Assessment of several hydrodynamic properties of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

被引:2
|
作者
Khorshidpour, Bijan [1 ]
Honarvar, Masoud [1 ]
Ahmadi Chenarbon, Hossein [2 ]
机构
[1] Islamic Azad Univ, Dept Food Sci & Technol, Sci & Res Branch, Tehran, Iran
[2] Islamic Azad Univ, Coll Agr, Dept Agron, Varamin Pishva Branch, Varamin, Iran
来源
FOOD SCIENCE & NUTRITION | 2020年 / 8卷 / 10期
关键词
Beta vulgaris L; falling time; hydrodynamic properties; physical properties; sugar beet; terminal velocity; MECHANICAL-PROPERTIES; SOLUBLE SOLIDS; MOISTURE; MASS;
D O I
10.1002/fsn3.1856
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
It is necessary to know the hydrodynamic properties of agricultural products in order to analyze the behavior of materials when transporting and grading. In this study, the samples were divided into three groups based on their mass. Based on the results, the mean length, mass, volume, density, average projected area, and shape coefficient were 21.5 cm, 408 g, 386 cm(3), 1.05 g/cm(3), 620.16 cm(2), and 11.68 in samples with m < 500 g, 24.1 cm, 681.8 g, 627.95 cm(3), 1.08 g/cm(3), 876.29 cm(2), and 11.95 in samples with 500 < m <1,000 g and 28.4 cm, 1,389.36 g, 1,240.5 cm(3), 1.12 g/cm(3), 1,402.73, and 12.15 in samples with m > 1,000 g. Moreover, the terminal velocity, falling time, buoyancy, and drag force were 0.12 m/s, 14.26 s, 3.79 N, and 0.2 N in the samples with m < 500 g, 0.16 m/s, 10.92 s, 6.30 N, and 0.29 N in the samples with 500 < m <1,000 g and 0.22 m/s, 7.94 s, 12.03 N, and 1.49 N in the samples with m > 1,000 g. It is noteworthy that the water-sugar beet density difference and the mass had the greatest effect on terminal velocity and falling time whereas shape coefficient did not significantly influence these properties.
引用
收藏
页码:5641 / 5649
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Haploidy in apozygotic seed progenies of sugar beet (beta vulgaris L.)
    Maletskaya E.I.
    Yudanova S.S.
    Maletskii S.I.
    Doklady Biological Sciences, 2009, 426 (1) : 271 - 273
  • [32] Study on Phytotoxicity Evaluation and Physiological Properties of Nicosulfuron Drift on Sugar Beet (Beta Vulgaris L.)
    Wang, Longfeng
    Riaz, Muhammad
    Song, Baiquan
    Song, Xin
    Huang, Wengong
    Zhao, Xiaoyu
    SSRN, 2022,
  • [33] Transcriptomics of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) resistance to Beet necrotic yellow vein virus
    Machaj, Gabriela
    Grzebelus, Dariusz
    Macko-Podgorni, Alicja
    Szklarczyk, Marek
    NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY, 2016, 33 : S178 - S178
  • [34] Methodological approaches for producing doubled haploids in sugar beet and red beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
    Grigolava, T. R.
    Vishnyakova, A. V.
    Sinitsyna, A. A.
    Voronina, A. V.
    Zubko, O. N.
    Zudova, O., V
    Monakhos, S. G.
    VAVILOVSKII ZHURNAL GENETIKI I SELEKTSII, 2021, 25 (03): : 276 - 283
  • [35] MORPHOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUGAR BEET AND WEED BEET (BETA VULGARIS L.) DEPENDING ON THE SOIL
    Skalicky, Milan
    Tuma, Jiri
    Steklova, Jitka
    Tumova, Lenka
    Pulkrabek, Josef
    CEREAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2008, 36 : 835 - 838
  • [36] The effect of salt stress on lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in leaves of sugar beet Beta vulgaris L. and wild beet Beta maritima L.
    Bor, M
    Özdemir, F
    Türkan, I
    PLANT SCIENCE, 2003, 164 (01) : 77 - 84
  • [37] Characterisation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. ssp vulgaris) varieties using microsatellite markers
    Smulders, Marinus J. M.
    Esselink, G. Danny
    Everaert, Isabelle
    De Riek, Jan
    Vosman, Ben
    BMC GENETICS, 2010, 11
  • [38] The Effect of Foliar Fertilization on the Yield and Quality of Sugar Beet (Beta Vulgaris L.)
    Diána Ungai
    Zoltán Győri
    Cereal Research Communications, 2006, 34 : 697 - 700
  • [39] Responses of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) to drought and nutrient deficiency stress
    Shaw, B
    Thomas, TH
    Cooke, DT
    PLANT GROWTH REGULATION, 2002, 37 (01) : 77 - 83
  • [40] Effects of compaction during drilling on yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
    Arvidsson, Johan
    Bolenius, Elisabeth
    Vieira Cavalieri, Karina Maria
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY, 2012, 39 : 44 - 51