Chlorophyll Liquid Drops
A real-world case on ingredient stability and production supervision
PRODUCT CASE
Leo Chan
1/8/20263 min read
Why did supervision not stop after production?
Even after producing this product twice, we did not consider the risk fully resolved.
For every batch, we required:
Independent third-party testing
For the second batch, we additionally:
Retained five sample bottles
Stored them under normal room-temperature conditions
Displayed them on an internal shelf for long-term observation
After half a year, we conducted third-party re-testing and visually evaluated color stability and concentration consistency.
Only after this process did we consider the formulation and production approach commercially acceptable
What this case demonstrates
This project highlights a common misunderstanding in supplement manufacturing:
Many problems cannot be solved by formulation alone.
Supplements for long-term growth require:
Ingredient-level control
Process-level supervision
Time-based verification
Most failures in chlorophyll liquid products do not occur during development — They appear after products enter distribution or sit on shelves.
Our role in this project
We did not decide:
Whether the brand should make this product
How it should be marketed
Our responsibility was to ensure:
The ingredient was real
The dosage was authentic
The process was controlled
The risks were understood before scale
That is what production oversight means in practice.
Why this product looks simple — and why it isn’t?
Chlorophyll liquid drops are often considered a “basic” supplement product.
A green liquid, mild positioning, and seemingly straightforward formulation.
In reality, this is one of the easiest products to get wrong — not because it cannot be manufactured, but because its core risks usually appear only after production and during shelf life.
This case explains what actually happened during the development and production of a chlorophyll liquid drop product — and why supervision mattered more than formulation alone.
Where the real problem started: ingredient stability
The key ingredient used in most chlorophyll liquid supplements is Sodium Copper Chlorophyllin, a semi-synthetic natural pigment.
Although it performs better than many natural colorants, it still carries the typical weaknesses of natural ingredients:
Sensitivity to light
Gradual color fading
Browning reactions over time
Even when filled into dark glass bottles, light-induced fading can still occur during shelf life.
This is not a defect of a specific supplier — it is a structural limitation of natural chlorophyll applications.
Supplier evaluation and a common industry shortcut
We tested raw materials from multiple suppliers, including top domestic manufacturers.
The results were consistent:
Even high-quality materials showed discoloration under light exposure tests
Improving stability requires functional modification of the ingredient
This significantly increases raw material cost
This is also where shortcuts commonly appear in the market.
Synthetic green dyes can cost only tens of RMB per kilogram, while high-purity (≈98%) sodium copper chlorophyllin can cost around RMB 1,000 per kilogram.
Visually, the color may look similar. But commercially, the difference is enormous.
How we controlled the key ingredient risk?
Because ingredient authenticity and performance defined the entire product, we treated chlorophyllin as a critical control point, not just another line item.
Our controls included:
Designated raw material suppliers
Purchase invoice verification
Ingredient traceability checks before production
This was not a branding decision. It was a risk management requirement.
The second challenge: liquid drop filling and sterilization
Liquid drop dosage forms introduce another layer of complexity.
Unlike capsules or tablets:
Fully automated filling is usually not available
Semi-automatic filling is required
Hygiene and environmental control become highly dependent on on-site execution. Packaging sterilization, filling-room standards, and operator discipline all directly affect product safety and consistency.
Factory selection based on reality, not paperwork
We conducted on-site evaluations of multiple factories in China.
Rather than selecting based on certificates alone, we focused on:
Actual hygiene control practices
Filling environment conditions
The balance between production cost and controllable risk
After comparing several options, we selected a factory that offered the most reliable real-world execution, not the lowest quote or the most polished presentation.
Is this product right for every brand?
This type of product may be suitable if:
You accept real ingredient costs
You value shelf-life stability over short-term margins
You want potential risks identified before scale
It may not be suitable if:
Lowest price is the primary decision factor
Ingredient authenticity is not a priority
Quality issues are expected to be addressed after launch
Final note
If you are considering a chlorophyll liquid or a similar natural-ingredient product, we offer a feasibility review to evaluate ingredient stability, production risks, and cost reality before manufacturing begins.