Comparison of Chemical Composition and Microbial Profile of Raw and Pasteurized Milk of the Western Cape, South Africa

Zubeir, Ibtisam E. M. El; Gabriechise, Voughon; Johnson, Quincy

doi:10.3923/ijds.2008.137.143

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the shelf life of E. coli-contaminated samples was significantly different (P = 0.015). In South Africa, no significant difference was observed between the expiration date and TMC, coliform count, and E. coli; however, expira- -Zubeir et al, 2008).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Contamination by E. coli was detected in 9% (Vahedi et al, 2013), 18.05% (Azad and Asghari-Rad, 2014), and 39.5% (Shojaei and Yadollahi, 2008) of pasteurized milk samples in Sari (Iran), Urmia (Iran), and Shahrekord (Iran), respectively. Escherichia coli was isolated from 3.9% of samples analyzed in South Africa (El-Zubeir et al, 2008). In another study, 33.3% of grade A pasteurized milks had fecal coliform counts above the Brazilian standard limits (da Silva et al, 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Microbiological quality of pasteurized milk on expiration date in Tehran, Iran

Koushki

Koohy-Kamaly

Azizkhani

et al. 2016

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine the microbiological quality of pasteurized milk on expiration date in Tehran. Two hundred fifty-four samples collected using a simple randomized sampling method from March 2014 to January 2015 were tested for total microbial count, coliform count, and Escherichia coli contamination according to Iran's National Standards methods. Total microbial count, coliform count, and E. coli contamination exceeded the standard limits in 61.1% [>7.5 × 10(4) (4.88 log) cfu/mL], 24.4% [>10 (1 log) cfu/mL], and 8.7% of the samples, respectively. The mean total microbial count [7.1 × 10(7) (7.85 log) cfu/mL] was above the standard limit. Only 36.6% of the studied samples were in accordance with Iran's National Standard limits. Based on our results, it is necessary to improve the microbial quality of pasteurized milk in Iran.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Microbiological quality of pasteurized milk on expiration date in Tehran, Iran

Koushki

Koohy-Kamaly

Azizkhani

et al. 2016

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elsheikh et al (2015) reported the adulteration by water in some of the milk collected from Omdurman and Khartoum towns. Also the percentage of the added water was very high in the processed milk compared to the samples from herd raw bulk milk in South Africa (El Zubeir et al 2008). Also Tasci (2011) stated that addition of water and ice affected the physical and chemical quality of milk by adulterant proportion different constituents of milk in Western Cape, South Africa.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Chemical Composition and Screening of Aflatoxin M1 in Cows’ Milk in Gadarif Town, Sudan

Abdalmahmoud

Shuiep

Zubeir

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Milk is a perfect complete perishable food that could be adulterated or contaminated by wide varieties of substance throughout the chain of its production. Of these aflatoxins M1 was considered as an important health risk associated with the milk. The objectives of this study are to analyse milk samples, for chemical composition and detection of aflatoxin M1. Method: One hundred milk samples were collected from different sources randomly; 35 samples from farms, 35 samples from sale points and 30 samples from groceries in Gedarif town. Milk-Kana was used for determination of chemical composition (fat, solids not fat, lactose and protein and analysis of freezing point, density and added water) and Unisensor kits were used as screening method for detection of aflatoxin M1 in milk. Results: The chemical composition of milk samples collected from farms, sales points and groceries showed lower content of the fat (3.4±1.3%, 3.4±1.3% and 3.5±1.25%), solids not fat (7.7±1.1%, 8.1±1.7% and 8±1%), lactose (4.2±0.6%, 4.4±0.8% and 4.3±0.5%) and protein (3±0.4%, 3±0.5% and 3±0.4%). The freezing point of milk samples revealed -.503±.079, -.524±.007 and -.522±.099 °C, while the density showed 0.025±0.003, 0.026±0.005 and 0.026±0.003 gm/cm3, respectively. Moreover the added water was found as 10.6±11.6%, 10.6±10.4% and 8.7±8.2% in the samples collected from farms, sale points and groceries, respectively. The occurrence of aflatoxin M1 in raw milk samples were found in 22(27.50%) of the samples. The presence of aflatoxin contamination was high in milk samples collected from sales points (15.0%) followed by farms (11.25%) compared to those obtained from groceries (1.25%). Conclusion: The lower chemical composition of milk ns the high added water suggested adulteration of milk. Moreover the presences of aflatoxin M1 in the milk samples might indicate that the cow milk was contaminated with aflatoxins through feed. Hence this study recommended that good hygienic practices should be considered in Gadarif town. Similarly regulations and lows for selling the milk should be implemented by the official authorities.

show abstract

“…The reduction in lactose content in some milk factories in the Amhara region could be due to water adulteration practices. Water adulteration is also indicated by a lower concentration of lactose [ 36 ]. In contrast to milk fat and protein content, concentrations of lactose are relatively constant and are not subject to significant variation outside of lactational changes [ 35 , 37 , 38 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lactose was determined using Lactoscan. Ref [ 36 ] obtained 3.89% mean of lactose concentration in raw milk (n = 30) and HTST pasteurized milk (n = 30) collected from farmers supplying to milk factories and retailers with minimum (2.12%) and maximum (5.11%) values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%