alexa Effect of Different Concentration of Guava Pulp, Apple Pulp and Sugar Solution on the Shelf Stability of Blend Leather Storage at Ambient Temperature | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2157-7110
Journal of Food Processing & Technology
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Effect of Different Concentration of Guava Pulp, Apple Pulp and Sugar Solution on the Shelf Stability of Blend Leather Storage at Ambient Temperature

Sher Hassan Khan1, Arsalan Khan1, Uzma Litaf1, Abdul Sattar Shah3, Muhammad Ali Khan1, Muhammad Usman Ali2, Falak Naz Shah1,Zeeshan Maqbool3, Muhammad Adnan3 and Sumayya Rani3

1Agriculture Research Institute, Tarnab, Peshawar, Pakistan

2Department of Food science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Swabi, KPK, Pakistan

3Department of Food science and Technology, Faculty of Nutritional sciences, NWFP Agriculture University, Peshawar, Pakistan

*Corresponding Author:
Sher Hassan Khan
Agriculture Research Institute, Tarnab
Peshawar, Pakistan
E -mail: [email protected]

Received Date: February 13, 2015 Accepted Date: May 29, 2015 Published Date: June 05, 2015

Citation: Khan SH, Khan A, Litaf U, Shah AS, Khan MA, et al. (2015) Effect of Different Concentration of Guava Pulp, Apple Pulp and Sugar Solution on the Shelf Stability of Blend Leather Storage at Ambient Temperature. J Food Process Technol 6:466. doi: 10.4172/2157-7110.1000466

Copyright: © 2015 Khan SH, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Food Processing & Technology

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate a suitable combination of guava pulp, Apple pulp and sucrose solution for the preparation of guava and apple blend leather, stored at ambient temperature. The treatments were T0, T1 and T2. The samples were wrapped in the aluminum foil and evaluation was carried out for total period of 90 days. Physiochemical analysis, acidity, pH, brix0 and sensory characteristics of color, taste, texture and overall acceptability (using Larmond scale) were evaluated at 15 days interval. The TSS of guava and apple blend pulp was 8 brix0 when sucrose solution was added in different ratio, Then TSS of guava and apple blend leather was increased from 56.53g to 58.37a during storage. Maximum increased was observed T1 (20a%), while lowest value was observed in followed by T0 (13.93f%). The pH of guava and apple blend pulp was 4, then the pH of guava and apple blend leather was decreased from 3.86g to 3.68a for the period of storage. Maximum reduced was perceived in T1 (5.03c%), in compare minimum fall was observed in T0 (4.13f%). The Titratable acidy of guava and apple blend leather was increased from 1.27g to 1.46a for the period of storage. Supreme increased was perceived in T0 (19.47%), while lowest raise was observed in T2 (15.38%). The storage intervals had effect on the mean scores for organolyptic assessment. Mean scores of juries for the color of guava and apple blend leather was reduced from 7.33g to 5.27a for the period of storage. Supreme decreased was perceived in T0 (41.67%), while lowest fall was observed in T2 (18.75%). Mean totals of juries for the taste of guava and apple blend leather was reduced from 6.83g to 4.80a for the period of storage. Maximum reduced was detected in T0 (44.4%), while lowest fall was observed in T2 (21.25%). Mean scores of judges for the texture of guava and apple blend leather was reduced from 700g to 5.07a for the period of storage. Maximum decreased was perceived in T0 (38%), while lowest fall was observed in T0 (18.75%). Mean scores of juries for the overall acceptability of guava and apple blend leather was reduced from 7.07g to 5.03a throughout the storage. Maximum decreased was perceived in T0 (42.31%), while lowest fall was observed in T2 (20%). Statistically result was showed that the treatment T2 was found most acceptable both Physiochemical and organoleptically.

Keywords

pulp; Guava pulp; Storage; Physico-chemical analysis; Organolyptic analysis

Introduction

The main drawback of sugar (in sucrose) is its continuous degradation in to its fragments; glucose (dextrose) and fructose (levulose). This problem takes place in soft drinks which leads to changes in taste and flavor of fresh and aged beverages [1].

In 1915, the term stabilizer was consigned to a set of materials that were recognized as colloids, binders, holders, and fillers. These were also known by the name of improvers, a word used to denote enzymes or blends of enzymes and gums. Colloids, hydrocolloids, and gums are additional names of these materials, which specify that these ingredients are macromolecules, mostly polysaccharides, which have the capability to interact with water. In a mixture, the interaction with water also provides these substances, a pathway to interfere with lipids and proteins. Many substances have been used as stabilizers e.g. guar gum (E412), sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (CMC) (E466), gelatin (E441), xanthan (E415), carrageenan (Irish moss) (E407), locust bean gum (carob bean gum) (LBG) (E410), alginates and microcrystalline cellulose (Cellulose gel) (MCC) (E460) [2]. It has originated from Mexico to Peru. Guava is produced in all the tropics and subtropics of the world including Asia, Australia and America [3].

The fruit bars are possibly reflected a good food from health point of view as related to former confectionaries and candies usually in the form of thin leathery sheets, but they can take any form i.e. cubical or rectangular shape [4].

On the basis of water activity level, fruit leathers are classified into and softy texture. They contain acids and sugar naturally, while humectants are purposely added to minimize water activity and to provide softness even at lower moisture levels [5].

Ayub et al. [6] investigate the individual and combine effect of caloric sweeteners (sucrose, glucose and fructose) non caloric sweeteners (saccharine, cyclamate and aspartame), antioxidants (citric acid and ascorbic acid), chemical preservatives (potassium metabisulphite and potassium sorbate) and water activity of dehydrated guava slices. They resulted that different dilutions of caloric and non-caloric sweeteners were used for osmotically dehydration of guava slices. The analysis showed that sucrose: glucose, potassium metabisulphite, citric acid and ascorbic acid formed top quality product, which have low water activity and best sensory attributes.

Wandi and Cheman [7] developed three formulae of durian leather and evaluated for its microbiological, physicochemical, sensory characteristics and storage constancy. They resulted that the vitamin C, water activity (aw) and caloric content was increased. After storage of 12 weeks, all durian leather formulations were constant and revealed lower mold populations. Sensory evaluation of the study concluded that the three formulations showed acceptability in all attributes studied.

Uddin et al. [8] investigated ascorbic acid (vitamin C) retention and effects of different temperatures (30°C, 40°C, 50°C) and water activity (aw) (0.43, 0.75, 0.84, 0.97) in dried guava during storage. They resulted that the degradation of ascorbic acid follows a pseudofirst- order reaction. As soon as storage circumstances were changed from aw=0.43–0.97, the ratio constant increased about four to six fold. The level constants and conforming water activity values are related by polynomial equation of second order. They also concluded that the initiation energy for ascorbic acid degradation is originated within the range of 3.4 to11.0 kcal/mol. An empirical equation that is based on water activity, temperature, and rate constant, is evolved to calculate shelf life of dried guava regarding retention of ascorbic acid.

Materials and Methods

The research was conducted in the laboratory of the section of Food Science and Technology, The University of Swabi, Khyber pahthunhuwa.

Selection of fruits

Good quality fresh, mature and healthy guava was bought from the Swabi local market and was transported to the laboratory of the Department of Food Science and Technology, The University of swabi, Khyber pahthunhuwa.

Preparation of sample

The diseased free fruit was selected and washed with water in order to remove dust, dirt and any other foreign material. The fruit was peeled, trimmed, cut and dipped in 1% citric acid to prevent oxidation. Then the fruit was blended in order to get the pulp. After that the following treatments of 20 degree brix were prepared.

Proposed plan of study

T0=Control

T1=Apple pulp (30%) and Guava pulp (70%) with sucrose + glucose (1:1) and gaur gum (0.25%)

T2=Apple pulp (30%) and Guava pulp (70%) with sucrose + glucose (7:3) and gaur gum (0.25%)

Packaging

The prepared bar was packed in a transparent packaging material.

Physicochemical analysis

Titratable acidity: The Titratable acidity was measured according to the standard methods of AOAC [9] method no 942.15.

Standardization of the 0.1 N NaOH Solutions: About 6.3 grams of oxalic acid were dissolved in distilled water and with addition of more distilled water, the volume was increased up to 1 liter. This was the stock solution. 4.5 grams NaOH pellets were scattered in distill water and then the volume was reached to 1 liter. 10 milliliters of 0.1 Normal oxalic acid was taken in three separate conical flasks. 2- 3 drop of phenolphthalein was poured to each conical flask as an indicator. The 0.1 N of oxalic acid was measured versus 0.1 N of NaOH solutions up to time pink light color appears, which persisted for ¼ minute. Three successive readings were observed and the NaOH normality was measured by the formula:

N1V1=N2 V2

Where,

N1=Normality of oxalic acid

V1=Volume of oxalic acid

N2=Normality of NaOH

V2=Volume of NaOH

Titration of samples: About 10 ml sample solution was taken in volumetric flask of 100 ml and diluted with water to the mark. From the stock solution, 10 ml was poured into a titrating flask and 2-3 droplets of phenolphthalein were incorporated as indicator, then concentration of the solution was identified against 0.1 N NaoH solution until pink color was achieved, which stands for fifteen seconds. For each sample three consecutive reading were noted. The ascorbic acid was mathematically evaluated with the help of the following formula:

Titratable Acidity (%) =

Acid Factor × 100 × ml of NaOH × N × 100 / A × B

A=volume of sample in millimeters taken for dilution

B=volume of sample in millimeters taken for titration

pH: pH was obtained by using standard methods of AOAC [9] method no 2005.02.

For determining the pH in guava samples, the pH meter was utilized. Before measuring the pH meter was supposed to follow the standard against buffer solutions of standard pH (9.0 and 4.0) then 10 ml of the samples were taken in a clean beaker and electrode of the pHmeter was sunk in the sample solution and the pH was observed. The probes were then washed with distill water and with the help of dried tissue papers the electrodes were dried and the process of determining the pH was continued.

Total soluble solids: The total soluble solids (TSS) were measured with the standard methods of AOAC [9] method no 932.14 and 932.12, by Atago digital refractometer at room temperature. To calibrate the instrument, distilled water and test solution of known sucrose concentration was used. After each reading, a clean soft lint free material was used to clean the refractometer. A small amount of blended guava bar was kept onto the dry prism of refractometer, and readings were taken in °brix, factors related to temperature was also added or removal of errors.

Sensory evaluation: The guava bar was sensory judged for taste, color, overall acceptability and texture by a panel of 10 juries. The assessment was completed by using 9 points hedonic scale of Larmond.

Testing procedure: A panel of 10 juries from the university students and staff were selected on the basis of their sensory buds, eating and smoking habits. Members of this panel were asked to judges for texture, color taste and overall acceptability of the guava bar samples. panel juries were asked to evaluate their results of color and taste with the numbers (1-9) hedonic scale, where 9 stands for extreme like and 1 stands for extreme dislike.

Statistical analyses: All the data regarding storage interval and treatments were statistically investigated by CRD 2 factorial as recommended by Gomez and Gomez and the means were separated by applying least significant difference (LSD) Test at 5% possibility level as defined by Steel and Torrie [10].

Results and Discussion

Guava and apple blend bar was prepared by different level of sucrose glucose mixture and guar gum. The samples were analyzed physicochemical for TSS, pH, acidity, ascorbic acid, reducing and non-reducing sugar, moisture, ash, water activity, TS and microbial count and sensory characteristics for color, texture, taste and overall acceptability. These parameters are discussed below.

TSS

The TSS of guava and apple pulp was 8%, while the initial TSS of guava and apple blend leather of T0 to T2 was 14.00, 77.10 and 78.50 which was gradually increased to 15.70, 79.00 and 80.40 correspondingly during storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 56.53g to 58.37a for the period of storage. Extreme mean values for treatments were perceived in T2 (79.49a), but in contrast the deepest mean values were registered in T0 (14.91f). During storage the highest raise in TSS was recorded in T1 (20%), while lowest raise was observed in T0 (13.93%), (Table 1).

Treatments                                     Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Increase
T0 14 14.4 14.7 15 15.2 15.4 15.7 13.93 14.91 f
T1 77.1 77.4 77.7 78 78.4 78.7 79 20 78.04 e
T2 78.5 78.9 79.2 79.5 79.8 80.1 80.4 14.53 79.49 a
Mean 56.53g 56.90f 57.20e 57.50d 57.80c 58.07b 58.37a    

Table 1: Effect of storage period and treatments on TSS (obrix) of guava and apple blend bar.

The statistical study presented significantly (P<0.05) results which may be due to the effect of treatment and storage intervals on the TSS of guavaand apple blend leather during storage. The mean were separated by applying LSD test at 5% probability level (Table 1). In a similar result, Phimpharian et al. [11] reported an increased in TSS (from 82.42-86.9).

Titratable acidity

The acidity of guava pulp was 0.256, while the initial acidity of guava leather of T0 to T2 was 1.22, 1.24 and 1.32 which was gradually increased to 1.39, 1.46 and 1.56 similarly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) proliferated from 1.27g to 1.46a for the period of storage. Supreme mean values for treatments were perceived in T2 (1.45a), but in contrast the lowest mean values were listed in T0 (1.30f). For the period of storage the highest raise in acidity was recorded in T2 (15.38%), while deepest raise was perceived in T0 (19.47%) (Table 2).

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
Initial 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Increase
T0 1.22 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.33 1.36 1.39 12.23 1.30 f
T1 1.24 1.29 1.33 1.36 1.39 1.43 1.46 15.07 1.36 e
T2 1.36 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.48 1.51 1.54 11.69 1.45 a
Mean 1.27g 1.31f 1.34e 1.37d 1.40c 1.43b 1.46a    

Table 2: Effect of storage period and treatments onTitratable acidity (%)of guava and apple blend bar.

The statistical study presented significantly (P<0.05) results which may be due to the effect of treatment and storage intervals on the acidity of guava leather during storage. The mean were separated by applying LSD test at 5% probability level (Table 2). Rao and Roy [12] found rising in acidity during storage of mango sheet (from 0.3-0.75).

pH

The pH of fresh guava pulp was 4, while the initial pH of guava leather was T0 to T2 was 3.84, 3.86 and 3.87 which was gradually reduced to 3 67, 3.67 and 3.71 respectively for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) reduced from 3.86g to 3.68a for the period of storage. Highest mean values for treatments were perceived in T2 (3.87, in contrast lowest mean values were noted in T0 (3.75f). During storage highest fall in pH was recorded in T1 (5.03%), in compare minimum fall was observed in T2 (4.13%) (Table 3). The statistical study presented significantly (P<0.05) results which may be paid to the effect of treatment and storage intervals on the pH of guava leather for the period of storage. The mean were separated by applying LSD test at 5% probability level (Table 3). Phimpharian et al. [11] noticed a reduction in pH values during storage of pineapple leather (from 3.6-3.8). Azeredo et al. [13] observed a decreased in pH values during storage of mango leathers (from 3.8-3.5).

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease  
T0 3.84 3.81 3.78 3.75 3.73 3.70 3.67 4.43 3.75 d
T1 3.86 3.82 3.79 3.77 3.74 3.70 3.67 5.03 3.76 c
T2 3.87 3.85 3.83 3.80 3.77 3.74 3.71 4.13 3.80 a
Mean 3.86g 3.83f 3.80e 3.77d 3.75c 3.71b 3.68a    

Table 3: Effect of storage period and treatments on pH of guava and apple blend bar.

Sensory evaluation

The guava bar was analyzed for color, texture, taste and overall acceptability at an interval of 15 days for a whole period of 90 days. The sensory analysis was approved through Larmond scale (hedonic 9 point) by 15 judge’s panel having knowledge about sensory evaluation. These evaluation are as under [14].

Color

Initially the mean score of judges for color of guava bar of T0 to T2 was 6, 8 and 8 which was gradually decreased to 3.5, 6.1 and 6.5 similarly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 7.33g to 5.27a for the period of storage. Supreme mean values for treatments were perceived in T2 (7.2571a), but in contrast the lowest mean values were listed in T0 (4. 7000f). For the period of storage the highest fall in color was recorded in T0 (41.67%), while lowest fall was observed in T2 (18.75%) (Table 4).

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
T0 6 5.6 5.1 4.7 4.2 3.8 3.5 41.67 4.70 d
T1 8 7.6 7.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 5.8 27.50 6.91 c
T2 8 7.8 7.5 7.2 7 6.8 6.5 18.75 7.26 a
Mean 7.33g 7.00f 6.60e 6.27d 5.93c 5.63b 5.27a    

Table 4: Effect of storage period and treatments on color of guava and apple blend bar.

The statistical study presented significantly (P<0.05) results which may be paid to the effect of treatment and storage intervals on the color of guava leather for the period of storage. The mean were separated by applying LSD test at 5% probability level (Table 4). In a similar study, Jain and Nema [15] reported loss of color during storage of guava leather (7.10-6.16). Naz [15] also observed a decreased in color during her study (from 6-5) and Babalola et al. [16] (from 6.8-5.2).

Texture

Originally the mean score of juries for texture of guava bar of T0 to T2 was 5, 8 and 8 which was progressively reduced to 3.1, 5.6 and 6.5 correspondingly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 7.00g to 5.07a for the period of storage. Maximum mean values for treatments were perceived in T2 (7.2286a), but in contrast the deepest mean values were listed in T0 (3.9714d). During storage the highest fall in texture was recorded in T0 (38.00%), while lowest fall was observed in T2 (18.75%) (Table 5).

Treatments                                    Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Increase
T0 5 4.6 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.4 3.1 38 3.97 d
T1 8 7.5 7.1 6.6 6.2 5.9 5.6 30 6.70 c
T2 8 7.7 7.5 7.2 7 6.7 6.5 18.75 7.23 a
Mean 7.00g 6.60f 6.23e 5.90d 5.63c 5.33b 5.07a    

Table 5: Effect of storage period and treatments on texture of guava and apple blend bar.

The statistical study presented significantly (P<0.05) results which may be due to the effect of treatment and storage intervals on the texture of guava leather for the period of storage. The mean were separated by applying LSD test at 5% probability level (Table 4). The texture of fruit leathers is mostly affected by their moisture content and drying temperatures by Che-man et al. [17].

Taste

Initially the mean score of juries for taste of guava bar of T0 to T2 was 4.5, 8 and 8 which was gradually decreased to 2.50, 5.60 and 6.30 similarly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 6.83g to 4.80a for the period of storage. Supreme mean values for treatments were perceived in T2 (7.1143a), but in contrast the deepest mean values were registered in T0 (3.4857d). During storage the highest fall in taste was recorded in T0 (44.44%), while lowest fall was observed in T2 (21.25%) (Table 5).

The statistical study presented significantly (P<0.05) results which may be due to the effect of treatment and storage intervals on the taste of guava leather for the period of storage. The mean were separated by applying LSD test at 5% probability level (Table 4). Jain and Nema [14] recorded a decreased in taste during study of guava leather (from 6.19- 6.02), Okilya et al. [18] also found a decreased in taste (from 6.63-4.33).

Overall acceptability

Primarily the mean score of juries for overall acceptability of guava bar of T0 to T2 was 5.2, 8 and 8which was gradually decreased to 3, 5.7 and 6.4 similarly for the period of storage. The mean values for intervals were significantly (P<0.05) intensified from 7.07g to 5. 03a for the period of storage. Supreme mean values for treatments were perceived in T2 (7.20a), but in contrast the deepest mean values were listed in T0 (4. 06d). During storage the highest fall in overall acceptability was recorded in T0 (42.31%), while lowest fall was observed in T2 (20.00%) (Table 6).

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
T0 4.50 4.10 3.70 3.50 3.20 2.90 2.50 44.44 3.49 d
T1 8.00 7.40 7.10 6.70 6.30 5.90 5.60 30.00 6.71 c
T2 8.00 7.70 7.40 7.10 6.80 6.50 6.30 21.25 7.11 a
Mean 6.83g 6.40f 6.07e 5.77d 5.43c 5.10b 4.80a    

Table 6: Effect of storage period and treatments on texture of guava and apple blend bar.

The statistical study presented significantly (P<0.05) results which may be due to the effect of treatment and storage intervals on the overall acceptability of guava leather for the period of storage. The mean were separated by applying LSD test at 5% probability level (Tables 6 and 7). Overall acceptability generally related to all sensory attributes in all food products. It is stated that the suitability of fruits and vegetables is influenced by their aroma by Karmas and Harris. Sharma et al. [19] noticed a decreased in overall acceptability during storage of apricot fruit bar (from 7.8-7.2).

Treatments Storage Interval (Days) Mean
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 % Decrease
T0 5.2 4.8 4.3 4 3.7 3.4 3 42.31 4.06 d
T1 8 7.5 7.1 6.7 6.4 6 5.7 28.75 6.77 c
T2 8 7.7 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.4 20.00 7.20 a
Mean 7.07g 6.67f 6.30e 5.97d 5.67c 5.37b 5.03a    

Table 7: Effect of storage period and treatments on overall acceptability of guava and apple blend bar.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In present study guava bar was prepared by using different level of sucrose glucose mixture with guar gum. The samples were analyzed for physicochemical, microbiologically and sensory. From this study physicochemically the samples GL2 prepared by sucrose: glucose (7:3) followed by GL5 prepared by sucrose (10: 0) showed best result, while GL0 prepared by guava pulp and followed by GL1 prepared by sucrose: glucose (50: 50) showed lowest result. Sensory and microbiologically GL2 followed by GL5 showed good result, while GL0 followed by GL1 showed lowest result.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Recommended Conferences

Article Usage

  • Total views: 11905
  • [From(publication date):
    July-2015 - Nov 18, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8076
  • PDF downloads : 3829
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords