Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2019, Page: 72-80
Physical Characterization of Two Wild Varieties of Edible Orchid Tubers
Dobgima J. Fonmboh, Department of Nutrition, Food Science and Bio-resource Technology, The College of Technology, The University of Bamenda, Bambili, Cameroon
Tembe Estella Achick, Department of Pharmaco Toxicology and Pharmacokinetics, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Yaoundé 1, Yaoundé, Cameroon
Fokunang Charles Ntungwen, Department of Pharmaco Toxicology and Pharmacokinetics, Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, The University of Yaoundé 1, Yaoundé, Cameroon
Bup Nde Divine, Department of Nutrition, Food Science and Bio-resource Technology, The College of Technology, The University of Bamenda, Bambili, Cameroon
Received: Oct. 27, 2018;       Accepted: Sep. 17, 2019;       Published: Nov. 19, 2019
DOI: 10.11648/j.abb.20190704.13      View  387      Downloads  127
Abstract
The physical properties of agricultural products are necessary for the design of equipment for post-harvest treatments and storage. The physical characteristics of two varieties (Ateehteu and Lamsie) of wild orchid tubers used for the production of an endogenously processed food eaten as a meat replacement were determined. Directly measured properties (tuber length, width, thickness, mass, true volume and bulk volume) and derived properties (sphericity, shape index, size, porosity, true and bulk density) were evaluated at 86.11% and 79.01% (wb) moisture contents of Ateehteu and Lamsie respectively. The mean ranges respectively recorded for Ateehteu and Lamsie were: mass (1.70 – 5.79) g; (1.24 – 7.65) g, length (18.94 – 32.01) mm; (9.84 – 27.54) mm, width (11.91 – 19.34) mm; (6.91 – 18.79) mm; thickness (5.07 – 24.50) mm; (1.09 – 22.77) mm, true volume (1.37 – 5.68) ml; (1.52 – 7.28), and bulk volume (29.67 – 30.58) ml; (31.50 – 32.84) ml. For the derived properties, Ateehteu and Lamsie respectively gave, sphericity (60.49 – 81.00)%; (62.72– 87.81)%, shape index (1.18 – 2.34)%; (1.08 – 2.19)%, true density (0.58 – 1.82) g/ml; (0.84 – 1.15) g/ml, bulk density (0.53 – 0.61) g/ml; (0.50 – 0.54) g/ml, porosity (0.76 – 1.00), (0.87 – 1.07); and bulk porosity (0.47 – 0.51); (0.45 – 0.47). The repose angle was (26.06 – 32.92)° and (28.28 – 32.86)° while the coefficient of static friction on four surfaces viz aluminium sheet, rubber, leather and plywood were (0.27 – 0.44); (0.13 – 0.63), (0.32 – 0.49); (0.88 – 0.95), (0.16 – 0.64); (0.31 – 0.55); (0.33 – 0.62); (0.48 – 2.75). There were significant variations in physical dimensions of Lamsie; larger mass and true volume, sphericity and repose angle compared to Ateehteu. There was significant variation in the coefficient of static friction on aluminium sheet, rubber, leather and plywood respectively for Ateehteu and Lamsie respectively with no variation in the coefficient of dynamic friction on the same surfaces for Ateehteu and Lamsie respectively. The negative values obtained for some derived shape parameters (flattening and ellipticity) which consequently affected the surface area is an indication that the shape assumption of the tubers as oblate or prolate requires verification. There is therefore need to correlated the directly measured properties to obtain an empirical formula to calculate each corresponding parameter and analyse to obtain the best fit. It is therefore promising to design a process plan to harvest, transports, handle, sort and separate, grade, convey stock and process the tubers into Nyam ngub.
Keywords
Physical Characteristics, Wild Orchid, Tubers, Varieties, Ateehteu, Lamsie, Nyam ngub
To cite this article
Dobgima J. Fonmboh, Tembe Estella Achick, Fokunang Charles Ntungwen, Bup Nde Divine, Physical Characterization of Two Wild Varieties of Edible Orchid Tubers, Advances in Bioscience and Bioengineering. Vol. 7, No. 4, 2019, pp. 72-80. doi: 10.11648/j.abb.20190704.13
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Teye E. and Abano E. E. Physical properties of two varieties of sweet potato grown in coastal savannah zone of ghana. I. J. S. N., 2012; 3 (1): 105-109. ISSN 2229-6441.
[2]
Singh Yogendra and Suresh Chandra Evaluation of physical properties of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Food Sci. Re. Paper Res. J, 2014; 5 (2): 125-129. ISSN-2230-9403. DOI: 10.15740/HAS/FSRJ/5.2/125-129Wright 1986.
[3]
Wright M. E., Tappan J. H., and Sister F. E. The size and shape of typical sweet potatoes. Transactions of the ASAE, 1986; 29 (3): 678–68.
[4]
Mohsenin N. N. Physical properties of plant animal material- II. Gordon and Breach Sci. Pub, New York, U.S, 1970.
[5]
Asoegwu S. N., Eke C. N. U., and Nwandikom G. I. Some Physical Properties of Jackbean Seed (Canavalia ensiformis. A. E. I., 2007; 9. the CIGR Ejournal Manuscript FP 07 014.
[6]
Asoegwu S. N., Ohanyere S. O., Kanu O. P. and Iwueke C. N. (2006). Physical properties of African oil bean seed (Pentaclethra macrophylla). A. E. I, 8. the CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development. Manuscript FP. 05 006.
[7]
Kaleemullah S. and Kailappan, P. Geometric and morphometric properties of chillies. Internat. J. Food Properties, 2003; 6 (3): 481-498.
[8]
Dalvand M. J. (2011). Physical properties of potato tubers cv. Analy. Cult. in iran, 2011; 74: 117-128. DOI: 10.2478/v10032-011-0010-x.
[9]
Razavi S. M. A., Emadzadeh B., Rafe A., and Mohammad A. A. The physical properties of pistachio nut and its kernel as a function of moisture content and variety: Part I. Geometrical properties. J. F. E., 2007; 81: 209-217.
[10]
Igathinathane C. and Chattopadhyaya P. K. On the development of ready to reckoner table for evaluation surface area of general ellipsoids based on numerical technique. J. F. E., 1998; 36 (2): 233-247.
[11]
Keramat Jahromi M., Jafari A., Rafiee S., Keyhani A., Mirasheh R., Moh-tasebi S. S. Some Physical properties of Date Fruit (cv. Lasht). The CIGR Ejournal, 2007; 9.
[12]
Sahin S., Gülüm Sumnu S. Physical properties of foods. Springer pub., 2006.
[13]
Gorji C. A., Rajabipour A. and Mobli H. Post-Harvest Physical and Nutritional Properties of Two Apple Varieties. J. A. S, 2010; 2 (3): 1-8.
[14]
Stroshine R., Hamann, D. D. (1994). Physical Properties of Agricultural Materials and Food Products. Course Manual. Purdue Univ., USA.
[15]
Marvin J. P., Hyde G. M., Cavalieri R. P. (1987). Modeling potato tuber mass with tuber dimensions. Trans. ASAE., 30: 1154-1159.
[16]
Deshpande S. D., Bal S. and Ojha, T. P. Physical properties of soybean. J. A. E. Res., 1993; 56: 89-98.
[17]
Joshi D. C., Das S. K., and Mukherji R. K. Physical properties of pumpkin seeds. J. A. E. Res., 1993; 54: 219-229.
[18]
Gupta R. K. and Das S. K. Physical properties of sunflower seeds. J. A. E. Res., 1997; 66: 1-8.
[19]
Nimkar P. M. and Chattopadhyay P. K. Some physical properties of green gram. J. A. E. Res., 2001; 80 (2): 183–189.
[20]
Baryeh E. A. and Mangope, B. K. Some physical properties of Q. P. -38 variety pegeonpea. J. F. E., 2002; 56 (1): 59-65.
[21]
Unal H., Isik E. and Alpsoy H. C. Some physical and mechanical properties of black eyed pea (Vigna unguiculata, L.) grain. Pakistan J. Bio. Sci., 2006; 9 (9): 1799-1806.
[22]
Altuntas E. and Demirtola. Effect of moisture content on physical properties of some grain legume seeds. N. Z. J. Crop Hort. Sci., 2007; 35 (4): 423-433.
[23]
Altuntas E. and Yildiz M. Effect of moisture content on some physical and mechanical properties of faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Grains. J. F. E., 2007; 78 (1): 174-183.
[24]
Shepherd et al. 1986.
[25]
Tabatabaeefar A. Size and shape of potato tubers. Int. Agrophysics, 2002; 16: 301–305.
[26]
Tabatabaeefar A. and Rahimi M. Physical properties of Iranian potatoes. Proceedings of Inter. Agricul. Eng. Con., 2000b Bangkok- Thailand; 501–506.
[27]
Tabatabaeefar A., Rajabipour A. and Khodabandehloo H. Mass model of Iranian export apples with its dimensions. Phy. Meths in Agri., Prague CZK, 2000a: 303–321.
[28]
Tabatabaeefar A., Vefagh-nematolahee A., and Rajabipour A. Mass model of Iranian orange with its dimensions. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 1999; 2 (4): 299–305.
[29]
Owolarafe O. K. and Shotonde H. O. (2004). Some physical properties of fresh okro fruit. J. Food Eng., 63: 299-302.
[30]
Sessiz A., Esgici R., Kizil S. (2007). Mois-ture-dependent physical properties of caper (Capparis ssp.) fruit. J. Food Eng., 79: 1426-1431.
[31]
Meisami-asl E., Rafiee S., Keyhani A. and Tabatabaeefar A. (2009). Some phys-ical properties of apple cv. ‘Golab’. The CIGR Ejournal. 11.
[32]
Topuz A., Topakçı M., Çanakçı M., and I. Akıncı Ö. F. Physical and nutritional properties of four orange varieties. J. Food Eng., 2005; 66 (4): 519-523.
[33]
Safa M. and Khazaei J. Determining and modeling some physical proper-ties of pomegranate fruits of Saveh area related to peeling and packag-ing. In: Int. Cong. on Info. Tech. in Agri., Food and Env., Izmir Turkey, 2003; 331-337.
[34]
Taheri-Garavand A., Rafiee S., Keyhani A. and Mirzaee E. A traveling time model as function of water density and vegetable size, shape and density. Veget. Crops Res. Bull., 2010; 73: 143-149. [DOI: 10.2478/v10032-010-0026-7].
[35]
Ece Sevgi, Ernaz Altundag, Omer Kara, Orhan Sevgi, Huseyin Baris Tecimen, Ilyas Bolat. Morphological, anatomical and ecological studies on some Orchis (Orchidaceae) taxa of Mediterranean region, Turkey. J. Environ. Biol., 2012; 33: 343-353. ISSN: 0254-8704 CODEN: JEBIDP.
[36]
AOAC Official Methods of Analysis of Association of Analytical Chemistry International. 17th ed. Maryland, 2000; 45: 1220.
[37]
Yossry B. Abd Elhay Determination of some physical and mechanical properties of potato tubers related to design of sorting, cleaning and grading machine. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 2017: 34 (3): 1375-1388.
[38]
Mohsenin N. N. Physical Properties of Plant and Animal Material. 2nd edition (revised) Gordon and Breach sci. publishers New York, 1986.
[39]
McCabe W. L. and Smith J. C. Unit operations of chemical engineering. 3rd Ed., Mc GrawHill book company, Japan; 1984.
[40]
Ismail Z. E. Potato cultivar, cultivation, harvesting, handling and storage. Dar EL mearef publisher – Alexandria, 1991; 23-57.
[41]
Gamea G. R., Abd El-Maksoud M. A. and Abd El-Gawad A. M. Physical Characteristics and Chemical Properties of Potato Tubers Under Different Storage Systems. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 2009.
[42]
Reddy B. S, and Chakraverty A. Physical properties of raw and parboiled paddy. Biosys. Eng., 2004; 88, 461–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2004.05.002.
[43]
Varnamkhasti M. G., Mobli H., Jafari A., Rafiee S., Soltanabadi M. H. and Kheiralipour K. Some engineering properties of paddy (var sazandegi). I. J. A. B., 2007; 9: 763–766.
[44]
Lewis M. J. Physical Properties of Foods and Food Processing Systems. Ellis Horwood, England, 1987.
[45]
Rahman M. S. Food properties handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995.
[46]
Ozguven F, and Kubilay V. Some physical, mechanical and aerodynamic properties of pine (Pinus pinea) nuts. J. Food Eng., 2004; 68: 191–196.
[47]
Dutta S. K., Nema V. K. and Bhardwaj R. K. Physical properties of gram. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 1988; 39 (4): 259–268.
[48]
Razavi S. and Milani E. Some physical properties of the watermelon seeds. A. J. A. Res., 2006; 13: 65–69.
[49]
Amin M. N., Hossain M. A., and Roy C. Effects of moisture content on some physical properties of lentil seeds. J. Food Eng., 2004; 65: 83-87.
[50]
Buyanov A. I. and Voronyuk B. A. Physical and mechanical properties of plant, Fertilizers and soils. Amerind Pub. Co. PVT., LTD., New Delhi, India, 1985; 753.
Browse journals by subject