Journal of Food Engineering 89 (2008) 448–452

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Mechanical peeling of pumpkins. Part 1: Using an abrasive-cutter brush

Bagher Emadi a,*, M.H. Abbaspour-Fard a, P.K.D.V. Yarlagadda b
a
Department of Agricultural Machinery, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Azadi Square, P.O. Box 1163, Mashhad, Iran
b
School of Engineering Systems, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Combining the functional basis of current peeling methods led to the development of a new innovative
Received 30 January 2008 peeling method named the ‘‘abrasive-cutter brush”. It could utilize the benefits of the current peeling
Received in revised form 21 May 2008 methods. The flexibility of brushes could provide easy access of the brush’s protrusions to different areas
Accepted 21 May 2008
of the produce. Each protrusion on the brush, as a small cutting unit, cut and removed abrasively the peel
Available online 3 July 2008
pieces. The cutting action caused effective peeling while the abrasive action showed higher production
rate compared with the existing methods. The optimized results revealed peeling effects of 18.60%/
Keywords:
min and 20%/min for concave and convex areas, respectively at 0.18%/min peel losses. The optimum con-
Abrasive-cutter brush
Mechanical peeling
ditions of independent variables were 550 rpm for rotational velocity of brushes, 5 rpm for rotational
Pumpkin velocity of vegetable holder, 20 mm lower than the middle horizontal plane of produce for the position
of brushes, and medium for brush coarseness.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction tions. Using abrasive peelers a constant depth of peeling is

Peeling as the preliminary and main stage of post-harvest pro-
cessing is currently conducted by mechanical, chemical, and ther-
mal methods (Luh and Woodroof, 1988; Toker and Bayindirli,
2003). Although each method has its own benefits and limitations,
mechanical methods are preferred because it keeps edible portions
of produce fresh and damage-free (Emadi et al., 2007). The main
limitations of mechanical methods are low flexibility and high
losses. Many researchers have tried to improve the efficiency of
mechanical peeling methods (Boyce, 1961; Cailliot, 1988; Couture
and Allard, 1979; Emadi et al., 2007; Gardiner, 1963; He and Tardif,
2000; Polk, 1972; Radhakrishnaiah Setty et al., 1993; Singh and
Shukla, 1995). In spite of these attempts, there are still some lim-
itations which demand more research.
In mechanical peeling of fruits and vegetables, using either
abrasive or cutting tools are the most common methods. Abrasive
peelers can be found in batch and continuous types, and apply car-
borundum surfaces to peel produce by abrasion. These peelers
either have long abrasive rollers or an upright cylinder with abra-
sive inner wall. While the roller or cylinder revolves, the removed
peels are washed away with supplied water. Abrasive peelers are
common for apples, carrots and potatoes (Radhakrishnaiah Setty
et al., 1993; Singh and Shukla, 1995). Despite the high peeling pro-
duction rate, the main advantage, loading sensitivity and high
waste of edible portions due to low flexibility are the main limita-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 511 8795612; fax: +98 511 8787430.
E-mail addresses: bagher_emadi@yahoo.com, emadi-b@ferdowsi.um.ac.ir
(B. Emadi).
achieved even in uneven surfaces of irregular shaped produce.
Generally, reaching the peel in concave areas leads to unwanted
peeling of the edible portions on convex areas or in the case of po-
tato, peeling should be continued until deep eyes are removed.
Emadi et al. (2007) revealed two innovative abrasive methods for
the peeling of tough-skinned vegetables, such as pumpkin. They
reported good results of even peeling in spite of the low production
rate for irregular shape and uneven surfaces of the Jap variety of
pumpkin. Peelers which apply cutting tools are less common than
abrasive ones. Knives, blades, and rotary cutters are the most com-
mon cutting tools for these peelers. The rotation of the produce and
cutting tool around the produce provides access to the whole sur-
face of the produce to be peeled. Rotary cutters are the only flexible
ones among cutting tools showing good access to different parts of
uneven surfaces (Boyce, 1961; Cailliot, 1988; Emadi and Yarlag-
adda, 2006; Gardiner, 1963; Polk, 1972). Although one of the main
limitations of these peelers is the possible clogging during peeling,
the capability to peel tough-skinned vegetables is high because of
applying cutting forces. However, the authors believe to make a
new peeling tool that is industrially applicable; the peeling pro-
duction rate should still be increased compared to what is cur-
rently used.
The peeling method of using an abrasive-cutter brush was re-
vealed as an innovative method for peeling vegetables such as
pumpkin. The peeling tool in this method applies abrasive and cut-
ting forces simultaneously. The results of experiments showed
even peeling with a high production rate. This paper presents
investigative results of using an abrasive-cutter brush on a pump-
kin as a case study.

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.05.026
 B. Emadi et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 89 (2008) 448–452
Nomenclature
y1 peel losses, percentage of initial produce weight
removed during peeling per minute
t the time of peeling, min
W1 the weight of the unpeeled produce, g
W2 the weight of the peeled produce, g
y2 peeling effect, the percentage of peel that is removed
from the initial skin per minute
A1 the fraction of peel inside the internal area of the ring
indicator before peeling (assumed to be 100)
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Materials and methods
The Jap variety of pumpkin (Cucurbitaceous family) from differ-
ent local farms around Brisbane (Queensland, Australia) was used
for the experiments. The samples were randomly selected from
ripe, defect-free and similarly sized (18–23 cm diameter) pump-
kins. They were kept under controlled temperature (20–25 °C)
and humidity (50–55%) for at least 24 h before the test.
Experiments were conducted on a test rig that was designed
and fabricated at the School of Engineering Systems, QUT (Emadi,
2006). The test rig comprised of two main sections the vegetable
holder and peeler head. The vegetable holder (Fig. 1a) was a disk
for carrying the produce circularly on a horizontal plane. It sup-
plied rotational velocities up to 300 rpm by a D.C. motor. The pee-
ler head was equipped in such a way that could provide
perpendicular access to the produce’s surface (Fig. 1b). A separate
D.C. motor was used with a higher upper speed limit (2000 rpm)
that could carry the abrasive-cutter brushes on its output shaft.
The whole peeler head attachment was mounted on a pivoted
bracket to give more flexibility during peeling (Fig. 2a). The vege-
table holder was driven in an anticlockwise direction on a horizon-
tal plane and the peeler head was driven in a clockwise direction
on a vertical plane (in two perpendicular directions).
The peeling tool named ‘‘abrasive-cutter brush” was basically
twisted stainless steel wires with grater strips (different grades)
wrapped around (Fig. 2b). The stainless steel wires were already
double-twisted wires of the same materials. Two abrasive-cutter
brushes were installed between solid discs of the peeler head
attachment for each trial. The total length and weight of each brush
was 165 mm and 14.75 g, respectively. The materials and method
of brush fabrication was planned in such a manner to provide high
flexibility.
Fig. 1. Test rig component: (a) vegetable holder, (b) perpendicular access to the produce’s surface.
449
A2 the fraction of remaining peel inside the internal area of
the ring indicator after peeling
l estimate of the mean response
T mean of all experimental data
LSxn optimal level sum response for the significant factor at
the level of interest
2.2. Design of experiments
L9 array of Taguchi method as a fracture factorial experiment
was planned and used. The experimental design including factor
levels is shown in Table 1. It enabled experiments for four factors
in three levels each. Factors were the rotational velocity of the
abrasive-cutter brush (brush speed: 550, 700, 850 rpm), rotational
velocity of the vegetable holder (vegetable speed: 5, 10, 15 rpm),
the coarseness of the brush (coarseness: C for coarse; M for med-
ium; and F for fine) and vertical position of the brush (position:
20, 0, 20 mm, with reference to the middle horizontal plane of
the produce). Experiments were carried out in four time intervals
(t1–t4), each of which lasted for 1 min. The dependent variables
were peel losses and peeling effects in concave and convex areas
of the skin. These response variables were measured after each
time interval and their mean (%/min) was used for assessment.
2.3. Peel losses
Percentage peel losses were calculated using the weight of the
produce before and after peeling, as given below (Willard, 1971):
W1  W2
y1 ¼  100 ð1Þ
W1  t
where W2 is not equal either to zero or to W1. Samples were
weighed before (W1) and immediately after peeling (W2) by a scale
with ±1 g accuracy.
2.4. Peeling effect
Peeling effect is the percentage of peel that is removed from the
initial skin per minute. Three positions (120° including angle) at
the circular affected area on the produce for each convex and con-
cave area were considered for the measurement of the peeling ef-
450 B. Emadi et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 89 (2008) 448–452

Fig. 2. Abrasive-cutter brush: (a) peeler head attachment, (b) abrasive-cutter brush.

Table 1 40
Taguchi experimental design for independent variables and levels

Exp. No.b Independent variablesa

30

Contribution (%)
v1 v2 v3 v4
1 C 5 700 20
2 C 10 850 20
3 C 15 550 0
20
4 F 5 850 0
5 F 10 550 20
6 F 15 700 20 10
7 M 5 550 20
8 M 10 700 0
9 M 15 850 20
0
a
v1 = brush coarseness (C: coarse, F: fine, M: medium), v2 = vegetable speed Vegetable Brush Brush Brush
(rpm), v3 = brush speed (rpm), v4 = brush position (mm). speed coarseness speed position
b
Experiments were randomly performed. Independent variables
Fig. 3. The contribution of independent variables to responses: ( ), Peel losses;
( ), Concave peeling effect; ( ), Convex peeling effect.

fect. The peeling effect (%/min) after each time interval (t1–t4) was
measured at the same position, and the mean value was calculated
for further discussion. A ring indicator with an internal diameter of
15 mm was used to identify the area of measurement on each po-
sition. Optical judgment was made by three observers and the
average value was reported. Remaining peel inside the indicator
was recorded noting the different colors of skin layers, thickness
and area, and these were the main criteria for assessment. The sug-
gested formula by Singh and Shukla (1995) was used and modified
for the calculation of the peeling effect as given below:
A1  A2
y2 ¼  100
A1  t
2.5. Estimated responses at the optimum conditions
The estimation of the mean response in optimum conditions
(optimization) was carried out on the basis of the Taguchi analysis
of variance (ANOVA) by applying the following equation (Roy,
1990):
l ¼ T þ ðLSx1  TÞ
 þ ðLSx  TÞ
2
 þ    þ ðLSx  TÞ
n
 ð3Þ
2.6. Data analysis
Analysis of variance has been carried out on the basis of the
Taguchi method. It was used to calculate the contribution of inde-
pendent variables and their effect on the response variables. Esti-
mation of the results in optimum conditions was also carried out
using Taguchi method.
3. Results and discussion
The contribution of independent variables, including brush
speed, vegetable speed, position and brush coarseness to depen-
dent variables (peel losses and peeling effects), while neglecting
the interactions, was statistically calculated which is shown in
Fig. 3.
As the aim of this study was to investigate the method and not
the peeler, the manufactured test rig was designed to enable peel-
ing on a circumferential band (40.66 mm average width) around
ð2Þ
the whole produce and the experimental data belongs to that area.
The ANOVA results of the experiments are shown in Table 2.
The main influences of independent variables on dependent
variables are illustrated in Fig. 4. In this figure, the logarithmic
scale for y axis was used to enable comparison between peel losses
and peeling effects.
According to the data represented in Table 2, the only indepen-
dent variable that could significantly (P < 0.01) affect all three
dependent variables is coarseness. The fine brush showed higher
peeling effects in comparison with the other levels. The medium
coarsened brush had a lower peeling effect than the fine type
and showed much lower peel losses (Fig. 4a). The small existing
difference of peeling effects between concave and convex areas
for different levels of coarsenesses reveals the possibility of achiev-
ing more even peeling by improving the coarseness of the brush.
Higher contribution (Fig. 4) of coarseness to concave than convex
peeling effects may result from more affected areas of peel by each
brush’s smash (the colliding action of brush with produce) inside
grooves than on convex areas. Vegetable speed also showed a
 B. Emadi et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 89 (2008) 448–452 451

Table 2
The ANOVA results of experiments

Independent variables Degrees of freedom Sum of squares Variance F Sig.

Concave peeling effect
Brush coarseness 2 666.24 333.12 16.05 p < 0.01
Vegetable speed 2 191.7 95.85 4.61 p < 0.05
Brush speed 2 103.03 51.51 2.48 –
Brush position 2 191.21 95.60 4.60 p < 0.05
Convex peeling effect
Brush coarseness 2 418.88 209.44 8.21 p < 0.01
Vegetable speed 2 281.34 140.67 5.51 p < 0.01
Brush speed 2 550.09 275.04 10.78 p < 0.01
Brush position 2 18.60 9.30 0.36 –
Peel losses
Brush coarseness 2 0.29 0.14 6.59 p < 0.01
Vegetable speed 2 0.05 0.02 1.13 –
Brush speed 2 0.1 0.05 2.27 –
Brush position 2 0.05 0.02 1.12 –

a C F M b 5 10 15
100 100

Peel losses and peeling effects

Peel losses and peeling effects

10 10
(%/min)
(%/min)

1
1

0.1

0.1
Brush coarseness Vegetable speed (rpm)

c 550 700 850 d -20 0 20

100 100
Peel losses and peeling effects
Peel losses and peeling effects

10 10
(%/min)

(%/min)

1 1

0.1 0.1
Brush speed (rpm) Brush position (mm)
Fig. 4. The effects of independent variables on responses resulted from using an abrasive-cutter brush: (––), peel losses; (–j–), concave peeling effect; (–N–), convex
peeling effect. Error bars depict standard deviations.

significant effect on convex (P < 0.01) and concave (P < 0.05) peel-
ing effects. Although the peeling effect in different areas for all
three levels of vegetable speed was almost the same (Fig. 4b),
the mid-level of vegetable speed (10 rpm) revealed a higher impact
on responses than on other levels. Brush speed was the higher con-
tributor (P < 0.01) to the convex than concave peeling effects, and
did not show any significant effect on all three responses.
The variable of brush speed, as seen in Fig. 4c, highly influenced
peel losses and peeling effects at the third level (850 rpm) while
the effect of peeling in concave and convex areas for different lev-
els of brush speed is almost the same. This is mainly due to in-
creased brush speed which leads to a stronger smash and the
higher removal of peels in both concave and convex areas. Higher
contribution of brush speed to convex than concave peeling effects
(Fig. 3) allows monitoring of peeling at convex areas for achieving
more even peeling. Position, as the last variable, only showed a sig-
nificant effect (P < 0.05) for the concave peeling effect. The third
level of position (+20 mm) showed a significant difference between
concave and convex peeling effects which is unexplained in this
stage. The lower level of brush position (20 mm) revealed the
lowest peel losses in spite of the similar peeling effects compared
with the other levels of position.
452 B. Emadi et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 89 (2008) 448–452
3.1. Estimated responses at the optimum conditions
The high concave and convex peeling effects with minimum dif-
ference between them along with low peel losses were the criteria
for the best combination of variables. The performance in optimum
conditions was estimated based on the significant factors at 0.05
probability level.
The brush with medium coarseness revealed a significant even
peeling in different areas of the produce. The high productivity of
the peel removal with a minor difference between concave and
convex peeling effects, in addition to acceptable peel losses led
to its selection as the optimized level of coarseness. The first and
the third level of vegetable speed showed a similar productivity
with lower peel losses. Although the peel losses were higher for
5 rpm but it was chosen as the optimized level for vegetable speed
because of the lower difference between peeling effects in different
areas of the produce. Except for the third level of brush speed that
caused high peel losses, the other two levels had close peeling ef-
fects. The first level of brush speed (550 rpm) was chosen as the
best level because of its significant lower peel losses. Analysis of
the results for the vertical position of the abrasive-cutter brush
showed significant difference between peeling effects at the third
level (20 mm), and the highest peel losses at the mid-level
(0 mm). The lower level of position (20 mm) was recognized as
the best level for optimization due to the minor difference of peel-
ing effects and the lowest peel losses. Estimated mean responses
for concave and convex peeling effects were obtained as 18.60%/
min and 20%/min, respectively at 0.18%/min peel losses. The com-
parison of these results with the ones published by Emadi et al.
(2007) for the same variety of pumpkin using abrasive tools
showed that peeling using abrasive-cutter brush not only keeps
even peeling (low losses) but also has higher production rate.
4. Conclusion
The capability of a new peeling tool named the ‘‘abrasive-cutter
brush” to achieve even peeling along high production rate for
pumpkin was investigated. Estimated responses in optimum
conditions showed close values of peeling effect in concave and
convex areas. The statistical calculations of optimized results re-
vealed 18.60%/min and 20%/min for concave and convex peeling
effects, respectively, with 0.18%/min peel losses. The results
showed this new method of peeling for pumpkin compare to the
previous ones has higher production rate of even peeling with
lower losses.
References
Boyce, J., 1961. Apparatus for Processing Fruit. US Patent No. 3013595. US Patent
Office, Washington, DC.
Cailliot, S., 1988. Fruit and Vegetable Peeler. US Patent No. 4765234. US Patent
Office, Washington, DC.
Couture, F., Allard, R., 1979. Vegetable Peeling Apparatus. US Patent No. 4137839.
US Patent Office, Washington, DC.
Emadi, B., 2006. Experimental Studies and Modeling of Innovative Peeling Pro-
cesses for Tough-skinned Vegetables. Ph.D. Thesis, Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Emadi, B., Kosse, V., Yarlagadda, P.K.D.V., 2007. Abrasive peeling of pumpkin.
Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2), 647–656.
Emadi, B., Yarlagadda, P.K.D.V., 2006. Peeling pumpkin using rotary cutter. In:
Proceedings of International Conference on Manufacturing and Management:
GCMM-2006, Santos, Brazil.
Gardiner, R.G., 1963. Rotary Cutter for Peeling Fruit. US Patent No. 3113603. U.S.
Patent Office, Washington, DC.
He, S.L., Tardif, P., 2000. Vegetable Peeling Apparatus. US Patent No. D422173. US
Patent Office, Washington, DC.
Luh, B.S., Woodroof, J.G., 1988. Commercial Vegetable Processing, second ed. AVI
Book, New York, USA.
Polk Jr., R., 1972. Fruit Peeling Knife Assembly. US Patent No. 3680614. US Patent
Office, Washington, DC.
Radhakrishnaiah Setty, G., Vijayalakshmi, M.R., Usha Devi, A., 1993. Methods for
peeling fruits and vegetables: A critical evaluation. Journal of Food Science and
Technology 30 (3), 155–162.
Roy, R.K., 1990. A Primer on the Taguchi Method. Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan.
Singh, K.K., Shukla, B.D., 1995. Abrasive peeling of potatoes. Journal of Food
Engineering 26 (4), 431–442.
Toker, I., Bayindirli, A., 2003. Enzymatic peeling of apricots, nectarines and peaches.
Lebensm.-Wiss. U.-Technol. 36 (3), 215–221.
Willard, M.J., 1971. A grading system of peeled potatoes. In: Proceedings of 21st
Nat. Potato Util. Conference.