Determination of Bruising Damages of Tomato during Road Transportation Process

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 15, Volume 8, Issue 1 - Serial Number 15, 2018, Pages 185-196   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v8i1.59189

Authors

A. Mansouri Alam; E. Ahmadi^*

Biosystems Engineering Department, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
The most important post-harvest mechanical damage is bruising. Bruising occurs during the stages of handling, transporting and packaging due to quasi-static and dynamic loads. Vibrations of tomato fruits during transportation by truck will decrease their quality. More than 2.5 million tons damages have been reported during tomato transportation in Iran. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize different parameters of damages during road transportation in order to detect and prevent bruising injury.
Materials and Methods
In this study, healthy Super Queen verity of tomatoes devoid of any corrosion and mechanical damage multipliers were used. Aaverage of 7 and 5 pieces of fruit in each length and width, respectively in 13*25*37 cm boxes with a capacity of 8 kg were arranged. The boxes were divided into 2 types of truck suspension (model M2631 AIMCO, manufactured in 2010 with air suspension and Nissan trucks 2400, manufactured in 2010 with suspension spring). Boxes were established in three different heights truck, floor truck, height of middle and top of truck, in addition to two different situation boxes on the front axle (S1) and rear axle (S2). In each situation, three levels of height (H1), floor truck, the truck (H2) and the truck (H3) there. The location of each sample inside the fruit boxes bottom row (Loc1) and top (Loc2) boxes marked with marker. In this study, two types of road, highway asphalt and asphalt secondary road was used for transportation. Trucks and vans had the same distance route about 400 km. Fruits were transferred to Hamadan agricultural college. Rheology lab test was a hit with the pendulum. In this study, the amount of energy absorbed from the index (as a parameter to determine the sensitivity) and the fruits bruises were used. Hit test was done after transportation of fruits and transferring those to the laboratory in less than 2 hours. Impact energy products were considered higher than the dynamic submission, dynamic submission to the multiple ways in constant height (CHMI) were determined on the control fruits, impact energy yield limit dynamic range (0.0012) was Jules.
Results and Discussion
Analysis of variance showed that the main factors including truck, boxes of floor height, box situation on the front and rear axles of the vehicle as well as the location of the fruit (the top and bottom of the box) has a significant effect on energy absorption. There are also some double and triple interactions energy absorbed as a factor of bruising damage in the pendulum test was significant at the 5% possibility level. Means comparison showed that the effect of the truck in height. By increasing the height from the floor of the vehicle, bruising injury increased significantly. The results showed that the fruits which transported with air suspension are healthier than those with truck suspension spring. The maximum amount of absorption energy at third height (H3) spring suspension system (T2) and rear axle (S2) with the amount respectively 491.11 and 488.59 percent increase (compared with control fruit) belong the top row fruits and bottom row fruits inside the box (in secondary asphalt), and maximum resistance bruising in the first height (H1) air suspension system (T1) and front situation (S1) with 180.42 percent increase was observed to control fruits (in highway asphalt).
The overall results show that fruit damages are low during transportation with the front axle vehicle. The results also showed that asphalt road highway and truck with air suspension system, Groups of maximum and minimum absorbed energy was more logical than truck suspension spring.

Keywords

Bruising; Energy absorbed; suspension; Tomatoes

References

1. Ahmadi, E., and Gh. Abedi. 2013. Sensitivity of tomatoes to internal bruising induced by mechanical stress. European Journal of Horticultural Science 78 (5): 219-224.

2. Ahmadi, E. 2012. Bruise susceptibilities of kiwifruit as affected by impact and fruit properties. Research in Agricultural Engineering 58: 107-113.

3. Anonymous. 2015. Road maintenance and transportation organization. Available at: http://www.rmto.ir/en/SitePages/Road%20Maintenance%20And%20Transportation%20Organization.aspx

4. Anonymous. 2014. Tomato production in Iran. Available at: http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=13910820000700

5. Babarinsa, F. A., and T. Ige. 2012. Young's modulus for packaged roma tomatoes under compressive loading. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research 3: 1-7.

6. Bidely, N. 2013. Effects of harvesting conditions on tomato losses. Agricultural Engineering Research Institute. The Final Report Registration Number: 42987.

7. Dixit, M. R., and G. Sharan. 2008. A study in the context of development of customized cartons. Indian Institute Of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department, IIMA Working Papers.

8. Ghanbarian, D., M. Shirvani, M. Ghasemi-Varnamkhasti, and H. Golestanian. 2015. The effects of drop height and padding surface on bruising of exportable apple. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 5 (1): 122-133. (In Farsi).

9. Ghasemibaghbaderani, B., and A. Hemmat. 2012. Damage of apples during transportation and handling. 8th Congress of Agricultural Machinery (Biosystems) and Mechanization, Mashhad University, Mashhad. (In Farsi).

10. Hinsch, R. T., D. C. Slaughter, W. L. Craig, and J. F. Thompson. 1993. Vibration of fresh fruits and refrigerated during refrigerated truck transport. Transactions of the ASAE 36 (4): 1039-1042.

11. Hamedani, M. A., A. Rajabi Poor, H. Mobli, and A. Sanaeifar. 2013. Road vibration effects on mechanical properties of melon. Twenty-first National Congress of Food Science and technology, Shiraz University, Shiraz. (In Farsi).

12. Lu, F., Y. Ishikawa, T. Shiina, and T. Satake. 2008. Analysis of shock and vibration in truck transport in Japan. Packaging Technology and Science 21 (8): 479-489.

13. Mohsenin, N. N. 1986. Physical properties of food and agricultural materials, Gordon and Revised and Update Edition. Gordon and Breach science publishers. New York.

14. Mohamadiaylar, S. A., S. Minaei, and A. H. Afkarisayah. 2011. Tomato mechanical properties under compressive loading during the various stages of post-harvest handling. Journal of Biosystems Engineering 42: 196-191.

15. Nicolai, B. M., and E. Tijsknes. 2007. Impact damage of apples during transport and handling. Postharvest biology and technology 45: 157-167.

16. O'Brien, M., R. C. Pearl, E. P. Vilas, and R. L. Driesbach. 1969. The Magnitude and Effect of In-transit Vibration Damage of Fruits and Vegetables on Processing Quality and Yield. Transactions of the ASAE 12: 452-455.

17. O'Brien, M., and R. B. Fridley. 1970. Measurement of vibrations related to harvesting and handling of fruits and vegetables. Transactions of the ASAE 13 (6): 870-873.

18. Sadrnia, H. 2007. Mechanical properties of watermelon and three dimensions analysis of stress distribution, Using LPM. Ph. D. thesis. Agricultural Faculty, University of Tehran.

19. Soleimani, B., and E. Ahmadi. 2014. Measurement and analysis of truck vibration levels as a function of packages locations in truck bed and suspension. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 109: 141-147.

20. Soleimani, B., and E. Ahmadi. 2015. Evaluation and analysis of vibration during fruit transport as a function of road conditions, suspension system and travel speeds. Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food 8: 26-32.

21. Slaughter, D. C., R. T. Hinsch, and J. F. Thompson. 1993. Assessment of vibration injury to Bartlett pears. Transactions of the ASAE 36: 1043-1047.

22. Shahbazi, F., A. Rajabipour, S. Mohtasebi, and Sh. Rafiee. 2008. Effects of transport vibrations on modulus of elasticity watermelon, variety crimson sweet. Iranian Journal of Biosystem Engineering 40 (1): 15-25. (In Farsi).

23. Shahbazi, F., A. Rrjabipour, S. Mohtasebi, and Sh. Rafiee. 2010. Simulated in-transit vibration damage to watermelons. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 12: 23-34.

24. Singh, S. P., and M. Xu. 1993. Bruising in apples as a function of truck vibration and packaging. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 9: 455-460.

25. Taghizade, G. H., J. Hashemi, and R. Tabatabaekoloor. 2012. The effect of fruit size on the kiwi fruit damage during transport. Iranian Food Science and Technology Congress, Sharif University, Tehran.

26. Timm, E. J., G. K. Brown, and P. R. Armstrong. 1996. Apple damage in bulk bins during semi-trailer transport. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 12: 369-377.

27. Van Zeebroeck, M., V. Van linden, P. Darius, B. De ketelaere, H. Ramon, and E. Tijskens. 2007a. the effect of fruit properties on the bruise susceptibility of tomatoes. Postharvest Biology and Technology 45, 168-175.

28. Van Zeebroeck, M., V. Van linden, P. Darius, B. De ketelaere, H. Ramon, and E. Tijskens. 2007b. the effect of fruit factors on the bruise susceptibility of apples. Postharvest Biology and Technology 46: 10-19.

29. Van Zeebroeck, M., V. Van Linden, H. Roman, J. De Baerdemaeker, B. M. Nicolai, and E. Tijskens. 2007c. Impact damage of apples during transport and handling. Postharvest Biology and Technology 45: 157-167.

30. Zhou, R., S. Su, L. Yan, and Y. Li. 2007. Effect of transport vibration levels on mechanical damage and physiological responses of Huanghua pears. Postharvest Biology and Technology 46 (1): 20-28.

31. Vursavus, K., and F. Ozguven. 2003. Determining the strength properties of the Dixired peach variety. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 27: 155-160.