See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223678672

Physical and nutritional properties of four orange varieties

Article  in  Journal of Food Engineering · February 2005

DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.04.024

CITATIONS READS

172 2,834

5 authors, including:

Ayhan Topuz Mehmet Topakci

Akdeniz University Akdeniz University
80 PUBLICATIONS   1,939 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   778 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Murad Canakci Feramuz Ozdemir

41 PUBLICATIONS   1,067 CITATIONS   
Akdeniz University
61 PUBLICATIONS   1,634 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RESPONSE TO HAPLOIDY, MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION AND SEED CONTENTS OF VACCARIA HISPANICA (MILL.) RAUSCHERT GENOTYPES View project

Şeker Pancarı ve Ayçiçeği Tablalarından Pektin Elde Edilmesi ve Gıdalarda Katkı Maddesi Olarak Kullanılması View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Murad Canakci on 21 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 519–523
www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Physical and nutritional properties of four orange varieties

A. Topuz a, M. Topakci b, M. Canakci b, I. Akinci b,*
, F. Ozdemir a

a
Department of Food Engineering, Akdeniz University, 07070 Antalya, Turkey
b
Department of Agricultural Machinery, Akdeniz University, 07070 Antalya, Turkey
Received 10 December 2003; accepted 19 April 2004

Abstract
Several physical and nutritional properties of four orange varieties (Alanya, Finike, W. Navel, and Shamouti) were determined
and compared in terms of linear dimensions, length, diameter, volume, mass, geometric mean diameter, sphericity, surface area,
projected area, fruit density and bulk density, porosity, packing coefficient, static coefficient of friction and apparent color of orange
varieties, and total dry matter, water soluble dry matter, vitamin C, pH, titratable acidity, reducing sugar, sucrose and some
minerals, i.e. Zn, Fe, Cu, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ca and P contents. The published comparison data, which might be useful to engineers in
equipment design for the orange varieties, were generally found to be statistically different. These differences could be attributed to
the individual characteristics of these varieties, as well as to environmental and growth conditions.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Orange fruits; Physical and nutritional properties

1. Introduction grown in Turkey, although most known cultivars are

Fruits are attractive and nutritional foods, because of
their colour, shape, unique taste and smell, enriched
minerals, vitamin and other beneficial components
(Cassano et al., 2003). The orange is one of the distin-
guished members of fruits belonging to Citrus cinensis,
and is extensively produced in Brazil, United States,
Mexico and China. However, there are a few other
countries that also have substantial orange production,
such as Spain, Turkey, India, Egypt and Greece, which
annually produce more than 1 million tons of orange.
These countries are also becoming not only producers
but also processors (Grigelmo-Miguel & Martin-
Belloso, 1999; FAO, 2002; Moufida & Marzouk, 2003).
Although there is great diversity among the cultivars
of Citrus cinensis in terms of physical and chemical
characteristics (Sinclair, 1961), each cultivar produces
fruit within a short period of time, and does this con-
secutively throughout an extensive growing season.
Some cultivars, such as Alanya and Finike, are only
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-242-3102464; fax: +90-242-
2274564.
E-mail address: iakinci@akdeniz.edu.tr (I. Akinci).
0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.04.024
grown globally.
It is well-known that the orange is one of the most
abundant sources of vitamin C, however, it also con-
tains considerable amounts of sugar, carotenoids,
flavonoids, essential oil and some minerals (Favier,
Ripert, Toque, & Feinberg, 1995; Lee & Coates, 1999;
Pupin, Dennis, & Toledo, 1999). Almost all oranges in
the world are consumed as fresh fruit, fresh squeezed
juice, pasteurised juice and juice reconstituted from
concentrate, with at least 85% of the oranges produced
by the foremost producers being processed into juice
(Grigelmo-Miguel & Martin-Belloso, 1999).
Although there is extensive research on the orange,
literature does not report any data on the physical and
nutritional properties of the orange based on its variety.
Guzel and Sinn (1990) investigated the force–deforma-
tion behavior of only the W. Navel variety, and found
that load speeds and die types were affected by the
force–deformation relationship of the W. Navel
oranges.
With regard to preserving and processing oranges,
some physical and chemical properties of oranges are
more important in both machinery and equipment de-
sign, and also in controlling the actual process proce-
dure. Therefore, in the current study, research was
520 A. Topuz et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 519–523
Nomenclature
L length of fruit (mm)
D diameter of fruit (mm)
Dg geometric mean diameter (mm)
/ sphericity
V volume of fruit (cm3 )
S surface area (cm2 )
P projected area (cm2 )
Mf mass of fruit (g)
conducted to investigate both the physical and the
nutritional properties of the orange fruits, by comparing
the four varieties widely grown in Turkey, and then
establishing a convenient reference table for orange
mechanization and processing.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Material
Four orange (Citrus cinensis) varieties (Alanya and
Finike (domestic cv.), W. Navel and Shamouti (foreign
cv.)), grown in West-Mediterranean region of Turkey,
were used for all the experiments in this study. Samples
were obtained from the province of Antalya, Turkey
during the 2003 harvest season, and kept in a refriger-
ator until laboratory analyses were performed. For each
orange variety, the 50 samples were randomly selected
from the orange trees. All of the analyses were carried
out at a room temperature of 20–21 °C for two days
during the laboratory tests. All of the tests were made at
the Biological Test Devices and Food Engineering
Laboratory of Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Chemical analyses
The nutritional composition of the orange fruits juice
was studied as explained below: Total dry matter, water-
soluble dry matter, and pH of the samples were deter-
mined according to the methods of AOAC (1990).
Reducing sugar and sucrose were determined by using
Lane Eynon titrimetric method (Cemero
glu, 1992).
Vitamin C was established in the dye (2,6-diclorophenol
indophenol) reducing method reviewed by Cemero
glu
(1992). In order to determine the mineral composition,
samples were burned with a nitric acid and perchloric
acid solution, on the hot plate, at 200 °C. Then, the
absorbance of the extract was measured (Anonymous,
1989) by the Atomic Absorbance Spectrophotometer
(Varian Spectra A-550 plus). The amounts of minerals
qf fruit density (kg/m3 )
qb bulk density (kg/m3 )
e porosity
k packing coefficient
ls coefficient of static friction
Ms mass of shell (g)
Rs shell ratio (%)
were calculated with a standard curve of each element.
Phosphorus content of the extract, however, was anal-
ysed by determining the absorbance of the colour yel-
low, obtained from the Barton reaction, using a
spectrophotometer (Shimadzu UV 160A) at 430 nm
wavelength, and comparing the results to the standard
curve (Kacar & Kovanci, 1982).
2.2.2. Physical analyses
The physical properties of the four orange varieties
were determined by the following methods:
Linear dimensions, i.e. length (L) and diameter (D),
were measured by using a digital caliper with a sensi-
tivity of 0.01 mm.
Geometric mean diameter (Dg ), sphericity (/) and
surface area (S) were calculated by using the following
equations:
Dg ¼ ðLD2 Þ1=3
/ ¼ Dg =L
S ¼ PD2g
The equations used for calculating the geometric
mean diameter, sphericity and surface area were pre-
sented in the Baryeh (2001), Demir, Dogan, Ozcan, and
Haciseferogullari (2002), Mohsenin (1980) and Sitkei
(1986) reports, respectively.
Volume (V ) and fruit density (qf ) were measured by
the liquid displacement method. Toluene (C7 H8 ) was
used, rather than water, because water is absorbed by
the fruits (Mohsenin, 1980; Sitkei, 1986).
Projected area (P ) with two major axes (vertical and
horizontal) of the orange fruits was determined from
pictures of the oranges taken by a digital camera (Ko-
dak DC 5000), and then comparing the reference area to
a sample area, by using the Sigma Scan Pro 5 program.
Sample mass (Mf ) was measured by using a digital
balance with a sensitivity of 0.001 g.
Bulk density (qb ) was determined with a weight per
hectolitre tester, which was calibrated at kilogram per
hectolitre.
Porosity (e) was calculated by the following equation:
 A. Topuz et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 519–523 521

e ¼ 1  qb =qf 3. Results and discussion

where qb is the bulk density and qf is the fruit den-
sity.
Packing coefficient (k) was defined by the ratio of the
volume of fruit (V ) packed to the total volume (V0 ) and
calculated by the following equation:
k ¼ V =V0
Coefficient of static friction (ls ) was measured by a
friction device having rubber, plywood and galvanized
iron steel surfaces. For this measurement, the material
was placed on the surface, and then gradually raised by
the screw. Vertical and horizontal height values were
read from the ruler when the material started sliding
over the surface, and then using the tangent value of
the angle so that the coefficient of friction was found
(Baryeh, 2001; Dutta, Nema, & Bhardwaj, 1988; Gezer,
Haciseferogullari, & Demir, 2002; Sitkei, 1986; Suthar &
Das, 1996).
Shell ratio (Rs ) was defined by dividing the shell mass
(Ms ) to the fruit mass (Mf ) and calculated by the fol-
lowing equation:
Rs ¼ ðMs =Mf Þ100
Apparent colour of the fruit was measured by using a
colorimeter (Minolta CR 200).
All physical properties of the four orange varieties
were investigated by three replications with 15 deter-
minations, which are randomly selected from the fifty
orange samples. Variance analysis was carried out on
the four orange varieties, and the difference between the
mean values was investigated by using the standard
Least Significant Difference (LSD) test. Mean values
were represented with the standard error.
3.1. Nutritional properties
Nutritional properties of the fresh squeezed juice of
the four orange varieties were given in Table 1.
The sample of oranges was found to be sources of
vitamin C, sugars and some minerals such as K, Mg, Ca
and P. The values of all the chemical properties of or-
ange juices, except pH, were statistically different with
respect to the varieties. Finike and W. Navel fruits have
the highest dry matter and total sugars. The juice of
Alanya cultivars contains the highest amount of vitamin
C, although the vitamin C content of the Finike and W.
Navel were not substantially different from that of the
Alanya variety. Furthermore, the cultivar of Alanya,
had the highest titratable acidity or lowest pH. The juice
of this cultivar also represented the lowest ratio of
reducing sugar to sucrose. In the other cultivars, the
amount of reducing sugar was higher than the amount
of the sucrose. The highest amounts of microelements
were found in the juice of the Finike cultivar. K was the
major element present in the samples, with a range of
1011–1364 mg/kg in the investigated varieties. In gen-
eral, most of the chemical properties of the Shamouti
cultivars were slightly less than the chemical properties
of the other varieties.
3.1.1. Physical properties
Physical properties of the four orange varieties were
given in Table 2.
As seen in Table 2, many physical properties of the
orange varieties were found to be statistically significant
at the different probability levels (5%, 1% or 0.1%), with
the exception that the bulk density and the porosity were
found to be insignificant. These significant and

Table 1
Nutritional properties of the four orange varieties
Alanya Finike W. Navel Shamouti Significant level
d a b c
Dry matter (g/100 ml) 11.00 ± 0.03 12.82 ± 0.02 12.48 ± 0.01 12.20 ± 0.02 **
Water soluble dry matter (°Bx) 10.9 ± 0.1c 12.4 ± 0.1a 12.1 ± 0.1ab 11.8 ± 0.1b *
Vitamin C (mg/100 ml) 51.51 ± 1.05a 46.26 ± 0.56ab 38.69 ± 0.21ab 34.27 ± 0.76b **
pH 3.19 ± 0.03 3.64 ± 0.14 3.62 ± 0.03 3.84 ± 0.26 NS
Titratable acidity (g/100 ml) 1.375 ± 0.008a 0.841 ± 0.013b 0.687 ± 0.002c 0.875 ± 0.009b **
Reducing sugar (g/100 ml) 4.02 ± 0.04b 6.12 ± 0.17a 5.78 ± 0.11a 6.09 ± 0.04a **
Sucrose (g/100 ml) 4.16 ± 0.04a 4.24 ± 0.11a 4.47 ± 0.12a 3.33 ± 0.1b **
Zn (mg/l) 1.70 ± 0.12b 3.16 ± 0.08a 2.34 ± 0.29ab 1.72 ± 0.31b *
Fe (mg/l) 0.86 ± 0.06ab 1.40 ± 0.14a 0.72 ± 0.04ab 0.70 ± 0.05b **
Cu (mg/l) 0.54 ± 0.01c 2.77 ± 0.07a 0.56 ± 0.01c 1.37 ± 0.01b **
K (mg/l) 1364 ± 10a 1107 ± 31bc 1255 ± 18ab 1011 ± 2c **
Mg (mg/l) 102.4 ± 1.5a 99.1 ± 1.2ab 96.6 ± 0.1b 84.0 ± 1.7c *
Mn (mg/l) 0.02 ± 0.01b 0.11 ± 0.01a 0.05 ± 0.03ab 0.05 ± 0.01ab *
Na (mg/l) 7.7 ± 1.7ab 7.3 ± 1.3ab 12.7 ± 0.9a 5.7 ± 1.7b *
Ca (mg/l) 94.7 ± 5.6a 93.3 ± 13.5a 53.7 ± 4.4b 88.0 ± 8.2ab *
P (mg/l) 150.1 ± 2.4ab 125.2 ± 2.7b 157.5 ± 1.7a 174.2 ± 7.2a **
a;b;c;d
All data represent the mean of five determinations; letters indicate the statistical difference in rows; *; ** significant levels at 5% and 1%
respectively, NS: not significant.
522 A. Topuz et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 519–523

Table 2
Physical properties of the four orange varieties
Alanya Finike W. Navel Shamouti Significant level
Length (mm) 69.21 ± 1.81b 69.44 ± 0.79b 82.60 ± 0.88a 81.74 ± 1.19a ***
Diameter (mm) 71.57 ± 1.21b 71.83 ± 1.22b 80.14 ± 0.34a 75.96 ± 0.41ab ***
Geometric mean diameter (mm) 70.76 ± 1.42c 71.00 ± 1.07bc 80.90 ± 0.32a 77.79 ± 0.53ab ***
Sphericity 1.024 ± 0.007a 1.024 ± 0.005a 0.982 ± 0.008ab 0.953 ± 0.009b ***
Volume (cm3 ) 206.68 ± 16.47b 207.42 ± 9.14ab 300.44 ± 4.13a 263.55 ± 7.59ab ***
Surface area (cm2 ) 162.2 ± 5.07b 162.7 ± 5.51b 202.6 ± 1.47a 188.2 ± 1.94ab ***
Projected area (cm2 )
Vertical 47.48 ± 1.86c 47.63 ± 1.85c 66.45 ± 0.43a 60.51 ± 1.49b ***
Horizontal 49.14 ± 1.95b 49.11 ± 0.99b 69.38 ± 0.21a 66.42 ± 1.12a ***
Mass (g) 175.71 ± 9.04c 187.41 ± 7.35bc 271.40 ± 3.8a 228.92 ± 6.46ab ***
Fruit density (kg/m3 ) 865.55 ± 15.44b 906.74 ± 5.31a 903.15 ± 4.62a 872.69 ± 5.42ab *
Bulk density (kg/m3 ) 527.80 ± 12.19 515.27 ± 10.44 518.17 ± 10.44 526.85 ± 17.61 NS
Porosity 0.402 ± 0.015 0.432 ± 0.015 0.426 ± 0.012 0.396 ± 0.019 NS
Packing coefficient 0.622 ± 0.011a 0.579 ± 0.002bc 0.571 ± 0.003c 0.614 ± 0.015ab *
Coef. of static friction
Rubber 0.270 ± 0.004a 0.200 ± 0.008b 0.175 ± 0.002b 0.124 ± 0.005c **
Plywood 0.258 ± 0.006a 0.187 ± 0.006b 0.162 ± 0.008b 0.107 ± 0.001c **
Galv. iron steel 0.247 ± 0.009a 0.175 ± 0.004b 0.147 ± 0.001b 0.113 ± 0.004c ***
Shell ratio (%) 25.40 ± 0.64bc 28.53 ± 0.26b 22.95 ± 0.57c 32.88 ± 1.30a ***
Colour
L 64.67 ± 0.39a 60.38 ± 0.30b 60.41 ± 0.06b 66.59 ± 0.45a ***
a 32.24 ± 0.20bc 35.26 ± 1.46ab 37.33 ± 0.19a 29.84 ± 0.51c **
b 68.17 ± 0.77a 60.33 ± 0.68b 62.13 ± 0.25b 70.43 ± 0.74a ***
a;b;c;d
All data represent the mean of three replications with 15 determinations; letters indicate the statistical difference in rows; *; **; *** significant
levels at 5%, 1%, 0.1% respectively; NS: not significant.

insignificant findings could be the result of the individual
properties of orange varieties, and environmental and
cultivation conditions.
The linear dimensions (length and diameter) and
shapes (geometric mean diameter and sphericity) of the
four orange varieties were found to be statistically sig-
nificant at the 0.1% probability level. The length of both
the W. Navel and Shamouti fruits was significantly
greater than the length of the Alanya and Finike fruits,
varying from 82.60 to 81.74 mm, and from 69.21 to 69.44
mm, respectively. The diameter of the W. Navel variety
(80.14 mm) was significantly greater than other varieties.
The diameter of the Shamouti variety was 75.96 mm,
followed by the Finike and Alanya varieties, which had a
mean of 71.83 mm and 71.57 mm, respectively. The
geometric mean diameter of each orange variety resulted
in different means, varying from 70.76 to 80.90 mm. Both
the Alanya and Finike varieties had more sphericity than
the W. Navel variety, followed by the Shamouti fruits.
The volume, surface area and projected area of the
orange varieties were found to be statistically significant
at 0.1% probability level. The volume of the W. Navel
variety (300.44 cm3 ) was significantly greater than that of
the other varieties. The volume values of the Shamouti
and Finike fruits were 263.55 and 207.42 cm3 , respec-
tively, followed by the Alanya fruit with a mean of 206.68
cm3 . The surface area of the W. Navel variety (202.6 cm3 )
was significantly greater than that of other fruits. The
Shamouti variety had a 188.26 cm3 surface area, followed
by the Finike and Alanya varieties with their means of
162.7 and 162.2 cm3 , respectively. The projected area with
a vertical axis, of the W. Navel variety, was greater than
that of the other varieties. The Shamouti variety had a
60.51 cm3 projected area, followed by the Finike and
Alanya varieties, which had a mean of 47.63 and 47.48
cm3 , respectively. The projected area with a horizontal
axis was in the range of 69.38 and 66.42 cm2 for the W.
Navel and Shamouti fruits, and 49.14 and 49.11 cm2 for
the Alanya and Finike fruits, respectively.
The sample mass of oranges was determined to have
different means, and these values varied from 175.71 to
271.40 g. Also, the W. Navel variety had more weight
than other varieties. The variation in those parameters
was found to be significant at the 0.1% probability level.
The fruit density of the orange varieties was found to
be statistically significant at the 5% probability level, but
the bulk density and the porosity was not significant,
varying from 515.27 to 527.80 kg/m3 and from 0.396 to
0.432, respectively.
The packing coefficient of the orange varieties re-
sulted in different means, varying from 0.571 to 0.622.
These results were probably due to the volume and
shape of the orange fruits. The packing coefficient in-
creased with decreased fruit volume. For example, the
Alanya fruit had the highest packing coefficient, with the
lowest fruit volume.
On the rubber surface, the coefficient of static friction
of the Alanya fruit, with a mean of 0.270, was signifi-
cantly greater than that of the other varieties. This value
for the Finike and W. Navel fruits was found to be 0.200
 A. Topuz et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2005) 519–523
and 0.175, respectively, and was followed by the
Shamouti fruit, with a mean of 0.124. The static coeffi-
cient of friction on the plywood and galvanized iron
steel surfaces was found to be statistically significant at
the 1% and 0.1% probability levels.
The shell ratio of each orange variety resulted in
different means, varying from 22.95% to 32.88%. The
mean value of the Shamouti fruit was significantly
greater than that of the other orange varieties.
The apparent colour of the orange fruits was found to
be statistically significant at the 1% and 0.1% probability
levels. The Alanya and Shamouti fruits were brighter (L)
and darker yellow (b) than the Finike and W. Navel
fruits. The redness (a) of the fruit sample also varied
from 29.84 to 37.33, as a function of orange varieties.
Several physical properties of the four orange varieties
were described in order to better design a specific ma-
chine for harvesting, handling, cleaning, separating,
storing etc. In the four orange varieties studied, many
parameters were found to be significantly different.
Therefore, the differences between the physical properties
of the orange varieties must be considered in optimising
orange product mechanization and food processing.
4. Conclusions
1. The sample of oranges was found to be sources of
vitamin C, sugars and some minerals such as K,
Mg, Ca and P. The values of all the chemical proper-
ties of orange juices, except pH, were statistically dif-
ferent with respect to the varieties.
2. Many physical properties of the orange varieties,
length, diameter, geometric mean diameter, spheric-
ity, volume, surface area, projected area, mass, fruit
density, coefficient of static friction and colour, were
found to be statistically significant at the different
probability levels (5%, 1% or 0.1%), with the excep-
tion that the bulk density and the porosity were found
to be insignificant.
Acknowledgements
This study was partly supported by the Scientific
Research Administration Unit of Akdeniz University,
Antalya, Turkey.
View publication stats
523
References
Anonymous (1989). Analytical method. Varian Australia Pty. Ltd.,
Mutgrave Victoria, No. 85, Australia.
AOAC (1990). Official methods of analysis (17th ed.). Washington, DC:
Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
Baryeh, E. A. (2001). Physical properties of bambara groundnuts.
Journal of Food Engineering, 47(4), 321–326.
Cassano, A., Drioli, E., Galaverna, G., Marchelli, R., Di-Silvestra, G.,
& Cagnasso, P. (2003). Clarification and concentration of citrus
and carrot juices by integrated membrane processes. Journal of
Food Engineering, 57, 153–163.
Cemero
glu, B. (1992). Basic analysis methods in fruit and vegetable
processing industry (381 pp.). Ankara: Arsu Publisher (in Turkish).
Demir, F., Dogan, H., Ozcan, M., & Haciseferogullari, H. (2002).
Nutritional and physical properties of hackberry (Celtis australis
L.). Journal of Food Engineering, 54, 241–247.
Dutta, S. K., Nema, V. K., & Bhardwaj, R. J. (1988). Physical
properties of gram. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research,
39, 259–268.
Gezer, I., Haciseferogullari, H., & Demir, F. (2002). Some physical
properties of Hacıhalilo
glu apricot pit and its kernel. Journal of
Food Engineering, 56, 49–57.
Grigelmo-Miguel, N., & Martin-Belloso, O. (1999). Characterization
of dietary fiber from orange juice extraction. Food Research
International, 31(5), 355–361.
Guzel, E., & Sinn, H. (1990). Force–deformation behaviour of W.
Navel oranges. In 4th international congress on mechanisation and
energy in agriculture (pp. 426–439) Adana, Turkey.
FAO (2002). Agricultural statistics. Available: www.fao.org.
Favier, J. C., Ripert, J. I., Toque, C., & Feinberg, M. (1995).
Repertoire general des aliments (p. 703) (Second ed.). Paris: Inra
Edition.
Kacar, B., & Kovanci, O. (1982). Phosphorus analysis in plant, soil
and fertilizer and evaluation of results (121 p). Faculty of
_
Agriculture, Ege University, Publication no. 453, Izmir (in Turk-
ish).
Lee, H. S., & Coates, G. A. (1999). Vitamin C in frozen, fresh
squeezed, unpasteurized, polyethylene-bottled orange juice: a
storage study. Food Chemistry, 65, 165–168.
Mohsenin, N. N. (1980). Physical properties of plant and animal
materials. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Moufida, S., & Marzouk, B. (2003). Biochemical characterization of
blood orange, sweet orange, lemon, bergamot and bitter orange.
Phytochemistry, 62, 1283–1289.
Pupin, A. M., Dennis, M. J., & Toledo, M. C. F. (1999). HPLC
analysis of carotenoids in orange juice. Food Chemistry, 64, 269–
275.
Sinclair, W. B. (1961). The orange. Its biochemistry and physiology (p.
435). Berkeley California: University of California Press.
Sitkei, G. (1986). Mechanics of agricultural materials. Budapest:
Akademiai Kiado.
Suthar, S. H., & Das, S. K. (1996). Some physical properties of
karingda seeds. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 65,
15–22.