Assessment of Mechanical Damage on Olive Fruit under Impact Loading

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• H. Kargarpour ¹
• T. Tavakoli Hashjin ¹
• A. Hemmat ²
• B. Ghobadian ¹

¹ Mechanics of Biosystem Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

² Mechanics of Biosystem Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.v8i2.62488

Abstract

Introduction
The olive fruit (Olea europaea L.) is so sensitive to impact like many other crops that would lead to mechanical damage and bruising which reduce the quality of it. The olive fruit damage includes a brownish bruise at the bruised location. Most mechanical impact damage occurs during harvesting, handling and transportation. Bruise sensitivity of two common olive cultivars in Iran (cv. Roghani and cv. Conservolea) was studied by free fall method because of development of the area under olive cultivation in Iran, and necessity to mechanical harvest in near future.

Materials and Methods
Two cultivar of olive fruit named Conservolea and Roghani were collected from Research Orchard of Horticultural Department of Isfahan University of Technology. A free-fall device was designed and built to accomplish an impact experiment which included a load cell monitoring system to measure impact force. The effect of cultivar, height and mass were studied in a factorial experiment. The factors consisted of two cultivar, height at five levels, and mass at three levels with 10 replications. The experiments were performed according to completely randomized design. The effect of impact force and absorbed energy was also studied for the two cultivars. The dimensions of bruising was measured 24 hours after the tests by a caliper with an accuracy of 0.01 mm. The bruising area and volume was calculated assuming the elliptical model for the bruised region. Experimental data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA). Mean comparison was performed based on least significant difference (LSD) test with.

Results and Discussion
For both cultivars the bruising occurred under the skin and near to the stone. This could show the effect of stone at bruising. The shape of bruised region was elliptical in cv. Roghani and spherical in cv. Conservolea. The bigger stone index and the lower flesh width of cv. Roghani might be one of the reasons of more volume of bruising in this cultivar. This variety could be due to less sphericity in cv. Roghani than cv. Conservolea. The distribution of bruising was more in Roghani cultivar since it had more oil and less water content that might led to more bruising distributed under impact condition so the volume of bruising was more than Conservolea cultivar. The effects of cultivar, height and mass were significant on area and volume of bruising. Increasing height and mass significantly resulted to increase the area and volume of bruising for both cultivars. The bruise area and volume were significantly higher in cv. Roghani. This could be due to differences in physical properties of the cultivars. Roghani cultivar had a higher pit/flesh ratio in comparison with Conservolea cultivars that could contribute to more area of bruising in this cultivar. Increasing the force and energy led to increase in bruise volume for both cultivars. In cv. Roghani, despite the lower levels of force and energy, the bruise volume was more than cv. Conservolea. The reason of lower energy and force in cv. Roghani might be as a result of lower mass than cv. Conservolea.

Conclusion
The results showed that the effects of independent variables were significant on the volume and area of bruising so that, increasing height and mass increased the volume and area of bruising. The Roghani cv. was significantly more sensitive to bruising compared to Conservolea cv. The energy and force levels were higher in cv. Conservolea since it was heavier than cv. Roghani while the volume of the bruise was more in cv. Roghani. This might be due to the lower sphericity and flesh/pit ratio in cv. Roghani. The shape of mechanical damage which was appeared with a brownish bruising on olive tissue was related to the geometric shape of the fruit i.e. for cv. Roghani and cv. Conservolea the bruising was elliptical in and spherical just like the geometric shape of the cultivars.

Keywords

• Absorbed energy
• Free fall experiment
• Impact force
• Mechanical damage
• Olive fruit

20.1001.1.22286829.1397.8.2.10.4

References

1. Abedi, M., and E. Ahmadi. 2014. Bruise susceptibilities of Golden Delicious apples as affected by mechanical impact and fruit properties. The Journal of Agricultural Science 152 (3): 439-447.

2. Afshari, H., S. Minaeei, M. Almasi, and P. Abdolmaleki. 2006. The assessment of potato damage under dynamic loading. Journal of science and food industry 5 (2): 69-79. (In Farsi).

3. Asgarian Najafabadi, S. A., H. R. Ghasemzadeh, and M. Moghadam. 2013. Laboratory study of two cultivars of strawberry fruit (Fragaria x ananassa) to bruising. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 3 (1): 41-47. (In Farsi).

4. Blahovec, J., and F. Paprstein. 2005. Susceptibility of pear varieties to bruising. Postharvest Biology and Technology 38 (3): 231-238.

5. Bollen, A. F., H. X. Nguyen, and B. T. De la Rue. 1999. Comparison of methods for estimating the bruise volume of apples. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 74 (4): 325-330.

6. Casanova, L., M. Corell, M. P. Suarez, P. Rallo, M. J. Martin-Palomo, and M. R. Jimenez. 2017. Bruising susceptibility of Manzanilla de Sevilla table olive cultivar under Regulated Deficit Irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 189: 1-4.

7. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014. Food Supply - Crops Primary Equivalent. Available at: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/CC.

8. Ghanbarian, D., M. Shirvani, M. Ghasemi Varnamkhasty, and H. Golestanian. 2015. The effects of the dropping height and contact surface on bruising of export apples. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 5 (1): 122-133. (In Farsi).

9. Idah, P. A., E. S. A. Ajisegiri, and M. G. Yisa. 2007. An assessment of impact damage to fresh tomato fruits. AU Journal of Technology 10 (4): 271-275.

10. Jadidi, Z. 2014. Evaluation of the performance and fruit features of some olive cultivars in Isfahan. Faculty of agriculture. Isfahan University of Technology.

11. Jimenez-Jimenez, F., S. Castro-Garcia, G. L. Blanco-Roldan, J. Agüera-Vega, and J. A. Gil-Ribes. 2012. Non-destructive determination of impact bruising on table olives using Vis–NIR spectroscopy. Biosystems Engineering 113: 371-378.

12. Jimenez-Jimenez, F., S. Castro-Garcia, G. L. Blanco-Roldan, L. Ferguson, U. A. Rosa, and J. A. Gil-Ribes. 2013. Table olive cultivar susceptibility to impact bruising. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 86: 100-106.

13. Jimenez, M. R., P. Rallo, H. F. Rapoport, and M. P. Suarez. 2016. Distribution and timing of cell damage associated with olive fruit bruising and its use in analyzing susceptibility. Postharvest Biology and Technology 111: 117-125.

14. Lewis, R., A. Yoxall, L. Canty, and E. R. Romo. 2007. Development of engineering design tools to help reduce apple bruising. Journal of Food Engineering 83: 356-365.

15. Mireei, S. A., M. Sadeghi, A. Heidari, and A. Hemmat. 2015. On-line firmness sensing of dates using a non-destructive impact testing device. Biosystems Engineering 129: 288-297.

16. Mohammad Shafie, M. A. Rajabipour, H. Mobli, and M. Khanali. 2016. The effect of dropping impact on bruising pomegranate fruit. Journal of Agricultural Machinery 6 (1): 176-187. (In Farsi).

17. Mohsenin, N. N. 1986. Physical properties of plant and animal materials. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. New York.

18. Opara, L. U. 2007. Bruise susceptibilities of ‘Gala’ apples as affected by orchard management practices and harvest date. Postharvest Biology and Technology 43: 47-54.

19. Ortiz, C., J. Blasco, S. Balasch, and A. Torregrosa. 2011. Shock absorbing surfaces for collecting fruit during the mechanical harvesting of citrus. Biosystems Engineering 110: 2-9.

20. Praeger, U., J. Surdilovic, I. Truppel, B. Herold, and M. Geyer. 2013. Comparison of electronic fruits for impact detection on a laboratory scale. Sensors 13: 7140-7155.

21. Saracoglu, T., N. Ucer, and C. Ozarslan. 2011. Engineering properties and susceptibility to bruising damage of table olive (Olea europaea) fruit. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 13 (5): 801-805.

22. Schulte N. L., E. J. Timm, and G. K. Brown. 1994. ‘Redhaven’ peach impact damage thresholds. Horticulture Science 29 (9): 1052-1055.

23. Segovia-Bravo, K. A., M. Jaren-Galan, P. Garcia-Garcia, and A. Garrido-Fernandez. 2009. Browning reactions in olives: mechanism and polyphenols involved. Food Chemistry 114 (4): 1380-1385.

24. Shoa, P., and A. Hemmat. 2014. Assessment of two olive cultivars sensitivity to impact damage. 8th national congress of agricultural machinery and mechanization engineering. Mashhad, Iran. (In Farsi).

25. Van linden, V., N. Scheerlinck, M. Desmet, and J. De Baerdemaeker. 2006. Factors that affect tomato bruise development as a result of mechanical impact. Postharvest Biology and Technology 42: 260-270.

26. Van Zeebroeck, M., H. Ramon, J. De Baerdemaeker, B. Nicolaï, and E. Tijskens. 2007. Impact damage of apples during transport and handling. Postharvest Biology and Technology 45: 157-167.

27. Zarifneshat, S., H. R. Ghassemzadeh, M. Sadeghi, M. H. Abbaspour-Fard, E. Ahmadi, A. Javadi, and M. T. Shervani-Tabar. 2010. Effect of impact level and fruit properties on Golden Delicious apple bruising. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5: 114-121.

28. Zhang, Sh., X. Wu, Sh. Zhang, Q. Cheng, and Z. Tan. 2017. An effective method to inspect and classify the bruising degree of apples based on the optical properties. Postharvest Biology and Technology 127: 44-52.