Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version.
If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, Click here for options.
Impact Bruise Responses for “Jazz” Apple on Different Materials of Catch Surface
Published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan www.asabe.org
Citation: 2016 ASABE Annual International Meeting 162461461.(doi:10.13031/aim.20162461461)
Authors: Han Fu, Long He, Shaochun Ma, Manoj Karkee, Du Chen, Qin Zhang, Shumao Wang
Keywords: apple bruise, catching device, cushioning material, fresh market apple, impact force
Abstract. To gain an understanding on how cushioning materials could absorb the impact force to reduce fruit bruising in shake-and-catch harvest system, an experimental study using a developed pendulum impact platform was conducted to investigate the bruise response to impact forces. Three types of cushioning materials (Polyurethane foam) were used as impacting surface by covering on an aluminum plate. Polyurethane foams with same thickness(12.7 mm) but varying pressure rating (at 25% deflection) were used to exert impact on a stationary whole apple sitting freely on a horizontal surface. Seven different levels of impacts which were applied at three different zones of ‘Jazz‘ apples: top, middle and bottom. Each level was repeated 50 times at each zone. Results showed that no apple bruising was checked when impacted on or below 22 N by the aluminum plate, regardless of impact zones. The non-bruising impact force increased to 95, 160 and 160 N after foams with 2.1(Foam 1), 4.8 (Foam 2), and 9.7-11 kPa (Foam 3) pressure ratings were used respectively. Based on USDA Grades and Standards, it was found that a 100% of apple would maintain “Extra Fancy” quality under 115, 171, or 180 N of impact force when impacted respectively by the tested foams. These results indicated that Foam 2 and Foam 3 provided better cushioning as the fruit were maintained at fresh market quality level compared to the same with aluminum plate and Foam 1, while the difference between Foam 2 and Foam 3 was slight.
(Download PDF) (Export to EndNotes)