See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318732713

Quality Assessment of Sweetmeat (Rosogolla) Of Dhaka and Tangail Region of

Bangladesh

Article · July 2017

DOI: 10.9790/2402-1107010611

CITATIONS READS

0 357

7 authors, including:

Utpal Kumar Prodhan Md. Jahangir Alam

University of Auckland International Islamic University Chittagong
26 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Md. Harun-Ar Rashid Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman

Eurasia Food Precessing (BD) Ltd. Bangladesh Council of Scientific & Industrial Research
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   264 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PREVIEW View project

OptiMuM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Utpal Kumar Prodhan on 19 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology (IOSR-JESTFT)
e-ISSN: 2319-2402,p- ISSN: 2319-2399.Volume 11, Issue 7 Ver. I (July. 2017), PP 06-11
www.iosrjournals.org

Quality Assessment of Sweetmeat (Rosogolla) Of Dhaka and

Tangail Region of Bangladesh
U. K. Prodhan1, Md. Jahangir Alam1*, Abida Sultana1, Md. Harun-Ar Rashid1,
Tumpa Das1, Nargis Akter1, Mohammad Mahfuzur Rahman2
Department of Food Technology and Nutritional Science, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology
University, Tangail-1902, Bangladesh
Senior Scientific Officer, Food Safety lab, Institute of Food Science and Technology, Bangladesh Council
for Scientific and Industrial Research, Dhaka-1201

Abstract: An experimental study was design to assess the nutritional quality of the Rosogolla available in
Dhaka and Tangail region of Bangladesh. Sweetmeats were collected from a branded shop in Mirpur road and
non-branded Rosogolla in Dhaka city area and a branded shop in pachani bazar and non-branded Rosogolla
available at old bus-stand of Tangail district area. Quality of the Rosogolla was evaluated by chemical,
microbial and hazard analysis. It was found that quality differed according to the manufacturers of Rosogolla.
The chemical analysis score implies that moisture, fat, protein, total sugar and ash content varied significantly
(p<0.05) among four different types of Rosogolla. The mineral content i.e. Na, K, Mn, Fe, Zn and Ca in all
samples were statistically significant (p<0.05). The toxic heavy metals such as As, Cr, Hg and Pb were not
detected in all sample. It was found that the standard plate count in all sample were higher than the maximum
permissible level of Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institute (BSTI) standard except R2 sample. Total
coliform and total fungal count in all samples also found in unsatisfactory level. About 50% sample contained
Salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus which may be a hazard to consumer as they are pathogenic bacteria.
Keywords: Sweetmeat, proximate composition, safety, Pathogenic bacteria, Heavy metal.

I. Introduction
Sweetmeats are very popular food item in Bangladesh. The sweetmeat is very delicious, wholesome,
nutritious and famous food in Bangladesh [1, 2]. Different types of sweetmeats are available in Bangladesh,
such as Rosogolla, Ros Malai, Malai Chop and Shor Puria, Pora Bari Cham cham, Muktagachhar Monda,
Bogra Doi, Chhana Mukhi, Lal Mohan, Kalojam, Paera, Kacha Chhana, Buffalo curd, Jilepi, Sondesh,
Balushai, Laddu, Pitha, Rabri, Khirsha and many others. Tangail city is famous for sweetmeats. Sweetmeats are
the inseparable part of Bangladeshi cultural and religious festivals. Besides the festivals, the sweetmeats also
make a part of daily intake and rap round with entire life of Bangladeshi people. Sweetmeats are generally
prepared from cow’s milk, buffalo milk, and mixture of cow and buffalo milk. Chhana is the main ingredient of
most of the popular sweetmeats available in Bangladesh. Chhana is good source of milk protein, fat and
minerals. But these products are extremely vulnerable to contamination with spoilage and pathogenic organisms
if subjected to adverted and inadvertent abuse during their production and processing. More than 200 food-
borne illnesses are now recognized and most of them required specific laboratory diagnosis [3]. The toxicity
induced by excessive levels of some of the heavy metals i.e. Arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb) and
mercury (Hg), are well known [4]. The microbiological safety and quality of foods are directly related to
identify the number of microorganism present in the products such as bacteria, yeast, mold, pathogens (i.e.
salmonella, staphylococcus spp) and total coliforms. Among Coliforms, Escherichia coli have attracted much
attention recently as a potential pathogen since several strains of enteropathogenic E. coli have been isolated
from raw and pasteurized milk and milk products suspected to be associated with outbreak of gastroenteritis and
food poisoning in human being [5]. Considering the public health importance of sweetmeat consumers, it is
needless to say that the product should be prepared under strict hygienic condition. There are some specific
standards for the sweetmeat constituents prepared by the Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institute. Besides,
long storage, poor maintenance can lead to microbial contamination. Use of contaminated raw materials,
unhygienic equipments and contaminated water will increase the proneness of sweets to be hazardous. The
chhana based sweetmeats are generally prepared by adopting traditional methods. Although Bangladeshi people
consume huge amount of sweetmeats but scanty literature about sweetmeat is available. Thus the study work has
been undertaken with a view- to assess the nutritional and microbiological quality and identifying heavy metals
such as Pb, Cr, AS, and Hg in the sweetmeat and comparing with Bangladesh standard (BSTI standard).

DOI: 10.9790/2402-1107010611 www.iosrjournals.org 6 | Page

 Quality Assessment of Sweetmeat (Rosogolla) Of Dhaka and Tangail Region of Bangladesh

II. Materials And Methods

2.1 Sample collection
The sweetmeat selected for the study was Rosogolla available in Dhaka and Tangail regions of
Bangladesh. Sweetmeats were collected from a branded shop and a non-branded shop in Dhaka city and a
branded and non-branded shop in Tangail district area. Rosogolla sample collected from a branded shop in
Tangai city is designated as R1 sample whereas sample collected from a non branded sample in Tangail city is
R2 sample. On the other hand Rosogolla sample collected from a branded shop in Dhaka city leveled as R3 and
sample from non branded shop as R4.

2.2 Place of Experiment

The sample analyses were conducted in the laboratory of Food Technology and Nutritional Science
Department, Mawlana Bhashani Science and Technology University, Tangail and in the Institute of Food
Science and Technology (IFST), Bangladesh Council of Science and Industrial Research (BCSIR), Dhaka.

2.3 Sample preparation

After collection, the samples were kept in the refrigerator until further experimental work. Samples were slightly
prepared by mashing and subjected to chemical, microbial and hazard analysis.

2.4 Analysis of the samples

Proximate analysis (moisture, fat, protein, total sugar and ash) tests, microbiological (total viable
bacteria, total fungi, coliform, E. coli, Salmonella) analysis and analysis for minerals (Na, K, Ca, Zn, Fe, Mn)
and heavy metals (Cr, Pb, As, Hg) were conducted to monitor the quality of Rosogolla samples. Estimation of
moisture was done by oven drying method [6]. Estimation of ash, protein and fat was done by using dry ash,
Kjeldahl and Soxhlet apparatus methods respectively [6]. Total sugar content was determined by AOAC (2000)
official method [7]. Coliform was determined by MPN-confirmation test. Total faecal coliform E.coli was
determined by two successive tests, MPN-Presumptive Tests and MPN-Confirmed tests. For isolation of
salmonella, Lactose Broth (LB), Selenite Broth (SB), Bismuth Sulphite Agar (BSA) and Triple Sugar Iron Agar
(TSI) were used. Standard Plate Count (SPC) method was used for quantitative analysis of bacterial load. Potato
Dextrose Agar (PDA) medium was used to determine the total fungal count by spread plate method [8]. The
microbial counts were expressed as colony forming unit (cfu/g). Minerals were determined by Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS-700, SHIMADZU) after appropriate wet digestion of the samples. For
determination of chromium and lead Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer was used. HVG-1 Hydride Vapor
Generator and atomic absorption spectrophotometer were used for quantification of As. MVU-1A Mercury
Vaporizer Unit and atomic absorption spectrophotometer were used for quantification of Hg.

2.5 Statistical analysis

Data collected from different parameters were subjected to statistical analysis. One way Anova was
performed for identifying the significant (at 5% level or 1% level) level by Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS, 20).

III. Results And Discussion

3.1 Proximate composition of Rosogolla
3.1.1 Moisture content
There were significant differences (p<0.05) in the moisture content of Rosogolla collected from
different sources as shown in table-1. The moisture content of Rosogolla ranged from 31.88 to 47.13%. The
average moisture content in Sweetmeat (Rosogolla) samples R1, R2, R3 and R4 were 47.13, 34.63, 31.88 and
33.55% respectively. BSTI standard is maximum 55% moisture. Higher moisture content was noticed in sample
R1. The higher moisture content are related to good quality flavor and texture of Rosogolla. Tewari and
Sachdeva (1991) observed good flavor in the Rosogolla chhana containing 62.5-63.5% moisture [9]. Gupta et al.
(1993) and Ravichandra et al. (1997) reported that the overall textural quality of Rosogolla was significantly
correlated with its moisture content [10, 11].

3.1.2 Fat content

Fat content of Rosogolla samples is represented in Table 1. The fat content of Rosogolla ranged from
2.72% to 14.41%.The amount of mean fat content of R1, R2, R3 and R4 samples were 2.72, 14.41, 3.68 and
3.50% respectively. As BSTI standard, a minimum of 5% milk fat is specified. Only Rosogolla sample R 2
assured the requirement for milk fat. Such finding might be owing to use of low fat milk or skimming of fat
from whole milk before preparing chhana and Rosogolla. Bhattacharya and Raj (1980) reported that use of high

DOI: 10.9790/2402-1107010611 www.iosrjournals.org 7 | Page

 Quality Assessment of Sweetmeat (Rosogolla) Of Dhaka and Tangail Region of Bangladesh

fat milk leads to Rosogolla having higher fat content [12]; increased fat content in product tends to soften the
body and improve the texture of resultant product.

Table 1: Proximate analysis of market Rosogolla collected from Dhaka and Tangail regions
BSTI Composition of Rosogolla samples Level of
Parameter
standard R1 R2 R3 R4 Significance
Moisture (%) 55 (max) 47.13±0.33 34.63±0.55 31.88±0.33 33.55±0.39 **
Fat (%) 5 (min) 2.72±0.10 14.41±6.43 3.68±0.12 3.50±0.05 NS
Protein (%) 5 (min) 3.91±0.12 5.06±0.07 5.13±0.06 4.85±0.09 **
Total Sugar (%) 50 (max) 50.74±0.49 48.00±0.21 49.36±0.23 49.33±0.21 **
Ash (%) 0.9 (max) 0.84±0.014 0.82±0.007 0.80±0.006 0.75±0.005 **
Data are expressed as mean±standard deviation, ** means significance level (p<0.01), * means significance level
(p<0.05), NS means Not-significant.

3.1.3 Protein content

Tables 1 represent the protein content of Rosogolla samples. The protein content of Rosogolla ranged
from 3.91 to 5.13%. The protein content was 3.91, 5.06, 5.13 and 4.85% for R1, R2, R3 and R4 respectively.
When comparing the four Rosogolla samples, the protein content was significantly (p<0.05) different. Although
R3 sample contained higher percentage of protein, R3 and R2 sample contained protein content which was well
above the minimum level prescribed by BSTI. The other two Rosogolla samples (R1 and R4) contained protein
content which was low as BSTI standard permitted. Higher protein content increases the firmness and
sponginess of Rosogolla. A protein content of 6.62% has been reported in spongy Rosogolla [13].

3.1.4 Total sugar content

Total sugar content of Rosogolla samples is presented in Table 1. Total sugar content ranged from
48.00 to 50.74%; the total sugar content was 50.74, 48.00, and 49.36 and 49.33% respectively for samples R 1,
R2, R3 and R4. The difference in the total sugar content between Rosogolla samples was found to be statistically
significant (p<0.05). Market sample of Rosogolla may have adulteration by using high intense sweetener such
as saccharine, aspartame, acesulfame-K etc but it was observed that desired level of total sugar was kept in
Rosogolla samples. As per BSTI specification, a maximum total sugar content of 50.0% is permitted in
Rosogolla.

3.1.5 Ash content

There were significant differences (p<0.05) in the ash content of Rosogolla collected from different
sources as represented in Table 1. The ash content was 0.84, 0.82, 0.80 and 0.75% for Rosogolla samples R1, R2,
R3 and R4 respectively. BSTI standard is maximum 0.9% ash content. Katra and Bhargave (1990) reported that
higher ash and total carbohydrate in Rosogolla decreased its sponginess [14]. All the Rosogolla samples had ash
content that complied with the BSTI standard; however, R1 sample had higher level of ash as compared to
others.

3.2 Microbial quality of Rosogolla

3.2.1 Standard plate count
The Standard plate count (SPC) of Rosogolla samples are shown in Table 3.The SPC ranged from 3.89
×102 to 4.6×107cfu/g. The SPC for samples R1, R2, R3 and R4 were 4.6×107, 3.89 ×102, 1.5 ×103 and 2.49×107
cfu/g respectively. The BSTI standard specifies a maximum limit of 500 cfu/g in sweetmeat. The SPC of R 1 and
R4 samples were out of BSTI standard hence were considered unsatisfactory for consumption. SPC of R 2 sample
conformed to the BSTI standard.

3.2.2 Total coliform count

The coliform count in Rosogolla samples are depicted in Table 3.Total coliform ranged from 0.25×102,
to 2.5×102, MPN/g. Total coliform found in samples R 1, R2, R3 and R4 were 2.50×102, 2.32×102, 0.25×102 and
2.50×102 MPN/g respectively. BSTI standard dictates absence of coliform in sweetmeat. Among coliforms, E.
coli has attracted much attention as a potential pathogen since several strains of enteropathogenic E.coli have
been isolated from milk products suspected to be associated with outbreak of gastroenteritis and food poisoning
in human being [5]. E. coli frequently contaminates food and it is an indicator of fecal contamination [16, 17].
Presence of E. coli in milk products indicates the presence of enteropathogenic microorganisms, which
constitute a public health hazard. Enteropathogenic E. coli can cause severe diarrhea and vomiting in infants,
and young children [18].

DOI: 10.9790/2402-1107010611 www.iosrjournals.org 8 | Page

 Quality Assessment of Sweetmeat (Rosogolla) Of Dhaka and Tangail Region of Bangladesh

Table 3: Microbial quality of Rosogolla collected from Dhaka and Tangail region.
Microbial count for Rosogolla samples
BSTI
Microbial Test Level of
standard R1 R2 R3 R4
Significance
Standard plate count 500 cfu/g 4.65×107 3.89 ×102 2.49×107
1.5 ×103 ±35.36 **
(cfu/g) (Max) ±4.95x106 ±15.56 ± 0.2x105
Total coliforms 2.50 ×102 2.32 ×102 0.25 ×10 2
2.5 ×102
Nil (per g) **
(MPN/g) ±14.14 ±10.61 ±1.41 ±10.61
Yeast and mold 10 cfu/g 3.4 ×103 0.10 ×102 3.8 ×103 1.61 ×102
**
count (cfu/g) (Max) ±141.42 ±1.41 ±106.07 ±5.66
Salmonella Nil (per 25
Present Present Absent Absent NS
(cfu/25g) g)
Staphylococcus
Nil (per g) Absent Absent Present Present NS
aureus (cfu/g)
Data are expressed as mean±standard deviation, ** means significance level (p<0.01), * means significance level
(p<0.05), NS means Not Significant.

3.2.3 Yeast and Mold count

The yeast and mold (Y&M) count of Rosogolla samples are shown in Table-3. The Y&M count ranged
from 0.10×102 to 3.8×103 cfu/g. The Y&M count of samples R1, R2, R3 and R4 were 3.4×103, 0.10×102, 3.8×103
and 1.61×102 cfu/g respectively. BSTI standard specified maximum of 10 cfu/g in sweetmeat. The Y&M count
of R1, R3and R4 samples were higher than BSTI limit. Only sample R2 could meet the BSTI standard for Y&M
count. Indigenous sweet based product like Gulabjamun, Rosogolla are highly susceptible to variety of
microorganism because of high nutritive value and complex chemical composition [19]. Kamat and Sulebele
(1974) studied the microbiological quality of milk based sweets in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad
and observed that 90% of peda, 75% of kalakand and 100% of Rosagollas were contaminated with yeast and
molds [20].

3.2.4 Salmonella
The analysis for Salmonella in Rosogolla samples are shown in Table 3. Salmonella was found in R1
and R2samples, while it was absent in 25 g of samples R3 and R4. BSTI standard demands absence of
Salmonella in sweetmeat per g sample. Presence of such pathogenic bacteria can be a causative factor for
disease like salmonellosis [21].

3.2.5 Staphylococcus aureus

The result of analysis for Staphylococcus aureus in Rosogolla samples is depicted in Table 3.
Staphylococcus aureus was detected in samples R3 and R4, while it was absent in 1 g samples R1 and R2. BSTI
standard specified absence of Staphylococcus aureus in per gram of sweetmeat sample. Enterotoxins produced
by Staphylococcus aureus is harmful (i.e. causes food poisoning) to human health. About 50% of such
organisms are able to produce enterotoxins [22]. Staphylococcus aureus had been isolated from Khoa samples
[23, 24]. Illness through S. aureus range from minor skin infection such as pimples, boils, cellulites, toxic shock
syndrome, impetigo, and abscesses to life threatening disease such as pneumonia, meningitis, endocarditis, and
septicemia [23, 19].

3.3 Hazard analysis of Rosogolla Sample

3.3.1 Minerals
The mineral content of Rosogolla samples are depicted in table 2. The sodium content of Rosogolla
ranged from 37.46 to 49.64 mg per 100 g product. The Na content of samples R1, R2, R3 and R4 were 42.15,
44.11, 49.64 and 37.46 mg/100 g product respectively. Highest percentage of Na was noted in sample R3. The
amount of potassium in samples R1, R2, R3 and R4 were 25.21, 12.20, 15.22 and 17.30 mg/100 g product
respectively. There was a large variation with regard to K content in Rosogolla samples; the highest and least
content of K was found in R1 and R2 sample respectively. Manganese ranged from 0.06 to 0.13 mg/100 g
product. The Mn content in samples R1, R2, R3 and R4 were 0.13, 0.12, 0.07 and 0.06 mg/100 g of product
respectively. The Fe content of samples R1, R2, R3 and R4 were 5.59, 4.46, 6.22 and 4.80 mg/100 g of product
respectively. Highest content of Fe was associated with sample R3. Zinc ranged from 1.19 to 1.63 mg/100 g of
product. The Ca content of samples R1, R2, R3 and R4 were 62.48, 67.14, 56.22 and 45.10 mg/100 g of product
respectively. The Rosogolla is therefore a nutritious food being rich in mineral content. A sweet products
supplies the most essential elements like proteins, vitamin-B, calcium and phosphorus along with numerous
other essential major and minor substances [15]. It was found that almost all of the Rosogolla samples showed
satisfactory level of mineral content.

DOI: 10.9790/2402-1107010611 www.iosrjournals.org 9 | Page

 Quality Assessment of Sweetmeat (Rosogolla) Of Dhaka and Tangail Region of Bangladesh

Table 2: Comparison of minerals and heavy metal content of Rosogolla collected from Dhaka and Tangail
region.
Mineral and heavy metal content of Rosogolla Level of
Parameters
R1 R2 R3 R4 Significance
Na (mg/100g) 42.15±0.33 44.11±4.22 49.64±2.62 37.46±1.88 *
K (mg/100g) 25.21±0.20 12.20±1.17 15.22±0.81 17.30±0.83 **
Mn (mg/100g) 0.13±0.010 0.12±0.012 0.07±0.004 0.06±0.003 **
Minerals
Fe (mg/100g) 5.59±0.04 4.46±0.42 6.22±0.17 4.80±0.23 **
Zn (mg/100g) 1.25±0.03 1.21±0.11 1.19±0.06 1.63±0.08 **
Ca (mg/100g) 62.48±0.49 67.14±6.42 56.22±2.98 45.10±2.19 **
Heavy metals As, Cr, Hg, Pb Not Detected Not Detected Not Detected Not Detected **
Data are expressed as mean±standard deviation, ** means significance level (p<0.01), * means significance level
(p<0.05), NS=Non-significant.

3.3.2 Heavy metals

Table 2 shows the heavy metals contents of Rosogolla samples. Harmful Heavy metals like As, Cr, Hg
and Pb were not detected in the Rosogolla samples. This implies that contamination with heavy metals did not
take place during processing nor did it come through use of substandard quality raw materials. Milk and dairy
products have a greater chance to contaminate from environmental conditions, manufacturing process. The
toxicity induced by excessive levels of some of these elements, such as Arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), lead (Pb)
and mercury (Hg), are well known [4].

IV. Conclusion
The assessment of nutritional quality of Rosogolla found in Dhaka and Tangail region revealed
compliance with the BSTI standard for such sweetmeat product. In comparison with BSTI standard moisture
and total sugar content in all samples was satisfactory level. The fat percentage in all samples also in acceptable
level except sample R1. About 50% sample contained protein that fulfill BSTI standard and the entire sample
contained ash content which did not fulfill BSTI standard. Toxic heavy metals such as Pd, Cr, As and Hg were
absent in the tested rosogolla sample. With regard to the microbial quality of market rosogolla, the high bacterial
count and presence of coliforms in large numbers points to the unhygienic practices during product manufacture
and handling. The presence of pathogenic bacteria i.e. salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus in 50% of the
market samples also poses a threat to the human health.

References
[1]. A.K.M. Mannan, M.S. Hossian, and M.N. Islam, Standard and Standardization of Sweetmeats. Standard of traditionally made
Chhana and Rosogolla, Bangladesh Agriculture University (BAU), Res. Prog. 8, 1994, 410-413.
[2]. M.Z. Islam, S.M.R. Rahman, M.M. Alam, M.Y. Ali, and A.K.M.A Manna, Manufacture of rosomalai and its quality attribute: An
indigenous milk sweetmeat of Bangladesh, Pakistan J. Nutr, 2, 2003, 300-304.
[3]. D.N, Prasad, Hygenic and safety aspects of dairy products, Indian Dairyman, 50, 1998, 12-18.
[4]. J.M. Llobet, A. Domingo, A. Bocio, A. Casas, and L. Muller, Human exposure to dioxins through the diet in Catalonia, Spain:
Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks, Chemosphere, 50. 2003, 1193–1200
[5]. R.S. Sing, and B. Ranganathan, Incidence and distribution of Escherichia coli in dairy products, Indian J. Dairy Sci, 31, 1978, 1-8
[6]. AOAC, Official methods of Analysis of AOAC, International, Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemist., 16,
1985, 15-46.
[7]. AOAC, Official methods of Analysis of AOAC, International, Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemist., 16,
2000, 15-46.
[8]. ICMSF, Microorganisms in food. Microbial ecology of food commodities, 6, 1988, 615-616
[9]. B.D. Tewari, and S. Sachdeva, Effect of processing variables on quality of spread prepared from chhana, Indian J. Dairy Science,
44, 1991, 375-379
[10]. S.K. Gupta, A.A. Patel, G. R. Patil, H. K. Desai, and B. C. Ghosh, Texture studies on selected Indian dairy products: composition,
texture relationships, Int. Dairy Fedn, 2, 1993, 176-182.
[11]. M.N. Ravichandra, H. N. Mishra, and H. Das, Optimization of process parameters for the production of rosogolla from cow milk, J.
Food Sci. &Technol (Mysore), 34.1997, 46-49
[12]. D.C. Bhattacharya, and D. Raj, Studies on the production of Rosogolla. Part-I: traditional method, Indian J. Dairy Sci, 33, 1980,
237-243
[13]. A. Sur, P. K Ghatak, and A. K. Bandhyopadhyay, A study on the quality of rosogolla made from buffalo milk, J. Dairying Foods &
Home Science, 19, 2000, 61-63
[14]. R.V. Katra, and V.N. Bharagava, Production of rosogolla from cow milk containing different levels of soy milk, Asian J. Dairy Res,
9, 1990, 175-180
[15]. N. Karthikeyan, and B. Dhanalakshmi, Hygienic quality of Indian sweet milk products from different sources, Bangladesh J. Micro,
27, 2010, 32-37
[16]. L.R. Diliello, Methods in Food and Dairy Microbiology. AVI Publishing Co. Inc., Westport, CT, USA, 1982, 39
[17]. A.H. Soomro, M.A. Arain, M. Khaskheli, and B. Bhutto, Isolation of Escherichia coli from raw milk and milkproducts in relation to
public health sold under market condition at Tandojam, Pak. J. Nutr., 1, 2002, 151–152.
[18]. N. Benkerroum, Y.E.I. Bouhal, A. Attar, and A. Marhaben, Occurrence of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli 0157:H7 in selected diary
and meat products marketed in the city of Rabat, Morocco. J. Food, 76, 2004, 1234–1237.

DOI: 10.9790/2402-1107010611 www.iosrjournals.org 10 | Page

 Quality Assessment of Sweetmeat (Rosogolla) Of Dhaka and Tangail Region of Bangladesh
[19]. A.H. Soomro, M.A. Arain, M. Khaskheli, B. Bhutto, and A. Q Memon, Isolation of Staphylococcus aureus from milk products sold
at sweet meat shops of Hyderabad, Online J. Biological Sci, 3, 2003, 91–94.
[20]. M.Y. Kamat, and G.A. Sulebele, Microbiological quality of pedha, J. Food. Sci.Technol, 111, 1974, 50-55
[21]. J. B. George, Basic Food Microbiology. Abridged Textbook Edition. AVI Publishing Company, INC. Westport, Connecticut, 1981
[22]. D. N. Payne, and J. M Wood, The incidence of enterotoxin production in strains of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from food, J.
Applied Bacterio, l 8, 1974, 319-325
[23]. T. Masud, H.I. Ather, C. M Azhar, and S. M. Amim, Microbiological studies on indigenous dahi with special reference to public
health, Aust. J. Dairy Technol, 8, 1988, 8–13
[24]. J. S. Grewal, and R. P Tiwari, Microbiological quality of rasmalai, J. Food Sci. &Technology, Mysore, 27,1990, 178-179

DOI: 10.9790/2402-1107010611 www.iosrjournals.org 11 | Page

View publication stats