The relation of pear volume and it’s bruised volume by CT scan imaging

  • Mohsen AzadbakhtEmail author
  • Mohammad Vahedi Torshizi
  • Mohammad Javad Mahmoodi
Original Paper


The present research deals with the investigation of the relationship between the amount of the pears’ bruise subject to loading force and the volume of pears during the storage period. The selected pears were subjected to Quasi-static loading (wide edge and thin edge plates) and 5, 10, and 15-day storing durations were chosen for the investigation of the exerted force’s impact. The volume of pears and the bruise percentages were calculated before and after loading using the nondestructive CT-scan method. The bruise percentage was measured by dividing the bruise volume by the pear volume. The experiments result indicated that there is a positive correlation between the pear volume before loading and the bruise percentage for the wide edge and thin edge loading and that the more the volume of the pears the more the bruise percentage will be increased. The amount of loading force and the storage duration were not found having much of an influence on the bruise percentage for the pears that had been subjected to loading using thin-edge jaws and 5-day storage duration. The bruise percentage was observable for the 10-day storage duration. Also, no significant effect was evidenced for the 5-day storage duration of the pears that had been subjected to wide-edge plates’ loading for rates equal to 70 and below. But, the use of the same loading force, though being trivial, could be observed for the 10-day storage duration.


Pear CT-scan Static loading Nondestructive Bruise 



  1. 1.
    J. Massah, F. Hajiheydari, M.H. Derafshi, J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 19, 1031 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Hazbavi, M.H. Khoshtaghaza, A. Mostaan, A. Banakar, J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 14, 140 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Sabzi, P. Javadikia, H. Rabani, A. Adelkhani, Measurement 46, 3333 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Shahbazi, S. Rahmati, Food Nutr. Sci. 4, 1 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Firatligil-Durmuş, E. Šárka, Z. Bubník, M. Schejbal, P. Kadlec, J. Food Eng. 99, 445 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Ghabel, A. Rajabipour, M. Oveisi, Res. Agric. Eng. 56, 33 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Tarighi, S. Dadashi, M.A. Ghazvini, A. Mahmoudi, Agric. Eng. Int. 13, 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.N. Lorestani, M. Ghari, Sci. Hortic. 133, 6 (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.L. Opara, P.B. Pathare, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 91, 9 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Babic, S. Matic-Kekic, N. Dedovic, M. Babic, I. Pavkov, Int. J. Food Prop. 15, 880 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Mohammad Shafie, A. Rajabipour, S. Castro-García, F. Jiménez-Jiménez, H. Mobli, Int. J. Food Prop. 18, 1837 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Gharaghani, S. Shahkoomahally, Iran Agric. Res. 37, (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Saracoglu, N. Ucer, C. Ozarslan, Int. J. Agric. Biol. 13, 801 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Vintila, D. Veringa, in 15th International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference SGEM 2015 (2015), pp. 529–536Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Azadbakht, M. Vehedi Torshizi, H. Aghili, A. Ziaratban, Carpath. J. Food Sci. Technol. 10, 96 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Diels, M. van Dael, J. Keresztes, S. Vanmaercke, P. Verboven, B. Nicolai, W. Saeys, H. Ramon, B. Smeets, Postharvest Biol. Technol. 128, 24 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D.S. Johnson, C.J. Dover, in International Conference on Agricultural Mechanization (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Zarifneshat, H.R. Ghassemzadeh, M. Sadeghi, M.H. Abbaspour-Fard, E. Ahmadi, A. Javadi, M.T. Shervani-Tabar, Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 5, 114 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bio-System Mechanical EngineeringGorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural ResourcesGorganIran

Personalised recommendations