Volume 11, Issue 3 (September 2024)
J. Food Qual. Hazards Control 2024, 11(3): 214-222 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: Not applicable
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sultana S, Hosen A, Afsana A, Sultana S, Pehan E, Islam A, et al . Physio-chemical and Microbiological Quality Assessment and Detection of Adulterants in Different Sources of Milk in Bangladesh. J. Food Qual. Hazards Control 2024; 11 (3) :214-222
URL: http://jfqhc.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-1205-en.html
URL: http://jfqhc.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-1205-en.html
S. Sultana 
, A. Hosen , A.S. Afsana , S. Sultana , E.A. Pehan , A. Islam , N. Sultana , M.R. Hassan *
, A. Hosen , A.S. Afsana , S. Sultana , E.A. Pehan , A. Islam , N. Sultana , M.R. Hassan *
Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute, Savar, Dhaka - 1341, Bangladesh , mdrakibulhassan@gmail.com
Abstract: (191 Views)
Background: The sources of milk play a significant role on overall milk quality. Therefore, the current study was intended to evaluate the quality (physiochemical, compositional, and microbiological) and detect the adulterants in milk.
Methods: A total of 200 milk samples were collected during mid of October to mid of December 2022 from four sources viz. Farmgate (50), Milkman (50), Bazar (50), and Branded packet milk (50). Milk samples were examined for various physiochemical, compositional, microbiological properties, and existence of adulterants. Data were analyzed by one way ANOVA and differences were determined by least significant difference test using RStudio.
Results: Physiochemical analysis found significant variation in titratable acidity, protein, fat, salt, Solids-Not-Fat, and Total-Solids content among the sources (p<0.05), while lactose content was found non-significant. The highest (0.17%) and the lowest (0.13%) values for acidity were found in samples obtained from Milkman and Branded packet milk, respectively. Milk sample collected from Farmgate was found significantly higher in protein, fat, lactose, Solids-Not-Fat, and Total-Solids content than the other sources. In microbiological analysis, significant lower Total Viable Count, Total Coliform Count, and Escherichia coli Count were observed in Branded packet milk compared to the milk from Farmgate, Milkman, and Bazar source (p<0.001). In adulteration examinations, only neutralizers (sodium carbonate and bicarbonate) and nitrates were found positive in milk sample collected from Milkman, Farmgate, and Bazar, and their frequency was varied significantly (p<0.001). Overall, the milk obtained from Farmgate was better in terms of nutrient composition and physiochemical properties than the other sources but in respect to microbiological quality, Branded packet milk was found more hygienic.
Conclusion: The study found that the variance in milk sources led to changes in the microbial load, physical appearance, and nutritional content of milk. The present study investigated that the addition of different adulterants and variation in time interval (milking to selling) are the main reasons for the deterioration of milk.
DOI: 10.18502/jfqhc.11.3.16593
Methods: A total of 200 milk samples were collected during mid of October to mid of December 2022 from four sources viz. Farmgate (50), Milkman (50), Bazar (50), and Branded packet milk (50). Milk samples were examined for various physiochemical, compositional, microbiological properties, and existence of adulterants. Data were analyzed by one way ANOVA and differences were determined by least significant difference test using RStudio.
Results: Physiochemical analysis found significant variation in titratable acidity, protein, fat, salt, Solids-Not-Fat, and Total-Solids content among the sources (p<0.05), while lactose content was found non-significant. The highest (0.17%) and the lowest (0.13%) values for acidity were found in samples obtained from Milkman and Branded packet milk, respectively. Milk sample collected from Farmgate was found significantly higher in protein, fat, lactose, Solids-Not-Fat, and Total-Solids content than the other sources. In microbiological analysis, significant lower Total Viable Count, Total Coliform Count, and Escherichia coli Count were observed in Branded packet milk compared to the milk from Farmgate, Milkman, and Bazar source (p<0.001). In adulteration examinations, only neutralizers (sodium carbonate and bicarbonate) and nitrates were found positive in milk sample collected from Milkman, Farmgate, and Bazar, and their frequency was varied significantly (p<0.001). Overall, the milk obtained from Farmgate was better in terms of nutrient composition and physiochemical properties than the other sources but in respect to microbiological quality, Branded packet milk was found more hygienic.
Conclusion: The study found that the variance in milk sources led to changes in the microbial load, physical appearance, and nutritional content of milk. The present study investigated that the addition of different adulterants and variation in time interval (milking to selling) are the main reasons for the deterioration of milk.
DOI: 10.18502/jfqhc.11.3.16593
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Special
Received: 24/03/14 | Accepted: 24/09/18 | Published: 24/09/30
Received: 24/03/14 | Accepted: 24/09/18 | Published: 24/09/30
References
1. Ara T., Uddin M.N., Bithi U.H., Mitra K. (2021). A study on nutritional assessment and adulteration of raw and pasteurized milk collected from local markets in Dhaka city. North American Academic Research (NAAR) Journal. 4: 100-111. [DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5387808]
2. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). (2005). Official methods of analysis. 18th edition. AOAC International, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. URL: Official-methods-of-analysis-of-AOAC-International/oclc/62751475.
3. Azad T., Ahmed S. (2016). Common milk adulteration and their detection techniques. International Journal of Food Contamination. 3: 22. [DOI: 10.1186/s40550-016-0045-3] [DOI:10.1186/s40550-016-0045-3]
4. Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution (BSTI). (2002). Bangladesh standard: specification for pasteurized milk. BDS 1702. Dhaka, Bangladesh. URL: http://bsti.portal.gov.bd/sites/ default/files/files/bsti.portal.gov.bd/notices/02f028d7_6fa9_49f1_a109_a20bd0ca678d/Draft%20Pasteurized%20milk.pdf
5. Bari L., Hoque M.R., Reza M.S.A., Hossain M.A., Islam A. (2015). Adulteration of raw milk in selected regions of Tangail district of Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources. 8:41-44. [DOI: 10.3329/jesnr.v8i1.24662] [DOI:10.3329/jesnr.v8i1.24662]
6. Batt C.A., Tortorello M.L. (2014). Encyclopedia of food microbiology. 2nd edition. Elsevier Academic Press, Oxford, UK.
7. Bintsis T., Angelidis A.S., Psoni L. (2008). Modern laboratory practices-Analysis of dairy products. In: Britz T.J., Robinson R.K. (Editor). Advanced dairy science and technology. Blackwell Publishing, Garsington Road, Oxford, UK. [DOI: 10.1002/9780470697634.ch6] [DOI:10.1002/9780470697634.ch6]
8. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). (2008). New coliform standard for milk sold raw to consumers. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento. URL: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/exec/Public_Affairs/ Press_Releases/Archive/pr.html?id=07-090.
9. Chanda T., Debnath G.K., Hossain M.E., Islam M.A., Begum M.K. (2012). Adulteration of raw milk in the rural areas of Barisal district of Bangladesh. 41: 112-115. [DOI: 10.5555/ 20133112029] [DOI:10.3329/bjas.v41i2.14126]
10. Corry J.E.L., Curtis G.D.W., Baird R.M. (2012). Handbook of culture media for food and water microbiology. 3rd edition. Royal Society of Chemistry, London, United Kingdom.
11. Ebner P.D., Ghoryar M.A., McNamara K., Amini R., Faqiri E., Azizi A.E., Isaqzai N.A., Rahimi Z., Sakhee N., Sarwary S., Sofizada M. (2016). Quality and safety assessment of raw bovine milk in Herat province, Afghanistan. Journal of Food Safety and Hygiene. 2: 15-20.
12. Eckles C.H., Combs W.B., Macy H. (1951). Milk and milk products, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, New York. pp: 49-67.
13. Foley R.C., Bath D.L., Dickinson F.N., Tucker H.A. (1972). Dairy cattle: principles, practices, problems, profits. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, USA.
14. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). (2022). Manual of methods of analysis of foods - dairy and dairy products. FDA Bhawan, Kotla Road, New Delhi-110002, India. URL: https://fssai.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/ files/Manual_Dairy_07_10_2022.pdf.
15. Fuquay J.W., Fox P.F., McSweeney P.L.H. (2011). Encyclopedia of dairy sciences. 2nd edition. Elsevier Science, Netherlands.
16. Guetouache M., Guessas B., Medjekal S. (2014). Composition and nutritional value of raw milk. Journal Issues in Biological Sciences and Pharmaceutical Research. 2: 115-122. [DOI: 10.15739/ibspr.005] [DOI:10.15739/ibspr.005]
17. Hasan M., Sarker T., Prabakusuma A.S., Islam S. (2017). Quality of raw milk available at different markets of Bangladesh. Biological Sciences. 1: 16-30. [DOI: 10.31058/j.bs.2017.11002] [DOI:10.31058/j.bs.2017.11002]
18. Hisham M.B., Hashim A.M., Hanafi N.M., Abdul Rahman N., Abdul Mutalib N.E., Tan C.K., Nazli M.H., Yusoff N.F.M. (2022). Bacterial communities associated with silage of different forage crops in Malaysian climate analysed using 16S amplicon metagenomics. Scientific Reports. 12: 7107. [DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-08819-4] [DOI:10.1038/s41598-022-08819-4] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Hossain T.J., Alam M.K., Sikdar D. (2011). Chemical and microbiological quality assessment of raw and processed liquid market milks of Bangladesh. Continental Journal of Food Science and Technology. 5: 6-17. [DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5568945]
20. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2017). Microbiology of the food chain-preparation of test samples, initial suspension and decimal dilutions for microbiological examination-part 1: general rules for the preparation of the initial suspension and decimal dilutions. 2nd edition. ISO 6887-1: URL: https://www.iso.org/standard/63335.html.
21. Islam A., Harun-Ur-Rashid , Ahmed S., Masum A.K.M. (2016). Quality evaluation of raw milk collected from local markets at Madhupur upazila of Tangail district. Fundamental and Applied Agriculture. 1: 70-74.
22. Islam R., Sarker T., Islam S., Prodhan A.S. (2019). Assessment of the quality and detection of adulteration of raw milk of local markets in Bangladesh. Discovery Agriculture. 5: 168-176.
23. Judkins H.F., Mack M.J. (1955). The Principle of Dairying. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
24. Kader A., Deb M., Aziz A., Sohag M.H., Rahman S.R. (2015). Evaluation of physico-chemical properties and microbiological quality of milk collected from different dairy farms in Sylhet, Bangladesh. Food Science and Technology. 3: 37-41. [DOI: 10.13189/fst.2015.030301] [DOI:10.13189/fst.2015.030301]
25. Kim H. (1983). Off-tastes in raw and reconstituted milk. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. pp: 1-39.
26. Kleyn D.H., Lynch J.M., Barbano D.M., Bloom M.J., Mitchell M.W. (2001). Determination of fat in raw and processed milks by the gerber method: collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International. 84: 1499-1508. [DOI: 10.1093/jaoac/84.5.1499] [DOI:10.1093/jaoac/84.5.1499] [PMID]
27. Kurwijila L.R. (2006). Hygienic milk handling, processing and marketing: reference guide for training and certification of small-scale milk traders in Eastern Africa. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya.
28. Marjan S., Kanta Das K., Kishore Munshi S., Noor R. (2014). Drug-resistant bacterial pathogens in milk and some milk products. Nutrition and Food Science. 44: 241-248. [DOI: 10.1108/NFS-05-2013-0061] [DOI:10.1108/NFS-05-2013-0061]
29. Moonajilin M.S., Islam M.S., Paul R. (2018). A study on milk adulteration of Savar Upazila in Bangladesh. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health. 5: 4670-4675. [DOI:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20184554] [DOI:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20184554]
30. Muhammad K., Altaf I., Hanif A., Anjum A.A., Tipu M.Y. (2009). Monitoring of hygienic status of raw milk marketed in Lahore city, Pakistan. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences. 19: 74-77.
31. Muntaha S.T., Iqbal R., Yasmin I., Tehseen S., Khaliq A., Chughtai M.F.J., Ahsan S., Khan W.A., Nadeem M., Hleba L., Rebezov M., Khayrullin M., et al. (2020). Safety assessment of milk and indigenous milk products from different areas of Faisalabad. Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences. 9: 1197-1203. [DOI: 10.15414/jmbfs.2020.9.6.1197-1203] [DOI:10.15414/jmbfs.2020.9.6.1197-1203]
32. Nayak N. (2017). Detection of different adulterant in different milk samples. Research and Reviews: Journal of Dairy Science and Technology. 6: 17-29.
33. Olson T.M. (1956). Elements of dairying. 6th edition. The Macmillan Company, New York, USA. pp: 230-233.
34. Pantoja J.C.F., Reinemann D.J., Ruegg P.L. (2009). Associations among milk quality indicators in raw bulk milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 92: 4978-4987. [DOI: 10.3168/jds.2009-2329] [DOI:10.3168/jds.2009-2329] [PMID]
35. Rahman A., Habib R., Ali Y., Islam M.A., Rashid H. (2017). Physico-chemical analysis and detection of adulteration in raw milk collected from Goalas of different places of sadar upazila in Mymensingh district. Research in Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. 4: 99-106. [DOI: 10.3329/ralf.v4i2.33721] [DOI:10.3329/ralf.v4i2.33721]
36. Rahman M.O., Hassan M.N., Siddiki M.S.R., Habib M.R., Rana M.S. (2016). Evaluation of morning and evening milk of Holstein Friesian crossbred cows collected from Bangladesh agricultural university dairy farm. Asian-Australasian Journal of Bioscience and Biotechnology. 1: 255-260. [DOI: 10.3329/aajbb.v1i2.61572] [DOI:10.3329/aajbb.v1i2.61572]
37. Reddy D.M., Venkatesh K., Reddy C.V.S. (2017). Adulteration of milk and its detection: a review. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 5: 613-617.
38. Sharma R., Rajput Y.S., Barui A.K. (2012). Detection of adulterants in milk: laboratory manual. Agricultural and Food Sciences.
39. Tesfay T., Kebede A., Seifu E. (2015). Physico chemical properties of cow milk produced and marketed in Dire Dawa town, Eastern Ethiopia. Food Science and Quality Management. 42: 56-61.
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
