National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS)
|
PRINT ISSN : 2319-7692
Online ISSN : 2319-7706 Issues : 12 per year Publisher : Excellent Publishers Email : editorijcmas@gmail.com / submit@ijcmas.com Editor-in-chief: Dr.M.Prakash Index Copernicus ICV 2018: 95.39 NAAS RATING 2020: 5.38 |
Nine types of packaging materials were tested on this study Included (I) Polyethylenetetraphthalate (PET) Bottle, (ii) Polypropylene (PP) Cup, (iii) polystyrene (PS) Cup, (iv) Low density polyethylene (LDPE) Bottle, (v) Light Proof Polyethyleneterephthalate(LPET) Bottle,(vi) High density Polyethylene(HDPE) Bottle, (vii) Aluminum Cans, (viii) Glass(Emerald Green) and (ix) Cartoon bottles (250 ml size) were dispensed in the aseptic condition with Pasteurized camel milk (80 ËšC,16s) for two seasons Summer and Winter and stored immediately inside the chiller at 5 ËšC for 30 days, The camel milk samples were examined for microbial quality, sensory evaluation, also food packaging materials were examined for overall migration test, approximate shelf life of the pasteurized camel milk at temperature 5 ËšC in all types of packaging materials in our study period 30 days, Sensory Evaluation results shown that there is significant differences within best packaging materials, so we can say best packaging materials not same in summer and winter. We see also the best packaging materials is not same in winter of all type of Sensory Evaluation with one ranking (PS, HDPE) respectively, but not difference in summer, so the best in winter is (PP - PS – PET) respectively, lastly the overall migration test analysis for the food packaging materials shown that there are no significant differences within packaging materials. So we can say responds in group equally at all packaging materials and all samples meets the specification limits as per Article 12, EU 10/2011.
Citations |
 |
 |
 |
 |
