March, 2013 Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.

1 201

Determination of some physical properties of virgin olive fruits

Amir Hossein Mirzabe*, Javad Khazaei, Gholam Reza Chegini,

Mohammad Hossein Amir PourRostami Nejad
(Department of Agrotechnology, College of Abouraihan, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran)

Abstract: Information on physical properties of virgin olive fruit, especially those grown in Iran,arenot available in literatures.
Some physical properties of Mari variety of virgin olive fruits, namely: dimensional properties (length, width, thickness,
arithmetic mean diameter, geometric mean diameter, sphericity, volume of the fruit, surface area and projected area),
gravimetric properties (unit mass of fruit, 1,000 fruit mass, bulk density, true density and porosity), frictional properties (angle
of repose and coefficient of friction), modeling dimensional properties and mass (using normal distribution) were studied.
Also sphericity, volume, surface area and projected area were calculated using different theoretical equations. Length, width
and thickness of fruits ranged from 18.46 mm to 27.63 mm, 15.80 mm to 21.99 mm and 14.77 mm to 20.33 mm, respectively.
Bulk density of fruits increased from 590.78 kg m-3 to 646.51 kg m-3 as the volume container increased from 500 mL to
2,000 mL and true density of 1,059.14 kg m-3 were obtained. The highest value forangle of repose and coefficient of friction
amongplywood, rubber, iron and galvanized surfaceswererecorded for iron surface and the lowest value was recorded for
galvanized surface.

Keywords: normal distribution, dimensional properties, gravimetric properties, frictional properties, modeling

Citation: Mirzabe, A. H., J. Khazaei, G. R. Chegini, M. H. A. Pour, R. Nejad. Determination of some physical properties of
virgin olive fruits. Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal, 15(1): 201－210.

are also required in the assessment of the product quality

1 Introduction
(Bart-Plange and Baryeh, 2003). Various types of
Olive (Olea europaea L.) is one of the world’s most cleaning, grading, separation and conveying equipment
important oil crops. Virgin olive oil is a unique product are designed and constructed based on physical,
because it is extracted by gentle physical procedure only, mechanical and thermal properties of grains and seeds
which results in a genuine fruit juice having excellent (Baryeh, 2001, 2002). While a lot of researchers have
organoleptic and nutritional properties. Its richness in conducted studies on olive oil (Cabrini et al., 2001;
oleate makes it appropriate for direct human consumption, Vierhuis et al., 2001; Ranalli et al., 2002; Servilia et al.,
as well as for use in diets designed to reduce 2004), available literatures are limited to physical and
cardiovascular diseases (Ranalli et al., 2002). mechanical properties of virgin olive fruits. Drying and
The physical and mechanical properties of virgin modeling of olive cake over a wide temperature range
olive fruits, like those of other grains, seeds and fruits are using mathematical models were studied and the effective
required in the designation and construction of equipment diffusivities and activation energy were calculated by
and structures for harvesting and post harvesting Akgun and Doymaz(2004). Physical properties and
operations such as handling, transportation, sorting, mechanical behavior such as rupture force, rupture energy
processing, oil extraction and storage of the fruits. They and specific deformation under compression loading of
olive fruits and their pits of Gemlik variety growing in
Received date: 2012-10-29 Accepted date: 2013-02-17
* Corresponding author: Amir Hossein Mirzabe, Email:
Aydin province in Turkey were determined by Kilickan
[email protected]. and Güner (2007).
 202 March Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

For a single seed, dimensions, mass and other distribution curves for length, width, thickness and mass
physical properties can be determined. However, values of sunflower seeds and kernels were studied by Jafari et
of these properties differ for each single seed, but al. (2011).
description of the frequency distribution of dimensions, Informations on the physical properties of virgin olive
mass and physical properties of the whole set of the seeds fruit especially those grown in Iran are not available in
is required for designing agricultural machinery (Khazaei literatures yet. The aim of this study was to determine
et al., 2008). There are many studies reported on the physical properties such as length, width, thickness,
modeling the properties of agricultural products based on fruit mass, 1,000 fruit mass, arithmetic mean diameter,
statistical distributions. Frequency distribution curve for geometric mean diameter, sphericity, volume, surface
dimensions and mass of cocoa beans were fitted to area, projected area, bulk density, true density, porosity,
empirical data (Bart-Plange and Baryeh, 2003). angle of repose, coefficient of friction and modeling
Frequency distribution curve for length, width and dimensional properties and mass (using normal
thickness of Sumac fruits were studied by Özcan and distribution) of virgin olive fruit of Mari variety grown in
Haciseferogullari (2004). Log-normal, normal and Tehran province, Iran. Also sphericity, volume, surface
Weibull distribution for modeling the mass and size area and projected area were calculated using different
distribution of two varieties of sunflower seeds and equations and the results of different equations were
kernels were used by Khazaei et al. (2008). Frequency compared.

A Angleof external static friction /deg S1 Surface area based on Equation (8)/mm2
Ar Angle of repose /deg S2 Surface area based on Equation (9)/mm2
CSF Coefficientof external static friction STD Standard deviation
Da Arithmetic mean diameter, mm T Thickness of fruit /mm
-3
Db Bulk density /kg m V1 Volume of fruit based on Equation (6)/mm3
Dg Geometric mean diameter /mm V2 Volume of fruit based on Equation (7)/mm3
Dt True density/kg m-3 W Width of fruit /mm
H Heightof the cone /mm α Location parameter in Normal distribution
L Length of fruit /mm β scale parameter in Normal distribution
2
Pa1 Projected area based on Equation (10)/mm ε Porosity /%
2
Pa2 Projected area based on Equation (11)/mm φ1 Sphericity based on Equation (3)/%
PDF Probability density function φ2 Sphericity based on Equation (4)/%
R Radius of the cone /mm φ3 Sphericity based on Equation (5)/%

and true density, angle of repose and friction coefficient

2 Materials and methods
of olive fruit samples were measured.
2.1 Sample preparation 2.2 Dimensional properties
Samples used in this study were virgin olive fruits To determine the dimensions of the virgin olive fruit
collected on 5 September 2012 from local farms of squash seeds, 100 seeds were randomly selected from the
Ghezlagh located at Pakdasht, Tehran, Iran. Six kgof bulk sample. For each single fruit, the three principal
virgin olive fruits of Mari variety were harvested dimensions of length (L), width (W) and thickness (T)
manually, cautiously and randomly. The fruits were were measured. For all measurements, a digital caliper
immediately transported to laboratory and were stored at with an accuracy of 0.01 mm was used.
5℃ prior to experiment. Some related dimensional properties of fruit samples
Bulk samples were selected randomly. The length, were calculated based on the measured dimensions of the
width, thickness, unit mass, 1,000 fruit mass, bulkiness samples. Geometric mean diameter (Dg mm) and
 March, 2013 Determination of some physical properties of virgin olive fruits Vol. 15, No.1 203

arithmetic mean diameter (Da /mm) were determined Projected area is an important parameter for
using Equation (1) and Equation (2) as reported by determining aerodynamic properties (Mirzabe et al.,
Koochaki et al. (2007). 2012). This parameter was determined using Equation
Dg  LWT 3
(1) (10) and Equation (11) (Burubai et al., 2007; Kabas et al.,
2007):
L W T
Da  (2)   WL 
3 Pa1   (10)

 4 
The sphericity (φ/%) of the grain is an index of its
2
roundness. For non-spherical particles, the sphericity is Pa 2  1.21V 3 (11)
calculated as the ratio of the surface area of equivalent
2.3 Modeling dimensional properties and mass
sphere to the surface area of the grain (Jain and Bal,
Normal distribution was used to model dimensional
1997). The sphericity of the seeds and fruit were
properties and mass of fruit sample. Normal probability
determined using Equation (3) as reported by Khazaei et
density functions were fitted to the empirical probability
al. (2008).
density to estimate the parameter values by nonlinear
 3 LWT 
1     100 (3) least-squares method. The probability density function
 L  (f(x)) and cumulative frequency function (F(x)) for the
Sphericity of seeds or fruits can alsobe determined Normal distribution are defined as in Equation (12) and
using Equation (4) (Jain and Ba, 1997; Baryeh, 2001; Equation (13), respectively (Khazaei et al., 2008).
Baryeh, 2002; Kibar and Öztürk, 2008). In order to
 1   1  x   2 
determine the sphericity of seeds or fruit, some f ( x)    exp    (12)
  2   2    
researchers used Equation (5) (Razavi and Milani, 2006;  

Burubai et al., 2007; Milani et al., 2007; Koocheki et al.,   x    1  x  t2 / 2

F ( x)   Z    , Z ( x)     e dt (13)
2007).      2  0
1
 B(2 L  B)  3 where, β = mean or location parameter; α = standard
2     100 (4)
 L2  deviation or scale parameter.
1 2.4 Gravimetric properties
 B(2 L  B)  3
3     100 (5) 2.4.1 Mass properties
 L 
To determine the mass of a single fruit sample, 100
where, B = (WT)0.5.
fruits from the bulk sample were randomly selected.
Volume (V /mm3) of the fruit samples were calculated
Mass of the fruit samples were measured by a digital
using Equation (6) and Equation (7) (Baryeh, 2002; Kibar
balance with an accuracy of 0.0001 g. To determine
and Öztürk, 2008; Tabarsa et al., 2011):
1,000 fruit mass, 500 seeds were selected; then the
D 3
g
 samples were divided randomly into 5 bins so that each
V1    (6)
 6
  bin contained 100 samples. The weight of each loaded
 B 2 L2 bins were measured. Then the average weight of bins
V2  (7)
6(2 L  B) was calculated and multiplied by 10 to give one thousand
2
Surface area (S/mm ) of the fruit samples were fruits mass.
calculated using Equation (8) and Equation (9) (Baryeh, 2.4.2 Density properties
2001; Baryeh, 2002; Jafari et al., 2011): The bulk material (samples) was put into 4 cylindrical

S1   Dg2 (8) containers with known weights and volumes of 500,

1,000, 1,500 and 2,000 mL with a constant height of
 BL2
S2  (9) 150 mm (Dash et al., 2008). Bulk density (Db) was
2L  B
calculated from the mass of bulk material divided by
 204 March Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

volume containing the mass. where, Ar is the angle of repose; H is the height of the
The fruits true density (Dt) was determined using the cone; R is the radius of the cone.
water displacement method. Toluene (C7H8) was used 2.6.2 Data analysis
instead of water, because its absorption by seed is less 2.6.2.1 Modeling
compared to water. Also, its surface tension is low, so MATLAB R2009a was used to draw probability
that it fills even shallow dips in a seed and its dissolution density function diagrams and calculate the parameters of
power is low (Milani et al., 2007). The porosity (ε) of the probability density function including location
the fruit samples was calculated based onbulk density and parameter and scale parameter.
true density, following the Equation (14) as reported by 2.6.2.2 Statistical indices
Nazari et al.(2008). Statistical indices including maximum, minimum,
 Db  average, standard deviation (STD), and variance for three
  1    100 (14)
 Dt  principal dimensions, dimensional properties and mass of

where, ε is porosity; Db is bulk density; Dt is true density. single fruit were calculated using Microsoft Office Excel

2.5 Frictional properties 2010.

2.5.1 Angle of friction Skewness and kurtosis are two statistical indices

The coefficient of external static friction was which were calculated so that the reader would better

determined using plywood, rubber surface, iron sheet and understand the probability density distribution data. The

galvanized iron sheet. A top and bottomless metallic skewness and kurtosis were calculated using the

box was put on the surface. The box was filled by following Equation (17) and Equation (18) as reported by

virgin olive fruit samples. The surface was gradually Lucian, (2006) and Khazaei et al. (2008), respectively.
3
raised by a screw. Both horizontal and vertical heights n n
 xi  xavg 
were measured using a ruler and digital caliper when the
Skewness   
(n  1)(n  2) i 1  STD 
 (17)

seeds started sliding over the surface and the coefficient   xi  xavg  
4
n(n  1) n

of static frication was calculated using Equation (15) as Kurtosis     

 (n  1)(n  2)(n  3) i 1  STD   (18)
reported by Burubai et al. (2007).
3(n  1)2
CSF = tan(A) (15)
(n  2)(n  3)
where, CSF is coefficient of external static friction; A is
where, n = number of occurrence; STD = standard
angle of external static friction.
deviation; xavg = mean seed size; xi = midpoint of each
2.5.2 Angle of repose
class interval in metric.
Static angle of repose was measured by pouring
method, because the sphericity of virgin olive fruit was 3 Results and discussion
very large (Fraczek et al., 2007). The angle of repose of
3.1 Dimensional and modeling results
fruit sample was determined by using a top and
Length, width and thickness of virgin olive fruit
bottomless metallic cylinder of 250 mm height and
samples ranged from 18.46 mm to 27.63 mm, 15.80 mm
150 mm diameter. The cylinder was placed on
to 21.99 mm and 14.77 mm to -20.33 mm, respectively.
horizontal surface and was filled with fruit samples.
Kilickan and Güner (2007) reported that olive fruits
The cylinder was raised very slowly. The height and
(Gemlik variety) length, width and thickness ranged from
radius of the cone were measured using a digital caliper.
22.94 mm to 27.56 mm, 20.04 mm to 23.96 mm and
The static angle of repose was determined using the
16.32 mm to 19.80 mm, respectively. A Comparison
following Equation (16) reported by Milani et al. (2007):
between the Mari and Gemlik varieties indicates that the
H
1
range of dimensions of Mari variety was wider than the
Ar  tan   (16)
R
Gemlik variety. Statistical indices for dimensional
 March, 2013 Determination of some physical properties of virgin olive fruits Vol. 15, No.1 205

properties and mass of the fruits are shown in Table 1. skewness had negative values and kurtosis values were
Table 1 shows that for olive fruits, in most cases, positive.

Table 1 Statistical indices for dimensional properties of the virgin olive fruit
Parameter Unit Max/mm Min/mm Average STD Skewness Kurtosis

L mm 27.63 18.46 23.417 1.586 -0.342 0.814

W mm 21.99 15.8 18.878 1.190 -0.196 -0.026
T mm 20.33 14.77 17.749 1.097 -0.530 0.167
M g 6.33 2.88 4.506 0.701 0.002 -0.015
Dg mm 22.783 16.450 20.015 1.051 -0.447 0.924
Da mm 22.661 16.380 19.858 1.054 -0.394 0.720
φ1 % 91.919 70.929 84.976 4.004 -1.358 2.663
φ2 % 2.928 2.619 2.811 0.973 0.003 1.483
φ3 % 292.841 261.893 281.074 5.257 -0.783 1.483
V1 mm3 6092.880 2301.246 4134.012 643.796 0.000 0.491
V2 mm3 5129.907 1976.802 3407.820 561.377 0.032 0.261
S1 mm2 1613.225 842.924 1242.248 130.251 -0.194 0.537
2
S2 mm 1455.725 768.673 1110.222 119.562 -0.134 0.316
Pa1 mm2 449.548 233.708 347.709 37.071 -0.209 0.712
Pa2 mm2 403.646 210.908 310.823 32.590 -0.194 0.537

In probability theory and statistics, skewness is a and fruit dimensions and mass, therefore value of
measure of the asymmetry of the probability distribution skewnees and kurtosis cannot be equal to zero.
of a real-valued random variable. The skewness value The dimensional distribution of virgin olive fruits
can be positive or negative, or even undefined. were modeled using Normal probability density function
Qualitatively, a negative skewness indicates that the tail distribution. Normal distribution parameters for
on the left side of the probability density function is modeling of dimensional properties and unit mass of the
longer than the right side and the bulk of the values olive fruits are shown in Table 2.
(possibly including the median) lie to the right of the
Table 2 Calculated parameter values of probability density
mean. A positive skewness indicates that the tail on the functions for dimensional properties and mass
right side is longer than the left side and the bulk of the Mean or location Standard deviation or
Parameter Units
values lie to the left of the mean. A zero value indicates parameter scale parameter

L mm 23.417 1.586
that the values are relatively evenly distributed on both
W mm 18.878 1.190
sides of the mean, typically (but not necessarily) implying T mm 17.749 1.097
a symmetric distribution. M g 4.506 0.701
Dg mm 19.858 1.054
In a similar way to the concept of skewness, kurtosis
Da mm 20.015 1.051
describes the shape of a probability distribution. φ1 % 84.975 4.004
Kurtosis refers to the degree of peak in a distribution. φ2 % 98.309 0.973
φ3 % 281.074 5.257
More peak than normal (leptokurtic) means that a
V1 mm3 4134.01 643.796
distribution also has fatter tails and that the probability of V2 mm3 3407.82 561.377
extreme outcomes is less compared to a normal S1 mm2 1242.25 130.251
S2 mm2 1110.22 119.562
distribution.
2
Pa1 mm 347.709 37.071
In ideal cases, value of skewness and kurtosis should Pa2 mm2 310.823 32.590
be equal to zero for normal distribution of dimensions
and mass of the seeds, grains and fruits. But in real case Predicted dimensional distributions are illustrated in
some factors such as irrigation period, fertilization period, Figure 1. It can be seen in Figure 1 that three cases of
weather conditions may cause changes in seeds, grains skewness had negative values. Similarly, it can be seen in
 206 March Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

Figure 1, that kurtosis value for length of fruit was more If for a single seed, grain or fruit W equals to aL and T
than the other dimensions. Figure1 shows that there is equals to bL (0 < a ≤ 1 and 0 < b ≤ 1) value of the
little overlap between the probability density function sphericity can be calculated as Equation (19) and
(PDF) of length and width, and even less overlap between Equation (20):
the PDF of length and thickness.  3 L(aL)(bL) 
 3 LWT 
1     100     100  3 ab  100
 L   L 
(19)
1 1

 B(2 L  B)  3  (aL)(bL)(2 L  (aL)(bL)  3

2   2   100   
 L   L2 
 100  3 (2 ab  ab)  100
(20)
When the value of ab ranged from 0.01 to 1, value of
sphericity based on Equation (3) ranged from 21.5% to
100%. However, value of sphericity based on Equation
Figure 1 Probability densities functions of fruits dimensions
(4) ranged from 57.5% to 100% as shown in Figure 2.
According to Figure 2, in all cases, value of the sphericity
Geometric mean diameter and arithmetic mean
based on Equation (4) was more than the value based on
diameter were calculated based on Equation (1) and
Equation (3). According to Figure 2, in the 70% of all
Equation (2), respectively. The arithmetic mean
cases, difference between the values obtained by
diameter was small than the geometric mean diameter
Equation (3) and Equation (4) were more than 9.956%.
obtained in all cases. A comparison between the Mari
Also, the result indicated that the variable range of
and Gemlik (Kilickan and Güner, 2007) varieties
sphericity based on Equation (3) was wider than the
indicates that the value of arithmetic mean diameter of
values obtained from Equation (4). Thus, calculating
Mari variety was more than the Gemlik variety and the
sphericity based on the Equation (2) had more valid
value of geometric mean diameter of Gemlik variety was
results.
greater than the Mari variety.
The sphericity ( φ /%) of the olive fruits were
calculated based on Equation (3), Equation (4) and
Equation (5). Results indicated that average of
sphericity of olive fruits based on Equation (5), was
found to be 281.074%. Also Razavi and Milani (2006)
calculated sphericity of three watermelon varieties seeds
based on Equation (5). They found that average value
of sphericity of Sarakhsi, Kolale and Red varieties were
206.6, 200.4 and 212.5%, respectively. Although it is
Figure 2 Effect of the value of ab onvalue of sphericity for
impossible to have a spherecity more than 100%, Razavi
Equation 3 and Equation (4)
obtained more than 100% because the equation (Equation
(5)) he used was not correct. Volume of the fruits basedon Equation (6) and
Also results showed that values of the olive fruits Equation (7) were 7,413.4012 mm3 and 3,407.820 mm3,
sphericity calculated based on Equation (3) and Equation respectively. Results indicated that, in all cases, volume
(4) were different; therefore a theoretical comparison of the fruits based on the Equation (6) was more than that
between Equation (3) and Equation (4) was conducted. obtained using Equation (7).
 March, 2013 Determination of some physical properties of virgin olive fruits Vol. 15, No.1 207

Probability density function of volume of the fruit values of the surface area based on Equation (9).
based on Equation (6) and Equation (7) are illustrated in Therefore average of the surface area of the olive fruits
Figure 3. From Figure 3, it can be seen that in both based on Equation (8) was found to be more than that
cases, kurtosis had positive values. The difference based on Equation (9). Also, in all cases, values of the
between volume based on Equation (6) and Equation (7) projected area based on Equation (10) were more than the
3 3
ranged from 324.444 mm to 1,162.471 mm . values of the projected area based on Equation (11),
therefore average of the projected area of the olive fruits
based on Equation (10) was more than for Equation (11).

Figure 3 Probability density functions of volume of olive fruits

based on Equation 6 and Equation (7)

Figure 4 Theoretical comparison between Equation (6) and

If for a fruit, W equals to aL and T equals to bL (0 < a
Equation (7)
≤ 1 and 0 < b ≤ 1) the volume can be calculated as
follows (Equation (21) and Equation (22)): Probability density functions (PDFs) of surface area
D 3
g
   LWT    abL  3
of the fruit based on Equation (8) and Equation (9) using
V       (21)
 6
   6   6  Normal distribution are shown in Figure 5. Skewness of
calculated surface area based on Equation (8) and
  WTL2
 B 2 L2 
V   Equation (9) were negative and kurtosis had positive
6(2 L  B)  6(2 L  WT ) 
(22) values. Also, in all cases, calculated value of the surface
  abL4   abL3 
   area of the fruits based on Equation (9) was less than
 6 L(2  ab )  6(2  ab ) 
calculated value based on Equation (8). Results of the
When the value of ab ranged from 0.01 to 1, volume calculations indicated that difference between surface
of fruit based on Equation (6) ranged from 0.005 L3 to areas of the olive fruits based on Equation (8) and
0.524 L3; but volume based on Equation (7) ranged from Equation (9) ranged from 72.489 mm2 to 189.535 mm2.
3 3
0.003 L to 0.524 L as in Figure 4. In all cases, the
calculated volume based on Equation (6) was more than
the calculated volume based on Equation (7). Also
calculation results showed that the difference between
volume based on Equation (6) and Equation (7) ranged
from 0 to 0.059 L3.
Average of the surface area of the fruits based on
Equation (8) and Equation (9) and projected area based
on Equation (10) and Equation (11) was found to be
1,242.248 mm2, 1,110.222 mm2, 347.709 mm2 and
310.823 mm2, respectively. In all cases, values of the Figure 5 Probability density function of surface area of olive
surface area based on Equation (8) were more than the fruits based on Equation (8) and Equation (9)
 208 March Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

When the value of ab ranged from 0.01 to 1, value of 3.2 Gravimetric results
surface area of the fruit based on Equation (8) and 3.2.1 Mass results
2 2
Equation (9) ranged from 0.146 L to 3.142 L and Mass of virgin olive fruits ranged from 2.88 g to
2 2
0.165 L to 3.142 L , respectively (Figure 6). Results 6.33 g. Kilickan and Güner (2007) reportedthat mass of
indicated that the difference between surface area (S1 –S2) olive fruits (Gemlik variety) ranged from 2.65 g to 5.65 g.
based on Equation (8) and Equation (9), ranged from A comparison between the Mari and Gemlik varieties
2 2
-0.020 L to 0.261 L . indicated that the range of mass of Mari variety was
wider than the Gemlik variety. Statistical indices for
mass of the fruits are shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows
that skewness had positive value and kurtosis value was
negative. Thousand seeds mass of fruits was found to
be 4,583.96 g.
3.2.2 Densities results
Bulk density of fruits increased from 590.784 kgm-3
to 646.508 kgm-3 as the volume container increased from
500 mL to 2,000 mL as shown in Figure 8. True density
of the fruits was obtained to be 1,059.137 kgm-3.
Figure 6 Theoretical comparison between calculated surface areas
Kilickan and Güner (2007) cited that the bulk and true
based on the Equation (8) and Equation (9)
density of olive fruit of Gemlik variety were found to be
Probability density functions (PDFs) of projected area 556.00 kg m-3 and 1,062.00 kg m-3, respectively. A
of the fruit based on Equation (10) and Equation (11) comparison between the Mari and Gemlik varieties
using Normal distribution are shown in Figure 7. Value indicates that the value of bulk density of Mari variety
of skewness for calculated surface area based on Equation was more than the Gemlik variety and true density of
(8) and Equation (9) were negative and kurtosis had Mari variety was less than the Gemlik variety.
positive values. Normally, knowing the properties of
each individual seed, grain or fruit is beyond the research
interest but for designing the dehulling, separating, sizing,
packing and planting machines the frequency
distributions of the size and mass properties of whole sets
of seeds, grains or fruits should be described (Khazaei et
al., 2008, Mirzabe et al., 2012).

Figure 8 Effect of the volume of the container on bulk density

The porosity depends on the bulk and true density.

Thus porosity of fruits decreased from 44.22% to 38.96%
as the volume container increased from 500 mL to
2,000 mL as shown in Figure 9. According to the

Figure 7 Probability density function of projected area of olive Kilickan and Güner (2007), the porosity of the Gemlik
fruits based on Equation (10) and Equation (11) variety is more than the Mari variety.
 March, 2013 Determination of some physical properties of virgin olive fruits Vol. 15, No.1 209

5 Conclusions

In the present work, some physical properties of Mari

variety of virgin olive fruits, namely, dimensional
properties, gravimetric properties, frictional properties
and modeling dimensional properties and mass using
normal distribution were investigated. According to the
measured and calculated properties:
1) Modeling result indicated that, in most cases,
skewness had negative values and kurtosis values were
Figure 9 Effect of volume the container on porosity
positive.
2) Values of the calculated sphericity based on
3.3 Frictional results
Equation (3) were higher than the values based on
3.3.1 Angle of friction
Equation (4). Values of the calculated volume of the
The coefficient of friction of olive fruit on plywood,
fruits based on Equation (6) were higher than the values
rubber, iron and galvanized surface are shown in Table 3.
based on Equation (7). Values of the calculated surface
Results indicate that the highest value for the static
area of the fruits based on Equation (8) were higher than
coefficient of friction (angle of friction) for olive fruits
the values based on Equation (9). Values of the
was obtained in iron surface and the lowest value was
calculated projected area of the fruits based on Equation
obtained in galvanized steel surface.
(10) were higher than the values based on Equation (11).
Table 3 Value of static coefficient of friction and angle of 3) Mass of virgin olive fruits ranged from 2.88 g to
friction on different surfaces 6.33 g and 1,000 seeds mass of fruits was found to be
Sheet material A (deg) CSF 4,583.96 g.
Plywood 19.26 0.35 4) When the value of the volume container increased
Rubber 20.82 0.38 from 500 mL to 2,000 mL, value of the bulk density also
Iron 21.38 0.39
increased from 590.874 kg m-3 to 646.508 kg m-3
Galvanized 16.72 0.300
5) True density of olive fruit was determined to be

3.3.2 Angle of repose 1,059.137 kg m-3.

The valuesobtained for pouring angle of repose on 6) The value of angle of repose and coefficient of

plywood, rubber, iron and galvanized surface were 22.51°, friction on iron surface was more than that on other

25.72°, 26.05° and 24.15°, respectively. Angle of surfaces. Also values of angle of repose and coefficient
repose is one of the frictional parameters of fruits, grain, of friction on galvanized surface were least compared to
seeds, nuts and kernels of agricultural crops. Value of other surfaces.
angle of repose of fruits on each surface was related to
the value of the static coefficient of friction of fruits on Acknowledgement
the surface. Value of angle of repose on galvanized The authors would like to thank the University of
surface was lower than other surfaces because the value Tehran for providing technical support for this work. We
of coefficient of friction on galvanized surface was lower would also like to thank Dear Mr. Mohammad Hassan
than the other surfaces. Value of angle of repose on iron Torabi Ziaratgahi, Mr. Rasool Sohrabi Khah, Mr.
surface was more compared to other surfaces because the Ebrahim Sharifat, Mr. Mostafa Kabiri, Mr. Ali Mansouri,
value of coefficient of friction on iron surface was more Hamed Ebrahimzadeh for their technical help and support
than other surfaces. while writing the paper.
 210 March Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access at http://www.cigrjournal.org Vol. 15, No.1

References
Akgun, N. A., and I. Doymaz. 2005. Modelling of olive cake properties of watermelon seed as a function of moisture content
thin-layer drying process. Journal of Food Engineering, 68(4): and variety. International Agrophysics, 21(4):349-359.
455-461. Lucian, C. 2006. Geotechnical aspects of buildings on
Baryeh, E. A. 2001. Physical properties of bambara groundnuts. expansive soils in Kibaha, Tanzania: preliminary study,
Journal of Food Engineering, 47 (4): 321–326. licentiate thesis, Division of Soil and Rock Mechanics
Baryeh, E. A. 2002. Physical properties of millet. Journal of Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering Royal
Food Engineering, 51(1): 39-46. Institute of Technology.

Bart-Plange, A., and E. A. Baryeh. 2003. The physical Milani, E., M. Seyed, A. Razavi, A. Koocheki, V. Nikzadeh, N.

properties of Category B cocoa beans. Journal of Food Vahedi, M. MoeinFard, and A. GholamhosseinPour,. 2007.
Engineering, 60 (3): 219-227. Moisture dependent physical properties of cucurbit seeds.
Burubai, W., A. J. Akor, A. H. Igoni, and Y. T. Puyate. 2007. International Agrophysics, 21 (2): 157-168.
Some physical properties of African nutmeg (Monodora Mirzabe, A. H., J. Khazaei, and G. R. Chegini. 2012. Physical
myristica). International Agrophysics, 21(2): 123-126. properties and modeling for sunflower seeds. Agric Eng Int:
Cabrini, L., V. Barzanti, M. Cipollone, D. Fiorentini, G. Grossi, B. CIGR Journal, 14(3):190-202.
Tolomelli, L. Zambonin, and L. Landi. 2001. Tioxidants Nazari Galedar, M., A. Jafari, and A. Tabatabaeefar. 2008.
and total peroxyl radical-trapping ability of olive and seed oils. Some physical properties of wild pistachio (Pistacia vera L.)
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 49 (12): 6026- nut and kernel as a function of moisture content. International
6032. Agrophysics, 22 (2): 117-124
Dash, A. K., R. C. Pradhan, L. M. Das, S. N. Naik. 2008. Some Ranalli, A., L. Pollastri, S. Contento, G. Di Loreto, E. Iannucci, L.
physical properties of simarouba fruit and kernel. Lucera, F. Russi. 2002. Acylglycerol and fatty acid
International Agrophysics, 22 (2): 111-116 components of pulp, seed, and whole olive fruit oils. Their use
Fraczek, J., A. Złobecki, and J. Zemanek. 2007. Assessment of to characterize fruit varietyby chemometrics. Journal of
angle of repose of granular plant material using computer Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50 (13):3775-3779.
image analysis. Journal of Food Engineering, 83 (1): 17-22. Razavi, S. M. A., and E. Milani. 2006. Some physical
Jafari, S., J. Khazaei, A. Arabhosseini, J. Massah, M. H. properties of the watermelon seeds. African Journal of
Khoshtaghaza. 2011. Study on mechanical properties of Agricultural Research, 1 (3): 65-69.
sunflower seeds. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Servilia, M., R. Selvagginia, S. Espostoa, A. Taticchia, G.
Universities, 14(1): 06. Montedoroa, and G. Morozzi. 2004. Health and sensory
Jain, R. K., and S. Bal. 1997. Properties of Pearl Millet. . properties of virgin olive oil hydrophilic phenols: agronomic
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 66 (2): 85-91. and technological aspects of production that affect their
Khazaei, J., S. Jafari, and S. Noorolahi. 2008. Lognormal vs. occurrence in the oil. Journal of Chromatography A, 1054
Normal and Weibull distributions for modeling the mass and (1-2): 113–127.
size distributions of sunflower seeds and kernels. World Tabarsa, T., S. Jahanshahi, and A. Ashori. 2011. Mechanical
conference on agricultural information and IT.IAALD AFITA and physical properties of wheat straw boards bonded with
WCCA 2008, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan, atannin modified phenol–formaldehyde adhesive. Composites:
24-27 August, pp: 91-105. Part B: Engineering, 42 (2): 176–180.
Kibar, H., and T. Ozturk. 2008. Physical and mechanical Vierhuis, E., M. Servili, M.Baldioli, H. A. Schols, A. G. Voragen,
properties of soybean. International. Agrophysics, 22: 239- G. F. Montedoro. 2001. Effect of enzyme treatment during
244. mechanical extraction of olive oil on phenolic compounds and
Kilickan, A. and M. Güner. 2008. Physical properties and polysaccharides. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
mechanical behavior of olive fruits (Olea europaea L.) under 49 (3): 1218-1223.
compression loading. Journal of Food Engineering, 87 (2): Özcan, M., and H. Haciseferogullari. 2004. A condiment
222–228. [Sumac (Rhus Coriaria L.) fruits]:Some physico-chemical
Koocheki, A., S. M. A. Razavi, E. Milani, T. M. Moghadam, properties. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology, 30(3-4):
M.Abedini, S. Alamatiyan, S. Izadkhah. 2007. Physical 74-84.