Quality Attributes of Fruit Bar Made from Papaya and Tomato by Incorporating Hydrocolloids

Abstract

Fruit bar was prepared from blend of ripe papaya and tomato pulps (variety, Red Lady and C.V. Naveen, respectively) in the ratio 75:25 on weight basis. Effects of hydrocolloids viz. pectin (P), starch (S), and ethyl cellulose (EC) and its three different levels on physico-chemical, sensory, and textural characteristics were investigated. It was found that seven different samples of fruit bar had moisture contents of 20.9–22.1% and total soluble solids 78.1–78.8°Brix while pH, browning index, and vitamin C contents were in the following ranges, 4.3–4.50, 0.137–0.150 (OD), and 40.5–41.4 mg/100 g respectively. Texture study revealed that hydrocolloids incorporation at 1% each of starch + ethyl cellulose and pectin + starch, 1.5% each caused significant (P < 0.05) increased in compactness/hardness of texture. Sensory characteristics study revealed that all the samples of fruit bar were acceptable in taste, color, and aroma but differed significantly (P < 0.05) in their texture. The samples packed in LDPE bags (100 μ), stored at 35–45°C for four months. It was found that there were significant (P < 0.05) changes in physico-chemical properties like acidity and vitamin C during four months storage. No significant (P < 0.05) effect on either browning index (OD) or deterioration in color, taste, and aroma of these samples was observed. During four months storage change in color and texture were not uniform for all treatments. Addition of 0.5 and 1% of each starch + ethyl cellulose were effective in maintaining the color while 0.5, 1, and 1.5% of each P + S was effective in improving the texture during four months storage.

Keywords:

• Fruit bar
• Hydrocolloids
• Browning index
• Vitamin C
• Texture analysis
• Hardness
• Gumminess

Introduction

Papaya is a popular tropical fruit. India accounts for about 7% of world's papaya production. India is a major producer of papaya after Brazil and Indonesia. India produced papaya 0.49 MT in 1995 while the world production was 3.84 MT (J. Food Industry, Nov–Dec, 1994). Fruit size of papaya ranges from less than 0.446 to 8.92 kg. Papaya fruits is called protective foods because their cheap nutritive contributions are vitamins, minerals, and bulk (cellulose and protopectin) among the fruit those fruit rich in vitamin C and carotene are most important in the human diet. Papaya is rich in vitamin C and β-carotene.

Food containing preformed vitamin-A, are expensive and beyond the reach of the poor. Hence, carotene derived from plant food need to be cheap source of vitamin-A. Regular consumption of papaya will ensure a good supply of vitamins—A and C. In one of the investigation, the total carotenoids, total soluble solid, β-carotene, vitamin-C, total carbohydrate, and pectin at different stage of ripening in five varieties of papaya had been estimated, in order to know in which stage and variety, the nutrients are available to be maximum.

Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill) considered to be the king of vegetables is grown world wide on a variety of soil and climatic condition. United States, Turkey, Italy, Spain are the leading tomato growing countries while India ranks fifth. India produced 5.9 million tones of tomato as compared to world production of 88.9 million tonnes in 1998, Anon.[1] The importance of tomato as a crop is reflected in its large-scale cultivation throughout the world. Tomato is grown both as a field crop and as a protected crop under glass/green houses and plastic tunnels. Under the above two sets of cultivation growing conditions differ considerably and so the nutritional requirements also vary.

Tomato is one of the important crops in the world not only because of average growth[2] but also because of their overall contribution to nutrition. Tomatoes are consumed either fresh or as processed products and for each market, must have very distinct quality characteristics. Fresh tomato must have acceptable flavor and handling characteristics satisfying both consumer demand and distribution requirement. On the other hand, for processed tomatoes must have intrinsic rheological characteristics, which make them suitable for various processing applications such as tomato juice, puree and paste production.

Papaya and tomato are cheapest crops and available round the year in India, yet during glut season, a considerable portion of the crop (25–30%) is lost due to lack of storage facility. To utilize the surplus production and avoid post harvest losses, both crops may be given suitable shape of fine product which will be a good source of vitamins like vitamin C, β-carotene, carbohydrate, minerals, long shelf life, and also low grade could be used. Some research workers had conducted studies on fruit bar, fruit cheese, and Thandra. Reddy et al.[3] conducted studies on papaya fruit bar. The fruit bar (Thandra) was stored at room temperature for nine months and the physico-chemical and microbiological changes observed during storage period. It was also stored at different temperature and organoleptic changes were evaluated. Sensory evaluation of fruit bar revealed higher deterioration in color, appearance, and texture on 6 and 9 months storage at higher temperatures. Mango cheese/leather was reported to be a tropical confectionary prepared from fresh or frozen mango pulp.[4]

Barbaste and Badrie[5] conducted studies on fruit cheese during ambient temperature storage. The fruit cheese was prepared from mature ripe papaya and from puree blends of papaya with pineapple. For the blended fruit cheese, the ratio of papaya puree to pineapple puree was 2:1 with 2% pectin and processed to 77–80°Brix.

Manimegalai et al.[6] developed jackfruit Thandra (bar) as per FPO specifications using two varieties of jackfruit and packed in butter paper (BP), polypropylene pouches (PP), and metallized polyster low density polyethylene laminate pouches (MPP) and stored at room temperature (30–36°C) for six months. They reported that the bar samples store in MPP recorded higher percentage of nutrient retention and minimum microbial count than samples in BP and PP at the end of 180 days.

Present investigation was carried out for development a product (fruit bar) with the following objectives:

1.	Development of fruit bar (a product prepared with the blend of papaya and tomato pulp including acid and sugar) by hurdle technology (using hurdle parameters like pH, moisture content, preservative, and packaging material).
2.	Studies on the effect of different combination of hydrocolloids namely pectin, starch, and ethyl cellulose on physico-chemical, sensory, and textural quality of the product.
3.	Studies on the effect of ambient temperature storage on physico-chemical, sensory, and textural properties of fruit bar.

Materials and Methods

Raw Materials

Ripe papaya of uniform shape and size, firm texture, and yellow color were procured from the Mandi. Tomato of uniform shape and size, firm texture with proper maturely (red in color) were picked from the green house of the Department of Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, (AMU), sugar and packaging material (low density polyethylene 100 µm) were procured from the market of the city, Aligarh. Citric acid, benzoic acid, and hydrocolloids (pectin, starch, and ethyl cellulose are from company grace).

Processing

Fruits were washed and sanitized in chlorinated water (100 ppm), peeled, and seeds were removed. The pulper (B.S. Berry, India) was used for extraction of pulps. Blend of these pulps were taken in the ratio (75:25) and thermally processed at 80°C for 10 min. The fruit bar was prepared as mentioned in the process flow diagram in Fig. 1.

Figure 1 Process flow chart for the preparation of fruit bar.

Physico-chemical Properties Evaluation

Moisture content (kg/100 kg of fruit bar) and acidity (kg/100 kg of fruit bar) were determined by methods as described in Ranganna.[9] pH of the fruit bar samples were measured by digital pH meter (Khera model, India). TSS (°Brix) and vitamin C (mg/100 g) were determined by methods as described in Srivastava.[7] Nonenzymatic browning was determined by method given in Baloch et al.[8] using spectrophotometer (Tanco, India). The browning index is defined as logarithmic ratio of intensity of incident light to that of emergent light. The percent transmittance may be correlated to optical density (OD) by using expression 2-logT ₁ where T ₁ is the transmittance.

Evaluation of Sensory Characteristics

Sensory attributes such as color, odor, taste, texture, and overall acceptability of the product as fruit bar were evaluated as recommended by Ranganna[9] by Hedonic rating test. A trained panel consisting of 14 expert judges was selected to evaluate the sample through properly planned experiments. The panelists were selected from the staff and students of Department of Post Harvest Engineering and Technology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, AMU, Aligarh. The requirement for panel membership are (i) good health, (ii) average sensitivity, (iii) high degree of personnel integrity, (iv) intellectual curiosity and interest in sensory evaluation, (v) ability to concentrate and learn, and (vi) availability and willingness to spend time in evaluation and submission to periodic test for acuity and consistency. Candidates possessing these qualities are indexed with details of age, sex; specific likes and dislikes etc. Laboratory panels are then carefully trained for specific product. These tests aim at finding differences in specific quality of characteristics between different stimuli and also direction and/or intensity of the differences. Periodically the panel is given refresher training. Color attribute was judged by visual observation. It also includes size, shape, uniformity, maturity, and absence of defects. Texture is the property of food, which is associated with the sense of feel or touch experienced by finger or the mouth. Texture attribute is best indicated by sensation caused by contact with hard and soft parts of the mouth.

Samples were served to the panelists and they were asked to rate the acceptability of the product through sensory methods. Different attributes viz., color, odor, taste, texture, and overall acceptability were rated on the basis of the 9 points of the hedonic scale ranging from 1 (extremely dislike/ most undesirable) to 9 (extremely like/most desirable). A test proforma was also supplied to the panelists at the time of evaluation. It is given here, 9 = like extremely, 8 = like very much, 7 = like moderately, 6 = like slightly, 5 = neither like nor dislike, 4 = dislike slightly, 3 = dislike moderately, 2 = dislike very much, 1 = dislike extremely.

Instrumental Texture Analysis

Instrumental Texture analysis was performed using TAHD type texture analyzer (SMS, England). It determines the instrumental textural properties of food materials. This texture analyzer has a computer software, named as texture expert. Texture expert has salient features, namely opening of new file, TA setting, probe selection, and finally run the test. Running of test creates a graph between force vs. time and also force vs. distance. Two types of forces namely compression and extension are used for carrying out different tests to measure the textural properties of food namely bloom strength, cohesion, chewiness, creep, crispness, fracturability, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, springiness gumminess, relaxation, strain extensibility, hardness, and elasticity. In case of fruit bar, hardness/compactness, stickiness, and gumminess were determined. Five kilogram Load cell was calibrated and attached to the cross head for testing of fruit bar. Hardness/compactness is measured by the positive peak force of the graph plotted force vs. time by texture analyzer. Gumminess/stickiness is the characteristic of the product with a low degree of hardness and a high degree of cohesiveness. TA Setting was kept as: Pretest speed at 2 mm/s, Test speed at 5 mm/s, Post test speed at 5 mm/s, distance, 30 mm Trigger force, 10 g sensitivity, 100 Load cell, 5 kg Probe, Warner Bratzler Blade.

Statistical Analysis

Data obtained from replicated analysis (n = 7) of the product from single batch were statistically analyzed. The data of physico-chemical, sensory, and instrumental textural characteristics of fresh and stored fruit bar were subjected to analysis of variation among the mean value of parameters. A one-way ANOVA for each quality parameter was carried out to find out significant difference between the mean values of the initial (fresh as that of stored fruit bar samples). The test of significance was also done from the treatment of hydrocolloids on sensory and textural characteristics of fruit bar.

Results and Discussion

Physico-chemical Characteristics

Physico-chemical characteristics of fruit bar of papaya and tomato have been resented in Table 1. Moisture contents of all seven samples of fruit bar ranged 20.9 and 22.3 kg/100 kg, TSS, pH, acidity, browning index, and vitamin C were in the ranges: 78.0–78.6°Brix, 4.30–4.60, 0.77–0.86 kg/100 kg, 0.137–0.156 OD, and 40.2–41.3 mg/100 g respectively. During four months (April–August) storage, moisture contents of fruit bar decreased significantly possibly due to evaporation of water from the products, as a result of increased temperature during summer season. Similar results were also obtained by Rao and Roy.[10] Fruit bar like mango fruit bar was hygroscopic[11] and therefore was kept in the reduced range of humidity 50–60% RH. Significant (p < 0.05) increase in acidity was recorded, which might be due to loss of moisture as a result of hot weather. The high temperatures (35–45°C) also caused the concentration of the product. Similar results were also obtained by Rao and Roy[12]; Mir and Nath.[13] Increase in acidity, therefore resulted significant decrease in pH of fruit bar samples. During ambient temperature storage, no significant (p < 0.05) increase in browning index was observed. The browning index describes the nonenzymatic browning due to maillard reactions. The maximum loss of vitamin C was 23.38% after four months storage. The significant loss of vitamin C was due to high temperature during summer (Table 1).

Table 1 Physico-chemical characteristics of fresh and stored fruit bar

Physico-chemical characteristics of fresh samples*
Treatment	Moisture content (%)	TSS (°Brix)	pH	Acidity (%)	B.I. (OD)	Vitamin C (mg/100 g)
T1	21.1 ± 0.25^b	78.5 ± 0.16	4.30 ± 0.09	0.79 ± 0.016^a	0.150 ± 0.009	40.2 ± 0.14^a
T2	22.0 ± 0.18^b	78.2 ± 0.22	4.40 ± 0.007	0.77 ± 0.014^a	0.14 ± 0.008	40.5 ± 0.27^a
T3	20.9 ± 0.2^b	78.1 ± 0.18	4.35 ± 0.09	0.86 ± 0.014^a	0.150 ± 0.12	41.1 ± 0.12^a
T4	21.2 ± 0.16^b	78.4 ± 10.27	4.60 ± 0.07	0.78 ± 0.021^a	0.144 ± −0.011	41.4 ± 0.20^a
T5	22.3 ± 0.20^b	78.6 ± 0.13	4.6 ± 0.06	0.80 ± 0.029^a	0.141 ± 007	40.9 ± 0.16^a
T6	21.4 ± 0.15^b	78.1 ± 0.20	4.45 ± 2.05	0.80 ± 0.007^a	0.137 ± 0.09	41.3 ± 0.29^a
T7	22.1 ± 31^b	78.0 ± 0.29	4.5 ± 0.04	0.82 ± 0.026^a	0.156 ± 0.013	40.7 ± 0.21^a
120 day stored sample (under ambient condition)
T1	19.6.6 ± 0.22^a	79.8 ± 0.12	4.07 ± 0.03	0.96 ± 0.02^b	0.20 ± 012	30.8 ± 0.27^b
T2	20.00 ± 0.12^a	79.5 ± 0.18	4.15 ± 0.08	0.92 ± 0.03^a	0.19 ± 0.013	31.4 ± 0.23^b
T3	20.1 ± 0.36^a	79.7 ± 0.23	3.97 ± 0.03	0.98 ± 0.016^b	0.22 ± 0.30	41.1 ± 0.12^b
T4	21.3 ± 0.16^a	79.3 ± 0.28	3.98 ± 0.09	0.93 ± 0.04^a	0.21 ± 0.04	31.5 ± 0.02^b
T5	21.7 ± 0.21^a	78.7 ± 0.37	4.07 ± 0.07	0.90 ± 0.03^a	0.21 ± 0.019	30.6 ± 0.73^b
T6	20.8 ± 0.16^a	78.6 ± 0.37	3.83 ± 0.07	0.99 ± 0.25^b	0.23 ± 0.02	31.8 ± 0.25^b
T7	20.4 ± 0.29^a	78.9 ± 0.26	3.94 ± 0.06	0.95 ± 0.01^b	0.26 ± 0.17	33.5 ± 0.52^b

*Values are the means ± SD of seven replicates.

T₁—P + S, 0.5% each; T₄—S + EC, 1.0% each; T₂—S + EC, 0.5% each; T₅—P + EC, 1.0% each; T₃—P + S, 1.0% each; T₆—P + S + EC, 1.0% each; T₇—P + S, 1.5% each.

Mean values with different superscripts in a column, differ significantly (p < 0.05) and without superscripts do not differ significantly.

T₁, T₂, T₃, T₄, T₅, and T₆ are different treatments of hydrocolloids.

P—Pectin, S—Starch, EC—Ethyl cellulose.

Sensory Evaluation

Sensory characteristics of fresh and stored fresh fruit bar were evaluated on nine points hedonic scale. Sensory attributes like color, aroma, taste, and texture were chosen to evaluate the sensory quality of the products. Over all acceptability represented the composite sensory characteristics. The effects of hydrocolloids and storage period (under ambient) were also observed. Significant (p < 0.05) effect of hydrocolloids (pectin + starch, 0.5% each) on textural properties of fruit bar was noticed during storage period (Table 2). Texture scores of T₁, T₄, and T₇ samples were also significantly (p < 0.05) affected as a result of hydrocolloids treatment (Table 2). Hydrocolloids did not significantly affect the color in fresh fruit bar. The color of all fresh fruit samples was acceptable to the panelists (assigned by the score values). Similarly the effect of hydrocolloids on the aroma of fresh fruit bar was not significant (p < 0.05).

Table 2 Effects of hydrocolloids and storage conduction on sensory characteristics of fruit bar

Sensory attributes
Fresh samples
Treatments	Color	Aroma	Taste	Texture	Overall
T1	6.6 ± 0.45	7.10 ± 0.38	7.4 ± 0.63	5.5 ± 0.45^b	6.65 ± 0.37
T2	7.02 ± 0.61	7.0 ± 0.45	7.10 ± 0.47	6.3 ± 0.63^a	6.85.1 ± 0.48
T3	7.10 ± 0.35	7.50 ± 0.63	7.6 ± 0.38	6.7 ± 0.76^a	7.22 ± 0.33
T4	7.40 ± 0.48	6.80 ± 0.38	7.1 ± 0.64	8.5 ± 0.88^b	7.45 ± 0.57
T5	7.00 ± 0.59	6.0 ± 0.33	6.9 ± 0.45	8.2 ± 0.70^a	7.02 ± 0.53
T6	7.20 ± 0.48	7.0 ± 0.71	7.2 ± 0.78	8.1 ± 0.62^a	7.37 ± 0.41
T7	6.8 ± 0.51	7.20 ± 0.69	7.5 ± 0.63	8.3 ± 0.59^b	7.45 ± 0.68
120 day stored samples (under ambient)
T1	6.2 ± 0.33	6.9 ± 0.24	7.2 ± 0.66	8.3 ± 0.36^b	7.15 ± 0.65
T2	8.9 ± 0.75	6.7 ± 0.38	7.0 ± 0.58	5.3 ± 0.20^b	6.97 ± 0.56
T3	6.8 ± 0.52	7.1 ± 0.46	7.4 ± 0.56	7.7 ± 0.38^a	7.25 ± 0.45
T4	7.0 ± 0.61	6.5 ± 0.39	7.0 ± 0.49	6.8 ± 0.70^a	6.82 ± 0.57
T5	6.7 ± 0.50	6.4 ± 0.33	6.7 ± 0.46	7.9 ± 0.43^a	6.92 ± 0.69
T6	6.9 ± 0.57	6.8 ± 0.49	7.1 ± 0.59	8.4 ± 0.16^b	7.30 ± 0.50
T7	6.5 ± 0.49	6.9 ± 0.38	7.2 ± 0.64	8.8 ± 0.34^b	7.35 ± 0.39

Values are the means of ± SD of 7 replicates.

T₁—P + S, 0.5% each; T₂—S + EC, 0.5% each; T3—P + S, 1.0% each; T₄—S + EC, 1.0% each; T₅—P + EC, 1.0% each; T₆—P + S + EC, 1.0% each; T₇— P + S, 1.5% each.

Mean values with different superscript in a column, differ significantly (p < 0.05) and without superscripts do not differ significantly.

T₁, T₂, T₃, T₄, T₅, and T₆ are different treatments of hydrocolloids.

P—Pectin, S—Starch, EC—Ethyl cellulose.

The standard deviations indicated the measure of central tendencies and there was not much deviation from mean values. The maximum deviation noted for color sore was 0.88 for the fresh sample while maximum deviation was found to be 0.75 for the four months stored samples. During four months storage (ambient temperature) there was significant loss in the color of the samples T₁, T₃, and T₇. These results are in agreement with Chan and Cavaletto[14]; Aruna et al.^[15]. However, the additional effects of hydrocolloids were observed either in protecting the loss of color or maintaining the color loss up to controlled level. Colour score of starch + ethyl cellulose treated samples T₂ and T₄ was not significantly (p < 0.05) affected during storage while there was a significant loss of color for samples treated with starch + pectin at different levels (samples T₁, T₃, and T₇). The texture of these samples (T₁, T₃, and T₇) were significantly improved after four months storage (samples was found to be in quite compact condition) while there was severe loss of texture of samples (T₂ and T₄) after four months storage.

Instrumental Textural Characteristics

Instrumental texture is a similar textural property, which is associated with sense of feel or touch experienced by finger or the mouth. The only difference is that the sense of feel or touch is experienced by probe and fixture of instrument (texture analyzer) and finally represented graphically (force vs. time). An appropriate example of instrumental texture is Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) test. The test resembles with sensory texture and explores the mastication effect in a two bite compression test. Several textural characteristics like fracturability, hardness, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, springiness, gumminess, and chewiness are measured by this single test.

Results of texture analysis conducted by texture analyzer, has been presented in Table 3. Positive peak force described the compactness/hardness while the negative peak area described the gumminess/stickiness of fruit bar samples. The results are the average of the seven replicates ± SD. Fresh samples treated with starch + pectin 0.5% each, had least hardness as it was described by positive peak force (1.86 N for T₁ samples). Sample T₄ had highest positive peak force, indicating the compactness of the product. Samples T₁, T₂, and T₇ had lower values of negative peak area, which showed the significant (p < 0.05) stickiness of the samples. During four months storage, the texture of the samples T₁, T₃, T₆, and T₇ were significantly (p < 0.05) affected (compactness of the samples increased while stickiness deceased) while significant (p < 0.05) loss of texture in T₂ and T₄ samples were observed (compactness of the samples decreased while stickiness increased) (Table 3). Positive peak forces of the samples T₁, T₃, T₆, and T₇ increased almost 6, 2, 1.3, and 2 times respectively as compared to the fresh samples. Samples T₃, T₄, and T₅ had maximum gumminess in fresh condition (negative peak area were found to be 4.20, 8.03, and 4.68 NS respectively). But the sample T₁ had minimum gumminess as described by the negative peak area (0.97 NS). The gumminess varied during four months storage for samples given different treatments of hydrocolloids. During four months storage, gumminess of T₁, T₂, and T₇ samples increased significantly (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2). The gumminess increased two to three times while the reduction in gumminess was observed in case of the T₄ and T₅ samples respectively. This decrease in gumminess was found to be significant (p < 0.05). No significant increase in gumminess of the sample T₃ was observed. Gumminess was not detected in sample T₆ in fresh condition.

Figure 2 Effects of hydrocolloids (P + S, 0.5% each) on textural properties of fruit bar.

Table 3 Effect of hydrocolloids (pectin, starch, and ethyl cellulose) on textural properties of fresh and 120 days stored fruit bar (storage condition: ambient temp. (35–45°C)

Textural characteristics of fruit bar samples
Positive peak force (N)*		Negative peak area (NS)*
Treatment	Fresh	Stored	Fresh	Stored
T1	1.86 ± 0.03^a	11.88 ± 0.03^b	0.97 ± 0.07^a	1.96 ± 0.09^a
T2	5.78 ± 0.12^a	4.61 ± 0.04^a	1.21 ± 0.10^a	3.82 ± 0.07^a
T3	6.25 ± 0.04^a	10.99 ± 0.07^b	4.20 ± 0.06^b	4.88 ± 0.04^b
T4	14.01 ± 0.09^b	6.55 ± 0.05^a	8.03 ± 0.04^b	2.25 ± 0.06^a
T5	7.73 ± 0.07^a	9.04 ± 0.07^a	4.68 ± 0.08^b	2.08 ± 0.10^a
T6	7.42 ± 0.08^a	9.92 ± 0.07^b	ND	2.73 ± 0.03^a
T7	9.55 ± 0.04^b	17.69 ± 0.02^b	1.32 ± 0.04^a	4.43 ± 0.05^b

*Values are average forces, of 7 replicates (both positive and negative peaks) ± SD.

ND—Not detected.

Mean values with different superscript in a column differ significantly (p < 0.05).

T₁, T₂, T₃, T₄, T₅, and T₆ are different treatments of hydrocolloids.

P—Pectin, S—Starch, EC—Ethyl cellulose.

T₁—P + S, 0.5% each; T₂—S + EC, 0.5% each; T3—P + S, 1.0% each; T₄—S + EC, 1.0% each; T₅—P + EC, 1.0% each; T₆—P + S + EC, 1.0% each; T₇—P + S, 1.5% each.

P—Pectin, S—Starch, EC—Ethyl cellulose.

(N)*—Newton.

(NS)*—Newton second.

Conclusion

Fruit bar was found to be stable during four months storage. Acidity, pH, viamin C, and texture of the fruit bar samples were significantly affected during four months storage. The hydrocolloids (pectin and starch combination) made significant effects on texture of fruit bar in fresh comndition and also some of the combinations helped in developing texture during storage. Color of fruit bar was also maintained during storage when ethyl cellulose was used as hydrocolloids.

Acknowledgment

Author is thankful to Prof. P. K. Srivastava, Dean and Chairman of the Department for extending facility to carry out research work successfully.