A Faux Real Vitamin

         At the start of college my mom bought me a big bottle of multivitamins because she was afraid I would not get my essential vitamins and minerals since I was eating "college food", and she would not be the one cooking for me. She bought me Centrum multivitamins, but I wanted the all natural multivitamins since I try to be as nature friendly as possible. It was too late though because 1) my mom was not going back to the store just so I could have natural vitamins, 2) she is not willing to pay that much for vitamins, and 3) she is not convinced that natural supplements are any different from generic ones. So, I conducted a little research on one of my favorite vitamins, Vitamin e, to find if there is a difference between natural and synthetically made vitamin e. 

A brief background about vitamin e is that it is a compound that is soluble in fat and has eight different chemical forms. It can be found in a range of items from food (i.e. almonds, oil and spinach) to skincare (i.e. night creams and serums). The popularity of this vitamin is due to its many health benefits. It is thought to prevent several diseases such as Alzheimer's, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer and is highly regarded for being an antioxidant, which protects against free radicals. Vitamin e not only has numerous benefits for internal health but also external health. It is especially popular among skincare products as it can heal scars, reduce wrinkles, and moisturize skin. Vitamin e contains several wonderful benefits, but do natural and synthetically made vitamin e produce the same benefits?  

The vitamin e that humans typically ingest is called alpha-tocopherol, and the natural version is identified with the prefix d-, making the chemical name d-alpha-tocopherol. Natural vitamin e originates from oils, particularly vegetable oils such as canola and soybean oil. The compound of natural vitamin e contains only one isomer, which is what makes the structure of natural vitamin e unique. 

In comparison, synthetic vitamin e comes from petroleum products and is classified as dl-alpha-tocopherol. Because synthetic vitamin e is manufactured, it has a different chemical structure than that of natural vitamin e due to it being processed multiple times. The structure of synthetic vitamin e is comprised of eight isomers, and only one of the eight isomers is identical to the isomer of natural vitamin e. 

The isomers have an influence on the effectiveness of natural vitamin e versus synthetic vitamin e. When vitamin e is ingested, it is absorbed and your body automatically recognizes it and sends proteins to process the vitamin. This happens automatically for natural vitamin e but not for synthetic. Because synthetic only has one matching isomer to that of natural vitamin e, it does not recognize the other seven isomers. These isomers are foreign to the body because they are processed, so they are removed along with the one unique and genuine vitamin e isomer. The vitamin e is not kept, therefore, the benefits are no longer reaped because it is not being retained by the body. 

It is only logical that natural is the way to go when taking multivitamins as proven by vitamin e. My mom wants me to remain healthy during college, but how can I when I am taking synthetic multivitamins that my body will end up expelling? If this is what occurs when taking synthetic vitamin e, then it is highly likely for other synthetic vitamins as well. Hopefully by showing this post to my mom she will change her mind, but I have to finish my bottle of synthetic vitamins first! 

References 

"Natural vs. Synthetic Vitamin E." Natural Health Research Institute. N.p., 02 July 2008. Web. . <http://www.naturalhealthresearch.org/natural-vs-synthetic-vitamin-e/>. 

"Vitamin E." — Health Professional Fact Sheet. N.p., n.d. Web. <https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminE-HealthProfessional/#h3>. 

"Vitamin E: Natural vs. Synthetic." SmartyPants Vitamins. N.p., n.d. Web.  <http://smartypantsvitamins.com/natural-vitamin-e-vs-synthetic-vitamin-e/>. 

Vs, Atural. N ATURAL VS . S YNTHETIC V ITAMIN E (n.d.): n. pag. Web. <http://www.gpsdairy.com/ServiceDocs/Nat_vs_Syn_Vit_E_4-09%20LOWRES.pdf>. 

Chemistry Symposium Reviews

The chemistry symposium article presentations ranged from a variety of topics such as food, art, technology, and historical events, and it was interesting to learn more about each topic and the chemistry behind it. While I thought everyone presented well, I thoroughly enjoyed "Glass: More Than Meets the Eyes", "The Sweet Science of Candy Making", and "Drivers, start your (electric) engines".

The presentation "Glass: More Than Meets the Eyes" by Kate Sarkan described how glass can be used as evidence to solve crimes. Glass can be analyzed physically and chemically to find if the sample of glasses are from the same source. A physical examination of glass includes measuring the density of two pieces of glass; if both samples of glass have the same density then they are of the same glass. Another physical examination is measuring the refractive index, where refraction is the bending of light. Like density, the refraction is measured in both pieces of glass to see if they are the same or different. Scientists also chemically test the glass to find their chemical compositions, thus if they have the same composition, they are from the same source. Kate gave a couple examples of how these methods can be applied in crimes such as bullet holes and headlights on car crashes. I thought Kate did an excellent job of explaining her article. I like the manner in which she presented it to us; she gave a hypothetical scenario and presented her information step by step, as if we were solving the crime ourselves. Her presentation was given in a clear and coherent manner. I found Kate to be very prepared as she did not need any notes, and she was also knowledgeable of not just her article but for questions too.

Kate Young's article about "The Sweet Science of Candy Making" explained why candies have different textures: soft, smooth, hard, soft, etc. The reason for these different textures is due to sugar crystals which form from a mixture of sugar and water. In a saturated solution that is heated then cooled, crystals will form because it is trying to compensate for the loss in energy. This is an example of Le Chatelier's Principle which states that if a system is shifted from the equilibrium then it will act in opposition to restore the equilibrium. Kate explained this process very well and included several pictures of the chemical structures which helped to visually understand the formation of crystals. I thought Kate did a great job of keeping the audience engaged. Throughout her presentation, she would prompt the audience about the chemistry involved in candy making. I also thought it was creative to hand out lollipops at the beginning of her presentation because it was relative to her topic and a fun tactic to capture our interests immediately. Kate's enthusiasm about her presentation made it enjoyable and interesting.

James Rose presented his article, "Drivers, start your (electric) engines", in a coherent manner. I liked the structure of his presentation; he first talked about the history of electric cars. In the 1890s, electric engines were implemented in cars but by the 1930s gasoline was used to power them. He then discussed the different types of batteries to power cars; the most common is lead-acid batteries, and these power cars through a redox reaction, where the lead is oxidized which releases electrons causing a current to flow. James then compared this battery to that of lithium ion batteries used in electric cars. A lithium ion battery generates energy from a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte solution. The lithium ion batteries are favorable to that of lead acid batteries because they are lighter in weight and more reactive. By implementing electric cars, carbon emissions can be decreased, and the progress made on electric will allow for increased range and faster charging in the future. I thought James gave an excellent presentation because it was organized and articulated very well. The chemistry that was explained was comprehensible, and it flowed well to the idea of connecting chemistry to a real world situation. Overall, James gave a very professional presentation.
All three of these presentations were organized, professional and engaging throughout, which are aspects I will need to remember for future presentations. There are some parts of my presentation that could have been organized differently to make it more coherent. For instance, all three used visuals, so it would have been helpful to add visuals to my presentation, specifically of chemical structures, so that the audience could better understand the chemistry. In the future, I will add more visuals since I had mainly words displayed on a power point and just talked. Along the lines of talking, I think it is important to remember to be more engaging. These three presentations involved the audience and prompted them to participate instead of just giving a mini lecture. I thought Kate Sarkan, Kate Young, and James Rose delivered excellent presentations and are good examples of how to give a future presentation.

Chemical Free

Organic, all natural, GMO free, pesticide free, paraben free, sulfate free, etc. These common phrases can be found on the packaging of your frozen peas to your shampoo bottle. The idea of using products that claim to be “chemical free” has become quite a big trend in the past few years. Our society is now developing an erratic fear of chemicals, afraid that chemicals are the culprits of causing cancer or allergies. Is it true though? There are tons of studies, experiments, and research about the horrific aftermath of using chemical laden products, but there are equally just as many studies about how these chemicals are not really that harmful. "Chemical free" might be a better option because there are some chemicals that we probably should not be frequently consuming, but in retrospect, everything is made of chemicals. So how valid are these statements put on consumer products? Due to the little knowledge of chemistry amongst the general population, these labels are acceptable because people do not fully understand the concept of “chemical free”.

If you look on the list of ingredients of any packaged food, you can notice quite a big difference between a normal product and a “chemical free” product. “Kind” is a brand of food that focuses on using non-genetically modified organism (non-GMO) ingredients and keeping it as natural as possible. The company has developed and abided by a motto stating that “if you can’t pronounce an ingredient, it shouldn’t go into your body”, and they hold true to their belief. All the ingredients listed on a Popped Dark Chocolate with Sea Salt granola bar are easily able to be pronounced. This granola bar contains ingredients such as sugar, oats, brown rice, quinoa, honey, and sea salt. These items are not only easily pronounced, but they are also easily understood by people. Everyone is certain of honey, sugar, or sea salt; they are common foods that we use frequently in our lives. Because we use these items daily, we recognize that these are safe for us to ingest, but we fail to recognize that these foods are chemicals as well. We forget that sugar is comprised of the chemicals Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen, and sea salt is typically composed of Sodium and Chlorine. Clearly, those are chemicals, but the granola bar is still considered “chemical free” because it does not contain any outrageous chemicals we are not familiar with. Kind and other similar companies use this label to state that it does not have any harsh chemicals but rather simple, “good for you” ingredients.

In order to consider a product that has “chemicals” in it, take for example a Quaker Chewy 90 Calorie Granola Bar. There are some common ingredients in it such as brown sugar, brown rice, and cocoa butter, but then there are ingredients that are questionable: sodium bicarbonate, calcium carbonate, and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). These are what make people switch to “chemical free” products. We don’t regularly consume sodium bicarbonate or BHT, and when we see these chemicals listed, it frightens us because what are the effects if we do ingest these items and continue to do so? Since we are unfamiliar with these chemicals, we associate them to be potentially toxic or harmful.

The understanding of chemicals by our society is one that is taken a bit too extreme. We see a chemical we are not familiar with, and we freak out, but it is important to remember that everything is made of chemicals including ourselves! The label “chemical-free” is misleading to our society because nothing in this universe is not comprised of chemicals. It would better to use a label along the lines of “no harsh chemicals” or “semi-natural” depending on the product. This notifies the consumer that there are chemicals but no detrimental chemicals. The concept of “chemical free” is ironic, but it comforts our society knowing that we are not consuming harmful chemicals.

Works Cited

"About KIND | KINDSnacks." KINDSnacks About KIND Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Oct. 2015. <http://www.kindsnacks.com/about/>.

N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.quakeroats.com/products/oat-snacks/chewy-90-calorie-granola/chocolate-chunk.aspx>.