Talk:Inverted sugar syrup

message: I created that page last night by request.  I failed to find this page on a search before creating it - found it this morning when categorizing the other page.  I think the two should be merged, don't have time right this minute.  GRBerry 13:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge accomplished.  GRBerry 01:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge w/ Invert Syrup 

message: Can anybobdy provide a link or some information about the Invert Syrup Maker used in industries.
email : hitecheng@hotmail.com
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.13.70 (talk) 13:54, 2006 July 5 (UTC)
:in my experience you take a heated vat and some acid and wait. GraemeLeggett 14:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invert Syrup Maker 

message: At the beginning it says that invert sugar has about 85% the sweetness of sucrose. Later in the article it says "he most popular is a partially inverted sugar such as golden syrup or refiners syrup, a mixture of 44% sucrose to 56% invert. This type of invert sugar offers high sweetness value of around 20% greater than sucrose." If invert is less sweet than sucrose, how can a mixture of invert and sucrose be sweeter than sucrose? Unless there is something missing in the article, one of the statements has to be wrong.--66.102.196.32 06:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is that you go from sucrose to invert sugar, you complete change the concentration.  So, while a solution of sucrose may be sweeter than an equivalent solution of invert sugar, the conversion process radically alters concentration by doubling the number of sugar molecules and reducing the amount of water by an equivalent amount.  scot (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm reminded that verifiability rather than truth is one Wikipedia standard.  It is possible the citations are wrong.  There are other charts on Wikipedia, such as the fructose article which has this image, which leads here with a notation that the information is not cited.  Their assertion is that invert sugar is 50% of the sweetness of sucrose.  That's also hard to understand.  Why would invert sugar, composed of 50% glucose and 50% fructose be either less sweet or sweeter than sucrose which is 50% glucose and 50% fructose(?), the only difference being the bond between them. That means there's now such a wide variety of estimates that it is essentially unknown. It may be preferable to delete and I would not object. In 1922, Sales and Skinner put invert sugar at 85 compared to sucrose, apparently because of a difference in weight that occurs from the inversion, though their actual study is behind a pay wall I can't access. It is interesting that the beginning of this section user 66.102.196.32 mentions 85 as the value, which is the same as Sales and Skinner. Gzuufy (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I think it's understandable that a 50-50 mixture of fructose and glucose could have a sweetness quite different from that of sucrose, because taste has to do with how the molecule interacts with the "active site" of some receptor on your tongue. But actually I would think that two monosaccharide molecules would cause more of a reaction in the taste bud than a single disaccharide! But in any case, we know that the average sweetness of glucose and fructose is a lot more than 50% of that of sucrose, so the figure of 50 for invert sugar is hard to understand (unless maybe it's on a per mole basis instead of a per gram basis!). Your link to Oregon State does say that mixtures don't always have a sweetness equal to the average of the two, but for the fructose-glucose pair the value in the table on this says that should make the mixture (invert sugar) 11% sweeter than the average of fructose and glucose. So that wouldn't explain the low figure of 50. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of one sentence asserting a particular sweetness value, perhaps it would be better to create a section with a paragraph explaining the wide range of values that have been propagated over the years.  It may help readers to understand why there are so many different ideas regarding how invert syrup substitutes for sugar or sucrose, i.e., how the amounts should be adjusted upward or downward.  When I made my substitution in a bread formula, I adjusted the sugar value upward, but only for the water amount and the coincident increased weight of the syrup (dry sugar versus wet syrup).  Since I made the syrup myself, I knew the percentage based on final temperature.  I made no adjustment for relative sweetness.  I couldn't discern that the baked product was any sweeter or less sweet, it seemed about the same, though there were other differences, such as a faster fermentation rate, and increased crust "burning" (Maillard reaction), which needed some additional tweaks to the process. It is alleged that there are preservation values in baked products, as well as moisture retaining properties, presumably due to the fructose. Gzuufy (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradicts itself 

message: The first paragraph of this article should be a summary of the important information a layman would want to know. It should answer the basic questions
# What is invert sugar?
# Who uses it and why?
# How is it different/similar to non-invert sugar?
I'd write up the introduction myself, but I do not know the answers, even after reading the whole article. Here are some more questions I'd love to see answered, if anyone knows them:
# What are the nutritional differences between invert sugar and "normal" sugar?
# In what "class" is invert sugar? That is, what are its peers? Is it something you would use instead of glucose/sucrose/fructose? Or is it something you'd use instead of white/dark/raw/granulated/confectioner's sugar? The article mentions something about a mix of glucose and fructose, so does that mean invert sugar is just the name for a certain ratio?
# Is invert sugar naturally occurring? The "examples" section hints yes, but lacks an expository sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.171.85 (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is too technical 

message: To address the issues of clarity and quality in this article, I'm going to do a bit of a re-write - I'm not changing any information or details, just hopefully making it a bit easier to understand (as well as a few grammar issues). I hope everyone's ok with this. Charliedare (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical clearup 

message: "The biological catalysts are sucrases (in animals) and invertases (in plants), glycoside hydrolase enzymes." - lots of long words, but hardly clear. 94.193.26.213 (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This bit of confusion persists. Author - please clarify. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't see what the problem is. The sentence has been changed to "The biological catalysts that are added are called sucrases (in animals) and invertases (in plants). Sucrases and invertases are types of glycoside hydrolase enzymes." You can click on the links to know what the difference is. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: The article says to add citric acid (or similar) to sugar and then boil for 20 minutes, but doesn't mention water!  How much should be added?  I presume it's not made by boiling pure melted sugar.
Sparrer (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely some water is added.  But (WP:NOTMANUAL) avoids serving as an instruction manual.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, water is necessary. The article now gives a couple examples mentioning water. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inverting sugar 

message: I would say that there are currently too many examples. Creme eggs may contain inverted sugar but that is a highly processed food.  I think examples like honey are good. Alexbateman (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many examples 

message: Why would anyone inject invert sugar?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.136.169 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, sorry. In case of low blood sugar level, purified glucose solution is given intravenously (see also Parenteral nutrition), while in diabetes, glucagon injections are the emergency treatment of choice (see Glucagon rescue). Injecting fructose would be pointless, while injecting invert sugar syrup would most likely result in instant death (large syrup particles blocking blood vessels in the brain – stroke). kashmiri 23:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with kashmiri. A sterile form of glucose is injected intravenously in the case of a dangerously low blood sugar. Invert sugar is for baking and candy-making. There is absolutely no medical use listed in the article, cited or uncited. That info box template was a poor choice for this article. Author - please correct the situation. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   kashmiri TALK 17:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injection? 

message: Many sources (as the article itself) claim to use 1 part water, 2 parts sugar. The article Making simple syrup is an exercise in chemical reactions in the reference section claims to boil equal parts of granulated sugar and water and some other sources do as well.
I want as less remaining water as possible and am uncertain what to use now. When remembering chemistry 5 years ago, the formula uses 1 mol of sucrose and 1 mol of water. The molar mass of sucrose is 342 g/mol and 18 g/mol for water, so why not use 19 parts sucrose and only 1 part water? For example 190 g sucrose and 10 g water.
--92.106.138.7 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 92.106.138.7 - For your own curiosity, here's a recipe for invert sugar by pastry chef, Eddy Van Damme: http://www.chefeddy.com/2009/11/invert-sugar/ . It cannot be used a WP reference, as I understand it, because a.) it's a blog, although by an expert and b.) it's a primary source. The comments may clarify some points for you, too. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure about the quantities 

message: External Link : Making sugar sweeter, an educational experiment in chemistry. No longer links to a topic related to invert sugar.  It appears the page has been moved or removed.67.167.106.3 (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed, they were just external links of no importance to the article. Feel free to do it yourself next time. (Important links can be marked with  template instead.) kashmiri 22:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link is obsolete 

message: Substituted at 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The tone with which the article is written (27 January 2018) deviates from that of similar articles on food and chemistry. This seems to be due to a lack of substance. In particular, it might be productive to borrow article structure and section headings from similar articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.12.85 (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Mention if any health effects.  Jidanni (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects  

message: As of Jan 13 2019, the beginning of production section says, "Common sugar can be inverted quickly by mixing sugar and citric acid or cream of tartar at a ratio of about 1000:1 by weight and adding water. If lemon juice which is about five per cent citric acid by weight is used instead then the ratio becomes 1:75." That can't be right.  Lemon juice is about 92% water.  Consider sugar of 1000g and 1 gram citric acid versus 1000 g sugar and 75000 g lemon juice of which 69000 g is water.  That seems more like lemonade, and it's going to take a long time to evaporate or boil away the water fraction. If lemon juice is 5% citric acid, then from 1000:1, 1/5%=20.  Thus 1:75 must be a typo of some kind, shouldn't it be 1000:20 or 50:1?  Gzuufy (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ratios are not needed and add nothing to the article.  This is not a How To article.  It's just supposed to tell people what Inverted Sugar is, and frankly - isn't doing a very good job at it. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Something like this might be traceable to popular-press cookbooks (a standard ratio of a standard acidic ingredient identified in such a source, not hypothesizing what other acids might be used). That would demonstrate that it is worthwhile content even for lay audiences (overcoming (WP:NOTMANUAL). DMacks (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: In the section on Inverted sugar syrup#Partly hydrolyzed sucrose, 108.7.206.116 wrote on the page:
 "I don't think the above analysis is correct.  Specific optical rotation is based on grams/ml.  It is NOT based on the number of moles.  Therefore, when a mole of sucrose (342.3 g) hydrolyzes completely into fructose and glucose it will yield one mole of each.  However, as glucose and fructose have the same molecular formula (C6H12O6) their weight is 180.16 g each, for a total molecular weight of 360.3 g.  The added 18 g (compared to sucrose; 342.3 g) comes from addition of a water molecule during hydrolysis. 
 Thus 342.3 grams of sucrose yields 180.16g of glucose and fructose (each).  Or 1 gram of sucrose will yield 0.526 of glucose and fructose (180.16/342.2 =0.526) 
 So if we assume we started with 1 g of sucrose and 'x' grams sucrose hydrolyze, this yields 0.526x grams of fructose and 0.526x grams of glucose.
  
 This suggests the correct equation for the inversion point (when plugging in the specific optical densities for sucrose, glucose, and fructose) is:
 (1-x)66.5 + 0.526x(52.7) + 0.526x(-92.0) = 0
 Solving this equation, x = 0.76  
 So inversion happens when 76% of the sucrose is hydrolyzed.
 However, I can not find confirmation of my calculation online (or for the previously offered one based on moles which results in 62.9%)."
Perhaps someone with a little more chemistry than me could comment. Klbrain (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a recent Bachelor's in Biochemistry. It depends on whether the experiment used to determine the reference angles used molarity or weight concentration. Weight concentration is much more likely, but not guaranteed. It's also possible that one of the reference angles is for weight concentration with the other being for molarity. You would need to find sources for the reference angles to determine the correct use. Most likely case by far is that both reference angles are derived from weight concentrations rather than molarity. Can anyone get a source for these reference angles? 50.123.65.168 (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

text: NO NO NO NO NO - we don't need any more chemistry lessons in this article.  We need to know, very generally, what this stuff is, what it's used for, etc.  More than a couple of sentences on how it is made is Too Much!  Please folks - don't ruin an article by turning it into a highbrow textbook on the chemistry of invert sugar.  That makes it impossible for the casual reader to make sense of.  73.6.96.168 (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP is not just for casual readers...there can be different sections with substantial detail on different aspects. For example, "how it's made" is could be pretty interesting from an industrial-process perspective for those interested in our food supplies or what counts as "natural". We're an encyclopedia, so we should know quite specifically what this stuff is, what it's used for, etc. in addition to a simple/ultra-lay-accessible intro to those topics. But mathematical derivations and "why isn't my math making sense?" are not in-scope (WP articles are not for WP:OR). DMacks (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking calculation 

message: Simple syrup redirects here, but this page is about something else. Bar/Simple syrup is just sugar dissoved in water, there is no inversion. Most recipes call for a mixture of one to two parts sugar to one part water. When a 2:1 ratio is used it needs to be heated until dissolved, but that's it. Couple refs to back up what I'm saying 1 2, but seriously, this is common knowledge.
Or am I missing something? Is there a reference saying that simple syrup or bar syrup are the same as inverted sugar syrup? VdSV9•♫ 00:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple syrup and bar syrup should be in a separate article