Skip to main content

Comparison of Papaya Cushioning Materials by Ellipsoid Evaluation Method

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Mechanical, System and Control Engineering (ICMSC 2021)

Abstract

This research aimed to compare the performance of papaya cushioning materials in protecting against mechanical damage during retailing. Holland variety of papaya at the P5 stage of ripeness (yellow color throughout the fruit) and a weight of between 0.5 and 1.0 kg/fruit were used in this experiment. Free-fall drop testing was performed at 0.6, 0.79 and 1.0 m. The selected cushioning materials for this study consisted of: (1) frustum cone foam of 10 mm in diameter and 9 cm in length; (2) bead foam of 13, 18 and 25 mm in diameter; and (3) mesh foam of 5 mm in diameter. Testing and evaluation involved determining the bruising volume by the ellipsoid method. The test results showed that frustum cone foam and all of the bead foams could protect the papaya from mechanical damage without any bruising. Considering all three factors (bruise volume, bulk density, and material cost) in selecting a cushioning material for papaya, it was found from the free-fall drop test of papaya that the most appropriate material to protect against mechanical damage and bruises was bead foam of 13 mm in diameter with a bulk density of 0.049 g/cm3 at the cost of 13 THB/100 pieces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Office of Agricultural Economics Homepage. https://www.moac.go.th/moaceng-magazine-files-422991791793. Last accessed 2017/12/23

  2. Brown GK, Schulte NL, Timm EJ, Armstrong PR, Marshall DE (1993) Reduce apple bruise damage. Tree Fruit Postharvest J 4(3):6–10

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jarimopas B, Sayasoonthorn S, Singh SP, Singh J (2007) Test method to evaluate bruising during impacts to apples and compare cushioning materials. J Testing Eval 35(3):321–326

    Google Scholar 

  4. Subedi GD, Gautam DM, Baral DR, Paudyal KP et al (2017) Evaluation of packaging method for transportation of apple in CFB boxes. Int J Horticulture 7(9):154–162

    Google Scholar 

  5. Phithayapongsakorn S, Sayasoonthorn S (2013) Comparison of apple cushioning materials by free fall drop test method. Agric Sci J 44(3)(Suppl):363–366 (in Thai)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jarimopas B, Mahayosanan T, Srianek N (2004) Study of capability of net made of banana stringfor apple protection against impact. Kasetsart Eng J 17(51):9–16 (in Thai)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bollen AF, Nguyen HX, Dela Rue BT (1999) Comparison of methods for estimating the bruise volume of apples. J Agric Eng Res 7(4):325–330

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zarifneshat S, Ghassemzadeh HR, Sadeghi M, Abbaspour-Fard MH, Ahmadi E, Javadi A, Shervani-Tabar MT (2010) Effects of impact level and fruit properties on Golden Delicious apple bruising. Am J Agric Biol Sci 5(2):114–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beyaz A, Ozturk R, Turker U (2010) Assessment of mechanical damage on apples with image analysis. J Food Agric Environ 8(3):476–480

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chonhenchob V, Singh SP (2004) Testing and comparison of various packages for mango distribution. J Testing Eval 32(1):69–72

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pereira T, Almeida PSG, Azevedo IG, Cunha M, Oliveira JG, Silva MG, Vargas H (2009) Gas diffusion in ‘Golden’ papaya fruit at different maturity stages. Postharvest Biol Technol 54(3):123–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rachanukroa D, Singh SP, Jarimopas B (2007) Development of sweet tamarind pod retail packaging. In: Proceedings of the international conference on agricultural, food and biological engineering & postharvest/production technology. Thai Agricultural Engineering Society. Khon Kaen, Thailand, p 230

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hungh YC, Prussia SE (1989) Effect of maturity and storage time on the bruise of peaches (cv. Red Globe). Trans ASAE 32(4):1368–1373

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Department of Farm Mechanics, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University for financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Supakit Sayasoonthorn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Inwan, M., Thuwapanichayanan, R., Sayasoonthorn, S. (2022). Comparison of Papaya Cushioning Materials by Ellipsoid Evaluation Method. In: Lei, X., Koryanov, V.V. (eds) Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Mechanical, System and Control Engineering . ICMSC 2021. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9632-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9632-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-9631-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-9632-9

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics