Comprehensive evaluation of dynamic impact (free fall) of potato tubers were conducted to ascertain relation of drop height, impact surface, water irrigation also the size of tubers on impact parameters such as (bruise area, impact energy, absorbed energy, coefficient of restitution and dynamic stiffness factor). In addition, five different impact surfaces were used namely (cardboard, wood, steel, plastic and foam) on the platform of the equipment. Potato tubers under different water irrigation (fresh water and treated water) were divided into two mass groups (90 -180 g), M1, and (1- 90 g), M2. Tubers dropped from four heights (40, 30, 20, 10 cm) onto the different surfaces and the different impact parameters were measured. Results showed impact damage measured in terms of bruise diameter is highly influenced by the impact surfaces. Steel surface inflicted the greatest impact damage on the tubers. Impact energy of tuber is greatly influenced by drop height and mass of tuber. Tuber, which dropped from heights (40 cm), absorbed the greatest energy indicating that they suffered the most impact damage. Dynamic stiffness factor for tuber was decreased by increasing storage period. Tuber with low dynamic stiffness factor led to more absorbed energy than tuber with higher dynamic stiffness factor. Moreover, designers of potato harvesters, packaging materials, processing plants and handlers of potato tubers to reduce mechanical damage, especially those due to impact and ensure good quality products, can use results obtained.
| Published in | European Journal of Biophysics (Volume 3, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13 |
| Page(s) | 59-68 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2015. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Bruise Area, Dynamic Stiffness Factor, Impact Energy, Coefficient of Restitution, Treated Water
| [1] | Abbott, J. A., Bachman, G. S., Childers, N. F., Fitzgerald, J. V. and Matusik, F. J., 1968. Sonic technique for measuring texture of fruits and vegetables, Food Technology, 22(5), 101-112. |
| [2] | Ahmadi, E., Ghassemzadeh, H.R., Sadeghi, M., Moghaddam, M, and Neshat, S. Z, 2010. The effect of impact and fruit properties on the bruising of peach. J. Food Eng. 97, 110–117. |
| [3] | Ahmadi E, Ghassemzadeh HR, Sadeghi M, Moghaddam M, and Neshat S. Z, 2012. Dynamic modeling of peach fruit during normal impact. J. Food Eng. 35: 483-504. |
| [4] | Altisent, M.R. 1991. Damage mechanisms in the handling of fruits: Progress in agricultural physics and engineering. John Matthew (Ed.), Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) International, Willingford, UK, pp. 231-255. |
| [5] | Antihus Hernández Gómez, Annia García Pereira, and Wang Jun y He Yong, 2005. Acoustic testing for peach fruit ripeness evaluation during peach storage stage. Revista Ciencias Técnicas Agropecuarias, Vol. 14, No. 2. |
| [6] | Armstrong, P. R., Stone, M. L. and Brusewitz, G.H., 1997. Nondestructive acoustic and compression measurements of watermelon for internal damage detection. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 13(5),641-645. |
| [7] | Aviara, N.A., Shittu, S.K, and Haque, M.A., 2007. Physical properties of guna fruits relevant in bulk handling and mechanical processing. Int. Agro physics 21, 7–16. |
| [8] | Ayman H. Amer Eissa, Nabil S. Albaloushi, and Mostafa M. Azam, 2013. Vibration analysis influence during crisis transport of the quality of fresh fruit on food security. CIGR Journal., Vol. 15, No.3, 181:190. |
| [9] | Bajema, R.H.; and Hyde, G.M. 1998. Instrumented pendulum for impact characteization of whole fruit and vegetable specimen. Transactions of the ASAE 41: 1399-1405. |
| [10] | Baritelle A., Hyde G.M., Thornton R, and Bajemar., 1999. A classification system for impact related defects in potato tubers. Presented at 38th Annual Washington State Potato Conference & Trade Fair. In: Amer. J. Potato Res.,2000, 77: 143–148. |
| [11] | Baritelle A, and Hyde GM, 2001. Commodity conditioning to reduce impact bruising. Postharvest Bio Technol 21: 331-339. |
| [12] | Berardinelli A; Donati, V.; Giunchi, A.; Guarnieri, A; and Ragni, L. 2005. Damage to pears caused by simulated transport. J. Food Engin. 66: 219-26. |
| [13] | Blahovec J., 2004. Shape of bruise spots in impacted potatoes. To be published. 8, 389–392. |
| [14] | Bollen, A.F., Cox, N.R., Dela Rue, B. T, and Painter, D.J, 2001. A descriptor for damage susceptibility of population of produce. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 78, 391–395. |
| [15] | Brusewitz, G.H., 1994. Drop impact testing applications to fruit quality. Int. Agro physics. |
| [16] | Cho, H.-K., Choi, W.-K. and Paek, J.-H, 2000. Detection of surface cracks in shell eggs by acoustic impulse method, Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 43(6), 1921-1926. |
| [17] | De Belie, N., Schotte, S., Lammertyn, J.,Nicolai, B. and De Baerdemaeker, J, 2000. Firmness Changes of Pear Fruit before and after Harvest with the Acoustic Impulse Response Technique, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 77(2), 183-191. |
| [18] | Diezma-Iglesias, B., Ruiz-Altisent, M. and Barreiro, P, 2004. Detection of Internal Quality in Seedless Watermelon by Acoustic Impulse Response, Bio-systems engineering, 88(2), 221-230. |
| [19] | Duprat F., Grotte M., Pietri E, and Loonis D., 1997. The acoustic impulse response method for measuring the over¬all firmness of fruit. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 66: 251–259. |
| [20] | Elbatawi, I. E, 2008. An acoustic impact method to detect hollow heart of potato tubers, Biosystems Engineering, 100 (2), 206-213. |
| [21] | Esehaghbeygi, A., 2010. Physical properties of common beans. Int. Agrophysics 24, 423–426. |
| [22] | FAO, 2009. Faostat, http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx, 04.01.2011. |
| [23] | FAO,1989. Prevention of postharvest food losses: fruits, vegetables and root crops. FAO Training Series No. 17/2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. |
| [24] | Gilardi, G., and Sharf, I, 2002. Literature survey of contact dynamics modelling. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 37, 1213–1239. |
| [25] | Gottschalk, K, and Ezekiel, R., 2006. Storage, In: Gopal, J., Khurana, S.M.P. (eds.), Handbook of potato production, improvement and postharvest management, 489-517, Harworth Press, Oxford, UK. |
| [26] | Herppich, W. B., Landahl, S., Herold, B, and De-Baerdemaeker, J, 2003. Interactive effects of water status and produce texture - An evaluation of nondestructive methods, In Proceedings of the International Conference: Postharvest Unlimited, Leuven, Belgium. |
| [27] | Hertog M.L.A.T.M., Ben-Arie R., Roth E, and Nicolai B.M., 2004. Humidity and temperature effects on invasive and non-invasive firmness measures. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 33: 79–91. |
| [28] | Holt, J.E.; and Schoorl, D. 1985. A theoretical and experimental analysis of effects of suspension and road profile on bruising in multilayered apple packs. J. Agric. Engin. Res. 31: 297-308. |
| [29] | Hughes, J.C. 1980. Potatoes I: Factors affecting susceptibility of tubers to damage. Span 23: 65-75. |
| [30] | Hyde, G.M.; Bajema, R.W.; and Zhang, W. 1993. Measurement of impact damage thresholds in fruits and vegetables. Proc. IV Int. Symp. Fruits, Nut and Vegetable Production Engineering, Valencia- Zaragoza, Spain, 22-26 March, pp. 1-9. |
| [31] | Jaren, C, and Garcia-Pardo, E, 2002. Using non-destructive impact testing for sorting fruits. J. Food Eng. 53, 89–95. |
| [32] | Jones, C.S.; Holt, J.E.; and Schoorl, D. 1991. A model to predict damage to horticultural produce during transport. J. Agric. Engin. Res. 50: 259-72. |
| [33] | Lewis, R., Yoxall, A., Canty, L.A, and Reina Romo, E., 2007. Development of engineering design tools to help reduce apple bruising. J. Food Eng. 83, 356–365. |
| [34] | Mateev, L. M., and Kostadinov, G. D., 2004. Probabilistic model of fruit removal during vibratory morello harvesting. Biosystems Engineering, 87, 425–435. |
| [35] | Mathew, R. and Hyde. M. G, 1997. Potato impact damage thresholds. Trans. of the ASAE 40:705-709. |
| [36] | Mohsenin, N. N. 1986. Physical properties of plant and animal materials, Vol. 1. Gordon and Breach Science Publ., New York, NY, USA. |
| [37] | Nourain, F., Ramaswamy, H.S, and Kushalappa, A.C, 2003. Kinetics of quality changes associated with potatoes stored at different temperatures. Lebensm. Wiss. Technol. 36, 49-65. |
| [38] | Ogut, H.; Peker, A, and Aydin, C. 1999. Simulated transit studies on peaches: Effects of containers cushion materials and vibration on elasticity modulus. J. Agric. Mechan. in Asia, Africa and Latin America 30: 59-62. |
| [39] | Olorunda, A.O.; and Tung, M.A. 1985. Simulated transit studies on tomatoes: Effects of compressive load, container vibration and maturity on mechanical damage. J. Food Tech. 20:669-78. |
| [40] | Pang W, Studman CJ and Ward GT., 1992. Bruising damage in apple-to-apple impact. J Agric Eng. 52: 229-240. |
| [41] | Pearson, T. C., 2001. Detection of pistachio nuts with closed shells using impact acoustics, Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 17(2), 249-253. |
| [42] | Praeger, U, Herppich, W. B, König, C, Herold, B and Geyer, M. 2009. Changes of water status, elastic properties and blackspot incidence during storage of potato tubers. Journal of applied botany and food quality. 83, 1-8. |
| [43] | Puchalski, C, and Brusewitz, G.H., 2000. Apple bruise resistance determination using an electrical universal bridge. Int. Agrophysics 14, 411–416. |
| [44] | Ragni, L, and Berardinelli, A., 2001. Mechanical behaviour of apples and damage during sorting and packaging. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 78, 273–279. |
| [45] | Roudot, A.C.; Duprat, F.; and Wenian, C. 1991. Modeling the response of apples to loads. J. Agric. Engin. Res. 48: 249-59. |
| [46] | Schick, R., Klinkowski, M., 1961: Die Kartoffel, VEB Deutscher Land-wirtschaftsverlag, Berlin. |
| [47] | Schrevens, E., De Busscher, R., Verstreken, L. and De Baerdemaeker, J, 1996. Detection of hollow pears by tree based modelling on non-destructive acoustic impulse response spectra, In Proceedings of the International Post-Harvest Science Conference, Taupo, New Zealand, 1996. |
| [48] | Shafiur Rahman, M., 1999. Handbook of Food Preservation. In: Food Science and Technology, Vol. 94., CRC Press. |
| [49] | Shmulevich, I., Galili, N. and Howarth, M. S.,2003. Nondestructive dynamic testing of apples for firmness evaluation, Postharvest Biology and Technology, 29(3), 287-299. |
| [50] | Singh, A.; and Singh, Y. 1992. Effect of vibration during transportation on the quality of tomatoes. J. Agric. Mechan. Asia, Africa and Latin America 23: 70-2. |
| [51] | Van Dijk, C., Beekhuizen, J.G., Gibcens, T., Boeriu, C., Fischer, M., and Stolle-Smits, T., 2002. Texture of Cooked Potatoes (Solanumtuberosum), 2. Changes in Pectin Composition during Storage of Potatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem, 50,5089-5097. |
| [52] | Van Zeebroeck M, Tijskens E, Vanliedekerke P, Deli V, De Baerdemaeker J, and Ramon H., 2003. Determination of the dynamical behavior of biological materials during impact using a pendulum device. J Sound Vibra. 266: 465–480. |
| [53] | Van Zeebroeck M., Van linden V., Darius P., De Kete¬laere. B., Ramon H., and Tijskens E., 2007. The effect of fruit factors on the bruise susceptibility of apples. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 46: 10–19. |
| [54] | Vursavus, K.; and Ozguven, F. 2004. Determining the effects of vibration and packaging method on mechanical damage in golden delicious apples. Turkish J. Agric. 28: 311-20. |
| [55] | Yadav S.S., 2014. Measurement of dynamic mechanical properties and resonance frequency range of different varieties of potato. DAMA International. Vol- 1 Issue-1; 2348 – 6058. |
| [56] | Yen, M., and Wan, Y., 2003. Determination of textural indices of guava fruit using discriminate analysis by impact force. Trans. ASAE 46, 1161–1166. |
| [57] | Yuwana, Y., and Duprat, F., 1998. Prediction of apple bruising based on the instantaneous impact shear stress and energy absorbed. Int. Agro physics 12, 133–140. |
APA Style
Mostafa M. Azam, Ayman H. Amer Eissa. (2015). Comprehensive Evaluation of Dynamic Impact as a Measure of Potato Quality. European Journal of Biophysics, 3(6), 59-68. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13
ACS Style
Mostafa M. Azam; Ayman H. Amer Eissa. Comprehensive Evaluation of Dynamic Impact as a Measure of Potato Quality. Eur. J. Biophys. 2015, 3(6), 59-68. doi: 10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13
AMA Style
Mostafa M. Azam, Ayman H. Amer Eissa. Comprehensive Evaluation of Dynamic Impact as a Measure of Potato Quality. Eur J Biophys. 2015;3(6):59-68. doi: 10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13,
author = {Mostafa M. Azam and Ayman H. Amer Eissa},
title = {Comprehensive Evaluation of Dynamic Impact as a Measure of Potato Quality},
journal = {European Journal of Biophysics},
volume = {3},
number = {6},
pages = {59-68},
doi = {10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ejb.20150306.13},
abstract = {Comprehensive evaluation of dynamic impact (free fall) of potato tubers were conducted to ascertain relation of drop height, impact surface, water irrigation also the size of tubers on impact parameters such as (bruise area, impact energy, absorbed energy, coefficient of restitution and dynamic stiffness factor). In addition, five different impact surfaces were used namely (cardboard, wood, steel, plastic and foam) on the platform of the equipment. Potato tubers under different water irrigation (fresh water and treated water) were divided into two mass groups (90 -180 g), M1, and (1- 90 g), M2. Tubers dropped from four heights (40, 30, 20, 10 cm) onto the different surfaces and the different impact parameters were measured. Results showed impact damage measured in terms of bruise diameter is highly influenced by the impact surfaces. Steel surface inflicted the greatest impact damage on the tubers. Impact energy of tuber is greatly influenced by drop height and mass of tuber. Tuber, which dropped from heights (40 cm), absorbed the greatest energy indicating that they suffered the most impact damage. Dynamic stiffness factor for tuber was decreased by increasing storage period. Tuber with low dynamic stiffness factor led to more absorbed energy than tuber with higher dynamic stiffness factor. Moreover, designers of potato harvesters, packaging materials, processing plants and handlers of potato tubers to reduce mechanical damage, especially those due to impact and ensure good quality products, can use results obtained.},
year = {2015}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Comprehensive Evaluation of Dynamic Impact as a Measure of Potato Quality AU - Mostafa M. Azam AU - Ayman H. Amer Eissa Y1 - 2015/12/22 PY - 2015 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13 DO - 10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13 T2 - European Journal of Biophysics JF - European Journal of Biophysics JO - European Journal of Biophysics SP - 59 EP - 68 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2329-1737 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ejb.20150306.13 AB - Comprehensive evaluation of dynamic impact (free fall) of potato tubers were conducted to ascertain relation of drop height, impact surface, water irrigation also the size of tubers on impact parameters such as (bruise area, impact energy, absorbed energy, coefficient of restitution and dynamic stiffness factor). In addition, five different impact surfaces were used namely (cardboard, wood, steel, plastic and foam) on the platform of the equipment. Potato tubers under different water irrigation (fresh water and treated water) were divided into two mass groups (90 -180 g), M1, and (1- 90 g), M2. Tubers dropped from four heights (40, 30, 20, 10 cm) onto the different surfaces and the different impact parameters were measured. Results showed impact damage measured in terms of bruise diameter is highly influenced by the impact surfaces. Steel surface inflicted the greatest impact damage on the tubers. Impact energy of tuber is greatly influenced by drop height and mass of tuber. Tuber, which dropped from heights (40 cm), absorbed the greatest energy indicating that they suffered the most impact damage. Dynamic stiffness factor for tuber was decreased by increasing storage period. Tuber with low dynamic stiffness factor led to more absorbed energy than tuber with higher dynamic stiffness factor. Moreover, designers of potato harvesters, packaging materials, processing plants and handlers of potato tubers to reduce mechanical damage, especially those due to impact and ensure good quality products, can use results obtained. VL - 3 IS - 6 ER -
Information
Email: