Close
DIY

Raindrop Cake, Not a Cake?

November 9, 2018

Have you ever wondered what a raindrop would taste like if it was transformed into cake form? Look no further! Raindrop cake, albeit very different from your typical, traditional cake, will let you have a truly magical experience.

IMG_1885                                                         My first attempt!

Screen Shot 2018-11-01 at 8.50.37 PM

My second attempt!

I’ve always loved scrolling through food reviews and videos. One trend that emerged in recent years caught my eye. It was a clear, beautiful jelly bubble resembling a raindrop. It seemed so unique that I set out on a journey to try creating it myself, and it was definitely not an easy task. Being able to set the cake while trying to keep it light, soft, and bouncy and to where you’re able to feel like you’re eating a drop of water took many trials and errors. Keep reading to discover more about the secret ingredient and how you can make your own raindrop cake!

Raindrop cake, also known as Mizu Shingen Mochi, was first created by the Kinseiken Seika Company in Japan, using two main ingredients: fresh, mineral water from the Japanese Alps and agar. This light, refreshing delicacy resembles a jiggly, blob of jello, but will melt in your mouth and fill it with a hint of sweetness and nuttiness when paired with brown syrup and roasted soybean flour. But beware! If not eaten immediately, this dessert will dissolve and vanish within 30 minutes as recipe calls for the minimal amount of agar.

The key ingredient that solidifies water into a raindrop cake is a polysaccharide known as agar-agar. Agar is made from seaweed or red algae, Gelidium amansii. It was first introduced in Japan over 350 years ago, in 1658, and is still commonly used to this day due to the hydrocolloid properties and agarose composition that allow it to form gel-like substances using hydrogen bonding in the presence of water. Agar is also unique in that its thickening properties are reversible; disintegration occurs when temperatures are varied.

IMG_1883The structure of agar.

Due to agar’s gelling ability and the ease at which substances can be gelled, melted, and reformed, agar has numerous uses. One of the most common applications of agar can be found in the food industry. Agar is used in canning foods and is also tasteless, making it a perfect addition to foods and desserts that need thickening such as ice cream, icings, puddings, cookies, jelly, and pie fillings. It can also be found as an agar jelly or as a crystal boba topping in many bubble tea drinks. It has also been used as a laxative and in diets due to its ability to stimulate fullness using low calories.

bubbleAgar jelly used as a topping for bubble tea.
This was the first time I’ve ever had agar jelly, and I haven’t looked back since! Yum!

Application in biology labs as a medium to breed insects like silkworms and fruit flies or to culture bacteria and yeasts is also common.

IMG_1118     Here an agar plate was used to culture Serratia marcescens, a Gram-negative bacteria. 

Agar is a valuable ingredient for many reasons such as being extremely low in calories and containing fiber. Agar also does not require sugar to solidify, which is highly beneficial in food preparation for diabetics. It is also known as a vegan and vegetarian gelatin substitute, and best of all, it is an environmentally friendly product.

Here’s how you can make your own raindrop cake that has swept the internet in recent years!

Ingredients

DSC_0452

  • 1 cup of mineral water
  • 1/4 tsp agar-agar
  • 3 tsp of granulated sugar (optional)

Optional toppings

  • 1 tbsp roasted soybean flour
  • brown sugar syrup (1 cup of brown sugar + 1/2 cup of water)
  • flowers, petals, fruits

flowers

  1. Dissolve agar and water in a small pot.
  2. Allow mixture to come to a boil over medium-high heat. Continue boiling over a medium heat for 1-2 minutes.
  3. Pour mixture into any round-bottom mold. (Optional: Add light fruit/flower toppings to the mixture.)
  4. Let mixture cool and place in the fridge overnight or until it sets.
  5. To make syrup, dissolve the brown sugar in water over medium-high heat until mixture boils. Maintain a rolling boil for 1 minute.
  6. Remove mixture and let cool. Serve with raindrop cake along with optional soybean flour. *Consume your raindrop cake upon taking it out the fridge. May melt if left out for over 20-30 minutes.

References

Giant Raindrop Cake Recipe by Tasty. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://tasty.co/recipe/giant-raindrop-cake

K. (2018, September 15). Raindrop Cake. Retrieved from https://kirbiecravings.com/raindrop-cake/

Maitland, H. (2017, August 02). Everything You Need To Know About Raindrop Cakes. Retrieved from https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/everything-you-need-to-know-about-raindrop-cake

National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Database; CID=71571511, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/71571511 (accessed Sept. 28, 2018).

Phillips, G.O. Williams, P.A.. (2009). Handbook of Hydrocolloids (2nd Edition).Woodhead Publishing. Retrieved from
https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpHHE00002/handbook-hydrocolloids/handbook-hydrocolloids

 

Tags:
0Likes
Anna Ho
About Author

Anna is a pre-medicine Neuroscience undergraduate at Georgia Tech. In her free time, she enjoys watching anime, drinking bubble tea, and spending time on her piano. She is also obsessed with cats.

You May Also Like

DIY
Pick a Door, Any Door
DIY, today i learned (til)
How to Publish a HTML and JavaScript Game on GitHub
DIY
Get Ready for Earth Day!
DIY
Microbes You Can Eat Vol. 1: Kombucha and Jun Tea

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.