Maintaining flavor integrity over time is one of the most critical challenges for manufacturers of flavorings—especially in the highly volatile domain of electronic-liquid (e-liquid) concentrates and e-liquids. Unlike many consumer products, e-liquid flavors rely on volatile aroma compounds, often esters, aldehydes, ketones, terpenes, and other reactive molecules that are chemically sensitive. Over time, these compounds can degrade, react, evaporate, or convert into off-flavor byproducts — leading to diminished aroma, altered taste, or even potentially increased toxicity.
Understanding and predicting how flavor changes over time—the so-called flavor decay curve—is critical for quality assurance (QA), shelf-life specification, regulatory compliance, and reliable product performance.
In this blog post, we explain: what a flavor decay curve is, the chemical and physical mechanisms driving flavor decay, how to model and predict decay, how to set up stability testing, and practical strategies (from formulation through storage & logistics) to minimize flavor loss. This article is intended for flavor houses, e-liquid manufacturers, R&D teams, and OEM/ODM partners aiming to improve flavor stability and shelf-life predictability.
1. Defining the “Flavor Decay Curve”
1.1 What is a Flavor Decay Curve?
A flavor decay curve is a graphical representation of the decline in sensory (or chemical) intensity of flavor over time. Typically, the vertical axis represents flavor potency — which may be measured by analytical metrics (e.g., concentration of key volatile compounds via GC–MS), by headspace aroma intensity, or by sensory panel rating — and the horizontal axis represents time (days, weeks, months, depending on expected shelf life).
At “time zero” (freshly mixed or freshly bottled), the flavor intensity is at its peak. Over time, due to various chemical, physical, and environmental factors, the concentration (or sensory impact) of key aroma compounds declines, often following a non-linear curve — rapidly at first (for fragile volatiles), then leveling off as more stable compounds remain. This “decay curve” may also show acceleration under stress (heat, light, oxygen) or under fluctuating storage conditions.
For e-liquids, a well-characterized decay curve allows manufacturers to define shelf-life, set expiration dates, specify storage conditions, and predict when flavor performance will drop below acceptable thresholds.
1.2 Why Flavor Decay Curves Matter for E-Liquids
Several factors make flavor decay particularly critical in e-liquid manufacturing:
E-liquids rely heavily on volatile aroma compounds— many are chemically fragile under ambient storage.
The matrix(propylene glycol / vegetable glycerin (PG/VG), nicotine salts or freebase, acids/bases) can accelerate degradation through chemical reactions (hydrolysis, oxidation, acetal formation).
Consumers expect consistent flavor deliveryfrom first use to last — especially in premium or pre-mixed products.
Regulatory and quality compliance demands traceability and stability data over time.
Inadequate flavor stability can lead not only to flavor fade, but to the formation of new compounds(some potentially irritating or harmful) as some studies have shown.
Thus, a robust flavor decay curve is not a luxury — it is essential for product reliability, brand reputation, regulatory compliance, and consumer safety.
2. The Chemistry and Physics Behind Flavor Decay
To predict or model flavor decay, it is necessary to understand why flavor decays. In e-liquids, several chemical and physical mechanisms act alone or in combination.
2.1 Volatility and Evaporation
Many aroma compounds in e-liquids are low-boiling or semi-volatile: esters, light alcohols, small ketones, and terpenes. Over time—even within a sealed bottle—some portion can partition into the headspace, especially if headspace is large, sealing is imperfect, or container material is permeable. Repeated opening or temperature cycling accelerates this.
This means that over time, volatile top-notes (bright fruity or fresh notes) often fade first — leading to “flat,” muted, or dull flavor.
2.2 Chemical Reactions: Oxidation, Hydrolysis, Polymerization, and Adduct Formation
Even without evaporation, molecules can chemically transform:
Oxidation: Aldehydes, terpenes, and unsaturated compounds are especially prone to oxidation in the presence of oxygen, producing peroxides, acids, or other breakdown products.
Hydrolysis: Esters (common fruity and sweet notes) can hydrolyze over time, particularly if moisture is present. Hydrolysis can convert esters into alcohols + acids, altering aroma drastically.
Polymerization / Condensation: Aldehydes or ketones may undergo condensation, polymerization, or react with solvents (e.g., PG or VG), forming heavier, less volatile compounds that may have off-notes, reduced volatility, or altered sensory profile. For example, flavor aldehydes have been shown to react with PG to form acetals, which carry through into vapor and may activate irritant receptors.
Adsorption or Binding to Container/Packaging Materials: Some flavor molecules may slowly adsorb into packaging walls (especially plastic), reducing their free concentration in the liquid phase. Similarly, headspace-material interactions and permeation can lead to gradual losses.
Real-world storage conditions can strongly influence decay rate:
Temperature: As with most chemical reactions, reaction rates accelerate with temperature. The classic Arrhenius equation captures this effect: reaction rate constants roughly double with every 10 °C increase (depending on activation energy).
Light / UV Exposure: Some aromatic compounds (especially terpenes, certain aldehydes) undergo photo-oxidationunder UV or visible light, leading to rapid degradation or off-note formation.
Oxygen Presence: Even trace oxygen (in headspace or dissolved) can gradually oxidize sensitive molecules over weeks/months. The oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of packaging material is a critical parameter.
Humidity / Water Activity / Moisture Ingress: Moisture can drive hydrolysis of esters, especially in humid conditions or through packaging permeation. Even minimal water presence accelerates hydrolytic loss.
Matrix Effects & Solvent Interactions: The PG/VG matrix, water content, nicotine salts (pH), acids/bases can all modulate chemical stability. For example, pH shifts can catalyze ester hydrolysis or other degradations.
Because of the interplay of such a wide range of factors, a flavor decay curve in e-liquids is rarely a simple linear decline; instead, it is often multi-phasic, with an initial rapid loss phase (fragile or volatile notes), followed by a slower decline (more stable compounds), possibly plateauing at some level.
3. Predictive Modeling of Flavor Decay — Theory + Practical Methods
To predict flavor decay, manufacturers use a combination of chemical kinetics theory, accelerated stability testing, and real-time aging studies.
3.1 Kinetic Models: Applying Reaction Rate Theory
Chemical reactions underlying degradation (oxidation, hydrolysis, etc.) often follow reaction-rate kinetics. The Arrhenius equation is widely used to model the temperature dependence of reaction rates.
k = A · e^(–Ea / (R·T))
k= rate constant
A= pre-exponential factor (frequency of collisions)
Ea= activation energy (specific to the reaction)
R= universal gas constant
T= absolute temperature (Kelvin)
From this, one can estimate how a reaction’s rate changes with storage temperature. For example, a flavor compound with a moderate activation energy might degrade twice as fast at 35 °C compared to 25 °C.
However, real-world e-liquid systems are complex: multiple reactions (oxidation, hydrolysis, condensation), multiple compounds, solvent interactions, packaging influences, evaporation, headspace equilibrium, etc. That’s why in practice, kinetic modeling is combined with empirical accelerated-aging tests and sensory/instrumental analysis.
Important note: Simple Arrhenius-based predictions can be misleading if the system is non-ideal — e.g., when multiple competing degradation pathways exist, or when volatility and headspace losses dominate. In those cases, more advanced models (e.g., multi-step kinetics, diffusion-limited losses, or matrix partitioning models) must be used. Some studies even adopt modified kinetics (e.g., deformed-Arrhenius models) for better fit at non-constant temperatures.
Given the limitations of pure theory, most flavor houses run stability protocols, combining:
Accelerated aging— storing samples at elevated temperature (e.g., 40–50 °C), sometimes with light/oxygen stress, for days or weeks; then extrapolating to predict long-term shelf life.
Real-time aging— storing products under normal conditions (room temperature, typical packaging, headspace) and sampling at fixed intervals (1, 3, 6, 12, 24 months).
A recent study published in 2025 evaluated 20 common flavoring chemicals in e-liquids over a 24-month period under different storage conditions (ambient vs. cold, light vs. dark) and measured by GC–MS at 0, 1, 3, 6, 12, 24 months.
The results were stark: under ambient temperature + light, 55% of compounds lost 50% or more of their initial concentration within 6 months; under cold dark storage, only 20% suffered similar loss after 6 months.
These data points can be used to construct real-world flavor decay curves for each formulation. By combining real-time data with accelerated tests, one can build predictive shelf-life models.
3.3 Analytical & Sensory Methods for Measuring Flavor Decay
To build accurate flavor decay curves, two types of measurements are essential:
Instrumental / Chemical analysis— typically GC–MS (headspace or SPME-GC, GC–FID, etc.) to quantify the concentration of key volatile compounds, identify degradation products, and assess chemical changes over time.
Sensory / Human-perception analysis— sensory panels or “electronic noses” to measure perceived aroma intensity or flavor strength, because chemical concentration alone does not always correlate linearly with perceived flavor (some compounds may be more potent, some degrade into odorous byproducts).
The combination of both — chemical + sensory data — gives a solid basis for predicting when a flavor will still “taste good” to consumers.
E-Liquid Stability Testing Lab
4. Key Variables That Shape a Flavor Decay Curve in E-Liquids
Here is a breakdown of the main internal and external variables that significantly affect the shape and slope of a flavor decay curve:
Molecular properties of flavor compounds
Volatility (boiling point, vapor pressure)
Chemical reactivity (susceptibility to oxidation, hydrolysis, polymerization)
Solubility / partitioning in PG / VG matrix
Matrix composition
PG/VG ratio (affects solubility & volatility)
Presence of nicotine (freebase or salt), acids/bases — affects pH, reactivity
Presence of water / moisture or water activity
Additives (plasticizers, fixatives, antioxidants)
Packaging & headspace
Container material (glass, HDPE, PET, etc.) and its permeability to oxygen, moisture, or flavor compounds
Time— obviously, longer storage yields more cumulative degradation
Because all these variables interplay, each flavor — or each batch of e-liquid — has its own unique “decay fingerprint.”
5. From Theory to Practice: Building a Flavor Decay Curve for Your E-Liquid Product
Here is a recommended workflow for flavor houses, R&D labs, and QA teams to develop, measure, and predict flavor decay curves.
Step 1: Define the Target Stability / Shelf-Life
Decide on required shelf life — e.g., 12 months, 24 months, 36 months.
Define acceptable threshold for “flavor loss” — e.g., no more than 30% reduction in headspace aroma intensity; no off-notes; no new byproducts above a defined limit; acceptable sensory rating.
Record all flavor compounds, concentrations, PG/VG ratio, nicotine base (if any), pH, water content, total volume, headspace, container type, capping method.
If using complex flavor modules or pre-blends, document their composition and production date.
Perform GC–MS (or SPME-GC, headspace-GC)to quantify all key aroma compounds.
Run sensory panel evaluation(or “electronic nose / e-nose / GC-olfactometry”) to obtain a baseline aroma profile and intensity score.
Step 4: Accelerated Stability Testing
Store replicate samples at elevated temperature (e.g., 40–50 °C), possibly with light and oxygen stress, for defined periods (e.g., 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month).
At each timepoint, run same analytical and sensory tests.
Use resulting concentration/time data to estimate rate constants (k) for the most vulnerable compounds. Use the Arrhenius equation to extrapolate to normal storage temperature.
Step 5: Real-Time Aging (Long-Term Stability)
Store additional replicate products under expected real-life conditions (e.g., room temperature or ambient warehouse, standard retail packaging, headspace, etc.)
Sample at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 … months (or as needed) — depending on intended shelf-life.
Perform periodic analytical and sensory evaluation.
Step 6: Data Analysis & Modeling
Plot concentration (or relative headspace intensity / sensory score) vs time for each key compound and for the overall flavor profile.
Fit decay curves (linear for stable compounds, first-order exponential for reactive ones, multi-phase for complex mixtures).
Identify “critical control points” — e.g., compounds that degrade > 50% within 6 months under worst-case storage; new degradation byproducts; sensory off-notes past threshold.
For compounds with poor stability or high volatility, consider replacing them with more stable analogues, or adding fixatives / stabilizers(e.g., triacetin, resins, antioxidants) to slow evaporation / reaction.
Optimize PG/VG ratio, headspace, container material, sealing, inert-gas filling (nitrogen blanketing), and packaging to minimize oxygen, light, and headspace exposure.
For premium products, consider micro-encapsulationor micro-emulsion techniques to protect fragile aroma compounds (if compatible with vaping safety standards).
Step 8: Quality Control & Batch Release Criteria
Define QC thresholds for key aroma compound concentration (e.g., “no less than 70% of initial concentration within 12 months under sealed, dark, room-temp storage”).
Set “Best before / Use by” dates accordingly.
Incorporate periodic batch retesting (real-time or accelerated).
6. Interpretation of a Flavor Decay Curve — What It Tells You (and What It Doesn’t)
When you have built a flavor decay curve, here’s how you interpret and use it effectively:
6.1 What a Decay Curve Indicates
Which compounds are most unstable— those whose concentration drops fastest (fragile esters, light volatiles, reactive aldehydes, terpenes).
Which aroma notes will fade first— e.g., bright fruity top-notes, fresh citrus, herbal mint, etc. These will often drop before heavier base notes (e.g., lactones, vanillin, cream benzaldehydes).
When overall flavor becomes unacceptable— either because aroma intensity drops below a sensory threshold, or new byproducts / off-notes appear.
Shelf-life under defined storage conditions— giving you data to support expiration dates, storage guidelines, labeling, and stability shelf claims.
The need for improved packaging, formulation changes, or stabilization strategies— if decay is too steep or critical compounds degrade too fast.
6.2 What a Decay Curve Does Not Guarantee
User experience in every device— decay curves reflect flavor intensity in the liquid or headspace, not necessarily how it will vaporize, atomize, or taste in every device (coil type, power, PG/VG ratio, nicotine, wick saturation all influence vapor flavor).
Safety or toxicity assessment— chemical degradation may produce unknown byproducts; a decay curve does not inherently show toxicity, though chemical analysis can help detect harmful compounds (e.g., PG-aldehyde acetals). Indeed, some studies have shown that aldehyde flavorants react with solvents (e.g., PG) to form acetals with irritant properties.
Flavor perception over time— human perception adapts; sometimes the “old” flavor may still smell acceptable even if chemical concentration has declined significantly (or vice versa).
7. Real-World Evidence: What Studies Show
Empirical data increasingly support the concept that e-liquid flavorings degrade significantly over time — sometimes rapidly — under ambient storage conditions.
In a 2025 studyof 20 common flavoring chemicals in e-liquids over 24 months under various storage conditions, researchers found that when stored at room temperature and exposed to light, 55% of flavorings lost ≥ 50% of their initial concentration within six months. Under cold, dark storage, losses were substantially slower.
The same study tentatively identified byproducts formed via oxidation, hydrolysis, and condensation(e.g., reaction with PG/VG) in unstable reference solutions — highlighting that degradation is not only a loss of aroma, but also creation of new chemical species.
Another study focusing on pre-blended flavor mixes for inhalation testing showed that grouping flavor chemicals by reactivity potentialand storing under refrigeration improved stability and reduced unwanted interactions, proving the practicality of “reactivity-based pre-blending” as a mitigation strategy.
Industry formulation guides also emphasize that volatility, oxidation, light, oxygen, container headspace, and packaging are critical factors; use of fixatives, antioxidants, inert-gas blanketing, proper container materialare standard approaches to slow aroma fade and extend shelf life.
These findings demonstrate why flavor decay is real, measurable, and must be proactively managed by manufacturers.
8. Building More Robust, Predictable Flavor Decay Curves — Best Practices & Recommendations
From the perspective of a flavor house or e-liquid manufacturer, here are recommended best practices to produce stable, traceable, predictable flavor profiles — and to minimize flavor decay:
Start with chemical classification and reactivity assessment
Classify all flavor compounds by volatility, functional groups (esters, aldehydes, ketones, terpenes), stability (oxidation/hydrolysis susceptibility), solubility, and reactivity potential.
For high-reactivity compounds (e.g., aldehydes, terpenes), consider more stable analoguesor protected forms (e.g., encapsulated, microemulsions, or less reactive esters / lactones).
Design the matrix and pre-blends carefully
Optimize PG/VG ratio for stability (lower volatility, better solvation).
If possible, group reactive compounds separately in pre-blends to minimize cross-reactivity during storage (as shown in inhalation study pre-blends).
Minimize water content, control pH (especially when nicotine salts or acids/bases present), and avoid unnecessary reactive additives.
Use stabilizers / fixatives / antioxidants
Add compounds known to slow volatilization or stabilize aroma: low-volatility fixatives (e.g., certain esters, glycerides), antioxidants, oxygen scavengers, or inert gas blanketing. Industry guides note that such stabilizers often double aroma retention after several months. Evaluate microencapsulation or other advanced delivery forms for very labile aromas — but carefully test for vaporization behavior and compatibility with PG/VG solvents.
Choose proper packaging and headspace management
Use high-barrier containers — amber glass, low-permeability HDPE, or certified inert plastic.
Minimize headspace: fill bottles as full as safely possible, purge with inert gas (e.g., nitrogen) before capping to reduce oxygen.
Use opaque or UV-blocking packaging to minimize photodegradation.
Define and implement rigorous stability testing protocols
Conduct both accelerated and real-time aging studies.
Use GC–MS / headspace GC, combined with sensory panel / e-nose evaluations to capture both chemical and perceptual data.
Periodically sample retained QA batches (post-release) to monitor batch-to-batch and long-term consistency.
Use data to define expiration dates, storage instructions, and shelf-life claims confidently.
Communicate storage & handling instructions clearly to clients and end-users
Recommend cold-dark storage, minimal headspace, limited exposure to light, heat, or oxygen.
Provide “best-before” dates, use-after-opening guidelines, and recommended shelf-life based on stability data.
Offer repackaging into smaller containers if clients expect long-term storage or infrequent use.
Flavor Compound Degradation Over Time
9. Common Pitfalls & Mistakes When Predicting or Managing Flavor Decay
Even with good intent, many manufacturers fall into avoidable errors. Here are some common pitfalls:
Relying solely on aroma concentration at bottling (“Time 0”) without baseline profiling— Without baseline chemical or sensory profiles, you cannot quantify “decay.”
Skipping real-time stability tests, relying only on accelerated data— accelerated tests can miss long-term matrix interactions, container-permeability issues, or slow reactions.
Ignoring headspace / oxygen / packaging effects— volatile losses or oxidation through permeable packaging can dominate flavor loss even if chemical stability seems high on paper.
Mixing highly reactive compounds in the same pre-blend without considering reactivity risk— leads to cross-reactions, formation of off-notes, or rapid degradation.
Not accounting for storage and transport conditions— heat, light, oxygen, temperature fluctuations during shipping can drastically accelerate decay.
Assuming flavor loss is linear— many decay curves are non-linear; early rapid drop followed by slow decline; sometimes decay accelerates after some byproduct accumulation (e.g., acid formation, pH shifts).
Neglecting sensory/perceptual evaluation— chemical concentration may not map directly to perceived flavor; some degradation products may be more odorous than their parent compounds (or more irritating).
Avoiding these common mistakes requires a disciplined stability strategy, with both chemistry and sensory data, conservative shelf-life claims, and good packaging/storage design.
10. Example: Hypothetical Flavor Decay Curve for a Fruity E-Liquid
To illustrate how a flavor decay curve might look in practice, here is a hypothetical example — for a fruit-ice e-liquid containing a mix of esters (fruity top-notes), lactones (base sweetness), and small aldehydes (bright accents).
Day 0 (bottled, sealed, dark)
GC–MS: 100% of all key compounds
Sensory panel score: 10 (on arbitrary 0–10 scale) — vibrant, fresh, full bouquet
After 1 month (room temp, ambient light exposure occasional)
Emerging slight off-note (oxidation byproduct) detectable by panel
Sensory score: 6.0 — acceptable but beginning to degrade; top-note freshness mostly gone
After 12 months
Esters: 25%
Lactones: 80%
Aldehydes: 35%
Off-note more pronounced, body somewhat heavier but less lively
Sensory score: 5.0 — at lower limit of acceptability
After 24 months
Esters: 10–15%
Lactones: 70–75%
Aldehydes: 20–25%
Off-notes (oxidation, mild bitterness) more evident
Sensory score: ~3.5 — flavor significantly faded, off-flavor risk high
Graphing the sensory score or key compound concentration versus time yields a multi-phase decay curve: a steep initial drop (first 3–6 months), followed by slower decline, plateauing as the more stable compounds remain but freshness/top-notes are lost.
Using such curves, you might set a “9-month shelf life (sealed bottle)” as the period where flavor remains above sensory threshold; and a “6-month recommended use-after-opening” window depending on headspace/oxygen exposure.
11. The Role of Regulatory and Safety Considerations — Why Decay Curves Matter Beyond Flavor
While the primary motivation behind flavor decay curves is flavor integrity, there are important regulatory, quality, and safety implications as well:
Chemical byproducts: As shown in a recent study, unstable flavor aldehydes reacted with PG to form acetals — stable compounds that carried through to vapor and activated irritant receptors (e.g., TRPA1, TRPV1).
Mislabeling risk: If flavor compounds degrade significantly over time, the e-liquid you initially tested or submitted for regulatory review (e.g., in a PMTA, risk assessment, or safety dossier) may differ chemically from what consumers actually vape months later.
Shelf-life claims and expiration dating: Without empirical stability data, expiration dates are arbitrary — putting manufacturers at regulatory risk.
Quality control & batch consistency: Without decay curves and stability protocols, different batches (or even the same batch over time) may taste or perform differently, damaging brand trust.
Therefore, robust flavor decay curves support not only marketing and consumer satisfaction — they underpin regulatory compliance, safety assessments, and product liability management.
12. Summary — Why Flavor Decay Curves Are Essential for Modern E-Liquid Flavoring Manufacturers
Benefit of Having a Well-Characterized Flavor Decay Curve
Impact on Business / Quality / Safety
Predictable shelf-life and defined expiration dates
Helps avoid stale product delivery; supports regulatory documentation & compliance
Consistent flavor performance over time
Builds brand reputation, consumer trust, and reduces quality complaints
Data-driven formulation optimization
Enables selection of stable compounds or use of stabilizers to improve longevity
Improved packaging and logistics strategies
Minimizes flavor loss during transit/storage, reduces waste, lowers QC failures
Safety and risk management / regulatory transparency
Detect instability or formation of unwanted degradation byproducts; reduce liability
Given the chemical sensitivity and volatility of flavor compounds, flavor decay curve management should be treated as a core component of flavor-house quality management, not an optional afterthought.
To ensure robust flavor decay curve generation and long-term flavor stability, we recommend the following SOP for your flavor house / lab:
At flavor creation / pre-blend stage: classify each compound for volatility, reactivity, stability; document all materials, PG/VG ratios, solvents, water content, packaging type, headspace volume, batch number.
Baseline QC testing: run GC–MS headspace & liquid analysis, plus sensory panel or e-nose evaluation. Archive raw data.
Accelerated aging protocol: store replicate flasks at 40–50 °C (or higher if worst-case transit temps), in both light and dark, for defined periods; sample and analyze.
Real-time stability protocol: store sealed and packaged products under normal conditions; periodically (e.g., every 3–6 months) sample for 12–36 months.
Data analysis & modeling: fit decay curves; identify critical points; if decay is too fast, reformulate, add stabilizers, or change packaging.
Batch-release criteria: define minimal acceptable levels for key compounds; test each production batch before release.
Documentation & labeling: include production date, “best before,” storage instructions (cool, dark, sealed), recommended use-within period after opening.
Periodic QC audits: retain samples from each batch (“stability reserve”) for periodic re-testing; ensure consistency across batches and over time.
By institutionalizing this process, your flavor house can deliver high-quality, stable, reproducible flavoring solutions — and reduce client complaints, regulatory risks, and product wastage.
In the increasingly competitive and regulated e-liquid market, flavor houses and manufacturers can no longer rely on “on-the-fly” formulations, memory-based QA, or guesswork. A scientific, data-driven approach to flavor stability — anchored around flavor decay curves — is essential for consistent quality, scalability, regulatory compliance, and brand reputation.
By combining chemistry insight, empirical stability testing, smart formulation design, and good packaging + logistic practices, you can deliver flavor products that remain reliable, aromatic, and safe throughout their intended shelf life.
As the 2025 empirical study demonstrated, many commonly used flavoring chemicals degrade significantly over months under typical storage — but with proper handling and storage, much of that degradation can be mitigated.
For any serious flavor house, understanding, measuring, and managing flavor decay curves should be part of your core R&D and QA workflow.
E-Liquid Batch Tracking and Shelf Life
📞 Call to Action
If you’re looking for professional support in flavor stability testing, GC–MS analysis, accelerated aging protocols, or custom stable flavor development — we offer free sample evaluations, stability curve reports, and OEM/ODM flavor solutions tailored for long shelf life.
Contact us now to ensure your flavors stay fresh, stable, and compliant throughout their lifecycle.
For a long time, the company has been committed to helping customers improve product grades and flavor quality, reduce production costs, and customize samples to meet the production and processing needs of different food industries.
Room 701, Building C, No. 16, East 1st Road, Binyong Nange, Daojiao Town, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province
ABOUT US
The business scope includes licensed projects: food additive production. General projects: sales of food additives; manufacturing of daily chemical products; sales of daily chemical products; technical services, technology development, technical consultation, technology exchange, technology transfer, and technology promotion; biological feed research and development; industrial enzyme preparation research and development; cosmetics wholesale; domestic trading agency; sales of sanitary products and disposable medical supplies; retail of kitchenware, sanitary ware and daily sundries; sales of daily necessities; food sales (only sales of pre-packaged food).
