1 / 54

Nondestructive Impact and Acoustic Testing For Quality Assessment of Apples

Nondestructive Impact and Acoustic Testing For Quality Assessment of Apples. by Itzhak Shmulevich, Naftali Galili and M. Scott Howarth A G E NG 2002 Budapest, Hungary June 30-July 4, 2002. The Department of Agricultural Engineering. Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.

mason
Download Presentation

Nondestructive Impact and Acoustic Testing For Quality Assessment of Apples

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Nondestructive Impact and Acoustic Testing ForQuality Assessment of Apples by Itzhak Shmulevich, Naftali Galili and M. Scott Howarth AGENG 2002 Budapest, Hungary June 30-July 4, 2002

  2. The Department of Agricultural Engineering Technion-Israel Institute of Technology

  3. Presentation outline • Introduction - firmness quality nondestructive measurements; • Impact technique vs. acoustic technique; • Experimental report on various fruits; • Results; • Discussion; • Conclusions.

  4. QUALITY ASSESSMENT

  5. Quality Factors of Agricultural Products • Appearance - visual • Texture - feel • Flavor - taste and smell • Safety • Nutritive Value

  6. Texture • Texture can be defined by subjective terms such as: Firmness Mealiness, Hardness, Softness, Brittleness, Ripeness, Toughness, Chewiness, Smoothness, Crispness, Oiliness, Springiness, Toughness, Fibrousness, or Juiciness etc.

  7. Quality Sensing in Commercial Settings Requirements • Nondestructive • External and internal properties • Accuracy • Speed (5-15 fruits/sec) • Recognize inherent product variability

  8. NONDESTRUCTIVE SENSOR TECHNOLOGY

  9. NondestructiveFirmness Measurement Techniques • Fruit Response to Force • Detection by Impact Force • Forced Vibrations • Mechanical or Sonic Impulse • Ultrasonic Techniques • Indirect Firmness Measurement

  10. Research Objective The motivation of the present work is to develop a fast nondestructive method for quality firmness testing of apples. The general objective of the research is to q firmness using low compare sensing the fruit mass impulse excitation to the acoustic response for quality assessment of apples.

  11. Texture Acoustic vs. Impact

  12. Relationship between turgor pressure and tissue rigidity E=3.6 p +2.5 x107 [ dynes/cm2] • Modulus of Elasticity

  13. NondestructiveFirmness Measurement Impact Force Technique

  14. Force [N] Time [msec] Quality Detection by Impact Force

  15. Low-Mass Impact (LMI) Firmness

  16. IQ Firmness Sinclair International LTD IQ TM Firmness Tester

  17. NondestructiveFirmness Measurement Acoustic Technique

  18. Firmalon Prototype

  19. Firmalon

  20. Typical Acoustic Fruit Response Frequency Domain Time Domain

  21. Microphone Based System for Acoustic Firmness Testing Source: J. De Baerdemaeker

  22. Comparison Between Two Acoustic Test Methods Method-A: Microphone Method-B: Piezoelectric-Film Sensor Source: N. Galili & J. De Baerdemaeker

  23. Acoustic Firmness SensorA F STM Source: AWETA

  24. DestructiveFirmness Measurement

  25. Fp td d N Tp sec Quality Detection by Impact Force Chen. P (1996), Farabee (1991) Delwiche (1989 ,1991), Nahir et al. (1986 )

  26. Quality Detection by Impact Source: Shmulevich et. al. ( 2000 )

  27. The Acoustic Parameters of a Fruit • Natural frequencies and firmness index - FI FI = f 2m 2/3{104 kg2/3 s-2} where: f - first spherical resonant frequency m - fruit’s mass. • Damping ratio - z • The centeroid of the frequency response - fc

  28. Parameters extracted from the measurements Low-Mass Impulse parameters: C1 = Fp/Tp; C2 = Fp/Tp2 ;w (-20); and fc(in). IQ , IT Acoustic parameters: f1 ; FI ; and fc; Destructive parameters: E ; MT.

  29. Method and Materials • Three apples cultivers; • Shelf life conditions: 20 0C 50%RH; • 25 fruits were tested daily both • nondestructively and destructively; • Destructive test - (MT, E’); • .

  30. Results

  31. Results - Rubber Spheres

  32. Results - Rubber Spheres

  33. Results - Rubber Spheres

  34. Typical Acoustic Fruit Response Frequency Domain Time Domain

  35. Golden Delicious n=270

  36. Pearson linear correlation between the nondestructive and destructive tests, n=270 Golden Delicious -Apple,Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

  37. Results -Golden Delicious

  38. Results-Golden Delicious

  39. Starking Apples n=270

  40. Pearson linear correlation between the nondestructive and destructive tests, n=270 Starking -Apple,Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

  41. Results-Starking Apples

  42. Results-Starking Apples

  43. Granny Smith n=270

  44. Pearson linear correlation between the nondestructive and destructive tests, n=270 Granny Smith -Apple,Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level

  45. Results- Granny Smith

  46. Results- Granny Smith

  47. Summary • The impact firmness parameter IQ and IT of • the calibration balls, obtained by the instrumented • hammer and the Sinclair sensor, were very close • (R-average = 0.992), while the Sinclair sensor • predicted slightly better the elastic modulus • of the balls (R = 0.9992).

  48. Summary (Cont,) • The elastic modulus E’, which is the physical measurement of firmness, was predicted well by the IQ and IT impact parameters in Golden Delicious apples (R-average = 0.917). • The acoustic firmness index FI was equivalent to IQ in Golden Delicious, but improved the prediction of E’ in Starking and Granny Smith apples (R-average = 0.931).

More Related