TY - GEN
T1 - Impact bruise responses for "Jazz™ apple on different materials of catch surface
AU - Fu, Han
AU - He, Long
AU - Ma, Shaochun
AU - Karkee, Manoj
AU - Chen, Du
AU - Zhang, Qin
AU - Wang, Shumao
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported in part by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Hatch and Multistate Project Funds (Accession No 1005756 and 1001246), USDA National Institutes for Food and Agriculture competitive grant (Accession No 1005200), Washington State University (WSU) Agricultural Research Center (ARC), and Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51305445). China Scholarship Council (CSC) sponsored Han Fu conducting collaborative PhD Dissertation research at WSU Center for precision and Automated Agricultural Systems (CPAAS). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Washington State University. The authors would also like to express our gratitude to Drs. Hongmei Xia, Jintao Yao, Lingxiao Quan, and Zhibin Zhang for their help in experimental data collection.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85009083392&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85009083392&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.13031/aim.20162461461
DO - 10.13031/aim.20162461461
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85009083392
T3 - 2016 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting, ASABE 2016
BT - 2016 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting, ASABE 2016
PB - American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
T2 - 2016 ASABE Annual International Meeting
Y2 - 17 July 2016 through 20 July 2016
ER -