Investigation of Some Physical Properties of Two Varieties of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam)

Year 2021, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 230 - 238, 30.06.2021

Olufemi Adetola , Oluwatusin Adeniyi , Deji Akindahunsi

Abstract

Physical properties of agricultural materials are essential in the development of machineries, equipment and devices. In this research, forty sample each of two unique varieties namely Jewel-orange flesh sweet potatoes (JOFSP) and Oriental-purple flesh sweet potatoes (OPFSP) physical properties were determined using standard methods and equations. The results show that JOFSP gave the mean length (110.68±24.59 mm), width(61.40±8.09 mm), geometric mean (39.72±8.19 mm), volume (187.78±73.85 ml), surface area (4950.00±203.32 mm2) and roundness (1.81±0.50) which were of higher values compared to that of OPFSP which gave the length (68.46±10.16 mm), width (59.32±5.82 mm), geometric mean (36.32±3.90 mm), volume (137.83±10.97 ml), surface area (4320.20±98.00 mm2) and roundness (1.41±0.30) respectively. JOFSP gave moisture content, thickness, mass, sphericity and true density of 58.00±10.17 %, 37.60±7.17 mm, 202.87±65.12 g, 0.35±0.08, and 1.17±0.27 g cm-3 which were of lower values compared to that of OPFSP which gave 79.32±3.84 %, 45.94±9.04 mm, 271.87±15.72 g, 0.53±0.08, and 1.89±0.14 g cm-3 for OPFSP respectively. The mean of the angle of repose and the static coefficient of friction considered for the three-separate surfaces namely plywood (9.35±2.87°, 0.17±0.05), stainless steel (8.50±3.50°,0.15±0.05) and galvanized steel (8.30±3.20°) of lower values for JOFSP compared to that of plywood which gave (11.80±2.25°, 0.21±0.04), stainless steel (9.90±2.02°, 0.19±0.05), galvanized steel (10.90±2.28°) for OPFSP while the coefficient static of friction of stainless steel for JOFSP gave a higher value of 0.20±0.13 compared to that of 0.17±0.04 for OPFSP respectively. These findings provide engineers with valuable information for designing different handling, grading, and drying systems for industrial processing.

Keywords

Investigation, Parameters, Physical properties, Sweet potato, Varieties

Supporting Institution

Federal University of Technology Akure

Project Number

0026

Thanks

Thanks

References

• Akaaimo DI and Raji OA (2006). Some physical engineering properties of prosopsis Africana seed. Biosystems Engineering, 95(2): 197-205.
• Anazado UGN (1983). Force deformation analysis for biomaterials in radial compression: Maximum Contact Stress: apricot pit and its kernel. Journal of Food Engineering, 56: 49-57.
• Aviara NA, Gwandzang MI and Haque MA (1999). Physical properties of guna seeds. Journal of Agricultural Research, 73: 105-111.
• Balami AA, Mohammed IA, Adebayo SE, Adgidzi D and Adelemi AA (2012). The relevance of some engineering properties of cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta) in the design of postharvest processing machinery. Academic Research International, 2(3): 104-113.
• Bart-Plange A and Baryeh EA (2003). The physical properties of category B cocoa beans. Journal of Food Engineering, 60: 219-227.
• Baryeh EA (2000). Strength properties of avocado pear. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 76(4): 389-397.
• Baryeh EA (2001). Physical properties of Bambara groundnuts. Journal of Food Engineering, 47(4): 321-326.
• Burum S (2004). American cinematographer manual (9th ed). ASC Press. ISBN 0-935578-24-2.
• Desphande SD, Bal KN and Ojha TP (1993). Physical properties of soybean. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 56: 89-98.
• Isik E I and Unal H (2007). Moisture dependent physical properties of white speckled red kidney bean grains. Journal of Food Engineering, 82: 209-206
• IBM SPSS (2012). IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
• Joshi DC, Das SK and Mukherjiee RK (1993). Physical properties of pumpkin seeds. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 54(3): 222- 229.
• Kachru RP, Gupta RK and Alan A (1994). Physio-chemical constituents and engineering properties of food crops. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India.
• Kashaninejad MLG, Tabil AM and Kordi AS (2003). Effect of drying methods on the quality of pistachio nuts. Drying Technology 21(5): 821-838.
• McClue JE and Morrow CT (1987). Computer vision sorting of potatoes. ASAE Paper, No 87-6501.
• Mohsenin NN (2010). Physical properties of plant and animal materials, structure, physical characteristics and mechanical properties. 2nd edition (Revised); Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, New York.
• Naskar SK, Nedunchezhiyan M and Rao KR (2008). Evaluation of sweet potato cultivars for quality traits. In: New R and D Initiative in Horticulture for Accelerated Growth and Prosperity. 3rd Indian Horticultural Congress. Bhubaneswar, p: 340, Orissa, India.
• Oke MO, Awonorin SO, Sanni LO, Akanbi CT and Abioye AO (2007). Determination of some selected engineering properties of sweet potato cuts as a function of temperature. Journal of Food Technology, 5(1): 66-70.
• Olukunle OJ and Akinnuli BO (2012). Investigating some engineering properties of coffee seeds and beans. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences, 3(5): 743-747.
• Oluwamukomi MO and Akinsola OO (2015). Thermal and physicochemical properties of some starchy foods: Yam (Dioscorea rotundata), Cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium), and Plantain (Musa paradisiacal). Food Science and Technology, 3(1): 9-17.
• Ozguven F and Vursavus K (2005). Some physical, mechanical and aerodynamics properties of pine nuts. Journal of Food Engineering, 68: 191-196.
• Ramesh CR and Tomlins KI (2010). Sweet potato: Post harvest aspect in food, feed and industry. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York.
• Ray RC and Ravi V (2005). Post-harvest spoilage of sweet potato and its control measures. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 45(7-8): 623-644.
• Singh KK and Goswami TK (1996). Physical properties of cumin seed. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 64: 93-98.
• Suthar SH and Das SK (1996). Some physical properties of karingda [Citrullus lanatus (Thumb) Mansf] seeds. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 65: 15-22.
• Tabatabaeefar A (2003). Moisture-dependent physical properties of wheat. International Agrophysics, 17: 207-211.
• Tabatabaeefar A and Rajabipour A (2005). Modeling the mass of apples by geometrical attributes. Scientia Horticulturae, 105(3): 373-382.
• Thompson RA and Isaac GW (1967). Porosity determinations of grains and seeds with an air-comparison pycnometer. Transaction of ASAE, 10: 693-696.
• Yalcin I, Ozarslan C and Akbas T (2007). Physical properties of pea seed. Journal of Food Engineering, 79: 731-732.
• Zewdu AD and Solomon WK (2007). Moisture dependent physical properties of tef seed. Biosystems Engineering, 96(1): 57-63.