novel Active Ingredient Overview

How do we achieve? •Consumer Modeling

How do we proceed?

•ADA Approval, Final Product Composition & Manufacturing Process

Why should we proceed?

•Economics •Competition•Risk Analysis

• Also known as Dental Caries– Most prevalent and costly

infectious disease in the U.S.– $78 billion spent on dental

services/year in U.S.• Occur when tooth enamel and

the underlying tooth decay• Cause - mainly Streptococcus

mutans• Prevention – Inhibition of S.

mutans along with regular cleaning of teeth

Background on Cavities

• Natural cycle of tooth remineralization/demineralization– Saliva is a buffer and, among many other

compunds, contains fluoride and calcium, which promote remineralization

– Oral bacteria use food carbohydrates to produce polysaccharides, building blocks of plaque– Biofilm formation leads to anaerobic fermentation, acid build-up

– Switches cycle toward demineralization (pH < 5.5)

Mouth Chemistry




How do we proceed?




Novel Active Ingredient Red Wine Pomace Phenolic Extract Grape pomace – waste byproduct of

winemaking, mostly skins and seeds Rich in polyphenols, currently under

research for various health benefits Polyphenols extracted through solvent-solid

leaching, purification, and evaporation Abundance of raw material:

3.239 million tons in California grapes No adverse effects from high dietary intakeCatechin

Extract activity against S. mutans Inhibits virulence factors of S. mutans

Prevents synthesis of extracellular polysaccharides Lowers activity of glucosyltransferases (GTFs),

enzymes which transfer glucose into glucans Lowers bacteria’s ability to produce and

tolerate acids Lowers activity of F-ATPase, which protects S.

mutans against environmental acid stress Shows no antibacterial activity

Would be a precise and selective preventative strategy for dental caries

No risk of disrupting the other oral flora and, even more important, of consumer allergic reactions and bacterial resistance

baga0122

Why does it affect only S. Mutans?

In Vitro Studies with Extract % GTF B activity shows the activity of the

enzyme to produce glucans in comparison to the control

Cultures of S. mutans exposed to varying concentrations of polyphenolic extract

125 62.5 31.2 15.60

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Amount of Pinot Noir Fruit Pomace Extract v. GTF B activity

Concentration of Extract (micrograms/mL)

% G

TF B

act

ivity

• Thimothe et al., J. Agr. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 10200-10207.

In Vivo Studies with Extract Study on Sprague-Dawley rats using

different polyphenol: apigenin Quantified both GTF B % activity as well

as dental caries

Dental Caries

Control Apigenin % less caries

8.1 4.6 43 %

• Koo H et al. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2002: 17: 337-343.

In Vivo Studies with Extract

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

20

40

60

80

100

120

f(x) = 0.00352168407723961 x² − 1.35216840772396 x + 100R² = 1

GTF B activity v. caries

% activity of GTF B

% le

ss c

arie

s th

an c

ontro

l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1400

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Effectiveness of Pinot Noir FP Polyphenols

Amount PN FP (micrograms/mL)

% le

ss d

enta

l car

ies

CCm

mmC FP

FP

FP

%03.92%*67.10)

67.10(03.92%

%C – percent less dental cariesmFP – mass of Pinot Noir fruit pomace




How do we proceed?




Objective To use red wine pomace extract

to create a toothpaste to prevent cavities by preventing S. mutans virulence Through Consumer Modeling

Consumer Modeling for Product Design Use consumer survey to find a product

formulation with the highest consumer preference

Maximize preference by maximizing preference of each property weight

yi – preference for property i wi - property weight of i S - preference

ii ywS

Consumer Modeling: Survey Ranked importance of key characteristics on 1-

100 scale Effectiveness Sweetness Thickness Foaminess Cooling Effect Creaminess Abrasiveness

Chose preferred variation of each key characteristic

Degree of Sweetness (i.e. like candy, chewing gum, little sweet)

Identified the importance of effectiveness based upon number of cavities that could be prevented

Consumer Modeling: Survey

13%

8%

18%

13%7%

7%

33%

Importance Rankings

Sweetness

Thickness

Cooling Effect

Abrasiveness

Foaminess

Creaminess

Effectiveness

Consumer & Business Modeling Designing the product

Connect consumer preference to consumer related property (effectiveness, toxicity, etc).

Correlate the consumer related property with known engineering/scientific properties (viscosity, PH, etc)

Correlate engineering/scientific properties with proportion of ingredients.

Maximize consumer preference by varying the composition.

Optimize the economics by targeting different consumer satisfaction levels.

Effectiveness: Active Ingredient Average American has 1 cavity every 4

years Or 11.6 cavities, total

Have surveyors rank “happiness” for: A. Never having another cavity B. Having a cavity (on average) once every

20 years C. Having a cavity (on average) once every

10 years D. Having a cavity (on average) once every

6 years

Average A B C DCavities/year 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.167% less cavities --- 100 80 60 33.3

Effectiveness of Active Ingredient

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 5000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Effectiveness of Pinot Noir FP Polyphenols

Amount PN FP (micrograms/mL)

% le

ss d

enta

l car

ies

Cavities/year

% less cavities

m PNFP (microgram

s/mL)

Average 0.25 ---

A 0 90 472

B 0.05 80 71

C 0.1 60 20

D 0.167 33.3 6.0

Effectiveness

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%f(x) = 3.12303192522078E-06 x³ − 0.000366566247577958 x² + 0.0185449142921249 x − 0.00278824318372271R² = 0.990121377272634

Effectiveness: Consumer Preference

% less cavities

Cons

umer

Pre

fere

nce

Sweetness Related Ingredients: Sorbitol, Sodium

Saccharine, Xylitol Sweetness α Equivalent Sucrose

Ingredient Equivalent Sweetness (ingredient/sucrose)

Sodium Saccharine 350Xylitol 1Sorbitol 0.6

SweetnessConsumer Option Equivalent

ProductEquivalent wt %

Sucrose1: Low Sweetness Mint 10

2: Medium Sweetness Gum 55

3: High Sweetness Candy 100

0 20 40 60 80 100 1200.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Sweetness: Consumer Preference

equivalent wt % sucrose

Con

sum

er P

refe

renc

e

Cooling Effect The cooling effect in the mouth during is due

to menthol in mint oils used as flavoring as well as lower temperature due to negative heat of solution.

Cooling effect caused by both menthol and cold is mediated by Ca+ ion channels

The greater the Ca+ current, the greater the sensation

Cooling Effect

0 100 200 300 400 500 6000

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600 Menthol Concentration v. Ca+ Current

Concentration of Menthol (micromolar)

Curr

ent

of C

a+ io

ns (

nA)

David D. McKemy et al., NATURE, Volume 416, March 2002

Cooling Effect

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

200400600800

10001200

Effect of cold temperature difference on Ca2+ ion

current

Temperature Decrease (deg C)

Curr

ent

(nA)

0 5 10 15 20 250

100

200

300

400

500

600

Menthol Concentration v. Equivalent Temperature

Decrease

Equivalent Temperature Decrease (deg. C)Men

thol

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

icro

mo-

lar)

David D. McKemy et al., NATURE, Volume 416, March 2002

Cooling Effect

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 130.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Cooling Effect: Consumer Preference

Simulated Cooling Effect (deg C)

Con

sum

er P

refe

renc

e

Consumer Option

Equivalent Product

Simulated Cooling Effect

(deg C)1: Little Cooling Winterfresh® Gum 3.762

2: Medium Cooling Extra® Polar Ice Gum 7.767

3: Very Cooling Altoids® Mint 11.772

Thickness Consumer assessment of thickness is the consumer

assessment of “viscous” (assessments of “viscous”) α to force applied A is constant and

But

Then assessments of “viscous” α

Thickness α F α (Viscosity)1/2

dydvAF

dv vdy h

2/12/1

v

F = force upon substanceµ = viscosity of substanceν = velocity of substanceh = layer height

1/ 2h

baga0122

Add a source for this)

Thickness Dispersion: solids (abrasives) in liquid

continuous phase (mainly water) Empirical formula from E. Barnea and J.

Mizrahi:

Works best for fluids with low Reynolds numbers (our case)

solidsfractionvolumephaseliquidinioffractionc

iliquidofosityvisc

cosityviscfluid

osityviscmixture

i

i

iif

m

fm

135exp*

ThicknessQuality Equivalent

FoodViscosity “Thickness”

Little Thickness Honey 3,000 cp 54.8Moderately Thick

Tomato Paste 150,000 cp 387.3

Very thick Peanut Butter 250,000 cp 500

0 100 200 300 400 500 6000.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0% Thickness: Consumer Preference

"Thickness"

Cons

umer

Pre

fere

nce

Abrasion Abrasion α Relative Dentin Abrasion

(RDA) Used in dental care to quantify abrasion of toothpaste Set relative to a standard abrasive, usually calcium

carbonate Usual toothpaste values should be between 60 and 150

0 5 10 15 20 25 300

20

40

60

80

100

120Abrasion with Concentration of Silica

weight % silica in toothpaste

RDA

Abrasive RDAmultiplier compared to silica

Silica 53 1

Dicalcium Phosphate 81 0.65

Calcium Carbonate 100 0.53

AbrasionConsumer Option Equivalent Dentifrice RDA value

1: Little Abrasion Rembradt® Classic Sensitive (least gritty) 70

2: Medium Abrasion Aquafresh® Extra Fresh 100

3: Very Abrasive Crest® Pro-Health (gritty feeling) 125

60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.000.000%

10.000%20.000%30.000%40.000%50.000%60.000%70.000%80.000%90.000%

100.000%

Abrasion: Consumer Preference

RDA

Cons

umer

Pre

fere

nce

Foaminess

Consumer Option Foam Height (mm)Concentration SLS

(M)Weight % SLS

Solution

1: Little Foaminess 93.1 0.007 0.50

2: Medium Foaminess 93.9 0.011 0.78

3: Very Foamy 94.8 0.027 2.00

Foaminess Difficult to predict, based on many

factors Mainly amount surfactant

92.5 93 93.5 94 94.5 950.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Foaminess: Consumer Preference

Idealized Foam Height for Experiment (mm)

Con

sum

er P

refe

renc

e

Creaminess Creaminess in toothpaste is related to

the smoothness (abrasion) and the thickness

Determined by surveying consumers and having them arbitrarily assign a value for “thickness”, “smoothness”, and “creaminess” to a standard and the experimental semisolids and liquids

COF = coefficient of friction µ = viscosity of mixture

84.054.0 smoothnessthicknessnesscreami

COF

smoothness 1 2/1}{ thickness

Kokini, JL, and E L Cussler, Journal of Food Science, 48 (1983), 1221-1225.

Creaminess

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%0.250.260.270.280.290.3

0.310.320.330.340.35

Coefficient of Friction for Toothpaste

Trend-lineData

Percentage Solids in Toothpaste

Coeffi

cien

t of

Fric

tion

(dim

ensi

onle

ss)

28.0*0.08676 0.239 COFCOF = coefficient of friction of toothpasteΦ = percentage solids in toothpaste Lewis, R and R S Dwyer-Joyce.

Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology. 2006

CreaminessConsumer Option Equivalent Food Creaminess Value

1: Little Creaminess Birdseye Cool Whip® 1.66

2: Medium Creaminess Ice Cream 1.83

3: Very Creamy Cream Cheese 2.15

1.25 1.45 1.65 1.85 2.05 2.25 2.450.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Consumer Preference: Creaminess

Subjective Creaminess

Cons

umer

Pre

fere

nce

Optimal Product

Ingredient Purpose Weight Percent Weight (g) Cost

Deionized Water Dilution Purposes 51.9050 114.19 $0.114Glycerin Humectant 6.4303 14.15 $0.124

Hydrated Silica Thickener 1.1751 2.59 $0.120Peppermint Oil Flavor 0.5737 1.26 $0.088

Silica Abrasive 23.8037 52.37 $0.094Sodium Benzoate Preservative 0.0200 0.04 $0.001

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (30%)

Emulsifier/ Whipping Aid/ Surfactant 0.8944 1.97 $0.005

Sodium Saccharin (10%) Sweetening 1.4030 3.09 $0.150

Sorbitol (70%) Sweetening / Humectant 11.6561 25.64 $0.550Titanium Dioxide Opacity 0.0500 0.11 $0.001

Trisodium Phosphate pH adjuster 0.0500 0.11 $0.000Polyphenolic extract prevent cavities 0.0386 0.08 $0.890

Xylitol Sweetening/Saliva inducing 1.0000 2.20 $0.025Other Flavor Flavor 1.0000 2.20 $0.154

Total Raw Materials Cost

$2.317

Consumer Satisfaction

Property Corresponding Characteristic

Consumer Satisfaction Weight Total

Sweetness % sucrose 55.0 % 1.000 0.134 0.134

Thickness (viscosity)^0.5 287.5 (cp^0.5) 0.878 0.081 0.071

Cooling Effect deg C 11.8 degrees C 1.000 0.178 0.178

Abrasion RDA 110.4 0.966 0.126 0.122

Foaminess Foam Height 94.1 mm 1.000 0.075 0.075

Creaminess Consumer value 2.42 1.000 0.074 0.074

Effectiveness % less cavities 90.1 % 0.977 0.333 0.325

97.81%




How do we proceed?




ADA Seal of Approval The ADA Seal of Acceptance is a registered

certification mark. Products Considered for Approval Evaluation

Submitted upon request of manufacturer or distributor.

ADA Criteria Safety Composition, Nature, and Function Labeling (Name) Package Inserts (preferably biodegradable and

recyclable) Advertising Standards

Toothpaste Manufacturing ProcessThe following steps are the mixing procedure according to the Personal Care

formulation section of the Rheology Modifiers Handbook (Braun and Rosen 2000):1. Slowly add the deionized water and the sorbitol aqueous solution (70%) until

uniform. 2. Mix this solution with the xanthan gum. Mix until the gum is completely

dissolved in the solution.3. Add the calcium carbonate and hydrated silica to the solution until it is uniform. 4. Add the flavoring, xylitol to the mixture until it is uniform and follow by the

addition of the active ingredient, polyphenolic extract. Mix until it is uniform. 5. Add the sweetener, sodium saccharin (10%) aqueous solution until it is uniform

in the mixture.6. Add the preservative, sodium benzoate and the pH adjuster, trisodium

phosphate until it is uniform.7. Add the titanium dioxide until it is uniform in the mixture and then add sodium

lauryl sulfate (30%) aqueous solution to the mixture until it is completely incorporated into the toothpaste mixture.

Contra Rotating Mixer Contra Rotating Mixer

Ideal for viscous product Stainless Steel material Two Different Shafts

Solid shaft paddle blades rotate clockwise

Hollow shaft with anchor scrapper blades rotate counter-clockwise

Homogenous mixing achieved from contra rotary motion of two different blades and high speed homogenizer

Jacked mixer for heating during mixing

Mixing products under vacuum

In built homogenizer allows for emulsification




How do we proceed?




Economics: Investment Extraction Process – $10.1 Million

Equipment Piping, Installation, etc. Indirect Costs

Toothpaste Manufacturing – No investment cost Utilize an existing process line at the

existing toothpaste production facility.

Total Capital InvestmentComponent Basis for Estimate CostDirect Costs

Total Equipment Cost (TEC) $3,257,180

Installation 47 % (TEC) $1,530,874

Instrumentation and Controls 8 % (TEC) $260,574

Piping Stainless Steel Network $185,146

Electrical 11 % (TEC) $358,290

Buildings 7 % (TEC) $228,003

Total Direct Cost $5,820,066

Indirect Costs

Construction 41 % (TEC) $1,335,444

Legal expenses 4 % (TEC) $130,287

Contractor's fee 10 % (TEC) $325,718

Contingency $1,000,000

Total Indirect Cost $2,791,449

Fixed Capital Investment direct cost + indirect cost $8,611,515

Working Capital 15% TCI $1,519,679

Total Capital Investment (TCI) $10,131,194

P-1 / HG-101Homogenization

P-2Truck (Bulk)

P-3 / FDR-101Freeze Drying

P-4 / MX-101Mixing

P-6 / EV-101Evaporation

P-7 / C-101PBA Chromatography

P-8 / EV-102Evaporation

S-101

S-102

S-103

S-106

S-107

P-11 / DC-101Centrifugation

S-104

S-105

S-110

S-111

S-114

S-115

S-116S-117

S-118

S-119

S-121

S-122

S-108

Extraction Process Modeled after extraction used in

research paper Could be optimized for bulk extraction

Delivery Truck

Freeze Dryer

PBA Chromatography Column

Evaporators

Homogenizer

Decanter Centrifuge

Extraction Equipment Cost

Equipment Name Cost Water deionizer Skid Mounted $55,804Homogenizer $19,000Freeze Dryer $2,361,000Mixer $105,000Evaporator (2) $186,000Centrifuge $236,000PBA Chromatography Column $293,000

Pumps (2) $1,376TOTALS $3,257,180

Extraction Piping NetworkStream Name Length (ft) ID (ft) Q, ft^3/hr Total Cost

S-101 14.46 2.50 28.40 $ 12,035.53 S-102 0.09 0.25 0.017 $ 11,352.30 S-103 0.94 0.33 0.246 $ 11,378.69 S-104 0.94 0.33 0.245 $ 11,378.67 S-105 0.95 0.33 0.249 $ 11,378.72 S-106 0.77 0.33 0.202 $ 11,378.12 S-107 3.08 0.75 1.814 $ 11,503.44 S-108 0.123 0.17 0.016 $ 11,328.91 S-110 0.876 0.33 0.229 $ 11,378.46 S-111 14.46 2.50 28.40 $ 754.05

S-114 3.11 0.75 1.83 $ 11,503.54 S-115 0.24 0.25 0.048 $ 11,352.83 S-116 3.05 0.75 1.80 $ 11,503.35 S-117 4.58 1.00 3.60 $ 11,579.02 S-118 4.58 1.00 3.60 $ 11,579.02 S-119 14.39 2.50 28.25 $ 12,035.27 S-121 6.26 1.50 7.38 $ 11,725.74

Piping Network Summary Network Cost --$185,000 Pipe Composition– Stainless Steel Number of Streams –17 streams Piping Length –72.92 feet Maximum Flow rate – 28.4 ft3/hr (3.54

gpm)

Economics: Total Annual Product Cost

Total Annual Product Cost Rate Cost per unit Cost per YearRaw Materials

Active & Inactive Ingredients 7.44.E+06 kg/ yr $ 10.55 USD / kg $78,449,110

Packaging 147% of Tubes/yr $65,733,784

Operating Labor 3 operators at $27/hr $603,126

Operating Supervision 15% of Operating Labor $90,469

Utilities Electricity, Water, Steam $128,674

Maintenance & Repairs 10% Equipment Cost $325,718

Operating Supplies 15% Maintenance & Repairs $48,858

Laboratory Charges 10% of Operating Labor $60,313

Depreciation Straight Line Depreciation (10 yrs) $1,013,119

Taxes 2% FCI $172,230

Insurance 1% FCI $86,115

Total Annual Product Cost $146,711,516

Total Annual Product Cost per tube $4.34

Total Annual Product Cost per kilogram $19.72

Cost of Raw MaterialsIngredient Characteristic/ Function $/kg $/m3Calcium Carbonate2 Abrasive 98.20$ Calcium Phosphate2 Abrasive 62.20$ FD&C blue #1 (7) coloring 114.08$ Glycerin (99%)6 Humectant 6,285.71$ Glycerin** Humectant 8.79$ Hydrated Silica4 Abrasive 46.53$ Menthol, crystals5 cooling/ flavor 113.19$ Peppermint Oil2 Flavor 70.00$ Sodium Bicarbonate Abrasive 1.87$ Sodium flouride5 remineralization 26.26$ Sodium Hexametaphosphate3 Abrasive 3.63$

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (30%)3Emulsifier/ Whipping Aid/ Surfactant 2,380.95$

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Powder5

Emulsifier/ Whipping Aid/ Surfactant 42.81$

Sorbitol1 Sweetening / Humectant 7.90$ Titanium Dioxide1 Opacity 9.80$ Trisodium Phosphate3 pH adjuster; chelating agent 3.02$ Water, Deionized (from municipal) Dilution Purposes 0.40$

Xanthan gum1Thickener/ Flow Modifier (Resistor) 31.80$

Utility Usage

UtilitiesParameter amount $/unit Cost, USD

Electricity (kWh) 2,587,990 $0.05 $116,460

Steam, saturated (kg) 65,195,710 $0.0044 $11,387

Water Cooling (kg) 1,239,335 $0.000396 $491

Water Process (.114 kg/ tube) 849,483 $0.000396 $337

Total $128,674

Toothpaste Market 93% of consumers use toothpaste (Simmons Market

Research)

Retail toothpaste sales (2000) $1,846 million and growing approximately 3.5%. (Packaged Facts2000)

Estimated retail toothpaste sales for 2008 --$2,430 million.

Toothpaste Sales 29% whitening 22% regular 15.5% baking soda and peroxide formulas 13.5% multi-benefit 13% tartar control 7% specialty

Target Market Population

South/Southwest Total Population 92 million

Demand Assumption 60% of population buys toothpaste 13.5% use multi-benefit toothpaste 7.45 million affected people Entire target market buys 6

tubes/year

Economics Summary

Annual Raw Material Cost $78 millionAnnual Product Cost $147 millionAnnual Product Cost per tube

$4.34

Annual Production Rate 33.8 million tubes/ yr

Product Selling Price per tube

$8.00

Annual Income $270 millionGross Profit $124 millionIncome Taxes (34%) $42 millionNet Profit $82 millionTotal Capital Investment $10 millionReturn on Investment 800%

Competitor Pricing

Brand price $/oz SatisfactionClay Bright natural toothpaste $6.99 $2.18 92.1%Dr. Collins Restore Remineralizing $7.49 $1.87 88.6%Crest Whitening Exp. Anti-cavity $2.99 $0.50 84.2%Elgydium Anti-cavity $6.95 $1.99 84.1%Kiss My Face Anti-cavity Toothpaste $5.99 $1.76 82.0%AVERAGE $6.86 $1.95 86.2%OUR PRODUCT $8.00 $1.39 97.8%

Consumer Utility Maximization Ф(d1) = p1d1 – (α/β)ρ [(Y-p1d1)/p2]1- ρ d1 ρ =0

Y= $357 million/ yr (total sales / yr) ρ =0.75 p2= $7 α –consumer awareness =1 β –consumer preference of product 2 over product 1 p1; d1– new product price; demand

Utilized Excel Solver to find demand for β range Net Present Worth determined from Cash Flow and Total

Capital Investment. Interest rate = 10%

Beta Values

Beta Curves

$-$5

$10$15$20$25$30$35$40$45$50$55$60$65

$5 $7 $9 $11 $13 $15 $17 $19 $21Price

NPW

mill

ions

0.6 0.65

0.7 0.71

0.72 0.73

0.74 0.75

0.76 0.77

0.78 0.79

0.8 0.85

Pricing Model New product demand value

Decreases with increasing product price Decreases as Beta increases

The larger the Beta the worse new product compares

Equals existing demand when Prices are equal α/β = 1

New product demand value has direct relationship with sales.




How do we proceed?




Conclusions Tooth cavities are caused by S. mutans and are a

serious public health issue. Polyphenolic grape pomace extract will inhibit the

virulence factors of S. mutans and consequently decrease the risk of tooth cavities when placed in a toothpaste with 98% consumer preference.

Only the extraction process requires an investment, which totals $10 million and will yield an estimated return on investment of 800% when product is sold at $8/tube.

The product with the highest consumer preference is also the most profitable.

Thank you!

References U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2007). MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Dental cavities. [Online]

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001055.htm Featherstone, J.D.B. (2004). The Continuum of Dental Caries-Evidence for a Dynamic Disease Process. Journal of Dental

Research, 83 (Special Issue C), C39-C42. [Online] http://jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi /content /full/83/ suppl_1/C39 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Oral Health: Preventing Cavities, Gum Disease, and Tooth Loss.

[Online] http://www.dental.ufl.edu/patients/Files/CavityPrevention_CDC.pdf Satcher, S. G. Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

Washington, D. C., 2000. "Toothpaste." How Products are Made. Ed. Stacey L. Blachford. Gale Group, Inc., 2002. eNotes.com. 2006. 1 Mar, 2008

[Online] http://www.enotes.com/how-products-encyclopedia/toothpaste Xing, H., Ling, J., Chen, M. & J. Gu (2006). Chemical and cold Sensitivity of Two Distinct Populations of TRPM-8

Expressing Somatosensory Neurons. Journal of Neurophysiology. 95:1221-1230. University Of Illinois At Chicago (2004). Popular Chewing Gum Eliminates Bacteria That Cause Bad Breath. ScienceDaily.

[Online] http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2004/04/040401080031.htm Pohlman, D. & Jones, G. (2005) Neb Guide: Sweeteners. University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

[Online]http://elkhorn.unl.edu/epublic/live/g1458/build/ Yale-New Haven Hospital (2005). Sugar Alcohol. [Online]

http://www.ynhh.org/online/nutrition/advisor/sugar_alcohol.html Kosekl, T., Koganezawa, M., Furuyama, A., et al. (2005). Stereospecificity of the Receptor site for Glycerol, a New

Sweetener, in a Labellar Sugar Receptor Cell of Drosopila. Chemical Senses 30 (Supplement 1) : i277-i278. Montana State University (2005). Pesticide Glossary. [Online] http://pesticides.montana.edu/glossary.htm Lisensky, G. (2007). Critical Micelle Concentration. [Online] http://mrsec.wisc.edu/edetc/nanolab/micelle Lewis, C. (1998). Clearing Up Cosmetic Confusion. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Consumer Magazine. U.S. Food and Drug Adminsitration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. (2002). [Online]

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-218.html Mason, Stephan. “Dental Hygiene”, Poucher’s Perfumes, Cosmetics and Soaps, 10th E. 217-253. (2000)

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-218.html

References Kokini, JL, and E L Cussler, Predicting the Texture of Liquid and Melting Semi-Solid Foods. Journal of Food Science, 48

(1983), 1221-1225. Poletto, M and JJ Joseph, Effective density and viscosity of a suspension, J. Rheol. 39(2), March/April 1995. Tiverton-Brown, Stuart, Research Equipment (London) Limited, http://www.research-equipment.com/viscosity

%20chart.html (Accessed March 2008) Grabenstetter, R.J., R. W. Broge, F. L. Jackson, and A. W. Radike. The Measurement of the Abrasion of Human Teeth by

Dentifrice Abrasives: A test utilizing radioactive teeth. 1958. Davis, WB. Cleaning and polishing of teeth by brushing. Community Dent, Oral Epidemiol, 1980: 8: 237-243 INEOS Silicas, SORBOSIL SILICAS GIVE YOU GREATER SCOPE IN DENTAL FORMULATION. Issue 1 - January 2002 - SCS

654. Oral Health Research Institute, 19th February 1996, Study No. RDA 96-11, accessed through

http://www.janina.co.uk/research/AR1.html (March, 2008) Koo H, Pearson SK, Scott-Anne K, Abranches J, Cury JA, Rosalen PL, Park YK, Marquis RE, Bowen WH. Effects of apigenin

and tt-farnesol on glucosyltransferase activity, biofilm viability, and caries development in rats. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2002: 17: 337-343.

Pader, Morton. Surfactants in Dental Products. Surfactants in Cosmetics, Ed. by Martin M. Rieger, Linda D. Rhein. CRC Press. 1997.

Lunkenheimer, K and K. Malysa. Simple and Generally Applicable Method of Determination and Evaluation of Foam Properties. Journal of Surfactants and Detergents, Vol. 6, No. 1 (January 2003), 69-74.

Smith, Jim; Hong-Shum, Lily. Food Additives Data Book, Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Perry, R and D.W. Green. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 7th Ed. McGraw-Hill, 1997. 2-201. Hunt, CC and JR Maynes. Current Issues in the Stabilization of Cultured Dairy Products, J Dairy Sci 80:2639–2643, 1997 Lewis, R and R S Dwyer-Joyce. Interactions between toothbrush and toothpaste particles during simulated abrasive

cleaning, Proc. IMechE Vol. 220 Part J: J. Engineering Tribology. 2006

References Torres, J L, B Varela, MT Garcia, J Carilla, C Matito, J J Centelles, M Cascante, X Sort, R Bobet. Valorization of Grape (Vitis

vinifera) Byproducts. Antioxidant and Biological Properties of Polyphenolic Fractions Differeing in Procyanidin Composition and Flavonol Content. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 7548-7555.

Ross, Karen. California’s Winegrape Growers Gain Valuable Insight from 2008 Grape Crush Report. California Association of Winegrape Growers. 2008.

Makris, DP, G Boskou, N K Andrikopoulos. Recovery of antioxidant phenolics from white vinification solid by-products employing water/ethanol mixtures. Bioresource Technology 98 (2007) 2963-2967.

Popovich, Bette. Multi-Benefit Products Top Dental Care Market. CMR focus, May 2000. Thimothe, Joanne; Bonsi, Illeme; Padilla-Zakour, Olga; Koo, Hyun. Chemical Characterization of Red Wine Grape (Vitis

vinifera and Vitis Interspecific Hybrids) and Pomace Phenolic Extracts and Their Biological Activity against S. mutans. J. Agr. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 10200-10207.

Bagajewicz, M.J. On the Role of Microeconomics, Planning, and Finances in Product Design. AIChE Journal, 2007, 53,12, pg 3155.

Beltrán-Aguilar, ED, L K Barker, M T Canto, B A Dye, B F Gooch, S O Griffin, J Hyman, F Jaramillo,et al. Surveillance for Dental Caries, Dental Sealants, Tooth Retention, Edentulism, and Enamel Fluorosis --- United States, 1988--1994 and 1999—2002, MMWR Surveillance Summaries August 26, 2005 / 54(03);1-44. Accessed through the CDC website at http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#top

Fontana, Anita. Oral Care Category Overview. Information provided by marketreserch.com/ red summit research http://www.ecrm-online.com/Expose/V4_9/Oral.htm

Handbook of Rhelogy Modifiers.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#top

http://www.ecrm-online.com/Expose/V4_9/Oral.htm

anti-cavity toothpaste consumer modeling

Documents