NAAS Score 2019

                   5.36

Declaration Format

Please download DeclarationForm and submit along with manuscript.

UserOnline

Free counters!

Previous Next

Studies on the Incidence of Adulterants, Preservatives and Synthetic Milk Constituents Sold in and around Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

K. S. S. Sudharshan E. Praveen Kumar Yadav N. Krishnaiah Sujatha Singh P. Anusha B. Indu Reddy
Vol 9(6), 174-183
DOI- http://dx.doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20190320050826

Adulteration of food is the process of addition or removal of substances to or from food either intentionally or naturally due to carelessness or lack of infrastructure. Study was undertaken on the incidence of adulterants, preservatives and synthetic milk in the milk samples from cooperative sectors, organized private dairies and milk vendors in and around Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). The incidence of water, sugar, starch, gelatin and skim milk powder was 3.33%, 0%, 0%, 0% and 23.33% respectively in milk samples from cooperative sectors, 13.33%, 3.33%, 3.33%, 0% and 30% in samples from organized private dairies where as in milk samples from milk vendors was 90%, 46.67%, 73.33%, 6.67% and 73.33% respectively. The incidence of neutralizers, boric acid, formalin, H2O2 and salicylic acid was 1%, 0%, 0%, 0% and 0% respectively in milk samples from cooperative sectors, 2%, 2%, 1%, 0% and 0% in samples from organized private dairies where as in milk samples from milk vendors was 14% ,1% ,2% ,0% and 1% respectively. The incidence of urea, ammonium sulfate, soap and detergent was 0%, 0%, 0% and 0% respectively in milk samples from cooperative sectors, 2%, 2%, 0% and 0% in samples from organized private dairies where as in milk samples from milk vendors it was 11%, 6%, 5% and 1% respectively. The incidence of adulterants, preservatives and synthetic milk constituents were high in milk from milk vendors followed by organized private dairies and least in cooperative sectors.


Keywords : Adulterants Cooperative Sectors Milk Vendors Organized Private Dairies Preservatives Synthetic Milk

Milk is an ideal and wholesome food containing almost all nutrients, vitamins and minerals in sufficient amounts. It is an ideal food for all age groups i.e. infants, growing people, adults, adolescents, patients, etc., (Neumann et al., 2002). Milk is not only nutritious for human beings but also serves as a good medium for growth of both spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms. India ranks first in the world in milk production producing 165.4 million tons accounting for 19% of the total milk production in the world, but our milk production and distribution system has not improved and only 10% of the milk is handled by organizing sector. As there is rapid growth of population, scattered colonization and urbanization, milk consumption is increased, but not the milk supply (Awan et al., 2014). Milk production is greatly reduced during summer months which provide temptation for its adulteration to increase its bulk (Kandpal et al., 2012).

Milk adulteration can be defined as any change caused in the natural level of milk ingredients. These changes may be brought about by addition of some foreign matter to milk or by removing some more valuable ingredients (example fat) out of it. Water is the most commonly used adulterant to increase volume of milk. To maintain viscosity and specific gravity of milk after addition of water, thickening agents like sugar, starch, floor, skim milk powder, whey powder or any other materials are added (Varley, 1969). Despite the laws governing the quality and sale of milk in India, the adulteration has not been checked completely (Nirwal et al., 2013). Synthetic milk is produced by blending urea, cooking oil, detergents, caustic soda and ammonium sulfate (Bansal and Bansal, 1997) and this milk is mixed with raw milk and sold as fresh. Detergents are added to emulsify and dissolve oil in water phase giving frothy appearance, characteristic white color, cooking oil is substitute of milk fat, starch is added to improve milk thickness, urea is added to increase SNF level and sugar and salts are added to get natural flavor.

Many people are still purchasing milk from milk vendors with the belief that the unpasteurized milk has more nutritive value and vendors maintain good personal relationship apart from paying cash in advance. A national survey in India has revealed that almost 70% of milk sold in India is adulterated and the major adulterant is water, which provides microbial load including pathogens to the milk. Systematic and scientific studies on the adulteration incidence in India are scanty. This proposed work was undertaken to know the incidence of adulteration of milk in and around Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC).

Materials and Methods                                                                      

Collection of Samples

30 each milk samples were collected from cooperative sector, organized dairies and private milk vendors in and around GHMC. Milk samples were packed in ice, transported to Veterinary Public Health department laboratory, College of Veterinary Science (CVSc), Rajendranagar and stored under refrigeration till analysis.

 

Analysis of Collected Milk Samples

The collected raw milk samples were analyzed for the presence of common adulterants, preservatives and constituents of synthetic milk. The tests were done using chemical methods.

Test for Presence of Added Water

This was checked using lactometer reading.

Test for Presence of Boric Acid

5ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a test tube and 1ml of concentrated HCl was added to it. The contents of the test tube were mixed well and drop of the mixed contents was put on a strip of turmeric paper. The presence of boric acid was indicated by the appearance of red or reddish tinge on turmeric strip, after allowing it to air dry.

Test for Presence of Neutralizers (Carbonates and Bicarbonates)

5ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a test tube and 5ml of 95% C2H5OH was added to it. The contents of the test tube were mixed well and 3 drops of 1% Rosalic acid was added to it and mixed. The presence of neutralizers was indicated by appearance of rose red color.

Test for Presence of Formalin

10ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a test tube and 0.5ml of 1% FeCl3 was added. From the wall of test tube, carefully, 5ml of concentrated H2SO4 ­was added so that the acid sinks to the bottom as a separate layer. The presence of formalin was indicated by formation of violet ring at the junction of two layers.

Test for Presence of H2O2

5ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a test tube and 2 to 3 drops of Para-phenylene diamine hydrochloride was added to it. Presence of H2O2 was indicated by development of blue color.

Test for Presence of Sugar

10ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a test tube and 1ml of concentrated HCl was added to it. The contents of the test tube were mixed and a pinch of resorcinol powder was added. Contents were mixed and the test tube was placed in a boiling water bath for 5 minutes. The presence of sugar was indicated by appearance of red color.

 

 

 

Test for Presence of Starch

5ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a test tube and boiled over flame and was cooled. 1ml of 1% Iodine solution was added to it. The presence of starch was indicated by appearance of blue or bluish violet color.

Test for Presence of Gelatin

10ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a conical flask. To it 10ml of acid Mercuric nitrate or 10% Acetic acid solution was added. The contents of the flask were diluted with 20ml distilled water and were well mixed. The contents were allowed to stand for 10 to 15 minutes without disturbing. The contents were filtered and the filtrate of 2 to 3 ml was collected. To it same amount of saturated picric acid solution was added.

Interpretation: yellow transparent solution indicates the absence of gelatin. Yellow solution with cloudiness indicates adulteration with gelatin. Yellow precipitate formation indicates high gelatin adulteration.

Test for Presence of Skim Milk Powder

5ml of milk into each of centrifuge tubes was taken, balanced and centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 30minutes. The supernatant was discarded. Residue was dissolved in 2.5ml of concentrated Nitric acid and was diluted with 5ml of distilled water. 2.5ml of liquid ammonia was added and changes were observed. Presence of skim milk powder was indicated by development of orange color.

Test for Presence of Urea

Urea is generally added to raise SNF (Solids-not-fat) of synthetic milk. 5ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a test tube and 5ml of 16% para di methyl amino benzaldehyde was added to it. Presence of urea was indicated by turning of solution color into dark yellow.

Test for Presence of Ammonium sulfate

5ml of well mixed hot milk was taken in a test tube and few drops of concentrated HCl was added. Whey was separated from it and was filtered. Whey was collected into another test tube and 0.5ml of 5% BaCl2 ­was added to it. The presence of ammonium sulfate was indicated by the appearance of white precipitate.

Test for Presence of Soap

10ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a test tube and hot distilled water was added to it. To it 1 to 2 drops of phenolphthalein indicator was added. The presence of soap was indicated by the appearance of pink color.

 

Test for Presence of Detergent

5ml of well mixed raw milk sample was taken in a test tube and to it 0.1ml of Bromo cresol purple solution was added. The presence of detergent was indicated by appearance of violet color.

Results and Discussion

The incidence of various adulterants in the milk was presented in Table 1. The incidence of water adulteration in milk was 3.33% in cooperatives milk samples and highest (90%) was from milk vendors, whereas 13.33% from organized private dairies. The incidence of water adulteration in samples from cooperative sector in present study was less than incidence (27.9%) reported by Barham et al. (2014c).

Table 1: Incidence of different adulterants in milk samples (N = 30 samples)

S. No. Source Water Sugar Starch Gelatin Skim Milk Powder
1 Cooperatives 1(3.33%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 7(23.33%)
2 Organized Private Dairies 4(13.33%) 1(3.33%) 1(3.33%) 0(0%) 9(30%)
3 Milk Vendors 27(90%) 14(46.67%) 22(73.33%) 2(6.67%) 22(73.33%)

The incidence of water adulteration in present study was 90% from samples of milk vendors which was slightly higher than the incidence reported by Soomro (2014) in Pakistan (75%) where as 84.2% was reported by Hemanth Singuluri and Sukumaran MK (2014) in Hyderabad. 100% water adulteration in milk samples from traditional vendors in Telangana State was reported by Swathi and Naazia, (2015). Faraz et al. (2013) and Ahmad (2009) reported higher incidence of 97% and 95% water adulteration respectively. The incidence in samples from branded organized private dairies was 13.33%, which was less than incidence (47.06%) reported by Debnath et al. 2015. All the milk samples from cooperatives were negative for starch whereas only 3.33% from organized private dairies were positive. Debnath et al. (2015), from Kolkata, Bendale et al. (2015), from Thane city, Singuluri Sukumaran (2014) from Hyderabad and Swetha et al., Tirupati reported no incidence from branded organized dairy sector. Incidence of starch from milk vendors is 73.33%, which was well above the incidence of 60%, 29.03%, 18.33% reported by Swathi and Naazia, (2015); Debnath et al. (2015) and Barham et al. (2014b) respectively. Whereas, very low incidence of 12% and 8% were reported by Barham et al. (2014a) from Pakistan and Chanda et al. in (2013) Bangladesh and 8% by Ramya et al. (2015) Andhra Pradesh.

No sample from cooperatives was positive for sugar, where as 3.33% samples from organized private dairies were positive. No incidence of sugar adulteration observed by Nirwal et al., 2013, whereas 52.9% and 46.6% was reported by Debnath et al. (2015) and Geeta et al.(2015). The incidence of sugar adulteration from milk vendors was 46.67% in present study which was less than the incidence (97%) reported by Faraz et al. (2013) and higher than 40%, 31% and 22% reported by Ramya et al. (2015), Barham et al. (2014a) and Barham et al.(2014c) respectively. No sample from cooperatives and organized private sectors were positive for gelatin whereas only 6.67% of samples from milk vendors were positive in the present study.

Table 2: Incidence of different preservatives in milk samples (N = 30 samples)

S. No. Source Neutralizers Boric Acid Formalin H2O2 Salicylic Acid
1 Cooperatives 1(3.33%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
2 Organized Private Dairies 2(6.67%) 2(6.67%) 1(3.33%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
3 Milk Vendors 14(46.67%) 1(3.33%) 2(6.67%) 0(0%) 1(3.33%)

Table 3: Incidence of synthetic milk (N = 30 samples)

S. No. Source Urea Ammonium Sulfate Soap Detergent
1 Cooperatives 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
2 Organized Private Dairies 2(6.67%) 2(6.67%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
3 Milk Vendors 11(36.67%) 6(20%) 5(16.67%) 1(3.33%)

Skim milk was found in 23.33%, 30% and 73.33% of samples from cooperatives, organized private sectors and milk vendors respectively. Singh et al. (2015) reported a lower incidence of 10% in organized private dairy samples which was less than the incidence in present study (30%). The incidence (73.33%) of skim milk powder from milk vendors samples is higher than 67.7% samples reported by Debnath et al. (2015) where as 80% incidence was reported by Sukumaran and Singuluri (2014), Hyderabad and very low incidence (14%) was reported by Chanda et al. (2013) from Bangladesh. Neutralizers are generally used to decrease acidity passing it off as fresh milk (Faraz et al., 2013). The incidence (46.67%) of neutralizers in milk samples from milk vendors in present study was less than incidence 73.3% reported by Singh et al., (2015), from Delhi. The incidence (6.67%) from organized private dairies was less than incidence (36.3%) reported by Bendale et al. (2015) and almost similar reported by Swetha et al. (2014). Very low incidence (3.33%) in samples from cooperatives was noticed in present study.

Fig. 1: Incidence of adulterants in milk samples (N = 30 samples)

Fig. 2: Incidence of preservatives in milk samples (N = 30 samples)

Fig. 3: Incidence of synthetic milk (N = 30 samples)

The incidence (3.33%) of boric acid from milk vendors is almost similar to the incidence of 5% reported by Kamel (2000) from Egypt, where as 8% was reported by Barham et al. (2014b). Slightly higher incidence (6.67%) in samples from organized private dairies observed in present study, whereas no incidence was reported by Mabrook and Petty (2003) and Shaikh et al. (2013). No incidence of formalin in milk samples from cooperatives was observed in the present study. The incidence (6.67%) in samples from milk vendors was less than 75% and 65% reported by Shaikh et al. (2013), from milk samples collected from Hyderabad and outskirts of Hyderabad city respectively. The incidence 6.67% in samples from organized private dairy was more than incidence (2.2%) reported by Swetha et al. (2014) and less than incidence reported by Debnath et al. (2015). H2O2 was not detected in samples from all the three sources in the present study. Debnath et al. (2015) reported 29.41% incidence in branded organized private dairies, whereas very low incidence (3.3%) reported by Swetha et al. (2014). No incidence was reported by Indumathi and Obula Reddy (2015); Geeta et al. (2015) and Pandey (2015). Only 3.33% samples from milk vendors were positive for salicylic acid, whereas none of the samples from cooperatives and organized and private dairies were positive for salicylic acid. No incidence was reported by Kamel (2000); Lateef et al. (2009); Barham et al. (2014b) and Debnath et al. (2015), whereas only 4% incidence from milk vendors was reported by Barham et al. (2014a) almost similar to the present findings from milk vendors.

The milk samples from cooperative sector were negative for all ingredients i.e., urea, ammonium sulfate, soap and detergents. The incidence of urea in samples from milk vendors in the present study was 36.67% which was less than the incidence 100%, 100% and 60% reported by Kandpal et al. (2012); Pandey (2015) and Singuluri and Sukumaran (2014) respectively. The incidence of urea in samples from organized private dairies was 6.67% which was less than the incidence of 35%, 24% and 8% reported by Nirwal et al. (2013), Ramya et al. (2015) and Indumathi and Obula Reddy (2015) respectively, whereas no incidence was reported by Swathi and Naazia (2015) and Bendale et al. (2015). The incidence of 20% of Ammonium sulfate in samples from milk vendors was observed in present study which was less than incidence (96%) reported by Makadiya and Pandey (2015) from Gujarat, where as 13% and 8.3% from Pakistan was reported by Barham et al. (2014a&c). No incidence from cooperatives in the present study was similar to reports of Mabrook and Petty (2003) and Lateef et al. (2009), from Pakistan. An incidence of 6.67% in samples from organized private dairies in the present study was almost similar to the values of Barham et al. (2014b). Whereas, no incidence was reported by Faraz et al. (2013) from Pakistan. An incidence of 16.67% soap in the samples from milk vendors was observed in the present study which was lower than the incidence (63 to 83%) reported by Faraz et al. (2013), from Pakistan whereas no incidence was reported by Marbook and Petty (2003) and Lateef et al. (2009) from Pakistan. No incidence in samples from organized private dairies was found in the present study and similar results were reported by Awan et al. (2014) from Pakistan.

Only 3.33% samples from private vendors were positive for detergents which was less than incidence (24%) reported by Indumathi and Obula Reddy (2015), form AP, whereas 100% incidence was reported by Kandpal et al. (2012) from Dehradun. No incidence from samples from cooperatives and organized private dairies was observed in the present study which was similar to reports of Faraz et al. (2013) and Shaikh et al. (2013) from Pakistan.

Conclusion

The incidence of adulterants, preservatives and synthetic milk constituents was less in milk from cooperative sectors and highest in milk from milk vendors. So, it is advised to purchase milk from cooperative sectors and organized private dairies rather than from milk vendors. The milk from milk vendors has adulterants that can cause a negative impact on public health.

References

  1. Ahmad, A., 2009. Milk adulteration by adding water and starch at Khartoum State. J. Nutr., 8: 439-440.
  2. Bansal, P and Bansal, N. (1997). Synthetic milk: Genesis, Current status and Options. Current Science, 73(11):904-905.
  3. Barham, G. S., Khaskeli, M., Soomro, A.H. and Nizamani, Z. A. (2014a). Detection and extent of extraneous water and adulteration in milk consumed at Hyderabad, Pakistan. Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 2(2): 47-52.
  4. Barham, G. S., Khaskheli, M., Soomro, A.H. and Nizamani, Z. A. (2014b). Extent of extraneous water and detection of various adulterants in market milk at Mirpurkhas, Pakistan. International Organization of scientific Research, Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences., 7(3): 83-89.
  5. Barham, G.S., Khaskheli, M., Soomro, A.H. and Nizamani, Z. A. (2014c). Screening of adulterants and extent of added water in market milk at central zone of Sindh, Pakistan. IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, (IOSR-JESTFT) e-ISSN: 2319-2402, p-ISSN: 2319-2399, 8(7): 77-83.
  6. Bashir, S., Awan, M.S., Khan, S.A., Suthar, V., Khan, M.M. and Khan, M.T. (2014). Microbiological Quality Evaluation of Raw milk consumed in and around Rawalakot, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. J. Microbial Res. 5:112-116.
  7. Bendale, V.T., Patil, C. L., Chavan, R. P., Shinde, D. L., (2015). Analysis of milk quality & adulteration in milk samples collected from Thane. International Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences. 6 (4), 729-733.
  8. Chanda, T., Debnath, G.K., Hossain, M.E., Islam, M.A., Begum, M.K. (2013). Adulteration of raw milk in the rural areas of Barisal district of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science 41 (2): 112-115.
  9. Debnath, A., Banerjee, S., Rai, C., Roy, A., (2015). Qualitative detection of adulterants in milk samples from Kolkata and its suburban areas. International Journal of Research in Applied, natural and Social Sciences, (IMPACT: IJRANSS) ISSN (E): 2321-8851; ISSN (P): 2347-4580, 3(8): 81-88.
  10. Faraz, A., Lateef, M., Mustafa, M.I., Akhtar, P., Yaqoob, M., Rehman, S. (2013). Detection of adulteration, chemical composition and hygienic status of milk supplied to various canteens of educational institutes and public places in Faisalabad. Animal Plant Sci., 23 (1): 119-24.
  11. Geeta, W., Sai kiran, C. and Surjit, K. (2015). Detection of adulterants and mastitis in milk samples and major milk fatty acid composition estimation using gas chromatography. International Journal of Pharma Sciences and Scientific Research, 1(1): 7-12.
  12. Hemanth, S. and Sukumaran, M.K. (2014). Milk adulteration in Hyderabad, India-a comparative study on the levels of different adulterants present in milk. Journal of Chromatography & Separation Techniques 5 (1), 1.
  13. Indumathi, J and Obula Reddy, B. (2015). Quality evaluation of milk samples collected from different intermediaries at the vicinity of Chittoor district, Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Current Advanced Research, 4: 436-440.
  14. Kamel A.M. (2000). Studies on raw milk quality in Kafr El-Sheikh. M.Sc., Thesis, Fac. Vet. Med., Tanta Univ., Egypt.
  15. Kandpal, SD; Srivastava, AK and Negi, KS; (2012) “Estimation of quality of raw milk (open & branded) by milk adulteration testing kit”, Indian Journal of Community Health, 24 (3), 188-192.
  16. Lateef, M., A. Faraz, M.I. Mustafa, P. Akthar and M.K. Bashir, 2009. Detection of adulterants and chemical composition of milk supplied to canteens of various hospitals in Faisalabad city. J. Zool., 9: 139- 142.
  17. Mabrook, M. F. and Petty, M. C. (2003). A novel technique for the detection of added water to full fat milk using single frequency admittance measurements. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 96 (1-2), 215-218.
  18. Makadiya, J and Pandey, A. (2015) Quality assessment and detection of adulteration in buffalo milk collected from different areas of Gandhi Nagar by Physico -chemical method, International Journal of Pharm Tech and Research, CODEN(USA): IJPRIF,8(4): 602-607.
  19. Neumann, C. G., Harris, D. M. and Rogers, L. M. (2002). Contribution of Animal resources food in improving diet quality and function in children in the developing world, Res., 22: 193-220.
  20. Nirwal, S., Pant, R., and Rai, N. (2013). Analysis of milk quality, adulteration and mastitis in milk samples collected from different regions of Dehradun. International Journal of Pharm Tech Research. 5(2), 359-364.
  21. Ramya, P., Jagadeesh Babu, A., Tirupathi Reddy, E., Ravindra Reddy, Y. and Venkateswara Rao, L. (2015). Analysis of various physico chemical properties of raw buffalo milk samples marketed in and around Proddatur town, YSR Kadapa district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Livestock Science 7, 30-34.
  22. Shaikh, N., Soomro, A.H., Sheikh, S. A. and Khaskheli, Md. (2013) Extent of Water Adulteration and its Influence on Physical Characteristics of Market Milk. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition · February
  23. Singh, J., Roy, B., Dayal, G., Sunsunwal, S., Yadav, B., Bharadwaj, C. and Teotia, A. (2015) Detection of common adulterants in milk from Delhi and NCR, DU Journal of Undergraduate Research and Innovation., 1: 152-156.
  24. Soomro, A.A., Khaskheli, Md., Awais, Md., Memon., Shabir, G., Barham., IU Ha., Fazlani, S. N., IA Khan; Lochi, G. M., and Soomro, R. N.(2014) Study on adulteration and composition of milk sold at Badin. Intl J Res Appl Nat Social Sci. 2 (9), 57-70.
  25. Swathi, J.K. and Naazia, K. (2015) A study on adulteration of milk and milk products from local vendors, International Journal of Biomedical and Advance Research; 6 (09): 678 681.
  26. Swetha, C.S., Sukumar, B., Sudhanthiramani and Sudhanthirakodi (2014). The study on detection of adulteration in milk samples supplied by local vendors in Tirupati region, India. Shanlax International Journal of Veterinary Science, 2: 1-11.
  27. Varley, H. (1969), Practical Clinical Biochemistry, 4th edition, CBS Publishers, Delhi.
Abstract Read : 45 Downloads : 15
Previous Next

Similar Articles

Close