Extract Ratio vs Standardisation: What 10:1, 20:1 and 95% Actually Mean

An extract ratio (10:1, 20:1, 100:1) tells you how much raw plant went in — not how much active came out. A standardisation figure (e.g. 95% piperine, 65–70% tannic acid) tells you how much of the marker compound is guaranteed in the finished powder. They answer different questions, they are not interchangeable, and a high ratio is not evidence of a strong extract. If a supplier quotes only one of the two, you do not yet have a specification.

This is the single most common point of confusion in botanical ingredient procurement, and it is the one that costs buyers the most money. Two powders can both be honestly described as “20:1” and differ by an order of magnitude in the compound your formulation actually depends on. Below is how to read each number, when each one is the right number to ask for, and what to check on the Certificate of Analysis before you commit to a lot.

What an extract ratio actually means

An extract ratio — also written as a drug-to-extract ratio, or DER — is a mass balance. “20:1” means 20 kilograms of raw, dried plant material were processed to yield 1 kilogram of finished extract powder. That is the whole claim. It describes the concentration step, not the composition of what came out of it.

Three things follow from that, and they are worth stating plainly because so much marketing depends on buyers not noticing them.

First, the ratio is only as meaningful as the raw material behind it. If the incoming leaf is low in the compound you care about, concentrating it twenty-fold still gives you a low-potency extract. Ratio multiplies whatever was there; it cannot create what was not.

Second, ratio is sensitive to how “raw material” is defined. A ratio calculated on fresh weight and a ratio calculated on dried weight are not comparable — fresh plant material can be 80–90% water, so a fresh-weight basis inflates the number dramatically for no additional concentration. Reputable specifications state the ratio on dried raw material. If a quotation does not say, ask.

Third, the ratio says nothing about what was carried through the process and what was left behind. Different solvents, temperatures and drying steps pull different fractions out of the same leaf. Two 20:1 extracts made by different routes are simply different materials.

When a ratio is the right number to ask for

Ratio is the honest and appropriate specification when the plant has no single agreed marker compound, or when the value of the ingredient lies in its whole profile rather than one molecule. Culinary and colour extracts sit here — a pandan leaf extract, a roselle extract, a saffron extract are bought for the full sensory or pigment profile, and the ratio plus a sensory and colour specification describes them properly. Many traditional botanicals also sit here, either because the active fraction is a family of related compounds or because no validated assay method has been agreed for them.

In these cases, insisting on a standardisation percentage is not rigour — it is asking the supplier to invent a number. A ratio, a defined plant part, a defined process and a full analytical panel is the correct specification.

What standardisation actually means

A standardised extract is one where the manufacturer commits to a minimum (or a range) of a defined marker compound, verified by a validated analytical method on every lot. “Curcuminoids ≥95% by HPLC” is a standardisation. “Tannic acid 65–70%” is a standardisation. It is a guarantee about the contents of the bag, not about the process that filled it.

That is a much stronger commitment than a ratio, and it is what you want whenever your formulation, your label claim or your dosing depends on a specific compound arriving at a specific level. If your finished product’s label declares an amount of a named constituent, you need a standardised input — a ratio alone cannot support that declaration.

The two things buyers forget to ask about a standardisation figure

A percentage is only as good as the method that produced it, and the same extract can return meaningfully different numbers depending on how it was tested. Always ask which method the assay was run by — HPLC and UV-Vis spectrophotometry are both legitimate, but UV methods are more prone to over-reading because other compounds in the matrix can absorb at the same wavelength. A “95%” by an unstated method is not a specification.

Then ask what the figure is calculated on: as-is, or dry basis? A compound assay quoted on a dry basis on a powder carrying 8% moisture is roughly 8% more flattering than the same material quoted as-is. Both conventions are used, both are defensible, and the difference is real money at scale.

Why “20:1” and “95%” can both be true of the same bag — and why a higher ratio can mean a weaker extract

Here is the point most buyers miss. Ratio and standardisation can move in opposite directions.

Imagine two suppliers making an extract of the same botanical. Supplier A uses a selective process that pulls the target compound efficiently: they need only 10 kg of leaf to make 1 kg of powder assaying at 40% marker. Supplier B uses a cruder process that pulls a lot of inert plant matter along with the actives: they need 30 kg of leaf to make 1 kg of powder — which nonetheless assays at only 15% marker, because most of what they concentrated was not the compound you wanted.

Supplier B’s “30:1” looks three times more impressive on a spec sheet than Supplier A’s “10:1”. It is, in the only sense that matters to your formulation, less than half as strong. The higher ratio is a record of inefficiency, not of potency — and it is why ratio should never be used as a proxy for strength when a marker assay exists.

This is also why “ratio inflation” is the easiest number in the industry to game. Nothing in a 100:1 claim is independently checkable by a buyer. A marker assay on a Certificate of Analysis is.

How to read the two numbers together on a real specification

A complete botanical ingredient specification will normally carry both, and each is doing a job:

The ratio tells you what kind of material this is and how it was concentrated — it is the identity and process claim, and it lets you sanity-check the supplier’s story. The marker assay tells you what you are dosing and what you can build a formulation and a label around — it is the performance claim, and it is the one that must appear on the Certificate of Analysis for every lot you receive.

Beyond those two, the specification should define the plant part (root, leaf, fruit, stigma — potency varies enormously between them and a supplier switching part without telling you is a real risk), the extraction medium in general terms, the moisture, solubility, particle size and pH your process will care about, and the full contaminant panel: heavy metals, microbial limits, and pesticide residues where the destination market requires them.

A practical checklist before you place the order

Ask for the ratio and the basis it is calculated on (dried raw material, not fresh). Ask for the marker compound, the guaranteed level or range, and the analytical method — and require that the assay appears on the lot Certificate of Analysis, not just on the sales specification. Ask for the plant part, and hold the supplier to it. Ask whether the assay is stated as-is or on a dry basis. Ask for a recent CoA from a real, recently manufactured lot rather than a typical or representative document. And check that the contaminant panel matches the requirements of the market you are shipping into, not merely the market the extract was made in.

If a supplier can answer all of those in writing, the ratio and the percentage on their spec sheet are meaningful. If they can only quote you a big ratio and a round percentage with no method behind it, you are being sold a number, not an ingredient.

How Bionutricia specifies its extracts

Bionutricia Extract (Bionutricia Manufacturing Sdn Bhd) has manufactured standardised botanical extracts in Malaysia since 2006, under FSSC 22000, GMP, HACCP, JAKIM Halal, MeSTI and US FDA facility registration. Every lot ships with a Certificate of Analysis carrying the appearance, moisture, particle size, heavy metal and microbial results for that specific batch — and, where the botanical has an agreed marker, the assay for that marker.

Where a botanical genuinely has no validated marker, we say so and specify it on ratio, plant part, process and full analytical panel rather than inventing a percentage. Buyers who have been burned by an impressive number that no method stood behind tend to find that reassuring rather than disappointing.

We supply the bulk ingredient for B2B formulation; brand owners and manufacturers formulate it into their chosen finished format — capsules, tablets, gummies, sachets, beverages, bakery, dairy or confectionery.

Related guides

• How to read a botanical extract Certificate of Analysis (CoA): a formulator’s guide
• Spray dry vs freeze dry for botanical extracts: which process for which ingredient
• Botanical extract manufacturer in Malaysia: a B2B buyer’s guide

Frequently asked questions

Is a 100:1 extract stronger than a 10:1 extract?

Not necessarily, and often not. The ratio describes how much raw plant was concentrated, not how much active compound ended up in the powder. An efficient 10:1 process can produce a powder with a far higher marker assay than an inefficient 100:1 one. If a marker assay exists for that botanical, compare the assays — not the ratios.

Can an extract be both 20:1 and standardised to 95%?

Yes. The two numbers describe different things and can appear on the same specification: 20:1 is the concentration step, 95% is the guaranteed marker content of the finished powder verified by assay. A complete specification usually carries both.

What does “standardised” actually guarantee?

It guarantees that a defined marker compound is present at a stated minimum or within a stated range, verified by a named analytical method on each lot. It does not guarantee anything about the rest of the composition, which is why the ratio, plant part and process still matter.

Why do some extracts have no standardisation percentage at all?

Because for many botanicals there is no single agreed marker compound or no validated assay method for one. Colour, flavour and many traditional-use botanicals fall into this category. For these, ratio plus plant part, process and a full analytical panel is the correct and honest specification — a percentage would have to be invented.

What should I check on the CoA before accepting a lot?

That the CoA is for the lot you are actually receiving (not a “typical” document), that the marker assay is present with its method, that moisture, particle size and solubility match what your process needs, and that heavy metals, microbial limits and — where required — pesticide residues meet the rules of the market you are shipping into, not just the market of manufacture.

Talk to us about your specification

If you are comparing quotations and the numbers do not line up, send us the specifications. We will tell you what they are actually claiming. For bulk ingredient enquiries, request a quotation and a current lot Certificate of Analysis through bionutriciaextract.com.