Process optimization for the development of papaya · ~ 81 ~ The Pharma Innovation Journal widely cultivated and best-known species (Jean et al., 2001) [3].Scientific name of papaya

~ 80 ~

The Pharma Innovation Journal 2018; 7(4): 80-85

ISSN (E): 2277- 7695

ISSN (P): 2349-8242

NAAS Rating: 5.03

TPI 2018; 7(4): 80-85

© 2018 TPI

www.thepharmajournal.com

Received: 03-02-2018

Accepted: 05-03-2018

Ankit Kannaujiya

Centre of Food Science and

Technology, Institute of

Agricultural Sciences, Banaras

Hindu University, Varanasi,

Uttar Pradesh, India

DS Bunkar

Centre of Food Science and

Technology, Institute of

Agricultural Sciences, Banaras

Hindu University, Varanasi,

Uttar Pradesh, India

DC Rai

Department of Animal

Husbandry and Dairying,

Institute of Agricultural

Sciences, Banaras Hindu

University, Varanasi, Uttar

Pradesh, India

Uday Pratap Singh






Pradesh, India

Vikas Patel






Pradesh, India

Correspondence

Uday Pratap Singh






Pradesh, India

Process optimization for the development of papaya

candy and its shelf-life evaluation

Ankit Kannaujiya, DS Bunkar, DC Rai, Uday Pratap Singh and Vikas

Patel

Abstract Intensification of use of fruit such as papaya (Carica papaya L.) is expected to minimize losses and

support food diversification programme. The objective of this research was to optimize the ingredients

and process condition in papaya candy production. This research was divided into three steps namely

formula optimization using statistical design techniques, process optimization using response surface

methodology, and final product and microbial analysis. Papaya is of explicit quality with great

nutritional, medicinal, organoleptic, economic and traditional importance. It is available in plenty during

a particular season but all have not been utilized to desired extent. Beside available traditional food

products, it could be utilized in development of fast moving consumer food like RTS beverage. However,

Consumer trend towards papaya products emphasize the need of its value enhancement with fortification

of novel ingredients to promote it as a high valued product. The formula and process optimization was

based on sensory parameter using 9 point hedonic rating test involving a semi-trained panel consisting of

6 judges of different age groups having different eating habits were constituted to evaluate the quality.

The results showed that optimum formula was a formula with 92.919% papaya Pulp, 68.788% sugar, and

2.795% pectin. The pulp was manually pulped with help power mixer then cocked in open pan on 95 to

105 OC, 20 minutes. Analysis of papaya candy made with optimum formula and process showed that

papaya candy had hardness, gumminess, chewiness, resilience, moisture, sugar, ash, total phenolic

compound, DPPH (RSA), and Ascorbic Acid of 7.887gf, 1.867, 0.328, 0.089, 41.90 ± 0.2, 69.72 ± 0.39,

0.33 ± 0.01, 0.24 ± 0.01, 31.71 ± 0.2, and 30.56 ± 0.1, respectively.

Keywords: papaya candy, DPPH, sensory parameter, response surface methodolgy etc.

Introduction

The importance of a high fruit and vegetable intake as an essential part of a healthy life style

has received an increasing amount of attention during the last decade. The benefits of an

adequate intake of fruit and vegetables are observed in a wide range of epidemiological

studies. It is well known that an adequate intake of fruit and vegetables promotes health as it is

important in the prevention of non-communicable diseases like cardiovascular disease, obesity

and cancer, which today are large public health problems. The health promoting effect of fruit

and vegetables is related with their bioactive constituents, in particular phenolic compound.

These substances act through several mechanisms, such as reducing oxidative stress,

improving lipoprotein profile, lowering blood pressure and improving homeostasis regulation

thus contributing to healthy lifestyle (Scalbertat et al., 2005) [10]. Consumption of fruits and

vegetables has been promoted because of their vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and fiber

content. Several studies evaluated the impact of fruit and vegetables on human health,

concluding that consumption of fruits and vegetables promotes improvement in bowel

function, increased satiety, and reduced risk of stroke and certain cancers (Kelsay, 1978;

World Cancer Research Foundation, 1997; Rolls et al., 2004; He et al., 2006) [9, 2].

The World Health Organization (WHO, 2005) [11] attributed approximately (14%) of

gastrointestinal cancer deaths, (11%) of heart disease death, and (9%) stroke deaths to

insufficient consumption of fruit and vegetables. Papaya is considered one of the most

beneficial fruits as a good source of nutrients, fiber, and proteolytic enzymes. Its consumption

has been attributed to aid digestion. Previous researchers focused their study on papain activity

from the latex of the unripe fruit or other parts of the plant, and also in the quantification of

papain present in the pulp (Mezhlumyan et al., 2003; Tripathi et al., 2011) [6]. The papaya

(Carica papaya) tree is belonging to small family caricaceae having four genera in world. The

genus carica linn is represented by four species in India, of which Carica papaya linn. is most

~ 81 ~

The Pharma Innovation Journal

widely cultivated and best-known species (Jean et al., 2001) [3]. Scientific name of papaya is Carica papaya. It is

commonly known as Papaya Melon tree, Pawpaw or Papau,

Kapaya, Lapaya, Papyas, Papye, Tapayas, Fan mu gua

(Bhattachrjee, 2001) [1].

Papaya is of explicit quality with great nutritional, medicinal,

organoleptic, economic and traditional importance. It is

available in plenty during a particular season but all have not

been utilized to desired extent. Beside available traditional

food products, it could be utilized in development of Fast

Moving Consumer Good like RTS beverage. However,

Consumer trend towards papaya products emphasize the need

of its value enhancement with fortification of novel

ingredients to promote it as a high valued product. India is the

second largest producer of fruits and vegetables. However,

about 25 to 30% produce are wasted due to inadequate

facilities of processing, preservation, storage, handling and

transportation. The edible portion of papaya is composed

mostly of water (89.6%) and carbohydrate (9.5%) which

together makes up (99.10%) of the fruits. Also, papaya fruits

contain 6.5 to 13° Brix of Total soluble solids in the Pusa

varieties (Ram, 1982) [7] and 9.8° Brix in Loorg honey dew

(Singh and Sirohi, 1977). Preservation of papayas is a needed

field of study to add value, improve shelf life, and enhance

accessibility of the fruit. To maintain the health benefits of

this highly perishable fruit, it is important to develop

processing methods that have minimal impact on its

nutritional properties and flavor.

Several product based an papaya pomace have been

formulated and recorded in literature. In the current study

“Optimization of Process for Papaya Based Candy Using

Response Surface Methodology and Its Shelf-Life

Evaluation” was undertaken to utilize and nutrients of papaya

for long time.

Materials and Methods

The experimental work was performed in the research

laboratory of Centre of Food Science and Technology,

Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University,

Varanasi. In this section the details regarding to the materials

and method used for the study are described.

Table 1: Instruments used in manufacturing and analysis of cookies

Name Company, Model And Country

Electronic weighing balance Metller Toledo, JB I 603 - CIF act, Switzerland

Texture profile analyze TA.XT plus texture profile analyzer, Stable Micro Systems, UK

Vortex shaker Macro scientific norks Pvt. Ltd, Delhi

Hot air oven Perfit, 992110, India

Laminar air flow Labtech LCB l20lv, Daihan Pvt.Lmt, India

Centrifuge machine Sigma, 3-30K, Germany

High pressure steam sterilizer (Vertical Autoclave) Tomy, SX-500, Japan Pelican

Soxhlet apparatus SOCS PLUS, SCS-4, Chennai

Incubator Remi, India

Kel plus Apparatus PelicanKel plus,Chennai

Chemicals All chemicals used in this study were of analytical grade. The

chemicals were procured from HiMedia Laboratories Pvt.

Ltd., Mumbai, India; Fisher Scientific, Mumbai, India; Merck

Specialties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India.

Experimental set-up The equipment’s used were knife, electronic balance, soxhlet,

hot air oven, muffle furnace; Salient features of the major

equipment’s are described below.

Preparation of papaya based candy For manufacturing of papaya candy, one kg papaya was

peeled and pulp was dip in saline water (1%NaCl). The pulp

was Manually pulped with help power mixer then cocked in

open pan on 95 to 105 OC, 20 minutes and 560g sugar was

added then again cooked for (20 minute), pectin (24g) was

added along with citric acid (2.4g).This was cooked again for

(5-10 minute) then cooled. Ghee was used as lubricant for

making papaya candy.

The process of preparation of papaya candy is show in fig.1

and ingredients are show in Table 2

Table 2: Ingredients of papaya based Candy

Ingredients Amount 1kg

Papaya 1000g

Sugar 700g

Pectin 30g

Citric acid 3g

Procedure of Methodology

Fig 1: Flow chart of preparation of papaya based candy

~ 82 ~


Physico-chemical analysis of Papaya based candy

Proximate analysis consists of moisture content analysis using

oven evaporation method (AOAC, 1980), ash content analysis

using dry ashing method (AOAC, 2000), Ph, Ascorbic acid,

Antioxidant analysis, and Texture analyses (TA) - Hardness,

Cohesiveness, Gumminess, Chewiness, and Resilience etc.

Table 2: Texture Analysis setting for texture profile analysis of papaya candy

TA Settings Mode Measure force in compression

Option: Return To Start

Pre-Test Speed: 2 mm/s

Test Speed: 1 mm/s

Post-Test Speed: 5 mm/s

Distance: 10 mm

Trigger Force: Auto-25g

Tare Mode: Auto

Data Acquisition Rate: 200 pps

Accessory Backward Extrusion Ring Part Code A/BE

Batch No. 12172

Heavy duty Platform Part Code HDP/90

Batch No. 12053

Determination of sensory qualities and Microbial

population

Sensory quality attributes viz. colour and texture, flavour,

chewiness and overall acceptability of the samples were

evaluated using 9 point Hedonic rating test method as

recommended by Ranganna (2001) [8] and determined the

microbial population by Simple plate count, Coli form count,

and Yeast and mould count.

Results and Discussion

The present study was undertaken with the objective to

optimize the process for papaya candy. In the initial stages of

the study preliminary trial was conducted to screen the papaya

for the manufacture of papaya candy. Later, the levels of these

papaya, sugar and pectin were optimized using response

surface methodology (RSM), which evaluates individual and

interactive effects of the independent variables. Finally, the

product was assessed for its storage stability. The results

obtained on different aspects of this investigation are

presented from section and data have been illustrated in

Tables 3 – 5.

Optmizatton of product

Experiment Design

In this investigation, Central Composite Rotatable Design

(CCRD) was employed as it reduces the number of

experiments for studies including more than two independent

variables. In the present study, CCRD was used to design

experiment with three variables at five levels with six centre

points. The chosen variables for present research work

comprised, concentration of, Papaya pulp, sugar and pectin.

The Papaya pulp, sugar and pectin should be taken in the

range of 90 to 100%, 60 to 70%, and 1 to 3% respectively.

In the present study an attempt was made to understand

Interactive effect of chosen variables varying concentration of

ingredient on sensory and textural characteristics of final

product. Response surface methodology (RSM) which

involves design of experiments, selection of levels of

variables in experimental runs, shown in table 4.2, and 4.3,

respectively fitting mathematical models and finally selecting

variables levels by optimizing the response was employed in

the study (Khuri and Cornell, 1987) [5].

A second-order polynomial model was fitted to study between

the responses (Colour, Texture, Flavour, Over All

Acceptance, Hardness, Cohesiveness, Gumminess,

Chewiness, Resilience of the candy as product responses) and

three factors- A second order polynomial equation was

derived based on chosen quadratic model as followed:

𝒀 = 𝜷𝒐 + ∑ 𝜷𝒊𝑿𝒊

𝟒

𝒊=𝟏

+ ∑ 𝜷𝒊𝒊𝑿𝒊𝟐

𝟒

𝒊=𝟏

+ ∑.

𝟑

𝒊=𝟏

∑ 𝜷𝒊𝒋𝑿𝒊𝑿𝒋

𝟒

𝒋=𝒊𝑯

+ 𝜺

where, Y is the response variable 𝜷𝒐, 𝜷𝒊, 𝜷𝒊𝒊 & 𝜷𝒊𝒋are the

regression coefficient and Xi, Xj, & Xij are the independent

variables or is the quadratic Interactive effect of chosen

variables the factor, is the residual error. The error includes

experimental errors and lack of fit chosen for the model. The

quality of fit of chosen model was evaluated by coefficient of

determination (R2)

Table 3: Experimental runs and Actual values of factors used in Central Composite Rotatable Design

Run A: Pulp B:Sugar C:Pectin Colour Flavour OAA Hardness Gumminess Chewiness Resilience

gm. % gm.

1 90 86.82 2 7.3 7.7 7.5 8.132 2.001 0.301 0.025

2 90 70 2 7.6 7.9 8.2 7.763 2.041 0.301 0.056

3 100 80 1 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.928 2.049 0.351 0.053

4 90 70 2 7.3 8 8 7.763 2.005 0.331 0.075

5 100 60 3 8.9 8.4 8.5 8.554 1.001 0.303 0.113

6 90 70 2 7.6 8 7.9 7.763 2.045 0.331 0.087

7 73.18 70 2 7.2 7 6.9 7.521 2.391 0.301 0.078

8 80 80 1 7.3 7.9 8 7.827 2.398 0.376 0.076

9 90 70 0.32 7 7.3 7.5 8.448 1.801 0.301 0.081

10 90 53.18 2 7.1 8 8.1 7.287 2.089 0.302 0.074

11 106.82 70 2 8.8 7.9 7.8 8.012 2.022 0.352 0.079

12 90 70 2 7.6 7.9 8 8.114 2.308 0.302 0.087

~ 83 ~


13 100 60 1 8.4 8 8.1 7.763 2.281 0.312 0.069

14 100 80 3 8.2 7.7 7.9 7.201 1.047 0.381 0.073

15 80 80 3 8.1 7 8.2 6.912 2.001 0.462 0.077

16 90 70 2 7.6 8 7.8 7.763 2.108 0.362 0.089

17 80 60 1 8.3 7.8 8 7.421 2.371 0.205 0.071

18 90 70 2 7.6 8 8.1 7.763 2.271 0.302 0.068

19 80 60 3 7.7 8 7.9 7.014 2.307 0.307 0.062

20 90 70 3.68 8 8 8.1 8.011 2.308 0.312 0.098

Optimization of the process of papaya based candy

CCRD was used to optimize the final product using 3

variables viz., Papaya pulp (90 to 100%), sugar (60 to 70%),

and pectin (1 to 3%),. design-Expert version DX 8.0.7.1 trial

was used as optimization tool. In total, 20 formulations were

prepared using different levels of the variables. The responses

measured in the coarse cereals based bread were physico-

chemical and sensory characteristics. Design Expert 8.0.7.1

software was used to generate the design of the experiments,

to fit model by multiple regression, to analyze the response

surfaces and to find maximum point of this surface. All main

effects, linear, quadratic and interaction of effects were

calculated for each model. The effects of all the factors were

seen on the responses.

Interactive effect of chosen variables on colour The colour varied from 7.1 to 8.8 (Table 3). The minimum

colour was obtained for experiment no. 10 while the

maximum colour was observed in experiment no. 5. The level

of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin in experiment no. 10 was 90%,

53.18% and 2.0% respectively. The experiment no.5 had level

of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin as 100%, 60% and 3.0%,

respectively. The data fitted the following quadratic model.

Colour = +7.53+0.36*A-0.093*B+0.18*C-0.050* AB+0.050*AC

+0.13*BC+0.28*A2-6.172E-003*B2+0.10*C2

Fig 2: Response surface plot for colour as influenced by the level of

Papaya pulp, sugar and pectin

Interactive effect of chosen variables on Flavour

The Flavour varied from 7.0 to 8.4 (Table 3). The minimum

Flavour was obtained for experiment no. 7, &15.while the

maximum Flavour was observed in experiment no. 5. The

level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin in experiment no. 10 was

73.18%, 70% and 2.0% & 80, 80 & 3 respectively. The

experiment no.5 had level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin as

100%, 60% and 3.0%, respectively. The data fitted the

following quadratic model.

Flavour = +7.96+0.20*A-0.17*B+0.057*C-0.000*AB+0.13*AC-

0.20*BC-0.14*A2-2.430E-004*B2-0.071*C2

Fig 3: Response surface plot for flavour as influenced by the level of

Papaya pulp, sugar and pectin

Interactive effect of chosen variables on Over All

Acceptability (OAA)

The OAA varied from 6.9 to 8.5 (Table 3). The minimum

OAA was obtained for experiment no. 7, while the maximum

OAA was observed in experiment no. 5. The level of Papaya,

Sugar and Pectin in experiment no. 7 was 73.18%, 70% and 2

respectively. The experiment no.5 had level of Papaya, Sugar

and Pectin as 100%, 60% and 3.0%, respectively. The data

fitted the following quadratic model.

Over All Acceptance = +7.99+0.13*A-0.11*B+0.11*C-

0.14*AB+0.038*AC-0.012*BC-0.14*A2+0.021*B2+0.021*C2

Fig 4: Response surface plot for over all acceptance as influenced by

the level of Papaya pulp, sugar and pectin

Interactive effect of chosen variables on Hardness The Hardness varied from 6.91 to 8.5 (Table 3). The

minimum Hardness was obtained for experiment no. 15, while

Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualOAA

Design points above predicted valueDesign points below predicted value8.5

6.9

X1 = A: Papaya PulpX2 = B: Sugar

Actual FactorC: Pectin = 2

60

65

70

75

80

80

85

90

95

100

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

OA

A

A: Papaya Pulp (gm.)B: Sugar (%)

~ 84 ~


the maximum Hardness was observed in experiment no. 5.

The level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin in experiment no. 15

was 80%, 80% and 3 respectively. The experiment no. 5 had

level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin as 100%, 60% and 3.0%,

respectively. The data fitted the following quadratic model.

Hardness = +7.83+0.23*A+0.039*B-0.15*C-0.19*AB+0.17*AC-

0.25*BC-0.089*A2-0.11*B2+0.075*C2

Fig 5: Response surface plot for Hardness as influenced by the level

of Papaya pulp, sugar and pectin

Interactive effect of chosen variables on gumminess

The Gumminess varied from 1.00 to 2.39 (Table 3). The

minimum Gumminess was obtained for experiment no. 5,

while the maximum Gumminess was observed in experiment

no. 8. The level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin in experiment

no. 5 was 100%, 60% and 3.0%, respectively. The experiment

no. 8 had level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin as 80%, 80% and

1.0%, respectively. The data fitted the following quadratic

model.

Gumminess = +2.14-0.24*A-0.044*B-0.14*C+0.012*AB-0.23*AC-

6.875E-003*BC-8.689E-003*A2-0.064*B2-0.63*C2

Fig 6: Response surface plot for Gumminess as influenced by the

level of Papaya pulp, sugar and pectin

Interactive effect of chosen variables on Chewiness The Chewiness varied from 0.301 to 0.462 (Table 3). The

minimum Chewiness was obtained for experiment no. 1,

while the maximum Chewiness was observed in experiment

no. 15. The level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin in experiment

no. 1 was 90%, 86% and 2.0%, respectively. The experiment

no. 15 had level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin as 80%, 80%

and 3.0%, respectively. The data fitted the following

quadratic model.

Chewiness = +0.32+6.061E-003*A+0.032*B+0.017*C-0.026*AB-

0.021*AC+2.875E-003*BC+7.301E-003*A2-1.535E-

003*B2+2.450E-004*C2

Fig 7: Response surface plot for Chewiness as influenced by

the level of Papaya pulp, sugar and pectin

Interactive effect of chosen variables on Resilience

The Resilience varied from 0.025 to 0.113 (Table 3). The

minimum Resilience was obtained for experiment no. 1, while

the maximum Resilience was observed in experiment no. 5.

The level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin in experiment no. 1

was 90%, 86% and 2.0%, respectively. The experiment no. 5

had level of Papaya, Sugar and Pectin as 100%, 60% and

3.0%, respectively. The data fitted the following quadratic

model.

Resilience = +0.077+1.734E-003*A-8.670E-003*B+6.197E-003*C-

9.500E-003*AB+9.000E-003*AC-1.750E-003*BC+9.543E-004*A2-

9.296E-003*B2+4.855E-003*C2

Fig 8: Response surface plot for Resilience as influenced by the

level of Papaya pulp, sugar and pectin

Optimization of the product The method adapted for the process optimization was based

on numerical method. The constraints have listed table 4.

Factor Coding: ActualHardness


6.912

Hardness = 7.763Std # 15 Run # 18X1 = A: Papaya Pulp = 90X2 = B: Sugar = 70


60

65

70

75

80

80

85

90

95

100

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

Har

dnes

s

A: Papaya Pulp (gm.) B: Sugar (%)

Factor Coding: ActualGumminess


1.001

Gumminess = 2.005Std # 17 Run # 4X1 = A: Papaya Pulp = 90X2 = B: Sugar = 70


60

65

70

75

80 80

85

90

95

100

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

Gum

min

ess


Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualChewiness


0.205



60

65

70

75

80

80

85

90

95

100

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Chew

iness


Design-Expert® SoftwareFactor Coding: ActualResilience


0.025



60

65

70

75

80

80

85

90

95

100

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Resilie

nce


~ 85 ~


Constraints

Table 4: Optimized Recipe as predicted by RSM software

A: Pulp 92.919

B: Sugar 68.788

C: Pectin 2.795

Colour 8.045

Flavour 8.075

Over All Acceptance 8.142

Hardness 7.887

Gumminess 1.867

Chewiness 0.328

Resilience 0.089

Desirability 1.000

Proximate nutritional analysis of Papaya candy

Table 5 shows the proximate composition of different flours

used in manufacturing of papaya candy.

Table 5: Chemical properties of optimized Papaya candy

Attributes Percentage

Moisture 41.90 ± 0.2

Sugar 69.72 ± 0.39

Ash 0.33 ± 0.01

Total phenolic compound 0.24 ± 0.01

DPPH (RSA) 31.71 ± 0.2

Ascorbic Acid 30.56 ± 0.1

Variation in microbial load during storage period

The experimental data for change in microbial load of Papaya

candy during storage are presented in Table 6. The line charts

for different storage condition of with respect to increased

gradually to microbial load during storage are given in Fig 9.

Microbial analysis was performed at 0 to 60 days storage at

10-3 dilution. Maximum bacterial count was found in sample

A25m stored under 250C. Which increased from 0.10 ± 0.005

to 1.27 ± 0.064. Minimum increased was observed in sample

(A10m) stored under 100C. Which decreased from 0.10 ± 0.005

to 0.99 ± 0.011.

Table 6: Variation in microbial load of Papaya candy during storage

Storage Days

at (100C) at (250C)

10-3 Dilution (CFU/ml) 10-3 Dilution (CFU/ml)

A101 A10

2 A103 A10

m A251 A25

2 A253 A25

m

0 0.1 0.11 0.1 0.10 ± 0.005 0.1 0.11 0.1 0.10 ± 0.005

15 0.2 0.21 0.2 0.20 ± 0.005 0.38 0.37 0.39 0.38 ± 0.01

30 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.38 ± 0.005 0.71 0.72 0.71 0.71 ± 0.005

45 0.6 0.62 0.63 0.61 ± 0.015 1 1.1 1.21 1.10 ± 0.105

60 1 0.98 1 0.99 ± 0.011 1.2 1.3 1.32 1.27 ± 0.064

Fig 9: Effect of storage on Microbial load

Conclusion

Papaya is rich in a wide range and number of nutrients. In the

present study, the process of manufacturing of papaya candy

was standardized. The will help the preservation of papaya

nutrients for long time.

Reference

1. Bhattachrjee SK. Carica papaya. In: Hand Book of

Medicinal Plant, edition: 3rd Revised, editors: Shashi

Jain, (Pointer Publisher, Jaipur), 2001, 1-71.

2. He FJ, Nowson CA, MacGregor GA. Fruit and vegetable

consumption and stroke: meta-analysis of cohort studies.

The Lancet. 2006; 367:320-326.

3. Jean Sr, Borrego Jj, Perez-Prieto SI. Comparative

evaluation of five serological methods and RT-PCR assay

for the detection of IPNV in fish. J Virol. Methods. 2001;

97:23-31.

4. Kelsay JL, Behall KM, Prather ES. Effect of fiber from

fruits and vegetables on metabolic responses of human

subjects, II. Calcium, magnesium, iron, and silicon

balances. Am. J Clin. Nutr. 1979; 32:1876.

5. Khuri AI, Cornell JA. Response Surfaces: Designs and

Analyses, M. Dekker, New York, Number of pages,

1987, 405.

6. Mezhlumyan LG, Kasymova TD, Yuldashev PK.

Proteinases from Carica papaya latex. Chemistry of

natural compounds. 2003; 39:223-228.

7. Ram B. Studies on processing and preservation of aonla

fruit beverages M.Sc. Thesis, N.D.U.A.& T, Kumarganj,

Faizabad, 1982.

8. Ranganna S. Hand Book of Analysis and Quality Control

for Fruits and Vegetable Products. 7th Edition, Tata

McGraw Hill Book Co., New Delhi, 2001, 594-62

9. Rolls BJ, Ello‐Martin JA, Tohill BC. What can

intervention studies tell us about the relationship between

fruit and vegetable consumption and weight

management? Nutr. Rev. 2004; 62:1-17.

10. Scalbert A, Manach C, Morand C, Remesy C, Jimenez L.

Dietary polyphenols and the prevention of diseases. Crit

Rev Food Sci Nutr 2005; 45:287-306.

11. WHO. European Capacity Mapping Initiative. Briefing

Documents. WHO, Regional Office for Europe, Venice,

2005.