The harvesting of processing tomatoes is fully mechanised and it is well known that during harvest, fruits are subjected to mechanical stress causing physical injuries, including skin punctures, pulp and cell rupture. Some wireless sensors have been used for research during recent years with the main purpose of reducing the quality loss of tomato fruits by diminishing the number and intensity of impacts. In this study the IRD (impact recorder device) sensor was used to evaluate several tomato harvesters. The specific objectives were to evaluate the impacts during mechanical harvest using a wireless sensor, to determine the critical points at which damage occurs, and to assess the damage levels. Samples were taken to determine the influence of mechanical harvest on texture, or on other quality characteristics including percentage of damages. From the obtained data it has been possible to identify the critical points where the damages were produced for each one of the five harvester models examined. The highest risk of damage was in zone 1 of the combine—from the cutting system to the colour selector—because the impacts were of higher intensity and hit less absorbing surfaces than in zone 2—from colour selector to discharge. The shaker and exit from the shaker are two of the harvester elements that registered the highest intensity impacts. By adjusting, in a specific way each harvester model, using the results from this research, it has been possible to reduce the tomato damage percentage from 20 to 29% to less than 10%.
References
[1]
FAO. Statistical Databases; Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org/ (accessed on 2 November 2010).
[2]
World Processing Tomato Council. Available online: www.wptc.to/tableau.htm (accessed on 2 November 2010).
[3]
Allende, A; Desmet, M; Vanstreels, E; Verlinden, B; Nicola？, B. Micromechanical and geometrical properties of tomato skin related to differences in puncture injury susceptibility. Postharvest Biol Technol？2004, 34, 131–141, doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.05.007.
[4]
Arazuri, S; Jarén, C; Arana, JI; Arnal, P. Evaluation of tomato harvesters using the IS-100. Proceedings of AgEng 2004 Engineering the Future, Leuven, Belgium, September 12–16, 2004; pp. 472–473.
[5]
Geyer, M; Herold, B; Oberbarnscheidt, B; Jakovác, F; Borsa, B. Minimized losses by mechanical tomato harvest in consideration of maturity and susceptibility. International Conference on Agricultural Engineering, Budapest, Hungary, July 1–3, 2002; pp. 225–226.
[6]
Fenyvesi, L; Jakovác, F; Borsa, B; Kovács, L; Herold, B; Oberbarnscheidt, B. Determination of mechanical susceptibility of tomato fruits. Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Fruit, Nut and Vegetable Production Engineering, Postdam, Germany, September 10–15, 2001; pp. 243–248.
[7]
Van Zeebroek, M; Van Linden, V; Darius, P; De Ketelaere, B; Ramon, H; Tijskens, E. The effect of fruit properties on the bruise susceptibility of tomatoes. Postharvest Biol Technol？2007, 45, 168–175, doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2006.12.022.
[8]
Jaren, C; Arazuri, S; Arana, I. Electronic fruits and other sensors. Chronica Horticulturae？2008, 48, 4–6.
[9]
Herold, B; Oberbarnscheidt, B; Jakovác, F; Borsa, B; Kovács, L. Mechanical load on tomatoes during mechanical harvest and transport. Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Fruit, Nut and Vegetable Production Engineering, Postdam, Germany, September 10–15, 2001; pp. 509–514.
[10]
Van Canneyt, T; Tijskens, E; Ramon, H; Verschoore, R; Sonck, B. Characterization of a potato-shaped instrumented device. Biosyst Eng？2003, 86, 275–285, doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2003.08.003.
[11]
Herold, B; Truppel, I; Siering, G; Geyer, M. User’s manual, PMS60; Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bornim: Federal Republic of Germany, 1994.
[12]
Zapp, HR; Brown, GK; Armstrong, PR; Sober, SS. Instrumented sphere performance: Dynamic measurements and demonstration. In International Summer Meeting. ASAE Paper No 89-0008;; ASAE: St Joseph, MI, USA, 1989.
[13]
Schultte, NL; Timm, EJ; Brown, GK. Apple, peach and pear impact damage thresholds. In International Summer Meeting. ASAE Paper No 96-6002;; ASAE: St Joseph, MI, USA, 1990.
[14]
Garcia, F; Ortiz-Ca？avate, J; Ruiz, M. Decelerator elements for ramp transfer points in fruit parking lines. J Food Eng？2003, 59, 331–337, doi:10.1016/S0260-8774(02)00480-6.
[15]
Garcia, F; Ortiz-Ca？avate, J; Ruiz, M. Evaluation and correction of the mechanical aggressiveness of comercial sizers used in store fruit parking lines. J Food Eng？2004, 63, 171–176, doi:10.1016/S0260-8774(03)00297-8.
[16]
Van Canneyt, T; Tijskens, E; Ramon, H; Verschoore, R; Sonck, B. Developement of a predictive tissue discolouration model based on electronic potato impacts. Biosyst Eng？2004, 88, 81–93, doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2004.01.005.
[17]
Desmet, M; Van linden, V; Hertog, M; Verlinden, V; De Baerdemaeker, J; Nicola？, B. Instrumented sphere prediction of tomato stem-puncture injury. Postharvest Biol Technol？2004, 34, 81–92, doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.04.006.
[18]
Jarén, C; Ruiz-Altisent, M. Effect of impacting radius of curvature on firmness sensing of fruits in a sorting system. Proceedings of International Conference on Agricultural Engineering, AgEng’96, Madrid, Spain, October 22–27, 1996.
[19]
Techmark Inc. Technical Information, Available online: www.techmark-inc.com/impact_/features.asp/ (accessed on 19 November 2010).
[20]
Barreiro, P; Ruiz, M; Steinmetz, V. Modelos de predicción de da？os en fruta y sistemática para la evaluación de equipos hortofrutícolas (Predictive models for fruit damages and evaluation of hortofruticultural devices). Fruticultura Profesional？1995, 73, 40–53.
[21]
Sargent, SA; Brecht, JK; Zoellner, JJ. Instrumented sphere impact analyses of tomato and bell pepper packing lines. Appl Eng Agric？1992, 8, 76–83.
[22]
Sober, SS; Zapp, HR; Brown, GK. Simulated packing line impacts for apple bruise prediction. Trans ASAE？1990, 33, 629–636.
[23]
Tennes, BR; Zapp, HR; Marshall, DE; Armstrong, PR. Apple handling impact data acquisition and analysis with an instrumented sphere. J Agric Eng Res？1990, 47, 269–276, doi:10.1016/0021-8634(90)80046-W.
[24]
Chen, P; Tang, S; Chen, S. Instrument for Testing the Response of Fruits to Impact ForceASAE Paper NO 85-3537; ASAE 1985 Winter Meeting, St Joseph, MI, USA; 1985.
[25]
Jaren, C; García-Pardo, E. Using non-destructive impact testing for sorting fruits. J Food Eng？2002, 53, 89–95, doi:10.1016/S0260-8774(01)00144-3.
[26]
Arana, JI; Jarén, C; Arazuri, S. Nectarine woolliness detection by non-destructive mechanical impact. Biosyst Eng？2005, 90, 37–45, doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2004.10.010.
[27]
Ugarte, MD; Militino, AF. Estadística aplicada con S-Plus; Universidad Pública de Navarra: Pamplona, Spain, 2002.
