Effect of sugar beet root weight on estimation of sucrose using densitometry method versus polarimetry method | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| Article 3, Volume 36, Issue 2, October 2021, Pages 129-138 PDF (1.2 M) | ||
| Document Type: Scientific - Research | ||
| DOI: 10.22092/jsb.2021.356267.1291 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Babak Babaee* 1; Mohammadreza Khanmohammadi khorami2; Amir Bagheri Gramarudi2; M. Abdollahian noghabi3 | ||
| 1Assistant professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran. | ||
| 2Chemistry Department, Faculty of Science, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran | ||
| 3Associate Professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI) - Agricultural Research Education and Extension, Karaj,Iran | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Estimation of sucrose content in sugar beet through density determination is notable in terms of its non-destructiveness, inexpensive, speed and lack of destructive environmental effects compared with polarimetric method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sugar beet root weight on sucrose estimation by densitometry compared with polarimetry method. One hundred fifty healthy sugar beet roots cultivated in the field and harvested in Karaj, Iran were randomly selected. Each root was considered as an experimental sample. Brei was prepared from the root samples after weighing and density determination. Qualitative characteristics included sucrose, dry matter, marc, and soluble solids. Identification of outliers’ data was performed by standardization of residues. Samples were divided up into 13 weight classes in 100 g groups and then a linear relationship between density and sucrose was determined for each class. Statistical comparison between slope and intercept of linear relationships was performed in a stepwise manner from the smallest to the highest weight class and if there was no significant difference (P> 0.05) data were placed in a statistical group. Results showed that average sugar content, dry matter, marc, and purity of the samples were 15.10, 23.46, 4.06, and 73.84%, respectively. The coefficient of determination (R2) obtained from the linear relationship between density and sucrose in weight classes decreased with increasing root weight so that R2 = 0.997 for roots smaller than 350 g and R2 = 0.67 for roots larger than 1450 g was obtained. Statistical comparison of slope and intercept width regression coefficients from the origin of linear relationships between density (x) and sucrose (y) in weight classes resulting in three classes with a weight range of <350-750 g (small) including linear relationship y = 43.38x-32.557 and R2 = 0.92, medium weight class with weight range of 751 to 950 g (average) with linear relationship y = 51.55x-41.38 and R2 = 0.89 and weight class of 951 to roots larger than 1450 g (large) with linear relationship y = 58.05 x-48.014 and R2 = 0.77. Therefore, considering the root weight, the linear relationships obtained by density determination can be used instead of polarimetric method to accelerate the estimation of sucrose content. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Density; Screening; Sucrose; Sugar beet | ||
| References | ||
|
Abdollahian-Noghabi M, Babaee B, Sadat harireh F, Kazemi M. Study on replacement of lead acetate and aluminum sulfate agents with Autofilt extraction system in the sugar assessment process beet sugar factories. The final report of research project. 2015; Registration No. 46705. (in Persian, abstract in English) Abdollahian-Noghabi M, Sharifi H, Babaee B, Bahmani GA. Introduction of new formula for determination of autumn sugar beet purchase. Journal of Sugar Beet, 2014; 29 (2): 215-227.Asadi M, Beet-Sugar Handbook. Published by John Wiley & Sons, 2007; 884 pp. Al-Barbari FS, Mohamed EGI, Abd -EL– Rahman MA, Elsyiad SL. Quality of beet juice and its liquor during beet sugar processing. Journal of Food and Dairy Sciences. Mansoura univ.2014; 5 (6): 367 – 376. Aubert C, Chalot G, Lurol S, Ronjon A, Cottet V. Relationship between fruit density and quality parameters, levels of sugars, organic acids, bioactive compounds and volatiles of two nectarine cultivars, at harvest and after ripening. Journal of Food Chemistry. 2019; Doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.124954. Babaee B, Abdollahian noghabi M, Investigation of the relationship between root weight and technological characteristics of three sugar beet varieties. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Seminars of Iranian Sugar Factories, 2004; Volume 2, 392-383. Babaee B, Abdollahian noghabi M, Jahadakabr MR, Uosefabadi V. Introduction of appropriate method for determining of sugar content in sugar beet produced under drought, salinity and normal conditions. Journal of Sugar Beet, 2013; 29 (1): 99-111.Babaee B, Khanmohammadi MR, Bagheri Garmarudi A, Abdollahin Noghabi M. Effect of peeling and point of spectral recording on sucrose determination in sugar beet root using near infrared spectroscopy. Infrared physics and technology. 2019; 103. Doi:10.1016/j.infrared.2019.103065. Clark CJ, White A, Jordan RB, Woolf AB. Challenges associated with segregation of avocados of differing maturity using density sorting at harvest. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 2007; (46): 119–127. Campbell LG. Sugar beet quality Improvement. Journal of Crop Production. 2002;(5) 1/2: 395-413. Draycott AP. Sugar beet. Blackwell publishing Ltd. 2006; 514 pp. Fasahat P, Aghaeezadeh M, Jabbari L, Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S, Townson P. Sucrose accumulation in sugar beet: From fodder beet selection to genomic selection. Sugar Technology. 2018; 20 (6): 635-644. Fasahat P, Aghaeezadeh M, Hosseinpour M, Sadeghzadeh Hemayati S. Correlation between root weight and sugar content; do we have to continue traditional hypothesis? Plant Physiology Reports. 2021; 26 (1): 188-191. Gayon J, Zallen DT. The role of the Vilmorin Company in the promotion and diffusion of the experimental science of heredity in France, 1840–1920. Journal of the History of Biology. 1998; (31): 241–262. Ghanbarian D, Shojaei ZA, Ebrahimi A, Yuneji S. Physical properties and compositional changes of two cultivars of cantaloupe fruit during various maturity stages. Iran. Agricultural Research Shiraz University. 2007; 25 (2), (26): 1-2. Hoffmann CM. Root quality of sugar beet. Sugar Technology, 2010; 12 (3–4): 276–287. Hoffmann CM, Kenter C. Yield potential of sugar beet–have we hit the ceiling? Frontiers in Plant Science, 2018; (9): 289. Hu WZ, Yasutake H, Uchino T, Yasunaga E, Hori Y. Quality evaluation of tomato fruits by specific gravity and color. Journal Faculty of Agriculture Kyushu University. 2002; 6 (2): 381-389. Hynes WM. Concentrative properties of aqueous solutions: density, refractive index, freezing point depression, and viscosity. CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. 2016; 97 (5): 118-133. Khalid NS, Abdullah AH, Skukor, SAA, Fathinul Syajir AS, Mansor H. Non-destructive technique based on specific gravity for postharvest mangifera Indica L. cultivar maturity. Asia Modeling Symposium. 2017; Doi: 10.1109/AMS.2017.26 Kunz M. Sugar analysis. Beet. The International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis (ICUMSA). General subject 2004; (6): 110-117. Lescure, JP. Beet Sugar Processing. The International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis (ICUMSA) (ICUMSA). General subject 1998; (8): 153-161. Lexander K. Characters related to the vernalization requirement in sugar beet. In: JG. Atherton (Ed). Manipulation of flowering.1987; Butterworths. London.147-158. Massart DL, Vqndeginst BGM, Buydens LMC, De Jong S, Lewi PJ, Smeyers verbeke J. Handbook of chemometrics: Part A. Chapter 12. Robust statistics, 1997; Elsevier Science 887 pp. McGrath JM, Fugate KK. Chapter 30: Analysis of sucrose from sugar beet. In VR. Preedy (Ed.), Dietary sugars: Chemistry, analysis, functions and effects.2012; Cambridge UK: Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing. pp. 526–545. Mahn K, Hoffmann C, Marlander B. Distribution of quality components in different morphological sections of sugar beet. European Journal of Agronomy. 2002; (17): 29–39. Mohsenin, NN. Physical properties of plant and animal materials: Structure, Physical characteristics, and mechanical Properties. Gordon and Breach, 1986; 891pp. Moosavi SM, Ghassabisn, S. Linearity of calibration curves for analytical methods: A Review of criteria for assessment of method reliability. Intechopen. 2018; http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72932. Pan L, Zhu Q, Lu R, McGrath JM. Determination of sucrose content in sugar beet by portable visible and near-infrared spectroscopy. Food Chemistry. 2015; (167): 264–271. Peterson KI. Measuring the density of a sugar solution. Journal of Chemical Education, 2008; 85 (8): 1089-1090. Rodriguez-Saona LE, Fry FS, McLaughlin MA, Calvey EA. Rapid analysis of sugars in fruit juices by FT-NIR spectroscopy. Carbohydrate Research, 2001; (336): 63–74. Roggo Y, Duponchel L, Huvenne JP. Quality evaluation of sugar beet (Beta Vulgaris L.) by near-infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry. 2004; (52): 1055-1061. Sheikholaslami R. Sugar technology. Author's publication, 2003; 350 pages. SugiuraT, Kuroda H, Ito D, Honjo H. Correlations between specific gravity and soluble solids concentration in grape berries. Engei gakkai zasshi.2001; 70 (3): 380-384. Trebbi D, McGrath JM. Fluorometric sucrose evaluation for sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2004; 52 (23): 6862–6867. Van der poel PW, Schiweck H, Schwartz, T. Sugar technology beet and cane sugar manufacture. Chapter 2. Berlin: Dr. Albert Bartens KG.1998; 1120 pp. Wang H, Peng J, Xie C, Bao Y, He Y. Fruit quality evaluation using spectroscopy technology: A review. Sensors. 2015; (15): 11889-11927. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 928 PDF Download: 763 |
||
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb