Engineering Properties of Biological Material
Engineering Properties of Biological Material
NAME JESSE LEE KAR MING TOO JUN HAO LIAM KOK WENG HUSNA NABILAH AMIERA AMIEZA SUPIAN MATRIX NO. 169317 169809 168643 168591 167964
Title: Physical and Mechanical Properties of Kiwifruit Objectives: To investigate the physical and mechanical properties of kiwifruit that is necessary in designing equipment for harvesting and processing. Materials 50 random sample of one batch of mature fresh kiwifruit of Hayward variety that is kept in refrigerator. Method Physical Properties (All units are based on SI units) Type Arithmetic Mean Diameter Geometric mean diameter Aspect ratio (Ra) Sphericity Surface area True volume Origin of Formula Mohsenin(1978) formula Formula D= D= Maduako and Faborocde (1990) formula Mohsenin(1978) formula total area over the outside of the kiwifruit Mohsenin(1978) formula % Ra =
= S=
Porosity
Mohsenin(1978) formula
% =(1 -
x 100)
% Rs = (
) x 100
Mechanical Properties Type Taylor puncture test Using Texture Analyzer, the kiwifruit is measured by using maximal force to perforate the fruit.
Functions Total work: Area of graph of penetrations Adhesiveness :total negative area indicative of work required to pull the probe from the sample
Functions Firmness: Maximal force to penetrate fruit Hardness: Peak positive value in compression Adhesive force: peak negative force caused by pinching and suction of fleshy
Data Physical characteristics A summary of the results shows that the average length, width and thickness were found to be 68.00, 50.26 and 46.38 mm, respectively The sphericity and aspect ratio of kiwifruit were found to be 79.80% and 74.34%, respectively The average values of true volume, apparent volume, true density, bulk density and porosity of kiwifruit were 102 cm3, 83.16 cm3, 996.00 kg/m3, 563.21 kg/m3 and 43.40%, espectively (Table 1). The average error of apparent volume to true volume of kiwifruit was obtained 18.46% Mechanical Properties The results of the rheological properties of kiwifruit are according as below. Overall, the firmness of kiwifruit is between 145.06g to 320.67g in 50 samples; compared to other firmness of mango (22.39g) (Jha et al. 2006) , pear(16.87g) by Gomez 2005. The hardness of kiwifruit is between 240-262g, using a Test Instrument of Biological Materials. Using the same instrument, hardness of wild plum (78.5g) strawberry (88.3g) were lower than kiwifruit. The adhesiveness, adhesive force and total positive area of unpeeled pear reported -121.8 g.s, -87 g and 3748.6 g.s, Conclusion Based on the results, all of the characteristics of the kiwifruit of Hayward variety has slight deviation compared to data of several commodities (Thompson and Crisosto, 2002). Another important factor that has been discovered is the relationship between Quantification of these properties helped to evaluate, design and facilitate the design of the machines involved. Overall, the physical properties of kiwifruit of Hayward variety is identical according the references given. Significance of the research study The importance of the mechanical and physical properties of kiwifruit is to ensure that they are to be harvested and processed (transported, graded, sorted) without any damages. Fresh fruits that are damaged has lower quality and not in consumer demand, therefore suitable transporting materials is needed to ensure quality control of the kiwifruits. In terms of processing, the mechanical and physical properties of kiwifruit enable engineers to design equipment. This equipment is to be used to produce dried and frozen kiwi, jam and juices. Reference 1.Akar, R. & Aydin, C., Some physical properties of gumbo fruit varieties, Journal of Food Engineering, 2005, 66, 387-393. 2.Aviara, N.A., Shittu, S.K. & Haque, M.A., Physical properties of guna fruits relevant in bulk handling and mechanical processing, Int. Agrophysics, 2007, 21, 7-16. 3.Aydin, C. & Ozcan, M.M., Determination of nutritional and physical properties of myrtle (Myrtus Communis, L.) fruit growing wild in Turkey, Journal of Food Engineering, 2007, 79, 453-458.