A Study on Rupture Resistance of Groundnut (cv. SAMNUT 22) Kernel

Abstract

This study was done to assess the influence of compression loading rate and kernel size on the rupture resistance of groundnut (cv. SAMNUT 22) kernel. These groundnut kernel mechanical parameters (rupture force, deformation at rupture, rupture power, firmness and toughness) were evaluated under three loading rates (15 mm min-1, 20 mm min-1 and 25 mm min-1), and three size categories (small, medium and large). The groundnut kernels were harvested at peak maturity stage, and tested in accordance to ASTM International standards. Results obtained from the tests showed that the rupture resistance of SAMNUT 22 kernel was highly dependent on its size and the loading rate. Generally, as the loading rate increases, the mechanical parameters values declined significantly (p ≤ 0.05). Rupture force, deformation at rupture point, rupture power and the firmness increased as the kernel size increases; but in contrast, the kernel toughness decreases as its size increased. An average force of 57.96 N ruptured the large kernel, while a lower force of 27.35 N ruptured the small kernel. Moreover, the large kernel recorded the highest firmness (59.03 N mm-1), when compared to the medium (51.69 N mm-1) and small (44.98 N mm-1) size kernel. In terms of rupture power, the small kernel power ranged from 0.1002 W (15 mm min-1) to 0.084 W (25 mm min-1); medium size kernel ranged from 0.115 W (15 mm min-1) to 0.074 W (25 mm min1); while the large size kernel ranged from 0.135 W (15 mm min-1) to 0.104 W (25 mm min-1). These results portrayed importance of sorting of the groundnut kernels before processing unit operation, as it will help to conserve power and energy during the processing operation.

Keywords

• Groundnut
• Kernel size
• Loading rate
• Mechanical properties
• Mechanical properties
• Rupture power

References

1. Ajeigbe HA, Waliyar F, Echekwu CA, Ayuba K, Motagi BN, Eniayeju D and Inuwa A (2014). A farmer’s guide to groundnut production in Nigeria. Patancheru, 502 324, Telangana, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. p.28.
2. Akpokodje OI, Uguru H and Esegbuyota D (2018). Remediation of cassava effluent contaminated soil using organic soap solution: Case study of soil physical properties and plant growth performance. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 21(3): 1-11.
3. Akpokodje OI and Uguru H (2019). Impact of farming methods on some anti-nutrients, nutrients and toxic substances of cassava roots. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 6(4): 275-284.
4. Altuntas E and Ozkan Y (2008). Physical and mechanical properties of some walnut (Juglans regia L.) cultivars. International Journal of Food Engineering, 4: Article 10.
5. Altuntas E, Somuncu C and Ozturk B (2013). Mechanical behaviour of plum fruits as affected by pre-harvest methyl jasmonate applications. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 15(2): 266-274.
6. Bagheri I, Payman SH and Rahimi-Ajdadi F (2011). Mechanical behavior of peanut kernel under compression loading as a function of moisture contents. Elixir Agriculture, 36: 3552-3557.
7. Braga GC, Couto SM, Hara T and Almeida Neto JTP (1999). Mechanical Behaviour of Macadamia Nut under Compression Loading. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 72: 239-45.
8. Eboibi O and Uguru H (2017). Storage conditions effect on physic-mechanical properties of Nandini cucumber. International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research, 7(10): 75-82.

9. Eboibi O, Akpokodje OI, Nyorere O, Oghenerukevwe P and Uguru H (2019). Evaluation of textural qualities and chemical properties of some tomato cultivars. Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science, 7(6): 147-157.
10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2019). FAOSTAT [online]. Website: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. (August 2019).
11. Fricke EC and Wright SJ (2016). The mechanical defence advantage of small seeds. Ecology Letters, 1-5. doi: 10.1111/ele.12637
12. Hernández-Hernández V, Rueda D, Caballero L, Alvarez-Buylla ER and Benítez M (2014). Mechanical forces as information: an integrated approach to plant and animal development. Frontiers in Plant Science, 5: 1-16.
13. Ijabo OJ, Orwua JT and Omale PA (2016). Determination of quasi-static behaviour of bambara nut, ground nut and African yam beans pods and seeds. Journal of Environmental Science, Computer Science and Engineering & Technology, 5(3): 369-378.
14. Ince A, Ugurluay S, Güzel E and Özcan MT (2009). Mechanical behavior of hulled peanut and its kernel during the shelling process. Philippine Agricultural Scientist, 92(1): 92-99.
15. Khazaei J, Rasekh M and Borghei AM (2002). Physical and mechanical properties of almond and its kernel related to cracking and peeling. An ASAE Meeting Presentation, Paper No 026153.
16. Khodabakhshian R, Emadi B, Fard MH A and Saiedirad MH (2010). Mechanical properties of sunflower seed and its kernel, azargol variety as a case study, under compressive loading. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 4(2): 34-40.
17. Kutschera U and Niklas KJ (2007). The epidermal-growth-control theory of stem elongation: an old and a new perspective. Journal of Plant Physiology, 164: 1395–1409, doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2007.08.002
18. Li Z, Yang H, Li P, Liu J, Wang J and Xu Y (2013). Fruit biomechanics based on anatomy: A Review. International Agrophysics, 27: 97-106.
19. Lysiak G (2007). Fracture toughness of pea: Weibull Analysis. Journal of Food Engineering 83: 436-443.
20. Mohsenin NN (1986). Physical properties of plant and animal materials. Gordon Breach Sci. Press, New York, USA.
21. Ndjeunga J, Ntare BR, Ajeigbe H, Echekwu CA, Ibro A and Amadou A (2013). Adoption and impacts of modern groundnut varieties in Nigeria. http://grainlegumes.cgiar.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/2013_Groundnut_Nigeria_Early-adoption-of-groundnut.pdf. (May, 2019).
22. Niklas KJ (1992). Plant biomechanics: An engineering approach to plant form and function. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, United States of America.
23. Nyorere O and Uguru H (2018). Effect of seed size on the mechanical properties of gmelina seed. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 9(8): 853-856.
24. Oghenerukevwe P O and Uguru H (2018). Effect of fruit size and orientation on mechanical properties of gmelina fruit (Gmelina arborea) under quasi-Static loading. International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research, 8: 47-51.
25. Öztekin YB, Taner A and Duran H (2020). Chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) cultivar classification: An artificial neural network approach. Natulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 48(1): 366-377
26. Pérez-López A, Chávez-Franco SH, Villaseñor-Perea CA, Espinosa- Solares T, Hernández-Gómez LH and Lobato-Calleros C (2014). Respiration rate and mechanical properties of peach fruit during storage at three maturity stages. Journal of Food Engineering, 142: 111–117.
27. Radzevičius A, Viškelis P, Karklelienė R, Viškelis J, Bobinas Č, Dambrauskienė E and Sakalauskienė S (2012). Tomato ripeness influence on fruit quality. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 64: 594-597.
28. Sadowska J, Jeliński T, Błaszczak W, Konopka S, Fornal J and Rybiński W (2013). The effect of seed size and microstructure on their mechanical properties and frictional behavior. International Journal of Food Properties, 16(4): 814-825. DOI: 10.1080/10942912.2011.567430
29. Sosa N, Salvatori DM and Schebor C (2012). Physico-chemical and mechanical properties of apple disks subjected to osmotic dehydration and different drying methods. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 5(5): 1790-1802.
30. Steffe JF (1996). Rheological methods in food process engineering. (Second Edition). Freeman Press, USA.
31. Tsigbey FK, Brandenburg RL and Clottey VA (2003). Peanut production methods in Northern Ghana and some disease perspectives. Online Journal of Agronomy, 34(2): 36- 47.
32. Uguru H and Iweka C (2019). The Influence of size and variety on the compressive behaviour of groundnut kernel. Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science, 7(3): 62-69.
33. Uguru H and Nyorere O (2019). Failure behaviour of groundnut (SAMNUT 11) kernel as affected by kernel size, loading rate and loading position. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 10(2): 1209-1217.
34. Uguru H, Nyorere O and Omotor DO (2019). Evaluation of fracture resistance of honey bean seed under quasi compressive loading. Direct Research Journal of Agriculture and Food Science, 7(5): 86-92.
35. Uguru H, Akpokodje OI and Ijabo OJ (2020). Fracture resistance of groundnut (cv. SAMNUT 11) kernel under quasi-static compression loading. Scholars Journal of Engineering and Technology, 8(1): 1-8.
36. Umurhurhu B and Uguru H (2019). Effect of storage duration on mechanical properties of Bello eggplant fruit under quasi compression loading. International Journal of Research-Granthaalayah 7(5): 311-320. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3249115.
37. Uyeri C and Uguru H (2018). Compressive resistance of groundnut kernels as influenced by kernel size. Journal of Engineering Research and Reports, 3(4): 1-7.
38. Vursavus K and Özgüven F (2004). Mechanical behaviour of apricot pit under compression loading. Journal of Food Engineering, 65: 255-26.