T This dissert itlon has been microfilmed e> actlyab received 70-6793
HILDEBOLT, William Morton, 1943- THE INFLUENCE OF PRESERVATION METHODS OF THE COLOR AND OTHER QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF GREEN BEANS (FHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.)
The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 Food Technology
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan TIE INFLUENCE OF PRESERVATION METHODS OF THE COLOR AND OTHER j .
QUALITY ATTRIBUTES OF GREEN BEANS (PHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.)
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
William Morton Hildebolt, M.S.
******
The Ohio State University 1969
Approved by fa ftJUs-Q.-hrdtf Adviser Department of Horticulture and Forestry ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to express his appreciation and gratitude
to the following: my wife, Sandra, and my family, for their constant
encouragement, understanding, and assistance throughout my graduate
studies.
Ify adviser, Dr. Wilbur A. Gould, for his guidance, assistance,
• and learned counsel.
Dr. Jean R. Geisman, for his suggestions and guidance in the
final preparation of this manuscript.
Dr. C. Richard Weaver and the Statistics Laboratory of the
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio, for
their help in analyzing the results of this project.
The staff and many students of the Food Processing and Tech
nology Division, Department of Horticulture and Forestry, for their
help in the processing of the many samples required for this study,
and special thanks to Dr. David E. Crean for his technical assistance.
ii VITA
December 7, 1943 . . Born - Richmond, Indiana
1966 ...... B.S. in Food Technology, The Ohio State University, Columbus,. Ohio
1966-1967...... Teaching Assistant, Horticulture Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1967 ...... M.Sc., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1967-1968 ...... Teaching Associate, Horticulture Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
PUBLICATIONS
"Evaluation of Snap Bean Varieties for Processing," Research Progress Reports, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Mimeo graph Report #337:1-10, 1967 (Co-author Dr. W. A. Gould).
"Epidermal Sloughing of Snap Beans as Influenced by Processing Variables," Research Progress Reports, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Mimeograph Report #337:28-32, 1967 (Co-author Dr. W. A. Gould).
"Effect of Nitrogen Levels on Tomato Fruit and Internal Can Corrosion Using the Diphenylamine Spot Test," Research Progress Reports, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Mimeograph Report #339:32-35, 1968 (Co-author Dr. W..A. Gould).
"Evaluation of Snap Bean Cultivars for Processing," Research Progress Reports, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Mimeo graph Report #350:11-16, 1969 (Co-author Dr. W, A. Gould).
iii FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Horticulture
Studies in Processing Fruits and Vegetables. Professor Wilbur A. Gould and James F. Gallander.
Studies in Specialty Products. Professor Jean R. Geisman. I • Studies in Microbiology. Professor Harry H. Weiser.
Studies in Physical Chemistry. Professor Quentin Van Winkle.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ^ ...... ii
VITA ...... iii
LIST OF TABLES ...... vi
LIST OF F I G U R E S ...... X
INTRODUCTION ...... ' ...... 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 3
G e n e r a l ...... 3 , Theoretical Concepts of Color and ColorMeasurement . . 3 Factors Influencing Color and■Chlorophyll Retention . . 15 Factors Influencing Other Quality Attributes ...... 26
MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 31
Cultural Information...... 31 Processing ...... 32 Product Evaluation ...... 36
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ...... 46
G e n e r a l ...... 46 Colorimetry ...... 47 Product Evaluation ...... 54
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ...... 95
G e n e r a l ...... 95 Colorimetry ...... 95 Product Evaluation ...... 101
CONCLUSION...... 114
APPENDIX...... H 8
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 155
V LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Snap Bean Cultivars ...... 31
2 Subjective Sloughing Evaluation .;..... 44
3 Correlation Coefficients of Colorimetry Function With the Percent Chlorophyll Retention (Total, a, and b) by Processing M e t h o d ...... 49
4 Correlation Coefficients of Colorimetry Functions by Processing Method ...... 51
5 Correlation Coefficients of Colorimetry Function With the U.S.D.A, Color Scores for Canned, Frozen, and Freeze- Dried Snap B e a n s ...... 53
6 Analysis Averages of Raw and Blanched Samples ...... 54
7 Relationship of Percent Chlorophyll Retention (Total, a and b) and Reflectance Colorimeter (Agtron M-400 and Hunter D-25) Results for the Raw Analysis as Expressed by Linear and Multiple Regression Equations . 56
8 Agtron R Results From Steam (210°F for 1 Minute) and Water (185°F for 2 Minutes) Blanches for Whole Green B e a n s ...... 57
9 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions (Total, a, and b) and Agtron R Results for Various Blanching Treatments for Cut Green B e a n s ...... 58
10 Relationship of Percent Chlorophyll Retention (Total, a and b) and the Reflectance Colorimetric (Agtron M-400 and Hunter D-25 Results for Blanched Samples as Expressed by Linear and Multiple Regression Equations ...... 60
11 Analysis Averages of the Canned (Buffered Brine) and Canned (Water Brine) Samples ...... 61
12 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A, Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Canned (Water Brine) Samples Which Were Steam Blanched (210°F for 1 Minute) According to Maturity Classification and * Storage P e r i o d ...... '...... 63
vi LIST OF TABLES (Continued).
Table Page
13 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions, U.S.D.A, Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Canned (Water Brine) Samples Which Were Water- Blanched (185°F for 2 Minutes) According to Maturity Classification and Storage Period ...... 64
14 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Canned (Buffered Brine) Samples for the Cut Maturity Classifi cation According to the Blanching Method and Storage Period ...... 65
15 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Canned Samples (Water Brine) Which Wfere Blanched in Buffer Solutions (pH 6.7 to 8.0) According to the Cut Maturity Classification and Storage Period ...... 66
.16 Relationship of the U.S.D.A. Color Scores and the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions (Total, a, and b) and the Reflec tance Colorimetric (Agtron M-400 and Hunter D-25) Results for the Canned (Water Brine) Samples as Expressed by Linear and Multiple Regression Equations ...... 67
17 Analysis Averages of the Frozen and Freeze-Dried S a m p l e s ...... '...... 69 v 18 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Frozen Samples Which Were Steam Blanched (210°F for 1 Minute) According to Maturity Classification and Storage Period ...... 70
19 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Frozen Samples Which Were Water Blanched (185°F for 2 Minutes) According to Maturity Classifications and Storage P e r i o d ...... 71
20 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions, U.S.D.A, Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Frozen Samples Which Were Blanched in Buffer Solutions (ph 6.7 to 8.0) According to the Cut Maturity Classification and Storage Period ...... 72
vii LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table , • > Page
21 Relationship of the U.S.D.A. Color Scores and the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions (Total, a, and b) and the Reflectance Colorimetric (Agtron M-400 and Hunter D-25) Results for the Frozen Samples as Expressed by Linear and Multiple Regression Equations ...... 80
22 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions, Visual Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Freeze-Dried Samples Which Were Steam Blanched (210°F for 1 Minute) According to Maturity Classification and Storage Period...... 81
23 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions, Visual Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Freeze-Dried Samples Which Were Water Blanched (185°F for 2 Minutes) According to Maturity Classifications and Storage P e r i o d ...... 82
24 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Freeze-Dried Samples in Which Were Blanched in Buffer Solutions (6.7 to 8.0) According to the Cut Maturity Classification and Storage Period ...... 83
25 Relationship of the U.S.D.A. Color Scores and the Reflec tance Colorimetric (Agtron M-400 and Hunter D-25) Results for the Freeze-Dried Samples as Expressed by Linear and Multiple Regression ...... 84
26 Averages of Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color- Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Raw, Blanched, and the Three-Month Storage Periods of the Canned and Frozen Product According to Cultivar and Maturity Classification. Only the Standard Steam (210°F for 1 Minute) and Water (185°F for 2 Minutes) Blanches Have Been Included .... 88
27 Averages from the Subjective Sloughing Evaluation for the Canned Product According to the Blanching Technique . . . 92
28 Correlation of Colorimetric Results With the pH and Per cent Total Acid Results from the Raw, Blanched, Canned (Water Brine), Canned (Buffered Brine), Frozen, and Freeze*:Dried S a m p l e s ...... 94
29 Results of all the Analyses for the Raw Samples ..... 120
viii LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
30 Results of all the Analyses for the Blanched Samples. . . 123
31 Results of all the Analysis for the Canned Samples After One Day Storage ...... 128
32 Results of all the Analyses fot the Canned Samples After Three Month's Storage ...... 132
33 Results of all the Analyses for the Frozen Samples After One Day S t o r a g e ...... 137
34 Results of all the Analyses for the Frozen Samples After Three Month's Storage ...... 140
35 Results of all the Analyses for the Frozen Samples After Five Month's St o r a g e ...... 145
36 Results of all the Analyses for the Frozen Samples After Nine Month's St o r a g e ...... 147
37 Results of all the Analyses for the Freeze-Dried Samples After Three Month's Storage...... 150
38 Results of all the Analyses for the Freeze-Dried Samples After Nine Month's Storage ...... 153
ix LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Snap Bean Processing...... 37
2 Absorption Curves of 80% Acetone Extract of Raw Green Beans ...... 48
3 Agtron M-30 R Values Vs. U.S.D.A. Color Score for Canned Green Beans ...... 68
4 Hunter D-25 a, b Values Vs. U.S.D.A. Color Scores for Frozen Green Beans ...... 74
5 Agtron M-30 R, G Values Vs. U.S.D.A. Color Scores for Frozen Green Beans ...... 75
6 Hunter D-25 a/b Ratio Vs. U.S.D.A. Color Score for Frozen Green Beans ...... 76
7 Agtron M-30 R Filter Vs. U.S.D.A. Color Scores for Frozen Green Beans ...... 77
! 8 Nomograph for Predicting U.S.D.A. Color Scores for Frozen Green Beans in Terms of Agtron M-30 R and R X G ...... ' ...... 79
9 Agtron M-30 R Filter Vs. Visual Color Score for Freeze-Dried Green Beans ...... 85
x INTRODUCTION
Color has been long considered as one of the most important attributes of a food product. To the consumer, color is associated with the freshness and maturity of fresh foods, and in processed foods, color is used as an indication of the quality of both the raw product and the perserving method employed. By relying on past experience and preconceived notions of what he considers to be desirable, a consumer many times will determine the quality of a particular food solely on its color. Individual conceptions of what color a food should appear can become very strongly established, A food may be judged unaccept able for consumption on its color alone even if it deviates only slightly from its norm. The food processor, being aware of these
(consumer) idiosyncrasies, has devoted an immense amount of effort in trying to maintain the color of processed food as close as possible to the fresh product. In almost any processed food a compromise in quality has to be made in going from the raw to the finished product because of the nature of the preservation method.
Of all the popular green vegetables, the color of snap beans is the least stable. During the last few years, considerable research has been devoted in an effort to improve the quality of snap beans, but color retention still remains as one of the more elusive problems. The reason that this difficulty has persisted is that the processing vari ables which help to retain chlorophyll many times have had adverse 1 2 effects on the texture of the snap beans and in some.cases, epidermal sloughing has been induced. This effect has made the processor very reluctant to introduce changes which deviate from the standard process ing procedure, and only until researchers have developed a method where * chlorophyll can be retained without the deteriorating side effects, can improvements be made.
With the knowledge of these problems, the present work was designed with these objectives:
1. To determine the quantitative relationship between the
extent of conversion of chlorophyll to pheophytin and
the degree of color change in green beans.
2. To study the influence of cultivar and maturity on the
retention of chlorophyll.
3. To determine the effects of blanching, canning, freez
ing, freeze-drying, irradiation, and storage time on
the color of the green beans.
4. To establish processing procedures for chlorophyll
retention without impairment to other quality attributes.
5. To attempt to correlate objective colorimetric methods
(Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter and Agtron M-400
and M-30) with subjective analysis results and attempt to
establish an objective color grade system for processed
green beans. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
General
There has always been a large amount of interest in controlling
the retention of chlorophyll in processed vegetables. The amount of
research work which has been devoted to this area for the last thirty years indicated the importance of this problem to the food industry.
Many obstacles have stood in the way of effective improvements.in
chlorophyll retention, but progress has been made in many areas. This
literature review covers the accomplishments and progress which has
been made in the improvement of the color of processed green vegeta bles. A historical and theoretical review of the science of color and
colorimetry has been included to provide an understanding of the prob- V lems associated with color measurement. The discussion concerning
color has been limited to the trichromatic color vision theory and
additive colorimetric methods.
Theoretical Concepts of Color and Color Measurement
Color has intrigued and mystified man from the beginning of
time, but recently has the sciences of physics, physiology, pyschology, and pyschophysics been able to explain the phenomenon of color percep
tion. ■ Newton first demonstrated that white light could be separated into its red, green and blue components by passing it through a prism.
3 \
4
One hundred years later in 1807, Thomas Young (1773-1829), an .English physicist, proposed a theory of color vision based on the color addi tive hypothesis first.observed by Newton (32). Later Herman von
Helmholtz (1821-1894), a German physiologist, expanded and developed
Young's original ideas. The Young-Helmholtz theory states that the eye has three specialized sets of color sensitive nerves that inde pendently and selectively respond to red, green and blue light which are the.three primaries of white light. This theory has been the most widely accepted explanation of color- vision today and almost all other hypothesis concerning color are based on this theory.
Although' the Young-Helmholtz theory told man how he "saw color", many years passed before he could actually record and compare color in a simple but scientific manner. Not until 1912, did Albert H. Munsell
(1881-1918), an American artist, in an effort to aid the teaching of color, developed and perfected a system of color notation and nomencla ture. Many other methods were developed at approximately the same time, but the Munsell system was so superior that by 1942, it was accepted throughout the United States as the standard psychological description of color sensation (63). By 1927, the United States Department of
Agriculture was using the Munsell system in the grading of agricultural commodities. The advantages of the Munsell notation were that a color could be described and identified numerically by a simple color code.
Munsell based his system on three psychological attributes of color which are in terms of visual sensation. Hue, value, and chroma define a color in three psychological colorimetric dimensions. Hue is the 5 quality or attribute that distinguishes one color from another and allows them to be classed as blues, yellows, greens, reds, or purples.
The Munsell hue circuit is divided into ten major hues. There are, in addition to the above, five intermediate hues: yellow-red, green- yellow, blue-green, purple-blue, and red-purple. Value is the degree of lightness of a color. The Munsell value is that attribute of all colors which permits them to be classed as equivalent to some member of a series of grays. In the Munsell scale there are ten visually equi distant values or neutrals from 0, black, to 10, white. The use of decimal numbers allows the value notation to be expressed as accurately as necessary and can be expended to one-hundred units. Chroma is the strength or intensity of a color. It is that attribute of all colors possessing hue which determines their degree of difference from a gray of' the same value. The steps of chroma extend from 0 at gray out to the maximum intensity of that particular hue usually between 8 and 14. ’ v The strongest obtainable chroma varies from one hue to another. The chroma notation may be subdivided decimally just as the Munsell value, in order to allow for greater accuracy (63). In physical terms, hue corresponds to dominant wavelength, value corresponds to luminous reflectance or transmission, and chroma corresponds to purity or saturation.
Munsell, with the development of his color notation system, layed the groundwork on which the science of color has been built; but, although this system adequately defines a color in psychological terms, it does not consider the light source or ’the observer. In order to be able to measure and assign specifications from one illuminated object 6 to another,, more information was needed than was provided by .the
Munsell notation. In 1931, the International Commission on Illumina tion (I.C.I.) established a numerical system of colorimetry based on a standard light source and a standard observer (65). Three standard light sources were chosen. An incandescent light operating at 2854°K was chosen as illuminate A. Illuminate B and C were the same light modified by filters to approximate noon sunlight and average daylight, respectively. Illuminate C has been the most popular standard light source. The I.C.I. standard observer was arrived at by averaging spec tral response data for a number of normal observers collected over an equal-energy spectrum. The Young-Helmholtz trichromatic theory of color vision was the basis of the colorimetric data adopted by the
I.C.I. which were obtained by averaging results from color mixture and matching experiments. "This system enables one to convert distributions of radiant energies in the visible region of the spectrum, measured by physical instruments, to light units and also to three-valued numerical specifications of their colorimetric properties" (40). The numerical specification has become known as the tristimulus values (X, Y, Z).
These values characterized a color numerically and represented the luminance of three unreal primaries; red, green and blue light, which can be additively mixed in such proportions that any color can be matched when observed under a standard light source and by a standard observer. White light contains equal portions of each of the three primaries (green, red, and blue light). The'tristimulus values (X, Y,
Z) can be expressed in percentage units (x, y, z) known as chromaticity coordinates and these values can be displayed graphically in a 7 two-dimensional (X, Y) coordinate system known as the I.C.I. cjiroma- ticity chart. In comparing the Munsell to the I-.C.I. color notation system, Nicherson (62) pointed out that the Munsell system color is expressed in units of visual difference of the three psychological attributes (hue, value and chroma) in terms of color order rather than by color mixture in the I.C.I. The relationship between the Munsell notation, the I.C.I., and dominant wavelength-purity notation was never
simple but charts and formulas have now been developed which permit easy transition from one method to another (61).
Color measurement
Before the I.C.I. colormetric data was first published in 1931,
there was no standard method by which accurate calculation of colori metric functions could be made. Until that time any attempt at color-
• imetry was limited to subjective analysis by visual matching against known standards. A great deal of effort was devoted in trying to
eliminate the subjective error involved in visual comparison, but with
out a standard system of methodology, results were meaningless from one
observer to another. One method, though, which was developed from an
idea first suggested by Maxwell in 1860 (32) did help to eliminate much
of the‘subjective error involved in visual observations and established
a system which could be standardized from one laboratory to the next.
This method has become known today as disk colorimetry. It was origi
nally developed in the laboratories of the United State Department of
Agriculture, and used the Munsell system of color notation (63). Disk
colorimetry was very simple in design and employed a method of additive 8 colorimetry- by using Munsell papers in different combinations, on a spinning disk to produce a particular color to be matched by some object. With the addition of a standard light source, disk colorim etry became.the standard method of color measurement.
Although disk colorimetry was as objective as any method of color measurement known, it was still subject to the inherent errors of the observer and the need of an even more accurate means of color measurement was apparent. With the advent of the spectrophotometer, colorimetry took another step forward. This review will be confined only to a discussion of the photoelectric colorimeter, although the absorbance and reflectance spectrophotometer has played an important part in the development of the science of colorimetry, it now has only a limited role in the color measurement of foods. The photoelectric colorimeter, through the use of photocells and filters, objectively measures and compares color. There are two types of photoelectric colorimeters which are in popular use today. One is known as the tristimulus colorimeter and the other is known as an abridged spectrophotometer.
The tristimulus colorimeter was built in order to duplicate as closely as possible the results of a hypothetical I.C.I. standard observer under the standard illuminant C. This was accomplished by using three filters so chosen that the spectral distribution of the source-filter-photocell^combination conformed to the spectral distribu tion of the I.C.I. tristimulus functions (12). The tristimulus instru ■> ments have inherent limitations because the best available filter- pliotocell combinations have failed to be spectrally equivalent to the 9 desired combinations'of the I.C.I. standard observer and standard illu minate, but when these limitations were recognized and the instrument used accordingly, good reproducible results were obtained. The Hunter
Color and Color-Difference Meter Model D25, one of the color instru ments used in this study, has become on of the best known tristimulus colorimeters. The Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter was first developed at the Henry H. Gardner Laboratory, Inc., by Richard Hunter
(12). Later the Hunter Associates Laboratory, Inc., made improvements in the original instrument and developed the model D25. The Hunter D25 approximates the X, Y, and Z functions of the I.C.I. system by the use of three separata circuits, filters and photocells. For e,ach measure ment, three Hunter values (L, a, and b) were obtained. The Hunter L can be compared directly to the Y of the I.C.I. or, to the value of the
Munsell system. The Hunter a and b were designed to measure the red ness or greenness and yellowness or blueness of an object, respectively.
The a values are functions of X and Y, and b values are functions of Z and Y. From this, the Hunter values can be converted to the chroma- ticity values (x, y, z) and thus, they can be plotted on an (x,y) coor dinate I.C.I. chromaticity chart. Equations derived by Hunter (39) easily convert Hunter values to I.C.I. notations or the I.C.I. func- tions can be converted to the Hunter values (see page 41 for the Hunter conversion equations). The hue and chroma of a specimen can be obtained directly from the Hunter a and b values (49). Davis and Gould (18) developed a method whereby Hunter values could be converted to Munsell 10 notation by. calculations. Younkin (91) developed a method by, which
Munsell notations could be obtained directly from a plot of the Hunter a and b values.
The Agtron M-400 used in this study was an abridged spectropho tometer equipped with three interference filters. The characteristics of the sample to be measured determined the filter which should be selected. The interference filter allows only one narrow wavelength band to pass while all other spectral radiation is absorbed. Chichester
(13) indicates that extreme care must be exercised in using an abridged spectrophotometer if any degree of success was to be obtained because the instrument was only capable of measuring color specimens whose reflectance or transmission curves differ only slightly. Although the
Agtron M-400 and its wide angle attachment, the M-30, have three filters from which to choose, it is not a tristimulus colorimeter, and its re sults cannot be transferred into the I.C.I. color space. The results ' * ' \ obtained from the Agtron have to be handled individually.
Hunter's classification of colorimetry into three groups can best conclude any discussion on color measurement (39).
1. Psychological. The method of color evaluation based on
the Munsell system of color notation. That is, describ
ing a color by its psychological dimensions of hue,
chroma, and value.
2. Physical. The physical method which employed a spectro
photometer or spectrophotometric curves in order to
obtain measurements of absorbance or apparent reflectance
as a function of wavelength. 11
3. Psychophysical. The psychophysical method which was
developed in order to duplicate the color response
of the hypothetical I.C.I. observer by an instrument
known as the tristimulus colorimeter. This was
, accomplished by the careful selection of source-filter
photocell combinations.
Colorimetry of foods
Color measurement of food by instrumentation poses special problems for the results obtained have not always correlated with actual consumer preferences. Chichester (13) stated that this problem has arisen when instrumentation has not been used out of necessity, but rather for instrumentation for instrumentation's sake. Kramer (49) has also indicated that this problem exists and suggested the need for colorimetric research in the following areas: "first, correlation of color specifications to buyer'specifications; and second, development of the simplest procedure, covering only the color dimensions of inter est to the buyer." Much of the early work in colorimetry was devoted to correlation of instrumental results to consumer preferences and to the United States Department of Agriculture's grade standards (47).
The commodities in which this work has been performed are: tomato products (11,17,59,18), strawberries (72), potato chips (51), cran- \ berry juice (75), sweet potato puree (37), and almost all the green vegetables (23,25,29). As reviewed by Davis (16), research work in
the colorimetry of tomato products laid the groundwork for color measurement in almost all other foods. Smith and Huggins (74) in 1952, 12 described a photoelectric bridge spectrophotometer known as the
Agtron E that could be used to grade raw tomatoes'according to color.
Gould (30) later correlated the results of the Agtron E on the raw tomato fruit to the color of the finished product. This instrument has now been approved by the California Department,of Agriculture for the grading of tomatoes. Younkin (91) used the Hunter Color-Difference
Meter to determine the grade specifications of tomato purees by trans forming .the Hunter results into the Munsell system of color notation.
This work was further expanded by Mavis (59) using the Agtron F. From this initial work, color measurement by instrumentation has been adapted for the color evaluation of other food products.
Color measurement of green vegetables
The first methods used to measure color or color changes in green vegetables were accomplished by extracting the chlorophyll pig ment, the pigment which gives greenness to green vegetables, from the food by some nonpolar- solvent such as ether or acetone (54,68). The amount of chlorophyll present was then quantitatively determined from the absorbance curves of the chlorophyll extract or measured over several wavelength readings. Dietrich (20), Vernon (84), and White,
Jones, 'and Gibbs (89) all have developed spectrophotometric techniques which now have become standard analytical methods for the determination of chlorophyll. Although these methods accurately gave the percentage of chlorophyll present in a vegetable, they did not give a true picture as to how that particular product appeared to the consumer. Although the first work on chlorophyll was begun before World War II, it wasn't 13
until the .mid-1950's that tristimulus colorimetric measurements'were used as a method to determine the color change in processed green vegetables (21,48,77,88). In 1957, Dietrich (22) reported that the
Hunter Color-Difference Meter's ratio of 'a/b, which showed a change in hue from green towards yellow, best represented the change in color of green beans. One year later, Gold and Wechel (29) found a highly sig- nificant correlation between the value Ja^ a 2 + b^ and the degree of r~2 2 degradation of chlorophyll in canned green peas. The quantity Ja + b , which showed a change in saturation, best represented the color change in peas. Working with frozen lima beans, Kramer and Hart (47) found that the Hunter L value, which directly compared with the Y of the
I.C.I. color space, correlated very highly with consumer preference studies and that a consideration of the Hunter a and b results were not necessary. From this they concluded that the consumer was more inter ested in dark lima beans rather than green or yellow green, or even the green intensity. Although these results were experienced with lima beans, other research has indicated that the "greenness" of processed green vegetables was a very important and highly desired quality aspect.
Tan and Francis (79), in work with spinach, Sweeney and Martin (78), in work with green beans, and Gold and Wechel (29), in work with peas, 2 2 have all reported the significance of the Hunter a/b and r +• b values in determining the color changes which occurred in these processed vegetables.
Gold and Wechel (29), and Sweeney and Martin (78), in estab lishing the Hunter colorimeter as a method of measuring color changes which occurred in .their respective food products, first correlated the 14
Hunter values (L, a,b) against the percentage of chlorophyll that was
present in the product. In this manner the significance of the Hunter
results were determined. These same research workers found that the
Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter could be used to accurately •
predict the chlorophyll retention by measuring the reflected light from
the sample in question. This greatly aided research studies concerned with chlorophyll retention because the increased speed of the tristimu
lus instrument as compared to the slower extraction and spectrophoto- metric method. It was also possible to correlate the amount of
chlorophyll present in a sample to its "color" in psychophysical terms.
Although research studies have been devoted to establishing
colorimetric grade standards for many different food products (16,48,
91), there was not found in the literature any published results estab
lishing grade standards for processed green beans. There have been
several research projects concerning chlorophyll retention and changes
in green beans (24,81,86,87), but none of these studies have been re
lated to grade standards or transforming the results into either the
I.C.I. or the Munsell color notation systems.
No information could be found in the literature concerning the
use of the Agtron in color evaluation of green vegetables, therefore,
a discussion cannot be included. 15
Factors Influencing Color and Chlorophyll Retention
Theoretical concepts
The reason why the color of fresh green vegetables change from a bright green to a dull olive-green on processing has been understood for many years. The kinetics of this reaction was first extensively studied by Joslyn and Mackinney (43), in 1938, and Mackinney and Joslyn
(53,55) in 1940 and 1941. These two authors found that the color change was a result of chlorophyll being converted to pheophytin in an acidic medium by the following reaction:
Chlorophyll + 2 h"*"-- > Pheophytin Mg*"*"
It was determined that the magnesium in the chlorophyll molecule was
j . replaced by two H ions supplied by the plant tissue and the corres ponding pheophytin was produced. This reaction was found to be irre versible and the loss of magnesium was of the first order with respect to acid concentration. Two chlorophylls were isolated and were desig nated as chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b. Both chlorophylls were found to be very similar chemically, but Mackinney and Joslyn (55) reported that chlorophyll a was converted to pheophytin a eight to nine times as rapidly as chlorophyll b was converted to pheophytin b. Similar re sults have also been reported by Sweeney and Martin (78). They showed that the destruction of chlorophyll a was the principle factor respon sible for the loss of color in cooked green vegetables. Tan and Francis
(79) further supported these results with their work on spinach puree.
Chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b have been determined to be in a ratio of 3 to 1, respectively, in plant tissue (68,84). . 16 In ‘1940, Blair (9,10) obtained the first patents for the pro tection of color in processed green vegetables. He reasoned that since chlorophyll was converted to pheophytin, hence the color change, that if the pH of the plant tissue could be controlled near neutrality the conversion reaction could be slowed or inhibited completely. Partial control was accomplished by using buffer solutions near pH 7.0 for both the blanching and brining operations. Blair and Ayers (11) in 1943, published the results.of these first attempts at retaining chlorophyll.
They indicated that the hydroxide ion (OH ) was the active agent in penetrating and retaining the color of the vegetable tissue, they further found that the addition of magnesium ions to the buffer solu tion did little to prevent the conversion of chlorophyll to pheophytin even though magnesium was a product of this reaction. The rate of con version was not subject to any mass-action effect of the magnesium ion in solution and thus, the reaction could not be reversed. As would be expected, Blair and Ayers indicated that the amount of heat exposure during processing directly effected the rate of chlorophyll degradation.
Mackinney and Weast (54) working with peas and green beans sug gested that due to the severe conditions employed in heat processing, other degradation products besides the pheophytins might be produced.
Almost twenty years later in 1955, Westcott, et al. (88), found small amounts of pheophorbide, an acid hydrolysis product of pheophytin, in commercially canned green bean puree. In working with frozen raw peas,
Wagenknecht, Lee, and Boyle (85) indicated that the accumulation of free fatty acids in storage was responsible for color loss due to the 17 increased acidity. Further work in this area by Walker (86) indicated that similarities occurred in storage with frozen green beans. The first reaction was the conversion of chlorophyll to pheophytin during storage. The reason for this reaction was not exactly understood I although Walker has suggested that the build up of free fatty acids in the bean tissue x^as a result of the anaerobic initiation stage of fat autoxidation. The second form of color deterioration occurred during the aerobic stage of fat autoxidation and both the chlorophylls and pheophytins were destroyed by oxidation. This second step was not observed until at least twelve months storage which suggested the evi dence of an inherent antioxidant.contained in the beans.
Thermodynamic studies by Gold and Wechel (29) and Gupt, El-Bisi, and Francis (34) have determined the rate of the chlorophyll degrada tion. reaction for canned peas and spinach puree under various processing conditions. The results.of these studies indicated that a time tempera ture relationship existed, but that a greater amount of conversion occurred if the product was exposed to low temperatures for a long length of time than if the sterilization value was obtained more rapidly at high temperature for a short time. Working on this thesis in order to improve the color and flavor of canned peas, Adams and Yawyer (1) studied the effect of the high-temperature, short-time sterilization
(HTST) process. Adam and Yawyer (1) reported that in order to inacti vate the peroxidose enzymes a much, more severe HTST process was neces sary to sterilize the peas. It was determined that the lethality required to inactivate this enzyme system was ten times as great at
280° as at 250°F. The color of the peas was found to be improved at 18 the higher processing levels for the first few weeks, but at t;he end of four weeks storage, there was no noticeable difference between the
HTST peas and the ones processed by the standard method.
The pH of the vegetable tissue has been implicated as the reason for the difference in chlorophyll retention and thus, the differ ence in color stability from one green vegetable to another. Dietrich, et al. (22), suggested that the lower pH in green beans was one of the more important factors as to why chlorophyll degradation occurred at a faster rate than in peas with a higher pH. Sweeney and Martin (78) concurred with Dietrich, et al., on this theory and indicated that brus- sels sprouts a n d ‘green beans, pH 6.0-6.3, were less stable, to color loss than were spinach or peas, pH 6.7-7.0. These results would seem to indicate a clear relationship between inherent pH and chlorophyll reten tion, but results reported by Walker (86) confused the picture. Walker found that chlorophyll degradation was not related to-natural pH, and that neither pH nor titratable acidity of frozen green beans showed significant trends after an extended period of storage.
Horticulture practices
From a practical standpoint there was very little literature ' available concerning the influence of horticulture practices on the chlorophyll content of green beans. The cultivar and maturity of the green beans to be used for processing would appear to be one of the more important variables in determining the final color of the finished 19
product. This lack of information may be one of the reasons so many
problems have been associated with developing a standard processing
method for consistently high quality snap beans.
Processing variables
It now has been established that processing variables have a
very important influence on the chlorophyll retention of the finished
product. Even before Blair obtained his first patents (9,10) in 1940,
it was well known that the color of green vegetables could be retained
during cooking by the addition of small amount of alkali such as sodium
bicarbonate. However, this practice was not extensively employed be
cause of the off-flavors and mushy texture which resulted when vegeta
bles were cooked in an alkaline medium. Blair's process was developed
to eliminate these undesirable side effects by very carefully control-
'ling the pH of the vegetable tissue through the use of special chemical
* additives. This process, which was originally developed to be used to
protect the color of any green vegetable, has only been used to any
extent in the processing of canned peas. Since Blair's first attempts
at improving the color of processed green vegetables, there has been
several patents issued (8,57,58,71,76), and many different studies have
been made to try and determine the influence of various processing
variables on chlorophyll retention (14,26). Approximately the same
time Blair was doing his work, Mackinney and Joslyn (43,53,55) sug
gested that blanching was probably one of the most important unit oper
ations in preserving the chlorophyll of processed vegetables. 20
It was originally believed that blanching "set the color" in vegetables by removing large proportions of volatile and water-soluble components which reacted with chlorophyll during subsequent cooking
(33). These first concepts have now been proven to be partially true in that the acidity of the vegetable tissue was decreased during blanching by the loss of soluble acids from the vegetable tissue (29).
Since chlorophyll' has been shown to be converted to pheophytin at a greater .rate in an acidic medium, the lower acidity in the tissue would help to protect the color of the processed green vegetable. This effect was observed to be the greatest in a boiling water blanch, and the rea son has been attributed to the disruption of the cellular integrity of the tissue. Here a discrepancy seems to exist; Although it has been demonstrated that the acidity decreased on blanching, Sweeney and
Martin (78) and Van Buren, Mayer, and Robinson (81) have reported that the pH also decreased. No explanation in the literature was found to V explain this apparent contradiction.
Dietrich, et. al, (24), indicated that steam blanching caused more chlorophyll conversion in green beans than water blanching in most cases where time and temperature were similar. This reason was attrib uted to the greater amount of heat which was absorbed in the steam blanched product. It was found that a linear relationship existed between chlorophyll loss and blanching time at a given temperature.
Jones, White, and Gibbs (42) reported similar results and indicated that the reason was due to the tissue acids being released and that the longer length of time allowed for more chlorophyll conversion. 21
Van Buren, et al. (81), has also suggested that the green color loss
at these lower blanching temperatures may be due to the formation of
acid by the action of an enzyme such as pectin methylesterase. Fur
ther research by Dietrich, et^ al., suggested that green beans just
adequately' blanched to peroxidant inactivation had clearer green color when blanched at higher temperatures for shorter times than when blanched at lower temperatures for longer times.
The addition of alkalis to the blanching water to control the pH of the vegetable tissue has long been used as a means to help pre
serve chlorophyll. This procedure was first suggested by Blair (9,10)
in 1940, and there have been several patents (8,57,58,71,76) issued
since which have been based on controlling the pH of the vegetables
tissue by blanching or brining in buffered solutions. Much of this
latter work was devoted in trying to illuminate the undesirable side effects which were associated-with the original methods. However, the
Blair process still has remained the best known, even though it has not been extensively adopted.
The final criterion used when comparing any blanching procedure
for chlorophyll retention has to be the color of the finished product after storage. Dietrich, et al_. (24),, has indicated that even though there was greater chlorophyll degradation at higher temperature than with lower temperatures at constant time, the higher temperature blanched green beans were of better quality after extended storage periods. Although blanching has been attributed to having the primary influence on chlorophyll retention, other processing variables have 22 been suggested as having important effects also. Pre-soaking green vegetables prior to processing has been studied as a possible means of controlling the pH of .the tissue. Blair and Ayers (11) first reported the use of pre-soaking in the processing of canned green peas. A 30 to 60 minute pre-treatment soak in a magnesium hydroxide solution at temperatures below 70°F were found to give the best results. Elevated soaking temperatures were found to induce enzymatic reactions which caused off-flavors. Blair and Ayers also indicated that soaking in distilled water or salt solutions caused calcium and magnesium ions to be lost and thus, the color and texture of the product was effected.
Schroder and Rogers (71) obtained a patent in 1945 for the. protection of color in green vegetables by employing a compatible wetting agent or surface active agent in the alkali solution to help reduce the soak ing time. No results as to the effectiveness of using wetting agents in the pre-soak was found in the literature. On a similar note,
Giecher (28) found.that ammonium hydroxide had a greater wetting and penetrating rate than an equal solution of carbonates or bicarbonates.
Another factor that many times has been overlooked as an impor tant processing variable has been the length of time the product stands between blanching and processing. Van Buren, et. al^. (81), observed that chlorophyll was converted to pheophytin'during this time if the blanching temperature was not above 190°F. The rate of conversion to pheophytin increased proportionally with increased temperature during this period. Van Buren, et al^. (81), suggested that the reason was due to the activation of an enzyme system at the lower blanching tempera tures, which caused a subsequent decrease in the pH of green beans pods. 23
As was reviewed earlier, the lower the pH the greater the chlorophyll
degradation,-consequently, this variable could play an important role
in the preservation of the color of green beans.
Canning
Several research workers (11,42,76) have suggested that the
retention of chlorophyll in green vegetables could be aided by using
buffered brine solutions at about a pH of 6.7 to 7.0. Sweeney and
Martin (78) indicated that only slight additional color improvement
resulted when green beans were cooked in buffers of pH greater than 7.
Magnesium hydroxide was first used to control the pH of the brines, but
this practice was discontinued because the formations of hard white
crystals of magnesium ammonium phosphate. Other alkalis which passed
the proper pH controlling power were found to replace magnesium hydrox
ide. In 1952, a patent (8) was issued for the protection of green
color in canned vegetables in which no other treatment w^s employed
during the processing operation except the addition of a specially pre
pared brine. Extensive use of this patent has not been reported, even
though it would appear that this procedure has merit.
Gold and Wechel (29) reported that 50% of the chlorophyll of canned peas was degraded during the ’’come-up" period in the retort operations, This led other research workers to recommend that by
shortening the sterilization time as much as possible through the use of elevated retort temperatures, chlorophyll could best be retained
(14,29). Although this appears -good in theory, it must be remembered 24
that Walker (86) and Adams and Yawyer (l)(see page 17) demonstrated
that at high temperature sterilization troubles may be encountered with peroxidase enzymes which destroy chlorophyll.
Freezing 1
According to Dietrich, et al. (23), after proper blanching and
freezing, the most important factor in retaining the color of frozen
green beans was the storage conditions. Dietrich and his co-workers
found that the rate of conversion doubled with each 5°F increased in
temperature in the range of 0 to 25°F and that below 0°F deterioration was negligible. If fluctuations in temperature occurred during stor
age, deterioration occurred at a rate equal to constant temperature
increments. Once damage occurred, the color of the green beans was never regained even though good practices were applied thereafter.
Another variable in the handling of frozen green beans which were packaged in transparent polyethylene that has been found to be
important was the amount of light exposure the product received.
Van Buren, et al. (81), has Indicated that chlorophyll was converted
to pheophytin during extensive exposure to bright light.
Freeze-drying
There has not been extensive research conducted on the effects
of freeze-drying on the quality of green beans. Although now due to
engineering improvements in the freeze-drying process, new interest in
the dehydration of green beans by freeze-dehydration has been expressed
(46). The only published results on chlorophyll retention in freeze-
dried green beans has come from Egypt by Foda, Waraki, and Zaid (27). 25
These researchers found that high blanching temperatures helped to
retain the greatest amount of chlorophyll after drying. They also
indicated that packaging was a critical factor in influencing the
quality of the stored product. A packaging material with a low mois- V ture vapor, transmission rate was mandatory, and that atmospheric
osfygen had to be removed or off odors resulted in oxidative rancidity.
Irradiation
Nickerson, Proctor, and Goldblith (64) reported the conversion
• of chlorophyll to pheophytin in a number of green vegetables when cath
ode ray irradiated. They found that vacuum packaging and irradiation
in the frozen state were each effective in preventing the loss of
chlorophyll due to irradiation. Wishnetsky, et, al. (90), in working
with gamma-irradiation of green beans in cans, observed that a 1.86
megarad dosage resulted in approximately 40% conversion of the original
chlorophyll content. Similar results were reported by Nickerson,
et al. (64). Wichnetsky, et al. (90), also indicated that a great de
gree of protection against change in color and chlorophyll content
could be obtained by immersing the green beans in a high-pH brine and
by using plain tin cans. Storage at 100°F rather than at room tempera
ture did not affect the chlorophyll cohtent or hue of the irradiated
green beans. 26
Factors Influencing Other Quality Attributes
When processing variables were introduced to help correct or improve on a particular quality attribute, the effect on the overall quality of the product has often been overlooked. A discussion of the effect of processing variables which best retain chlorophyll in green beans has thus been included to determine their influence on.other quality.attributes.
Sloughing and texture
Epidermal sloughing of canned green beans has always been an important quality problem. Sloughing is demonstrated by the separation of the epidermal layer of cells from the pericarp portion of the bean pod and thus creating a very detracting appearance to the beans (45).
Cruess (15) first suggested that blanching conditions may affect the occurrence of sloughing. Blanching has now been demonstrated as having the dominating influence on the incidence of sloughing present in canned snap beans (36,45,52,73). The reason for this effect was re ported by Van Buren, Moyer and Robinson (82) to an enzyme known as pectin methylesterase whose activity found to be was influenced by the blanching temperature. The activity of this enzyme on increasing the acidity of blanched green beans was presented earlier in this report.
The enzyme system was found to be activated in the temperature range of
160° to 1.85°F and if blanching conditions did not fall within this range, severe sloughing resulted (83), Van Buren and his co-workers have indicated that if pectin methylesterase was allotted to catalyze 27 the removal of methyl groups from the pectic substances found .in the middle lamella layer and if calcium ions were present, they would react with-the exposed carboxyl groups and form insoluble calcium pectinates and pectates. These cpmplexes were found to remain in the intercellular regions and served as cellular binding substances..
It should now be evident that blanching conditions required for proper texture arid to prevent sloughing have been reported to be in direct contrast to conditions conducive to chlorophyll retention. These diametrically opposed conditions were the primary reason responsible for most of the difficulty that has been encountered in processing green beans. The reasdn that these problems have not been better understood can probably be attributed to the fact that most research projects have only been concerned with one or two quality aspects. Thus, when recom mendations have been made on these results, many times degradation has occurred in some other quality attribute which was not considered in the original work.. The processor, naturally frustrated by such results, has become very reluctant to introduce any changes in his processing methods, whether they have merit or not. Consequently, the net effect has been to reduce any progress in product.improvement to a minimum.
Texture was shown to be inversely related to the level of sloughing (36). That is, factors which helped to decrease sloughing tended to increase firmness due to the various histochemical changes which occur during food processing. Changes in cellular adhesion was shown to be of primary importance in determining the final texture of the product (80). Van Buren, et. al. (82), demonstrated that texture 28
was Influenced by many of the same factors which affected sloughing in
canned green beans. This correlation was found to be due in part to
pectin methylesterase activation after blanching in the temperature
range of 160° to 180°F.
Vitamin C and nutrient content
Blanching, as it has been reported for all other quality fac
tors, plays an important role in influencing the nutrient retention of vegetables. Magoon and Culpepper (56) reported nutrient losses in
snap beans at all blanch temperatures. They concluded that the chill
ing step following scalding resulted in increased nutrient losses. Lee
and Whitcomb (50) in comparing steam versus water blanching, found the
immersion-type water blanch resulted in the greatest loss of soluble nutrients. Retzer, et al. (70) and Noble and Gardon (67) in similar
studies, reported that no significant difference was found between
Vitamin C retention in either steam or water blanched green beans. '
Sweeney and Martin (78) also indicated that the pH of the cooking
/ medium did not appear to have an adverse affect on the Vitamin C of green beans. Guerrant and.Dutcher (33) investigated the effect of duration and temperatures of blanching, both water and steam, on the ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) content of green beans, lima beans, spinach and peas. It was observed that green beans blanched at 160°F for 1, 3, and 5 minutes retained lower percentages of their original ascorbic acid that did similar beans blanched for the same periods at 180°F,
200°F and steam. This was an apparent anomaly for which there has not been a good explanation as to the reason for the reduction in Vitamin C. 29
It has been suggested that an enzyme system which was activated at lower temperatures (130° to 160°F) may be responsible (33). Blanching the beans at 200°F served to stabilize the remaining, ascorbic acid present in the blanched product, and therefore, this temperature must
\ have been effective in altering the enzyme system. Dietrich, et al.
(24), indicated that just as in chlorophyll retention, Vitamin C was also retained best when a high temperature short time blanch. In another study by Dietrich, et al. (22), it was observed that the amount of ascorbic acid decrease was correlated well with the time-temperature history of the green beans and parallel changes occurred in color as measured by the conversion of chlorophyll to pheophytin. Noble and
Gordon (67) found that green beans retained 30% of their original
Vitamin C after the accumulated effects of blanching, freezing, and storage for six months to 0°F. Lee and Whitcomb (50) and Melnich,
Hochberg, and Oser (60) reported that there was an approximate 40% re duction in ascorbic acid content from fresh to canned snap beans.
The cultivar of the green beans has always had an important influence on the amount of Vitamin C present in the raw state (31,66, j . 69). Green bean cultivars from twenty to thirty years ago have been reported to average about 16 to 19 milligrams ascorbic acid per 100 grams of sample (66,69). Gould and Hildebolt (31)-, in evaluating new cultivars and strains during the 1966 season, reported that fresh green beans averaged approximately 23 milligrams ascorbic acid per 100 grams of sample and that the canned beans averaged 7.8 milligrams. They fur ther indicated that a greater Vitamin C content was observed in the 30
smaller sieve si2 es or the lesser mature beans. In another investiga
tion the bush cultivars were found to contain greater ascorbic acid concentrations than the pole cultivars (35).
\ , MATERIALS AND METHODS
Cultural Information
Eleven cultivars of snap beans were included in this study
(Table 1). All cultivars were of the green type and were grown on the
Horticulture Farm at The Ohio State University.
TABLE 1
Snap Bean Cultivars
Code Cultivar Lot No.*
1. Tempo 206 2. Green Pod • 63-321 3. Green Pod 64-489 4. Green Pod 488 5. Green Pod 64-478 6. Dark Earligreen 66-312 7. Green Pod Tendercrop 64 8. Astro 26271 9. Tendercrop 83 10. Sparton Arrow 76 11. Tenderette 81
* The seed was supplied by Rogers Brothers Company, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Each cultivar was planted in two 200-foot rows, 36 inches apart with the seed placed two to three inches apart in the row. Two plots were set out at staggered planting dates. The second plot contained a replicate planting of the first five cultivars. The beans were grown under normal commercial practices for Ohio, A Skinner overhead spray 31 32
irrigation system was used to supplement rainfall. Cultivars' six to
eleven were harvested twice and the remaining five were harvested at
least three times with some cultivars being harvested four to six
times in order to further investigate certain trends.
The beans were harvested by hand and transported immediately
to the Horticulture Fruit and Vegetable Processing and Technology
Division Pilot Plant for processing. The beans were prepared for
canning, freezing, and freeze-drying. Pilot plant equipment was em
ployed in all cases to duplicate commercial processing unit operations.
Processing
Snipping, cutting and inspection
On arrival at the pilot plant, the beans were immediately weighed and were usually processed within three to four hours after harvesting. A Chisholm-Ryder snap bean snipper was employed to snip the beans. The snipped beans were discharged directly from the snipper into an FMC double-size grader. Two size grades were made, sizes 1-3 and 4-6. The larger sieve size beans were transferred directly into an Urschel cutter, and were cut into pieces 1 to 1-1/2 inches in
length. After size grading, the beans were weighed and divided into equal lots to be blanched.
Blanching
Blanching was performed by one of two methods: for tempera tures under 210°F, blanching was accomplished in a steam-jacketed,
Btainless steel kettle and for temperature above 210°F, a continuous 33
steam blancher was employed. The steam blanch for one minute' and a o 185 F water blanch for two minutes were used as the standard blanches
for each cultivar and harvest period studied. The temperatures studied
ranged from 180°F to 210°F, and the time was varied from one to five minutes. The pH of the blanching water was also varied by using various buffering agents in order to study the effects of pH on the
chlorophyll retention of snap beans. After blanching, the beans were
cooled in running tap (at 70°F) water and then taken to a continuously moving inspection belt where defective beans and extraneous materials,
if any, were removed.
Packing
The beans were then hand filled into 303 X 406 size plain tin cans. Exactly nine ounces of beans were filled into each can. The filled cans of beans were divided by cultivar and sieve size into two
lots. One third of each lot was canned and the remaining portion was frozen. Later one-half of the frozen lot was freeze-dried. Samples for irradiation were obtained from the larger frozen lots.
Canning
The packed beans were covered with either hot distilled water or a buffer solution of pH 7, plus one 200 grain calcium chloride tablet was added to each can. The cans were coded according to the cultivar and processing variables employed, exhausted under a steam flow of 15 psi, and sealed with the aid of an American Can Co. 006 34
closing machine. The closed cans were placed into a retort and pro cessed for 20 minutes at 240°F. The canned beans'were water cooled and stored at room temperature until analyzed.
In addition to the canned green beans, which were prepared by the procedures just described, three special test packs were conducted.
The purpose of these .extra packs was to determine the effect of pre- soaking on the chlorophyll retention of canned snap beans. The beans were soaked fir twelve hours in either distilled water, a buffer solu tion of pH 7, or the pH 7 buffer solution with a wetting agent added.
After soaking] the beans were processed in the normal manner.
Freezing
The cans which were to be frozen were taken immediately to the closing machine and steam flow closed at 15 psi. The same coding was used for each lot in both the frozen and canned samples. After seal- * . o ing, the cans were taken directly to the freezer and frozen at -20°F.
Approximately two hours were required for the beans to be frozen. The beans were stored at -2.0 F until removed for analysis.
Freeze-drying
One-hi If of each lot of the frozen beans which were of suffi- cient size was taken and freeze-dried in a Stokes, pilot model freeze dehydrator. Each lot was weighed before.and after drying in order to determine, the percent yield of the finished product. Three lots could be dried toget her during one cycle of the freeze-dryer.
A star dard cycle was employed to dry each lot. The snap beans were -loaded ir to the freeze-dryer still in the frozen state. Vacuum 35 was applied first without any plate heating in order to refreeze any
surface moisture which may have melted on transferring the samples
from the freezer to the dryer. After one hour, the plate temperature was brought up to around 100 to 110°F and left at this temperature until drying was completed which was usually within fifteen hours.
Operating at these parameters, the product temperature remained below
0°F for the majority of the drying cycle. Copper-constantan thermo couples and a six point recording potentiometer were used to make a permanent record of each drying cycle. Five thermocouples were used: three thermocouples were placed in representative samples of each lot of beans, the other two thermocouples were used to measure the ambient temperature of the chamber and the plate temperature.
The beans were determined dry when the product temperature plateaued off within 5° to 10° of the plate temperature. The cycle was allowed to run for approximately an hour longer after this point was reached to insure that complete drying had occurred. Once the cycle was determined to be finished,- the dryer was shut off and the vacuum in the chamber was broken with nitrogen. The beans were then immediately weighed and packed into either aluminum foil pouches or
303 x 406 size plain tin cans.. All samples, regardless of packaging material used, were stored at room temperature. The standard procedure which was used in this study was to close the tin cans at atmospheric pressure, but a test pack was conducted on three lots using aluminum foil pouches. Three types of closure were used with the foil pouches 36
as follows: vacuum packed, nitrogen flushed, and nitrogen flush with
vacuum. This study was conducted in order to determine the best method
for packaging freeze-dried snap beans.
Irradiation
Ten lots of snap beans were irradiated using the Nuclear Engi
neering Department’s C o ^ irradiator. Dosage levels of 10^, 10^, and
10^ rads were chosen to study. The samples which were irradiated were
selected from the frozen lots and were irradiated in the can.
A flow sheet of the processing unit operations is shown in
Figure 1.
Product Evaluation
General
In order to measure the change which occurred during blanching
and to determine the influence of cultivar and sieve size, analyses were performed immediately after blanching. The raw product data were used as the standard reference for all other processing results. The canned product was analyzed after one day, three months and six months
storage. The frozen samples were evaluated after one day, three ■ months^ and nine months storage, and the freeze-dried samples were evaluated after three months and nine months storage. The irradiated
samples were analyzed after nine months.
Color evaluation
The percentage of total chlorophyll and chlorophyll a and b were determined by absorption spectrophotometry using a method 37
Harvesting
Snipping
Size Grading
1-3 Cutting (4-6)
Blanching
Steam Water
Inspection
Packing
Brine Closing
Closing Freezing
Processing Irradiation Open Cans
Cooling Freeze-drying
Packing
Room Temperature Storage Closing
FIGURE 1. SNAP BEAN PROCESSING FLOW SHEET 38 developed by Vernon (84). The following method was used to prepare
the samples for'measurement. Seventy grams of green beans with 250 ml. of acetone were homogenized for 3 minutes in a Waring Blendor. Three grams of filter aid were added to the hom'ogenator during the last 30
seconds. The sample was filtered through a 8,5 cm. in diameter Buchner funnel fitted with Whatman No. 4 filter paper. The filter cake residue was washed with 80% acetone and the filtrate was brought to a final volume of 500 ml. with 80% acetone. From each sample, control and con verted aliquots were made. The control was prepared by adding 3,0 ml. of 80% acetone to a volumetric flask and diluted to 100 ml. The con version sample was prepared by placing 3.0 ml, of saturated oxalic acid in 80% acetone in a volumetric flask and diluting to 100 ml. with the same filtered extract. Both the control and converted sample were staggered and kept in the dark at room temperature for 3 hours. Mea surements were made at wavelengths of 536, 645, 655, 662 and 666 m|X plus, an additional measurement at 700 m|j, was made to check the optical clarity of the solution. An absorbance under 0.012 at 700 m^ was con sidered free of turbulence.
To calculate the percent retention of total chlorophyll and chlorophyll's a and b from the absorbance results, the following equa tions were used. Two equations were used for each chlorophyll deter mination and the results averaged in order to reduce the error which is inherent in spectrophotometric measurements of this type. The follow ing equations from Vernon (84) were used. Percent Total Chlorophyll
„ Chph present (mg./liter) 10Q Total chph with no conversion (mg./liter)
„ .. . - 18.80 (A A 662) + 34.02 (A A 645) Equation 1. =' ' g . g o V 666) + 26.72 (A 655)
, — _ 18.80 (A A 662) + 34.02 (A A 645) aquation /. ^ ^ ^ _ Q 29 (A
Percent total chlorophyll = Equation 2.
Percent Chlorophyll a
= Chph a present (mg./liter) . Q Total chph a with no conversion (mg./liter)
„ .. . 25.38 (A A 662) + 3.64 (A A 645) Equation 1. - 20.6j (A 666) . 6.02 (A 655)
Eolation 2 = 25.38 (A A 662) + 3. 6 4 -(A A 645) Equation i. 22 ,3i (A 666) - 17.90 (A 536)
Percent chlorophyll a = Equation 1. + Equation 2.
Percent Chlorophyll b
= Chph b present (mg./liter) ^ Total chph b with no conversion (mg./liter)
„ .. . 30.38 (A A 643) - 6.58 (A A 662) . Equation 1. - 32.74\ A 655) - 13.75 (A 666)
_ .. - 30.38 (A A 645) - 6.58 (A A 662) . Equation 2. = 97.40 (A""536) 22.6’ (A 666)
...... Equation 1. + Equation 2. Percent chlorophyll b = “-1------2— ------40
The numerators of the above equations are the differences between the absorbances of the nonconverted and converted extracts.
The denominators of these equations are those of the pheophytins in the converted extract.
The measurements for this study were made using a Beckman DU-2 spectrophotometeri A Bausch and Lomb 505 recording spectrophotometer was employed in order to study the influence of various processing effects on the absorption of the chlorophyll extracts over the range from 492 to 700 Mu.
Reflectance colorimetry measurements were made by the Hunterlab
D25 Color-Difference Meter, Hunter Associates Laboratory, Inc., McLean,
Virginia, and the Agtrons M-400 and M-30, Magnuson Engineers, Inc.,
San Jose, California. The green beans were not prepared in any manner, but placed in the sample cells of each instrument and read directly.
The Hunterlab D25 Color-Difference Meter was standardized by • V using a National Bureau of Standards Medium Green No. 697 Standard
Plate with the following settings: L, 58.2; aT 21.0; and b 14.5. l Li Li Before standardizing the instrument was color temperature checked using a standard white plate according to the instructions of the Hunterlab
Color-Difference Meter Model D25 121. All readings were taken on the
(L, a^, and b^) scales using a two-inch-diameter sample holder which illuminated an area of 3.14 square inches. The beans were measured in standard plastic sample cups. The results of two replicate measure ments were averaged for each sample. In order to better evaluate the
Hunter results, the L, a^, and b^ readings for each sample were 41 converted to the International Commission on Illumination (I.C.I.)
terms. The tristimulus values (X, Y, Z) were calculated from the
Hunter results by the following equations (39):
Y = (0.01 L)2
( X = 0.9804 \Y + -01aL
.01b. ' Z 1.181 Y - 70
From the results of these calculations, the cliromaticity coordinates
(x, y, z) were computer (44):
X x = X + Y + Z
Y y = X + Y + Z
Z z - X + Y + Z
All calculations in this study were performed by an IBM 1130 computer at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center,1
Wooster, Ohio. Besides the chromaticity values, the following calcu- 2 2 lations were made from the Hunter results: A * B, A , B , AB, A/B,
A + L, L * A/B, and •JA + B . Both the Agtron M-400 reflectance
spectrophotometer and its wide area viewing attachment (Agtron M-30) were standardized to give a zero reading using the M-00 black calibra
tion disk and standardized to read 100 using the M-33 gray calibration disk (Aj, A^). The calibration disks were precision manufactured by
Magnuson Engineers, Inc., of San Jose, California, of non-fading, 42 mineral pigmented polystyrene plastic. The samples which were sub mitted to the Agtron M-400 were in the same sample cups which were used with the Hunter. The Agtron M-400 was used to evaluate the raw, blanched, and one-day storage lots, and the rest of the storage samples \ were measured on the M-30 wide angle spectrophotometer. The samples were presented to this instrument in a glass-bottomed sample disk. The viewing area of the Agtron M-40 was 30 square inches.
Each Agtron has three interference filters which enables the instrument to be read in three different modes. The wavelengths which each filter allows to pass are as follows: blue, 436 mp., green, 546 mp,, red, 640 mp,. All measurements were made at all three wavelengths, but only the 546 mp, (green) and the 640 mp, (red) readings were chosen to evaluate. Each mode was standardized according to the previous discus sion on standardization of the Agtron.
The following calculations were generated from the.Agtron 2 2 results: R + G, R , G , RG, and R/G.
Subjective color evaluations were performed on all storage sam ples except the one-day storage lots. All samples were judged under the Macbeth Examolite lighting system. Color was determined visually according to the United States Department of Agriculture's Standards for Guides for Canned and Frozen Green or Wax Beans. The standard for color of canned green beans reads as follows:
Grade A - practically uniform and bright, typical of very young and tender beans, with no more than 5 per cent that vary markedly; Grade B - reasonable uniform and typical of young and reasonably tender beans, with no more than 10 percent that vary markedly; Grade C - fairly uniform and typical of nearly mature but fairly tender beans, with no more than 15 percent that vary markedly. (5) 43
The score points for each grade according to the standards ar£: 14-15,
Grade A; 12-13, Grade .B; 10-11, Grade C; and 0-6, Substandard. A limiting rule exists on any sample judged 11 or lower for color.
The standard for color of frozen green beans reads as follows:
Grade A - Bright, typical of young, tender beans of similar varietal characteristics, practically free from units that materially detract from appearance; (B) Reasonably bright, typical of reasonably young, rea sonably tender beans of similar varietal characteristics, reasonably free from units that materially detract from •appearance; (C) Typical of nearly mature and fairly ten der beans of similar varietal characteristics, may be dull but not off color, variable but not seriously affect appearance. (6)
The score points for each grade according to the standard are: 18-20,
Grade A; 16-17, Grade B; 14-15, Grade C, and 0-13, Substandard. (6) A limiting rule exists on any sample judged 17 or lower for color.
All samples graded were given a numerical score in order to correlate with the objective colorimetry results. The irradiated sam- pies were judged for color according to the canned green bean standards and the freeze-dried samples were judged by the frozen standards.
Sloughing evaluation
The amount of epidermal sloughing in the canned product was evaluated subjective by handling the beans and assigning a numerical score accordingly. The method was developed by Hildebolt (36), and is presented in Table 2. 44
TABLE 2
Subjective Sloughing Evaluation
Score Point Description
1 No sloughing present, the skins are resistant to pressure
2 Isolated sloughing but not obvious. Skin shows some resistance to pressure
3 Moderate sloughing, skin not resistant to force
4 Obvious sloughing present which can be detrimetral to quality
5 Moderately severe sloughing, beans are slippery to handle
6 Severe sloughing, slimy and deep epi dermal sloughing present
pH and Total Acid
The pH of the green beans was determined by the glass electrode method using a Beckman Zeromatic pH meter. Ten grams of snap beans were homogenized with 90 ml. of distilled water for one minute in a
Haring Blendor. After blending, the slurry was quantitatively trans ferred to a 250 ml. beaker. The same sample which was used for the pH measurement was also used to obtain the percent total acid by titrating directly with a 0.1 normal sodium hydroxide solution to a pH of 8.3. A magnetic stirrer was used in both the pH and total acid 45 determinations. The percent total acid as expressed by citric acid was calculated using the following equation::
% acid = (No. ml. of 0.1 NaOH) (.0064) X 100 as citric 10 gram^sample
Ascorbic acid
The method of analysis used for Vitamin C analysis was adapted after Johnson (41). A twenty gram sample of snap beans was ground in a Waring Blendor for 2 minutes with 180 ml. of 1% meta phosphoric acid and filtered. A 10 ml. aliquot of the filtrate was titrated with 0.1%
2,6-dichlorophenol-indophenol indicator solution. The dye was stan dardized against a known concentration of ascorbic acid in order to determine the dye factor. Milligrams of Vitamin C per 100 grams of beans were determined by the following formula:
Dye factor X ml; of dye X 100 = " J J 1UU grams PRESENTATION OF RESULTS '
General
The results of this study will be presented as follows:
I, Colorimetry
a.) The relationship of the amount of chlorophyll retention and the colorimetric results. .
b.) The relationship of the Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter and the Agtron M-400.
c.) The relationship of colorimeter function and U.S.D.A. color scores.
II. Product Evaluation
a.) The influence of blanching on chlorophyll retention and color of green beans.
b.) The influence of preservation methods on chlorophyll reten tion and color of green beans.
c.) The influence of cultivar on the chlorophyll retention and the color of green beans.
d.) The measurement of the degree of sloughing present in the canned green beans.
e;) The measurement of the pH, percent total acid, and Vitamin C content in the processed green beans.
46 47
Colorimetry
Relationships of the amount of chlorophyll retention and the colorimetric results
Absorption curves of an 80% acetone extract of raw green beans before and after conversion with oxalic acid are plotted in Figure 2.
These results were taken from a recording made by a Bausch and Lomb 505
Spectrophotometer. Recordings were made of the chlorophyll extracts from all processing methods, but the raw extract was included because it best illustrated the different absorption peaks of both chlorophyll and pheophytin. .
In order to determine the relationship between the percent of the total, a, and b chlorophyll retention and the colorimetry results of green beans, correlation and regression coefficients were calculated for every variable from each processing method. The simple correlation coefficients of the percent retention and the instrument results are given in Table 3. A student's test was performed on the correlation coefficients to determine their significance. Multiple correlation and regression coefficients obtained from these two methods of measurement will be presented later.
Relationship'of the Hunter Color and Color- Difference Meter and the Agtron M-400
Correlation coefficients were calculated from the results of the colorimetric analysis in an effort to establish the relationship between the Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter and the Agtron
M-400. Correlation coefficients were calculated from the results of a more accurate relationship (see Table 4). The functions from each 48 9 Chlorophyll curve Pheophytin curve .8
.7
6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
. 500 550 600 650 700 Wavelength, mp<
FIGURE 2. ABSORPTION CURVES OF 80% ACETONE EXTRACT OF RAW GREEN BEANS TABLE 3
Correlation Coefficients of Colorimetry Function With the Percent Chlorophyll Retention (Total, a, and b) By Processing Method
■ Correlation Coefficients Colorimeter % Chlorophyll Raw Blanched Canned Frozen Freeze-Dried
Hunter L vs. Total -0.030 -0.163 . -0.227 0.041 0.085 Hunter a Total -0.091 -0.296 -0.392* -0.005 -0.316 Hunter b Total -0.046 -0.025 -0.189 0.129 0.767* Hunter L a 0.038 -0.213 -0.199 -0.156 0.840** Hunter a a 0.016 -0.270 -0.361* -0.175 -0.944** Hunter b a 0.130 -0.137 -0.197 -0.044 0.976** Hunter L b -0.104 0.008 -0.136 0.317 0.673* Hunter a b -0.091 -0.050 -0.314 0.209 -0.480 Hunter b b -0.218 0.021 0.002 0.320* -0.050 Hunter a/b Total -0.132 -0.127 -0.307 0.034 -0.129 Hunter a/b a -0.023 -0.225 -0.298 -0.098 ■-0.863** Hunter a/b b -0.181 -0.023 -0.177 0.244 -0.639 Hunter a Z +■ b2 Total 0.115 0.298 0.373* 0.029 0.517* Hunter a Z + b2 a 0.061 0.272 0.357* 0.185 0.993** Hunter a^ + b^ b 0.057 0.052 0.342* -0.195 0.276 Agtron R Total 0.216 -0.155 0.323 -0.268 -0.828** Agtron R a 0.281 -0.219 0.234 -0.297 -0.949** Agtron R b -0.022 -0.033 0.122 0.138 0.151 Agtron G . Total -0.030 0.036 0.037 0.230 -0.393 Agtron G a 0.038 -0.071 0.049 0.055 0.985** Agtron G b -0.155 0.016 0.083 0.349 0.151 Agtron R/G Total 0.250 -0.245 0.318 -0.505** -0.118 Agtron R/G a 0.263 -0.206 0.224 -0.382* -0.858** Agtron R/G b 0.061 -0.085 0.020 -0.155 -0.647* TABLE 3.
(Continued)
Correlation Coefficients Colorimeter % Chlorophyll Raw Blanched Canned Frozen Freeze-Dried
Agtron R X G vs. Total 0.118 -0.079 0.173 -0.047. -0.912** Agtron R X G a 0.249 -0.176 0.132 -0.160 -0.234 Agtron R X G b -0.104 -0.006 0.095 0.257 0.920**
* Significant at .05 Level. ** Significant at .01 Level. TABLE 4
Correlation Coefficients of Colorimetry Functions By Processing Method
Correlation Coefficients Hunter Agtron Raw Blanched Canned Frozen Freeze-Dried
L vs. R 0.730** 0.508 0.610** 0.516** 0.483* a vs. R 0.367 0.270 0.336* 0.417* 0.514** b vs. R 0.591* 0.522* 0.628** 0.488* 0.360* L vs. G 0.513* 0.568** 0.725** . 0.618** 0.338* a vs. G 0.252 0.327* 0.497* 0.307* -0.283 b vs. G 0.627*? , 0.611** 0.728** 0.671** 0.377* a/b vs. R 0.441* 0.428* 0.323* 0.430* 0.671** a/b vs. G 0.420* 0.454* 0.406* 0.417* -0.127 a/b vs. •R/G 0.217 0.150 -0.276 0.222 0.801** L vs. R/G 0.455* 0.138 -0.295 0.152 0.258 a vs. R/G 0.224 0.055 -0.376* 0.268 0.742** G vs. R/G 0.265 0.112 -0.276 0.084 0.118 + b2 vs. R -0.266 -0.263 -0.319* -0.365* 0.018 Ja.2 + b2 vs. G -0.164 -0.304* -0.503** -0.253 0.422* Ja.2- + b2 vs. R/G -0.169 -0.067 0.441* -0.252 -0.273 L vs. R X G 0.781** 0.579** 0.672** 0.611** 0.506** a vs. R X G 0.388* 0.311* 0.404* 0.397* 0.228 b vs. R X G 0.744** 0.604** 0.679* 0.615** 0.423* * Significant at .05 Level. ** Significant at .01 Level. 52
instrument which were determined to have merit were used in this com
parison, These results give an idea as to the relationship between
these two different types of color measuring instruments.
Relationship of colorimetric functions and U.S.D.A. color scores
When developing an objective colorimetric procedure for any
food product, the ultimate test has to be how well it compares with
the subjective results of a trained judge. The relationship of the
colorimetry functions and the United State of Agriculture's color
scoring method are presented in Table 5 by simple correlation coeffi
cients according to processing methods. More detail concerning the use of the colorimetry results in order to predict the color grade of
processed green beans will be presented later in the section on each
of the processing methods.
From Tables 3, 4,. and 5, it can be seen that the Agtron R value
consistently obtained highest correlation of any other instrument value when compared to the percent chlorophyll retentions and the U.S.D.A.
color scores for all processing methods. For this reason, the Agtron R value was used primarily throughout this report as representative of
the instrument results. TABLE 5
Correlation Coefficients of Colorimetry Function With the U.S.D.A. Color Scores for Canned, Frozen, and Freeze-Dried Snap Beans
Colorimeter Correlation Coefficients Function Canned Frozen Freeze-Dried
Hunter L -0-. 276 -0.349* -0.321*
Hunter a -0.093 -0.383* -0.493*
Hunter b -0.216 -0.367* -0.248
Hunter a/b 0.327* -0.641** -0.599** / 2 2 Hunter Hunter a X b 0.356* -0.118 -0.345* Hunter a X L -0.389* -0.645** -0.603** Hunter L X a/b 0.363* -0.455* -0.504* « Agtron R -0.420* , -0.727** -0.596** Agtron G -0.384* -0.345* -0.126 Agtron R/G -0.175 -0.579* -0.556* Agtron R + G -0.422* -0.593* -0.408* Agtron R X G -0.415* -0.681* -0.472* * Significant at .05 Level. ** Significant at .01 Level. 54 Product Evaluation Chlorophyll and color measure ment of raw green beans The averages and standard deviations of the chlorophyll reten tions and all the colorimetry results of the raw analysis are presented in Table 6. These averages were obtained from the raw data analyzed without consideration of maturity of cultivar. In this table, as in all the other tables presented in this paper in which averages have been made without regard to other variables, a standard deviation has been included for each average in order to show the amount of variance which was present in that particular measurement. TABLE 6 Analysis Averages of Raw and Blanched Samples Raw Blanched No. Stand. No. Stand. Obs. Avg. Dev. Obs. Avg. Dev. % Chlorophyll Total 30 79.7 7.9 65 68.3 11.9 70 Chlorophyll a 30 93.3 10.1 65 82.8 17.8 70 Chlorophyll b 30 54.7 15.3 65 50.6 16.6 Agtron R 55 34.4 9.7 122 14.3 2.9 Agtron G 55 57.2 8.7 122 38.2 5.5 Hunter L 55 35.6 4.3 122 25.6 4.4 Hunter a 55 -21.3 7.7 122 -39.9 15.2 Hunter b 55 16.5 2.4 113 13.1 2.8 pH 55 6.3 0.11 114 6.25 0.15 . % Total Acid 55 0.113 0.15 114 0.080 0.02 Vitamin C 55 16.9 4.0 113 16.0 3.5 (mgm/100 gm) *■ The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 29 and 30 in the Appendix. \ 55 Chlorophyll retention measurements were made only on the 4 to 6 sieve size (cut) green beans. The other measurement averages con tain both the cut and whole green bean results together unless otherwise * specified. On. averaging the Agtron R values from the raw analysis accord ing to maturity, it was found that a difference of only one Agtron unit existed between the cut and whole green beans. Without further calcu lation, it was apparent that no significant difference existed between the two maturities according to the reflectance color measurement results. The influence of cultivar on the color of the raw product has been discussed later in the section on cultivars. As stated earlier, step wise regression and multiple correlation coefficients were calculated for the chlorophyll retention and colori metric results from each process including the raw analysis. All calcu lations were done by the IBM 1130 computer which selectively sorted out and determined the best regression equation and multiple correlation coefficient from the data available. From the regression equation, the percent chlorophyll retention can be predicted from the reflectance instrument results. The best regression equations obtained from the colorimetric analysis of the raw analysis are presented in Table 7. The x and y values in the regression equations from the Hunter D25 refer to the chromaticity coordinates from the I.C.I, color space (see page 41 for method of obtaining), 56 TABLE 7 Relationship of Percent Chlorophyll Retention (Total, a, and b) and Reflectance Colorimeter (Agtron M-400 and Hunter D-25) Results for the Raw Analysis as Expressed by Linear and Multi ple Regression Equations Multiple Equation Independent Regression Correlation Number Variables Equation Coefficients 1. Agtron R, G, and % Total = + 86.6 -1.4 0.348 R/G (R + G) + 96.4 R/G 2. Agtron R and R/G % a = 54.7 - 11.1 R 0.658* . + 383.2 R/G 3. Agtron G and R/G % b = 124.8 - 5.4 G 0.356 + 160.9 R/G 4. Hunter a/b, a + L, % Total = 214.7 - 83.9 0.385 L a/b, x, and y a/b +3.1 (a + L) + 1.6 (a/b + 271.5 x + 249.7 y) 5. Hunter a + L % a = 669.9 - 2.5 0.647 / 2 2 Va + b , x, and y (a + L) - 20.6 J a 2 + b2 - 680.5 x - 413.3 y 6. Hunter a, b, and y % b = 550.4 + 11.3 a 0.391 - 35.3 b - 227.6 y * Significant at .05 level. Chlorophyll and color measurement of blanched green beans The averages and standard deviations of all the blanched analy sis results were presented in Table 6. Blanching was performed by one of seven different time temperature combinations. The steam (210°F for 1 minute) and the water (185°F for 2 minutes) were used as the refer ence blanches. The other five were water blanches with combinations of 57 time and temperature variation in buffered solution of pH 6.7 to 8.0. Only the cut maturity classification were used in the buffered blanch ing studies. The results of the analysis for the various blanching treat ments of whole green beans are presented in Table 8. TABLE 8 Agtron R Results From Steam (210°F for 1 Minute) and Water (185°F for 2 Minutes) Blanches for Whole Green Beans Number Observations Average Steam (210°F/1 minute) Agtron R 22 12.8 Water (185°F/2 minutes) Agtron R 13.7 The results of the analysis for the various blanching treat ments of cut green beans are presented in Table 9. A statistical analysis to test the difference between two means was performed on the results of the standard steam and water blanches. No significant difference was found to exist at the ,05 level even though the steam blanch samples retained approximately 6 % more chloro phyll. The Agtron R results also indicated that the steam blanched samples were of slightly better color. A lower R value was found to indicate a better color. In the same respect, the Agtron R results from blanched analysis of the whole green beans indicated that they were of better color than that of the same measurements for the cut samples (see Table 8). 58 TABLE 9 Averages* of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions (Total, a, and b) and Agtron R Results for Various Blanching Treatments for Cut Green Beans Number Observed Average Steam (210 F/l minute) Percent Chlorophyll Total 24 68.5 Percent Chlorophyll a 24 86.8 Percent Chlorophyll G 24 52.9 Agtron R 24 14.1 Water (185°F/2 minutes) Percent Chlorophyll Total 21 62.2 Percent Chlorophyll a 21 79.8 Percent Chlorophyll b 21 47.2 Agtron R 22 16.0 Water (180°F/2 minutes, buffered) Percent Chlorophyll Total 4 68.6 Percent Chlorophyll a 4 79.9 Percent Chlorophyll b 4 42.5 Agtron R 4 16.8 Water (185°F/2 minutes, buffered) Percent Chlorophyll Total 5 65.1 Percent Chlorophyll a 5 80.9 Percent Chlorophyll b 5 43.4 Agtron R 8 14.6 59 TABLE 9 (Continued) • Number Observed Average Water (190°F/l minute, buffered) • Percent Chlorophyll Total 3 • 80.9 Percent Chlorophyll a 3 94.8 Percent Chlorophyll b 3 52.0 Agtron R' 5 15.3 Water (190°F/2 minutes, buffered) Percent Chlorophyll Total 4 75.8 Percent Chlorophyll a 4 . 86.3 Percent Chlorophyll b 4 64.1 Agtron R 4 . 15.4 Water (195°F/5 minutes, buffered) Percent Chlorophyll Total 2 60.5 Percent Chlorophyll a 2 63.9 Percent Chlorophyll b 2 38.7 Agtron R 2 19.7 Total Percent Chlorophyll Total 63 66.9 Percent Chlorophyll a 63 83.2 Percent Chlorophyll b 63 49.8 Agtron R 69 15.2 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are pre sented in Table 30 in the Appendix. 60 The- results of the regression analysis for the colorimetric measurements are given in Table 10. • TABLE 10 Relationship of Percent Chlorophyll Retention (Total, a and b) and the Reflectance Colorimetric (Agtron M-400 and Hunter D-25) Results for Blanched Samples as Ex pressed by Linear and Multiple Regression Equations Multiple Equation Independent Regression Correlation Number Variables Equations Coefficients 1. Agtron R, R + G, 7» Total = 139.5 + 12.6 R 0.263 and R/G - 3.3 (R - G) - 200 R/G 2. Agtron G and R/G %a - 89.8 - 1.2 G 0.265 + 55.9 R/G f 3. Agtron R and R/G %b = 125 + 6.1 R - 312.9 0.217 R/G 4. Hunter a + b, a/b, % Total = - 317 - 18.7 0.400 a + L, L a/b, x, (a + b) - 13.8 a/b and y + 12.9 (a + L) + 1.3 L a/t + 125 x + 107 y 5. Hunter b, a + b, 7=a - -279 - 14b - 23 0.388 a/b, a + L, L a/b, (a + b) - 25,5 a/b x, and y + 1 7 (a + L) + 2.2 L a/b + 147 x + 135 y 6. Hunter a + b, a/b, % b = -234 - 13 (a + b) 0.381 a + L, L a/b, x, - 13 a/b 9.9 a + L - 95 x and y + 73 y Chlorophyll and color measurement of canned green beans The averages and standard deviations of the analysis for buf fered brine canned samples are presented in Table 11. 61 TABLE 11 Analysis Averages* of the Canned (Buffered Brine) and Canned (Water Brine) Samples Canned (buffered brine) Canned (water brine) Mo. Stand. Stand. Obs. Avg.' Dev. Obs. Avg. Dev. % Chlorophyll Total 29 3.11 4.57 % Chlorophyll a 29 4.03 5.48 % Chlorophyll b 29 5.28 9.46 U.S.D.A. Color Score 14 10.5 0.65 115 11.75 1.6 Agtron R 25 33.3 8.9 197 38.6 5.6 Agtron G 25 29.4 5.2 197 32.3 4.7 Hunter L 25 27.6 5.8 197 30.7 4.6 Hunter a 25 • -13.1 17.5 197 -6.7 11.7 Hunter b 25 12.3 2.5 197 16.6 3.0 PH 25 6.8 0.24 197 5.77 0.24 % Total Acid 25 0.264 0.144 197 0.122 0.116 Vitamin C (mgm/100 gm) 25 8.4 1.6 104 9.49 7.79 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 31 and 32 in the Appendix. • 62 The results of each brining technique have been handled sepa rately so that the influence of the brine additives on chlorophyll retention could be more easily studied. In Tables 12, 13, 14, and 15, the averages are presented for the colorimetric results from the.anal ysis of the canned samples according to the maturity classification, storage period, and the brining and blanching techniques employed. Since the means variables were so close together, no further statis tical analyses were deemed necessary. The best regression equations for the prediction of the U.S.D.A. color score and the percent chlorophyll retentions from the colorimetric measurements of the canned samples are presented in Table 16. A plot of the relationship of the Agtron R and the U.S.D.A. color scores obtained from the canned analysis can be seen in Figure 3. Chlorophyll and color measurement of frozen green beans , v The averages.and standard deviations of all analysis for the frozen samples are presented in Table 17. From Tables 17, 18, 19, and 20, the averages of the colori metric results can be obtained from the analysis of the frozen samples according to the maturity classification, storage period, and the blanching method employed. As was the case in the canned analysis, the means obtained from each variable used in the frozen study were so close 'that no further statistical analyses were deemed necessary. 63 TABLE 12 * Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D-.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Canned (Water Brine) Samples' Which Were Steam Blanched (210°F for 1 Minute) Accord ing to Maturity Classification and Storage Period Cut Whole Total No. No. No. Obs, Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. One Day Storage % Chlorophyll Total 15 3.8. 15 3.8 % Chlorophyll a 15 4.7 14 4.7 % Chlorophyll b • 15 6.4 1.5 6.4 Agtron R 29 39.2 15 ■ 33.56 44 37.0 Three Month Storage . U.S.D.A. Color Score 29 11.4 20 13.0 49 12.1 Agtron R 29 • 41.9 20 36.9 49 39.9 Total • % Chlorophyll Totdl ' 15 3.8 15 3.8 % Chlorophyll a 15 . 4.7 15 4.7 % Chlorophyll b 15 6.4. 15 6.4 U.S.D.A. Color Score 29 11.4 20 • 13.00 49 ' 12.1 Agtron R 58 40.7 35 35.5 93 38.6 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 31 and 32 in the Appendix. 64 TABLE 13 Averages* of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results From the Canned (Water Brine) Samples Which Were Water Blanched (185°F for 2 Minutes) Accord ing to Maturity Classification and Storage Period Cut Whole Total No. No. No. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. One Day Storage % Chlorophyll Total 12 0.23 12 0.23 % Chlorophyll a 12 0.38 12 . 0.38 % Chlorophyll b 12 4.8 12 4.8 Agtron R 24 37.8 9 35.8 33 37.0 Three Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 24 11.6 14 13.4 38 12.3 Agtron R. 24 41.6 14 35.4 38 39.4 Total 7o Chlorophyll Total 12 0.23 12 0.23 % Chlorophyll a 12 0.38 12 0.38 % Chlorophyll b 12 4.8 12 4.8 U.S.D.A. Color Score 24 11.6 14 13.4 38 12.3 Agtron R 48 39.9 23 35.6 71 38.4 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are pre sented in Tables 31 and 32 in the Appendix. TABLE 14 Averages* of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R . Results from the Canned (Buffered Brine) Samples for the Cut Maturity Classification According to the Blanching Method and Storage Period Steam Water Water Water Total (pH 6.7) (pH 6.7) (pH 6.7) 210°/1 min. 185 /2 mins. 190°/1 min. 190°/2 mins. No. No. No. No. No. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. One Day Storage % Chlorophyll Total 1 11.5 • 1 11.5 % Chlorophyll a 1 . 2.9 1 2.9 % Chlorophyll b 1 34.0 1 34.0 Agtron R 3 22.2 2 29.1 2 27.9- 1 33 8 26.7 Three Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 4 10.3 3 10.7 3 10.3 2 ' 11 - 12 10.5 Agtron R 4 39.5 3 39.1 3 35.6 2 43 12 39.0 Total 7o Chlorophyll Total 1 11.5 1 11.5 % Chlorophyll a 1 . 2.9 1 2.9 % Chlorophyll b 1 34.0 1 34.0 U.S.D.A. Color- Score 4 10.3 3 10.7 3 10.3 2 11 12 10.5 Agtron R 7 32.1 5 35.1 . 5 32.5 3 39.6 20 34.6 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 31 and 32 in the O' Appendix. TABLE 15- Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Canned Samples (Water Brine) Which Were Blanched in Buffer Solutions (pH 6.7 to 8.0) According to the Cut Maturity Classification and Storage Period 180°/2 min. 185°/2 min. 190°/1 min. 190°/2 min. 195°/5 min. Total No. No. No. No. No. No. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. One Day Storage * Agtron R 4 37.1 4 38.9 2 36.5 1 39.0 11 37.8 - Three Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 5 10.6 6 10.7 5 10.4 4 10.5 2 10.5 22 10.6 Agtron R 5 38.9 6 39.5 5 38.6 4 42.5 2 44.9 22 40.2 - ■_ Total . U.S.D.A. Color Score 5 10.6 6 10.7 5 10.4 4 10.5 2 10.5 22 10.6 Agtron R 9 38.1 10 39.3 7 38.0 5 41.8 2 44.9 33 39.4 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 31 and 32 in the Appendix. ON ON TABLE 16 Relationship of tlie U.S.D.A. Color Scores and the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions (Total, a, and b) and the Reflec tance Colorimetric (Agtron M-400 and Hunter D-25) Results for the Canned (Water Brine) Samples as Expressed by Linear and Multiple Regression Equations Multiple Equation Independent Regression Correlation Number Variables Equations Coefficients 2 2 1. Agtron G, R , G U.S.D.A. Color Score - . 0.510* and R/G 23.3 - 0.77G - 0.03R - 0.02G2 +3.4 R/G 2 2 2. Agtron G, R , G % Total = 4 6 - 1.2G + 0.500 and R/G 0.07R2 + 0.07G2 - 25.3R/G 3. Agtron R, R + G, % a - - 105 - 10.5R + 0.430 and R/G 6.3 (R‘+ G) + 70 R/G 4. Agtron R and R/G %b = 70 + 5R - 17 R/G 0.228 5. Hunter a, a/b, U.S.D.A. Color Score = 0.789* L a/b, x, and y 74.9 + 24a + 13.6 a/b - 10.9 L a/b + 179x - 225 y V 6. Hunter a, a/b, % Total - 72 - 14a + 0.861** VaJ 2 +. b , a, 61 a/b - 8 Ja2 + b2 210x and y - 244 y 7. Hunter A - B, a/b %a = 121 - 15 (A + B) 0.833** Ja2 + b^, x and y + 85 a/b - 4.5 Ja2 + b2 + 284 x and -210 y 8. Hunter a, b, ____ %b = - 491 - 15a + 16B + 0.841** 6.8 a + L - 12.5 a + L, Ja2 + b2 , and x Ja2 + b2 + 785x * Significant at .05 level. ** Significant at .01 level. Agtron R 35 36 30 32 33 34 37 38 31 rd (15-14) A Grade IUE3 ATO -0RVLE S USDA COLOR U.S.D.A. VS. VALUES R M-30 AGTRON 3. FIGURE (11-10) C (13-12) B 0 1 2 13 12 11 10 SCORE FOR CANNED GREEN BEANS GREEN CANNED FOR SCORE U.S.D.A. Color Scores Color U.S.D.A. M = 0.420 = M 14 • • 15 68 69 TABLE 17 Analysis Averages* of the Frozen and Freeze-Dried Samples Frozen Freeze-Dried No. Stand. No. Stand. Obs. Avg. . Dev. Obs. Avg. Dev. % Chlorophyll Total 44 64.7 11.9 3 74.5 15.1 % Chlorophyll a 44 77.1 20.3 3 75.4 11.1 % Chlorophyll b 44 48.0 12.7 3 53.8 5.5 Visual Score 283 16.9 1.5 130 16.3 1.4 Agtron R 351 17.5 3.2 130 23.1 4.1 Agtron G 351 39.9 4.7 130 41.4 4.9 Hunter L 351 29.7 3.9 130 32.4 2.5 Hunter a -16.9 13.8 130 -9.3 2.2 351 « Hunter b 351 16.0 2.5 130 . 17.3 1.6 pH 171 6.3 0.17 68 6.2 0.142 % Total Acid' 171 0.079 0.02 68 0.126 0.391 Vitamin C (mgm/100 gm) 181 15.3 4.3 68 18.9 5.1 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 in the Appendix. 70 TABLE 18 Averages’ of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Frozen* Samples Which Were Steam Blanched (210°F for 1 Minute) According to Maturity Classification and Storage Period Cut Whole Total No. No. No. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. '* K.. One Day Storage % Chlorophyll Total 14 58.2. 14 58.2 7o Chlorophyll a 14 71.5 14 71.5 % Chlorophyll b • 14 45.8 w 45.8 Agtron R 18 15.6 5 11.4 23 14.8 Three Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 28 16.8 22 17.8 50 17.2 Agtron R 28 21.4 22 16.1 ' 50 19.1 Nine Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 26 17.2 12 18.1 38 17.5 Agtron R 26 17.9 12 16.3 38 17.4 Total % Chlorophyll Total 58.2 , 14 • 58.2 7» Chlorophyll a 14 71.5 14 71.5 % Chlorophyll b 14 45.8 14 45.8 U.S.D.A. Color Score 54 17.0 34 17.9 88 17.3 Agtron R 72 18.7 39 15.6 111 17.6 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 33, 34, and 36 in the Appendix. 71 TABLE 19 Averages* of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Frozen Samples Which Were Water Blanched (185°F for 2 Minutes) According to Maturity Classifications and Storage Period Cut Whole Total No. No. No. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs, Avg. • One Dav Storage % Chlorophyll Total 11 58.0 11 58.0 % Chlorophyll a 11 72.6 11 72.6 % Chlorophyll b 11 39.9 11 39.9 Agtron R 16 15.6 5 12 21 14.8 Three Month Storage U.S.D.A, Color Score 23 16.1 12 17.8 35 16.7 Agtron R 19.5 12 16.0 35 18.3 .23 v • Nine Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 22 15.9 11 17.6 33 16.5 Agtron R 22 20.1 11 15.9 33 18.8 < Total % Chlorophyll Total 11 58 11 58 % Chlorophyll a 11 72.6 11 72.6 % Chlorophyll b 11 39.9 11 , 39.9 U.S.D.A. Color Score 45 16.0 23 17.7 68 16.6 Agtron R 61 18.7 28 15.2 89 17.6 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 33 , 34 , and 36 in the Appendix. TABLE 20 Averages* of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Frozen Samples Which Were Blanched in Buffer Solutions (pH 6.7 to 8.0) According to the Cut Maturity Classification and Storage Period 180°/2 min. 185°/2 min. 190°/1 min.' 190°/2 min. 195°/5 min. Total No. No. No. No. No. No. Obs. Avg. Obs., Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. One Dav Storage • % Chlorophyll Total 1 67.0 5 70.0 4 69.4 2 69.0 12 69.3 % Chlorophyll a 1 77.2 5 78.4 4 87.4 2 77.5 11 81.5 % Chlorophyll b 1 51.5 5 *54.4 4 46.0 2 61.6 11 52.7 Agtron R 2 20.1 5 14.8 5 14.5 4 14.9 2 17.5 18 15.6 Three Month Storage • U.S.D.A. Color Score 5. 15.4 6 16.7 5 16.4 4 16.3 2 14.0 22 i6.0 Agtron R 5 . 20.8 6 18.2 5 17.5 4 18.1 2 19.5 22 18.7 Nine Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 4 16.5 6 17.2 • 5 17.1 4 16.5 1 ■ 16.0 20 ‘ 16.9 Agtron R 4 18.7 6 18.8 5 18.2 4 17.3 1 20.0 20 18.4 Total % Chlorophyll’ Total 1 67.0 5 70.0 4 69.4 2 69.0 12 69.3 % Chlorophyll a t 1 77.2 5 78.4. 4 87.4 2 77.5 11 81.5 % Chlorophyll b 1 51.5 5 54.4 4 46.0 2 61.6 . 11 52.7 Visual Score 9 15.9 12 17.0 10 17.6 8 16.4 3 16 ' 42 16.4 Agtron R 11 19.9 17 17.4 15 16.7 12 16.8 5 18.8 60 17.7 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 33, 34, and 36 in the Appendix. 73 Since quite a bit of interest has been expressed in standard izing colorimetric methods in order to assign color grades from instrument results and to measure the amount of color change in frozen green beans (23,24,86), more emphasis has been placed on this particu lar process. In Figures 4 and 5, the U.S.D.A; color scores from the frozen analysis have been plotted against the Hunter D-25 a, b and the Agtron M-400 R, G values in order to determine the distribution of these results in a two-dimensional graph. As can be observed from Figure 4, the U.S.D.A. color scores when plotted against the Hunter D-25 a, b values tended to group according to the visually assigned grade. Due to the fact that only a relatively small sample space (351 observations) was obtained, caution must be exercised in evaluating such a method, but it was obvious that the Hunger D-25 has promise as a method of assigning a grade to frozen green beans from reflectance instrumentation results. Although the Agtron R values were found to be highly significant when compared to the visual scores, the Agtron R, G plot of the U.S.D.A. color scores as can be seen in Figure 5 were not as clearly defined as would be necessary if it were to be used for grading purposes. From Table 5, it can be seen that both the Agtron R and the Hunter a/b ratio possessed highly significant correlation coefficients, -0.727 and -0.641, respectively, when compared to the U.S.D.A. color scores. A plot of the results and regression lines obtained from these’ two comparisons were presented in Figures 6 and 7. Since the Agtron M-400 R and R X G values were found to be so highly correlated Hunter rd (01) x (20-18) A Grade a^ttuivaij.annwyuan IUE4 HNE -5a bVLE S USDA COLOR U.S.D.A. VS. VALUES b a, D-25 HUNTER 4. FIGURE SCORES FOR FROZEN GREEN BEANS GREEN FROZEN FOR SCORES Hunter G Hunter 16 xx n * Agtron R 20 22 17 25' 27' ' 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 rd (-20-18) -x A Grade IUE . GRNM3 AUSV. .... COLOR U.S.D.A. VS. VALUES G R M-30 AGTRON 5. FIGURE (51) - O (15-14) C FOR FROZEN GREEN BEANS GREEN FROZEN FOR O O Agtron G Agtron uMi „ fri m j „ n ^ u ia M ju o o 75 Grade A (20-18) B (17-16) C (15-14) -0.9 - 0.8 v 0.7 - 0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 - 0.2 20 U.S.D.A. Color Score FIGURE 6. HUNTER D-25 a/b RATIO VS. U.S.D.A. COLOR SCORE FOR FROZEN GREEN BEANS Agtron 12 14 13 15 16 18 20 17 21 22 19 4$ 24 $ 25 23 26 27 28 ' 29 i IUE7 ATO -0RFLE S USDA COLOR U.S.D.A. VS. FILTER R M-30 AGTRON 7. FIGURE Grade A (20-18) (20-18) A Grade 14 • • (17-16) B (15-14) C 15 SCORES FOR FROZEN GREEN BEANS GREEN FROZEN FOR SCORES U.S.D.A," Color Scores U.S.D.A," Color 16 718 17 • .«*: /**#••• *Ss n « 7 ' « * • 19 20 77 78 to the visual scores; -0.727 and -0.681, a nomograph was develpped in order that rapid predictions of the U.S.D.A. color scores could be made from these results. See Figure 8 for the nomograph. The best regression equations which were obtained from the frozen colorimetric analysis are presented in Table 21. Chlorophyll and color measurement of freeze-dried green beans The averages and standard deviations of all the analysis for the freeze-dried samples are presented in Table 17. Since there were no government standards for freeze-dried green beans, the freeze-dried samples were graded according to the standards for frozen green beans. The averages of the percent chloro phyll retention, visual color scores, and the Agtron R results from the freeze-dried analysis according to the maturity classification and the blanching technique have been presented in Tables.22, 23, and 24. No further calculations were made on these sets of data. The results of the packaging comparison test indicated that freeze-dried green beans should be packaged in the absence of oxygen to avoid oxidative rancidity. As explained earlier, the beans which were packaged in the tin cans were closed at atmospheric pressure with no other special treatment. Almost all the beans which were packaged under these conditions had an off-odor similar to dried alfalfa which was probably due to oxidative rancidity. This explanation seems to be supported by the increased percent total acid in the freeze-dried green beans over a similar storage time in comparison to the frozen product. More than a 0.1% increase in acidity was found which 79 Conversion Grade R ‘ R*K3 Scale R/G Scale 50 - 51 * 52 « A 1 16*" 13* 26 • 27* FIGURE 8.. NOMOGRAPH FOR PREDICTING U.S.D.A. COLOR SCORES FOR FROZEN GREEN BEANS IN TERMS OF THE AGTRON M-30 R, R4G, AND R/G VALUES 80 TABLE 21 Relationship of the U.S.D.A. Color Scores and the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions (Total, a, and b) and the Reflec tance Colorimetric (Agtron M-400 and Hunter. D-25) Results for the Frozen Samples as Expressed by Linear and Multiple Regression Equations Multiple Equation Independent Regression Correlation Number Variables • Equations Coefficients 1. Agtron R, R + G, U.S.D.A. Color score = 0.751* R 2 , and R/G 22.4 - 1.2R + 0.18 (R + G) + 7 R/G 2. Agtron R, G, RXG, % Total - - 71-+ 4.8R + 0.562 and R/G 5G - 0.24(RXG) + 19 R/G 2 3. Agtron R, G , R % a = - 11 + 35R + 0.11G2 0.511 X G, and R/G - 0.76 (RXG) - 397 R/G 2 4. Agtron R, G, R , % b = - 23 - 6.7R - 5.4G 0.461 G2 , and R X G + 0.6R + 0.02G2 - 0.36 (R X G) 5. Hunter a b, a/b, U.S.D.A. Color score = 0.694* a + L, and x 11 - 0.15(a + b) - 8.9a/b 0.09 a + L + 9.8x 2 6. Hunter b, b , a % Total « 120 - 28b + 0.622 X b, a/b, a + L, 0.3b2 - 0.3 (a X b) + 10.6 x and y a/b + 5 . 2 a + L, 141 x + 197y 7. Hunter b, b2 , a % a = - 153 - 107b + 0.7b2 0.648 X b, a/b, a + L, - 0.9 (a X b) - 50 a/b + >Ja2 + b2 , La/b, 28 (a + L) dja2 + b2 + 33 x and y L a/b + 39Ix + 516y 8. Hunter b, a + b, % b = - 58 - 32b + 18 0.617 a X b, L a/b, (a + b) - 0.39 (a X b) - J a 2 + b2, x and y 2.8 L a/b + 7,Ja2 + b2 + 277x + 315y * Significant at 0.01 level. 81 TABLE 22 Averages* of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions, Visual Color Scores, and Agtron R Results from the Freeze-Dried Samples Which Were Steam Blanched (210°F for 1 Minute) According to Maturity Classification and Storage Period Cut Whole Total No. No. No. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Three Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 24 16.8 5 17.4 29 16.9 Agtron R 24 22.9 5 17.3 29 21.9 Nine Month Storage U.S.D.A, Color Score 19 16.8 3 17.0 22 16.9 Agtron R 19 22.2 3 21.2 22 22.1 V Total U.S.D.A. Color Score 43 16.8 8 17.3 51 16.9 Agtron R 43 22.6 8 18.8 51 22.0 * The raw data which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 37.and 38 in the Appendix. 82 TABLE 23 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retentions, Visual Color Scores, and Agtron R Results From the Freeze-Dried Samples Which Were Water Blanched (185°F for 2 Minutes) According to Maturity Classifications and Storage Period Cut Whole Total No. No. No. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Three Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 19 15.3 6 17.5 25 15.8 Agtron R 19 25.5 6 20.0 25 24.2 Nine Month Storage U.S.D.A.. Color Score 18 15.8 2 17.5 20 16.8 Agtron R 18 • 25.4 2 19.0 20 26.0 Total U.S.D.A. Color Score 37 15.5 8 17.5 45 16.2 Agtron R 37 25.5 8 19.8 45 25.0 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 37 and 38 in the Appendix. TABLE 24 Averages of the Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R ' Results From the Freeze-Dried Samples in Which Were Blanched in Buffer Solutions (6.7 to 8.0) According to the Cut Maturity Classification and Storage Period 180°/2 min. 185°/2 min. 190°/1 min. 190°/2 min. 195°/5 min. Total No. No. No. No. No. No. ' Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Obs. Avg. Three Month Storage % Chlorophyll Total 1 60.1 1 90.2 1 73.3 % Chlorophyll a 1 ■ 63.1 1 78.0 1 85.0 % Chlorophyll b 1 54.8 1 47.9 1 58.8 U.S.D.A.. Color Score 2 16.5 6 16.8 5 14.6 3 16.0 1 16.0 17 15.9 Agtron R 2 23 6 21.5 5 22.0 3 21.3 1 26.0 17 22.1 Nine Month Storage U.S.D.A. Color Score 2 15.0 4 16.0 3 16.7 4 16.5 1 16 14 16.1 Agtron R ~ 2 23.8 4 21.0 3 22.5 4 22.0 .1 25.0. 14 22.1 Total a % Chlorophyll Total ■ 1 60.1 1 90.2 ■ 73.3 7. Chlorophyll a 1 63.1 . 1 78.0 1 85.0 7» Chlorophyll b 1 54.8 1 47.9 1 58.8 U.S.D.A. Color Score 4 15.8 10 16.5 8 15.4 7 16.3 2 16.0 31 16.0 Agtron R 4 23.1 10 21.3 8 22.1 21.7 2 25.5 31 .'22.1 * The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in Tables 37 and 38 in the Appendix. oo 84 represents.quite a large increase in a food product. A marked increase in acidity is ah indication of oxidative rancidity. The samples which were packaged in the aluminum foil pouches, either with a nitrogen flush or under vacuum, did not appear to have undergone any changes due to rancidity. The effect of oxidative rancidity on the color of the freeze-dried green beans could not be satistically determined because of the small sample space, but it was observed that the beans packaged in the foil pouches were of a much more uniform color. For the regression analysis of the freeze-dried colorimetric measurements, only the U.S.D.A. color scores and the reflectance instrument results were compared. Refer to Table 25 for the regression equations derived from this set of data. Refer to Figure 9 for a plot of the Agtron R values versus the visual color scores, TABLE 25 Relationship of the U;S.D.A. Color Scores and the Reflectance Colorimetric (Agtron M-400 and Hunter D-25) Results for the Freeze-Dried Samples as Expressed by Linear and Multiple Regression Multiple Equation Independent Regression Correlation Number Variables Equations Coefficients 1. Agtron R and R/G U.S.D.A. Color Scores - 0.613* 21.5 - 0.14R - 3.4 R/G 2. Hunter a, a - b, U.S.D.A. Color Scores - 0.654** b 2 , x 27 - 2.4a - 3 (a b) - 0.07 b2 - 36.7x * Significant at 0.05 level. ** Significant at 0.01 level. 85 Grade A (20-18) B (17-16) ' C (15-14) 30' M = 0.596 26 < 24- 23 ■ • • L9 20 Visual Color Score FIGURE 9. AGTRON M-30 R FILTER VS. VISUAL COLOR - SCORE FOR FREEZE-DRIED GREEN BEANS 86 Evaluation of the irradiated green beans After approximately one month storage time, almost one half of 4 5 all the 10 rad dosage levels and one fourth of the .10 rad dosage levels developed into hard swells and thus, were discarded. None of. 6 ' the 10 rqd dosage samples developed into hard swells even after six months storage although gas production was observed in almost every can evaluated. The color of the green beans from all dosage levels appeared to be very much similar to that of the canned product. The lower dosage levels that did survive possessed a slightly better color than the samples that were exposed to more irradiation. As with the color, the texture of the beans resembled the cooked product. The gas which was present in almost every can evaluated did not possess the characteristic putaefactive odor of bacteria spoilage, but a some what sweet non-identifiable aromatic odor. The only explanation which can be made at this time,for the gas product is that it was probably due to some form of enzymatic action. The enzyme systems in the beans may not have been completely inactivated during the blanching process prior to irradiation, or the enzymes may have been reactivated by the irradiation process. Although the majority of the irradiated samples evaluated were of poor quality, a few of the samples would indicate that if proper control measures were taken, a high quality product could be produced. Influence of .cultivar on the chlorophyll retention and the color of green beans Up to this point the cultivar of the green beans has been ignored and the results of the statistical analysis were performed 87 without regard to this variable. In Table 26, the averages of•the percent total chlorophyll retention, U.S.D.A. color scores, and Agtron R values have been presented for each cultivar according to „ the processing variable and the maturity classification. The best six of the eleven cultivars were chosen to be presented. The results of the other five cultivars were not presented because of low yields during harvesting’, thus, not enough replications could be made for an accurate comparison. Sloughing evaluation Only the canned product was evaluated for sloughing. The reason that only the canned product was evaluated was that although epidermal sloughing does affect the quality of frozen and freeze-dried green beans, it has not been as critical a problem, in these processes as it has in canning. The canned beans were allowed to equilibrate for three months before evaluating for sloughing. The procedure and the numerical scale which was used in measuring the degree of slough ing was presented on pages 43 and 44. On evaluating the results of this analysis, it was found that the blanching method had the greatest influence on the degree of sloughing than any other variable. The results of the sloughing evaluation were presented in Table 27. TABLE 26 Averages*a. of Percent Chlorophyll Retention, U.S.D.A. Color Scores, and Agtron R Results From the Raw, Blanched, and the Three-Month Storage Periods of the Canned and Frozen Product According to Cultivar and Maturity Classification. Only the Standard Steam (210°F for 1 Minute) and Water (185°F for 2 Minutes) Blanches Have Been Included Blanched Canned Frozen Raw Steam Water Steam Water Steam Water G. P. 63-321 Cut * % Chlorophyll Total 76.1 69.5 59.7 . U.S.D.A. Color Score 11.3 11.3 17.0 16.0 Agtron R 30.7 1.3.5 15.0 39.8 42.0 20.3 20.0 Whole U.S.D.A. Color Score 13.0 , 13.0 18.0 17.0 Agtron R 25.5 11.5 12.0 33.4 30.5 17.0 17.0 G. P. 64-489 Cut % Chlorophyll Total 76.9 66.5 55.8 U.S.D.A. Color Score 11.5 11.5 18.0 16.0 Agtron R 29.7 13.7 15.5 40.0 37.8 16.0 17.0 TABLE 26 (Continued) Blanched Canned Frozen Cultivar Raw Steam Water Steam Water Steam Water Whole U.S.D.A. Color Score 11.0 13.0 18.0 17.0 Agtron R 36.2 14.5 13.5 38.0 33.5 16.0 15.0 G. P. 488 Cut 70 Chlorophyll Total 73.3 62.7 64.2 U.S.D.A. Color Score 11.5 11.5 16.0 18.5 Agtron R 33.2 18.0 14.6 44.9 46.0 15.5 24.0 Whole U.S.D.A. Color Score 13.5 13.5 18.0 18.0 Agtron R 30.6 13.2 16.0 41.2 38.6 17.0 16.0 G. P. 64-478 Cut 70 Chlorophyll Total 74.9 69.7 67.9 U.S.D.A. Color Score 14.0 14.5 18.0 18.5 Agtron R 29.0 15.0 12.7 43.0 36.1 15.5 14.8 TABLE 26 (Continued) Blanched Canned Frozen Cultivar Raw Steam Water Steam Water Steam Water Whole U.S.D.A. Color Score 14.5 14.5 19.0 19.0 Agtron R 29.6 72.0 13.8 36.0 32.8 15.0 14.5 • Dark Earligreen 66-312 Cut • % Chlorophyll Total 72.4 70.3 57.2 U.S.D.A. Color Score 11.5. 11.0 16.0 15.0 Agtron R 40.0 16.8 19.0 47.0 51.0 21.0 26.0 Whole U.S.D.A. Color Score 11.5 12.0 17.0 17.0 Agtron R 35.5 15.0 16.0 43.5 42.8 19.0 19.0 • Astro 26271 Cut - . 7» Chlorophyll Total . 82.6 66.1 53.4 U.S.D.A. Color Score 12.5 12.0 16.0 15.5 Agtron R 34.0 11.5 18.0 41.5 40.9 21.0 22.0 TABLE 26 (Continued) Blanched Canned Frozen Cultivar Raw Steam Water Steam Water Steam ' Water Whole U.S.D.A. Color Score 12.5 13.0 18.0 18.0 Agtron R 34.5 10.2 13.0 37.4 34.1 17.0 17.0 a. Averages calculated from three replications. The raw data from which these averages were obtained are presented in the Appendix. 92 TABLE 27 Averages from the Subjective Sloughing Evaluation for the Canned Product According to the Blanching Technique Subjective Sloughing Evaluation, 'Number of Blanch Observations Average Steam (210°F/1 minute) 50 4.6 Water (185°F/2 minute) 45 2.2 Water (180°F/2 minute, buffered) 3 1 Water (185°F/2 minute, buffered) 5 2.5 Water (190°F/1 minute, buffered) 5 2 Water (190°F/2 minute, buffered) 4 3 Water (195°F/5 minute, buffered) 3 3 . pH and total acid i i All except for the canned product, the averages of the pH re sults from the processed green beans did not noticeably change from the raw product (see Tables 6, 11, and 17). This can probably be attributed to the natural buffering system which the green bean tissue possessed. From Table 11, the pH averages of the canned beans were found to vary by one pH unit between the water and buffered brine samples. This is what would be expected because of the influence of the buffered brine on the pH of the green bean tissue. The percent total acid of the raw product decreased on blanch ing (Table 7). There was no significant change in the percent total acid content of the frozen green beans from that of the blanched 93 (Table 17). The large Increase in the total acid percentage of the freeze-dried samples was previously explained. Again, from Table 11, it was observed that a marked change in the total acid content occurred in the canned product, \ As. was reviewed earlier, the acidity of the vegetable tissue has been reported as having an important influence on the color and chlorophyll retention of the green vegetable (22,78). The relation ship of the colorimetric measurements and the acidity of the green beans were presented in Table 28. Vitamin C In Tables 6, 11, and 17,.the averages of the Vitamin C analy sis from each process were presented. The ascorbic acid content was affected by each processing variable. The blanching operation de creased the Vitamin C content of the green beans only very slightly while the canning process reduced by about one-half. Only a moderate decrease was noted in the frozen product while the freeze-dried sam ples indicated an increase in the vitamin content. The reason for this marked increase can be attributed to the fact that the beans were weighed in the dried state and the proper conversion was not obtained. : 94 TABLE 28 Correlation of Colorimetric Results With the pH and Percent Total Acid Results From the Raw, Blanched, Canned (Water Brine), Canned (Buffered Brine), Frozen, and Freeze-Dried Samples • Correlation Coefficients Process Colorimetric Method pH % Total Acid Raw % Chlorophyll Total -0.023 0.350 % Chlorophyll a 0.078 0.227 % Chlorophyll b -0.257 0.227 Agtron R 0.230 0.023 Blanched % Chlorophyll Total 0.114 -0.359 % Chlorophyll a 0.132 -0.218 % Chlorophyll b -0.163 -0.117 Agtron R -0.199 0.245 Canned U.S.D.A. Color Score 0.365 -0.303 (Water Brine) % Chlorophyll Total 0.201 -0.159 % Chlorophyll a 0.301 -0.264 % Chlorophyll b 0.206 -0.333 Agtron R -0.263 0.140 Canned U.S.D.A. Color Score -0.496 0.260 (Buffered Brine) Agtron R • -0.811* 0.728* Frozen U.S.D.A. Color Score -0.063 0.157 % Chlorophyll Total -0.030 -0.224 % Chlorophyll a -0.029 -0.186 % Chlorophyll b -0.036 -0.345 Agtron R 0.015 0.006 Freeze-dried U.S.D.A. Color Score 0.342 0.036 Agtron R -0.349 0.081 * Significant of the .05 level. DISCUSSION General The results will be discussed in the same order as they were presented, except the sloughing results have been included in the dis cussion under canning. Colorimetry Relationship of the amount of chlorophyll retention and the colorimetric results One of the primary purposes of this research was to determine the quantitative relationship between the extent of conversion of chlorophyll to pheophytin and the degree of color change in green beans. This relationship was considered to be very important in order to determine the amount of chlorophyll conversion which may take place before the color of the green beans became adversely affected. A cor relation study was performed on the percent chlorophyll retentions and the reflectance instrument results in an effort to determine if a relationship existed. The results of this study according to the pro cessing variable were presented in Table 3. From this table it was observed that the simple correlation coefficients indicated a strong relationship between these two different types of colorimetric measure ments did not exist. On evaluating this problem it became apparent that one of the important reasons why a better relationship did not 95 96 exist was due to the fact that the reflectance spectrophotometer only measured the. color of the outside surface, while the percent chloro phyll retention was a measurement of the total chlorophyll content, whether it was located on the surface or inside of the bean. In other words, a particular lot of green beans which has its chlorophyll con tent located close to the surface of the pod could appear to be of better color than another lot which actually contained more chlorophyll but whose pigment was more evenly distributed throughout the pod. This problem was also reported to be associated with products which natu rally occur in discrete units such as peas, lima beans, and cranberries (29,28,75). One solution to such a problem has been to homogenize the sample and then measure the color by reflectance colorimetry. This procedure was tried, but was dismissed because the homogenized sample did not represent at all what the product did in the normal state and thus, would have been defeating the purpose of any correlation study. Another purpose of this particular phase of the study was to determine if the reflectance spectrophotometer could be used as an analytical tool in the prediction of the chlorophyll content of green beans. If such a method could be devised, a great deal of time could be saved if the complex and time-consuming extraction and absorption method of measuring chlorophyll retention could be substituted by the much more rapid reflectance method. This development in itself would greatly facilitate research in chlorophyll retention studies of pro cessed green vegetables. The results of this study have been discussed under each processing section. 97 Relationship of the Hunter Color and Co.lor- Difference Meter and the-Agtron M-400 As was pointed out before, the Hunter D-25 was- a tristimulus spectrophotometer and the Agtron M-400 was an abridged spectrophotom eter. By design the tristimulus colorimeter duplicated the results of the hypothetical I.C.I. standard observer under the standard illuminant C. The original purpose of this particular phase was to determine if a relationship existed between the two colorimeters and to standardize the Agtron M-40 against the Hunter D-25. Since there was not any literature available concerning the use of the Agtron M-400. for the measurement of the color of green vegetables, it was not certain whether this instrument could be used in a study on chlorophyll retention. It was determined that if a good relationship was found to exist between the two instruments, then inter-comparisons could be made and the Agtron could be used to provide another source of spectrophotometric data in which more detailed comparisons and conclusions could be made concern ing the use of reflectance instrumentation in this study.. In order to determine if any relationship existed, correlation coefficients were calculated for every function from each instrument according to each processing variable. The best correlation coefficients were presented in Table 4. From these results, it can be seen that significant rela tionships .were present and that the Agtron M-400 could be used along side of the Hunter D-25. Although the correlation coefficients were not presented in Table 4, the x and y chromaticity coordinates which were calculated from the Hunter results were found to be significant when compared to the Agtron values. The correlation coefficients were 98 found to average from about ,400 to .500 for each process studied. Here again, this demonstrated the merit of using the Agtron M-400 in a study of this type. Relationship of colorimetric results and the U.S.D.A. color scores As was stated in the introduction, one of the objectives of this project was to correlate the objective colorimetric methods with the subjective analysis results plus attempt to establish an objective color grade system for processed green beans. The simple correlation coefficients which were obtained from this analysis were presented in Table 5 according to each processing variable. Almost all of the instrument values were found to be significant at either the .01 or .05 level when compared to the U.S.D.A. color scores. Considering all the variables (cultivar, maturity, blanch, treatment, and storage period) which were included in this particular study, these results would appear to be quite good. One other development of this study which was not expected was the high correlation of the Agtron values and especially the R value. In almost every case, the Agtron R mode obtained a higher correlation coefficient than any of the Hunter func tions. One explanation for these results may be due to the fact that during the analysis of the storage samples, the wide angle Agtron M-30 attachment was used in place of the Agtron M-400. This would give the Agtron a much larger viewing area when measuring the color of a sample than would the Hunter and thus, helps to explain the better correlation between the U.S.D.A. color scores and the Agtron M-30. 99 A lower reading from the red filter mode of the Agtron M-30 was found to be indicative of better color in the green beans. The negative correlation coefficients which were obtained from the com parison of the Agtron R results and the U.S.D.A. color scores indi- • i cated that an inverse relationship existed between these two measure ments. That is, the lower the Agtron R, the better the color response for green beans. This was observed in Figures 3, 7, and 9. The theory of color reflectance helps to explain why this relationship was found to exist. When white light is shown on an object, certain wavelength bands are reflected according to the chemistry or pigmentation of the object, and the rest of the remaining light is absorbed by the object. The dominant wavelength of the reflected light from the object is what the human eye receives and this light determines the color of the object. The reflectance colorimeter has an interference filter which is placed between the photocell and the sample so that when light is reflected from an object only the desired wavelength is measured. As explained in the literature review, the interference filter only allows' one wavelength band to pass while all other spectral radiation is ab sorbed. The red filter mode of the Agtron M-30 allows only a portion of the red spectrum (approximately 640 mp,) to pass and the green fil ter mode allows only a portion of the green spectrum (approximately 546 mp,) to pass. In particular, when the red filter was used in the measurement of color of green beans, the light which was reflected was in relationship to the amount of chlorophyll or pheophytin present near the surface of the bean pods, but the only light which the photo cell received was from some source other than the chlorophyll pigments. 100 Since the primary consideration of this, study was the measurement of greenness, that the green filter should have provided the most impor tant information concerning the color of green beans. However, the green filter mode of the Agtron did not correlate highly with the sub jective color scores (Table 5). One explanation is that the greenness of any green vegetable is a product of a complex mixture of the dif-' ferent chlorophyll pigments and that many different combinations of value and chroma within the same hue could exist. Depending on these tristimulus values, the green beans may appear of different quality to the human eye, but yet still reflect approximately the same amount of green light. The reflectance colorimeter does not have the ability to interpret the quality of light it receives, but only the ability to measure the amount of light reflected from a particular object. Since less red light was reflected from the green beans, the red filter mode of the Agtron was capable of making much more selective reading than was the green filter mode. Another reason the Agtron R results were so much better correlated to the visual scores than any other measure ment may be simply attributed to the fact that the red filter more closely measured the color of the beans which was perceived by the human eye. Although the Hunter D-25 did not perform as well as the Agtron M-30 when compared to the results of the.U.S.D.A. color scores, some of its va.lues did obtain correlation coefficients which were highly significant. The Hunter a/b ratio and the product of the a and L values were found to consistently possess the highest correlation coefficients for each processing method (see Table 5). Dietrich (22) 101 previously-reported the significance of the a/b ratio in measuring the color change in green beans. The Hunter a/b ratio, which is the mea- - surement of hue, represents a change from green to yellow in processed j 2 • 2 green beans. The Hunter function of Ja + b was reported to have significance in measuring the degree of chlorophyll in canned peas (29). However, the results of this research indicated that this func- tion had no value in relationship to the visual scores and it was only slightly significant when compared to the results of the chlorophyll retention. This function from the Hunter D-25 represents the chroma of a particular objective in psychlogical terms. The a x L function was not found in the literature as having any significance in the mea suring of the color of green beans. This is somewhat surprising when the results of the correlation coefficients from this study were con sidered. The Hunter a x L product obtained consistently the highest correlation coefficient of any of the other Hunter functions for all three processing methods (Table 5). In the case of the frozen and freeze-dried product, the correlation coefficients for Hunter a x L values and the U.S.D.A. color scores were found to be significant at the .01 level. Product Evaluation Chlorophyll and color measurement of raw green beans The only variable which was present in the analysis of the raw green bean besides the cultivar was the maturity classification. As 102 was indicated in the presentation of results, no significant differ ence was found to exist between the cut and whole maturity classifica tion in terms of the Agtron R averages. On evaluating the photoelectric colorimeters to predict the . * chlorophyll content of the raw beans. From Table 7, it was found that only the regression equation for the Agtron R and R/G values was sig nificant in the prediction of the chlorophyll a retention. Chlorophyll a was reported to be the dominant pigment found in fresh green beans (78,84) which helps to explain why the instrument results were better associated with this particular chlorophyll measurement. Although the multiple correlation coefficient for the Hunter regression equation for chlorophyll a appears to be relatively high, an F test, which mea sured the "goodness of fit" indicated that it was not quite significant at the .05 level. * Chlorophyll and color measurement of blanched green beans The results of Table 6 indicated that the average for both the total and the chlorophyll a content were reduced by approximately 10%. This decrease was expected when a heat treatment such as blanching was induced to a raw green vegetable. In comparing the results of the standard steam and water blanches, it was found that no significant difference existed in the total chlorophyll retention between either blanching technique. These results tend to disagree with work per formed by Dietrich, et_ al. (24), and Jones, White and Gibbs (42). These researchers indicated that steam blanching caused more chloro phyll conversion to plieophytin than an equivalent water blanch. The 103 results of this research indicated that slightly more chlorophyll was retained (6%) when the green beans were steam blanched (see Table 9). This discrepancy with other reported results was not thought to be very critical when the differences in the variables which were prob-1 ably employed from one project to another were considered. An obser vation that was made in this study which was not referred to in the literature may help to explain why more conversion occurred during water blanching was that after each subsequent water blanch, the pH of the blanching water decreased until it reached a pH of approximate 6.0 - 6.1. Once this pH level was reached it was observed that a large amount of alkaline additives had to' be added to raise the pH above the neutral level. It was apparent that a very strong buffering system was created by the soluble organic acids of the green beans during the blanching process. The pH of the blanching water never decreased below the natural pH (6.0 - 6.3) of the green beans, but the total titratable acidity of the water did build up to a relatively high level when compared to the inherent acidity of the green beans. This was shown very dramatically by the strong buffering effect the organic acids had on the pH of the blanching water. Even when the blanching water was buffered prior to blanching, the pH had to be read justed upward approximately 0.2 units after each blanching in order to maintain the original pH. Although it has been reported previously that the color of green vegetables was protected by water blanching because of the loss of soluble acids from the tissue (29), the results of this research would indicate that if some control measures were not employed during water blanching such as continuously changing the water 104 or the addition of some alkalizing agent, water blanching would have the effect, of decreasing chlorophyll retention due to the acid build up. The results of the buffered blanching water study indicated that the total chlorophyll retention was increased by these specialized blanching techniques. There is no need to go into any greater detail concerning the color of the blanched green beans at this time because of the only important consideration to be made is the affect of the blanching method on the color of the finished product. The influence of the blanching technique has been discussed in greater detail under each processing section. The results of the regression analysis of the colorimetric and chlorophyll retention measurements were presented in Table 10, The only regression equation that was found to be significant was the Hunter equation number six, and it was only significant at the 10% level. > The blanched smaller sieve size or the whole maturity classifi cation appeared from the Agtron R results to possess more greenness than the cut beans (see Tables 8 and 9). Chlorophyll and color measurement of canned green beans The results of the buffer and water brine analysis were pre- ' sented in Table 11. The averages of the percent retention of the canned product indicated that most of the chlorophyll was converted to pheopliytin. These averages were obtained from the one-day storage analysis and thus, would indicate that most of the conversion occurred .105 during the sterilization process. The results of the visual scores for the canned green beans covered with a buffered brine indicated that the color was not protected by the alkaline additives in the brine. In fact, the buffered brine samples received a lower visual score average than the water brined samples. This low rating can, in part, be attributed to the very unattractive appearance which was cre ated by the precipitation of the additives leaving white crystalline deposits on the green pods. For more detail concerning the results of the buffered brine study refer to- Table 14. In another special study on the influence of pre-soaking the green beans in btiffer solutions prior to canning, it was observed that the color and chlorophyll was effectively protected during the sterili zation period. However, as reported by Gold and Wechel (29) in a study on canned peas, it was found that after three weeks of storage, no noticeable difference in color between the reference sample was ob served. Apparently the conversion reaction of chlorophyll to pheophy- tin continued to occur during storage. The results of the addition of a wetting agent to the pre-soak solution indicated that this procedure does have merit in increased transfer rate of the alkaline additive into the bean tissue. The results of the influence of the blanching technique, matur ity classification, and storage period on chlorophyll retention and color of canned green beans were presented in Tables 12, 13, 14, and 15, In Tables 12 and 13 the two standard blanch methods can be com pared according to the maturity and storage period. It can be seen from .these tables that both the Agtron and the visual scores were 106 practically identical from one blanch to the other. An average in crease of only 3 Agtron R units was found to have occurred during the three month storage of the canned product which represents a slight change in color. The only variable which was.found to possess a noticeable- difference was the maturity classification. It should be noted that the whole or smaller sieve sized beans retained their color best according to the visual and Agtron R results. The whole beans received a grade B rating while the cut beans received a grade lower. The same relationship existed between the cut and whole beans for both blanching methods. In comparing the standard blanches against the buffered water blanches, it was observed that the special blanching treatments did not exhibit any increased protection on the color of the canned product (Tables 10, 13, and 15). Although the blanching techniques did not have any great influ ence on the color of the green beans after storage, it did affect the sloughing characteristics of the canned, beans. In Table 26 the aver ages have been presented from the subjective sloughing evaluation for the canned product according to the blanching technique. The averages indicated that a considerable amount of sloughing was induced by the steam blanching method. This condition was too severe to be acceptable for a high quality pack of canned green beans. Previous research re ports have indicated similar results (36,82). No sloughing problems were encountered from any of the other water blanching methods. 107 From the above results, it was .obvious that since no one blanching technique noticeably improved the color' of the canned prod uct, then the only criterion left which should be used in determining the proper blanching time and temperature for canned green beans was one that helps to keep sloughing at a minimum. As presented in the literature review, the best blanching temperature found to reduce sloughing was in the range from 160° to 185°F. The time of the blanch will vary from two to three minutes depending on the temperature. In other words, since no combination of' processing variables employed in this research project, or any previous ones, were found to protect the color of canned green beans over an extended storage time; the proces sors time would be better spent in improving other quality attributes such as epidermal sloughing. Both the Agtron M-400 and the Hunter D-25 were found capable of predicting the U.S.D.A. color score of the canned green beans (Table 16). The multiple regression equations from the Hunter values were also found to be highly significant in the calculation of the chlorophyll retentions of the canned product. A plot of the Agtron R values against the U.S.D.A. color scores for canned green beans in Figure 2 demonstrated how a simple regression line can be used to obtain a product grade from an instrument reading. Since only a cor relation coefficient of -0.420 was obtained between these two measure ments, much more accurate prediction of the visual score was obtained by using the multiple regression equations derived for each instrument. 108 Chlorophyll and color measurement of frozen green .beans The averages for all'the analysis performed on the frozen sam ples were presented in Table 17. In comparing the colorimetric results of the blanched green beans from Table 6 to the frozen green beans in Table 17, a 10% drop in the total chlorophyll content was observed during the freezing process and the Agtron R average increased by 4 units over all storage periods. The averages from the reference steam and water blanching study for the frozen product showed no great difference between any of the variables. As with the canned product, the maturity classification was the only variable which showed any noticeable difference in either the the Agtron R or the U.S.D.A. color scores. Even at this, only twice were the cut and whole averages different by a grade classification. The frozen whole green beans averaged a very high B grade while the cut beans obtained an average in the mid B grade range. The chlorophyll retention of the frozen samples which were blanched in the buffer solu tion did not undergo the decrease as did the two reference blanches. No change in the chlorophyll content was observed during the freezing of the green beans which were blanched in the buffer solutions (refer to Tables 9 and 20). In comparing the Agtron R values to visual scores after the three and six month storage, no real differences were found between the standard and.the buffered blanch. Although the averages did not show a difference, it was observed that the frozen samples which received a buffered blanch possessed a deeper and brighter green color. The reason that the averages did not show this was probably 109 due to the.fact that this particular study was conducted later in the season and a few over-mature samples may have lowered these averages. The results of the influence of storage time on the color of the frozen green beans did not show any marked deterioration after nine months at -20°F. These findings agree with the results that Dietrich, et al, (23) found in their studies on frozen green beans stored at temperatures below 0°F. The above results from the colorimetric analysis of frozen green beans indicated that if a quality raw product is used, most any combination of sound processing variables can be employed with- the net result of a finished product of good color. It would appear that the problems which have been associated with the color of frozen green beans has been a result of poor processing and storage methods. Probably the most critical factor lies within the hands of the wholesaler and retailer. If the proper storage temperatures are not maintained, rapid color deterioration will occur. As pointed out in the literature review, the storage temperature has been shown to be one of the most important factors in determining the final quality of the frozen green beans (23). The results of the multiple regression analysis indicated that both the Agtron M-400 and the Hunter D-25 could be used with a high degree of success in the prediction of the U.S.D.A, color grade for frozen green beans. Since the calculations of the regression equations were somewhat involved, a nomograph was prepared in terms of the Agtron M-30 R and R X G values in order to speed the predicting process (Fig ure 8). Other methods of predicting the visual scores for the frozen 110 product from the instrument results were graphically illustrated (Figures 6 and 7). Although these relationships were found to have high correlation coefficients, it was observed that a wide variation existed for these methods to be used in a grading system. It was I apparent that a more absolute method was needed than could be provided from a simple linear regression of only one mode of the colorimeter. This problem was encountered in other' products and the solution was to plot the visual scores against too modes of the colorimeter on a two- dimensional graph (16). This procedure was performed for both the Hunter D-25 a and b and the Agtron M-30 R and G values (Figures 4 and 5). The results of the Hunter D-25 a and b plot against the visual scores appeared to have quite a bit of promise. From Figure 4, the visual scores can be seen to be grouped according to their grade classification. Some overlapping was noted, but under more controlled conditions this method could probably be developed into a very good method of instrument grading frozen green beans. Figure 4 presented the results of the Agtron M-30 R and G plot against the visual scores, but as can be observed, not very good separation was obtained and that either the Agtron R regression equation or the nomograph would be more accurate to use. Chlorophyll and color measurement of freeze-dried green beans Since the results of the colorimetric analysis of the freeze- dried' samples for each variable studied were almost identical to the frozen results, no further discussion was deemed necessary. The 111 remainder of the discussion on the freeze-dried analysis was limited to general quality of the product and evaluation of the regression analysis of the colorimetric data. The quality of the freeze-dried green beans compared very favorably with that of the frozen product. The freeze-dried product has the added advantages of not requiring refrigeration and a reduc tion in weight of approximately 80%. The reason, as in almost all freeze-dried foods, that freeze-dried green beans have not become more popular is due to the expense involved in the dehydrating process. Now with the advent of engineering improvements, the freeze-drying process has become more efficient and lower cost items such as green beans may be dehydrated by freeze-drying more economically. The results of the stepwise regression analysis indicated that both the Agtron M-30 and the Hunter D-25 could be used in predicting the U.S.D.A. color grade scores (see Table 25 and Figure 9). Evaluation of the irradiated green beans The results of the evaluation of the irradiated green beans were presented and discussed in the Presentation of Results. No further discussion has been included. Influence of culfcivar on the chlorophyll retention and the color of green beans The results from Table 25 indicated that a large amount of variance existed from one cultivar to the other. This one variable was probably responsible for most of the-variance which occurred in this study. Likewise, most of the problems which were encountered in 112 the processing of green beans can probably be attributed to the culti var. Each cultivar has its own unique characteristics, and if they are not properly understood, problems are bound to occur during pro cessing. This many times has occurred when new cultivars have been • \ mixed with older ones and processed according to standard procedures. The two best cultivars according to color and overall quality were the Green Pod 488 and the Green Pod 64-478. For a more detailed description of how each cultivar performed under each processing method, please refer to Table 25. pH and total acid The averages of the pH and percent total acid were presented in table form under each processing section. As was stated in the Presentation of Results, no marked changes in either acidity functions were observed from one process to another. 4 In the Literature Review, it was brought out that a discrepancy existed in the literature concerning the relationship between the neu tral acidity of a particular vegetable tissue and the amount of chlorophyll retention in that vegetable. Dietrich, et al. (22) and Sweeney and Martin (78) reported that the inherent pH of tissue greatly influenced the chlorophyll stability and consequently, the color of green vegetables. They also attributed the instability of the chloro phyll found in green beans to be due to its lower pH than most-similar green vegetables. On the other hand, Walker (86) indicated that no relationship existed between inherent pH and chlorophyll retention in green beans. The results of Table 38 tend to support Walker in his 113 argument. From the data in this table .it can be seen that none of the correlation coefficients were found to be significant between the colorimetric values and the pH and total acid results. Only the Agtron R values from the canned buffered brine analysis were found significant and it cannot be included in this discussion because these measurements did not represent the natural acidity of the green bean tissue. Vitamin C The averages of the Vitamin C retention from each process have been presented under each processing section. The canning process was found to retain approximately half of the original ascorbic acid con tent while only moderate changes were noted in the frozen and freeze- dried product. CONCLUSION Eleven cultivars were studied with the aim of determining the influence of blanching, canning, freezing, freeze-drying, and irradi ation on the color and general quality of green beans. The beans were harvested by hand and all processes were per formed in the laboratory using pilot plant equipment. Colorimetric and chemical measurements were made on the raw product and immediately after each blanching treatment and appropriate storage periods. ■ The variables studied within each process were the maturity classification, blanching time and temperature, and storage period. Color was measured objectively by means of the Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter and the Agtron M-30. These results were compared to the values obtained from the chlorophyll retention deter mination in order to establish the relationship which existed between these two methods of color measurement. The color of the processed green beans was also subjectively evaluated according to the U.S.D.A. color standards. The colorimetric measurements which were found to have significance in the color measurement of green beans were used to determine the effect of the horticultural and processing variables on the color of the process product. 114 115 The results of this study are summarized as follows: ' 1.) -The results of the colorimetric analysis indicated that both reflectance photoelectric colorimeters were only slightly significant in the prediction of the chlorophyll retentions. 2.) The Agtron R mode was found to be the most significant of all the reflectance values when compared to the U.S.D.A. color scores. The Hunter a/b ratio was also found to be highly significant. The regression equations derived from the colorimetric values correlated very highly with the results obtained from the subjective color analysis. These regression equations were found capable of predict ing very accurately the color grade of processed green beans. It was also found that a two-dimensional plot of the Hunter a and b values gave good separation in the designation of the A, B and C grades for frozen green beans. 3.) The horticultural variables of cultivar and maturity were found the most influential of all the variables studied. . The 1-3 sieve size (whole) maturity classification re tained the most chlorophyll and was of better color than the 4-6 sieve size (cut) for all processes studied. Cultivars Green Pod 488 and Green Pod 64-478 were deter mined to be the best according to color and overall quality. 116 4.) Both the blanching and brining techniques were shown to have little or no affect on the color of stored canned green beans. The blanching method did, however, greatly influence the degree of epidermal sloughing found in the canned product. Severe sloughing was induced by steam blanching. Since the color of canned green beans was not protected after extended storage by any combination of processing variables, the results of this study' indi cated that the best procedure for the production of con sistently high quality product would be to use techniques which reduce the tendency of the beans to slough. 5.) It was observed in the frozen product that the buffered blanching methods helped to protect the color of the beans better than the reference steam and water blanches. Similar results were found for the freeze-dried product, A consistently high quality product was obtained from both processes. 6.) The results of the analysis of the irradiated product indicated that the color was very much similar to that of a cooked product. In general, the overall quality of the irradiated product was poor, but if more control could have been exercised over the dosage level received by the .green beans, a much higher quality product would have probably resulted. 117 7.) The results of the pH, total acid, and Vitamin C analysis .indicated that each processing variable influenced the chemistry of the green beans. The pH and the percent total acid was found to vary slightly from one process to another and there was no relationship between the inher ent acidity and the chlorophyll retention of the green beans. The Vitamin C content was decreased by approxi mately one-half during the canning process. Little change was noted in the ascorbic acid content of the raw product and that of either the frozen or freeze-dried product. APPENDIX APPENDIX Experimental Design: Color Evaluation Snap Beans Seven Digit Code: £[ P H C C S B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (E>) Storage Time 0 - No Storage (Raw and Blanched) 1 - One Day (Canned, Frozen) 3 - Three Month (Canned, Frozen, Freeze-Dried) 5 - Five Month (Special Study for Frozen) 6 - Six Month 7 - Special (correlation study only) 8 - Special (correlation study only) 9 - Nine Month (Frozen and Freeze-Dried) (P) Processing Method 1 - Raw 2 - Blanched 3 - Canned with Distilled H 2 O Brine 4 - Canned with Buffered H 2 O Brine 5 - Frozen 6 - Freeze-Dried (H) Harvest 1 2 3 4 5 6 118 (CC) Cultivar 1 - Tempo 206 2 - Green Pod 63-321 3 - Green Pod 64-489 4 - Green Pod 488 5 - Green Pod 64-478 6 - Dark Earligreen 66-312 7 - Green Pod Tendercrop 64 8 - Astro 26271 9 - Tendercrop ■ 83 10 - Sparton Arrow 76 11 - Tenderette 81 (S) Style 3 - Whole 6 - Cut (B) Blanch Treatment 0 - No Blanch (Raw) 3 - Steam (Stand.) 5 - Water 185°F/2 min. (Stand.) 1 - Water 185°F/2 min. (Treated Blanch Water) 2 - Water^ 180°F/2 min. (Treated Blanch Water) 4 - Water 190°F/1 min. (Treated Blanch Water) 6 - Water 190°F/2 min. (Treated Blanch Water) 7 - Water . Mixed/5 min. (Treated Blanch Water, correlation study only) 8 - Water 195°F/5 min. TABLE 29 Results of all the Analyses for the Raw Samples Design % % 7o Code Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. 1 ■0110760 31.0 60.5 40.8 -12.5 19.3 6.4 0.077 18.0 0110860 79.7 106.2 51.9 34.5 63.0 40.8 - 9.9 18.6 6.3 0.096 30.0 0110460 81.2 97.3 59.9 28.0 47.0 35.4 -13.5 15.8 6.2 0.115 23.3 0110560 80.4 90.5 67.6 27.0 52.0 33.8 -13.7 14.8 6.1 0.128 20.0 0110660 77.4 85.6 35.5 46.0 72.5 • 40.3 - 9.5 18.8 6.2 0.128 20.0 0110160 73.2 88.6 56.8 26.5 50.0 32.1 -12.3 14.4 6.3 0.128 13.2 0110260 75.4 86.7 56.1 35.0 55.5 37.9 -11.4 18.3 6.2 0.077 16.2 0110360 72.2 86.4 53.8 32.0 58.0 38.0 -10.4 - 18.2 6.2 0.096 . 14.7 0120560 78.2 96.9 55.5 26.0 51.0 29.6 -31.8 13.1 6.3 0.122 14.9 0120660 67.4 88.6 36.6 33.0 52.0 37.7 -21.9 15.5 6.3 0.128 16.6 0120760 80.1 96.3 58.7 32.0 61.5 34.7 -27.0 16.7 6.4 0.096 16.6 0120860 85.5 80.4 . 101.7 34.0 61.0 35.2 -26.0 14.9 6.2 0.077 16.6 0120160 78.3 100.7 52.9 28.5 47.0 29.4 -30.1 11.5 6.3 01115 19.6 0120260 66.9 86.8 46.2 29.0 57.5 35.8 -26.5 17.1 6.4 0.083 16.1 0120360 85.4 103.1 62.1 21.0 46.5 26.3 -35.5 12.2 6.2 0.128 14.3 0120460 65.9 90.3 41.1 33.0 60.0 35.7 -24.7 17.1 6.3 0.102 17.8 0130960 79.8 92.8 62.9 34.0 46.5 36.8 -22.0 18.2 6.3 0.064 16.7 0131060 44.5 60.0 36.6 -21.8 16.5 6.3 0.070 16.7 0131160 70.0 78.2 40.4 27.0 51.0 31.6 -26.2 16.1 6.0 0.102 13.3 0130460 72.8 96.3 46.7 38.5 72.5 39.6 -21.6 19.5 6.4 0.089 16.1 0130560 66.0 83.9 37.6 34.0 54.5 33.6 -26.0 15.8 613 0.096 16.1 0130360 73.0 85.0 24.9 36.0 65.0 . 37.7 -21.6 18.7 6.3 0.089 12.5 0140960 27.5 55.0 31.5 -29.2 15.7 6.3 0.102 15.2 0141060 46.0 71.0 39.8 -17.8 17.4 6.5 0.115 19.4 0141160 81.1 97.3 70.4 39.0 . 71.5 37.6 -22.8 19.6 6.3 0.077 13.8 0140260 86.0 98.3 58.0 28.0 50.0 32.4 -30.6 15.8 6.4 0.096 22.5 TABLE 29 (Continued) Design % % % Code . Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SFHCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. i 0140360 92.0 100.0 74.0 34.5 55.0 37.4 -21.0 18.5 6.3 1.200 25.0 0150260 92.0 62.7 30.0 35.0 52.0 33.7 -24.6 16.4 6.4 0.058 18.5 0150360 89.0 97.9 77.8 31.5 44.0 28.8 -31.4 10.4 6.1 0.064 13.9 0150460 36.5 ■ 61.5 37.6 -21.1 18.8 6.1 0.090 13.9 0150560 25.0 42.5 25.6 -38.7 12.6 6.4 0.070 12.2 0160360 86.5 110.0 55.3 74.5 43.9 40.4 -18.5 20.1 0160260 80.7 106.0 55.0 51.0 ■ 82.0 43.3 -16.1 21.9 0110730 32.0 58.0 37.5 -11.9 17.9 6;4 0.077 24.0 0110830 33.0 59.0 37.3 -09.2 17.2 6.3 0.090 24.0 0110430 32.0 57.0 37.2 -10.1 17.1 6.2 0.122 23.3 0110530 - 29.0 54.0 35.3 -11.3 15.5 6.2 ' 0.102 16.7 0110630 35.0 61.0 40.4 -11.2 18.7 6.2 0.134 23.3 0110130 22.5 42.0 32.0 -12.7 13.6 6.1 0.128 . 16.2 0110230 31.0 51.5 35.3 -13.0 17.1 6.3 0.102 17.6 0110330 38.5 62.5 41.9 -11.9 19.6 6.3 0.083 13.2 0120530 29.0 58.0 32.0 -29.3 14.2 6.0 0.115 16.6 0120630 36.0 54.0 38.5 -20.3 16.0 6.4 0.090 16.7 0120730 35.5 67.5 36.6 -23.3 17.3 6.2 0.096 13.3 0120830 36.0 - 60.0 36.5 -22.2 16.2 6.4 0.077 16.7 0120130 35.0 67.0 35.4 -25.2 16.1 6.2 0.115 17.9 0120230 19.0 • 41.0 24.4 -39.3 10.0 6'. 3 0.083 17.9 0120330 34.0 64.5 38.8 -20.9 18.1 6.1 0.096 17.9 0120430 • 34.5 60.5 33.1 -27.0 15.3 6.3 0.096 17.9 0130930 34.0 54.0 36.8 -21.8 17.3 6.4 0.061 16.7 0131030 39.0 ' 57.0 35.6 -22.1 16.2 6.3 0.058 16.7 121 0131130 32.0 62.5 34.3 -25.0 16.3 6.4 0.051 13.3 TABLE 29 (Continued) Design % % % Code Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. C 0130430 25.5 53.5 30.9 -29.0 14.7 6.3 0.051 14.3 0130530 31.0 51.0 32.1 -29.8 13.5 6.2 0.074 10.7 0130330 - 0140930 33.0 59.0 35.6 -24.9 15.8 6.2 0.064 09.7 0141030 31.0. 56.0 33.3 -24.0 14.7 6.4 0.077 12.5 0141130 38.0. 70.5 37.4 -21.8 17.9 6.4 0.083 08.3 0140230 0140330 0150230 0150330 * * 0150430 0150530 0160330 92.5 110.0 60.0 33.4 65.0 36.2 -22.1 18.3 0160230 87.8 '95.0 50.0 39.0 68.5 34.4 -21.8 16.4 • 0106560 85.0 100.0 61.0 77.8 . 44.4 48.8 - 9.1 18.9 TABLE 30 Results of all the Analyses for the Blanched Samples Design 7o % % Code Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b PH T.A. Vit. C 0210763 74.9 85.3 63.9 12.0 37.0 27.9 -17.1 14.2 0210765 74.9 123.8 34.5 14.0 40.0 29.0 -18.7 15.5 0210863 59.8 85.7 35.7 13.0 47.0 31.6 -14.3 16.5 0210865 46.3 68.5 28.5 17.5 . 36.5 30.6 -15.3 13.2 0210463 51.8 60.8 36.7 14.5 43.0 31.5 -17.3 16.7 6.4 0.115 19.9 0210465 64.6 74.9 50.3 14.1 37.0 30.8 -14.5 16.0 6.2 0.109 21.7 0210563 74.9 82.6 63.1 18.0 46.0 31.7 -18.9 17.3 6.2 0.089 20.0 0210565 64.2 89.4 44.6 14.5 39.0 29.2 -17.4 ■ 14.3 6.2 0.083 . 20.0 0210663 61.3 79.8 51.3 16.0 46.5 35.3 -15.9 19.4 6.3 0.142 20.0 0210665 51.4 59.6 37.3 21.5 52.0 34.9 -17.2 17.9 6.0 0.147 18.3 0210163 69.4 82.8 50.9 14.0 34.0 31.2 -14.7 13.0 6.2 0.090 17.6 0210165 47.7 52.8 43.0 11.0 . 30.0 . 28.7 -19.3 14.2 6.2 0.128 14.7 0210263 50.6 59.4 40.6 13.5 39.0 31.2 -21.6 15,3 6.3 0.077 14.7 0210265 60.2 50.9 77.1 15.0 43.0 31.5 -16.4 15.5 6.0 0.086 16.2 0210363 72.6 . 84.6 56.9 14.0 39.5 31.7 -18.2 15.0 6.3 0.077 14.7 0210365 50.5 50.2 56.4 15.5 37.0 32.9 -15.3 14.2 6.0 0.077 14.7 0220563 64.6 88.6 39.9 12.0 32.5 21.1 -51.9 10.5 6.4 0.077 18.3 0220565 71.7 97.6 44.8 11.0 32.0 15.8 -67.0 9.3 6.4 0.083 16.7 0220663 97.2 135.4 46.9 17.5 44.0 32.0 -35.4 16.0 6.4 0.090 20.0 0220665 62.9 58.0 49.0 16.5 45.5. 27.2 -40.9 15.1 6.5 0.083 16.7 0220763 80.8 96.9 59.9 ■ 11.5 33.0 19.6 -53.0 7.1 6;5 0.058 16.6 0220765 , 66.4 78.3 52.8 13.0 38.0 20.1 -50.8 11.2 6.5 0.070 16.6 0220863 72.6 83.1 53.5 10.0 34.0 24.9 t43.5 13.9 6.5 0.077 13.3 0220865 60.4 122.4 23.0 18.0 34.0 25.5 -38.5 11.5 6.2 0.083 16.7 0220163 59.2 94.7 49.1 8.0 26.0 13.5 -82.5 4.5 6.2 0.128 17.9 0220165 66.8 79.1 52.2 19.6 42.0 27.2 -41.5 15.0 6.1 0.154 14.3 0220263 78.4 94.8 56.5 13.0 38.0 19.7 -59.5 10.6 6.2 0.083 17.9 TABLE 30 (Continued) Design % % % Code Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. C 0220265 59.2 74.6 43.0 15.0 40.0 26.2 -41.4 11.0 6.1 0.096 14.3 0220363 61.4 85.9 35.3 13.5 41.0 20.3 -57.1 11.2 6.4 0.077 14.3 0220365 61.1 76.6 44.7 15.5 37.5 22.0 -53.2 10.4 6.1 0.090 14.3 0220463 64.5 66.1 87.6 21.5 49.0 28.7 -37.3 12.9 6.2 0.102 17.9 0220465 62.8 75.3 50.9 15.0 33.0 19.8 -58.7 9.1 6.2 0.102 16.1 0230963 78.3 92.8 60.0 11.5 40.0 24.7 -44.4 11.7 6.4 0.064 16.7 0230965 76.2 93.9 57.3 14.0 . 38.0 29.1 -34.3 12.2 6.1 0.077 13.3 0231063 17.0 40.5 26.9 -39.6 16.3 6.3 0.077 16.7 0231065 23.0 43.0 27.6 -34.6 14.7 6.1 0.128 16.6 0231163 71.8 87.3 53.4 12.5 37.0 25.7 -42.3 10.9 6.4 0.070 10.0 0231165 70.8 74.1 65.8 19.5 36.0 29.0 -36.7 14 .-2 6.3 - 0.077 13.3 0240S63 99.0 110.0 100.0 15.5 42.0 28.8 -36.3 17.1 6.2 0.064 11.1 0240965 78.9 100.8 55.7 15.0 40.0 28.3 -39.3 16.8 6.1 0.077 13.9 0241063 15.0 35.5 22.6 -44.9 14.5 6.1 0.070 13.9 0241065 19.5 44.0 24.6 -42.4 14.4 6.1 0.109 13.9 0241163 72.7 89.9 46.8 16.0 42.0 23.7 -50.3 13.5 6.2 0.089 12.5 0241165 64.1 89.7 * 23.1 14.0 39.5 24.3 -43.8 14.5 6.3 0.064 8.3 0230463 85.0 88.0 79.1 13.5 33.0 24.0 -49.8 13.8 6.4 0.096 12.5 0230462 60.9 81.2 40.5 18.5 44.5 30.5 -37.7 15.0 6.2 0.083 14.3 0230461 46.1 70.4 28.2 16.5 40.0 24.2 -43.1 13.7 6.3 0.083 14.3 0230563 3.5.5 37.5 21.5 -53.4 13.0 6.2 0.096 16.1 0230562 70.0 100.0 41.1 6.3 0.089 17.9 0230567 62.6 83.0 55.3 16.0 41.0 22.4 -50.3 10.8 6.1 0.096 16.1 0230561 52.3 72.3 25.7 18.5 42.5 27.5 -41.4 11.9 6.2 0.089 17.9 0230363 74.8 87.7 62.2 13.5 40.0 24.0 -47.8 14.1 6.0 0.077 12.5 0230362 72.2 68.3 75.2 15.5 " 40.0 26.3 -43.7 15.1 5.8 0.096 11.1 0230361 58.1 71.2 41.6 12.0 36.0 25.6 -43.6 15.7 6.2 0.083 9.7 TABLE 30 (Continued) Design 7a 7a 7a Code Ret. R e t .. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b PH T.A. Vit. C •0231063 15.0 35.5 22.6 -44.9 14.5 6.1 0.070 13.9 0231061 19.5 44.0 24.6 -42.4 14.4 6.2 0.083 12.0 0240263 64.4 88.4 21.3 15.0 48.5 27.7 -47.0 17.5 6.4 0.077 22.5 0240262 71.3 66.9 13.2 20.0 48.5 29.0 -39.2 16.2 6.4 0.077 17.5 0240267 59.5 68.1 49.9 18.0 38.0 26,6. -42.3 13.6 6.4 0.070 20.0 0240261 16.0 32.0 22.2 -46.4 12.6 6.3 0.077 20.0 0240265 72.0 79.2 67.5 18.0 39.0 25.6 -47.2 14.9 6.4 0.064 22.5 0240264 62.0 64.0 31.9 16.0 34.0 23.1 -48.0 12.4 6.4 0.089 25.0 0240266 65.0 70.8 52.3 21.0 42.5 32.4 -34.9 17.9 6.5 0.064 20.0 0240268 53.4 52.6 54.7 16.5 . 37.0 26.2 -37.1 14.9 6.3 0.063 17.5 0240363 78.6 74.1 47.1 14.5 41.0 22.9 -51.0 12.8 0240365 12.0 29.0 21.5 -51.4 11.8 6.2 0.077 22.5 0240366 75.2 98.9 59.3 12.5 28.5 23.3 -52.0 15.0 6.4 0:089 25.0 0240368 68.0 75.2 24.8 13.0 29.0 21.6 -52.0 11.3 6.2 0.070 25.0 0250263 13.0 37.0 23.4 -51.4 11.8 6.5 0.064 15.8 0250261 87.8 100.0 55.7 10.5 30.0 18.9 -59.8 7.1 6.0 0.090 14.0 0250264 98.0 130.0 50.5 16.0 46.5 28.9 -42.8 16.2 6.3 0.070 15.8 0250266 78.0 89.0 62.9 11.0 31.0 22.6 -53.7 10.9 6.4 0.058 18.5 0250363 10.0 40.0 21.9 -54.9 10.3 6.5 0.064 15.8 0250361 81.0 90.9 65.7 10.5 38.0 18.4 -61.2 8.5 6.2 0.077 15.8 0250364 82.6 90.4 69.3 18.0 51.0 30.4 -40.6 18.0 6:2 0.070 18.5 0250366 85.2 86.6 81.9 17.0 44.5 26.1 r47.9 13.9 6.4 0.064 19.8 0250463 13.0 34.0 22.9 r52.8 12.5 6.4 0.070 10.4 0250462 13.0 35.0 21.8 -55.0 12.1 6.2 0.090 10.4 0250464 11.5 39.5 26.6 -42.8 13.7 6.4 0.077 10.4 0250467 - 10.5 39.5 21.2 -57.8 11.9 6.4 0.064 10.4 0250563 11.0 35.5 25.7 -46.9 14.3 6.4 0.058 12.2 TABLE.30. (Continued) Design % % % Code Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T.A. ‘ Vit. C 02505&1 13.0 33.0 21.9 -53.3 11.0 6.3 0.058 11.3 0250564 15.0 44.5 24.4 -46.3 14.7 6.3 0.064 12.2- 0250567 . 14.0 38.0 25.7 -44.3 14.6 6.4 0.058 12.2 0210733 12.5 40.0 29.8 -16.2 14.8 • 0210735 17.0 43.0 33.0 -16.5 16.8 0210833 11.5 38.0 30.6 -15.8 15.5 0210835 16.0' 39.0 31.6 -16.9 14.3 0210433 15.0 44.0 30.8 -17.3 15.0 6.4 0.083 20.0 0210435 16.0 43.5 31.6 -17.8 16.3 6.4 0.090 18.3 0210533 • 10.0 35.0 28.4 -19.7 13.5 6.2 0.109 16.7 0210535 13.0 39.0 28.3 -18.0 13.2 5.9 0.109 16.7 0210633 15.0 43.0 31.6 -17.6 16.4 6.3 0.115 20.0 0210635 16.0 45.5 32.3 -17.9 17.4 6.2 0.102 16.7 0210133 * 14.5 41.0 31.9 -18.9 16.0 6.2 0.096. 19.1 0210135 09.5 . 25.5 25.9 -17.4 11.1 6.2 0.090 17.6 0210233 11.5 34.0 28.8 -20.0 14.2 6.2 0.077 14.7 0210235 12.0 31.5 25.6 -17.0 11.3 6:2 0.077 14.7 0210333 11.5 38.5 28.4 -17.7 14.5 ' 6.4 0.070 14.7 0210335 14.0 35.5 30.8 -17.7 14.4 6.2 0.070 * 14.7 0220533 . 14.0 37.0 23.0 -47.4 12.0 6.2 0.077 20.0 0220535 14.5 40.0 22.3 -49.1 12.7 6.3 0.070 20.0 0220633 • 15,0 37.0 24.8 -41.0 09.2 6.3 0.096 20.0 0220635 16.0 42.0 27.0 -40.5 14.5 6.3 0.083 16.7 0220733 13.0 34.0 21.0 -50.2 09.3 6.3 •0.070 16.7 0220735 13.0 - 32.5 20.2 -52.6 15.1 6.3 0.070 16.7 0220833 09.0 35.0 17.8 -59.1 06.1 6.2 0.064 15.0 0220835 10.0 34.0 21.4 -50.1 11.0 6.3 0.070 16.7 TABLE 30 (Continued) Design % % % Code ■ Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. C 0220133 09.5 33.0 19.0 -58.0 16.5 6.2 0.134 18.0 0220135 12.5 34.0 20.5 -51.1 11.9 6.1 0.128 19.7 0220233 11.5 41.0 22.5 -51.4 10.1 6.1 0.070 17.9 0220333 17.5 ' 47.5 27.0 -46.8 ■15.2 6.0 0.096 17.9 0220335 13.0 40.0 21.5 -53.5 11.7 6.3 0.077 16.1 0220433 11.5 . 30.5 18.9 -61.6 07.8 6.2 0.102 17.9 0230933 11.5 40.0 25.5 -44.9 12.5 6.5 0.045 15.0 0231033 - 14.5 34.0 22.5 -49.3 11.8 6.1 0.070 13.3 0231133 08.5 1 28,5 18.6 -61.0 10.3 6.5 0.045 10.0 0240933 11.5 37.0 23.8 -45.5 06 ..9 6.3 , 0.057 11.1 0241033 15.0 24.2 24.2 -43.7 12.6 6.0 0.051 11.1 0241133 12.0 39.0 20.6 -54.6 11.8 6.3 0.064 08.3 TABLE 31 Results of all the Analysis for the Canned Samples After . One Day Storage Design % % % Code Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SBNCSB Total a b R G L a b . pH T.A. Vit. C 1310733 28.0 • 26.5 28.4 - 3.4 12.2 6.0 0.070 14.9 ■ 1310735 41.0 36.0 33.5 - 3.1 17.3 5.9 0.070 11.6 1310735 3.8 4.5 0.8 45.0 38.0 34.1 - 3.1 18.6 5.9 0.077 17:2 1310765 0.0 0.0 0.8 37.0 30.5 29.6 - 4.0 15.3 5.8 0.070 21.8 1310833 28.0 29.0 . 28.1 - 4.8 14.2 5.9 0.070 11.7 1310835 29.0 '28.5 30.2 - 3.2 15.3 5.9 0.083 11.7 1310863 -5.3 3.5 12.8 42.0 36.0 34.1 - 2.3 18.2 5.9 0.077 12.5 1310865 0.9 1.8 0.7 39.0 34.0 31.5 - 1.2 16.9 5.8 0.064 12.5 1310433 39.0 38.0 33.0 - 3.3 • 17.4 6.0 0.058 7.3 1310435 37.5 31.0 32.1 - 4.1 16.8 6.0 0.077 7.3 1310463 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 37.0 34.1 - 2.9 18.0 5.7 0.077 8.8 1310563 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.0 . 28.0 29.0 - 3.7 15.7 5.9 0.064 8.8 1310565 0.0 O.'O 0.0 36.5 28.5 32.3 - 3.0 17.4 5.9 0.051 8.8 1310633 43.0 35.0 34.9 - 2.2 17.6 6.0 0.077 7.4 1310635 35.0 29.0 33.1- - 3.7 16.2 6.0 0.064 .8.8 1310163 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 35.5 32.2 - 1.1 15.4 5.6 0.083 9.9 1310165 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 27 iO 28.8 - 0.5 13.3 5.9 0.083 9.9 1310263 2.3 11.7 9.1 37.5 40.0 34.7 - 0.6 17.7 6.0 0.064 ' 8.3 1310265 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 33.0 31.7 - 0.3 16.3 6.1 0.058 8.3 1310363 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 32.5 31.6 - 0.6 16.8 5.9 0.077 6.6 1310365 36.0 33.5 32.5 - 0.9 18.0 6.1 0.064 8.3 1310533 30.0 26.5 22.3 -26.4 9.5 5.8 0.067 8.9" 1310535 28.5 26.0 19.7 -32.1 9.4 5.9 0.058 8.9 1310563 2.2 k.k 0.0 32.5 30.0 23.0 -24.2 12.7 5.9 0.066 10.7 1310633 46.5 34.5 28.7 -19.6 14.1 5.9 0.058 7.1 TABLE 31 (Continued) Design % % % Code Ret. Ret. • Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T. A. Vit.. C •1310635 49.0 35.0 29.5 -16.2 16.4 5.7 0.083 10.7 1310663 51.0 38.0 31.9 -15.1 17.1 5.9 0.064 10.7 1310665 47.0 34.5 29.8 -16.8 17.3 5.8 0.090 8.9 1310735 29.0 26.0 21.4 -30.0 12.0 6.0 0.058 8.9 1310763 6.5 5.0 8.5 43.0 39.0 29.3 -16.9 17.1 5.8 0.083 8.9 1310765 34.5 31.5 23.7 -25.0 13.0 5.8 0.064 10.7 1310863 41.0 37.5 26.1 -21.7 14.9 5.7 0.128 7.1 1330362 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.5 28.5 26.9 -19.5 16.1 5.7 0.070 . 12.5 1330367 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 23.0 19.6 -35.1 9.8 6.0 0.057 12.5 1340963 34.5 28.0 23.3 -24.1 11.4 5.9 0.064 12.5 1340965 16.5 17.5 15.7 45.0 32.0 24.5' -25.8 13.3 6.0 0.070 15.0 1341063 38.5 26.0 24.2 -24.7 10.2 6.1 0.083 15.0 1341065 38.0 30.0 26.4 -22.3 12.5 6.0 0.070 15.0 1341067 34.5 26.0 25.1 -24.4 15.1 5.9, 0.077 12.5 1341165 41.0 30.0 29.4 -19.1 16.4 6.0 0.064 12.5 1350361 41.5 34.5 27.5 -21.3 16.5 5.9 0.051 4.4 1450361 35.0 28.5 24.9 -24.5 13.7 6.3 0.102 5.2 1350366 39.0 33.5 26.2 -21.5 14.8 5.9 0.045 4.4 1450366 33.0 31.0 23.5 -28.3 13.0 6.3 0.128 5.2 1350463 44.0 . 38.0 30.1 -15.7 16.5 6.0 0.058 7.3 1450463 11.5 2.9 34,0 33.0 32.0 26.1 -23.5 15.9 6.9 0.147 8.4 1350462 43.0 35.0 30.1 -16.5 18.7 6.0 0.070 7.8 1450462 24.5 27.0 21.8 -26.8 11.4 6.9 0.154 5.6' 1350464 41.0 • 27.0 26.3 -20.6 16.9 6.0 0.070 6.1 1450464 32.0 24.0 22.5 -30.1 14.1 6.9 0.147 7.8 1350467 41.5 33.5 . 28.5 -27.2 28.1 6.0 0.064 6.7 TABLE 31 (Continued) Design % % % Code Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Total a b R G L a b PH T.A. Vit. C 1450467 33.0 28.0 25.4 -25.8 16.0 6.9 0.154 7.8 1350563 32.0 • 24.0 20.8 -30.8 10.1 6.0 0.064 5.6 1450563 22.0 19.5 16.8 -44.8 9.7 6.9 0.154 7.8 1350564 32.0 26.5 25.1 -19.1 13.0 6.0 0.064 7.8 1450561 23.2 23.9 20.8 -32.4 11.7 6.9 0.154 7.8 1350561 30.0 27.0 20.9 -26.7 10.7 6.0 0.064 8.9 1450564 23.8 ‘24.0 18.8 -28.4 8.8 7.0 0.134 8.9 1350567 34.0 29.0 24.3 -22.5 14.0 5.7 0.070 7.8 1450567 23.0 25.0 20.3 -29.8 9.8 6.9 0.141 8.9 1450263 11.5 32.0 21.0 -51.2 • 10.7 6.9 0.141 8.9 1310865 37.0 33.5 27.1 -23.5 12.7 5.7 0.096 8.9. 1320133 32.0 28.5 23.3 -22.3 12.1 6.0 0.058 12.9 1320135 41.0 34.5 29.0 -16.1 17.2 6.0 0.077 12.9 1320163 0.0 0.0' 0.0 40.0 33.0 26.1 -19.6 15.8 6.0 0.077 • 11.3 1320165 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 30.0 24.5' -21.4 14.1 6.0 0.077 11.3 1320233 35.0 30.0 26.8- -18.8 16.3 6.0 . 0.058 9.7 1320263 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 • 37.0 31.6 -14.1 18.5 6.0 0.058 9.7 1320265 2.5 5.6 0.0 44.0 36.5 30.5 -14.4 18.8 ' 5.9 0.070 9.7 1320333 37.0 28.0 27.6 -18.0 14.3 5.7 0.077 ' 9.7 1320336 39.0- 33.5 28.5 -16.0 18.0 6.Q 0.058 9.7 1320365 40.0 35.0 30.1 -15.0 19.2 5.9 0.051 8.1 1320433 . 42.0 36.0 29.6 -16.6 17.6 6.0 0.064 9.7 1320435 32.0 28.0 ' 24.3 -21.4 14.4 6.0 0.070 9 . 7 ’ 1320463 6.9 5.6 9.2 44.5 40.0 31.6 -14.3 19.2 5.9 0.064 9.7 1320465 1.3 3.7 11.2 43.5 37.0 28.3 -16.7 17.3 6.0 0.067 9.7 130 1330933 25.5 18.0 15.3 -50.1 1.3 6.1 0.045 7.1 1330963 3.8 3.7 3.9 33.0 24.5 23.4 -26.5 12.0 5.9 0.057 8.9 t TABLE 31 (Continued) Design % % % Code Ret. Ret. . Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T. A. Vit. i •1330965 6.7 . 11.8 0.0 33.0 24.0 24.2 -25.0 9.3 6.0 0.057 10.7 1331033 29.0 23.5 19.6 -34.2 9.8 5.6 0.074 7.1 1331063 14.9 16.1 14.7 42.0 30.0 25.9 -20.8 11.8 5.9 0.064 7.1 1331065 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 20.5 21.7 -29.4 8.8 5.9 0.051 8.9 1331133 25.5 18.5 17.4 -40.1 7.9 6.1 0.045 8.9 1331163 11.7 16.4 37.9 35.5 27.5 24.2 -28.7 14.3 6.0 0.045 10.7 1331165 4.9 5.7 29.6 34.5 32.5 27.5 -20.8 15.4 5.9 0.057 10.7 1330433 38.0 29.0 22.9 -27.5 . 10.9 5.8 0.057 5.5 1330463 - 42.5 32.0 29.6 -16.9 16.9 5.8 0.057 4.2 1330462 35.0 26.0 23.0 -25.8 13.2 5.5 0.070 5.7 1330461 51.0 48.5 31.0- -15.6 17.9 5.8 0.064 5.5 1330533 25.0 17.0 19.3 -33.4 9.4 5.6 0.064 6.9 1330563 32.0 26.5 21.9 -27.0 15.1 5.7 0.077 5.5 1330562 28.0 17.0 18.3 -32.6 9.2 5.7 0.077 6.9 1330561 33.0 27.0 21.8 -26.0 11.3 5.8 0.083 8.3 TABLE 32 Results of all the Analyses for the Canned Samples After Three Month's Storage Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Score R G L a . b • PH T.A. Vit. C 3310763 13 40.0 32.5 30.6 -0.1 16.6 5.7 0.087 6.6- 3310765 13 39.0 . 32.1 31.2 +2.4 16.8 5.8 0.086 ‘ ’ 6.7 3310863 13 39.9 32.4 33.3 -0.6 17.3 5.7 0.090 10.0 3310865 13 40.0 33.0 32.3 +0.1 17.1 5.7 0.090 8.0 3310463 13 47,0 37.9 33.5 +0.5 19.0 5.7 0.099 5.6 3310465 13 43.0 35.0 33.5 40.5 18.8 5.7 0.090 5.2 3310563 15 47.0 39.1 37.2 +1.8 20.4 5.8 0.038 4.9 3310565 15 36.1 30.0 33.6 +2.6 17.6 5.8 0.038 4.7 3310663 13 44.9 40.5 38.0 +3.8 1-9.5 5.8 0.096 5.4 3310665 13 51.0 41.9 37.1 +4.1 19.4 5.7 0.093 6.3 3310163 13 38.1 31.8 34.2 +1.6 18.1 5.7 0.093 10.7 3310165 13 34.1 28.3 30.8 40.2 15.7 5.7 0.083 7.0 3310263 13 • 39.5 36.2 34.6 +4.5 18.4 5.9 0.064 7.8 3310265 13 39.0 34.0 32.7 40.3 17.2 5.8 0.077 7.8 3310363 13 37.0 33.0 30.2 40.4 16.7 . 5.9 0.077 8.7 3310365 13 38.8 32.0 29.4 +1.5 15.0 5.8 • 0.083 8.9 3310563 13 39.0 • 34.0 ■ 34.5 +1.7 18.8 5.9 0.083 8.6 3310565 14 . 36.1 30.9 30.8 +1.2 16.4 5.8 0.083 8.0 3310663 10 49.1 40.0 36.5 -1.2 19.2 ' 5.9 0.077 7.2 3310665 9 50.9 41.5 34.7 40.6 18.8 5.9 0.083 8.0 3310763 12 40.9 34.0 33.8 +1.0 18.6 5.8 0.090 6.9 3310765 13 39.0 32.5 31.6 -0.1 ' 17.4 5.9 0.070 8.9 3310863 12 43.0 37.8 33.6 -0.4 18.6 5.8 0.108 7.9 3310865 11 41.9 33.9 - 35.4 +0.1 19.5 5.8 0.077 7.6 3320163 12 40.8 33.9 33.7 +2.7 17.5 5.5. 0.064 10.3 3320165 12 38.0 31.0 30.6 40.6 16.0 5.9 0.121 10.0 TABLE 32 (Continued) Design . Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Score R 6 L a b PH T.A. Vit. C 3320263 11 37.0 43.0 35.3 -0.3 19.0 5.9 0.102 8.2 3320265 10 42.0 35.0 34.6 +4.1 18.5 5.5 0.121 1.7 3320336 10 42.0 36.0 34.5 +3.0 18.9 5.7 0.115 1.2 3320365 10 36.9 30.9 32.7 +2.9 18.3 • 5.7 0.102 1.3 3320463 10 42.8 36.0 35.8 +1.0 20.0 5.7 0.128 1.4 3320465 10 45.0 38.0 35.6 +1.8 19.5 5.8 0.108 1.4 3330963 11 42.0 34.0 • 31.8 -0.5 17.0 5.7 0.102 1.4 3330965 11 40.0 32.9 32.7 -1.9 16.9 5.7 0.096 1.4 3331063 . 10 44.0 33.3 32.1 -0.6 15.5 5.8 0.108 •1.4 3331065 10 45.0 34.1 32.9 -1.0 16.4 5.8 0.090 1.4 3331163 11 •43.0 .37.0 33.7 +2.2 17.7 ' 5.9 0.077 1.4 3331165 10 39.8 34.0 34.6 +1.6 19.5 5.8 0.083 1.2 3330463 10 40.0 35.0 33.2 +0.7 18.1 5.9 0.108 1.4 3330462 10 44.1 38.9 32.8 40.6 17.8 5.8 0.096 1.3 3330461 10 44.0 35.0 34.7 40.8 19.5 5.9 0.090 1.2 3330563 10 39.0 31.0 32.5 +1.5 17.5 6.0 0.102 1.6 3330562 11 40.0 33.0 32.5 +1.7 17.0 5.9 0.089 1.2 3330567 3330561 12 39.0 31.0 32.5 +1.5 17.5 6.0 0.096 1.4 3330362 11 41.0 32.8 33.2 +3.3 17.8 5.2 0.390 11.8 3330367 11 44.2 36.1 33.4 +2.0 18.7 5.2 • 0.314 7.9 3340963 10 . 43.0 34.8 32.3 -0.6 17.1 5.9 0.033 0.83 3340965 11 43.0 34.0 38.0 - +3.0 19.9 5.9 0.077 0.74 3341063 10 45.1 35.2 34.2 +3.3 17.2 5.7 0.083 0.99 3341065 10 45.9 36.1 , 34.0 +1.7 16.9 5.7 0.102 0.93 3341067 10 43.0 35.0 38.0 +1.3 21.1 6.0 0.134 0.76 3341163 11 45.0 37.0 36.9 40.3 20.1 5.9 0.064 0.81 TABLE 32 (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Score R G L a b PH T.A. Vit. ( .3341165 10 46.0 37.0 37.1 +3.5 20.4 5.2 0.390 10.5 3340263 ■10 43.0 35.0 34.8 +1.5 18.4 5.3 0.323 10.5 3340262 11 40.0 33.5 32.0 +2.9 17.4 5.2 0.339 7.9 3340267 11 41.0 34.5 38.7 +1.0 19.9 5.3 0.333 5.3 3340261 11 41.2 34.8 33.2 +2.0 17.0 5.2 0.326 7.9 3340265 11 45.0 36.8 36.8 +1.0 19.9 5.3 0.346 7.9 3340264 10 41.7 35.0 35.3 +2.5 18.8 5.2 0.340 9.2 3340266 10 40.0 34.0 34.3 +2.9 17.9 5.3 0.320 10.5 3340268 10 42.8 36.0 33.5 +2.8 15.9 5.3 0.333 ' 9.9 3340363 10 44.2 35.0 36.4 +1.5 20.1 5.3 0.358 7.9 3340365 11 44.1 35.0 34.2 +1.6 18.7 5.3 0.333 7.9 3340366 11 44.0 34.7 35.9 +1.3 19.6 5.3 0.333 10.3 3340368 11 47.0 37.0 35.2 40.9 19.3 5.2 0.352 10.5 3350263 11 45.0 35.0 . 34.6 40.4 18.4 5.3 0.320 7.9 3450263 11 48.0 38.0 34.9 40.8 18.4 5.4 0.409 7.9 3350261 11 40.0 33.0 35.1 40.7 19.1 5.2 0.368 10.9 3450261 11 43.1 37.1 35.7 +1.1 18.5 5.3 0.442 11.2 3350264 10 40.1 32.0 35.0 +1.4 18.7 5.1 0.377 11.6 3450264 10 38.2 31.5 32.8 +1.6 17.2 5.4 0.435 10.5 3350266 10 44.0 36.9 34.4 40.9 18.7 5.1 0.320 9.3 3450266 11 42.0 35.0 35.4 +0.3 18.7 5.3 • 0.409 10.5 3350363 11 42.1 34.2 33.9 +0.6 18.7 5.3 0.320 6.6 3450363 11 41.9 34.0 31.3 +1.7 17.4 5.3 0.409 9.1 3350361 10 43.0 34.9 34.0 -40.4 19.2 5.2 0.288 6.8 3450361 11 46.3 37.1 31.8 42.3 16.4 5.5 0.403 8.3 3350364 11 39.0 31.0 34.6 40.9 19.1 5.1 0.358 10.5 3450364 11 39.5 31.0 35.3 +1.1 18.9 5.4 0.377 7.9 TABLE 32 (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Score R G L a b PH T.A. Vit. 1 3350366 11 42.0 34.8 . 33.4 +1.2' 19.0 5.2 0.326 7.7 3450366 11 44.0 36.0 34.5 +1.4 18.9 5.4 0.419 8.3 3350463 11 40.0 34.0 34.4 +1.2 18.4 5.2 0.339 • • 7.8 3450463 10 38.0 ' 31.3 32.3 +1.2 17.5 5.7 0.467 11.5 3350462 10 29.3 33.0 35.3 +3.6 19.2 5.6 0.469 11.0 3450462 11 40.0 32.0 32.5 +1.9 17.9 5.2 0.400 10.0 3350464 10 40.0 32.9 • 31.5 +1.5 17.1 5.4 0.450 10.0 3450464 3350467 10 43.0 36.0 32.9 +0.5 18.0 5.3 0.320 8.6 3450467 . , 3350563 9 34.0 30.0 29.5 +1.5 15.3 5.3 0.301 9.5 3450563 9. 30.0 25.0 27.8 +1.6 14.8 5.6 0.467 9.7 3350564 11 32.1 27.0 29.7 +1.0 16.4 5.8 0.046 8.3 3450561 10 - 28.0 24.0 27.5 +1.7 13.8 6.9 0.160 8.8 3350561 10 29.5 24.1 28.1 +1.8 13.4 5.9 0.070 6.8 3450564 10 29.0 23.2 26.7 +0.6 15.3 7.0 0.173 9.8 3350567 11 23.0 . 27.0 28.7- +2.6 15.3 5.7 • 0.088 10.0 3450567 10 30.0 24.0 29.6 +1.6 15.6 5.8 0.086 10.0 3310733 14 37.0 32.0 ' 32.7 -0.1 18.2 5.8 0.086 7.3 3310735 14 34.0 28.1 30.8 -0.2 17.0 5.8 0.067 7.6 3310833 14 36.9 31.0 30.0 +0.2 16.7 5.8 * 0.077 9.2 3310835 14 30.1 26.1 32.0 -0.7 ' 17.5 5.8 0.930 9.1 3310433 15 * 43.9 35.0 35.3 +0.1 • 18.3 5.7 0.115 5.5 3310435 14 43.0 36.3 34.7 +0.2 19.0 5.7 0.090 5.3 3310533 15 33.0 29.9 „ 30.3 -0.9 17.9 5.7 0.090 5.9 3310535 15 31.5 26.9 31.6 40.5 17.1 5.8 0.090 5.4 3310633 13 38.1 31.0 31.4 +3.7 16.5 5.8 0.080 6.2 TABLE 32 (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Score R 6 L a b pH T. A. Vit. C 3310635 13 44.1 37.1 . 37.8 +3.4 20.7 ' 5.8 0.090 5.2 3310133 14 32.1 29.8 29.5 +1.7 14.9 5.8 0.077 9.4. 3310135 14 34.0 31.0 32.0 +0.1 16.2 5.9 0.070 ■ 9.8 3310233 14 34.0 ‘ 29.8 32.8 +2.5 17.1 5.7 0.090 7.2 3310235 13 34.0 30.0 30.5 +1.9 16.3 5.9 0.070 9.2 3310333 3310335 13 33.5 30.1 29.8 +1.5 15.8 5.9 0.064 7.5 3310533 14 36.0 30.0 34.0 +2.9 18.5 5.8 0.083 8.4 3310535 14 32.8 29.1 33.9 +2.1 18.7 5.8 0.083 7.5 3310633 10 49.0 39.0 33.5 +0.2 18.4 5.8 0.077 9.3 3310635 11 41.5 43.0 37.7 -0.7 20.3 5.9 0.070 8.4 3310733 14 36.0 33.0 32.1 -0.1 . 17.5 5.9 0.064 7.‘2 3310735 14 32.0 27.1 34.7 +0.1 18.3 5.9 0.070 7.5 3310833 11 • 37.9 33.0 32.1 -0.7 17.7 5.9 0.064 7.5 3310835 12 38.1- 33.9 34.5 -0.7 18.6 5.9 0.512 8.4 3320133 14 38.0 32.9 32.0 -0.6 16.4 5.7 0.096 9.6 3320135 13 32.9 29.0 31.7 40.4 16.5 5.9 ■ 0.128 -9.1 3320233 12 36.0 31.2 33.9 +0.4 18.5 6.0 0.090 9.6 3320333 11 38.0 33.0 33.0 +2.4 18.1 5.8 0.083 1.4 3320433 12 40.5 34.0 34.6 +1.6 19.0 5.8 0.096 1.7 3320435 13 36.1 32.0 32.6 +1.7 17.7 5.9 * 0.077 1.2 3330933 14 34.0 28.0 30.1 +2.4 ' 16.3 5.7 0.102 1.4 3331033 11 ■ 37.0 ' 30.1 32.7 -2.2 16.4 5.8 0.096 0.9 3331133 13 34.8 27.0 30.6 -1.6 16.5 5.9 0.064 0.9 3330433 11 37.1 32.0 , 32.6 +1.1 18.1 6.0 0.064 1.2 3330533 14 30.0 26.0 29.7 +1.8 15.8 5.9 0.096 1.2 . 136 TABLE 33 Results of all the Analyses for the Frozen Samples After One Day Storage Design % % % Code Ret. Ret/ Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. .C 1510733 13.0 43.0 30.7 -15.9 14.2 6.1 0.115 21.7 1510763 12.0 34.0 28.2 -14.4 11.5 6.2 0.100 20.0 1510833 12.0 32.0 30.7 -12.8 10.9 6.2 0.091 22.0 1510865 12.0 33.5 28.9 -13.5 10.6 6.3 0.090 25.0 1510565 57.4 67.9 45.3 12.0 30.0 27.0 -16.4 12.0 6.2 0.080 14.0 1510363 68.4 82.6 50.1 17.0 41.5 33.3 -11.9 15.4 6.3 0.070 13.3 1510365 15.0 38.5 30.1 -13.9 15.8 6.4 0.083 13.3 1520763 58.3 82.0 35.3 13.0 34.5 23.3 -40.6 13.2 6.3 0.090 16.1 1520765 15.0 33.5 24.5 -39.0 09.4 6.1 0.096 16.1 1520165 21.0 43.0 28.7 -26.8 15.6- 6.0 0.122 • 13.0 1520263 16.0 41.0 27.7 -30.9 14.3 6.4 0.070 16.2 1520333 16.0 49.5 28.3 -34.4 18.0 6.4 0.064 12.9 1520363 47.4 42.9 48.0 18.0 49.0 30.2 -32.4 17.6 6.4 0.064 12.9 1520365 41.1 43.4 38.5 18.0 42.0 25.7 -34.5 14.4 6.3 0.058 11.3 1520465 16.0 44.0 26.5 -36.5 15.6 6.4 0.051 9.7 1520463 17.0 44.5 28.0 -29.5 15.0 6.4 0.070 12.9 1530963 54.4 71.6 33.6 16.0 40.0 25.1 -44.8 14.0 6.3 0.083 14.3 1530965 59.3 89.1 23.5 13.0 30.0 17.1 -58.1 09.1 6.2 0.083 14.3 1531063 28.1 9.3 59.4 20.0 36.0 26.7 -35.9 16.0 6.4 0.077 14.3 1531065 66.2 104.7 37.2 19.0 35.5 25.7 -37.7 15.0 6.1 0.077 10.7 1531163 58.0 76.9 33.7 15.5 41.0 25.2 -42.1 13.3 6.4 0.083 14.3 1531165 52.2 62.9 37.0 16.5 33.0 25.5 -40.8 14.7 6.3 0.083 12.5 1530433 7.0 22.0 13.3 -83:8 4.9 6.3 0.064 9.7 1530463 58.3 71.1 37.6 12.0 36.0 21.3 -51.9 12.2 6.4 0.083 11.1 1530462 66.7 70.0 61.6 16.0 32.0 23.9 -40.0 9.8 5.9 0.115 8.3 1530461 46.4 59.9 12.8 14.0 33.0 24.0 -42.4 13.1 6.2 0.077 11.1 TABLE 33 { (Continued) Design % 7o % Code Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b PH T.A. Vit.' C 1530533 10.0 30.0 15.2 -65.5 6.7 6.2 0.057 8.3 1530563 62.6 75.4 39.5 9.0 25.0 11.3 -86.1 5.7 6.4 0.077 8.3 1530562 67.1 70.7 51.7 15.0 40.0 24.4 -40.9 14.8 6.1 0.089 9.7 1530561 69.1 99.4 33.0 12.0 33.0 18.1 -55.6 9.2 • 6.0 0.096 11.1 1530362 63.7 73.3 56.8 13.0 32.0 24.6 -39.9 15.4 6.4 0.070 15.0 1530367 14.0 33.0' 22.1 -43.5 14.0 6.3 0.089 15.0 1540933 10.0 •29.0 17.9 -58.0 10.7 6.4 0.070 15.0 1540963 14.5 31.0 22.0 -45.7 11.4 6.0 0.077 15.0 1540933 21.0 37.0 27.4 -36.2 17.6 6.5 0.070 17.5 1541063 22.5 39.5 30.4 -30.6 15.1 6.4 0.064 . 25.0 1541065 - . 19.0 36.5 28.4 -31.3 16.7 ‘ 6.4 0.-063 24.0 1541061 49.3 57.1 41.6 18.0 28.0 23.4 -38.8 10.1 6.3 0.070 22.5 1541163 48.0 71.7 30.6 14.0 31.5 22.9 -39.7 12.4 6.4 0.071 22.0 1541165 18.0 33.5 25.2 -37.8 10.8 6.4 0.064 25.0 1540263 13.0 36.0 18.5 -59.2 8.4 6.3 0.083 13.2 1540262 25.0 41.0 25.7 -38.1 9.5 6.1 0.083 11.9 1540267 20.0 35.0 25.5 -38.4 10.3 6.4 0.077 10.6 1540261 20.0 33.5 24.5 -42.7 12.1 6.5 0.064 10.6 1540265 15.0 40.0 24.0 -43.0 12.1 6.3 0.096 13.2 1540264 13.5 34.0 18.8 -57.0 9.5 6.4 0.094 13.0 1530361 63.8 50.9 46.1 12.0 33.5 • 21.0 -48.0 12.1 6.3 • 0.090 12.0 1540266 17.0 36.0 21.1 -49.6 11.6 6.6 0.058 11.9 1540268 17.5 39.5 21.2 -47.8 10.6 6.5 0.064 13.2 1540363 15.5 38.0 21.5 -51.1 12.2 6.5 0.077 15.8 1540365 16.0 .44.0 24.1 -43.8 14.9 6.4 0.064 14.5 1540366 . 10.0 31.0 17.3 -61.3 10.0 6.1 0.083 13.2 1540368 17.0 44.0 24.0 -45.4 14.3 6.4 0.058 14.5 ' TABLE 33 (Continued) Design % % Code Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Total a b R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. C 1550263 71.2 88.4 54.7 17.0 . 44.0 26.7 -40.7 13.7 6.4 0.064 7.8 1550261 78.0 85.0 67.8 14.0 38.5 ■22.4 -46.7 11.2 6.1 0.064 8.7 1550264 66.0 83.2 49.4 16.5 43.5 26.3 -43.0 15.1 6.1 0.064 8.7 1550266 67.0 73.2 69.4 15.0 38.0 23.0 -47.6 9.6 6.3 0.051 7.8. 1550361 67.7 83.2 63.9 16.0 39.5 21.8 -49.2 13.3 6.2 0.070 7.8 1550364 69.1 86.1 33.6 15.5 38.0 21.3 -55.4 11.8 6.2 0.064 6.9 1550366 70.2 82.0 53.8 17.5 • 43.5 25.8 -44.0 14.0 6.3 0.064 8.7 1550463 77.1 . 84.0 65.8 17.0 48.0 28.9 -51.4 25.4 6.1 0.058 7.3 1550462 67.0 15.2 43.0 25.3 -42.6 15.7 6.4 0.077 11.2 1550464 67.0 87.1 . 48.8 16.9 45.8 27.5 -41.2 . 16.6 6.4 0.064 8.9 1550467 76.0 90.6 50.6 16.0 47.0 25.8 -45.4 16.6 6.5 0.070 13.4 1550563 77.3. 93.8 56.8 18.0 . 36.0 23.8 -44.9 14.0 6.4 0.077 12.3 1550561 91.1 116.0 52.7 14.0 37.0 22.3 -46.0 13.3 6.4 0.058 13.4 1550564 75.8 93-. 3 52.8 10.5 34.2 22.8 -47.9 13.8 6.4 0.077 10.1 1550567 84.7 131.1 65.1 12.2 39.0 24.1 -46.3 15.0 6.5 0.051 13.4 TABLE 34 Results of all the Analyses for the Frozen Samples After Three Month's Storage Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SFHCSB Score R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. C •3510733 19 15.3 38.0 31.4 -12.0 16.1 5.6 0.070 18.7 3510735 17 16.5 39.0 31.6 -11.5 16.5 6.4 0.070 12.5 3510763 18 16.0 43.5 35.5 -14.0 18.0 5.6 0.180 18.6 3510765 18 18.0 42.0 32.2 -12.1 17.0 6.0 0.110 18.1 3510833 19 14.0 39.0 28.9 -12.7 14.1 6.3 0.096 24.5 3510835 18 14.0 34.0 29.0 -11.0 15.2 6.2 0.100 26.0 3510865 16 18.0 39.0 32.0 -8.7 17.6 6.0 0.089 16.3 3510433 3510435 3510463 17 18.0 44.0 34.4 -11.*8 18.4 6.4 0.077 18.4 3510533 18 13.0 37.0 30.0 -13.0 15.8 6.4 0.064 12.2 3510535 18 13.0 34.0 29.0 -9.3 15.0 6.3 0.077 15.5 3510563 17 14.0 39.0 .29.3 -12.2 14.9 6.4 0.070 16.4 3510565 18 14.0 37.0 30.0 -10.9 16.0 6.3 0.077 14.6 3510633 16 18.0 . 41.0 32.4 -12.6 17.3 6.2 0.075 12.9 3510635 17 17.0 41.0 33.0 -10.3 17.6 6.2 0.090 14.3 3510663 16 21.0 48.0 33.0 -11.7 18.2 63 0.088 11.7 3510665 14 26.0 45.0 35.1 -8.0 19.0 6.2 0.070 7.2 3510233 18 17.0 43.0 31.2 -13.5 15.7 6.4 0.077 21.2 3510235 17 17.0 41.0 32.0 -12.4 16.9 6.4 0.077 20.1 3510265 16 19.0 47.0 35.2 -13.4 18.0 6.5 • 0.070 20.1 3510263 17 18.5 47.0 35.3 -12.7 18.1 6.4 0.077 16.7 3510335 17 15.0 41.0 31.3 ' -13.5 . 16.4 6.4 0.077 18.8 3510363 19 15.0 41.5 32.7 -13.0 18.0 6.4 0.070 21.6 3510365 17 15.0 44.0 32.1 -11.9 17.5 6.3 0.083 13.4 3510163 18 17.0 43.0 . 30.1 -12.2 15.0 6.3 0.110 16.4 3510165 18 16.0 38.0 31.1 -10.4 16.3 6.2 0.110 14.7 TABLE 34 (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Score ' R G L a b PH T.A. 'Vit. C 3510133 18 14.0 37.0 30.0 -10.7 14.4 6.1 0.120 19.1 3510135 18 15.0 37.5 ■ 30.5 -12.2 15.1 6.3 0.074 14.3 3510563 19 17.0 40.0 31.6 -11.3 17.2 6.3 0.108 17.7 3510535 20 16.0 39.0 30.1 -10.0 15.7 6.3 0.083 22.1 3510565 19 15.5 38.0 29.2 -9.6 14.7 6.2 0.090 18.6 3510633 17 .19.0 46.5 34.0 -12.9 18.9 6.2 0.090 22.1 3510663 16 21.0 48.0 33.1 -12.1 19.9 6.3 0.108 21.1 3510635 17 21.0 45.0 34.7 -10.6 19.0 6.2 0.102 15.7 3510665 15 26.0 52.0 35.7 -12.5 19.6 6.1 0.134 • 10.4 3510865 16 20.0 44;0 31.0 -12.3 16.7 6.0 0.085 11.4 3510835 18 16.5 41.0 30.2 -13.1 16.1 6.2 0.077 13.8 3510863 17 22.0 46.0 32.3 -13.6 17.1 6.3 0.070 13.5 3510833 18 18.0 43.0 ' 32.3 -15.7 17.6 6.3 0.064 17.4 3510763 18 17.0 41.0 30.7 -11.8 16.7 6.4 0.070 12.6 3510765 17 18.0 40.0 31.6 -10.6 17.4 6.3 0.096 13.6 3510733 18 15.0 39.0 31.7 -13.7 17.4 6.4 0.077 18.4 3510735 19 14.5 37.0 29.6 -12.0 15.1 6.0 0.128 11.9 3520163 17 17.0 39.0 29.5 -10.7 15.5 6.4 0.070 16.9 3520133 18 16.5 37.0 28.4 -9.6 14.1 6.2 0.090 17.8 3520165 16 20.0 35.0 30.6 -9.5 16.0 6.3 0.070 11.9 3520135 17 17.0 36.0 29.3 -9.5 14.7 6.3 . 0.070 18.2 3520233 18 17.0 40.0 31.7 -12.4 15.9 6.4 0.077 14.6 3520263 17 22.0 46'. 0 35.6 • -12.9 18.4 6.4 0.074 13.1 3520265 16 21.0 43.0 34.5 -11.4 18.5 6.3 0.077 8.8 3520336 17 17.0 39.0 32.5 -12.3 17.9 6.5 0.064 7.4 3520365 15 19.0 41.0 ' 32.2 -10.2 18.6 6.4 0.061 9.9 3520333 18 16.0 47.0 32.6 -14.2 17.3 6.4 0.061 15.7 TABLE 34 (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB ' Score R G L a b PH T.A. Vit. C 3520465 15 24.0 42.0 34.7 -9.5 18.9 6.3 0.089 11.7 3520463 15 19.0 45.0 32.4 -11.1 17.1 6.4 0.083 18.2 3520433 18 17.0 42.0 32.1 -12.9 16.5 6.5 0.067 20.3 3520435 3530933 18 13.0 38.0 30.8 -11.5 16.7 . 6.3 0.070 14.7 3530963 16 17.0 43.5 32.7 -13.7 18.7 6.4 0.083 19.1 3530965 14 20.0 40.0 31.8 -9.7 17.5 6.3 0.089 13.1 3531033 17 18.0 42.0 30.6 -10.6 16.6 6.3 0.064 15.5 3531063 13 22.0 45.0 30.9 -11.7 16.8 6.4 0.089 20.2 3531065 • 14 21.0 42.0 31.5 -10.2 17.1 6.2 0.096 17.5 3531133 18 16.0 37.0 31.1 -13.7 17.0 . 6.5 0.054 13.9 3531163 16 ' 16.0 - 39.0 33.4 -14.0 19.1 6.5 0.070 15.9 3531165 15 18.0 44.0 33.9 -11.5 19.0 5.9 0.140 10.6 3530533 19 16.1 33.9 27.9 -11.0 15.0 6.5 0.120 16.2 3530563 18 15.9 30.3 30.3 -12.3 16.3 6.5 0.096 16.5 3530561 16 19.0 37.0 29.9 -8.9 15.9 6.4 0.102 12.9 3530562 16 18.5 36.0 30.6 -9.9 17.2 6.3 0.134 14.1 3530567 18 16.0 35.0 29.6 -11.8 15.5 6.3 0.120 13.6 3530433 18 15.0 38.0 32.1 -13.8 17.8 6.3 0.102 : 14.3 3530463 16 19.0 44.1 32.0 -12.0 17.4 6.5 0.077 13.6 3530462 15 21.0 42.9 32.3 -10.1 18.0 6.5 0.077 14.1 3530461 16 20.0 43.0 34.0 -11.4 19.0 6.5 0.077 18.8 3540933 17 15.0 . 37.0 29.9 -11.9 16.3 6.3 0.083 13.8 3540963 15 20.0 41.5 33.3 -12.6 18.8 6.6 0.064 10.1 3541033 16 18.0 40.0 31.1 -10.3 17.0 6.2 0.083 20.1 3541063 13 22.0 43.0 '■ 31.7 -9.2 17.3 6.1 0.096 23.6 3541133 16 -16.0 39.0 31.9 -11.3 17.0 6.0 0.083 12.7 ■ TABLE 34 (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Score R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. C 3540965 16 19.0 41.0 31.6 -10.7 18.1 ' 6.5 0.090 19,1 3541065 13 24.0 42.0 34.4 -8.4 18.8 5.9 0.014 23.9 3541163 15 20.0 45.0 32.6 -10.9 19.0 6.5 0.057 ■ - 18.2 3541067 19 20.0 ’ 41.0 31.6 -7.2 17.1 15.2 3541165 19 18.0 41.0 31.2 -10.1 17.1 19.5 3530362 17 18.5 40.0 32.3 -8.4 17.8 20.4 3530361 17 18.0 41.5 32.3 -11.5 18.7 18.4 3530367 16 17.3 34.2 31.2 -13.0 18.1 16.1 3540263 15 20.0 45.6 32.1 -13.8 17.4 18.7 3540363 17 18.5 43.5 30.8 -13.2 17.6 19.5 3540261 15 . 21.3 42.0 35.5 -10.2 20.1 17.2 3540262 14 24.0 45.0 34.0 -11.5 18.6 13;5 3540267 14 23.0 43.5 32.4 -10.4 17.5 16.9 3540264 15 21.0 40.0 31.2 -10.0 16.0 3540268 13 18.5, 39.0 34.1 -9.5 19.0 6.6 0.057 17.9 3540266 15 20.0 43.0 33.8 -11.2 19.1 6.4 0.077 18.2 3540366 16 18.5 43.0 32.0 -13.1 18.4 6.5 0.083 •19.9 3540368 16 20.5 41.0 32.4 -11.7 18.2 6.5 0.077 21.7 3540365 3540265 15 22.0 42.0 33.5 -10.8 18.5 6.5 0.077 18.2 3550263 19 16.0 42.5 33.1 -13.4 19.1 6.4 • 0.077 21.1 3550363 18 . 16.0 43.0 32.4 -11.7 • 17.8 6.5 0.057 17.6 3550264 16 • 18.0 45.5 34.2 -11.9. 18.6 6.3 0.070 15.0 3550266 17 18.0 42.0 34.6 -11.2 18.5 6.4 0.064 16.2 3550261 18 17.0 44.0 33.7 -11.9 18.1 6.3 0.134 16.2 3550364 18 15.5 43.0 31.8 -12.2 18.0 6.3 0.077 8.7 TABLE 34 (Continued) Design % % % Code Visual Ret.. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Score Total a b R G L a . b pH T.A. Vit. C '3550366■ 17 16.0 45.0 34.0 -12.8 19.5 6.5 0.070 12.4 3550365 18 17.0 45.0 30.0 -12.8 16.9 6.5 0.051 14.7 3550463 17 19.0 49.0 34.1 -13.1 19.1 6.4 0.057 19.6 3550563 20 14.0 39.0 30.5 -12.5 16.7 6.4 0.070 21.9 3550467 16 18.0 45.0 35.0 -13.5 19.7 6.5 0.064 16.7 3550464 15 18.0 46.0 32.7 -12.8 18.3 6.6 0.057 12.4 3550462 15 19.5 48.0 33.6 -12.6 19.0 6.4 0.070 19.4 3550567 18 14.0 37.0 28.6 -12.1 15.5 6.6 0.057 ., 19.1 3550561 18 15.0 37.0 30.7 -13.9 17.0 6.5 0.070 11.1 3550564 18 66.0 70.7 50.0 14.0 41.0 29.6 -12.6 16.5 6.6 0.057 17.5 145 TABLE 35 Results of all the Analyses for the Frozen Samples After Five Month’s Storage Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Score R G L a b 5520533 19. 14.0 35.0 30.3 -10.5 16.6 5520565 16 17.0 34.5 25.9 -7.5 13.3 5520665 14 24.0 52.0 36.4 -10.8 20.3 5520835 5520763 18 15.0 37.0 30.7 -12.1 17.1 5520765 16 18.0 40.5 32.5 -10.8 17.6 5520133 is 15.5 38.0 29.7 -10.7 15.0 5520363 17 17.5 44.0 32.7 -11.6 18.1 5520465 14 25.0 41.5 35.3 -8.8 ■ 18.4 5520463 16 20.0 45.0 33.1 -12.5 19.6 5520433 5520435 16 21.0 40.0 33.7 -10.8 18.9 5530933 19 15.0 40.0 31.8 -13.9 18.8 5530963 17 18.0 44.0 32.8 -14.0 18.8 5530965 14 22.0 41.0 32.3 -9.5 18.2 5531033 5531063 16 20.0 39.0 34.9 -10.2 19.8 5531065 14 24.0 42.0 33.7 -9.7 18.7 5531133 18 14.0 35.0 30.6 -12,4 16.4 5531163 17 17.0 42.0 32.1 -13.3 18.1 5531165 15 19,5 39.0 34.4 -11.0 18.1 5530533 18 13.0 32.0 29.5 -11.4 16.3 5530563 17 17.0 39.0 30.8 -11.2 17.6 5530561 16 17.0 36.0 29.7 -9.1 15.6 5530562 16 18.0 36.0 30.4 -9.6 16.9 5530567 18 16.0 38.5 28.9 -11.4 15.8 5530433 19 15.5 40.5 30.2 -11.9 15.3 5530463 16 19.0 57.0 31.6 -11.2 16.9 5530462 18 23.0 44.0 33.4 -9.9 18.1 5530461 ‘ 15 22.0 45.0 33.3 -10.3 18.2 5540933 5540963 15 20.0 41.5 35.5 -11.9 20.0 5541033 17 18.0 39.5 32.4 -11.9 18.3 5541063 15 25.0 46.0 32.1 -9.1 17.8 5541133 18 14.0 37.0 36.6 -11.2 17.5 5540965 15 22.0 38.5 32.5 -8.8 17.8 5541065 14 25.5 40.0 34.5 -7.3 18.9 5541163 16 19.0 41.0 . 34.6 -11.8 19.8 5541061 16 20.5 42.0 33.4 -11.0 18.8 5541165 17 17.5 44.0 32.9 -12.6 19.1 5530362 18 . 19.0 44.0 32.0 -9.9 17.9 146 TABLE 35 (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Score R G ' L a b 5530361 18 16.0 42.0 32.8 -11.7 18.3 5530367 18 18.0 41.0 33.4 -12.0 18.6 5540263 16 21.0 46.0 33.5 -11.9 18.4 5540363 16 20.5 43.0 34.6 -11.1 18.9 5540261 18 18.0 46.0 33.6 -14.0 19.0 5540262 5540267 15 21.0 40.5 32.6 . - 8.2 17.6 5540264 14 21.0 51.3 33.7 - 7.8 18.3 5540268 15 22.0 42.0 34.7 - 9.7 17.7 5540266 16 19.0 43.0 33.4 -11.1 18.1 5540366 15 20.0 44.0 33.0 -12.0 18.5 5540368 15 21.0 50.0 33.5 -10.3 20.0 5540365 15 18.0 46.0 33.2 -10.4 19.0 5540265 5550263 18 19.0 51.0 33.1 -14.6 17.9 5550363 17 16.0 49.0 34.6 -14.7 19.9 5550264 18 18.0 46.0 34.4 -11.7 18.1 5550266 17 19.0 45.0 35.0 -12.4 18.9 5550261 18 17.5 45.0 32.9 -13.2 17.4 5550364 18 15.0 41.0 32.6 -14.4. 18.7 5550366 17 17.5 ’ 46.0 34.1 -13.0 19.4 5550361 19 16.0 49.0 32.6 -13.1 18.2 5550463 . ' 17 17.0 44.0 32.7 -11.5 17.6 5550563 20 14.0 37.0 29.7 -12.8 16.0 5550467 16 19.0 46.0 35.6 -13.4 20.8 5550464 16 17.0. 43.0 35.0 -13.9 20.2 5550462 17 18.0 47.0 34.9 -13.1 19.7 5550567 20 13.0 40.0 28.9 -12.1 15.5 5550561 20 17.0 37.0 31.2 -13.9 16.5 5550564 19 15.0 35.0 31.0 -12.3 17.1 147 TABLE 36 . Results of all the Analyses for the Frozen Samples After Nine Month’s Storage Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Score R G L a b 9510735 18 15.5 35.0 29.1 -10.6 15.1 9510763 18 15.5 39.0 29.9 -11.1 16.3 9510765 18 ' 17.0 38.0 28.2 -9.6 14.6 9510833 19 14.0 34.0 28.4 -10.8 14.7 9510835 18 14.5 33.0 27.8 -9.8 14.1 9510865 16 19.0 36.0 28.2 -7.4 14.9 9510463 17 19.0 42.0- 27.7 -7.9 15.8 9510465 16 20.0 41.0 29.0 -7.3 15.7 9510533 17 18.0 35.0 27.2 -8.3 13.3 9510535 18 16.5 35.0 27.5 -11.2 14.7 9510563 18 ‘ 14.5 38.0 27.6 -10.7 . 14.9 9510565 18 13.0 32.0 27.1 -9.7 13.9 9510635 17 16.0 39.0 29.0 -11.0 15.4 9510663 17 21.0 42.0 30.6 -10.3 16.7 9510665 16 22.5 42.0 30.6 -8.0 16.1 9510233 18 18.5 41.0 30.6 . -11.5 15.5 9510235 18 15.5 37.0 29.1 -10.8 14.7 9510265 17 19.0 44.0 29.7 -9.4 14.8 9510263 17 19.0 44.5 29.3 -10.7 15.1 ( 9510335 18 16.0 • 39.0 27.9 -9.8 14.4 9510363 18 15.0 41.0 28.1 -10.7 15.2 9510165 16 • 19.5 37.5 28.4 -8.9 . 13.4 9510133 18 13.0 35.0 27.9 -9.7 12.8 9510135 17 1.6.0 35.0 26.3 -8.4 12.7 9520563 17 15.0 36.0 28.1 -9.5 15.1 9520535 18 13.5 32.0 27.0 -10.1 14.2 9520633 17 20.0 44.0 29.3 -9.0 15.8 9520663 17 23.0 45.0 31.7 -9.9 17,5 9520635 17 21.0 41.5 30.1 -8.5 16.1 9520863 15 22.0 36.0 27.8 -6.9 .14.6 9520835 9520863 17 18.0 38.0 28.5 -8.5 15.0 9520733 18 17.0 41.0 29.9 -10.5 15.3 9520735 18 15.0 36.0 27.3 -10.1 13.9 9520163 . 16 . 16.5 37.0 27.6 -9.2 13.4 9520165 15 21.5 38.0 29.6 -6.7 13.8 9520135 17 16.0 36.5 28.6 -9.3 13.7 9520233 17 17.0 37.0 27.1 -7.6 13.0 9520263 17 20.0 44.0 30.2 -10.8 16.0 9520265 15 21.0 41.0 29.4 -8.0 14.5 148 TABLE 36 (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Score R G L a b ' 9520365 15 19.0 36.5 28.1 -7.0 ‘ 14.9 9520333 17 15.5 38.0 28.4 -11.3 15.7 9570533 19 13,0 35.0 ■ 26.2 -10.3 13.6 9520665 16 • 23.0 41.0 31.0 -9.5 16.7 9520763 17 17.5 32.0 29.5 -10.1 15.7 9520*765 . 17 ' 16.0 36.0 26.9 -9.0 14.2 9520363 18 16.0 45.0 29.9 -10.9 16.3 9520465 15 22.0 39.0. 29.7 -6.5 15.3 9530933 18 16.0 36.0 28.8 -11.6 15.6 9530963 18 17.0 36.5 28.5 -11.9 ' 15.7 9530965 15 19.5 31.0 29.6 -8.4 15.9 9531063 16 ■ 24.0 38.0 29.1 -8.4 15.5 9531065 15 26.0 39.0 29.9 -8.3 16.6 9531133 19 18.0 38.0 28.9 ' -11.5. 15.6 9531163 18 16.0 43.0 29.9 -12.9 16.8 9531165 16 19.0 38.0 29.4 -9.8 16.7 9530533 20 16.0 31.0 25.8 -10.2 14.0 9530563 19 14.0 33.5 27.2 '-10.1 14.9 9530561 17 17.0 34.5 26.4 -8.2 13.7 9530562 16 18.0 33.5 27.5 -7.4 15.1 9530463 17 20.0 . 42.0 28.5 -9.2 15.5 9530462 16 21.0 41.0 32.1 -10.8 17.0 9530461 16 . 20.0 41.0 27.8 -8.3 14.9 9540963 16 18.0 38.0 28.4 -8.9 15.7 9541063 15 22.0 41.0 29.5 -8.5 16.3 9540965 15 25.0 37.5 30.6 -6.7 16.9 9541065 16 21.0 37.0 29.0 -7.1 15.4 9541163 17 20.0 43.0 28.3 -9.0 15.5 9541067 16 20.0 41.0 28.3 -8.3 15.7 9541165 17 16.0 41.0. 29.2 -11,2 16.8 9530362 18 18.0 37.0 .29.1 -9.0 15.5 9530361 18 18.0 39.0 28.2 -9.8 16.3 9530367 17 15.0 40.0 28.8 -10.4 16.8 9550426 16 21.0 45.0 29.3 -10.8 16.2 9540363 16 24.0 48.0 30.5 -11.1 16.8 9540261 15 26.0 45.0 29.0 -8.7 15.8 9540267 15 22.0 44.0 22.1 -8.1 14.1 9540264 15 24.0 46.0 29.3 -7.6 15.5 9540266 16 20.0 38.0 31.2 -9.5 16.8 ' 9540366 17 17.0 37.0 29.4 -9.9 17.1 9540368 149 TABLE 36 (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Score R G L a b 9540365 16 22.0 36.0 29.7 -7.7 ‘ 16.3 9540265 16 20.0 40.0 28.5 -8.9 14.9 9550263 18 15.0 43.0 29.0 -13.1 14.9 9550363 18 15.0 42.0 28.4 -12.5 15.3 9550264 17 17.0 39.0 29.1 -10.5 15.3 9550266 16 17.0 40.0 30.1 -10.9 15.4 9550261 18 17.0 42.0 29.4 -11.1 15.6 9550364 18 16.0 43.0 29.5 -11.8 16.4 9550366 17 15.0 42.0 29.6 -12.4 16.4 9550361 . 9550463 17 18.0 47.0 31.0 -12.6 16.8 9550563 19 13.0 34.0 27.7 -10.7 15.0 9550467 18 16.0 42.0 31.1 -12.7 17.3 9550464 18 17.0 41.5 ' 30.2 -11.0 16.8 9550462 16 18.0 41.0 29.9 -11.3 • 16.1 9550567 19 18.0 37.0 27.5 -12.4 15.1 9550564 20 17.0 34.0 27.0 -10.1 14.7 9550561 19 15.0 32.0 28.4 -10.5 15.2 9540268 16 20.0 43.0 29.5 -9.4 15.6 TABLE 37 Results of all the Analyses for the, Ereeze-Dried Samples After Three Month's Storage Design % % % Code Visual Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Score Total a h R GL a b pH T.A. Vit. ( 3610763 16 19.0 37.0 32.3 -7.0 . 16.1 6.2 0.120 31.4 3610863 . 17 28.0 40.0 30.6 -3.8 14.9 6.2 0.170 35.7 3610535 17 21.0 36.0 30.7 -8.6 16.1 6.0 0.170 20.7 3610565 17 - 25.0 36.0 30.4 -7.8 15.7 6.1 0.190 22.5 3610635 17 26.0 46.0 34.3 -9.6 17.7 6.1 0.190 21.4 3610265 17 23.0 42.0 35.1 -9.5 17.0 6.0 0.180 26.5 3610263 17 24.0 41.0 35.9 -10.1 17.7 6.0 0.140 25.5 3610335 18 19.0 36.0 32.6 -10.5 16.8 6.1 0.130 19.0 3610363 18 20.0 42.0 32.7 -11.7 17.4 6.2 0.110 25.8 3610365 18 23.0 40.0 32.5 -10.7 16.9 6.2 0.120 19.0 3610163 17 21.0 42.0 33.1 -11.3 16.7 6.0 0.160 26.8 3610165 16 22.0 36.0 34.1 -8.3 18.4 6.1 0.160 26.5 3610133 18 17.0 31.0 29.8 -9.6 14.1 6.3 0.130 24.1 3610135 18 16.0 30.0 29.9 -10.8 13.6 6.2 0.150 26.8 3620563 18 18.0 . 34.0 31.0 -9.5 15.9 6.3 0.110 21.1 3620565 18 20.0 35.0 32.9 -10.1 16.5 6.3 0.100 . 19.0 3620633 3620663 17 29.0 . 48.0 40.1 -10.3 21.7 ' 6.0 0.160 22.4 3620665 14 32.0 39.0 35.1 -4.2 18.9 5.9 0.210’ 18.4 3620865 14 • 28.0 36.0 34.3 -5.4 17.9 5.9 0.160 17.3 3620863 17 22.0 39.0 33.3 ■ -9.4 17.2 6.2 0.120 23.5 3620763 18 . 18.0 36.0 32.8 -10.3 16.8 6.4 0.110 18.7 3620765 15 21.0 36.0 34.0 -7.3 17.3 6.0 0.160 17.7 3620733 18 16.0 36.0 30.1 -9.4 15.8 6.2 0.120 15.6 3620163 16 2 1 . 0 ‘ 36.0 30.2 -7.2 16.8 6.3 0.150 22.1 3620265 15 24.0 37.0 33.1 -7.6 17.4 6.1 0.190 21.1 3620363 18 19.0 37.0 31.9 -9.8 17.5 6.4 0.140 19.3 TABLE 37 (Continued) Design ■ 7. % % Code Visual Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Score Total a b R G L a b pH T.A. Vit. C 3620365 16 25.0 39.0 36.1 -8.1 19.4 6.1 0.150 17.0 3620465 14 35.0 44.0 36.1 -4.4 18.5 6.1 0.200 28.2 3620463 17 ' 22.0 43.0 32.4 -9.9 17.2 6.4 0.180 24.3 3630963 18 * 22.0 39.0 32.8 -10.3 18.1 6.3 0.110 17.3 3630965 17 22.0 34.0 31.1 -6.8 16.8 6.0 0.120 10.9 3631033 3631063 16 26.0 43.0 34.1 -10.3 17.6 6.3 0.080 11.9 3631065 15 31.0 44.0 36.1 -6.8 18.4 6.1 0.090 15.6 3631163 18 22.0 44.0 33.6 -12.0 19.1 6.4 0.080 19.0 3631165 14 24.0 39.0 36.8 -9,9 19.6 6.1 0.080 16.6 3630563 16 20.0 40.0 32.6 -10.8 17.3 6.2 0.110 7.5 3630463 16 25.0 45.0 35.0 -9.9 19.3 6.2 0.210 13.2 3640963 15 24.0 46.0 35.0 -12.9 19.6 6.4 0.070 15.9 3641063 14 29.0 46.0 36.4 -9.5 19.2 6.3 0.060 12.9 3640965 15 23.0 40.0 32.4 -9.2 18.2 6.4 0.100 13.6 3641065 13 34.0 48.0 39.8 -7.4 19.5 6.1 0.090 10.8 3641163 15 30.0 49.0 34.0 -10.5' * 18.3 6.0 0.080 \ 9.8 3641061 15 24.0 37.0 34.3 -6.8 17.9 . 6.1 0.110 21.8 3641165 16 23.0 • 44.0 36.5 -12.8 20.5 6.2 0.040. 14.6 3630362 18 29.0 47.0 34.5 -10.7 18.8 6.4 0.070 17.7 3630361 17 ' 21.0 40.0 35..1 -12.4 19.9 6.3 0.080 15.9 3630367 17 25.0 44.0 36.7 -10.2 20.2 6.3 0.090 15.6 3640263 16 • 25.0 43.0 34.7 . -8.5 19.3 6.3 0.190 20*3 3640363 17 23.0 45.0 35.7 -10.4 20.6 6.4 0.090 16.4 3640261 16 23.0 41.0 33.9 -8.5 18.9 6.1 ' 0.170 15.7 3640262 15 27.0 43.0 38.2 -8.1 20.9 6.0 0.150 17.1 151 TABLE 37 (Continued) Design % % % Code Visual Ret. Ret. Ret. Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPNCSB Score Total * a b R G L a b pH T.A. ’ Vit. C 3640267 15 25.0 42.0 33.7 -8.2 18.2 6.3 0.080 18.7 3640264 15 26.0 36.0 34.4 -8.4 18.6 6.0 0.090 19.0 3640366 17 21.0 40.0 34.8 -13.1 19.4 6.2 0.120 17.0 3640368 16 26.0 47.0 33.8 -9.1 19.4 6.2 0.090 18.7 3640365 15 24.0 43.0 3 3.6 -9.4 18.5 6.2 0.070 16.4 3640265 13 26.0 40.0 33.4 -6.9 17.4 6.2 0.080 19.7 3650263 17 23.0 46.0 35.8 -11.5 19.2 6.4 0.130 15.4 • 3650363 18 19.5 41.0 36.7 -12.2 21.4 6.3 0.120 18.2 3650264 14 27.0 44.0 34.0 -9.6 18.4 6.1 0.130 • 16.8 3650266 14 23.0 42.0 35.8 -10.2 19.1 6.2 0.130 16.8 3650261 17 23.0 45.0 35.0 -9.6 18.2 6.1 0.160 16.8 3650364 12 19.0 39.0 31.6 -8.9 17.1 6.0 0.140 13.9 3650366 17 20.0 ■ 44.0 35.1 -14.9 20.3 6.1 0.140 19.7 3650361 17 19.0 41.0 34.1 -14.4 20.4 6.3 0.090 18.0 3650467 17 21.0 45.0 35.7 -12.2 . 19.4 6.3 0.120 19.4 3650464 13 20.0 36.0 32.5 -9.4 17.2 6.4 0.100 12.2 3650567 18 73.3 85.0 58.8 18.0 40.0 31.7 -12.8 17.8 6.4 0.080 24.8 3650561 19 60.1 63.1 54.8 19.0 38.0 30.5 -8.4 16.0 3650564 19 90.2 78.0 47.9 18.0 37.0 30.7 -10.1 17.6 m to 153 TABLE 38 Results of all the Analyses for the Freeze-Dried Samples After Nine Month's Storage Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron Hunter Hunter Hunter SPHCSB Score R G L a b 9610565 18 24.0 53.0 31.6 -11.7 17.0 9610633 16 28,0 48.0 34.1 -10.4 17.2 9610133 18 19.0 37.0 29.4 -9.6 15.9 9610163 16' 22.0 44.0 30.8 -11.2 15.5 9610165 16 22.0 41.0 29.9 -8.6 14.9 9610335 17 22.0 44.0 30.8 -11.3 16.3 9610265 17 23.0 52.0 31.2 -11.0 15.3 9610135 18 16.0 35.5 27.1 -8.3 12.9 9620563 18 16.0 34.5 26.8 -8.6 • 14.2 9620565 18 17.0 34.0 28.6 -8.3 15.1 9620663 16 26.0 45.0 32.7 -8.7 17.8 9620665 13 33,0 42.0 32.0 -1.7 17.3 9620865 15 25.0 40.0 ' 31.9 -8.7 17.4 9620863 17 20.0 38.5 29.9 -9.4 ■ 16.1 9620763 19 17,0 35.0 28.6 -8,9 15.6 9620765 16 22.0 37.0 30.0 -8.0 15.7 9620163 16 21.0 40.0 30.4 -8.8 16.3 9620265 15 25.0 41.0 33.1 -7.0 17.0 9620363 16 20.0 41.0 . 28.7 -10.0 15.1 9620365 15 22.0 39.0 30.0 -7.8 16.1 9620465 14 26.0 40.0 31.6 -6.1 16.2 9620463 16 22.0 43.0 29.9 -9.0 16.3 9620433 17 16.5 34.0 28.7 -9.6 15.2 9630963 17 21.0 47.0 30.8 -11.4 16.9 9630965 16 26.0 35.0 30.1 -4.4 16.4 9631063 17 29.0 43.0 31.3 -6.4 16.6 9631065 15 30.0 36.0 31.6 -4.1 16.3 9631163 18 21.0 41.0 29.0 -10.1 15.8 9631165 16 28.0 38.0 30.4 -8.8 16.1 9630563 18 20.0 38.0 29.5 -10.0 16.4 9630565 15 25.0 36.0 32.4 -7.2 15.6 9630463 16 23.0 38.0 29.1 -9.4 15.9 9630963 17 24.0 46.0 32.4 -10.9 17.4 9641063 16 29.0 44.5 31.5 -8.1 16.6 9640965 16 24.5 38.0 29.2 -7.7 16.2 9641163 17 25.0 43.0 50.6 -8.7 16.8 9641061 13 28.0 33.0 29.7 -4.2 18.4 9641165 17 24.0 45.0 . 31.1 -9.7 17.2 9630362 16 22.5 44.0 29.4 -9.8 17.0 9630365 17 23.0 50.0 32.3 -8.9 17.6 9640363 17 . 18.0 47.0 35.1 -13.4 19.0 154 TABLE 38 ' (Continued) Design Code Visual Agtron Agtron( Hunter Hunter Hunter’ SPHCSB Score R G L a b 9640262 14 24.0 55.0 31.2 -7.4 16.7 9640267 15 26.0 58.0 32.1 -7.7 17.2 9640264 16 26.5 45.0 . 34.0 -7.9 18.2 9640266 16 22.0 41.0 30.2 -7.7 16.4 9640366 17 23.0 51.0 29.8 -9.6 17.2 9640368 16 25.0 44.0 29.9 -9.3 16.3 9650263 16 23.0 46.0 32.4 -12.4 17.2 9650363 17 25.0 48.0 32.3 -12.6 18.3 9650264 16 24.0 48.0 33.1 -10.1 17.3 9650266 16 22.0 45.0 32.0 -10.6 17.2 9650261 16 20.0 45.0 30.7 -11.2 16.2 9650366' 17 21.0 45.0 30.1 -11.7 16.8 9650361 17 20.0 46.0 31.3 -10.1 17.2 9630367 16 24.0 43.0 33.2 -11.2 17.9 9650467 17 22.5 50.0 31.2 -11.7 16.8 9650567 18 16.0 39.0 27.9 -11.2 15.1 9650561 18 16.0 36.0 29.4 -11.3 16.0 9650564 18 16.0 41.0 28.2 -11.4 16.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Adams, H. W., and Yawger, E. S., "Enzyme Inactivation and Color of Peas," Food Technology, 15:314-317 (1961). 2. Anonymous. "Instructions for Hunterlab Color-Difference Meter Model D-25." Hunter Associates Laboratory; Inc., McLean, Virginia (1950). 3. Anonymous. "Instructions, Operation and Maintenance Manual for Agtron M-30." Magnuson Engineers, Inc., San Jose, California (1965). 4. Anonymous, "Instructions, Operation and Maintenance Manual for Agtron M-400." Magnuson Engineers, Inc., San Jose, California (1965). 5. Anonymous. The Almanac of Canning, Freezing, and Preserving Industries. The Canning Trade, Westminster, Maryland:187 (1968). 6. Anonymous. The Almanac of Canning, Freezing, and Preserving Industries. The Canning Trade, Westminster, Maryland:266 (1968). V 7. Aronoff, S., The Chemistry of Chlorophyll. Advances in Food Research, Volume IV, Academic Press,.Inc., New York:134-179 (1953). 8. Bendix, G., Henry, R., and Strodtz, N.,' "Preservation of Green Color in Canned Vegetables." U.S. Patent No. 2,589,037. Assigned to Continental Can Company (March 11, 1952). 9. Blair, J. S., "Color Stabilization of Green Vegetables." U.S. Patent No. 2,186,003. Assigned to American Can Company (January 9, 1940). 10. Blair, J. S., "Color Stabilization of Green Vegetables." U.S. Patent No. 2,189,774. Assigned to American Can Company (February 13, 1940). 11., Blair, J.. S., and Ayers, T. B., "Protection of Natural Green Pigment in the Canning of Peas." Industrial Engineering Chemistry, 35:85-95 (1943). V-;,::155.: ,:v 156 12. Brice, B. A., "The Measurement and Specification of Color." Color in Foods, A Symposium. Advisory Board on Quartermaster Research and Development Committee on Foods; National Academy of Science National Research Council:4-12 (1954). 13. Chichester, C. 0., "Comparison of Color-Measuring Instruments.11 Color in Foods, A Symposium. Advisory Board on Quartermaster Research and Development Committee on Foods; National Academy of Sciences National Research Council:84-91 (1954). 14. Clydesdale, F. M., and Francis, F. J., "Chlorophyll Changes in Thermally Processed Spinach as Influenced by Enzyme Conver sion and pH Adjustments." Food Technology, 22:793-796 (1968). 15. Cruess, W. V., Commercial Fruit and Vegetable Products. 4th Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York:232 (1958). 16. Davis, R. B., "The Effect of Processing Methods on the Color of Canned Tomato Juice." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University (1954). 17. Davis, R. B., and Gould, W. A., "A Proposed Method for Converting Hunter Color-Difference Meter Readings to Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Renotations Corrected for Munsell Value." Food Technology, 15:536-540 (1955). 18. Davis, R. B., and Gould, W. A., "The Effect of Processing Methods on the Color of Tomato Juice." Food Technology, 9:540-547 (1955). . ■ v 19. Decareau, R, V., Livingston, G. E., and Follers, C. R., "Color Changes in Strawberries." Food Technology, 10:125-128 (1956). 20. Dietrich, W.C., "Determination of the Conversion of Chlorophyll to Pheophytin." Food Technology, 12:428 (1958). 21. Dietrich, W. C., Lindquist, F. E., Bohart, G. S., Morris, H. J., and Nutting, M. 0., "Effect of Degree of Enzyme Inactivation and Storage Temperature on Quality Retention in Frozen Peas." Food Research, 20:480-491 (1955). 22. Dietrich, W. C., Lindquist, F. E., Miers,. J. C., Bohart, G. S., Neumann, H. J,, and Talburt, W. F.j "The Time-Temperature Tolerance of Frozen Foods. IV. Objective Tests to Measure Adverse Changes in Frozen Vegetables." Food Technology, 11:109-113 (1957). 157 23. Dietrich, W. C . , Nutting, M. 0., Olson, R. L., Lindquist; F. E., Boggs, -M. M., Bohart, G. S., Neumann, H. J., and Morris, H. J., "Time-Temperature Tolerance o£ Frozen Foods. XVI. Quality Retention of Frozen Green Snap Beans in Retail Packages." Food Technology, 13:136-145 (1959). 24. Dietrich, W, C . , Olson, R. L., Nutting, M. 0., Neumann, H. J., and Boggs, M. M., "Time-Temperature Tolerance of Frozen Foods. XVIII. Effect of Blanching Conditions on Color Stability of Frozen Beans." Food Technology, 13:258-261 (1959). 25. Eheart, M. S., and Gott, C., "Chlorophyll, Ascorbic Acid and pH Changes in Green Vegetables Cooked by Stirfry, Microwave and Conventional Methods and a Comparison of Chlorophyll Methods." Food Technology, 19:867-870 (1965). 26. Foda, Y. H., El-Waraki, A., and Zaid, M. A., "Effect of Blanching and Dehydration on the Conversion of Chlorophyll to Pheophytin in Green Beans." Food Technology, 22:233-234 (1968). 27. Foda, Y. H., El-Waraki, A., and Zaid, M. A., "Effect of Dehydra tion, Freeze-Drying and Packaging on the Quality of Green Beans." Food Technology, 21:1021-1024 (1967). 28. Gieseker, L., "Art of Preserving and Maintaining Color of Green Vegetables." U.S. Patent: No. 2,473,747 (June 21, 1949). 29. Gold, H. J., and Wechel, K. G., "Degradation of Chlorophyll to Pheophytin During Sterilization of Canned Green Peas by Heat." Food Technology, 13:281-286 (1959). 30. Gould, W. A., "Evaluating Tomato Grades with Color Instruments." Food Packer, 37:30-33 (1956). 31. Gould, W. A,, and Hildebolt, W. M., "Evaluation of Snap Bean Varieties for Processing." Research Progress Reports, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development- Center, Mimeograph Report No. 337:1-10. 32. Graves, M., Color Fundamentals. McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., New York:73 (1952). 33. Guerrant, N. B., and Dutcher, R. A., "Further Observations Con cerning the Relationship of Temperature of Blanching to Ascorbic Acid Retention in Green Beans." Archives of Biochemistry, 18:353-359 (1958). 34. Gupte, S. M., El-Bisi, H. M,, and Francis, F, J., ‘'Kinetics of Thermal Degradation of Chlorophyll in Spinach Puree." Journal Food Science, 29:379-382 (1964). • . V s . ' 158 35. Heinzc, P. H., Kanapaux, M. S., Wade, B, H., Grimball, P.*G., and Foster, R. L., ’’Ascorbic Acid Content of lliirty-Nine Varieties of Snap Beans." Food Research, 9:19-26 (1944). 36. Hildebolt, W. M.,- "The Influence of Processing Variables on Epi dermal Sloughing and Other Quality Attributes of Canned Snap Beans." Unpublished master thesis, The Ohio State University (1967). 37. Hoover, M. W., and Mason, D. 0., "Evaluation of Color in Sweet Potato Puree with the Hunter Color-Difference Meter." Food Technology, 15:299 (1961). 38. Hunter, R. S., "Photoelectric Tristimulus Colorimetry with Three •Filters." N.B.S. Circulation, 429:1-46 (1942). 39. Hunter, R. S., "Photoelectric Color-Difference Meter." Journal Optical Society American, 48:985-995 (1958). 40. Hurvich, L. M., and Jameson, D., "Human Color Perception." American Scientist, 57:143-166 (1969). 41. Johnson, B. C., Methods of Vitamin Determination. Bayers~~Publish- ing Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota:98-100 (1948). 42. Jones, I. 0., White, R. C., and Gibbs, E., "Influence of Blanching or Brining Treatments on the Firmation of Chlorophyllides, Pheophytins, and Pheophorbides in Green Plant Tissue." Journal of Food Science, 28:437-439 (1963). 43. Joslyn, M. A.,- and Mackinney, G., "The Rate of Conversion of Chlorophyll to Pheophytin." Journal of American. Chemistry Society, 60:1132-1136 (1938). 44. Judd, Deane B., Color in Business, Science and Industry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1952). 45. Kaczmarzyk, L. M., Fennema, 0., and Porvice, W. 0., "Changes Pro duced in Wisconsin Green Snap Beans by Blanching." Food Technology, 17:943-946 (1963). • 46. Kan, B., and deWinter, F., "Accelerating Freeze-Drying Through Improved Heat Transfer." Food Technology, 22:1269-1278 (1968). 47. Kramer, A., "Color Dimensions of Interest to the Consumer." Color in Foods, A Symposium. Advisory Board in Quartermaster Research and Development Committee on Foods; National Academy of Science National Research Council:39-48 (1954). 159 48. Kramer-, A., and Hart, W. J,, "Recommendations on Procedures for Determining Grades of Raw, Canned and Frozen Lima Beans," Food Technology, 8:55-62 (1954). 49. Kramer, A., and Twigg, B. A,, Fundamentals of Quality Control for the Food Industry. 2nd Edition, AVI Publishing Co., Connecticut (1966). 50. Lee, F. A., and Whitcomb, J., "Blanching of Vegetables for Freez ing, Effect of Different Types of Potable Water on Nutrients of Peas and Snap Beans." Food Research, 10:465-468 (1945). 51. McClelland, J. H., "Destructive and Non-destructive Color Evalu ation of Potato Chips." Unpublished Thesis, The Ohio State University (1967). 52.. McConnell, E. W,, "Factors Affecting the Skin of Processed Green Beans." Confidential Research Report, National Canners Association, San Francisco, California:205-256 (1956).’ 53. Mackinney, G., and Joslyn, M., "The Conversion of Chlorophyll to Phelphytin." Journal of American Chemistry Society, 62:231- 232 (1940). 54. Mackinney, G., and Joslyn, M., "Chlorophyll Pheophytin: Tempera ture Coefficient of the Rate of Pheophytin Formation." Journal of American Chemistry Society, 63:2530-2351 (1941). 55. Mackinney, G. J., and Weast, C. A., "Color Changes in Green Vege tables." Frozen-pack peas and String Beans. Industrial Engineering Chemistry, 32:392-395 (1940). 56. Magoon, C. A., and Culpepper, C. W,, "Scalding, Precooking, and Chilling as Preliminary Canning Operations." U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin:1265 (1924). 57. Malecki, G. J., "Preservation of Color in Canned Green Vegetables." U.S. Patent No. 2,827,382 (March 18, 1958). 58. Malecki,' G. J., "Preservation of Color in Canned Green Vegetables." U.S. Patent No. 2,906,628 (September 29, 1959). 59. Mavis, J. 0., "Color Measurement of Tomato Puree (Pulp)." Unpub lished Thesis, The Ohio State University (1953). 60. Melnich, D., Hockbey, M., and Oser, B. C., "Comparative Study of Steam and Hot Water Blanching." Food Research, 9:48-i53 (1944). a 160 61. Newhall, S. M., Nickerson, Dorothy, and Judd, D. B., "Final Report of the O.S.A. Subcommittee on the Spacing of the Munsell Colors." Journal American Optical Society, 33:385-418 (1943). 62. Nickerson, Dorothy, "The Specification of Color Tolerances." Textile Research, 6:505 (1936). 63. Nickerson, Dorothy, "Color Measurement and Its Application to the Grading of Agricultural Products." Miscellaneous Publication No. 580, U.S. Department of Agriculture:8 (1946). 64. Nickerson, D,, and Stultz, K. R., "Color Tolerance Specifications." Journal Optical Society American, 34:550-570 (1944). 65. Nickerson, J.T.R., Proctor, B. E., and Goldblith, S. H., "Ionizing Radiations in the Processing of Plant and Animal Products." Food Technology, 10:305-311•(1956). 66. Noble, I., and Gordon, J., "Ascorbic Acid and Color Retention in Green Beans Cooked by Different Methods." Journal American Dietetic Association, 32:119-122 (1956). 67. Noble, I., and Gordon, J., "Effect of Blanching Method on Ascorbic Acid and Color of Frozen Vegetables." Journal American Dietetic Association, 44:120-123 (1964). 68. Petering, H. G., Wolman, W . , and Hibbard, R. P., "Determination of Chlorophyll and Carotene in Plant Tissue." Industrial Engineering Chemistry, Analytical Edition, 12:148 (1940). 69. Porter, T., Wharton, M. A., Bennett, B. B., Brewer, W. D . , and Kelley, A. L., "Processed Green Beans." Journal American Dietetic Association, 22:1084-1087 (1946). 70. Retzer, J. L., Van Duyne, F. 0., Chase, J. T., and Simpson, J. I., "Effect of Steam and Hot Water Blanching on Ascorbic Acid Content of Snap Beans and Cauliflower." Food Research, 10: 518-524 (1945). 71. Schroder, W., and Royers, T., "Process of Canning Green Vege tables." U.S. Patent No. 2,390,468'(December 4, 1945). 72. Shah, J. N., and Worthington, 0. J.,. "Comparison of Several Methods and Instruments for Specifying the Color of Frozen Strawberries." Food Technology, 8:121-125 (1954). 73. Sistrunk, W. A., and Cain, R. F., "Chemical and Physical Changes in Green Beans During Preparation and Processing." Food' Technology:357-362 (1960). . O 161 74. Smith, T. J., and Huggins, R. A., "Tomato Classification by Spectrophotometry." Electronics, 25:92-94 (1952). 75. Staples, L. C., and Francis, F. J., "Colorimetry of Cranberry Cocktail by Wide Range Spectrophotometry." Food Technology, 22:77-80 (1968). 76. Stevenson, A., and Swantz, K., "Art of Preserving Green Foodstuffs and Maintaining the Color Thereof." U.S. Patent No. 2,305,643. Assigned to Continental Can Company (December 22, 1942). 77. Sweeney, J. P., and Martin, M. E., "Determination of Chlorophyll and Pheophytin in Broccoli by Various Procedures." Food Research, 23:635-647 (1958). 78. Sweeney, J. P., and Martin, M. E., "Stability of Chlorophyll in Vegetables as Affected by pH." Food Technology, 15:263-266 (1961). 79. Tan, C. T., and Francis, F. J., "Effect of Processing Temperature on Pigments and Color of Spinach." Journal of Food Science, 27:232-241 (1962). 80. Van Buren, J. P., "Adding Calcium to Snap Beans at Different Stages in Processing: Calcium Uptake and Texture of the Canned Product." Food Technology, 22:790-792 (1968). 81. Van Buren, J. P., Moyer, J. C., and Robisen, W. B., "Chlorophyll Losses in Blanched Snap Beans." Food Technology, 18:1204- 1206 (1964). 82. Van Buren, J. P., Moyer, J. C., and Robinsen, W. B., "Pectin Methylesteral in Snap Beans." Journal of Food Science, 27:291-294 (1962). 83. Van Buren, J. P., Moyer, J. C . , Wilson, D. E.', Robinsen, W. B., and Hand, D. B., "Influence of Blanching Conditions on Sloughing, Splitting, and Firmness of Canned Snap Beans." Food Technology, 14:233-236 (1960). 84. Vernon, L. P., "Spectrophotometric Determination of Chlorophylls and Pheophytins in Plant Extracts." Analytical Chemistry, 32:1144-1150 (1960). 85. Wagenknecht, A. C., Lee, F. A.-, and Boyle, F. P., "The Loss of Chlorophyll in Green Peas During Frozen Storage and Analysis." Food Research, 17:343-350 (1952). 162 86. Walker, I.G.C., "Color Deterioration in Frozen French Beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris)." Journal of Food Science, 29(4):383- 388 (1964). 87. Walker, G. C., "Color Deterioration in Frozen French Beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris). 2. The Effect of Blanching." Journal of Food Science, 29:389-392 (1964). 88. Westcott, D. E., Livingston, G. E., Esselen, W. B., and Fellers, C. R., "Nonenzymic Discoloration of Green Bean Puree." Food Research, 20:149-159 (1955). 89. White, R, C., Jones, J. 0., and Gibbs, E., "Determination of Chlorophylls, Chlorophyllides, Pheophytins, and Pheophorbides in Plant Materials." Journal Food Science, 28:431-436 (1963). 90. Wishnetsky, T., Livingston, G. E., Francis, F. J., and Fagerson, I. S., "Effects of Gamma Ray Irradiators on Color and Chloro phyll Retention in Green Beans and Broccoli." Food Tech nology, 13:352-357 (1959). 91. Younkin, S. G., "Color Measurement of Tomato Purees." Food Tech nology, 4:350-354 (1950).