Copjrrightsd by Ress Basil Davis 1955 THE EFFECT OF PROCESSING METHODS ON THE COLOR OF CANNED TOMATO JTJICE
DISSERTATION
Presented In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
REES BASIL DAVIS, B.S., M.S.
The Ohio State University
19511-
Adviser Department of Horticulture ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Throughout this study, the following people and organi
zations have materially aided the author. In acknowledge ment of their help and the value of their association, the author wishes to express his appreciation and thanks: To Dr. Wilbur A. Gould, who has given freely and will ingly of his time, interest, guidance and advice, and es pecially whose encouragement has been an inspiration to me
throughout my graduate work. To Dr. Howard D. Brown, to whom I am grateful for his guidance, advice and encouragement in this work. To Dr. Freeman S. Howlett, Chairman, Department of
Horticulture, for his suggestions in the writing of this dissertation, and particularly for his guidance and encour
agement throughout my graduate work. To Dr. R. C. Burrell, Department of Biochemistry, and Dr. H. H. Weiser, Department of Bacteriology, for their di
rection and interest while taking my graduate work. To Mr. James 0. Mavis, who has been helpful throughout this study due to our mutual interest in color measurement problems.
To the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station and the U.S. Department of Agriculture whose cooperation in fur nishing materials, equipment and supplies made this study possible, and to the many Individuals who have materially -iii- assisted in the harvesting, processing, analysis and color evaluation of tomatoes used in this study*
To my wife, whose constant interest, assistance, pa
tience and inspiration have been invaluable throughout my graduate study.
Rees Basil Davis TABLE OP CONTENTS Page
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... k A. Methodology...... k- 1. Measurement of Color ...... 5 Quantitative Pigment Measurement ...... 5
Color Matching ...... 6 Reflectance Measurements ...... 11 2. Interpretation of Color Data ...... 13
ICI System ...... 13 Conversion to Munsell Color System ..... l£
Color Indices ...... 19
B. Factors Affecting Color of Tomato Juice .... 20
Tomato Juice Industry ...... 20 Importance of Color In Tomato Juice ..... 21
Variety...... 23
Maturity -...... 2i{. Processing Methods ...... 21).
III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES...... 311- Variety, Growing and Harvesting ...... 3ij. Processing Methods ...... 36 Finished Product Grading ...... I4.I Preparation of Samples for Hunter Color Measurement ...... Raw Sample ...... ij.1 Canned Sample ...... I4.3
Objective Method of Measuring C o l o r 1)4
-v- Page Conversion of Hunter L, a^ and bj^ Readings to Munsell Renotations ..... 1\S
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF RESULTS ...... 52 A. "Cold-break” Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process ...... 52 B. "Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process ...... 66
C. MCold-breakn Two Extraction Process vs. MHot-breakM Plate-pasteurized Process ...... 79 D. "Cold-break” Plate-pasteurized Process vs. Conventional Process «...... 91 E. !,Hot-breakM Plate-pasteurized Process vs. Conventional Process ...... 100
F. Sampling of Raw Product for Color Measurement ...... 110
G. Effect of Use of Vibrating Screen on Tomato Juice Color ...... lid
H. Discussion of Munsell Hue and Value and Chroma Conversions ...... 128
V. SUMMARY...... 135 VI. CONCLUSIONS ...... li+O
VII. LITERATURE CITED ...... llj.2 VIII. APPENDIX I Detailed Tabulation of Color Data for Raw and Processed Tomato Juice Samples ...... lij.8
IX. AUTOBIOGRAPHY...... 158
-vi- LIST OP TABLES, DIAGRAMS, FIGURES AND PLOW SHEETS Page
Table I* Munsell Renotations for Certain Reds, and Yellow Reds at Values 2/, 3/» and \\/ in Terms of Hunter^ L, a^ and bj^ (from the Data of Younkin) ...... 17 Table II. U.S. Standards for Grades of Tomato Juice... 22 Table III. Composition of Lots of Raw Tomatoes for Processing of Canned Tomato Juice ...... 36 Table IV. Conversions of Hunter Color and Color- Difference Meter LoReadings to Munsell Values Renotations ...... 1+6
Table V. Munsell Hue Renotations of Samples for the "Cold-break" Two Extraction Plate-pasteur ized Process at Various Stages in Manu facture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 53 Table VI. Munsell Value Renotations of Samples for the ”Cold-breakM Two Extraction Plate- pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 58
Table VII. Munsell Chroma Renotations of Samples for the "Cold-break11 Two Extraction Plate- pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 63 Table VUE. Munsell Hue Renotations of Samples for the "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade .... 67 Table IX. Munsell Value Renotations of Samples for the wHot-breakM Plate-pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage Classified by Raw Prod uct Grade ...... 72
Table X., Munsell Chroma Renotations of Samples for the ”Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 76 -vii- Page
Table XI. Average Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Re- notations and USDA Color Scores of Samples for the "Cold-break" Two Extraction and the "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process es Taken of the Raw Product (Blender and Chopper Samples) and After One Month Storage for Lots of Varying Raw Product Composition ...... 31
Table XII. Average Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Re- notations and USDA Color Scores of Samples for the "Cold-break" Two Extraction and the "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process es Taken of the Raw Product (Blender and Chopper Samples) and After One Month Stor age for Lots Classified According to Munsell Hue Renotations ...... 8J4.
Table XHE. Average Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Re notations and USDA Color Scores of Samples for the "Cold-break" Two Extraction and the "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process Taken of the Raw Product (Blender and Chopper Samples) and After One Month Storage for Lots Classified According to USDA Color Score ...... 88 Table XIV. Proposed Munsell Color Specifications for Raw Product Tomato Color (Extracted Juice) to Predict USDA Grade for Color .... 90 Table XV. Proposed Color Specifications in Terms of Hunter L, a^ and br Readings for Raw Product Tomato Color (Extracted Juice) to Predict USDA Grade for Color ...... 91 Table XVI. Munsell Hue Renotations of Samples for the "Cold-break" Two Extraction Plate- pasteurized Process Compared to the "Cold-break" Two Extraction Conventional Retort Process Taken at Various Stages In Manufacture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 93 Table XVII. USDA Color Scores for the "Cold-break" Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized and Conventional Processes ...... 9l\.
-viii- Pas e Table XVHE. Munsell Value Renotations of Samples for the’’Cold-break" Two Extraction Plate- pasteurized Process Compared to the ’’Cold-break" Two Extraction Conventional Retort Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage Classi fied by Raw Product Grade ...... 96
Table XIX..» Munsell Chroma Renotations of Samples for the "Cold-break Two Extraction Plate- pasteurized Process Compared to the "Cold- break" Two Extraction Conventional Retort Process Taken at Various Stages in Manu facture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 98 Table XX. USDA Average Color Scores for the "Cold- break" Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized and Conventional Retort Processes After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage ...... 99 Table XXI. Munsell Hue Renotations of Samples for the "Hot-break" Pl^te-pasteurized Process and the "Hot-break Conventional Retort Process Taken at Various Stages in Manu facture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 101
Table XXII. Average USDA Color Scores for the "Hot- break" Plate-pasteurized and Conven tional Processes ...... 103 Table XXUC. Munsell Value denotations of Samples for the "Hot-break Plate-pasteurized Process and the "Hot-break" Conventional Hetort Process Taken at Various Stages in Manu facture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... IOJ4.
Table XXIV. Munsell Chroma Renotations of Samples for the "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process and the "Hot-break" Conventional Retort Process Taken at Various Stages in Manu facture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 106 Table XXV. USDA Average Color Scores for the "Hot- break" Plate-pasteurized and Conven tional Retort Processes After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage ...... 108 -ix- Page
Table XXVI. Munsell Hue Renotations of Samples for the ’’Cold-break11 One Extraction Plate- pasteurized Process Taken of a 10 Pound Sub-sample and at the Extractor and After Storage Classified by Raw Product ’ Grade ...... Ill Table XXVU. Munsell Value Renotations of Samples for the ’’Cold-break1’ One Extraction Plate- pasteurized Process Taken of a 10 Pound Sub-sample and at the Extractor and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 115 Table XXVUL Munsell Chroma Renotations of Samples for the ’’Cold-break One Extraction Plate- pasteurized Process Taken of a 10 Pound Sub-sample and at the Extractor and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ... 117 Table XXIX. Munsell Hue Renotations of Samples for the "Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process (Using Vibrating Screen) and the "Hot- break Conventional Retort Process (Using Vibrating Screen) as Compared to the "Hot- break" Plate-pasteurized Process and the "Hot-break" Conventional Retort Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade ...... 120 Table XXX. Average USDA Color Scores for the "Hot- break" Plate-pasteurized and Conventional Retort Processes Both With and Without Using the Vibrating Screen ...... 121 Table XXXI, Munsell Value Renotations of Samples for the "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process (Using Vibrating Screen) and the "Hot- break" Conventional Retort Process (Using Vibrating Screen) as Compared to the "Hot- break" Plate-pasteurized,Process and the "Hot-break" Conventional Retort Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage Classified by Raw Produet Grade ...... 123
-x- Page
Table XXXII. Munsell Chroma Renotations of Samples for the "Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process (TJslng Vibrating Screen) and the "Hot-break" Conventional Retort Process (Using Vibrating Screen) as Compared to the "Hot-break" Plate- pasteurized Process and the "Hot-break" Conventional Retort Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage Classified by Raw Product Grade.. 125 Table XXXHI. Average USDA Color Scores for the "Hot-, break" Plate-pasteurized and Conventional Retort Processes, and Plate-pasteurized Process Using Vibrating Screen and the Conventional Retort Process Using Vi brating Screen After 1, 5 sxid 10 Months Storage ...... 12? Table XXXIV. Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Renota tions for Readings of Tomato Puree Sam ples Using Different Instrumental Il luminating Conditions with the Hunter Color Difference Meter ...... 131 Table XXXV. Agreement Between Calculations of Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma from ICI, Values for Nominal Notations of Papers Used in Max well Spinning Disks and from Hunter Color Difference Meter Data Paken by Determin ing the Color of Spinning Disks of Vary ing Percentages of Papers of Nominal No tations Used for Determining the Color Score of Canned Tomato Juice ...... 132
Diagram No. 1 . Diagram Showing Dimensions of the L, a, b Color Solid ...... li+ Figure No. 1. Chromatic!ty Diagram at Value 2/ to Convert Hunter a^ and b^ to Munsell Hue and Chroma .... . kQ Figure No. 2. Chromatic!ty Diagram at Value 3/ to Convert Hunter and b^ to Munsell Hue and Chroma ......
-xi- Eftgg. Figure No. 3 Chromaticity Diagram at Value i|_/ to Convert Hunter aL and b-^ to Munsell Hue and Chroma ...... 50
Flow Sheet No. 1 Procedures for Manufacture of Tomato Juice in O.S.U. Pilot Plant ...... 37
-xii- LIST OP APPENDIX I TABLES Page
Appendix Table A. Hunter Color and Color--Oiff erence Meter L, at, and b^ Headings of Samples for the "Cold-break*' Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Pro cess Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...... 1^4-9 Appendix Table B. Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Re notations of Samples for the "Cold-break" Two Extrac tion Plate-pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...... lf?0 Appendix Table C. Hunter Color andColor-Difference Meter L, aj- and b^ Readings of Sanples for the "Hot-break Plate-pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...• l£l
Appendix Table D. Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Re notations of Samples for the "Hot-break* Plate- pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...... 1^2
Appendix Table E. Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter L, a-r and br Readings of Samples for the "Cold-break11 Two Extraction Conventional Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...... 1^3 Appendix Table P. Munsell Hue, Value andChroma Re notations of Samples for the "Cold-break” Two Extraction Conventional Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...... 1^3
Appendix Table G. Hunter Color and C o l o r - D i f ference Meter L, a^ and bL Readings of Samples for the "Hot-break” Conventional Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...... lj Appendix Table H. Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Re notations of Samples for the "Hot-break" Conventional Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...... 151*. Appendix Table I. Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter L, a^ and b]- Readings of Samples for the "Cold-braak" One Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...... l££
-xiii- Appendix Table J. Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Re notations of Samples for the 11 Cold-break” One Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process Taken at Various Stages in Manufacture and AfterStorage ....
Appendix Table K. Hunter Colox* and Color-Difference Meter L, ar, and b^'Readings .of. Samples for the "Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process (Using Vibrating Screen) and the ’’Hot-break” Conventional Process (Hsing Vibrating Screen) Ta^en at Various Stages in Manufacture and After Storage ...... Appendix Table L. Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Re notations of Samples for the "Hot-break Plate- pasteurized Process (Using Vibrating Screen) and the "Hot-break Conventional Process (Using Vi brating Screen) Taken at Various Stages in Manu facture and After Storage ...... -1-
EFFECT OF PROCESSING METHODS ON THE
COLOR OF CANNED TOMATO JUICE
I. INTRODUCTION
Color In foods has become of increasing Importance in recent years. Those engaged In the food Industry have found It necessary to constantly strive to produce food products which meet with the approval of consumers. Gould (llfj states "every food processor Is very much aware of the increasing importance that the consumer places on the appearance of a food product and that acceptable appearance of a food is de termined to a great degree by its color."
With this increasing importance of color in foods has come the need for measurement and control of color in foods before, during, and after processing. For measurement and control of color, subjective or visual evaluation of color is influenced by many variables, which impose specific lim itations, such as (1) viewing conditions, (2) type and source of light, and (3) the observer. These limitations have brought about the development and use of objective Instru mental methods for measuring color of foods which show a high degree of correlation with visual color evaluations.
Payment to growers for tomatoes for processing is de pendent to a great extent upon the color of the fresh toma toes. Color is one of the more important factors for deter mining United States Department of Agriculture grades in -2- both the fresh and processed products (1, 2). As a result
of the importance of color determination in tomatoes and tomato products, there has been increasing interest recently
in the use of objective methods for measuring the color of
raw tomatoes for processing, as well as for measuring the
color of manufactured tomato products (6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,
13, Ilf, 15, 16 , 17, 18, 2A|_, 25, 28, 35, 36, 39, i+2, , W * Analysis of 32 brands of tomato juice purchased from 22 chain and independent grocery stores in and near Colum
bus, Ohio, showed that only 5 brands of the 32 brands of tomato juice analyzed were Grade A for all samples purchased.
In many cases, samples scored Grade C or lower due to poor color (37)* This study indicated that in this particular market, a considerable quantity of the canned tomato juice
available was of low quality due to poor color. Thus, there appears to be a need for studies concerned with the effect of processing on tomato juice color.
Although there have been studies (6, 25, 26, 35) con
cerned with the effect of processing on tomato juice color, most of these studies have been concerned with the effect
of sterilization temperatures or the effect of one particu
lar phase of processing without regard to other factors. None of these studies have investigated the color changes
at each phase of processing in terms of reflected color. As a phase of a grade relationship study of fresh to matoes and canned tomato juice conducted by workers of the -3- Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station and as a part of a co operative project between the New York (Geneva), Purdue and Ohio Agricultural Experiment Stations and the U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 19lj.6; this study has, therefore, been developed with the following objectives: 1. to attempt to find a standard system of interpreting
color changes in tomato juice during processing by
utilizing the three attributes of color - hue, value and chroma; 2. to study the effect of processing methods on the
color of canned tomato juice; 3. to study the effect of varying raw product colors on the color of canned tomato juice; 4. to study the effect of length of storage up to ten months duration on the color of canned tomato juice; and,
5. to attempt to find an objective means of predicting
the color score of the finished product by using
objective color measurements of the raw product* II. LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to Investigate the color changes at each phase of the processing of tomato juice in terms of reflected color, a knowledge of color, measurement of color, as well as a re view of previous studies of the factors affecting color of tomato juice during processing is essential.
A. Methodology There are, according to Judd (22), two techniques de signated by the name colorimetry: (1) the color of a trans parent medium used as an indicator of the amount of some con stituent in it, as in so-called chemical colorimetry, and (2) the measurements of objects, both self-luminous and non-self luminous, so that the aspect of their appearance known as color can be expressed numerically.
Color has been technically defined as follows: "Color consists of the characteristics of light .other than spatial and temporal In homogeneities; light being that aspect of radiant energy of which a human observer is aware through the visual sensations which arise from the stimu lation of the retina of the eye." (3, 22) Color has been discussed by Hardy (19) as follows: “The term color is commonly used in three dis- -tinctly different senses. The chemist employs it as a generic term for dyes, pigments and similar materials. The physicist, on the other hand, regards the term as a description of certain phenomena in the field of optics. Hence, the physicist, when confronted with the problem of measuring the color of a material, Isolates and measures the relevant optical -s- properties of the materials. Physiologists and psychologists often employ the term in still another sense. They are interested primarily in understanding the nature of the visual process, and use the term on occasions to denote a sensa tion in the consciousness of a human observer. Color is a household word as well, and is common ly used indiscriminately in all three senses .... (however), a specification .... which regards color as an inherent property of an object or material, must necessarily be based on objective measurements. Color .... may be defined explicitly in terms of a definite set of physical operations."
Also, "each of the four sciences, physics, chemistry, physiology, and psychology, must be given equal importance in
order to understand completely what is involved in a simple
statement 'seeing color'• Any one of the factors considered
above can and frequently does completely modify the color we
see. It does not mean, however, that every problem in color
requires a complete knowledge of all these sciences” (5)•
1. Measurement of Color
In food products, three basic methods of color measure ment have been utilized in the past. These are: quantita
tive pigment measurements, color matching, and reflectance me asurement s.
Quantitative Pigment Measurements
Measurements of the amounts of certain pigments which
contribute in part to the color of a food product are of
considerable importance. Wilson (Ij.1) conducted studies dealing with the effect of variety, process, and storage
on the total carotene, lycopene and beta-carotene content -6- of tomato pulp and Juice. In a report of his studies, an ex cellent review of the literature dealing with measurement of pigments in tomato juice contributing to its eolor is pre sented. However, In the studies which are the basis for this dissertation, the psychophysical aspects of the color of tomato juice will be investigated, and for this reason, the literature pertaining to quantitative pigment measure ments are not reviewed. With regard to the difficulties encountered In relating quantitative pigment measurements to visual color, Robinson et al (36) have theorized as follows: ’’The color of tomato juice must be caused by its chemical composition and its physical condition. Carotenoid pigments, especially carotene and lycopene, chlorophyll derivatives, and other pigments may have direct bearing on the color. However, the dispersion of these pigments, the volume of the solids in the juice, presence of other pigments, and types of crys tallization could conceivably Influence the color pro duced by pigments. For example, lycopene, the red pigment in tomato juice, must be carried on the sus pended solids of the juice since it is insoluble in water. Two juices of the same lycopene content, but of widely differing soluble solids content would pre sent quite different appearance. These considerations help to explain the poorer correlation obtained be tween chemical methods and visual ratings, as compared to reflectance measurements related to visual ratings. "Since the color caused by an insoluble pigment such as lycopene depends on other factors than the quantity present, a method other than quantitative determination of pigment concentration is to be preferred."
Color Matching With respect to color measurements as perceived by the observer, Nickerson states (33), "There are two distinctly -7- different methods for measuring color* By one, the color may be measured indirectly by specifying the stimulus, com pletely or partially in terms of reflectance or transmit tance at each wave length in the visible spectrum (spectro photometry), by the other, color may be matched by the use of secondary standards, such as filters and disks (colori metry). In both cases, if the measurement is to be reported in terms other than those of the Instrument Itself, it can be expressed either in terms of psychophysical or psycholog ical color attributes«n Methods of color matching using secondary standards were the earliest methods of defining color. There are many color systems which may be used in color matching work. Nickerson (33) has dlscpssed various color charts used to any extent in color grading work, namely: Ridgeway charts; standard cards of the Textile Color Card Association of the United States, Inc.; standard cards of the British Colour Council for Textiles; the Repertoire de Couleurs; and the
Horticultural Colour Chart.
However, in many of the above listed standards, it Is not possible to define the colors of one sys'tem in terms of colors of another system. "....Conversions have been com pletely published for only the Munsell and Ostwald charts
although work is underway at present to accomplish this with certain others of the above systems(33).
The Munsell charts are widely used in color speciflea- -8- tions of many agricultural commodities, including tomato juice standards (2), According to Nickerson C 33)» Munsell charts "have the advantage of being able to make interpola tion to any desired degree of fineness since the Munsell system of color notation is devised on a psychological sys tem of visually equal steps for scales of the three color attributes: hue, lightness (value) and saturation (chroma)".
"Hue, Munsell hue is that attribute of certain col- ors in respect to which they differ characteristically from a gray of the same lightness and which permits them to be classed as reds, yellows, greens, blues, or purples. The Munsell hue circuit is divided into 10 major hues.
"Value. Munsell value is that attribute of all col- lors which permits them to be classed as equivalent to some member of a series of grays that are equally spaced under the standard conditions for which the scale was derived. The Munsell scale of grays ex tends from 0,black, to 10, white.
"Chroma. Munsell chroma is that attribute of all colors possessing hue which determines their degree of difference from a gray of the same value. The no tation is numerical, with 0 at gray, extending out ward from the neutrals toward 10 or more for the strong colors." (33)
The Munsell method of color notation may either be used directly by comparing to Munsell charts or indirectly by con verting International Commission on Illumination (I.C.I.)* notations into Munsell notations. This will be discussed in more detail under "Interpretation of Color Data".
The United States Department of Agriculture utilizes
^Given as C.I.E. in European publications.Refers to French Translation of Commission Internationale de 1'Eclalrage. Original proceedings published in French (33). the Munsell system of disk colorimetry in combination with the Maxwell spinning disk for many color grading uses* The
Maxwell disk refers to the type of disk cut with a radial slit so that several may be slipped together with portions of each visible. By using the Maxwell disk and a motor to spin them at a speed great enough so that there is no flicker, any color that can be matched with various combinations of the disks used can be specified in exact terms (33)* ”Although use of Munsell disks in disk colorimetry does not necessitate use of the Munsell notation, the Munsell no tation seems the logical one to use in connection with grad ing problems. Scales of hue, value and chroma are in steps that are judged equal to the eye; therefore, visual interpre tation of grade intervals and color differences may be di rectly related to diagrammatic representation in terras of hue, value, and chroma scales and laboratory measurements may be interpreted directly by the inspector in terms of his own experience” (33)* By using Munsell disks in disk colorimetry the color score for tomato juice is determined in the following manner according to the USDA standards (2): ”To score 26 points or over (Grade A), the color must be equal or better than that produced by spinning a combination of the following Munsell color disks: R65(5R 2 .6/13)-(glossy finish), YR21(2.5 YR 5/12)-(glossy finish); NI (glossy finish); Hlf. (mat finish)”, also ”to score 23 points or over (Grade C), the color must be equal or better than that produced by spinning a combina
tion of the following Munsell color disks: R53 (5R 2.6/13)-
(glossy finish); YR28 (2.5 YR 5/12) (glossy finish); N1 (glos sy finish); Nlj. (mat finish)". The Munsell color disks referred to above are cut with
a radial slit so that several disks may be slipped together with portions of each visible. The specification R65 (5R
2 .6/13) above indicates that one disk of the hue, value/ chroma specification of 2 .6/13 must be slipped together with the other three specified disks in such a manner that 65 percent of the exposed area of the completed disk will be the red color of 5R 2.6/13 with a glossy finish. The specification YR 21 (2.5 YR 5/12) indicates that 21 percent of the exposed area must be the yellow red color of speci fication 2*5 YR 5/12 with a glossy finish. The remaining II4. percent of the surface area of the disk Is any propor tion of the disks of N1 specification (glossy finish) and
NR specification (mat finish) in order to match the grayness of the particular sample of tomato juice being graded. In the grading of tomato juice the color of a sample is compared to a disk of one of the two combinations and scored accordingly. The light source under which the sample is viewed will affect the color match. The disk colorimeter formerly used by the USDA utilized North daylight. Recent ly, however, the development of the Macbeth-Munsell Disk Colorimeter (13) provides controlled viewing conditions by -11-
arranging two spinning disks directly beneath a color cor
rected light source, thus minimizing two variables in disk colorimetry: (1) variation in light source and (2) varia tion in viewing conditions (12, 13).
Reflectance Measurements As previously discussed, color may also be measured indirectly in terms of reflectance or transmittance at each
wave length in the visible spectrum (spectrophotometry) in
addition to color matching with secondary standards (33). Reflected color may also be measured by means of photo
electric tristimulus colorimeters. Many workers have pointed out the need for completely objective methods of measuring the color of food products
in terms of reflectance which can be interpreted in terms
of visual color (5, 7, 34, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 33, 36, 39). The main reasons for this need are summarized as follows: (1) the poor correlation between quantitative pigment mea surements and visual ratings; (2) individual differences in ability to see and describe color; (3) ®y© fatigue of ob server; (l|.) lighting conditions; (5) individual differences in method of determining proper color match; (6) difficulty in maintaining secondary standards for matching purposes;
(7) difficulty in distinguishing small color differences in a nonhomogeneous surface; and (8) difficulties due to metamerism between the standard and the color to be mea sured • Spectrophotometrie measurements, in this review, refer
only to the use of the spectrophotometer for measuring spec tral reflectance. White (lj.0) gives the definition of spec tral reflectance as the ratio, of reflected to the incident
radiant flux of a narrow wave length range (10 mu.)• A spectral reflectance curve is a plot of these ratios as a
function of wave length for some particular part of the visual spectrum (380-7lj.O mu.). The spectral reflectance curve supplies data needed to evaluate the flux from an ob ject when it is irradiated with any spectral distribution of radiant energy. Judd (23) gives the advantages and disadvantages of
certain spectrophotometers for making an analysis of the basic physical cause of the color of a specimen* Spectral reflectance curves may also be related to vis ual color response by calculating I.C.I. notations from them.
However, Robinson (36) brought attention to the tedious cal culations required to show the relationship of spectrophoto- metric data to the response of the human eye unless a G.E.
recording spectrophotometer and the integrating librascope for computing I.C.I. color values are available. Spectro- photometrie measurements will not be reviewed in more de tail since they were not used in these studies, although
certain processing studies to be reviewed later have made use of these instruments in evaluating color changes in tomato juice. Trlstimulus measurements of reflectance have been widely used in measuring the color of tomato products. Ihe Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter has been especially useful
(7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 2l+, 25, 28, 36, 1*2, 1+3). It is a photoelectric tristimulus colorimeter measuring color on three scales by the use of three filters that approximate the X, Y, and Z functions of the I.C.I. system (16, 20). Three values are obtained for each color measured: (1+5° 0° luminous reflectance) and/or L (visual lightness) depend ing on the type of measuring circuit selected; and "a" and nb" values which determine hue and chroma (Diagram No. I). The unit of color measurement for these three scales is the
National Bureau of Standards (N.b .S.) unit of color differ ence devised by Judd (21). Methods of converting Hunter L, a and b values to I.C.I. notations will be discussed later in "Interpretation of Color Data".
Judd (23) states that "In general, satisfactory accura cy can be expected from such photoelectric tristimulus col orimeters for the determination of small color differences between nonmetameric pairs, and even for measurements of fairly sizeable nonmetameric color differences .... ". The standards used should not differ too drastically from the unknown in spectral selectivity.
2. Interpretation of Color Data
I.C.I. System. The International Commission on Illumination in 1931 recommended the standard observer for color standard- 100-WHITE
O-BLACK
Diagram No. I* Diagram Showing Dimansions of the L, a. b Color Solid (4). ization that is widely used today (23). Hardy (19) explains the establishment of the standard observer and the necessity
for a standard observer as follows: n .... For inter-laboratory comparisons or for long time color standardization programs based on the use of colorimetry, a large group of observers must be employed. An alternative procedure has been devised and has been recom mended for international use. This procedure consists in de termining certain basic color mixture data for a large group
of carefully selected observers. These basic data can then be used in conjunction with spectrophotometric data to com pute for any test sample the average tristimulus values that would have been obtained by this group of observers if they had used a colorimeter. Since the readings obtained with the spectrophotometer are independent of peculiarities of an ob server's eye, this procedure provides a basis for the speci fication of color in terms of the average chromatic proper ties of an internationally accepted group of observers. "
In the I.e.I. method of color, notations, Instrument readings are reduced directly into terms of the standard ob server and coordinate systems of colorimetry adopted in 1931. The data are expressed as the absolute (X,Y,Z) and fractional (x,y,z) amounts of three imaginary red, green and blue lights necessary for an imaginary standard observer to match a given sample under a given illuminant (33)* Conversion to Munsell Color System. The Munsell method of -16- color notation may be used indirectly by converting I.C.I. notations into Munsell notations. The relations of Munsell hue, value and chroma have been studied in I.C.I. terms and data are available for converting from one to the other (33)* It is also possible to convert Hunter L, a and b values as used in these studies, to I.C.I. terras (X,Y,Z). By appro priate calculations and graphical methods, the I.C.I. values may then be converted to Munsell renotations as published by
Newhall, Nickerson and Judd (30). Younkin gives tables (lj.2) for plotting appropriate Munsell renotation loci in terms of
Hunter a^ and b^ values (Table I). These data as presented by Younkin may be calculated in the following manner: The chromaticity of the color is usually indicated by chromaticity coordinates (x,y,z) computed from the tristiraulus values (X,Y,Z) as fractions of their total, thus (23): X X + Y + z - Y X + f + z Z
Nickerson (33) Has published data which gives I.C.I. (Y) equi valents for the recommended Munsell value scale. Since the data presented are in terms of Yv (%) (which are in percent relative to MgO), it is necessary to divide the Yv {%) by 100 to obtain Y for any specified Munsell value. Since loci of constant hue and constant chroma in I.C.I. Table I. Munsell Renotationa for Certain Reds, and Yellow Reds at Values 2/, 3/* and i|/ in Terns of Hunter’s L, ax, and bx, (from the Data of Younkin) 42)
5R 7.5R 10R 2.5YR 5YR Munsell L V/C _ _ aL aL aL -*L aL bL «L bL
2/2 17.68 6.5 1.6 6.3 2.3 5.8 3.0 5.2 3.7 4-3 4 4 2/k 12.6 2.8 12.2 lf.1 11.5 5.5 lO.k 6.7 8.5 7.9 2/6 19.0 3.7 18.3 5.7 17.3 7 4 15.6 9.0 12.7 10.6 2/8 27.0 4-7 25.7 7.0 2 4 4 9.1 21.8 11.2 2/10 25-7 5.2 2l4-.ll- 8.1 32.2 10.3 2/12 45.0 5.6 14-3.7 8.9 4 1 4 11.2 2/1!}. 56.0 5.9 54-1 9.5 51.0 12.0
3/2 25*60 7 4 2.9 7.1 3.6 6.6 4 4 5.8 5.2 4.8 5.9 3/4 14.6 5.3 13.9 6.6 12.9 7.8 11.1 9.1 9.0 10.1 3/6 21.4 7.2 20.5 9.0 19.2 10.6 16.5 1 2 4 13.3 13.5 3/8 29.5 9.0 28.0 11.2 26.1 13.0 21.5 4 . 9 16.9 16.0 3/10 38.3 10.5 36.0 13.1 33.2 4 . 9 26.3 17.0 3/12 l<-7.8 11.6 45-1 114-.5 41.2 16.5 3/14 56.9 12.1}. 53.7 154 49.5 17.7 3/16 67.2 13.2 63.7 I6.3
ij/2 34-64 7.2 3.1 7.0 3.8 6.6 24.8 5.9 5.9 5.o 6.9 4 4 114-.5 6.0 14.2 7 4 13.3 9.1 11.7 10.8 9.8 12.3 h/6 21.8 8.5 21.1 1 0 4 19.5 12.7 17.0 ik.7 13.9 16.3 k/Q 29.8 10.8 28.7 13.3 26.2 15.9 2 2 4 18.0 17.9 1 9 4 i}/10 37.6 12.7 36.0 15.6 32.9 18.5 27.2 20.7 2 1 4 21.9 4/12 45*8 4 . 5 43.7 17.6 3 9 4 20.8 31.3 22.8 2 4 4 23.7 4 / 4 55.14- 16.1 52.1 1 9 4 4-6.0 22.6 li/16 65.8 17.5 60.6 20.7 51.5 23.9 4/l8 75.2 18.6 39.8 21.9 4/20 80.2 22.8 -18-
(x,y) - coordinates for I.C.I. illuminant C are only avail able at Munsell values l/, 2/, 3/» k/» 5/» 6/» 7/» 8/» and 9/, it is necessary to substitute Y at a specific Munsell value Into the above equations in order to solve for X and Z. Values are then taken from loci charts of constant hue and chroma at the specific Munsell value under consideration at any particular point where the constant hue and chroma loci intersect.
The x and y values obtained are then substituted Into the above equations. Since x + y + z - 1, the value for z
Is readily found and can also be substituted into the above equations. Thus, two equations with two unknowns can then be solved for X and Z. X, Y and Z values for any particular constant hue and chroma loci intersection may then be sub stituted into the equations given for the Hunter Color and
Color-Difference Meter for converting to I.C.I. specifica tions of color (Ij.): L - 100 (y5)
*IT 175L(1.02X - Y ) Yt
bL= 70 (Y-0.81l7Z) Y^ In this manner it is possible to obtain chromaticity dia grams in terms of Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter L, a and b readings which can be used to convert directly to the Munsell color system.
Younkin used Munsell renotations for value 3/ plotted in terms of Hunter's and b]-, for plotting Hunter readings
obtained on various tomato purees in order to evaluate the
color of purees objectively (ij.3)» This method of converting
Hunter and bL values to Munsell terms assumes very little difference in L readings, which are related to Munsell value.
So long as there is little difference between L readings,
this method is quite satisfactory for obtaining Munsell hue and chroma; however, if differences are great in L readings, then it becomes necessary to interpolate hue and chroma de
pending on the Munsell value between two of the available chromaticity diagrams (33)*
Color Indices. Due to the complexity of converting Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter readings to Munsell reno
tations and the ensuing difficulty in interpretation, many
workers (6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 1 8 , 23, 2^, 28, 35, 36) have used various color indices calculated from Hunter Color
and Color-Difference Meter readings to correlate with visual
color ratings. Although in many cases, color indices serve
to simplify the interpretation of color data, color indices when reported as such cannot be converted into a standard color system such as the I.C.I. system. Therefore, data so
collected and reported are a scientific loss in the event that it would be desirable In the future to amass and inter pret color data collected for any given food product. MacKinney (27), Younkin (ifij.) and Gould et al (16) have -20- stated that color data collected should be reported In Its
original form or In terms of a standard color system, such as the I.C.I. system, in order that a considerable amount of interchangeable data may be accumulated with regard to effect of season, variety, processing methods and storage
on the color of the food products. Younkin (ijij.) has further
stated that three-dimensional diagrams are difficult to use
and Interpret, but that an attempt should be made to present
these data in terms of a simple color index.
B. Factors Affecting Color of Tomato Juice
There are various factors which affect the color of tomato juice. Some of these factors to be reviewed are:
the variety of tomatoes being manufactured into tomato juice;
the maturity of the tomatoes within any one variety; methods used during the preparation and juicing of the tomatoes; the type of sterilization process used for preservation of the tomato juice; and the time and temperature of storage after processing.
Tomato Juice Industry
Compared to many processed fruit and vegetable products,
tomato juice is a relatively new product. In 1902 Joseph By- field noticed that unprocessed juice of tomatoes was popular with his guests in the College Imof the Hotel Sherman in Chicago. He learned how to prevent the juice from ferment ing and sold £5,000 cases of canned tomato cocktail the first year on the market (31+) • in the past few years production of canned tomato juice in the United S t a t e s ^ has been approx imately cases (Basis 2!+ No. 2 can cases) annually.
A recent report (29) has stated that *there are more acres of tomatoes grown for canning in this state (Ohio) than any other fruit or vegetable”. Although no statistics » are available for the production of canned tomato juice in Ohio, "of all the 125 Ohio ccraraercial fruit and vegetable canneries (excluding custom operations) operating in 1951* 70 packed tomatoes or tomato products (juice, puree and catsup) and many packed them exclusively” (29).
Importance of Color in Tomato Juice
Color is an important factor in the United States De partment of Agriculture Standards for Grades of Tomato Juice
(Table II), 30 points out of a possible 100 being established for the factor of color. The factor for color is subject to the "limiting rule", that is, a sample of tomato juice can not be graded as "Fancy" or "Grade A" if Its color Is rated below the minimum requirements for U.S. Grade A, which is 26 points, regardless of the score for other factors. Also, a sample of tomato juice cannot be graded as "Standard" or
"Grade C” if its color is rated below the minimum require ments for U.S. Grade C (23 points), regardless of the score for other factors.
^Canning Trade Almanac 1953* I1 he Canning Trade. Baltimore, Maryland. (Compiled by Division of Statistics, National Canners Association.) -22-
Table II, U. S. Standards for Grades of Tomato Juice (Canned or Bottled). (August 29, 1938)
U.S. Grade U.S. Grade U.S. Grade Factors A C D (Fancy) (Standard) (Sub-St andard)
Color 26-30 (1) 23-25# (2) 0-22#
Consistency 13-IS 10-12 0-9 Absence of Defects 13-15 10-12# 0-9# Flavor 33-Ij-O 27-32# 0-26#
Total Score 85-100 70-8if.# 0-69#
#Indicates limiting rule within classification.
(1) To score 26 points or over (Grade A), the color must be . equal or better than that produced by spinning a com bination of the following Munsell color disks: R65 (5R 2.6/13)-felossy finish): YR21 (2.5*11 5/l2)-(glossy finish); N1 (glossy finish); Ni^ (mat finish). . (2) To score 23 points orover (Grside C), the color must be equal or better than that produced by spinning a com bination of the following Munsell color disks: R53 (5R 2 .6/1 3 )-(glossy finish); YR28 (2.5*R 5/12)-{glossy finish); N1 (glossy finish); Nij. (mat finish).
The Importance of color in tomato juice has been em phasized by recent reports of studies concerned with the grade relationship between raw tomatoes and canned tomato juice (17, 15)• Gould et al (15) have shown that there is a direct relationship between the color of the raw tomatoes and color of canned tomato juice produced; in general, a poorer color of raw product produced canned tomato juice of poorer color. Hand et al (17) have reported similar find
ings. In both studies, poor color in the canned tomato juice was generally associated with poor flavor. Thus, it can be seen that the factor of color is of Importance not only from the standpoint of the appearance of tomato juice, but also due to the relationship of color to flavor.
Variety. The variety of tomato being processed has been shown to be one of the factors affecting the color of tomato juice. MacGillivray (26) has pointed out that “three dif ferent colors are exhibited by tomatoes of different maturi ties and different varieties. The flesh of red and pink tomatoes have a similar color but the pink tomatoes have a colorless skin and the red tomatoes, a yellow skin. Immature fruits are green in color while the mature fruits may be either red or yellow depending upon the variety. These col ors are the result of the action of several pigments exert ing the properties of reflection and absorption of light .... "• Gould et al (l£) have shown that variety has con siderable effect on the color relationship between raw prod uct and finished product in the manufacture of tomato juice.
Certain varieties required a higher color in the raw product to give the same equivalent color in the finished product In terms of the Hunter a^ and b^ color ratio. Also, a general conclusion drawn was that any particular process had consI- -21}.-
derably more effect on certain varieties than on ethers.
Maturity. The maturity of the fruit being processed will
also have considerable effect on the color changes which oc
cur during the manufacture of tomato juice. MacGillivray
(26) points out that "in the case of tomato puree, not only
is the color impaired by concentrating, but it seems that
the better the color of the raw juice the greater the color change occurring during the concentration period**. Gould
et al (1 5 ) have shown that in general with increasing raw product color, there was an increasing color loss between the raw product and the canned juice in terms of a^/b^ color ratios. However, the nature of these color changes at spe
cific stages in the processing of tomato juice were not dis cussed. Inspection of data presented by Robinson et al (19) al so indicates that tomatoes of lower color (low aL/b^ ratio)
lose more color during processing than tomatoes of higher color (high a^/b^ ratio).
Processing Methods. Buck (7) has stated in a recent paper dealing with the relation of ketchup color to the color of
the raw tomatoes that "the main interest in undertaking the
study was the desire to relate directly and objectively raw tomato color with the color of the processed product made therefrom". Other studies have been made to relate raw to mato color with the color of canned tomato juice produced -25-
(9, 15, 17, 26, 35). In general, there are two methods of preparing tomato juice. Probably the most used process for extracting the
juice from the tomato Is called the "hot-break*1 process.
This process consists of washing and chopping the tomatoes,
preheating the chopped tomatoes to 150* to 220°F., and then
extracting the juice by means of a finisher having .023 to .030 inch openings in the screen. The extracted juice may either be flash sterilized, filled Into containers, and
sealed; or the juice may be heated to approximately 190°F., filled Into containers and sterilized after sealing. The latter process being commonly referred to in the Industry as the *conventional" process. Another process for extracting the juice from the to mato is called the "cold-break" process. In trade channels a low preheating temperature of 120° to li4.5 °F. may be re- ferred to as a "cold-break” process; however, the cold-break process as used! in these studies refers to an extraction of
the juice from the scalded tomatoes without previous chop ping.
None of the literature reviewed contained data relative to the effect of washing methods on the color of tomato juice.
Data published by workers at the New York Agricultural
Experiment Station (35) Indicated that defects could affect the color of the processed tomato juice, since It was found -26- that removal of "cat-faces", sunburn, and other defects im
proved the color of tomato juice* None of the literature reviewed has presented data as to whether or not the methods of chopping tomatoes would af fect the color of tomato juice produced.
Hand et al (35) have stated that no significant differ
ences were observed in the color of tomato juice when sub
jected to preheating temperatures of II4.O0, l£5°, 170°, 185°
and 200°F. Data were presented in terms of Hunter a/b color
ratios to support this statement.
No statements were found in the literature concerning
the effects of various types of tomato juice extracting
finishers on the color of tomato juice produced. However,
it has been reported (35) that the paddle speed of the fin isher does affect the consistency of tomato juice produced.
It is of interest to note that in some instances, a vibrating screen is placed between the preheater and the finisher. A recent article by Bullock (8) states that *vi-
brating screens are being used in the tomato industry to re move hard spots, stems, cores, scar tissue, cat faces, and unripe portions; to lower the mold count through the removal of mold clusters without breakdown and to deliver practical
ly all of the valuable color material with the juice, all this being done without overall reduction of the yield".
This article by Bullock was in repudiation of the statements made by Hand et al (35) that the vibrating screen was dele- -27- terious to color (Hunter a/b color ratios) during the greater part of the season* Although Bullock presents its widespread use as proof of the desirability of using a vibrating screen, no data were given to support his statements.
No information was found in the literature concerning the effect of the method of filling or sealing containers of tomato juice on the color of tomato juice produced. With regard to the sterilization of tomato juice, wheth er before or after filling and sealing, some of the problems confronting the canner in the sterilization of tomato juice have been outlined by Blumer et al (6) who state that " .... canners have encountered sporadic but frequent outbreaks of spoilage caused by survival of comparatively heat-resistant organisms, of which some strains of Bacillus thermoacldurans are the most resistant. This spoilage gives a bitter off- flavor, known in the industry as a ’flat-sour'. Spoilage losses in some cases have been very high since this type of spoilage cannot be detected without opening the cans. .Ade quate thermal processing, in conjunction with good housekeep ing is the best means of controlling this spoilage .... Ef fective thermal processing is not feasible with conventional boiling water processes common in the tomato juice packing industry, because the drastic heat necessary to destroy the spores of some strains of B. thermoacldurans would adversely affect juice quality."
MacGillivray (26) has stated that the important color -28- change occurs in the first portion of the heating period dur ing sterilization of the juice. Heating to 212°F. resulted in color impairment, but the first heating was the most im portant. In MacGillivrayfs work, however, the juice was sterilized in boiling water and no information concerning prior treatment of the juice during extraction is given.
Hand et al (35) have also said that "exposure to heat during processing adversely affects the color of tomato juice. For that reason more than the amount of heat required to elimi nate harmful organisms present in the juice should be avoid ed". Hand also warned against using lower process times to obtain better color, since spoilage from thermoduric organ isms might be encountered.
Blumer et al (6) state that "about 10 years ago, a meth od of high temperature short-time flash presterilization of juice was introduced to the industry, whereby these heat re sistant organisms were destroyed without adversely affecting the juice quality".
"The method of high temperature short-time flash pre sterilization involves rapid heating of juice to temperatures high enough to destroy B. thermoacidurans followed by rapid ly cooling to about 200®F., filling into cans, closing, in- verting and holding for one to three minutes, and then water cooling. This method has become widely accepted and in the last five years, a large number of canners have installed equipment for the presterilization of tomato juice...... How- -29- ever, the advent of flash presterilization has introduced the problem of its effect on the color of juice.” (6)
Blumer et el (6) uaed the "hot-break" process in their research on the effect of processing on tomato juice color in order to study the effect of. various methods of steriliza tion. They processed tometo juice after a "hot-break” of
1908F. by conventional boiling water processes, filling at 165°F. then heating 35 minutes at 212°F.; filling at 205>°F. holding for i}.2 seconds; at 255gF. holding 22 seconds; and
?608F» for 11 ill seconds in 19li9- Using three grades of raw stock which they define as Fancy, Borderline Fancy, and Stan dard, these workers found that when grading visually, fancy tomato juice remained fancy during storage; however, standard juice improved in color in storage. They also found only slight differences between conventional and flash sterilized juice when equivalent sterilizing values were employed. Us ing the spectrophotometric data obtained as curves from a
G.E. recording spectrophotometer, these curves were then in tegrated with respect to Illuminant MC” (average daylight) and converted to Munsell renotations according to the method of Newhall, Nickerson and Judd (30). The Munsell Henotations were then used to calculate
Nickerson’s (31, 32) color difference index ”1” as given by
Judd (22) to obtain a color difference measure. If hue dif ferences are of greater concern than lightness and satura tion differences, the color difference Index ”1” may be used: I - (c/5) (2 AH) / 6 AV / 3 AC where C Is Munsell Chroma, and A H , A V, A C , are the dif ferences between the two colors in Munsell hue, value, and chroma respectively. In the case of tomato products, hue differences are generally considered to be of greater con cern (6, 18, 35>» k-3)» thereby possibly justifying the use of the above color index. Although data are not presented
by Blumer et al (6) In terms of a standard color system, with this particular color Index, ”1”, "bhere was no indica
tion that conventionally processed juice was superior In
color to flash sterilized juice when the sterilizing values
usedfor the flashed process are equivalent (F0 • 0.7) and do not exceed heat treatment necessary to destroy B. ther moacldurans ”, although evidence Indicated that heat treat ments with sterilizing values in excess of 0*7 do impair color of flash sterilized tomato juice* The ”1” index showed that color did not Improve on storage which con
flicted with visual data presented, since standard juice improved in color although fancy juice did not. Blumer et al (6) also stated that general belief was that color of tomato juice improved during storage.
Hand et al (35) have shown by Hunter Color Difference Meter a/b color ratios that ”as pasteurization temperatures increase, tomato juice color becomes slightly poorer”. They did not, however, use equivalent F0 values but heated at
200°, 225°, 250° and 265°F. for 0.7 minutes. -31- The published information as reviewed above in this dis
sertation on the factors affecting the color of tomato juice is summarized as follows: Specific varieties and maturities of tomatoes have been shown to affect the color relationship of the raw product to the finished product in the manufacture of tomato juice* Certain processing methods have been shown to affect the color relationship of raw product to finished product. Practically no information was available on the follow ing processing variables with respect to their effect on color: ’’Hot" versus "cold-break” extraction of juice; wash ing methods; chopping methods; types of extraction equipment used; and methods of filling and sealing containers. Those processing methods that have been investigated
with respect to their effect on the color of canned tomato juice are given as follows: removal of certain types of de fects improved the color of tomato juice; preheating temper
atures within the range of U 4.O0 to 2 0 0 °P. were not found to affect the color of tomato Juice when color differences were
evaluated by using the a/b color ratio as a color index; the vibrating screen was generally found to be deleterious to color when using the a/b color ratio as a color index; under
"hot-break" extraction conditions, essentially no difference was found in the color of flash sterilized or conventionally retort processed tomato juice; and increasing pasteurization temperatures were found to produce poorer colored tomato -32-
juice by using the a/b color ratio as a color index, al though equivalent FQ values were not used. Additionally, only a limited amount of information was
available on the effect of storage on tomato juice color. HoWever, no data was found concerning the effect of tempera ture of storage on the color of canned tomato juice. Al though Blumer (6) has shown that the color of standard (Grade C) tomato juice improves during storage when evalu
ated visually, Judd’s color index (22) used for objective
color evaluation did not show this improvement. However, the methods by which the tomato juice color was evaluated visually were not given in detail, and it has been previ
ously pointed out in this review of literature that condi tions for visual evaluation of color must be carefully con trolled to obtain comparable results.
Several workers have drawn conclusions regarding the effect of processing methods and storage on the color of tomato juice. The most used color index for evaluating color changes in tomato products during processing has been the Hunter a/b color ratio* In addition, Judd’s color in dex (22) has been used for color evaluation of both process ing methods and changes during storage of canned tomato juice. It should be pointed out that it is impossible to convert these indices to a standard system in many cases.
Therefore, at the present time, before considerable more data is collected concerning the effect of processing -33- varlables and storage, It would seem desirable to adopt a standardized method of presenting color data. -32*.-
III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
This work was conducted as a corollary study to the grade relationship study of fresh tomatoes and canned tomato juice conducted by workers of the Ohio Agricultural Experi ment Station^. Samples in addition to those for grade re lationship studies were taken at various stages during the processing of tomato juice for color measurements as a part of this research.
Research work reported in these studies was started during the 1950 tomato canning season and continued through the 1952 season.
Variety, Growing and Harvesting. During the three years
19^0, 1951* and 1952, the Rutgers variety of tomatoes was grown on the Horticultural Farm at the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. During all three years the tomatoes were grown In accordance with acceptable commercial practice for production of canning tomatoes In Ohio (15)»
Harvesting was started when the fruits were mature enough to comply with the quality desired for processing in the pilot plant. The first picking of Rutgers was started on August 28 in 1950 and ended on September 26. In
1951* picking started on August 13 and finished September 18.
^This work was conducted as a part of a cooperative project between the New York (Geneva), Purdue and Ohio Agricultural Experiment Stations and U.S.D.A. under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 192*.6. -35- In 1952, picking was started on August 8 and finished on September 25* Harvesting was continued at weekly intervals until the tomatoes became too small in size to be handled by the processing machinery or until the plants and fruits were killed by frost. Prior to processing, the fresh tomatoes were graded by an official inspector (a different Inspector was used each year) of the Federal-State Fruit and Vegetable Inspec tion Service. Each tomato was graded and segregated indiv idually according to the factors of color and defects as
outlined in the U.S. Standards for Manufacture of Strained Tomato Products,
A grading table shaded from direct sunlight was pro vided outside the tomato processing pilot plant at The Ohio
State University. The official Inspector handled each fruit Individually and segregated the tomatoes into two grades as follows: (1) U.S. No. 1;
(2) U.S. No. 2 for color (U.S. No. 1 for defects); For certain lots the Inspector further distinguished between U.S. No. l's for color by separating them Into lots desig nated as high U.S. No. l ’s for color (approximately 95 per cent good red color up to 100 percent good red color) and low U.S. No. l ’s for color (approximately 90 percent good red color up to 95 percent good red color). Likewise, the U.S. No. 2 ’s for color were separated into high U.S. No. 2 ’s -36- (approximately 80 percent good red color up to 90 percent good red color) and low ^.S. No, 2's (approximately 66 2/3 percent good red color up to 80 percent good red color) for color* Tomatoes graded and sorted by the inspector were re combined in lots of definite percentages before processing which gave lots of varying grades of raw product (Table III),
Table III. Composition of Lots of Raw Tomatoes for Process- ing of Canned Tomato Juice in 1950, 1951, and 1952.
Lot Percent No. l’s Percent No. 2 ’s No. for color for color
1 100 2 m 100 High #2’s
3 75 25 7 50 50 8 - 100 21 - 100 Low #2’s
22 100 High #l‘s
23 100 I Low #l's
Processing Methods, A flow diagram of the tomato juice op eration is shown in Plow Sheet No. I, The specific steps in the pilot plant processing of tomato juice are discussed below. In 1950, 100 pound lots were prepared for processing tomato juice. In 1951 and 1952, 100 pound lots were pre- -37- flov f t n i l«. X. P n i i I u « i f«r NanfMtan of font* Jaleo la OKI Pilot Plant.
TONASOBS S01SIS TOXASOII OONSIHXO ViSUft HMD OHASKD tv lots or nnrivtTi (Soak ant Ht£h LUfiXZU&iUX- ■a___ its Spray) »mwjLiM4y« isnuonov so ju n OBQPPII* (*►5 aoo.-aU0!.) (l/2- Boroon)
K T H A C T O l r a m m * (.023* Serooa) (.02311Sanaa) d50°%o i«o*7.)
lat Iztraot* I 1 ------1 Joieo Juioo I VXBliffXVO | 1______l i vu raii roiAOfos UK* (.023* Sanaa)
Watt* ooitmtioial . PLJSS-PASSORIZBD noons PianOlXSB (l80*to 190*7.) (2 1/2 nia.-2»K> V) I I YXLLB* rxxxn* (Plain So. 2 Tla Caat) (Plain Vo. 2 Tin Oaaa) (SO y ^ t n a lafll i 4 4 o 4 ) _ (60 grala* VaOl addaA) I I •sot no OLMXVO MA0HXD NACHIIX I MSIUB OOanU) m mv d j i s h x l s oi (To 100*7.) nnrox ealn.)_____ AXS-BU1D BPBjU OOOXJB (To 100*7.) I •a s b d rot OASIS 70S STO&J01*
*Indioatoa aaapllnc point* for eolor aoaaoroaaat -38- pared as In 1 9 5 0 ; and, In addition, 500 and 1000 pound lots were also prepared and processed in the pilot plant. The lots of tomatoes for juice manufaetiare were placed in an air-agitated washer for three to five minutes, then conveyed on a roller type washer which elevated the tomatoes up under a 120-130 pound high pressure water spray. Each to mato was subjected to the equivalent of approximately two revolutions while being washed under the high pressure spray. Tomato juice was processed in 1950 by the "eold-break” extraction method. In 1951 and 1952, both "hot-break” and ncold-breakn extraction methods were used in the processing of tomato juice.
For the ”cold-break"tomato juice, the fresh, whole to matoes were conveyed directly from the washer, scalded in live steam for lj.5 seconds and conveyed to a Langsenkamp Model B Extractor with a screen of .023 inch openings where the tomato juice was extracted (approximately 80°-85°F.juice temperature).
In 1951 and 1952, tomato juice was extracted as de scribed above (1st extract) and, in addition, was also ex tracted as described above with the residue from the first extraction again being extracted In the Langsenkamp Model B (2nd extract). The juice thus obtained from the two extrac tions was combined (blend) and further processed as described below.
For the "hot-break" juice, the fresh, whole tomatoes -39- were conveyed to a Fitzpatrick Model D Comminuting Machine
using a No, 6 (3/4 inch opening) screen. The Fitzpatrick Comminuting Machine was used as a chopper rather than as a
haramer-mill. The chopped tomatoes were pumped from a re ceiving tank at the comminuting machine through a Specialty
Brass Company Tube Freheater where the chopped tomatoes were heated to a temperature of approximately 1809 F. The heated and chopped tomatoes were then pumped to the Langsenkamp Model B (,Extractor where the juice was extracted.
In 195>1, a Selectro vibrating screen was placed in the line for several lots of tomatoes processed into juice.. The
chopped and heated tomatoes were passed through the screen
and were then pumped to the extractor. This procedure en abled a comparison to be made on several lots with and with out a commercial size vibrating screen in order to determine what effect the vibrating screen would have on the color of tomato juice.
In 1951* following the "hot-break" and "eold-break" methods of extraction, two general processes were used to preserve the juice as follows:
(1) The extracted juice was pumped by means of a Cherry-Burrell Viscolizer, tiiich had the breaker- ring" altered to prevent any homogenization of the juice, to a Walker-Wallace Paraflow Plate Heat Ex changer (Model HT with 4 pair of stainless steel
plates) where the juice was heated, to 2lj.00F. and held -1*0- for minutes and cooled to approximately 205°P* The
juice was then filled into No. 2 plain tin cans, 60 grains of sodium chloride was added, the cans were then sealed, inverted and held 2 % to 3 minutes prior to cool ing to approximately 100°P. All the juice in 1950 and
1952 and approximately two-thirds of the pack in 1951 was sterilized using the above process. This process will be referred to throughout this study as the plate- pasteurized process. (2) The extracted juice from the "cold-break" or "hot-break" methods of extraction was preheated with a Specialty Brass Company Tube Preheater to l80°P., filled directly into No. 2 plain tin cans, 60 grains of sodium chloride was added, the cans were sealed, in verted and placed in a retort crate (150 No. 2 capacity) and processed at 1 to 2 pounds steam pressure (211*° to 216°P.) for 30 minutes. Process time and temperature was automatically controlled and recorded. After pro cessing, the tomato juice was cooled in the retort with cold water to approximately 100°P. by continuously run ning water in from the bottom to the top of the retort. Similar methods of heat processing are used in some commercial plants in Ohio at the present time and this method of processing was incorporated during the 1951 study to compare this process ("conventional" process) to the above process. In 1951 > the extracted juice from the 500 and 1000 pound lots was divided in certain instances with part of the juice processed by the plate-pasteurized process and/or part by the conventional process as described above. Thus, it was possible to study the effect of processing methods on the color of tomato juice manufactured from identical raw stock using identical extraction methods. The finished product was then held at room temperature until color measurements were made. During all three years the lots were measured after approximately 2 months storage,
6 months storage, and 10 months storage, except in 1952. In 1952, color measurements were made only after 1 and 5 months storage.
Finished Product Grading. The tomato juice processed from lots of varying composition with respect to color maturity were graded by two official Inspectors in 1950, 1951 and 1952 from the Processed Products Standardization and Inspec tion Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Mark eting Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The canned tomato juice was graded according to the grade fac tors presented in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Tomato
Juice (Canned or Bottled) as given in Table II. Color scores presented were those assigned by the official inspectors.
Preparation of Samples for Hunter Color Measurement
Raw Sample. In 1950, a 10 pound sample of tomatoes of the -k2- same raw product composition as the lot being processed was
used for the evaluation of color. The raw product samples were prepared for color measurement by first quartering the whole tomatoes in a deep tray in order to retain the juice lost during quartering. The quartered tomatoes and juice
were then extracted in a Cefaly pulper in order to remove seeds and peel. Due to the incorporation of air into the pureed sample, deaeration was necessary to remove the air which would have caused erroneous readings. Deaeration was
accomplished in approximately 10-15 minutes by pouring the pureed samples slowly into a five liter flask under a vacuum of 25-30 inches of mercury. By alternately pulling and break
ing the vacuum, the air was removed from the pureed sample.
No heating was used in deaerating because it was previously
found that this would affect the color of the raw puree.
Additionally in 1950> samples of tomato juice were taken at the extractor for color measurement and were also deaer ated as above.
During the 1951 and 1952 seasons, for the ”cold-breakn extraction method, samples of tomato juice for the evalua tion of color changes during processing were taken at the extractor, both from the first and second extraction of
juice and for the combined mixture (referred to in the fol lowing discussion as the "blendbr" sample); and at the fill ing operation immediately following flash sterilization or
180°F. preheating, in the case of the conventional process. -i+3- All samples were deaerated as above with the exception of the fill sample*
For the nhot-breakn extraction method, samples of to mato juice for the evaluation of color changes during pro cessing were taken at the chopper and at the preheater (juice for color measurement was subsequently obtained by extracting in the Cefaly pulper); at the extractor; and at the filling operation immediately following flash sterili zation or l80°F. preheating in the case of the conventional process. All samples were deaerated as above with the ex ception of the extraction, preheater and fill samples, since it was found that deaeration of the hot tomato juice did not change the Hunter Color and Color-Differenee Meter values obtained; whereas, inclusion of air in the cold extracted juice was found to affect values obtained*
After deaeration of the sample, it was poured into a viewing cell constructed by cementing an optical glass^- base onto 6 cm. diameter glass tubing with plastic cement*
Canned Sample. In 1950* 1951 and 1952, after the tomato juice was graded by the official inspectors (6 cans per lot at each grading), a composite sample of each lot was taken from the cans of the same score for color* In practically all cases, one composite sample represented the lots*
It was found that it was unnecessary to deaerate the
^■Obtained from Anchor Hocking Glass Company* -144- composite samples of the processed juice. The composite
sample was then poured into a viewing cell as previously
described for color measurement.
Objective Method of Measuring Color. A Hunter Color and
Color-Difference Meter was used to measure the reflected
color of both the raw and canned tomato juice during the
1900, 1951 and 19^2 seasons. The Hunter Color and Color-
Difference Meter was standardized before taking readings by
using a tomato red porcelain tile^ with a setting as fol
lows: L, 2^.59; ajj, / 27.il.0; and bj^, / 12.514-. A National
Bureau of Standards Red Kitchen and Bathroom Tile was used
to check the preliminary standardization. The meter was restandard!zed each half hour of operation, but rarely re quired readjustment.
For all color measurements in 1950, 1951 and 1952 as presented in this study, the conditions of illumination and exposure of the sample with the Hunter Color and Color-Dif- ference Meter were small area of illumination and small ap erture (1 1/16 inches in diameter).
A jig was constructed and placed above the viewing ap erture in such a manner that the viewing cell would always be held in the same position. All readings were taken with the Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter using the L, aj, and bx, scales.
^Furnished by Dr. S. G. Younkin, Campbell Soup Company. - 45 - Conversion of Hunter L, ar. and br. Readings to Munsell Reno- tatlonsl
In order to convert Hunter L, and b^ readings to Munsell
hue, value and chroma renotatlons for evaluation of color
changes occurring during the processing of tomato juice,
L readings were first substituted into Hunter’s equation: L » 100 Ya
Solving for Y, the equation becomes
Y = (L/100)2
The number obtained for Y was converted to Yv (%) by multi-
by 100,and the correct Munsell value renotation was obtained
from tables given by Nickerson (33)* This conversion was
simplified by calculating and obtaining Munsell value reno
tations for Hunter L readings from 20.1 to 33.0 (Table IV).
After converting all Hunter L readings to Munsell value
renotatlons, it was seen that all color measurements were
more than a Munsell value of 2/ and less than a Munsell
value of Ij./.
Since this variation occurred in Hunter L readings dur
ing processing of tomato juice, it was not feasible to ob
tain Munsell hue and chroma renotations from a ehromaticity
diagram for Munsell value 3/» since this would have given hue and chroma erroneously in many cases. Accordingly, in
correct conclusions as to hue and chroma changes may have been drawn from the data. Thus, ehromaticity diagrams in
terms of Hunter's aj, and b^ were constructed from Younkin's data (If.2) for Munsell values of 2/, 3/, and 1+/ (Figures I, -1+6- Table IV. Conversions of Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter L Readings to Munsell Value Renotations (16, 36).
Mansell Munsell Munsell Munsei; L Value L Value L Value L Value 20.1 2.32 24.1 2.82 28.1 3.29 32.1 3.73 .2 2.31+ .2 2.83 .2 3.30 .2 3.74 .3 2.35 .3 2.85 .3 3.31 .3 3.75 •4 2.36 .4 2.86 .4 3.32 •4 3.76 .5 2.38 • 5 2.87 .5 3.33 .5 3.77 .6 2.39 .6 2.88 .6 3.34 .6 3.78 .7 2.40 .7 2.89 .7 3.35 .7 3.79 .8 2 «4l .8 2.91 .8 3.36 .8 3.80 .9 2.4.3 .9 2.92 .9 3.38 .9 3.81 21.0 2.1*4 25.0 2.93 29.0 3.39 33.0 3.83 .1 2.45 .1 2.94 .1 3.40 .2 2.46 .2 2.95 .2 3.41 .3 2.48 .3 2.96 .3 3.42 •4 2.49 .4 2.98 •4 3.43 .5 2.50 .5 2.99 .5 • 6 2.52 .6 3.00 .6 2$ .7 2.53 .7 3.01 .7 3.47 • 8 2.54 .8 3.02 .8 3.48 .9 2.55 .9 3.04 .9 3.49 22.0 2.57 26.0 3.05 30.0 3.50 .1 2.58 .1 3.06 .1 3.51 .2 2.59 .2 3.07 .2 3.52 .3 2.60 .3 3.08 .3 3.53 2.62 .4 3.09 •4 3.54 •5 2.63 .5 3.10 .5 3.55 • 6 2.64 • 6 3.11 .6 3.57 • 7 2.65 .7 3.13 .7 3.58 .8 2.66 .8 3.14 .8 3.59 .9 2.68 .9 3.15 .9 3.60 23.0 2.69 27*0 3.16 31.0 3.61 .1 2.70! .1 3.17 .1 3.62 .2 2.71 .2 3-19 .2 3.63 .3 2.72 .3 3.20 .3 3.64 •4 2.74 •4 3.21 •4 3.65 2.75 ♦5 3.22 .5 3*66 • 6 2.76 • 6 3.23 .6 3.68 .7 2.77 .7 3.24 .7 3.69 .8 2.78 .8 3.25 .8 3.70 .9 2,80 .9 3.26 .9 3.71 24.0 2.81 28.0 3.28 32.0 3.72 I
-1+7- II and III), in order* to obtain hue and chroma corrected for value*
Construction of ehromaticity diagrams from Younkin's
data gave hue renotation lines of 2.5 units difference; e.g.,
5.OR, 7.5R, 10R, 2 . $ Y R r etc. Also, chroma renotation lines
of 2 units difference were given, e.g., /6 , /8 and /1 0 , etc. It is necessary to estimate the hue and chroma renota tions of any point which falls within the boundaries of an area established by two hue loci and two chroma loci; e.g.,
7.5R to 10R and /6 and /8. 'Therefore, each of these areas included in Figures I, II and III were further divided into
•5 hue units and *5 chroma units to facilitate conversion
to Munsell terms and to increase the accuracy of conversion. Each color measurement reading for each sample was then corrected for Munsell value in the following manner: The Hunter L reading when converted as explained above gave the Munsell value renotation. The Munsell value reno tation was then used to determine which two of the three
ehromaticity diagrams at Munsell value 2/, 3/ or 1+/ to use in order to obtain hue and chroma renotations from Hunter
a^ and b^ readings.
If, for example, an L reading of 22.7 was obtained, by referring to Table TV to convert to Munsell value, the sample would be found to have a Munsell value of 2.65* aj, and b^ readings for this particular sample would then be used to determine Munsell hue and chroma renotations on both the value 2/ and value /3 chroma- tieity diagrams by Interpolation. After determining hue and chroma renotations from the |5 .0
14.0
13.0
12.0
16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 2 2 .0 23.0 24.0 25.0 2 8 0 °L Figure I. Ghromoticity Diagram at Value 2 / to Convert Hunter a^ and to Munsell Hue and Chroma. 150
14.0
13.0
12.0
IOO
9.0
8.0
170 180 19.0 20.0 2L0 22.0 24.0 Figure II. Chromoticity Diogrwn at Value 3 / to Convert'Hunter aj_ crd b|_ to Munsell Hue and Gtroma. 15.0
140
130
120
100
9 0
80
170 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.024.025.0 26.0 270 Ql Figure III. Chromoticity Diagram at Value 4 / to Convert Hunter a and b to Munsell Hue and Chroma. -51- two appropriate ehromaticity diagrams, the corrected hue and chroma renotations were obtained by arithmetical inter polation after the method of Nickerson (33)» between the two ehromaticity diagrams depending upon the determined Mun
sell value of the sample.
e.g.: In the above example, assume an a^ reading of / 22.0 and a bL reading of / 10.0:
At hue * l.l+YR# ; chroma * /7*7 At hue * 8.2R ; chroma * /6.5 Dif hue * TT2 : chroma * 1.2
».65 — ✓ —x Difference: — — — — - — — — — — hue — - 2.08 ~ - / ; ------chroma------— * . .78 * i Corrected to value 2.65: hue * 9.3R » chroma * /6.9 (by subtracting from 2.00/)
■»Por the purpose of interpolation, a hue of I.I4.YR was considered to be ll.ljH, thus facilitating calculations. -52-
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OP RESULTS
In order to determine the nature and extent of color
changes in terms of the Munsell color system that occurred during the processing and storage of canned tomato Juice manufactured from various raw product maturities, Hunter
Color and Color-Difference Meter readings of all samples were converted to Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations as previously outlined. The effect of specific processing methods and the length of storage of the finished product on each of the three Munsell attributes of color were then
studied by analyzing each attribute of color (hue, value and chroma) according to the analysis of variance method as outlined by Snedecor (38)*
A* "Cold-break” Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 1 ).
The data in Table V are Munsell hue renotations for samples of the "cold-break” two extraction plate-pasteur ized process taken at the extractor (samples of both 1st and 2nd extract), blender, filler and after one and five months storage. Data for the lots presented were classi fied by raw product grade as determined by the inspector.
The differences in Munsell hue renotatlons between stages
in manufacture and storage and also between lots were found to be highly significant.
Samples of the second extraction juice had significant ly lower hue renotations (indicating a redder hue) than -53- Table V* Munsell Hue Renotatlons Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the nCold-break” Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 1) Taken at the Extractor (1st and 2nd Extract), Blender, Filler and after 1 Month and 5 Months* Storage for 1951 and 1952 Classified by Raw Product Grade.______Stages of Manufac ure- Storage Sample Points (Months) Lot* Extractor 6 lend- Ho* dst) 1 rarer er er Mean 22a-5-l 10.3 10.2 9.52 22a-6-l 10.1 10.3 9.k5 AVE. 1975 T5725 la-k-1 “ 9 7 5 ^971 8.87 la-5-1 10.k 10.k 9.63 lb-5-1 10.2 10.6 10.3 9.33 la-6-1 10.5 10.1 9.70 lb-6-1 10.2 10.0 10.0 9.37 la-7-1 10.1 10.6 9.53 lb-7-1 10.0 10.1 9.15 la-1-2 9.8 9.8 8.97 lb-1-2 10.2 10.1 9.7 9.32 la-2-2 9.7 9.1 8.52 la-k-2 10.2 io.k 9.k7 la-5-2 10.1 11.7 10.6 9.70 la-6-2 10.0 10.5 11.3 10.28 lb-6-2 10.7 11.3 10.13 AVE. T&755 T§720 23a-5-l 1 9 7 T TT7T 9.72 2a-5-1 10.5 10.3 9.67 3a-5-1 10.3 10.5 9.72 3a-6-l 10.0 10.8 9.97 3a-7-1 10.5 10.6 9.80 3a-2-2 9.k 9.5 8.98 3a-k-2 10.2 10.0 io.k 9.k7 3a-6-2 10.k 10.9 10.07 AVE. r o ? TiTITo TSX 7a-5-1 T 5 7 E 9.70 7b-5-1 10.6 10.9 9.75 7a-6-l 10.1 10.2 9.53 7a-1-2 11.0 11.2 10.1 9.85 7a-2-2 10.2 10.5 9*k& 7a-k-2 11.1 10.3 9.75 7a-5-2 10.7 ll.k 9.93 7a-6-2 10.7 11.8 10.25 AVE. Tff7& T9778 8a-k-l T57o 9.55 8a-5-l 10.1 10.2 10.9 11.7 10.05 8a-7-1 11*7 12.1 10.85 8a—k—2 11.2 11.7 11.6 10.90 8a-6-2 13.0 W12.0 ' V llO 10.92 AVE. “9798 To786 ir n r c 11 eij.0 21a-5-l i n i i S S 9.98 MEAN 10.39 10.51 10.57 TABLE V (Continued)
Analysis of Variance
Source of Stun of Degree of Mean .01 Variance Squares Freedom Square
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage U 4.5.87 5 29.17 165.l4.6w 3.1i|. Between Lots 58*S>0 38 1.58 8.96 l.i|.9
Error 32.61 185 .1763 Total 236.98 227
L.S.D. for stages in manufacture and storage at 0.1 Levels.17 L.S.D. for lots at 0.1 Level2.30 wUnder Lot Noi 22 refers to raw product lots given in Table a is duplicate designation; 5 is replicate; and 1 is year (1951? 2 for 1952).
22 - 100% High U.S. No. l»s 1 - 100% U.S. No. l»s 23 - 100% Low U.S. No. l»s for color. 2 - 100% High U.S. No. 2*s for color. 3.- 75% U.S. No. l»s and 25% U.S. No. 2*s for color. 7 - 50% U.S. No. Its and 50% U.S. No. 2ts for color. 8 - 100% U.S. No. 2ts for color. 21 - 100% Low U.S. No. 2*s for color. - 55 - either the first extraction or the blender samples. However, there was no significant difference in hue renotations be tween the first extraction samples and the blender samples.
These data indicate that the addition of the juice from the second extraction had neither a significant detrimental nor beneficial effect on color with regard to hue.
Additionally, there was a highly significant difference between means of the blender and filler samples, the mean of the filler samples being higher (l.i}.0 hue units) than the mean of the blender samples. This is believed to be due to the heat applied in the pasteurization of the juice. Heat ing produced a color change toward the yellow-red hues (on a Munsell 10 hue circuit, the 10.39R (red) of the 5 k^e cir cuit used for convenience of calculation in Table V would become .39YR (yellow red) ).
After one month storage, there was no significant dif ference between the mean for the filler and one month stor age samples, although the hue mean of samples after five months storage was found to be significantly higher than the mean of samples taken at the filler. However, there was no significant color change in hue between one and five months storage.
The hue averages for samples of all lots of similar raw product composition are given in Table V for all stages in manufacture and storage. When comparing hue renotation averages for blender samples, there was no definite trend -56-
in the raw product* Further, when considering the hue reno
tation averages after five months storage, it can he seen
that there was no significant difference between averages
for lots of 100 percent high U.S. Wo* l's (Lot Wo. 22), 100 percent U.S. Wo. l's (Lot No. 1), 100 percent high U.S. No.
2 fs for color (Lot No* 2), and 75> percent U.S. No. l's and
25 percent U.S. No. 2's for color (Lot No. 3). However there was a highly significant difference between averages for Lot
No. 3 and also between averages for the other lots mentioned above and 50 percent U.S. No. l’s and 50 percent U.S. No. 2 ’s for color (Lot No. 7); as well as between averages for Lot
No. 7 and 100 percent U.S. No. 2*s for color (Lot No. 8 ) 0
Thus, hue renotation averages of lots of similar raw product composition after five months storage showed an increasing trend (red to yellow-red change in hue) with increasing per centages of U.S. No. 2's for color.
When comparing the means of Table V for individual rep licates within a given raw product lot of definite composi tion as determined by the inspector, there was considerable variation between replicates. A possible explanation of this variation may be that the inspector is not able to main tain a consistent color standard throughout the tomato sea son and from season to season. Also, the inspector grades on the basis of the external color of the tomato, whereas the color of the extracted tomato juice is a measure of the internal and external color in the proportions in which they -57- are present in the tomato.
Thus, the data in Table V for the ncold-breakw two ex traction plate-pasteurized process indicated that during pro cessing, Munsell hue renotations increased (red to yellow red change in hue) and Munsell hue renotations generally showed an increasing trend (red to yellow red change in hue) in the finished product with lower maturities of raw product, al though there are some exceptions. It should be pointed out that there was no definite trend in the hue renotation aver ages of the blender samples when classifying lots according to the raw product composition as determined by the inspec tor.
The data in Table VI are Munsell value renotations for samples of the ”cold-break” two extraction plate-pasteurized process taken at the extractor (1 st and 2nd extract), blender, filler and after one and five months storage with the lots classified by raw product grade* The differences in Munsell value renotations between stages in manufacture and storage and also between lots were highly significant,
When comparing means for stages in manufacture and stor age, there were no significant differences in Munsell value renotations between the 1 st extraction, 2nd extraction and blender means of samples. Furthermore, there were no sig nificant differences in Munsell value renotations between the means of filler, one month and five months samples.
However, after pasteurizing (filler, one and five months -58- Table VI. Munsell Value Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the nCold-break” Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Proceds 1) Taken at the Extractor (1st and 2nd Extract), Blender, Filler, and after 1 Month and 5 Months1 Storage for 1951 and 1952 Classified by Raw Product Grade. Stages of Manufacture- Storage- Sample Points______(Months) Lot* Extractor Slend- $111- No. (1st)"" T£ncLY er er Mean 22a-5-l 2.65 2.815 22a-6-l 2.727 AVE. m Ia-4-i 2.897 la-5-1 2.k5 2.668 lb-5-1 2.66 2.835 la-6-1 2.62 2.815 lb-6-1 2.69 2.918 la-7-1 2.75 2.953 lb-7-1 2.80 3.037 la-1-2 2.58 lb-1-2 2.43 1:111 la-2-2 2.16 2.807 la-4-2 2.74 2.912 la-5-2 2.55 2.785 la-6-2 2.72 2.867 lb-6-2 2.71 2.948 AVE. 275T 23a-5-l 3.015 2a-5-l 2.55 2.68 3.08 2.833 3a-5-l 2.ki 2 4 1 2.98 2.698 3a-6-l 2.66 2.65 3.13 2.898 3a-7-1 2.85 2.81 3.33 3a-2-2 2.k6 2.k6 3.19 32.838* 252 3a-k-2 2.83 2. S3 3.19 2.992 3a-6-2 2.72 3^02 2.912 AVE. 2 3 S 7a-5-1 m 2.738 7b-5-l 2.82 3.25 3.06 2.980 7a-6-l 2.82 3.38 3.30 3.082 7a-1-2 2.78 3.35 3 4 6 3.093 7a-2-2 2.59 3 4 1 3.23 2.917 7a-t-2 2.78 3.22 3.17 2.978 7a-5-2 2.74 3.13 3.25 2.948 7a-6-2 2.75 3.09 3.28 2.952 AVE. 3 p z z 8a-4-l 3.078 8a-5-l 2 4 6 2*.9k 2.742 8a-7-l 2.95 3 4 6 3.270 8a-4-2 3.01 3 4 2 3.237 8a-6-2 2.89 3.123 AVE. 21a-5-l 2.992 MEAN 2.687 3.170 3 . 4 1 3.149 -59
TABLE VI (Continued)
Analysis of Variance
Source of Sum of Degree of Mean F p .oi Variance Squares Freedom Square
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 12.19 5 2.^38 388.8i|.'»* 3. U|. Between Lots 1^.21 37 .1138 18 »i5*Hfr l.U-9 Error 1.16 185 .00627 Total 17.56 227
L.S.D. for stages in manufacture and storage at .01-Levels.032 L.S.D. for lots at .01 Level*.056
■» Under Lot Wo., 22 refers to raw product lots given in Table Ilf; a is duplicate designation; 5 is replicate; and 1 is year (1951; 2 for 1952).
22 - 100# High U.S. Wo. l»s for color. 1 - 100# U.S. No. l*s. 23 - 100# Low U.S. No. l's for color 2 - 100# High U.S. No. 2’s for color, 3 - 75# U.S. No. l's and 25# U.S. No. 2*s for color. 7 - 50# U.S. No. Its and 50# U.S. No. 2*.s for color. 8 - 100# U.S. No. 2ts for color. 21 - 100# Dow U.S. No, 2's for color. -60-
storage samples), Munsell value renotations were signifi
cantly higher.
Thus, these data indicate a change in the attribute of
Munsell color, value, during processing from a darker gray
to a lighter gray, although there was no significant change
in Munsell value from the time of filling the tomato juice
into the container up to five months storage of the canned
product*
Munsell value renotation averages for all lots of simi
lar raw product composition are given in Table VI for all
stages in manufacture and storage* Using the L.s.D. between
lots (.0 6 ) to compare these averages for the blender samples,
there was a highly significant increase in Munsell value re
notations between the lots of 100 percent N.s. No* l ’s (Lot
No. 1) and the lots of 100 percent U.S. No. 2's for color
(Lot No, 8 ). In general, Munsell value renotations increased
(darker gray to lighter gray) with increasing percentages of
U.S. No. 2 ’s for color, although there were exceptions. In most cases, however, the exceptions were those raw product
compositions which were only replicated once.
In the case of Munsell value renotation averages for
the finished product after five months storage, there was
a significant difference between value renotation averages
for the lot of 100 percent high U.S. No. l*s for color (Lot
No. 22) and lot of 100 per cent U.S. No. l ’s ^Lot N0 . 1 ).
The Munsell value average for the lot of 100 percent high -61-
U.S. No. I's for color being significantly lower in value
than the average for the 100 percent ^.S. No. 1 lot. There
4 were no significant differences between value averages for
the U.S. No. 1 lot (Lot N0 . l), 100 percent low U.S. No. I's
(Lot N0 . 23), 100 percent high ^.S. No. 2*s for color (Lot
No. 2) and the lot of 75 percent U.S. No. I's and 25 percent
U.S. No. 2's for color (Lot N 0 . 3 ). However, there was a
significant difference between averages for Lot No. 3 as
well as averages for the other lots mentioned above and the
lot of $ 0 percent U.S. No. I's and £0 percent U.S. No. 2 ’s
for color (Lot No. 7V Also, there was a significant differ
ence between averages of Lot No. 7 and the lot of 100 percent
U.S. No. 2 Ts for color (Lot No. 8 ). There was no signifi
cant difference between averages for Lot No. 8 (100 percent
U.S. No. 2's for color) and the lot of 100 percent low U.S.
No, 2's for color. These data indicate, as was also shown
in the case of the blender samples, that Munsell value reno
tations of the finished product after five months storage
increased (darker gray to lighter gray) with increasing per centages of U.S. No. 2's for color in the raw product*
As in the case of Munsell hue renotatlons (Table V), there was considerable variation in Munsell value renota tions between replicates within lots of given raw product composition. Again, this may be due to the difficulty of the inspector in maintaining a consistent color standard.
Therefore, the data in Table VI for the "cold-break” -62- two extraction plate-pasteurized process indicate that dur ing processing Munsell value renotations increased (darker
gray to lighter gray) due to sterilization(heating)• Also, Munsell value renotations of both raw product (blender sam ples) and storage samples tended to increase (darker gray to lighter gray) with increasing percentages of U.S. No. 2 ’s
for color in the raw product. The data in Table VII are Munsell chroma renotations for samples of the "cold-break” two extraction plate-pas teurized process taken at the extractor (samples of both 1st and 2nd extract), blender, filler and after one and five months storage classified by raw product grade. The differ
ences in Munsell chroma renotations between stages in manu facture and storage and also between lots were highly sig nificant.
The chroma renotation mean of the second extract was significantly higher at the 1 per cent level than either the means of the 1st extract or blender samples. Yet, the
chroma renotations of the blender samples were not raised
significantly by the addition of the 2nd extract. Since chroma is a measure of the brightness or purity of a color, (the degree of difference of a color from a gray at the same
value level (33) ) the second extract hadneither a detri mental nor a beneficial effect on the blender sample. With respect to chroma renotations and the effect of storage, there was no significant difference between one and five -63- Table VII. Munsell Chroma Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Cold-break" Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 1) Taken at the Extractor (1st and 2nd Extract), Blender, Filler and after 1 Month and 5 Months* Storage for 1951 and 1932 Classified by Raw Product Grades Stages of Manufactiture- Storage Sample Points______(Months) Lot* Extractor Blend- Fill- No. (1st) (2nd) er er JL______Mean 22a-5-l 6.9 6.70 22a-6-l 6.7 6.4-3 AVE, 6 . 8 0 la-li-1 7.10 la-5-1 6.72 la-5-1 6.63 la-6-1 6.87 lb-6-1 6.90 la-7-1 6.87 lb-7-1 6.88 la-1-2 7.00 lb-1-2 6.88 la-2-2 7.28 la-i^-2 6.35 la-5-2 6.15 la-6-2- 6.17 lb-6-2 6.i|.2 AVE. 23a-5-l 6.1U 2a-5-l 6.k5 3a-5-l 6.62 3a-6-l 6.82 3a-7-1 6.80 3a-2-2 7.25 3a-l|.-2 6.50 3a-6-2 6.25 AVE. 7a-5-l 6 .14.2 7b-5-l 6.57 7a-6-l 6.77 7a-1-2 6.58 7a-2-2 6.92 7a-k-2 6.22 7a-5-2 5.88 7a-6-2 6.08 AVE. 8a-ij.-l 6.95 8a-5-l 6.13 8a-7-l 6.02 8a-k-2 6.25 8a-6-2 6.30 AVE. 2la-5-1 6.32 MEAN 6.28 6.I4.9 6.58 -6k-
TABLE VII (Continued)
Analysis of Variance
Source of Sum of Degree of Mean p p .01 Variance Squares Freedom Square
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 17.77 5 3* 55k 37.29-5** 3.1k
Between Lots 27.20 37 .7351 7.71** l.k9 Error 17.63 185 .0953 Total 62.60 227
L.S.D. for stages of manufacture and storage at .01 Level*.13
L.S.D. for lots at *01 Level*.22
*Under Lot No., 22 refers to raw product lots given in Table IS; a is duplicate designation; 5 Is replicate; and 1 is year (1951; 2 is 1952).
22 - 100$ High U.S. No. l's for color. 1 - 100$ U.S. No. l's 23 - 100$ Bow U.S. No. l*s for color. 2 - 100$ Sigh U.S. No. 2's for color. 3 - 75$ U.S. No. l's and 25$ U.S. No. 2's for color. 7 - 50$ U.S. No. Its and 50$ U.S. No. 2*s for color, o - 100$ U.S. No. 2ts for color. 21 - 100$ Low U.S. No. 2*s for color. -65- months storage. The mean of the chroma renotations for the filler samples was significantly higher than the means of
the first extract, second extract, blender, and also the one and five month storage samples. One possible explanation
for this higher chroma renotation mean of the filler samples
may be that the filler sample was taken after the juice was
pasteurized and while still hot (190°F. to 200°F.). No ef fort was made to cool these samples immediately after taking them from the processing line and in most cases 30 minutes
to an hour elapsed before reading the filler samples on the Hunter instrument. With the canned samples, however, they were spray cooled immediately after holding the hot cans for 2 minutes. Therefore, since the chroma renotation means of the one and five months storage samples were found to be significantly higher than the mean of the blender sam ples mainly due to heating, it is believed that the higher chroma renotations of the filler samples might be attributed to this longer exposure to heat.
Averages for Munsell chroma renotations for all lots of the same raw product composition are included with the data in Table VII. The L.S.D. for lots at the .01 percent level was 0.22, Comparing these averages of the blender samples, in general, Munsell chroma renotation averages de creased significantly (became less bright) with Increasing percentages of U.S. No. 2's for color in the raw product.
The exceptions were those raw product compositions which - 66- were not replicated* Also, when comparing these averages after one and five months storage, Munsell chroma renotations
generally tended to decrease (became less bright) with in
creasing percentages of U.S. No. 2 ’s for color in the raw product. Again, exceptions were those lots which were eith
er not replicated or only replicated twice.
Summarizing with respect to Munsell chroma renotations given for the "cold-break" process in Table VII, the data show that Munsell chroma renotations of tomato juice were
significantly increased (increased brightness) during pro cessing due to heating regardless of raw product maturity. Also, Munsell chroma renotations of both raw product (blend
er samples) and storage samples tended to decrease (decreased brightness) with increasing percentages of U.S. No. 2*s for color in the raw product. Once again, however, as with Mun
sell hue and value renotations, considerable variation oc
curred between replicates within lots of given raw product composition. Here, too, this variation could be due to the
difficulty of the inspector in maintaining a consistent color standard during grading of the raw product.
B. nHot-breakn Plate-pasteurized Process
Table VIII presents data in terms of Munsell hue reno
tations for samples of the Mhot-breakM plate-pasteurized process taken at the chopper, extractor, and after one and five months storage for 19£l and 19$2 with the lots classi fied by raw product grade. The differences in Munsell hue -67- Table VIII* Munsell Hue Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Hot-breakn Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 2) Taken at the Chopper, Extractor and after 1 Month and 5 Months1 Storage for 1951 cuad 1952 Classified According to Raw Product Grade. Stages of Manufacture- Storage (Months) Lot# Sample Points No. Chopper Extractor 1 5 Mean
la-3-1 8.5 9.1 11.8 9.9 9.83 lb-3-1 8.5 2*3 9.9 10.0 9.43 lc-3-1 8.5 8.7 10.0 9.7 9.23 la-4-1 7.6 9.2 10.1 10.2 9.28 la-5-1 8.2 9.5 10.5 io.5 9.68 la-6-1 8.6 9.9 10.3 10.8 9.90 lb-6-1 8.4 9.0 10.0 10.2 9.40 lc-6-1 8.2 9.2 9.1 9.9 9.10 la—7—1 8.6 10.1 10.5 10.5 9.93 la-4-2 8.0 9.8 10.7 10.7 9.83 lb-4-2 8.4 9 4 10.5 10.5 9.53 la-5-2 8.7 10.8 10.7 10.7 10.33 AVE. 8.35 9.5o 10.34 lo.i'o 3a-3-l 8.9 9.7 10.1 10.3 9.75 3a-5-l 8.6 9.1 10.7 10.5 9.73 3a-5-2 9.0 9.4 10.9 9.0 9.58 3a-6-2 9.0 10.0 11.7 11.2 10.48 AVE. 8.88 9.55 10.85 lo. $‘5 7a-3-l 9.0 9.4 10.4 10.7 9.88 7a-5-l 8.2 9 *5 11.0 10.5 9.80 7a-6-l 8.7 9.8 10.1 10.3 9.73 7a-5-2 11.3 9.7 10.9 10.0 10.48 7b-5-2 9.1 9.7 11.4 11.3 10.38 7c-5-2 9.0 9.1 11.1 10.0 9.80 7a-6-2 * X* 10.3 10.9 11.4 10.58 AVE. 9.29 9.64 10.83 10.6(5 8a-3-l 9.9 10.0 10.6 11.0 10.38 8a-4-l 8.0 9.9 io.4 10.9 9.80 8a-5-l 10.1 9.8 10.8 11.2 10.48 8b-5-l 10.1 10.4 10.5 11.1 10.53 8a-4-2 10.4 11.1 11.3 11.9 11.18 8a-5-2 10.1 10.2 11.4 12.2 10.98 8b-5-2 9.6 9.2 11.4 11.5 10.43 8a-6-2 10.5 10.9 11.3 11.7 11.10 AVE. 9.84 I0.i9 10.96 11.44 MEAN 9.01 9.72 10.67 10.65 -68
TABLE VIII (Continued)
Analysis of Variance
Source of Sura of Degree of Mean .01 Variance Squares Freedom Square
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 59.93 3 19.977 78.07## k.Ol Between Lots 35.81 30 1 .1914- J4..67## 1.92 Error 23.03 90 .2559
Total 118.77 123
L.S.D. for stages of manufacture and storage at ,01 Level*.26
L.S.D. for lots at .01 Level*.50
#Under Lot No., 1 refers to raw product lots given in Table HE; a is duplicate designation; 3 is replicate; 1 is year (1951* 2 is 1952).
1 - 100$ U.S. No. l's 3 - 75# O.S. No. l's and 25# U.S. No. 2 ‘s for color. 7 - 50# U.S. No. l»s and 50# U.S. No. 2 !s for color. 8 - 100# U.S. No. 2ts for color. -69- renotations between, stages in manufacture and storage and also between lots were found to be highly significant* There was a highly significant difference between hue renotation means for the chopper samples and the extractor samples; the extractor samples being significantly higher. Likewise, the mean of samples after one month storage was significantly higher than that of the samples taken at the extractor. Additionally, the mean of samples after five months storage was significantly higher than after one month storage. Thus, these data indicate that there was a signif icant change in hue renotations toward yellow red throughout the stages in the manufacture of tomato juice due to heating and, also, from one month up to five months storage time. Hue renotation averages for samples at the various stag es in manufacture and after storage of all lots of a given raw product composition are presented in Table V m , There was a highly significant difference between hue renotation averages for the chopper samples of the lots of 100 percent U.S. No. l's (Lot No. 1 ) and 75 percent U.S. No. l's and 25 percent U,s. No. 2 ’s for color (Lot No.3 ), with L©t No. 3 being significantly higher. There was no significant dif ference between hue renotation averages of chopper samples for the lot of 75 percent U.S. No. l's and 25 percent U.S.
No. 2 ’s for color (Lot No. 3) and that of 50 percent U.S. No. l's and 50 percent U.S. No. 2 ’s for color (Lot No. 7 ),
However, the hue renotation averages for the lot of 100 per- -70- cent U.S. No. 2*s for color (Lot No. 8) was significantly
higher than the average for the lot of 50 percent U.S. No* l's and 50 percent U.S. No. 2's for color (Lot No. 7)# These data indicate that with increasing percentages of U.S. No. 2's for color in the raw produet, there was a signifi
cant increase in Munsell hue renotations (red toward yellow red) in the extracted juice of the chopper samples.
In the case of the Munsell hue renotation averages for the extractor samples, only the lot of 100 percent U.S. No. 2 ’s (Lot No. 8) was significantly higher than the averages of other lots; indicating less difference in hue renotations due to maturity at this particular sampling point. Almost identical results were obtained with hue renotation averages of samples after five months storage, although after one month storage, the average of the lot of 75 percent U.S. No. l’s and 25 percent U.S. No. 2 ’s for color (Lot No. 3) was significantly higher than the lot of 100 percent U.S. No. l's (Lot No. 1).
During processing, there was a change toward yellow red, or increasing Munsell hue renotations regardless of maturity in the ease of the "hot-break” plate-pasteurized process. Furthermore, hue renotations generally increased (red to yellow red) with increasing.percentages of U.S. No. 2 ’s for color in the raw product. The same trend was observed in the ”cold-breakn process as discussed under Table V. How ever, as previously discussed (Tables V, VI, and VII), con -71- siderable variation occurred between replicates within lots of given raw product compositions. This variation was be lieved to be due to the difficulty of the inspector in main
taining a consistent color standard in the grading of the raw product. The data in Table IX are Munsell value renotations for
samples of the "hot-break” plate-pasteurized process taken at the chopper, extractor, and after one and five months storage classified according to raw product grade. Highly significant differences between stages in manufacture and storage and also between lots were obtained*
There was a highly significant increase in Munsell value renotations from the chopper samples to the extractor samples and also between extractor samples and one and five months storage samples. However, there was no significant differ ence between value renotation means for one and five months storage. Again, these significant increases in Munsell value renotations during processing were believed to be due to heat ing; the chopped tomatoes being heated prior to extraction and then the extracted juice being flash-pasteurized prior to canning.
Munsell value renotation averages for all replicates of lots of specific raw product compositions were also tabu lated in Table IX. These averages were compared using the L.S.D. between lots of O.Od. In the case of differences at the chopper due to raw product classes, there was no signif- -72-
Table IX. Munsell Value Renotatlons Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 2) Taken at the Chopper, Extractor, and after 1 Month and 5 Months' Storage for 1951 and 1952 Classified According to Raw Product Grade. Stages of Manufacture- Storage (Months) Lot* Sample Points
No. ' (Chopper Extractor 1 ... 5_ _ Mean la-3-1 2.72 3.10 3.22 3.24 3.070 lb-3-1 2.72 2.83 3.21 3.17 2.983 lc-3-1 2.72 2.95 3.34 3.19 3.050 la-4-1 2.64 2.75 3.17 3.10 2.915 la-5-1 2.57 2.63 2.96 2.95 2.778 la-6-1 2.69 2.75 2.96 2.87 2.818 lb-6-1 2.65 2.86 3.02 3.02 2.888 lc-6-1 2.66 2.91 3.08 3.08 2.933 la-7-1 2.72 2.75 3.14 3 . U 2.930 la-4-1 2.72 2.96 3.09 3.08 2.963 lb-4-2 2.76 2.96 2.96 3.16 2.960 la-5-2 2.66 2.89 3.06 2.940 AVE. 2 7 5 9 2.86 S: i t 3.09
3a-3-l 2.74 3.26 3 .2k 3.045 3a-5-l 2.66 2.88 3.00 2.96 2.875 3a-5-2 2.78 2.89 3.10 3.13 2.975 3a-6-2 2.74 2.89 3.17 8.28 3.020 AVE. 2 7 7 3 2 W 3.13 3.15 7a-3-1 2.78 2.94 3.35 3.21 3.070 7a-5-l 2.72 2.72 2.99 3.02 2.863 7a-6-l 2.72 2.83 3.13 3.05 2.933 7a-5-2 2.72 3.04 3.16 3.16 3.020 7b-5-2 2.75 3.02 3.16 3.17 3.025 7c-5-2 2.55 2.63 3.06 3.02 2.815 7a-6-2 2.82 3*01 3.13 3.32 3.070 AVE. 2.72 2.88 5 i i i ftk 8a-3 -l 2.83 3.02 3.40 3.29 3.135 8 a-4-1 2.78 2.93 3.15 3.16 3*005 Qa-5-1 2.72 3.00 3.07 3.09 2.970 8b-5 -l 2.72 2.81 3.10 3.05 2.920 8a-4-2 3.06 3.36 3.15 3.39 3.240 8a-5-2 2.96 3.21 3.14 3-33 3.160 8b-5-2 2.66 2.78 3.14 3.10 2.920 8a—6-2 2.9^ 3.17 3.17 3.43 3.180 AVE. TM 37T7 MEAN 2.738 2.916 3.133 3.142 -73
TABLE IX (Continued)
i Analysis of Variance
Source of Sum of Degree of Mean F Variance Squares Freedom Square P .01
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 3*4845 3 I.I6150 186.3£## 4.01 Between Lots 1.4079 30 .04693 7.53** 1.92
Error .5615 90 .006233
Total 5.4539 123 ■
L.S.D. for stages of manufacture and storage at *01 Level®• OI4.O
L.S.D. for lots at .01 Level*.077
•fcUnder Lot No., 1 refers to raw product lots given In Table3H; a is duplicate designation; 3 Is replicate; 1 is year (1951? 2 is 1952).
1 - 100# U.S. No. l's. 3 - 75# U.S. No. l's and 25# U.S. No. 2's for color. 7 - 50# U.S. No. l ’s and £0# U.S. No. 2's for color. 8 - 100# U.S. No. 2's for color. -7I+- Icant difference between averages of the lots of 100 percent U*S. No, l's (Lot No, 1), 75 percent U.S. No, l's and 2$ per
cent U.S. No, 2's for color (Lot No. 3) and 50 percent U.S. No. l's and £0 percent U.S. No. 2's (Lot No. 7) for color. However, the Munsell value renotation averages of the lot of
100 percent U.S. No. 2's for color (Lot No. 8) was signifi
cantly higher than for the above mentioned lots (No. 1, 3 and 7)« This agrees substantially with the data given in Table VI for the Munsell value renotations of the ”cold- break” process, namely, that Munsell value renotations in creased significantly with increasing percentages of U.S.
No. 2's for color.
Munsell value renotation differences between averages of lots of definite raw product composition of extractor samples gave exactly the same results as did the chopper samples. There were no significant differences between
Munsell value renotations of lots of similar raw product com position after one month storage, although the five month
storage samples showed the same trend as did the extractor and chopper samples. That is, the average of the lot of 100 percent U.S. No. 2's (Lot No. 8) was significantly higher than for the other lots (No. 1, 3 and 7)« These data indicate a lesser effect of maturity on Munsell value reno
tations than was true in the case of Munsell hue renotations. Again, however, considerable variation between replicates within lots of specific raw product compositions can be ob- -75- served. In summary, processing tomato juice by the ”hot-breakn plate-pasteurized process increased Munsell value renotations
(darker gray to lighter gray), although there was no signifi cant change In Munsell value renotations from one to five
months storage. Additionally, Munsell value renotations in creased significantly (darker gray to lighter gray) with in creasing percentages of U.S. No. 2's for color in the raw
product.
Table X gives data for Munsell chroma renotations of samples for the "hot-break1* plate-pasteurized process taken
at the chopper, extractor, and after one and five months
storage for lots classified according to raw product grade. The differences between stages in manufacture and storage and also between lots were found to be highly significant.
The mean of Munsell chroma renotations of the samples taken at the extractor was significantly higher than the mean of the samples taken at the chopper. Furthermore, the
means of one and five months storage samples were signifi cantly higher in chroma than the mean of the extractor sam ples*. These data indicate that Munsell chroma renotations
increased (Increasing brightness) during processing of to mato juice by the "hot-break" process. As was found in the
case of Munsell value renotations, there was no significant difference in Munsell chroma renotations of samples after one and five months storage. -76- Table X. Munsell Chroma Renotatlons Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 2) Taken at the Chopper, Extractor, and after 1 Month and 5 Months Stor age for 1951 and 1952 Classified According to Raw Product Grade• Stages of Manufacture- Storage (Months) Lot* Sample Points Ho. Chopper Extractor Mean la-3-1 5.7 6.5 7.0 6.6 lb-3-1 5.7 6.0 6.9 6.5 6.28 lc-3-1 5.7 7.2 7.1 6.6 6.65 la—if-1 6.7 6.8 7.2 7.2 6.98 la-5-1 6.9 6.5 6.7 6.3 6.73 la-6-1 6.7 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.85 lb-6-1 6.8 6.8 7.4- 7.1 7-03 lc—6—1 7.0 7.3 7.4 7.0 7.18 la-7-1 6.8 6.6 7.4 6.9 6.93 la-4-2 6.3 6.3 6.4 6.7 6.43 lb-lj.-2 6.5 6.8 6.5 6.9 6.08 la-5-2 6.0 6.5 6. 6.9 6.48 AVE. 6 .4.6 5 7 5 5 5 7 5 5
3a-3-l 5.9 6.7 6.3 6.08 3a-5-l ti 7.0 7.0 6.4 6.75 3a-5-2 6.1 6.4- 6.4 7.0 6.48 3a-6-2 :.8 6.6 6 l L 6.35 AVE. 5758 5 7 5 5
7a-3-l 5.4 6.0 6.9 6.3 6.15 7a-5-l 6.9 7.1 7.1 6.5 6.90 7a-6-I 6.6 6.9 7.3 6.9 6.93 7a-5-2 5.9 6.3 6.5 6.9 6.4o 7b-5-2 6.1 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.35 7C-5-2 5.8 5.9 6.2 6.6 6.13 7a-6-2 .8 6.8 6.10 AVE. I 732 5 ^ 5 7 5 7
8a-3-l 5-1 5.6 6.9 6.3 5.98 8a-4-l 6.4. 6.6 7.4 7.2 6.90 8a-5-l 6.2 6.9 7.0 6.6 6.68 8b-5-l 6.2 6.2 7.1 6.7 6.55 8a-4-2 5.6 6.9 6.5 6.6 6.40 8a-5-2 5.6 6.3 6.0 6.4 6.08 8b-5-2 6.6 5.7 6.1 6.3 6.18 8a-6-2 6.6 6.2 6. 6.15 AVE. fii? 5735 6.65 MEAN 6.13 6.48 6.77 6.70 -77-
TABLE X (Continued)
Analysis of Variance
Source of Sum of Degree of Mean FF Variance Squares Freedom Square .01 Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 7.76 3 2.587 2 4 .66## 1*.01
Between Lots 13.114 30 •W 4.27## 1.92
Error 9.U4 90 .1049 Total 30461;. 123
L.S.D. for stages of manufacture and storage at .01 Levels.16 L.S.D. for lots at .01 Level*.32
#Under Lot No., 1 refers to raw product lots given in Table III tee a is duplicate designation; 3 is replicate; 1 is year (195>1; 2 is 1952).
1 - 100# U.S. No. l*s 3 - 7$% U.S. No. l»s and 25$ U.S. No. 2's for color. 7 - 50$ U.S. No. Its and 50$,U.S. No. 2 !s for color. 8 - 100$ U.S. No. 2's for color. -78«
Averages of replicates of the same raw product compo sition are given in Table X. Comparison of these averages showed that only the average of the lots of 100 percent U.S.
No. l's (Lot No. 1) was significantly higher in the case of the chopper samples than the lots containing increasing per centages of U.S. No. 2's for color. In the case of the ex tractor samples, the averages of the lot of 100 percent U.S.
No. l's (Lot No. 1) was significantly higher than the aver ages for the lots of 75 percent U.S. No. l's and 25 percent
N.S. No. 2's for color (Lot No. 7) end 100 percent ^.S. No.
2's for color (Lot No. 8). After both one and five months storage, there were no significant differences between aver ages of lots of definite raw product composition.
Summarizing the discussion of the data presented In
Table X for the "hot-break” process, Munsell chroma increased
(increased brightness) during processing probably due to the heating of the chopped tomatoes prior to extraction and also due to heating during pasteurization prior to canning* There was no significant effect of five months storage on the Mun sell chroma renotations of canned tomato juice. Although significant differences in chroma renotations due to raw product composition were found only in the chopper and ex tractor samples, no significant differences were found after storage. These data indicated oniy a slight effect of in creasing percentages of U.S. No. 2's for color on Munsell chroma renotations. However, differences obtained indicated -79- that Munsell chroma decreased slightly with increasing per centages of U.S. No. 2 ’s for color in the raw product.
C . ^Cold-break1* Two Extraction Process vs. wHot-breakn jpiatie-pasteurize'd Process Due_ to the fact that the major part of the lots of raw tomatoes manufactured into tomato juice in this study were processed either by the "cold-break” two extraction plate- pasteurized process, or by the "hot-break" plate-pasteurized process for which data are presented in Table V through X, these two processes will be discussed with respect to: (1) color differences between these two processes, and (2) color differences due to maturity. Also, an attempt will be made to establish color standards or specifications in terms of
Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations for the raw juice to predict finished product color scores. In order to determine color differences between the two processes and eolor differences due to maturity, it was first necessary to find a method of classifying the various lots for comparison purposes. One month storage samples will be used for comparison purposes since little difference generally was found upon statistical analysis between Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations of storage samples. Since the blender sample for the ’’cold-break" process and the chopper sample for the ”hot-breakw process represent unheated juice extracts, they will be used to represent extracted raw product juice samples. -80- Table XI presents data for average Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations of samples for the ncold-break" two
extraction and the ’’hot-break" plate-pasteurized processes taken of the raw product (blender and chopper samples) and after one month storage classified according to the grade
of the raw product. When classifying lots according to the
raw product grade, for both the "cold-break11 and '‘hot-break* processes, Munsell hue renotations tended to increase (red to yellow red) with Increasing percentages of U.S. No. 2 ’s for color. Munsell value renotations also tended to in crease (dark gray to light gray) with increasing percentages
of U.S. No. 2 ’s for color In the raw product. Conversely, Munsell chroma renotations tended to decrease (less bright ness) with increasing percentages of U.S. No. 2 ’s for color in the raw product. This was generally true for the raw product samples as well as for the storage samples. However,
there were some exceptions to these trends which made It dif ficult to establish color specifications for predicting fin
ished product color scores. For example, in the "cold-break" process data, the hue averages for the lots of 75 percent
U.S. No. l's and 2$ percent U.S. No. 2's for color (75-25) were higher than the hue renotation averages for the lots of 50 per cent U.S. No. l’s and 50 percent U.S. No. 2 ’s for color indicating a better color (more red) with 50 percent U.S. No. 2*s for color than with 25 percent U.S. Ho. 2 ’s for color. Similar discrepancies also occurred In the finished -8 1 -
Table XI. Average Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Renotations and USDA Color Scores of Samples for the "Cold- break" Two Extraction (Process 1) and the "Hot-break” (Pro cess 2) Plate-pasteurized Processes Taken of the Raw.Product (Blender and Chopper Samples) and after One Month Storage in 1951 and 1952 for Lots of Varying Raw Product Composition.
"Cold-break" Twb Extraction Plate Pasteurized Process * Ave. Raw Product Sample Storage USDA Compo No. of (Blender) (1 Month) Color sition* Rep. Hue . V alue/ Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Score
100-0 11]. 8.6i].R 2.65/ 6.5i|- .25XR 3-08/ 6.77 28.6 75-25 6 9.30R 2.61]/ 6 .I4.5 .10YR 3 . W 6.73 28.3 50-50 8 8.90R 2.73/ 6.13 .65YR 3.18/ 6.1]8 27.3 0-100 5 9.56R 2.81]/ 5.96 1 • 1].0YR 3.29/ 6 .ij.2 26.0
”Hot-break" PIate-pasteurized Process
Raw Product Sample Storage Compo No. of (Chopper) (1 Month) Color sition* Rep. Hue Value/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Score
100-0 12 8.35R 2.69/ 6.U.0 .31±YR 3*11/ 6.96 28.0 75-25 k 8.88R 2.73/ 5.98 .85nt 3 .13/ 6.68 27*5 50-50 7 9.29R 2.72/ 6.03 .83YR 3.11]/ 6.66 26.9 0-100 8 9.89R 2.81]/ 5.89 • 96YR 3.17/ 6.65 26.1].
* 1st Number indicates percent U.S. No. l*s; 2nd Number, per cent U.S. No. 2's Account Color. -8 2 - product. In addition, differences in Munsell hue, value
and chroma renotations were too small to establish color
specifications. These differences may be explained in part
as follows: first, that the inspector was not able to main tain a consistent color standard throughout the seasons for
No. 1 and No. 2 tomato color (90 percent red and 66 2/3 per
cent red, respectively). Secondly, that a U.S. No. 1 tomato which is 90 percent tomato red or higher, and a U.S. No. 2
tomato which is 66 2/3 percent tomato red to 90 percent to mato red may vary over a relatively large range. It Is not
possible by this method of classification to know whether tomatoes in a given replicate are predominately 66 2/3 per
cent red or 89 percent red, thus allowing considerable color variation to occur. Third, although U.S. color scores gen erally decreased with increasing percentages of U.S. No* 2's
for color In the raw product, all average color scores fall within the U.S. Grade A range for color of canned tomato
juice making It impossible to attempt to establish a stan dard for U.S. Grade C color of canned tomato juice. Due to the inadequacies of the above method of classi
fying lots (Table XI) and since other workers (6, 18, 35» J+3) have stated that Munsell hue is one of the most important factors in determining tomato color, an attempt was made to classify all lots of raw product compositions of 100 percent U.S. No. l ’s, 75 percent U.S. No. l ’s and 25 percent U.S. No. 2's for color, 50 percent U.S. No. l*s and 50 percent -83- U.S. No. 2 ’s for color, and 100 percent U.S. No. 2*s for color on the basis of Mansell hue renotations. Therefore, the individual lots for each process were classified accord ing to the L.S.D. of .ij.1 for the ”cold-break" process by the hue means for stages in manufacture and storage. Munsell hue, value and chroma averages of each classification were then calculated* These data for the raw product (chopper and blender samples) and for the one month storage samples, are given in Table XII. These data show that for both the ”cold-break” and ”hot- break” processes, as average Munsell hue renotations of the blender and chopper samples increased (red to yellow red), Munsell value renotation averages also increased (dark gray to light gray). Conversely, as Munsell hue and value reno tations increased, Munsell chroma decreased (less brightness) in the raw product. After one month storage, Munsell value renotations tended to increase in the instance of the "cold- break” process, particularly at the lower hue classification (classification 6). In the case of the "hot-break” process, there was little difference in Munsell value renotations for the entire range of hue classifications. Generally, for both the ”hot-break” and ”cold-break” processes, Munsell chroma renotations decreased (less brightness) after one month stor age as Munsell hue renotations increased (more toward yellow red). The average U.S.D.A. color score of the finished prod uct decreased with increasing hue (red to yellow red change). - 81!.- Table XII. Average Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Renotatlons and USDA Color Scores of Samples for the *Cold- break" Two Extraction (Process 1) and the 11 Hot-break” .(Pro cess 2). Plate-pasteurized Processes Taken of the Raw-Product (Blender and Chopper Samples) and After One Month Storage in 1951 and 1952 for Lots Classified According to Munsell Hue Renotations ______.______BCoid-break* Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process Ave. Classi- Raw Product Sample Storage USDA fiea- No.of Color tion* Rep. fiue y alue/Chr oma Hue V alue/ Chroma Score 1 k 8.33R 2.63/ 6.78 9.68R 3.15/ 7.18 29.3 2 7 8.67R 2.67/ 6.53 • 06YR 3 .10/ 6.76 29.1 3 13 8.88R 2.68/ 6.37 • 59YR 3.16/ 6.58 27.6 6 9.35R 2.69/ 6.13 .53YR 3 .06/ 6.35 27.1 I 3 .10YR 2.95/ 5.57 2.1YR 3.11-1/ 6.50 25.0 L.S.D. at .01 level for all lots .41 .08 .26 .hi .08 .26 L.S*D• at 0.1 level for stages in manufacture of canned tomato Juice: Hue = .67 ; Value = .Oij.; Chroma = .13 1IHot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process „ ...... Ave. Classi Raw Product Sample Storage USDA fica No. of (Chopper) (1 Month) Color tion* Rep. Hue Value/ Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Score 1 2 k 8.18R 2.67/ 6.55 9.80R 3.15/ 7.28 28.5 3 7 8.3l|JR 2.70/ 6 .I1.3 •l+OYR 3.07/ 6.89 27.9 k 8 8 .73R 2.71/ 6.0k • 76YR 3.13/ 6.81!. 27.8 5 8 9.53R 2.7i|/ 5*94 1.00YR 3.16/ 6.60 26.5 6 Ij- • 58YR 2.92/ 5.63 1.23YR 3.16/ 6.30 25.3 L.S.D. at .01
level for all - -d O p-f O » lots .61 • .61 .10 .lj.0 L.S.D. at 0.1 level for stages in manufacture of canned tomato juice: Hue 58 .30; Value - .05; Chroma = .20
* Classified on the basis of L.S.D. at .01 level for the *cold-break* process for Munsell Hue: 1 includes all lots with average hue of 8 .3 OR - 8 .7 IR; 2, 8.72R - 9.13R; 3, 9.12J.R - 9.55RJ k> 9.56R - 9.98R; 5, 9.99R - •39YR; 6, .ij-OYR or higher. -85- Also, when classifying the raw product color on the basis of Munsell hue, it appeared that the "cold-break" pro
cess retained more color in the finished product when toma toes of lower Munsell hue renotations were being processed. For example, in hue classification 2, the raw product (chop per) samples of the "hot-break" process had a lower average
Munsell hue renotation than the raw product (blender) sam ples of the "cold-break" process. Yet, in the finished prod uct after one month storage, the hue renotatlon increase dur
ing processing was lower for the "cold-break" process (/1.39) than for the "hot-break" process (/l.62). This difference in hue increase resulted in a higher average U.S.D.A. color
score of 29.1 for the "cold-break" process than for the "hot- break" process of 2 8 .5 * Conversely, at the lower hue renotation classification (classification 6) it appeared that the "hot-break" process retained more color in the finished product when tomatoes of
lower Munsell hue renotations were being processed. When comparing the average hue renotation of the raw product samples (chopper) of the "hot-break" process to that of the "cold- break" raw product samples (blender), the average raw prod uct hue renotation of the "hot-break" process was higher (more toward yellow red) indicating poorer color of the raw product than for the "cold-break" process. However, in the finished product after one month storage, the "cold-break" process produced juice of higher Munsell hue renotations -8 6 - (more yellow red) than did the "hot-break" process. Thus, better color retention was indicated in the case of the "hot- break" process. These inferences were also borne out by the
higher average U.S.D.A. color score (determined by visual comparison to Munsell spinning disks) for the "hot-break11
process (2 5 *3 ) than for the "cold-break" process (25>.0). In spite of the information gained by classifying ac cording to Munsell hue renotations, there are certain disad vantages for the purpose of establishing raw product color specifications in order to predict finished product color. Mainly, the disadvantages are: slight differences in hue
renotations of the raw product samples (blender and chopper samples) between hue classification groups for the "hot- break" and "cold-break” processes; differences between pro cesses in color scores for the same hue classification group;
small differences between hue classification groups with re gard to Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations; the fact
that the hue classifications used were arbitrary and could
not be related to significant visual differences; and that this method of classification does not take into considera
tion the effect of Munsell value and chroma renotations on the visual color of tomato juice.
As previously discussed, there were certain disadvan tages of the methods of classifying the lots processed by the "hot-break" and "cold-break" plate-pasteurized processes according to raw product grade or according to hue renota -87- tion classifications. Therefore, it was decided to attempt
a classification in terms of the finished product in order
to determine what color was necessary in the raw product to
produce a given color in the finished product. With this in mind, the lots were classified on the basis of the U.S.D.A.
color score assigned to the finished product after one month
storage. As discussed in the "Literature Review" under TCol- or Matching* (pages 8-11), finished product color scoring by the U.S.D.A. was accomplished by matching the color of toma to juice samples to spinning disks of definite Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations. Therefore, it was believed
that this semi-objective scoring method could be used satis
factorily for classifying lots; and, in addition, that it would thus be possible to determine the Munsell hue, value
and chroma renotations required in the raw product to pro
duce a given color in the finished product that would be
based on visually perceptible color differences.
Table XIII gives the average Munsell hue, value and
chroma renotations and average U.S.D.A. color scores of sam ples for the "cold-break® and "hot-break* plate-pasteurized processes of the raw product (blender and chopper samples) and after one month storage for lots when classified accord ing to the U.S.D.A. color scores of the canned tomato juice.
U.S.D.A. color score classifications of the finished product were 29-30 points (high U.S. Grade A)-, 28-28.9 point3 (medium U.S. Grade A), 26-27*9 points (low U.S. Grade -8 8 -
Table XIII. Average Munsell Hue,i Value and Chroma Renota tions and USDA Color Scores of Samples for the *£old-break” Two Extraction (Process 1) and the "Hot-break*1 .(Process 2) Plate-pasteurized Process Taken of the Raw Prod uct (Blender and Chopper Samples) and after One Month Storage in 19^1 and 1952 for Lots Classified According to USDA Color Scores.
"Cold-break” Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process
Ave. Classi- USDA Raw Product Sample Storage fica- Color No.of _____(Blender) (1 Month) tion# Score Hue Hue
29-30 29.3 Ik 8.7l*R 2.61/ 6.68 .02YR 3.10/ 6.91 28-28.9 28.0 7 8.91R 2.68/ 6.31 • lifZR 3.11a/ 6.59 26-27.9 26.9 9.03R 2.73/ 6.16 .81YR 3 .13/ 6.1*6 23-25.9 25.0 3 .10YR 2.95/ 5.57 2 .13YR 3-ij.l/ 6.^0 L.S.D. at 0.1 Level
for all lots - •Ip. .08 .26 .ip. .08 .26 L.S.D. at 0.1 level for stages in Manufacture of Canned Tomato Juice Hue - .67; Value - *0if.; Chroma = ,13
“Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process
Ave • Classi- USDA Raw Product Sample Storage fica- Color No.of (Chopper)_____ (1 Month) tlon* Score Rep. Hue Value/1 Chroma Hue V alue/1 Chroma
29-30 29.0 k 5.95 9.78R 3.22/ 7.03 28-28.9 28.0 11 6.3U .^OYR 3.11/ 7.05 26-27.9 26.8 12 9.27R 6.20 .93YR 3.1^/ 6.65 23-25.9 21*..8 k .18YR 5.53 1.23YR 3.15/ 6.25 L.S.D. at 0.1 Level for all lots .61 .10 .ij.0 .ip. .10 .14-0 L.S.D. at 0.1 level for Stages In Manufacture of Canned Tomato Juice Hue » .30; Value 58 .05: Chroma a .20 ^Classified on the basis of USDA Color Score: 29.0-30.6 points, High Grade A color; 28.0-28.9 points, Medium Grade A Color; 26.0-27.9 points, Low Grade A Color; and 23-25*9 points, Grade C Color. -89- A), and 23-25.9 points (U.S. Grade C).
These data have shown that color specifications for the
raw product as well as for the finished product should take
into consideration the three attributes of the Munsell color
system, hue, value and chroma. For example, Munsell hue re- notations of both the raw and finished product increased (toward yellow red) as USDA color scores decreased (poorer
color grade). For the Mcold~break" process, Munsell value
renotations tended to increase (darker gray to lighter gray) in both the raw and finished products as USDA color scores
decreased. In the case of the “hot-break" process, there was a similar increasing trend in the Munsell value renota tions of the raw product, although there was no trend in the
finished product. Further, for both "cold-break" and ®hot-
break® processes, as USDA color scores decreased, Munsell chroma renotations of the raw and finished products tended
to decrease (less brightness).
From these data, it should be possible to attempt to
establish a color standard for the raw product (chopper or blender samples) In terms of Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations. Thus, it would be possible to predict the fin
ished product USDA color score by means of present methods used for evaluating the color of the finished product. In other words, Munsell spinhing disks could be made to cover the range of Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations for
the raw product In order to predict canned tomato juice colors for 28 to 30 score points (high U.S. Grade A for col or), 26 to 27*9 score points (Low U.S. Grade A for color) and 23 to 25.9 score points (U.S. Grade C for color). It is believed that the processor could thus utilize methods presently in use to predict the finished product color of canned tomato juice by comparing the raw product tomato color (extracted juice) to Munsell spinning disks of the proposed Munsell color specifications given in Table XIV.
Table XIV. Proposed Munsell Color Specifications for Raw Product Tomato Color (Extracted Juice) to Pre dict USDA Grade for Color.*
Munsell Renotations Hue V alue / Chroma
High U.S. Grade A 8.7R 2.66 / 6.3 . (28-30 Points)
Low U.S. Grade A 9.5H 2.72 / 6.2 . (26-27.9 Points)
U.S. Grade C. 0.3YR 2.95 / 5.6 (23-25.9 Points)
M These specifications should apply either for the extracted juice of the chopper sample for the “hot-break” plate-pas teurized process or for the blender sample of the “cold- break” two extraction plate-pasteurized process when using the Rutgers variety of tomatoes for processing.
Similar proposed color specifications given in Table
XV were also calculated and interpolated from Appendix Tables -91- A and C for the L, a^ and bL readings of the Hunter Color and
Color-Difference Meter. It is believed that it would be pos sible to use these specifications to predict finished product
U.S.D.A. color scores of canned tomato juice when measuring
the color of the extracted juice by means of the Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter.
Table XV. Proposed Color Specifications in Terns of Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter L, a^ and b^ Readings for Raw Product Tomato Color (Extracted Juice) to Predict USDA Grade for Color.*
Hunter Color and Color-Difference ______Meter Readings L a^ b^,
High U.S. Grade A 22.9 + 20.6 + 9*0 (28-3 0 .Points)
Low U.S. Grade A 23.3 + 19.5 + 9.3 (26-27.9 Points)
U.S. Grade C 25.2 + 17.6 + 9.9 .(23-25*9 Points)
# These specifications should apply either for the extracted juice of the chopper sample for the “hot-break" plate-pas teurized process or for the blender sample of the “cold- break* two extraction plate-pasteurized process when using the Rutgers variety of tomatoes for processing.
D. ”Cold-break” Plate-pasteurized Process vs. Conventional Process! I : .
Munsell hue renotations of samples for the "cold-break" two extraction plate-pasteurized and conventional retort pro cesses taken at the extractor (1st and 2nd extracts), blender -92-
and after one, five and ten months storage are presented in Table XVI. The differences between stages in manufacture and storage as well as between process and lots were found
to be highly significant. There was no significant difference between means of
the samples taken of the.juice at the first extraction and
the blender, although as previously shown with the "cold- break" plate-pasteurized process (Table V) the Munsell hue renotation mean of the samples of the second extract was significantly lower (more red) than that of the first ex tract. However, again the effect on the color of the blend ed juice was neither detrimental nor beneficial. In addi
tion, no significant difference in Munsell hue renotation means was found between one, five and ten months storage* The main purpose of these data in Table XVI was to com pare the "cold-break" conventional process to the plate-pas teurized process. After extraction and blending of the to matoes composing each of the above lots, the juice obtained
was divided into two equal portions, one-half of which was
processed by each of the two above processes and as outlined
in "Experimental Methods", Comparing hue renotation means of the stages in manu facture and storage by the L.S.D. for processes and lots (0 .1|.2 ), the hue renotation mean for the conventional retort process had significantly higher hue renotations (more to ward yellow red) in three of the four lots processed. The I! | ! !
-93-
Table XVI. Munsell Hue Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Cold-break11 Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 1) Compared to the ”Cold-break” Two Extraction Conventional Re tort Process (Process 7) Taken at the Extractor (1st and 2nd Extracts), Blender and After 1, £ and 10 Months Storage for 1951 Classified by Raw Product Grade•
Stages of Manufacture- Sample Points Storage Lot Pro- Extractor _____ (Months)_ No.-ft cess ~(1st') (2nd.)'' Rlender 1 5 16 Mean la-14.-1 7 8.5 7.9 •8.5 10.3 10.6 9.8 9.27 1 8.5 7.9 8.6 9.2 9.1 8.9 8.70 8a-.l4.-l 7 9.2 8.7 8 .I4- 11.2 11.2 11.3 10.00 1 9.6 8.7 8.5 9.8 10.0 10.6 9.53 la-6-1 7 9.8 8.9 9.8 11.7 11.2 11.1 10 .k2 1 9.0 9.1 8.9 10.5 10.1 10.1 9.62 lb-7-1 7 8.9 8.2 8.5 10.5 10.6 10.3 9.50 1 8.1 7.9 8.5 10.0 10.1 10.2 9.13 MEAN 8.95 8 .I4.I 8.71 10.1+0 10.36 10.29
Analysis of Variance Source of Sura of Degree of Mean F Variance Squares Freedom Square F.0l Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 31+. 22 5 6 . 8 4 I4.2.33** 3.60 Between Process es and Lots 11.58 7 1.651+ 10 .23*# 3.20 Error 5.66 35 .1617
Total 5 1 4 6 1+7 L.S.D. for stages in manufacture and storage at.01 Level*.38 L.S.D. for processes and lots at.01 Level*.^2 ■&Under E0t No., 1 refers to raw product lots given in Table III; a is duplicate designation; i*. is replicate; 1 is year (1951). 1 - 100$ U.S. No. l’s for color 3 - 100$ U.S. No. 2's for color -9^- hue renotation mean of the fourth of these four lots for the conventional process was not significantly higher. These data indicated that with respect to Munsell hue reno tations, the "cold-break" conventional process produced to mato juice of slightly inferior color.
Table XVII. USDA Color Scores for the "Cold-break** Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized and Conven tional Processes.
USDA Color Scores Lot (Averages for 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage) No. Plate-pasteurized Conventional
la-k-1 29.3 29.3 8a-4-l 27.6 27.3 la-6-1 27.3 28.0 lb-7-1 28.0 27.3 Grand Average 28.1 28.0
U.S.D.A. color scores for the above two processes are given in Table XVII. These data (Tables XVI and XVII) show that although hue renotation means for the plate-pasteurized process were generally lower (more red) than for the conven tional process, the grand averages of U.S.D.A. color scores for one, five and ten months storage Indicated little dif ference in color scores for canned tomato juice manufactured either by the Mcold-breakn plate-pasteurized process or the conventional process. Table XVIII gives Munsell value renotations of samples for the "cold-break” two extraction plate-pasteurized and -95- conventional retort processes taken at the extractor (1st and 2nd extract), blender and after one, five and ten months
storage. The differences between stages in manufacture and storage and also between processes and lots were highly sig
nificant. The L.S.D. of .089 between stages in manufacture and storage showed no significant difference between Munsell value renotation means of samples of the first extract, sec
ond extract and blender samples. Munsell value renotation means after one, five and ten months storage were in all cases significantly higher (light er gray) than means of the extractor and blender samples,
although there were no significant differences in Munsell value renotation means due to storage. With respect to the effect of the "cold-breakM plate- pasteurized and conventional process on Munsell value reno
tations, in all cases the means of stages in manufacture and storage of Munsell value renotations for the conventional process were significantly lower than for the plate-pasteur ized process. This would indicate a darker shade of the particular red or yellow red hue in the finished product and may possibly explain why greater differences were not found in U.S.D.A. color score averages between the two pro cesses above (Table XVII); the darker shade possibly nulli fying to a certain extent the higher Munsell hue renotations (more yellow red) obtained for the conventional process. -96-
Table XVIII. Munsell Value Renotations Calculated from Hunt er Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the ”Cold-breakn Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process {Process 1) Compared to the "Cold-break" Two Extraction Con ventional Retort Process (Process 7) Taken at the Extractor (1st and 2nd Extracts), Blender, and After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage for 1951 Classified by Raw Product Grade.
Stages of Manufacture- Sample Points Storage Lot Pro Extractor (Months) No.* cess (1st) (2nd) Blender 1 5 10 Mean la-ft-1 7 2.68 2.68 2.69 2.88 2.77 2.89 2.765 1 2.68 2.68 2.69 3.11 3.07 3.19 2.903 8a-ft-l 7 2.77 2.83 2.85 2.91 2.91 2.96 2.872 1 2.77 2.83 2.88 3.38 3.28 3.26 3.067 la—6—1 7 2.kft. 2.71 2.71 2.58 2.83 2.87 2.690 1 2.62 2.53 2.7ft 2.95 3.01 3.05 2.817 lb-7-1 7 2.80 2.82 2.77 3.01 2.99 2.99 2.897 1 2.80 2.82 2.77 3.29 3.2ft 3.30 3.037
MEAN 2.695 2.738 2.763 3.01ft 3.013 3.06ft
Analysis of Variance
Source of F Sum of Degree of Mean P .01 Variance Squares Freedom Square
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 1.100ft 5 .2201 25.35*"* 3.60 Between Process es and Lots .6817 7 .09739 11.22** 3.20
Error .3039 35 .008683 Total 2.0860 ft? L.S.D. for stages in manufacture and storage at .01 Level*.089 L.S.D. for processes and lots at .01 Level*.096
*Under Lot No., 1 refers to raw product lots given in Table III; a is duplicate designation; ft is replicate; 1 is year (19^1). 1 - 100# U.S. No. l's 8 - 100# U.S. No. 2's for color -97- Table XIX gives data for Munsell chroma renotations of
samples for the ”cold-break” two extraction plate-pasteurized
and the conventional retort processes, No significant dif
ferences were found between stages in manufacture and stor
age, although the differences between processes and lots were highly significant.
Munsell chroma renotation means of two of the four lots were significantly higher (brighter color) for the plate-
pasteurized process. In addition, chroma renotation means
for the plate-pasteurized process also were higher for the
other two lots even though the means were not significantly higher.
Thus, the data in Table XIX indicate that Munsell chroma renotations were higher (brighter color) for the ”cold-break” plate-pasteurized process than for the ”cold-break” conven
tional retort process.
In comparing the ”cold-break” plate-pasteurized and conventional retort processes in terms of Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations, and U.S.D.A. color scores, little difference was found between the two processes with regard to the average U.S.D.A. color scores. This agrees general ly with the results of Blumer et al (6), who showed that high temperature short-time flash presterilization of to mato juice did not produce tomato juice of inferior color to that produced by conventional processes, and that with either process color did not improve on storage using the -98-
Table XIX. Munsell Chroma Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Cold-break” Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 1) and the "Cold-break" Two Extraction Conventional Retort Process (Process 7) T'aken at the Extractor (1st and 2nd Extract), Blender, and After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage for 1951 Classified by Raw Product Grade.
Stages in Manufacture- Sample Points Storage Lot Pro- Extractor (Months) NO.it cess TTstT" (End) Blender 1 5 10 Mean la-l+-l 7 8.7 7.1 6.8 6.7 6.2 6.6 6.68 1 6.7 7.0 6.8 7.6 7.1 7.1+ 7.10 8a-l+-l 7 6.1 6.1 7.0 6.2 5*5 5.7 6.10 1 7.3 6.9 7.0 6.2 7.2 6.1+ 6.83 la-6-1 7 6.9 6.5 6.6 6.8 6.0 6.5 6.55 1 6.3 6.8 7.0 7.2 6.7 7.0 6.83 lb-7-1 7 ' 6.1+ 6.8 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.73 1 6.1* 6.8 6.6 7.3 6.9 7.7 6.95 MEAN 6.60 6.75 6.80 6.86 6.55 6.78
Analysis of Variance
Source.of Sum of Degree of Mean F F 00 F .01 Variance Squares Freedom Square Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage .59 5 .1180 1.23 1+.1+8 9.31+
Between Process m m es and Lots 3.82 7 .511-57 3.11** 2. 29 3.20
Error 5.07 35 *11+1+9 Total 9.1+8 1+7 L.S.D. for process and lots at .01 Level = .39
•H-Under Dot No., 1 refers to raw product compositions as given in Table III; a is duplicate designation; 1+ is replicate; and 1 is year (1951)* 1 - 100$ U.S. No. l»s 8 - 100$ U.S. No. 2's for color -99- color index previously explained. However, Blumer et al (6)
stated that these results did not agree with their visual color evaluations. Table XX presents data for the average
U.S.D.A. color scores of all lots for the two above processes after one, five and ten months storage.
Table XX. USDA Average Color Scores for the "Cold-break” Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized (Process 1) and Conventional Retort (Process ?) Processes after 1, £ and 10 Months Storage in 1951*
USDA Color Score After Storage Process 1 Month 5 Months 10 Months
7 27.8 28.3 28.0 1 28.3 28.0 28.0
Data presented in Table XX show, contrary to the work of Blumer et al (6) in the case of the effect of storage on visual color evaluations, that U.S.D.A. color scores were not appreciably different either due to process or storage.
This agrees with Munsell hue,value and chroma renotations as discussed in Tables XVI, XVIII andXCXj namely, that there were no significant differences between Munsell hue, value, or chroma renotation means after one, five and ten months storage.
Another point previously shown, that the Munsell hue renotation may not be the main factor in determining visual color of tomato products, was again shown in comparing these - 100-
processes. Although, for example, Munsell hue renotation
means of the "cold-break" plate-pasteurized process were
significantly lower (more red) in 7£ percent of the compari
son lots processed, there was no appreciable difference in
color scores assigned the finished product. It is believed
that significantly lower Munsell value renotation means of
lots of the "cold-break" conventional process were responsi
ble for nullifying the differences found in Munsell hue re
notations. Therefore, these data indicate that lowering the
Munsell value renotation of tomato juice would have a desir
able effect on the color score of the canned product.
E. "Hpt-break" Plate-pasteurized Process vs. Conventional Process
Table XXI gives Munsell hue renotations of samples for
the "hot-break" plate pasteurized and conventional retort
processes taken at the chopper, extractor, filler and after
one, five and ten months storage. The differences between
stages in manufacture and also between processes and lots were found to be highly significant.
When comparing means for stages in manufacture and stor age, the data in Table XXI show that the mean of Munsell hue renotations for the samples taken at the extractor were sig nificantly higher than for the means of samples taken at the chopper; also, the mean of the hue renotations of the sam ples taken at the filler were significantly higher than for the mean of samples taken at the extractor. Means of hue - 101 -
Table XXI. Munsell Hue Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 2) and the ”Hot-break” Conventional Retort Process (Process 8) Taken at the Chopper, Extractor, Filler and After 1, J5 and 10 Months Storage for 1951 Classified by Raw Product Grade.
Stages of Manufacture- Storage Lot Pro Sample Points (Months) No.# cess Chopper Extractor Filler 1 5 10 Mean 8a-l+-l 8 8.5 9.6 10.5 10.8 10.7 10.8 10.15 2 8.0 9.9 10.0 10.4 10.9 10.4 9.93 la-4-1 8 7.9 9.0 9.9 10.3 10.2 9.9 9.53 2 7.6 9.2 9.9 10.1 10.2 10.0 9.50 la-6-1 8 8.6 9.6 10.6 10.7 10.8 11.0 10.22 2 8.6 9.9 10.0 10.3 10.8 10.1 9.95 la-7-1 8 8.7 10.0 10.5 10.5 10 4 10.7 10.13 2 8.6 10.1 10.4 10.5 10.5 lO.lf 10.08 MEAN 8.31 9.66 10.23 * 1 a l r ^ 10.56 1041
Analysis of Variance r-t Source of Sum of Degree of Mean 0 Variance Squares Freedom Square . Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 29.42 5 5.884 12•03** 3.60 Between Process es and Lots 3.22 7 .480 9 .41** 3*20 Error 1.71 35 .0489
Total 34*35 47 L.S.D. for stages in manufacture and storage at.01 Levels.21 L.S.D. for processes and lots at.01 Level=.23 ttUnder Lot No., 8 refers to raw product compositions as given in Table III; a is duplicate designation; 4 is replicate; and 1 is year (1951)* 1 - 100$U.S. No. l*s 8 - 100$ U.S. No. 2 ’s for Color renotations of samples after one and five months storage
were significantly higher than the mean of the samples taken
at the filler, although there was no significant difference after ten months storage. Again, there was no significant
difference between hue renotation means of samples of tomato juice after one, five and ten months storage.
These results are essentially in agreement with those
found in the case of the Mhot-break" plate-pasteurized pro
cess as discussed under Table VIII, except that In this case
there was no significant difference in Munsell hue renota
tion means after storage*
Data were given in Table XXI to ascertain the effect
of the above two processes on the color of tomato juice pro
duced by the "hot-break" process. In all cases, hue reno-
tation means of stages in manufacture and storage were higher
(toward yellow red) for the conventional retort process than
for the plate pasteurized process. However, in only one of
the four comparison lots which were divided at the blender, was the hue renotation mean significantly higher (toward yellow red). These data would indicate a slightly lower
Munsell hue renotation for the nhot-breakn plate-pasteurized process compared to the nhot-breakn conventional retort pro cess.
Average U.S.D.A. color scores after one, five and ten months storage for the "hot-break" plate pasteurized and conventional processes are given in Table XXII. These data —103—
Table XXII. Average USDA Color Scores for the nHot-breakn Plate-pasteurized and Conventional Processes.
USDA Color Scores (Averages for 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage) Lot No. Plate-pasteurized Conventional
8a-ij.-l 27.7 28.3 la-k-1 28.7 28.7 la-6-1 28.3 27.3 la-7-1 Z L 2 28.3 Grand Average 28.0 28.2
(Tables XXI and XXII) show that although hue renotation means
for the plate-pasteurized process were slightly lower (toward
red) than for the conventional process, the grand averages
of U.S.D.A. color scores for one, five and ten months stor
age indicated little difference in color scores for canned
tomato juice manufactured either by the "hot-break" plate-
pasteurized or conventional processes.
Munsell value renotations of samples for the "hot-break"
plate-pasteurized and conventional retort processes taken at
the chopper, extractor, filler and after one, five and ten
months storage are given in Table XXIII. A highly signifi
cant difference (.01 level) was found between stages in manu
facture and storage, while onlya significant difference (.05
level) was found between processes and lots.
With regard to stages In manufacture and storage, there was no significant difference between Munsell value renota-
tion means of the chopper and extractor samples. The Mun- -104-
Table XXIII* Munsell Value Renotations Calculated from Hunt er Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for wHot-breakn Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 2) and the ”Hot-breaklf Conventional Retort Process (Process 8) Taken at the Chopper, Extractor, Filler and After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage for 1951 Classified by Raw Product Grade.
Stages of Manufacture- Storage Lot Pro Sample Points (Months) No.# cess Chopper Extractor Filler 1 5 10 Mean 8a-4-l 8 2.78 2.88 3.00 3.04 2.89 2.94 2.922 2 2.78 2.93 3.15 3.15 3.16 3.22 3.065 la-4-1 8 2.64 2.71 2.93 2.99 2.82 2.95 2.840 2 2.64 2.75 3.08 3.17 3.10 3.21 2.992 la-6-1 8 2.69 2.81 2.98 2.83 2.82 2.86 2.832 2 2.69 2.75 3.01 2.96 2.87 2.96 2.873 la-7-1 8 2.72 2.75 2.92 2.93 2.94 2.96 2.870 2 2.72 2.75 3.11 3.14 3.11 3.21 3.007 MEAN 2.708 2.791 3.023 3.026 2.964 ■3 £39
Analysis of Variance
Source of Sum of Degree ol Mean F Variance Squares Freedom Squares p.o5 P .01
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage .7952 5 .1590 16.90## 2 .4 9 3.60 Between Process es and Lots .1713 7 . 0244 ? 2.60# 2,29 3.20 Error *3295 35 .00941 Total 2.2960 47 L.S.D. for Stages in Manufacture and Storage at.01 Level* •092 L.S.D. for Processes and Lots at .05 Level* .085
■K-Under Lot No., 8 refers to raw product compositions as given in Table III; a is duplicate designation; 4 is replicate; and 1 is year (1951). 1 - 100$ U.S. No. l's 8 - 100$ U.S. No. 2's for Color -105- sell value renotation mean of the samples taken at the filler
was significantly higher than means of samples taken at the
chopper and extractor. There was no significant difference
between means of samples taken at the filler, and after one,
five and ten months storage.
With regard to the effect of these two processes on Mun
sell value renotations, in the four comparison lots, Munsell
value renotation means of stages in manufacture and storage were significantly higher for the Mhot-breakn plate-pasteur
ized process than for the conventional retort process.
Data presented in Table XXIV are Munsell chroma reno
tations of samples for the "hot-break" plate-pasteurized and
conventional retort processes taken at the chopper, extrac
tor, filler and after one, five and ten months storage. The differences between stages in manufacture and storage and also between processes and lots were found to be highly sig nificant.
Comparing means of stages in manufacture and storage, there was no significant difference between chroma renota tion means of samples taken at the chopper and extractor.
The chroma renotation mean of the samples taken at the filler was significantly higher (brighter) than the means of sam ples taken at the chopper, extractor and after one, five and ten months storage. This was thought to be due to longer ex posure to heat as discussed under Table VII. The chroma re notation mean of samples taken after five months storage was -106- Table XXIV. ptunsell Chroma Renotations Calculated from Hunt er Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 2) and the "Hot-break" Conventional Retort Process (Process 8 ) Taken at the Chopper, Extractor, Filler and After 1, 5 10 Months Storage for 1951 Classified by Raw Product Grade. Stages of Manufacture- Storage Lot Pro- Sample Points______(Months) No.# cess Chopper Extractor Filler 1 5 10 Mean 8a-i*.-l 8 6.5 6.7 7.0 6.6 6.1 6.7 6.60 2 6 .1*. 6.6 7.3 7.1*- 7.2 7.0 6.98 la-l*.-l 8 6.7 6.8 7.0 6.9 6.3 6.9 6.77 2 6.7 6.8 7.1*- 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.08 la-6-1 8 6.7 6.7 7.0 6.7 6.6 6 .1*. 6.68 2 6.7 6.9 7.5 7.0 6.8 7.1 7.00 la-7-1 8 6.7 6.8 7.1 7.0 6*6 6.6 6.80 2 6.3 6.6 7.6 7.1*- 6.9 7.5 7.13
MEAN 6.65 6.71+ 7.21*. 7.03 6.71 6.93
Analysis of Variance
Source of Sum of Degree of Mean F P .01 Variance Squares Freedom Square
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 2.01 5 ,1*.020 8.78 3.60 Between Process es and Lots 1.60 7 .2286 5.00 3.20 Error 1.60 35 .011-571 Total 5.21 l*-7 L.S.D. for stages in manufacture and storage at .01 Level*.20 L.S.D. for processes and lots at .01 Level*.22 fcUnder Lot No,, 8 refers to raw product compositions as given in Table III; a Is duplicate designation; 1*. is replicate; and 1 is year (1951)* 1 - 100$ U.S. No. l»s 8 - 100$ U.S. No. 2 ’s for Color -107- significantly lower than means of samples taken after one or ten months storage; however, there was no significant dif ference between chroma renotation means of samples taken after one and ten months storage. Since this was not true in the case of data presented in Table X for the "hot-break” plate- pasteurized process, there was the possibility that Munsell
chroma renotations decreased (decreasing brightness) in the case of the Mhot-breakn conventional retort process after five months storage and then again increased after ten months storage. Analysis of variance of chroma renotations of the "hot-break” conventional retort process samples only, showed this to be the case.
With respect to the effect of the above, two processes on chroma renotations, in all cases of the four comparison lots given in Table XXIV, Munsell chroma renotation means of stages in manufacture and storage were significantly high er (increased brightness) for the Mhot-breakM plate pasteur ized process.
Comparing the Mhot-break" plate-pasteurized and conven tional retort processes in terras of Munsell hue, value and chroma, and USDA color scores, little difference existed be tween the two processes with regard to the average USDA col* or scores. Again, this is in general agreement with Blumer*s results (6).
Table XXV gives data for the average USDA color scores for the above two processes after one, five and ten months -108-
Table XXV. USDA Average Color Scores for the ’’Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized (Process 2) and Conventional Retort (Process 8) Processes after 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage in 1951*
Process USDA Color Scores After Storage 1 Month 5 Months 10 Months
8 28.^ 28.0 28.0
2 27.8 28.3 28.0
storage.
These data in Table XXV were contrary to results of Blumer et al (6) who reported some discrepancy between vis ual color evaluations and color index values. U.S.D.A, col or score averages were not appreciably different either due to process or storage. This also agrees with Munsell hue, value and chroma renotation data discussed in Tables XXI, XXIII and XXIV; principally, that there were no significant differences between Munsell hue, value and chroma renotation means of tomato juice after one, five and ten months storage.
One exception, in the case of Munsell chroma renotations, was that only the chroma renotation mean of tomato juice samples after five months storage was significantly lower than means of samples after one and ten months storage. This was shown to be due to the change in the chroma reno tation of tomato juice produced by the ”hot-break” conven tional process.
Even though higher Munsell hue and chroma renotation -109- means of canned tomato juice produced by the "hot-break" plate-pasteurized process generally indicated a better col or, average U.S.D.A. color scores given in Table XXII show little difference when the canned tomato juice was evaluated visually. However, as was found in the case of the '’cold- break” plate-pasteurized anc conventional processes, Munsell value renotations were significantly lower (darker gray) for the "hot-break” conventional retort process. It is believed that, here also, with respect to visual color, the lower
Munsell value renotations of tomato juice produced by the
"hot-break” conventional process nullified the effect of higher Munsell hue renotations and lower Munsell chroma re- notations (indicating poorer color) than for tomato juice produced by the "hot-break" plate-pasteurized process.
Thus, the necessity of taking into consideration the three attributes of the Munsell color system, hue, value and chroma, is emphasized when attempting to relate objective color measurements to visual color evaluations.
Summarizing the results given in Tables XVI through XXV for the "hot-break" and "cold-break" extraction methods and the effect of the plate-pasteurized and conventional retort processes, the data show little difference between the two heat preservation methods in terms of U.S.D.A. color scores assigned the canned product. It was also found that a lower Munsell value renotation of canned tomato juice results when using the conventional process for both "hot-break” and -110- ”cold-breakM extraction methods. The lower Munsell value renotations (darker gray) of the conventional process was believed to nullify the generally lower Munsell hue renota tions (more toward red) and higher Munsell chroma renotations ( increased brightness) of the plate-pasteurized process.
With regard to the effect of storage on the color of tomato juice, in general, there was no beneficial or detrimental change in color due to storage either in terms of Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations or U.S.D.A. color scores of the finished product.
Sampling of Raw Product Sbr Color Measurement In these studies during 1950, the "cold-break" one ex traction process was used for tomato juice exclusively. From the standpoint of yield of tomato juice from a given quan tity of raw product, the one extraction process has been previously shown by Gould et al (15) to be economically im practical on a commercial basis (lower yield). As a result, the main purpose of presenting data in Tables XXVI, XXVII and XXVIII was to show the variation between juice extracted from raw product sub-samples (10 pounds) and the samples of raw extracted juice of the lot (100 pounds) during process ing. Table XXVI gives data for Munsell hue renotations of samples for the "cold-break" one extraction plate-pasteur ized process taken of a ten pound sub-sample, at the extrac- t6r and after one, five and ten months storage with the lots -111-
Table XXVI. Munsell Hue Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Cold-break” One Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 9) Taken of a 10 pound Sub-sampleaaoti the Extractor and After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage for 1950 Classified by Raw Product Grade.
Stages of Manufacture- Sample Points Storage (Months) Lot Sub-sample Extractor 1 10 Mean No.# (10 lbs.) 5 la-2-0 7.6 8.0 9.6 10.2 9.6 9.00 la-3-0 6.8 8.9 8,6 10.1 9.7 8.82 la-i|.-0 8.3 7.6 9.2 9 4 9.3 8.76 la-3-0 8.0 8.9 9.6 9.9 9.3 9.114. AVE. ?.6"8 5735 97 £5 9.90 9 4 8
3a-2-0 7.14- 8.1 9 4 10.2 9 4 8.90 3a-3-0 7.7 8.3 9.2 9.1 9.1 8.7 2 3a-J+-0 6.3 8.9 9.8 9.7 9.2 8.78 3a-5-0 8.U. 8.7 9.7 10.3 9.7 9.36 AVE. 7 4 ’5 535' <9.53 9.80 9.35
7a-2-0 7.7 8.7 9.5 10.2 9.2 9.06 7a-3-0 8.7 8.5 9.5 9.8 9.3 9.16 7a-5-0 8.3 8.7 9.7 10.2 9.8 9.3b- AVE. 5.23 5.-53 7 15". 57 9 4 3 8a-2-0 8 4 8.7 10.5 10.9 :10.1 9.72 8a-5-0 9.1 9.9 10.1 10.8 9.9 9.96 8a-6-0 9.0 9.8 10.5 10.0 ;10.1 9.88 AVE. 5;53 9 4 7 10.37 To3 ? 10.03
MEAN 7.98 8.71 9 .314- 10.06 9.55 Table XXVI (Continued)
Analysis of Variance
Mean Source of Sum of Degree of F P .01 Variance Squares Freedom Square
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 38.91J. k 9.735 52.62-8H* 3.70
Between Lots 11*27 i3 • 8669 Ij. • 69#* 2.51 Error 9.62 52 .185 Total 59.83 69
L.S.D. for stages in manufacture and storage at *01 Levels.31
L.S.D. for lots at .01 Levels.i|-3
tfUnder Lot No., 1 refers to raw product lots given in Table III; a is duplicate designation; 2 is replicate; and 0 is year (1950).
1 - 100$ U.S. No. l's 3 - 75$ U.S. No. l's and 75$ U.S. No. 2 ’s for Color 7 - 50$ U.S. No. l's and 50$ U.S. N0# 2 ’s for Color 8 - 100$ U.S. No. 2's for Color -113-
classified by raw product grade. A highly significant dif
ference in Munsell hue renotations between stages in manu
facture and storage and also between lots was obtained.
When comparing means of stages in manufacture and stor
age, the Munsell hue mean of the sub-sample was significant
ly lower (more toward red) than for the samples taken at the
extractor. This discrepancy could be due to two main rea
sons: (1) sampling variation due to the difficulty in se
lecting or preparing a representative ten pound sub-sample
that would be equivalent to a composite sample of the ex
tracted juice from the one-hundred pound lot processed in
the pilot plant in 195>0j and (2) the one-hundred pound lot
of tomatoes processed were extracted with a commercial
scale extractor (Langsenkamp Model B), whereas the ten pound
sub-sample was extracted with a laboratory size extractor
(Cefaly). It was found that the yield of juice was higher for the laboratory extractor than for the commerical extrac tor used, therefore, hue renotation differences in the ex tracted juice could have been due to the differences in amounts of various tomato pigments as well as the amount of suspended solids in the juice which were extracted under the conditions outlined.
With regard to changes In hue renotation during process ing, hue means were significantly higher after one, five and ten months storage than for hue means of samples taken at the extractor or of the ten pound sub-samples. In the case -134- of storage, the hue renotation mean of samples taken after five months storage was significantly higher than hue reno tation means of samples taken after one and ten months stor age. Without going into detail on the effect of raw product in thi3 particular process due to its economic limitations, Munsell hue renotation averages tended to increase (toward yellow red) with an increasing percentage of U.S. Wo* 2 ’s for color; although as pointed out and discussed previously in Tables V through X, considerable variation occurs when classifying lots according to raw product composition.
Munsell value renotations of samples for the "cold- break" one extraction plate-pasteurized process taken of a sub-sample at the extractor and after one, five and ten months storage with lots classified by raw product grade are given in Table XXVII. The differences between lots were found to be highly significant.
In the case of Munsell value renotations, there was no significant difference between means of samples taken at the extractor and of the ten pound sub-samples. Munsell value renotation means of samples taken after one; five and ten months storage were all significantly higher (darker gray to lighter gray) than Munsell value renotation means of samples taken at the extractor and of the sub-samples. Ad ditionally, the Munsell value renotation mean of samples after one month storage was significantly higher than for Table XXVII. Munsell Value Renotations Calculated from Hunt er Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the MCold-breakn One Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 9) Taken of a 10 pound Sub-sample and at the Extrac tor and After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage for 1950 Classified by Raw Product Grade. Stages of Manufacture- Sample Points Storage (Months) Lot Sub-sample Extractor no.* (10 lbs.) l 5 io Mean la-2-0 3.11 3.02 3.060 la-3-0 3.15 2.92 2.970 la-fr-0 3.01+ 2.99 2.88k la-5-0 3.09 3.09 2.996 AVE. 3.13 3.01 3a-2-0 3.20 3.TT 3.133 3a-3-0 3.23 3.11 3.122 3a-ij-0 3.15 3.10 3.150 3a-5-0 3.09 3.052 AVE* * 8 3.10 7a-2-0 2.32 5.20 3.31+8 7a-3-0 3.29 3.20 3.10I+ 7a-5-0 3.111+ AVE. 2^55 2.95 3.18 8a-2-0 3.33 5.19 3.230 8a-5-0 2.70 3.26 3.20 3.108 8a-6-0 2.91 3.29 3.121+ AVE. 3.29 MEAN 2.881 2.832 3.1+08 3.199 3.109
Analysis of Variance Source of Sum of Degree of Mean F p .01 Variance Squares Freedom Square p .o 5 Between Stages of Manufacture and S t orage 3.129 3 1+ .78230 1+5 • 32** 2.56 3.70 Between Lots .1+995 13 o0381+2 2.23* 1.93 2.51 Error .9877 52 .01726 Total 1+.5265 69 L.S.D. for stages in manufacture and storage at .01 Level*.096 L.S.D. for lots at .05 Level».ll5 ttUndor'iiot Wo., ‘1 refers to raw product lots given in Table III; a is duplicate designation; 2 is replicate; and 0 is year (1950). 1 - 100$ U.S. No. l's 3 - 75$ U.S.No.l's and 75$ u .S.N0 .2*s for Color 7 - 50$ U.S.No.l's and 50$ U.S.No.E^s for color 8 - 100$ U.S.Nq.2's for color those taken after five and ten months storage. In general, Munsell value renotations increased (darker gray to lighter gray) in the raw product with increasing per centages of U.S. No. 2 ’s for color, although there were some exceptions in the case of the sub-samples when compared to the samples taken at the extractor,
.Table XXVIII gives Munsell chroma renotations of sam ples for the l,eold-breakM one extraction plate-pasteurized process taken of the sub-sample at the extractor and after one, five and ten months storage with the lots classified by raw product grade. The differences between stages in manufacture and storage and also between lots were found to be highly significant. The Munsell chroma renotation means of the sub-samples were significantly higher than for the samples taken at the extractor. There was a highly significant difference between the chroma renotation means of the five months storage sam ples and the means of samples taken after one and ten months storage, although chroma renotation means of samples taken after one, five and ten months storage were significantly higher (increased brightness) than the mean of the samples taken at the extractor. Munsell chroma renotations of the extracted juice tended to decrease (decreased brightness) in the sub-sample and ex tractor samples with increasing percentages of U.S. No. 2*s for color; however, this same trend was not apparent after -117- Table XXVIII. Munaell Chroma Renotations Calculated from. Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the !,Cold-breakM One Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 9) Taken of a 10 pound Sub-sample and at the Extractor and After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage for 1950 Class- ified by Raw Product Grade.______Stages of Manufacture- Storage (Months) Lot Sub-Sample Extractor Mean No.# (10 lbs.) 1 5 . 10
la-2-0 7.5 6.6 7.3 6.8 7.i| 7.08 la-3-0 7.3 6.9 7.9 7.2 6.7 7.2k la-l|.-0 7.0 6.6 7.7 6.k 7.2 6.98 la-5-0 7.1 6 .k 7.3 6.7 7.5 7.00 AVE. 7755 6765 7755 6778 6 7 5 5 3a-2-0 5.6 ■ 6.6 7 7 5 578“ 7.U- 7.26 3a-3-0 6.8 6.8 7*9 7.3 7.8 7.32 3a-i|.-0 6 .k 6.5 7.8 7.0 7.5 7 .0lj. 3a->-0 6.6 6.6 7.14- 6.7 7.k 6.9i| AVE. 6 .9 5 6.63 5 7 7 5 7.53 7a-2-0 7.3 6.1 ' 7 ? r 7.1 7.9 7.18 7a-3-0 6.5 6.6 7.9 7.0 7.8 7.16 7a-5-0 6.6 6.5 7.3 6.7 7.3 6.88 AVE. 6.8o 6.&0 7 7 5 7 7 7 9 1 7.67 8a-2-0 6 7 5 " 6 7 5 “ 578" 6.6 7.2 6.66 8a-5-0 6.3 6.0 7.2 6.3 7.5 6.66 8a-6-0 7.0 6.2 7.1 6.3 7.3 6.78 AVE. 6.60 6713 M l 6 .L|.o 7-3? MEAN 6.92 6.14-7 7.1+7 6.78 7.1+2 Analysis of Variance Source of Sum of Degree of Mean F Variance Squares Freedom Square p.o5 P .01 Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 10.27 k 2.568 26•9 2## 2.56 3.70 Between Lots 2*95 13 .2269 2.37* 1.93 2.51 Error I4..96 52 .09538 Total 18.18 69 L.S.D. for stages in manufacture and storage at .01 Level*.22 L.S.D. for lots at .01 Level*.27 ^Urider Lot ^o., i refers to raw product lots given in Table III; a is duplicate designation; 2 is replicate; and 0 is year (1950)*
. w t t „ tit 1 - 100$ U.S. No . 1 ’ si 3 s U.S.No.1' s and 75$ U.S.No.2's for Colors 7 - 50$ ® , B A , V a and 50$ U.S.Ho. 2^s for Color; 8 - 100$ U.S. No. 2 ’s for color. -118- one, five and ten months' storage of the canned tomato juice* Summarizing data given for the rtcold-breakn one extrac tion process, there was a highly significant difference be tween Munsell hue and chroma renotation means of samples taken at the extractor and of the sub-samples. There was no significant difference in the instance of Munsell value renotation means. Therefore, due to similar discrepancies between samples taken at the extractor and of the sub-sam ples when using color indices (a/b color ratio), it was de cided to use the samples taken at the extractor as raw prod uct samples during the 1951 season. As found in the case of other processes in the manufac ture of tomato juice, Munsell hue, value and chroma renota tions increased during processing believed to be due to heating. Furthermore, with increasing percentages of ^.S. No. 2's for color in the raw product, Munsell hue increased
(toward yellow red), Munsell value increased (darker gray to lighter gray), and Munsell chroma decreased (decreased brightness)•
G. Effect of Use of Vibrating Screen on Tomato Juice Color For the "hot-breakn method of extracting tomato juice, a vibrating screen was available for the processing of sev eral lots of tomato juice. Lots of equivalent raw product quality were processed both with and without the vibrating screen. Additionally, equivalent lots processed with and -119- wit hout the vibrating screen were divided equally after ex
traction with one-half of each lot being heat processed for
preservation by the conventional retort process and one-half
by the plate-pasteurized process. Table XXIX gives Munsell hue renotations of samples for the "hot-break" plate-pas
teurized process using the vibrating screen and the conven
tional retort process using the vibrating screen as compared
to the Hhot-breakH plate-pasteurized and conventional retort
processes taken at the chopper, extractor and after one,
five and ten months storage with lots classified by raw prod uct grade. The differences between stages in manufacture
and storage and also between processes and lots were found
to be highly significant.
With respect to Munsell hue renotation changes during processing and storage, the Munsell hue renotation mean was
significantly higher (toward yellow red) for the samples taken at the extractor than the mean of samples taken at the chopper. Also, the hue renotation means of samples taken after one, five and ten months storage were sigaificantly higher (toward yellow red) than for either the means of samples taken at the chopper or extractor. However, again there was no significant difference in hue renotation means for samples taken after one, five and ten months storage. These results agree with those previously given for the "hot-break” plate-pasteurized and conventional retort processes;mainly, that it is believed hue increases (red toward yellow red -120- Table XXIX. Munsell Hue Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the ”Hot-breakM Plate-pasteurized Process (Using Vibrating Screen) (Process 11) and the 1,Hot-breakn Conventional Retort Process (Using Vibrating Screen) (Process 12) as Compared to the MHot-breakn Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 2) and the "Hot-break" Conventional Retort Process (Process 8 ) Taken at the Chopper, Extractor and After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage
Stages of Manufacture- Storage Lot Sample Points (Months) ~No. * Process Chopper Extractor 1 5 To Mean 8a-l4.-l 11 9.2 9.1+ 10 .1+ 10.5 10.3 9.96 2 8.0 9.9 10 .1+ 10.9 10.1+ 9.92 12 9.2 9.1+ 11.0 11.)+ 11.2 10.i+k 8 8.5 9.6 10.3 10.7 10.8 10.08 la-!+-l 11 8.5 9.3 9.8 9.5 9.2 9.06 2 7.6 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.0 9.62 12 7.6 9.3 10.3 10.0 10.1 9.1+6 8 7.9 9.0 10.3 10.2 9.9 9.1+6 Mean 8.19 9.39 10.39 lOj+3 10.36
Analysis of Variance
Source of Sum of Degree of Mean P p .01 Variance Squares Freedom Squares Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage 30.1+8 k 7.620 1+8.17** 1+.07 Between Processes and Lots 6.60 7 .91+3 7.20** 3.36
Error 3.66 » 28 .131 Total 1+0 .71+ 39 L.S.D. for stages in Manufacture and Storage at .01 Level*.37 L.S.D. for Processes and Lots at .01 Level* .1+2
# Under Lot Ho,, 8 refers to raw product composition as given In Table III; a Is duplicate designation, h is replicate and 1 is year (1951)«
1 - 100# U.S. No. l's 8 - 100# U.S. No. 2's for color -121 change) were due to heating after chopping and during pas teurizing. The purpose for giving the data in Table XXIX was to evaluate the use of the vibrating screen and to determine whether its use was beneficial or detrimental to the color of canned tomato juice. Comparing the means of stages in manufacture and storage for each of the four processes given above and in Table XXIX (processes 11, 2, 12 and 8) in only one of the four comparisons lots was the hue renotation mean of the "hot-break" process using the vibrating screen sig nificantly lower (toward red) than the !’hot-breaktt process without the vibrating screen (Lot No. la-l|.-l, process 11 com pared to process 2). Therefore, in general, there was no difference in Munsell hue renotations of tomato juice due to the use of the vibrating screen, indicating neither a beneficial nor detrimental effect on color with respect to
Munsell hue renotations under the conditions of this study.
Table XXX* Average USDA Color Scores for the nHot-breakn Plate-pasteurized and Conventional Retort Pro cesses both with and without Using the Vibrat- ing Screen. ' USDA dolor Score's 11 Using vioracing screen wiunout; using vior&zm g screen plate- Pasteurized Conventional Pasteurized Conventional
8a-i+-l 27.0 27.3 27.7 28.3 la-ii-1 28.3 28.3 28.3 28.7 Grand Ave. 27*7 28.0 27.8 2Q.$ -122-
Table XXX presents data for U.S.D.A. color scores for
the nhot-break" plate-pasteurized and conventional retort
processes both with and without using the vibrating screen.
It can be seen from these data that there is no consistent
trend with regard to color scores assigned the canned tomato
juice when using or not using the vibrating screen. These
data indicated neither a beneficial or detrimental effect
on color with respect to the average U.S.D.A. color score
obtained. This is in agreement with results discussed
under Table XXIX with respect to Munsell hue renotations.
Munsell value renotations of samples for the ,!hot-
break” plate-pasteurized process using the vibrating screen
and the conventional retort process using the vibrating
screen as compared to the ”hot-breakn plate-pasteurized and
conventional retort processes taken at the chopper, extrac
tor and after one, five and ten months storage with lots
classified by raw product grade are given in Table XXXI. A
highly significant difference was obtained between stages
In manufacture and storage as well as between processes and
lots.
With respect to Munsell value renotation changes occur ring during processing and storage, value renotation means
of samples after one, five and ten months storage were sig nificantly higher (red to yellow red change) than means of samples for either the extractor or chopper samples, be lieved to be due to heating during processing. There was -123- Table XXXI. Munsell Value Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the "Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process (Using Vibrating Screen) (Process 11) and the MHot-breakM Conventional Retort Process (Using Vibrating Screen) (Process 12) as Compared to the MHot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 2) and the ’’Hot-break” Conventional Retort Process (Process 8 ) Taken at the Chopper, Extractor, and After 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage for 1951 Classified by Raw Product Grade.______, Stages of Manufacture- Sto rage Lot No.it- Process Chopper Extractor 1 5 10 Mean 8a-ij.-l 11 2.88 3 .Olj. 3.26 3.19 3.23 3.120 2 2.78 2.93 3.15 3.16 3.22 3 »Ok8 12 2.88 3.0k 3.02 2.93 3.07 2.908 8 2.78 2.88 3.024- 2.89 2.914- 2.906 la-i^-1 11 3.05 2.91 3.07 3.09 3.09 3 .014.2 2 2 .614- 3.75 3.17 3.10 3.21 2.97k 12 3.05 2.96 2.93 2.91 2.93 2.956 8 2 • 6l|. 2.71 2.99 2.82 2.95 2.822 Mean 2.838 2.903 3.0T9 3.011 3 £>80
Analysis of Variance Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean P P Variance Square s Preedom Square .01 Bbfcween Stages of Manufacture and Storage .3761 k .0914-03 7.32** 14-.07 Between Process es and Lots .2957 7 .014.2214. 3 . 68** 3.36 Error .32]4 28 .01114-8
Total .9932 39 L.S.D. for Stages In Manufacture and Storage at .01 Level=*308 L.S.D. for Processes and Lots at .01 Levels.^ ttUnder Lot No., 8 refers to raw product composition as given in Table III; a is duplicate designation, ij. is replicate and 1 is year (1952) 1 - 100# U.S. No. l ’s 2 - 100# U.S. No. 2 ’s for Color -12lj.-
no significant difference between value renotation means of
samples taken at the chopper and extractor or between value
renotation means of samples taken after one, five and ten
months storage. With regard to the effect of the use of the
vibrating screen on Munsell value renotations, three out of
the four equivalent lots using the vibrating screen had no
significant effect on Munsell value renotation means. In
the instance of the one exception, the Munsell value reno
tation of tomato juice was significantly higher for the pro
cess using the vibrating screen.
In general, there was no effect on Munsell value reno
tations of tomato juice, either beneficial or detrimental,
by using the vibrating screen in the "hot-break" processes.
Again, this was in agreement with U.S.D.A. color scores
(Table XXX) which also showed neither a beneficial nor detri mental effect on the color of tomato juice with the use of
the vibrating screen.
Data given in Table XXXII are Munsell chroma renotations of samples for the "hot-break" plate-pasteurized process us ing the vibrating screen and the conventional retort process using the vibrating screen as compared to "hot-break" plate- pasteurized and conventional retort processes taken at the chopper, extractor and after one, five and ten months stor age with the lots classified by raw product grade. These data, when statistically analyzed, show no significant dif ferences in Munsell chroma renotations due to stages in -125- Table XXXII. Munsell Chroma Renotations Calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter Readings of Samples for the ”Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Process (Us ing Vibrating Screen) (Process 11) and the "Hot-break” Con ventional Retort Process (Using Vibrating Screen)(Process 12) as Compared to the ”Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized Pro cess (Process 2) and the ”Hot-break” Conventional Retort Process (Process 8) Taken at the Chopper, Extractor and after 1, 5 a^d 10 Months Storage for 1951 Classified by Raw Product Grade.______Stages of Manufacture- Storage Lot Sample Points (Months) No.# Process Chopper Extractor 1 5 10 Mean 8a-i*-l 11 5.9 6.2 7.3 7.0 7.2 6.72 2 6.i* 6.6 7.14- 7.2 7.0 6.92 12 5.9 6.6 6.5 6.2 6.5 6.3^ 8 6.5 6.7 6.6 6.1 6.7 6.52 la-i*-l 11 7.7 6.8 7.5 7.1 7.J+ 7.30 2 6.7 6.8 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.02 12 7.7 7.0 7.0 6.6 6.9 7 * oi+ 8 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.3 6.9 6.72 Mean 6.69 6.69 7.05 6.71 6.68
Analysis of Variance
Source of Sum of Degree of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square p p .o5 p.oi
Between Stages of Manufacture and Storage .99 k • 21*75 1.97 2.71 1*.07 Between Processes and Lots 3.35 7 .1*786 3.82 2.36 3.36
Error 3.51 28 .1251* Total 7e85 39 L.S.D. for Processes and Lots at .01 Level s .1*1
* Under Lot No., 8 refers to raw product composition as given in Table III; a is duplicate designation; 1* is replicate and 1 is year (1951)* 1 - 100$ U.S. No. l»s 8 - 100$ U.S. 2*s for Color -126-
manufacture and storage, although a highly significant dif
ference was found between processes and lots.
With respect to the differences in Munsell chroma reno
tations due to the use of the vibrating screen, there was no
significant differences between means of equivalent lots for processes using the vibrating screen (process 11 and 12) and
those when the vibrating screen was not used (process 2 and
8). Thus, with regards to Munsell chroma renotations, there were no significant beneficial or detrimental effects due to
the use of the vibrating screen with the "hot-break” pro cesses.
Briefly condensing the results given in Tables XXIX through XXXII, the use of the vibrating screen with the "hot- break” process was found to have neither a beneficial nor detrimental effect on color in terms of Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations. This was also substantiated by average U.S.D.A. color scores assigned the canned tomato
juice, which showed little difference in average color scores when using the vibrating screen.
These results are contrary to the statements of Hand et al (35>) and of Bullock (8). Hand stated that the use of the vibrating screen was deleterious to color (in terms of Hunt er a/b color ratios); whereas Bullock infers a better color is obtained through the use of the vibrating screen. Under the conditions of this study, the effect of vibrating screen use on tomato color was neither deleterious nor beneficial. Additionally, as previously found and discussed, there were no significant differences between Munsell hue, value and chroma renotation means of samples taken after one, five and ten months storage indicating no color changes due to storage up to ten months time. Table XXXIII gives aver age U.S.D.A. color scores for the "hot-break" plate-pasteur ized (process 2 ) and conventional retort (process 8 ) process es as well as for the "hot-break" plate-pasteurized process using the vibrating screen (process 11) and the conventional retort process using the vibrating screen (process 12).
Table XXXIII. Average USDA Color Scores for the "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized (process 2), Conventional . Retort (process 8 ), Plate-pasteurized Process Using Vibrat ing Screen (process 11), and the Conventional Retort Process Using Vibrating Screen (Process 12) after 1, 5 and 10 Months Storage•
Process USDA Color Score After Storage 1 Month 5 Months 10 Months
2 28.0 28.0 28.0 8 29.0 29.5 28.0 11 28.0 28.0 27.0 12 28.5 27.5 27.5 Grand Average 2 8 .i|. 28.0 27.6
These data in Table XXXIII also indicate very little effect of one, five and ten months storage on U.S.D.A. color scores, which agrees with results in terms of Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations. Several points should be stressed in so far as the use -128- of the vibrating screen phase in these studies are concerned. In practically all cases, the tomatoes processed were free of stems, thus it was not possible from these studies to evaluate the value of the vibrating screen for removing stems from the chopped and preheated tomatoes and the consequent effect on color of the canned tomato juice. Also, it should be pointed out that in all cases tomatoes processed were U.S.
No. 1 for the factor of defects. Thirdly, these vibrating screen studies were only made during one season.
H. Discussion of Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Conversions In this study, while attempting to relate the Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations obtained by converting
Hunter readings to the Munsell color system, certain dis crepancies were apparent with the work reported by MacGill- ivray in 1931 (26). Also when attempting to relate Munsell color renotations calculated from Hunter readings to cal culated hue, value and chroma of the Maxwell spinning disk used in color grading of canned tomato juice, certain dis crepancies were apparent. The following data were taken to point out these discrepancies and, if possible, to de termine the reasons for such discrepancies.
When relating Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations obtained in these studies with the work reported by MaeGIll- ivray (26), it was observed that Munsell hues as reported for tomato colors were, in general, considerably lower { to 9R) than Munsell hues calculated from Hunter readings (7R to 12R and/or 2YR). Also, Munsell chromas of MacGill- ivray's report were In general considerably higher (/8 to /13) compared to chromas calculated from Hunter readings
(/£•£ to /8.0). However, Munsell values were in approxi mately the same range. For the most part, these differences may be explained by the fact that in MacGillivray's studies, the data were collected and interpreted in terms of the Munsell nominal notations. These nominal notations refer to the early color notations of color chips expressed in units of visual dif ferences of the three psychological attributes of color: hue, value and chroma (33)« However, "a study of the spac- ings of the Munsell system was made by a subcommittee of the Colorimetry Committee of the Optical Society of America. Reports of this committee presented charts and tables con stituting the definition of a psychophysical system smoothed on I.C.I. diagrams in relation to colorimetric measurements provided for the Munsell chips'* (33)* This smoothed Munsell system is now used as the basis for exact color measurement work, the colors of the Munsell color chips being expressed In terms of the nre-notatIonw provided by the smoothed sys tem and the psychological color solid thereby defined. The smoothed system is now used when accurate instead of approxi mate data are needed ( 3 3 )• Thus, for example, the nominal notation of the red disk used in the spinner for grading tomato juice color of 5R -130- 2 .6/13 had an actual notation C^e-notation") of 6.7R 3*07/ 9.2. This explains in part the lower Munsell hues and high
er Munsell chromas of MacGillivray1s studies.
However, since MacGillivray1s studies were not concerned
with color changes during processing, nor the effect of vary
ing maturity upon these changes, it was believed that little
would be gained by attempting to convert his data to the
smoothed system for comparison purposes. Along similar lines of thought, Mavis et al (16, 28) have shown that the instrumental illuminating conditions used with the Hunter Color Difference Meter have an effect on the L, a^ and bL readings obtained. In Table XXXIV, the averages calculated from readings of twenty tomato puree sam ples (16) are given. In addition, these readings were con verted to Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations. These data show that conversion to the Munsell color system would be affected by illuminating conditions used with the Hunter Color and Color Difference Meter. The data also show that the two extremes in Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations were obtained with illumination conditions 1 and 1^. Since the illumination conditions used with the Hunter instrument in this study were small area of illumination and small aperture,, illumination conditions were studied to de termine the extent of these discrepancies. The Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations were calculated from I.C.I. values provided for each color disk in the spinning disk by -131-
Table XXXIV. Munsell Hue, Value and Chroma Renotations Cal culated from the Data of Mavis (16) for Aver ages Calculated from Readings of Twenty Tomato Ruree Samples Using Different Instrumental Illuminating Conditions with the Hunter Color Difference Meter.
Illumination Average Hunter Readings Munsell Renotations Conditions L a-^ Hue Value Chroma
1 25.5 22.7 12.8 .80YR 2.99 7.4 2 26.5 25.2 13.3 •48yr 3.10 8.0
3 25.7 23.3 12.4 • 30YR 3.01 7.3 4 27.3 26.8 13.1 9.9R 3.20 8.2
1 - Small area Illumination with small aperture. 2 - Small area illumination with large aperture. 3 - Large area illumination with small aperture. 4 - Large area illumination with large aperture. the Munsell Color Company. Also, the disks were measured by the Hunter Color Difference Meter while spinning above the viewing aperture and the Hunter readings were converted to Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations.
Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations calculated from I.e.I. values for Illuminant HC,f (specular exponent ex cluded) and also calculated from Hunter Color Difference Meter readings taken when spinning the disks above the view ing aperture using the two extremes of small area illumina tion and small aperture and also large area of illumination and large aperture are given In Table XXXV. These data show that there was little difference between the two extremes of Grade Cl - 23 points Grade A - 26 points ## I.C.X. values received in personal communication from Munsell Color Com Color Munsell from communication personal in received values I.C.X. ## Per cent* 28 53 19 28 53 28 65 53 21 21 65 21 65 14 14 9.5 9.5 0 9 0 0 0 7 7 . S . U ih h iiu rd ikad ih h mnmmGae ds n combi any disk C Grade minimum the with and disk A Grade minimum the with nation of black (Nl-glossy) or gray (Nif-mat) may be used in order to match to order in used be may (Nif-mat) gray or (Nl-glossy) black of nation ay Blioe Maryland, Baltimore, pany, as well as half black for the two minimums. two the for black half as well as h clr f h sml. pnigdssmaue rpeet h extremes the represent measured disks Spinning sample. the of color the Notations of Papers Used in Maxwell Spinning Disks and from Hunter from and Disks Value Hue, Spinning Munsell of Maxwell in Used Calculations Papers of Between Notations Agreement XXXV, Table sdfrDtriig h Clr cr o Cne Tmt Juice, Tomato Notations Canned of Nominal of Score Papers Color of the Percentages Determining for Varying of Used Disks ning oo ifrneMtrDt Tknb eemnn te oo o Spin of Color the Determining by Taken Data Meter Difference Color 1 (glossy) N1 4 mat) t a (m N4 2.6/13 5R 4 (mat) N4 (glossy) N1 2.5^R 5/12 2.5^R 2.5YR 2.6/13 5R 4 (mat) N4 4 (mat) N4 (glossy) N1 4 (mat) N4 1 (glossy) N1 (glossy) N1 R 2.6/13 5R 1 (glossy) N1 5/12 2.5YR .R 5/12 2.5R (mat) N4 2.52R .Y 5/12 2.5YR R 2.6/13 5R R 2.6/13 5R R 2.6/13 5R tnad frGae o Tmt Jie Cne o ote) tt that state Bottled) or (Canned Juice Tomato of Grades for Standards Notations Nominal
9.6R 9.2R 9.OR 9.6R Hue Value/Chroma Hue Val ue/Chr oma Hue V V a lue/chr oma Hue Val oma ue/Chr Hue Value/Chroma Hue 1.62YR ponent excluded excluded ponent n hoaRnttos rm ... aus o Nominal for Values I.C.I. from Renotations Chroma and "C" (Specular Ex- (Specular "C" o Illuminant for acltd from Calculated •47YR I > C . Value .s I 4*o6 3-91 3.74 3.72 3.59 .57.7 3.85 7.2 8.5 8.1 8.3 8.3
)-
sh » ra luiain ra Illumination Area Illumination Area 9.74R 9.77R 9.89R . .56YR •49YR o ag Aperture Large 4 r y Using Large Using pnigDs oe Aperture bove a Disk Color Spinning Hunter from Calculated ifrne ee aa by Data Meter Difference 3.47 .88.2 3.88 3.54 3.74 3.30 3.68 9.0 8.5 8.4 8.9 8.3
9.88R 9.72R 9.89R - . . 51 24 36 Small Aperture Small YR R3.72 YR YR sn Small Using 3.54 .29.8 3.32 3.64 3.51 3.88
9-4 9.4
8.7 8.9 8.3
-133- Illumination conditions when measuring the color of the spinning disks by the Hunter meter and then converting read ings to the Munsell color system. However, Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations calculated from I.C.I. values
for Illurainant ”0” (specular exponent excluded) show slight discrepancies with data calculated from the Hunter readings. Prom the data given in Tables XXXIV and XXXV there are certain inferences that may be drawn to explain these vari
ations. The first is that measuring the actual spinning disks under different Instrumental illumination conditions of the Hunter Color Difference Meter gives essentially the same results. Secondly, that Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations calculated from Hunter readings do not agree exactly with those calculated from I.C.I. data available for the spinning disks. These data indicate that Hunter readings may not always be converted to Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations and agree perfectly with Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations of spinning disks.
In addition, the discrepancies pointed out in Table
XXXIV between Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations for different instrumental illumination conditions are not fully explained when measuring the color samples of tomato puree. However, it seems possible that with a semi-opaque liquid sample such as tomato puree or tomato juice, the amount of reflected light and/or the spectral characteristics of this reflected light may vary more, depending upon the manner in -131+- which It Is Illuminated, than solid materials such as the spinning disk. Large area illumination spreads the light from the light source over the entire aperture in a rela tively diffuse manner; whereas, small area of illumination concentrates the light in a small spot within the aperture.
Therefore, it would seem that with small area of illumina tion (concentrated light beam) there would be more possibil ity of light loss or lateral dispersion of light. There may be other valid explanations; however, these are thought to be logical deductions.
Even though these slight discrepancies exist, it is be lieved that in these studies, the conversion of the Hunter data taken with small area of illumination and small aper ture when converted to Munsell hue, value and chroma reno tations may be logically used to determine the nature of changes in hue, value and chroma renotations when comparing processes and maturities in the manufacture of tomato juice. -135'
V. SUMMARY
In this study of the effect of processing methods on the color of tomato juice, "eold-break" and ”hot-breakn ex tractions methods were evaluated. In addition, short time, high temperature (plate-pasteurized process) heat pasteuri zation was compared to conventional retort sterilization for preservation purposes. A limited number of lots were also processed by the "hot-break” process using a vibrating screen following the preheater to evaluate its effect on color,
Furthermore, for each of the above processes, the effect of storage on tomato juice color was studied.
Color was measured objectively by means of the Hunter
Color and Color-Difference Meter in terms of Hunter I», a^ and b^ readings. These readings were then converted to Mun sell hue, value and chroma renotations by appropriate graphs and calculations. In these studies Munsell hue and chroma renotatIons were also corrected for Munsell value. The ef fect of processing on the color of tomato juice was then evaluated in terms of Munsell hue, value and chroma, and s ' these three attributes of color were also compared to the
U.S.D.A. color scores assigned the finished product since color scores of canned tomato juice are officially estab lished by comparison to Munsell spinning disks of specified
Munsell hue, value and chroma*
The principal results of this study are summarized as 1 i
-136- follows: 1. For the ”cold-break" two extraction plate-pasteurized process, the Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations
Increased during processing due to heat applied for preservation purposes. Also, as the percentage of U.S.
No. 2 ’s increased in the raw product, Munsell hue and value renotations showed an increasing trend while Mun
sell chroma renotations tended to decrease. There were no significant differences in Munsell hue, value and
chroma renotations between one and five months storage, indicating little change in the color of tomato juice due to this length of storage time.
2. For the "hot-break” plate-pasteurized process, there was an increase in Munsell hue, value and chroma reno tations of the tomato juice during processing. It is
believed that this increase was also due to heating. In addition, as the percentage.of U.S. No. 2's in the
raw product increased, Munsell hue and value renotations
increased, whereas Munsell chroma renotations decreased.
The Munsell hue renotation mean of samples after five months storage showed a significant increase in Munsell
hue renotations, although there were no significant dif ferences from one to five months storage in Munsell value and chroma renotation means of samples.
3. The "cold-break” two extraction and "hot-break”plate- pasteurized processes were compared by classifying all the lots processed by three methods: (1) according to
raw product composition; (2) according to Munsell hue
renotations; and (3) according to U.s.D.A. color scores
assigned to the finished product. It was not possible
to establish Munsell hue, value and chroma renotation
specifications by either raw product or Munsell hue
classifications in order to predict the U.S.D.A. color
score of the canned product. However, when classifying
lots according to the U.S. D.A. color score of the fin
ished product, it was possible to propose color specifi
cations in terms of Munsell hue, value and chroma reno
tations for the unheated extracted juice (blender sample for the ’’cold-break” process; chopper sample for the
"hot-break” process) In order to predict high G.S. Grade
A color (28-30 points - 8.7R 2.66/6.3)$ low U.S. Grade
A color (26-27.9 points - 9.5R 2.72/6.3) and U.S. Grade
C (23-25*9 points - 0.3YR 2.95/5*6). Further, by means of these specifications, it would be possible to use present methods of color matching with Munsell spinning disks to predict the U.S. Color grade of canned tomato
juice from the color of the unheated extracted juice.
In comparing ’’cold-break” plate-pasteurized and conven tional processes, there were significant differences be tween the "cold-break” plate-pasteurized and conventional retort processes in terms of Munsell hue and chroma re notations. Munsell hue renotations of the plate-pasteur ized process were significantly lower than for the con
ventional retort process and Munsell chroma renotations
were significantly higher for the plate-pasteurized pro
cess* However, Munsell value renotations were signifi
cantly lower for the conventional retort process. There
was, however, little difference between average U.S.D.A.
color scores for the two processes? therefore, it was believed that the lower Munsell value renotations of the
conventional process tended to nullify the lower Munsell hue and higher Munsell chroma renotations of the plate- pasteurized process which would have indicated a better color. This also indicates the necessity of taking into consideration the three attributes of Munsell color; hue, value and chroma, when relating them to visually percep tible color differences.
Furthermore, little difference was found in Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations of canned tomato juice after one, five and ten months storage. This was also shown by averages of U.S.D.A. color scores for the canned product. These data indicated little change in the color of tomato juice due to ten months storage.
When comparing the "hot-break” plate-pasteurized process to the conventional retort process, there was the same trend as when comparing the ncold-breakn plate-pasteur ized and conventional processes; namely, that the "hot- break” plate-pasteurized process produced tomato juice of lower Munsell hue and higher Munsell chroma renota
tions j also, the conventional retort process produced
tomato juice of lower Munsell value renotations. Since
there was little difference in U.S.D.A. color scores, it
was believed that lower Munsell value renotations of the
conventional retort process tended to nullify the lower
Munsell hue and higher Munsell chroma renotations of the
tomato juice produced by the plate-pasteurized process.
As shown previously, there was little effect of
storage on tomato juice color in terms of Munsell hue,
value and chroma renotations and also in terms of U.S.D.A.
color scores.
In this study, a ten (10) pound sub-sample prepared from
tomatoes of given raw product grades with respect to
color did not have raw product Munsell hue and chroma
renotations equivalent to those of composite extracted
juice samples from one hundred (100) pound lots. This may have been due to sampling variation and/or extrac
tion procedures. -340-
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this study, under these pilot plant conditions when
using the Rutgers variety of tomatoes for the manufacture of
tomato juice during the 1950, 1951 and 1952 seasons, the fol lowing conclusions were made concerning the effect of process
ing methods on the color of canned tomato juice;
1. When classifying the raw product on the basis of the U.S.D.A. color score of the finished product, it was possible to propose color specifications from Hunter Color and Color-Difference Meter data for Munsell spinning disks in terras of Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations for the raw product (extracted unheated juice) in order to predict the following color grades of canned tomato juice; High U.S. Grade A for color (28-30 points)-8 .7R 2.66/6*3 (Hunter L = 22.9, a^ 8 /20.6 and bL« /9.0)
Low U.S. Grade A for color (26-27.9 points)-9*5R 2.72/6.2 (Hunter L ■ 23*3, aL = /19.5 and bL« /9.3)
U.S. Grade C for color (23-25.9 points)-0.3YR 2.95/5.6 (Hunter L - 25.2, aL - /17.6 and bL« /9.9)
2. The three attributes of the Munsell color system (hue, value and chroma) must be taken into consideration when evaluating visual perceptible differences in the color of raw or canned tomato juice.
3. When the raw extracted tomato juice was classified in terras of the Munsell color system (hue, value and chroma)
there was little effect of the different processes as used in this study on the color of the finished product.
In general, there was little effect of ten months stor age on the color of canned tomato juice regardless of the processing methods used, either in terms of Munsell hue, value and chroma renotations or in terras of the
U.S.D.A, color score of the finished producto VII. LITERATURE CITED
Anon. United States Standards for Tomatoes for Manu
facture of Strained Tomato Products. U.S.D.A., Agri cultural Marketing Service, March 1, 1933® . United States Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Standards for Grades of Tomato Juice (Canned or Bottled). Production and Marketing Administration, U.S.
D.A. August 29, 1938® • OSA Committee on Colorimetry. The Psycho physics of Color. J, Opt. Soc. Am., 3l|_, 225. 19i|lj.® • Description and Instructions for Hunter Color and Color-Dlfference Meter. Henry A. Gardner Laboratory
Inc., Bethesda, Md, June 1950. Balinkin, I.A. Fundamental Approach to Color in De sign. Elec. Mfg’g., Oct. IOI4-, Nov. 106. 1950*
Blumer, T. E., Parrin, F. W. and Peterson, G. T. Effect of Sterilization Temperatures on Color of Tomato
Juice. The Research Div., Continental Can Co., Inc., Bui. No. 28. 1952.
Buck, R. E. and Sparks, Ruth A. Relation of Ketchup
Color to Tomato Color as Determined by the Hunter In strument. Food Tech., 6(lf.), 122-12ij.. 1952. Bullock, H. L. Vibrating Screen in Tomato Juice
Manufacture. Food Tech., 5(H), k&l* 1951. Desrosier, N. W., Gaylord, F. C., Kellie, W. R. and Ellis, N. K, Meter Simplifies Color Grading of Fruits
and Vegetables, Food Eng'g,, 2i*(5) 92-93> 190-192• 1952*
______, McArdle, F. J, and Miles S. R.
More Precise Grading with New Sampling Table. Food
Eng1g. 25(5), 92-93, 206, 208, 210. 1953. Francis, F. J. How to Add Sales Value by Color Mea
surement. Food In Canada, 13(10), 7-10, 26. 1953. Gould, W. A. and Krantz, F. A., Jr. Simple Device
Boosts Accuracy of PMA Color-Grading Method. Food
Packer 32(7), ' 2l*-25, 1*5. 1951. ______• A Practical Approach to Color Grading of Tomato and Other Food Products with a Disk Colori meter. Food Packer, 3l*(10), 22. 1953.
______• QMF & Cl Symposium Takes Up Problems of Measuring Color and Color Changes in Foods. Food
Packer, 3**( 13), 31*, 50 56. 1953. ______., Davis, R. B., Mavis, J. 0., Krantz, F. A. Jr., and Healy, N. C. A Study of the Relation ship of Various Grades of Fresh and Canned Vegetables.
II. Canned Tomato Juice. Department of Horticulture Mimeo Series No. 55, Ohio Agr, Expt. Station, January
1951*. ., .. . Color Measurement of Agricultural Products, ASTM Monograph.
In Press. Hand, D. B., Robinson, W. B., Moyep, J. C., Rans-
ford, J. R,, Wishnetsky, T., Labelle, R. L., Henning,
J, C., Pederson, C. S., and Healy, C, The Yield and
Quality of Juice Obtained from New York State Tomatoes
Graded According to United States Department of Agri-
cuiture Standards. New York State Agricultural Experi ment Station, Bui. No. 759* August 1953.
, Color Measurement Application to Pood
Quality Grades. Ag. and Pood Chem. 1(20), 1209-1212.
1953. Hardy, A. C. Handbook of Colorimetry. The Tech nology Press. Cambridge, Mass. 1936.
Hunter, R. S. Photoelectric Tristimulus Colori metry with Three Filters. National Bur. Standards, (U.S.), Circ. C 429. 1942.
Judd, D. B. Specification of Color Tolerances at the National Bureau of Standards. Am. J. Psychology,
52, 418. 1939.
. Colorimetry. National Bureau of Stan dards, (U.S.) NBS Circ. 478. 1950.
. Color in Business, Science, and In dustry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.y.
1952. Kramer, A. This Meter Gives Better Color Evalua tions. Pood Ind., 22, 1897-1900. 1950* -11+5- 25. ______, and El-Kattan, A. A. Effect of Applica tion of Heat on Tomato Juice Color, Pood Tech,, 7(10),
1+00-1+01+. 1953. 26, MacGillivray, J. H, Tomato Color as Related to
Quality in the Tomato Canning Industry, Purdue Univ.
Agr, Expt. Sta. Bui, No, 350, 1931,
27* MacKinney, G. M. Color Specifications in the Field
of Poods, The Canner, 111, 12, li+.• Sept, 16, 1950. 28, Mavis, J, 0, Color Measurements of Tomato Puree
(Pulp). M.S. Thesis, Ohio State University. 1953*
29*. Neu, James W. Some Background Statistics on the Processing Industry in Ohio and Other Important Pro
cessing States. Ohio State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Mineo.
Bui. No, 23I+, July 1952,
30. Newhall, S. M., Nickerson, D. and Judd, D. B. Pinal Report of the O.S.A. Subcommittee on the Spacing of the Munsell Colors. J. Opt. Soc. Am., 33, 385-1+18. 191+3.
31, Nickerson, Dorothy. The Specification of Color Tol
erances. Text. Res., 6, 509, 1936,
32, , and Stulz, K. P, Color Toler
ance Specification. J. Opt. Soc. Am., 3i+, 550. 191+1+.
33. . Color Measurement and Its Ap plication to the Grading of Agricultural Products. U.S.
D.A. Misc. Pub. 580. 191+6.
3i+. Pottlitzer, M. Tomato Juice Saga. Packaging Parade, 21(2l|.2) llj.8. 1953. Robinson, W. B., Ransford, J. R. and Hand, D. B. Measurement and Control of Color in the Canning of
Tomato Juice. Food Tech. 5(8)* 3114-“319# 1951. ______, Wishnetsky, T., Ransford, J* R., Clark, W. L. and Hand, D. B. A Study of Methods for the Measurement of Tomato Juice Color. Food Tech.
6(7), 269-275. 1952. Sherman, R. W. , Gould, W. A. and Sharp, J. W. Price--Quality Relationship of Frozen and Canned Foods.
Ohio Agr. Expt. Station Res. Bui. 716. Feb. 1953* Snedecor, G. W. Statistical Methods. The Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa. Ij.th Ed. 1914.6.
Whipple, S. R. Grading Tomatoes for Color, The
Canner, 113 > ll|-20. March 1, 1952. White, David Calvin. Maximizing Color Differences.
Ph.D. Thesis. Stanford University. August 19i|.9. Wilson, D. E. The Adaptation of Spectrophotometric Methods for Determining the Effect of Variety, Process, and Storage on the Total Carotene, Lycopene, and beta-
Carotene Content of Tomato Juice and Pulp. Ph.D. Dis sertation. Ohio State University, 1952.
Younkin, S. G. Measurement of Small Color Differ ence in Tomato Purees. Opt. Soc. Am. if0(9), 596-599.
1950. ______• Color Measurements of Tomato Purees, Pood Tech., l+(9), 350-3^. 1950. . Application of the Color Difference
Meter to a Tomato Measurement Problem. Paper Presented at Quartermaster Pood and Container Institute S y m p o s i u m on Color in Poods. University of Chicago,^November 3,
1953. -U+8-
A P P E O I X I -11+9
Appendix Table A. Hunter Color and Color-Difference Mett Two Extraction Plate-pasteurized Process (Process 1) Tak( Filler, 1st Inspection (1 montb), 2nd Inspection I ______Stages of Manufacture - Sample Pc Date J u o t ______E x t r a c t o r ______No. ~~~ Cist) (2nd) Blender li a b L a b L a b 8 -3 1 -5 1 la -l+ -l 2 2 .9 21.9 9.3 2 2.9 23.1+ 9 0 2 2 3 .0 22.3 9-1 8 -3 1 -5 1 8 a-l+-l 23.7 2 0 .0 1 0 .0 21 +. 2 2 2 .8 1 0 .2 21 +. 6 2 3 .2 1 0 .' 9 -6 -5 1 la - 5 - 1 2 1 .1 2 0 .0 8 .5 20.7 22.7 8 .5 2 0 .7 2 0 .8 8.1 9 *6.-51 8 a - 5 - l 2 1 .1 1 8 .5 9 .0 21.7 1 9 .8 8 .2 2 1 .2 18.7 8 . £ 9 -7 -5 1 7 a-5-1 2 1 .6 19.7 8 .8 21.5 19.7 7-8 2 1 .6 19.7 8.1 9-7-51 3a-5-l 2 0 .8 19.9 8 .6 2 0 .8 2 1 .6 8 .1+ 2 0 .8 2 1 .0 8 . S 9-7-51 2 a - 5 - l 21.9 19 0 9 8 .8 2 1 .9 2 1 .1+ 8 .8 22.9 2 0 .0 8.6 9-7-51 2 1 a -5 -l 23.8 1 8 .6 9.3 22.9 1 9 .1 8 .1+ 2 2 .8 1 9 .0 9.1 9 -9 -5 1 lb - 5 - 1 2 2 .8 2 0 .8 8 .5 2 3 .5 2 0 .8 8 .5 22.7 21.5 9.2 9 -9 -5 1 2 2 a -5 -l 22.7 2 1 .6 9 .2 23-1 20.7 9 .2 2 2 . 2 2 2 .0 9.1 9 -9 -5 1 2 3 a -5 -l 21+ . 1 2 1 .0 9.6 2 I+.I+ 2 1 .1 9.6 21+.0 20.9 9.9 9-9-51 7b-5 -1 2 3 .8 2 0 .6 9 .5 21+ • 0 2 0 .1+ 9.7 21+.1 2 0 .8 9.5 9-11-51 2 2 a -6 -1 2 2 .0 1 9 .8 8 .8 2 1 .6 2 1 .8 8 .6 21.9 2 1 .1 9 • C 9 -1 1 -5 1 l a - 6 -1 22 . 1+ 2 0 .1 9.1 21.7 21.9 9 .3 23.1+ 22.5 1 0 .C 9 -lk -5 1 l b - 6 -1 2 3 .0 2 0 .2 9.1+ 23.1 2 1 .9 9.3 2 2 .8 20.9 9.C 9-11+-51 3 a-6 - 1 2 2 .8 2 0 .5 9 .5 2 2 .8 2 0 .8 9 .9 22.7 2 0 .3 9.9 9-11+-51 7 a -6 -1 2 l+. 0 2 0 .8 9 .9 23.9 20.7 9.i+ 21+. 1 20.6 9.7 9 -1 9 -5 1 la-7-1 23.5 21.5 9.1+ 2 3 .8 2 2 .6 9 -5 2 3 .2 2 1 .1 9.5 9- 1 9 -5 1 8 a -7-1 2 5 .8 1 6 .9 1 0 .2 2 5 .2 18.7 9 .8 2 5 .2 17.6 9.8 9 -1 9 -5 1 3 a -7 -1 2 I+.3 2 0 .8 1 0 .1 2I+.5 21.3 1 0 .0 21+.0 2 0 .5 1 0 .C 9 -1 9-51 l b -7 -1 23.9 20.7 9.7 21+.1 2 2 .5 9 .7 23.7 21.7 9.6 8 -9 -5 2 l a - 1 -2 2 2 .1 21.9 8 .9 2 2 .8 23.7 8 .9 2 1.9 21.9 8 . 5 8 -9 -5 2 l b - 1 - 2 2 1 .9 2 1 .0 8 .8 21.9 2 3 .6 9.1+ 2 2 .5 2 1 .1+ 8.9 9.6 2 3 .8 23.8 8 -9 -5 2 7a- 1 -2 21+.2 19.1+ 21.3 2 4 1 9 .5 9.5 8 -9 -5 2 l a - 2 -2 2 1 .2 22.7 8 .8 2 2 .1 23.9 8 .6 2 1 .5 22.7 8.7 8 -9 -5 2 7 a—2 -2 2 1 .6 1 9 .9 9 .2 2 1 .6 2 1 .5 8.7 2 2 .2 2 0 .1+ 9.2 8 -9 -5 2 3a - 2 -2 2 1 .2 2 2 .6 9 .3 2 1 .9 2 2 .1 8 .8 2 1 .2 22.9 9.3 9 -1 1 -5 2 7 a- 4 -2 2 3 .6 1 8 .8 9 .2 2 3 .5 1 9 .9 9 .0 2 3 .8 1 8 .5 9 .0 9 -1 1 -5 2 3 a-I).-2 21+. 2 2 0 .1 9 .5 21+.5 2 0 . 1+ 9 .6 21+.2 1 9 .6 9 .2 9 -1 1 -5 2 la -l+-2 23.il- 1 9 .2 8 .8 23.7 20.7 9 .0 23.3 1 9 .6 9 .0 9 -1 1 -5 2 8 a-l+-2 2 6 .0 1 7 .3 9 .8 2 6 .0 1 9 .6 1 0 .7 25.7 17.1+ 1 0 .0 9 -1 7 -5 2 l a - 5 - 2 21.9 17 .9 8 .1 2 1 .5 2 0 .0 8 .0 21.7 1 8 .2 7 .9 9-17 -52 7 a-5 -2 2 3 .6 17 o0 8 .5 23.1 17.3 8.3 23.1+ 17 .5 8 .5 9 -2 5 -5 2 l a - 6 - 2 23.3 1 8 .3 8 .8 22.9 2 0 .5 9 .3 2 2 .8 18.7 8 .8 9 -2 5 -5 2 7a -6 - 2 2 3 .8 1 8 .1 9 .2 2 3 .5 1 8 .5 9 .1 23.5 1 8 .1 9 .3 9 -2 5-52 3a - 6 - 2 23.3 1 8 .1 9 .1 23*2 1 9 .6 9 .2 23.1 1 8.1+ 9 .2 9 -2 5 -5 2 8a -6 -2 21+.9 1 7 .9 9 .7 2 5 .2 19.8 1 0 .5 21+.7 1 8 .0 1 0 .0 9 -2 5 -5 2 lb -6 -2 2 3 .2 1 9 .2 9.6 2 3 .3 1 9 .2 8 .9 21+.8 2 1 .7 1 0 .1+
__ •t . - 5-. Y.4V 1 i Meter L, aj^ and bjj Readings of Samples for the "Coldbreak" Taken at the Extractor (1st and 2nd Extract), Blender, ;ion (5 months) and 3*'d. Inspection (10 months), 'le Points______Storage (Months)______r Filler 1______5______10 b L a b l a b L a b L . a b 9.5 26.9 23.9 12.4 26.6 25.4 1 2 .2 2 6 .2 23.5 11.4 2 7 .2 25.0 1 1 .8 1 0 .3 2 8 .5 21.7 13.1 2 8 .9 2 4 .2 13.1 2 8 .0 22.9 1 2 .6 27.9 19.7 1 2 .0 8.5 24 • 5 20.8 1 1.4 25.0 20.6 11.3 25.3 19 08 11.3 26.3 21.0 11.2 8.2 25.8 1 9 .8 11.0 2 6 .0 1 9 .5 11.9 25.1 17.3 11.1 2 6 .0 19.8 11.2 8 .5 25.5 21.3 11.3 24 .8 2 0 .4 11.5 25.5 19.7 11.3 25.5 19.7 11.2 8.9 25.1+ 21.9 11.9 25.9 20.7 11.6 25.1 19.7 11.3 26.2 21.6 11.6 8.8 26.3 21.k 11.9 26 .3 20.2 11.8 26.1 19.5 11.2 26.6 20.9 11.8 9.3 27.9 19.8 12.4 27.7 20.1 12.6 2 8 .1 18.7 12.1 2 8 .5 19.9 12.5 9.2 2 6 .0 22.6 12.1 25.3 22.6 11.8 25.1 21.0 11.6 25.5 21.8 11.8 9.3 25.9 22.5 12.1 2 5 .0 22.0 11.8 25.0 19.7 11.0 25.5 21.8 11.7 9.9 2 7 .8 22.1 12.7 27.4 21.3 12.9 2 6 .8 20.0 1 2 .5 27.5 20.4 12.3 9.5 27 .8 22.0 12.9 2 7 .0 20.9 12.3 26.1 19.0 11.7 2 7 .2 21.0 12.2 9.0 2 5 .0 22.4 11.8 2 5 .0 21.3 11.2 24.4 19.7 11.1 25.6 22.3 11.7 10.0 25.9 22.3 1 2 .5 25.2 22.4 12.2 25.7 21.3 11.8 26.0 22.2 12.1 9.0 27-1+ 23.3 12.8 27.0 23.4 12.5: 2 6 .4 22.0 12.0 2 7 .2 23.5 12.4 9.9 26.7 22.2 12.4 26.8 22.7 12. 2| 26.9 21.6 12.8 27.6 23.2 12.3 9.7 2 8 .9 23.1 13.5 28.9 2 3 .0 1 3. 0! 2 8 .2 21.3 1 2 .2 29.2 23.0 12.8 9.5 2 7 .1+ 22.5 12.9 27.0 22.3 12.7 26.6 21.1 12.2 2 7 .2 22.6 12.5 9.8 3 0 .5 19.5 14.1 29.9 19.3 1 3 .8 29.6 17.4 1 3 .2 3 0 .6 19*8 13.8 10.0 2 8 .5 22.7 13.4 27.6 21.9 12.7 27.6 20.7 12.5 28.0 22.6 12.8 9.6 2 8 .2 23.1 12.9 2 8 .1 23.2 12.71 27.7 22.0 12.3 28.2 24.4 13.4 8.5 26.7 23.3 12.7 26.7 22.5 11.7! 26.4 23.3 11.9 - - m m 8.9 2 7 .0 22.2 12.3 26.5 20.9 11.6 27.0 23»7 12.2 - -- 9.5 28.7 21.9 13.7 28.8 18.9 12.6 29.6 22.9 13.4 -- - 8.7 26.9 29.8 13.0 26.3 22.5 1 1 .5 2 6 .2 23.4 11.4 - - - 9.2 29.2 29.1 13.7 27.8 20.4 11.8! 27.6 21.4 12.5 -- - 9.3 27.2 2 8 .1+ 12.9 27.3 22.7 11.6! 27.1 23.1 11.8 m m -- 9.0 27.5 20.3 12.3 27.2 18.7 12.0 27.1 20.2 12.3 - - — 9.2 2 7 .2 23.1 12.6 26.1 20.4 11.3 27.1 21.2 12.2 —-- 9.0 26.1 21.5 12.1 2 6 .4 19.9 11.2 26.4 20.9 11.8 - - m m 10.0 30.0 22.2 14-5 29.0 17.9 12.8; 29.3 19.1 13-3 -- - 7.9 2 5 .2 20.8 1 1 .1 26.4 18.8 11.5! 26.4 19.7 11.6 -- 8 .5 26.7 20.7 11.7 26.6 18.7 11.4 27.8 18.3 12.4 - -- 8.8 25.5 19.6 1 1 .8 25.5 18.8 11.0 27.0 18.1 11.9 -- - 9.3 26 .k 21.1 1 2 .2 26.1 18.7 1 1 .31 28.0 17.7 12.6 - -- 9.2 2 5 .8 20.3 1 2 .2 2 6 .4 20.0 11.5 27.6 19.9 12.5 - -- 10.0 2 8 .1 22.7 1 3 .6 28.7 16.5 13.7 28.6 3.7.7 13.1 -- - 10.4 26 .1+ 23.8 1 3 .0 25.9 1 8 .3 11. l: 27.5 lfe.l 12.1 — — “ -150-
Appendix Table B . Munsell Hue and Chroma Renot from Hunter .Color Difference Meter Data) of Sam pasteurized-Process (Process 1) Taken at the Ex 1st Inspection (1 month), 2nd Inspection (5 mon Color Scores-Determined by USDA Inspectors by C
Stages of Manufacture - Sample Points ______Date Lot ______Extractor______No. ______(1st)______(2nd) ____ Blender_____ Fill ______Hue Value/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Hue Val 8-31-51 la-!j.-l 8.5H 2.68 6.7 7.9R 2.68 7.0 8.6R 2.69 6.8 9.9R 3. e-31-51 8 a 1 9.6R 2.77 7.3 8.7R ■2.83 6.9 8.5R 2.88 7.0 • 7YR 3. 9-6-51 la-5-1 9.OR 2.^5 6.9 8.3R 2 4 0 7.1 9.1R 2 4 0 6.6 .6YR 2. 9-6-51 8a-5-l .h r 2.1+5 6.2 8 4 r 2.53 6.2 9.OR 2 4 6 6.0 .2YR 3. 9-7-51 7a-5-l 9.2R 2.52 6.3 8.OR 2.5 0 6.2 8.9R 2.52 6.5 1.0YR 2. 9-7-51 3a-5-l 9.3R 2.5.1 6 4 8.6R 2 4 1 6.9 9.3R 2 4 l 6.6 .3YR 2. 9-7-51 2a-5-l 9.6K 2.55 6.3 8.5R 2.55 6.7 8.8R 2.68 . 6.2 .3YR 3. 9-7-51 21a-5-l 9.1+R 2.78 5.9 8.I4 2.68 5.9 9.3R 2.70 6.3 . 9YR 3. 9-9-51 lb-5-1 8.3R 2.66 6 4 8.OR 2.75 6.3 8.6R 2.65 6.7 .2YR 3. 9-9-51 22a-5-l 8.6R 2.65 6.7 8.6r 2.70 6.5 9.1R 2.59 6.8 .3YR 3. 9-9-51 23&-5-1 8.6r 2.82 6 4 8.5R 2.86 6 4 9.OR 2.81 6.5 .3YR 3. 9-9-51 7b-5-1 8. 8r 2.78 6 4 9. OR 2.81 6 4 8.6r 2.82 6 4 ,6y r 3. 9-11-51 22a-6-1 9.OR 2.57 6.3 8..2R 2.52 6.8 9 4 R 2.55 6,7 9.7R 2. 9-11-51 la-6-1 9.OR 2.62 6.3 9.1R 2.53 6.8 8.9R 2.74 7.0 .6YR 3. 9-H4.-51 lb-6-1 9.1R 2.69 6.3 ‘ 8.I4 2.70 6.7 8.5R 2.66 6.5 .2YR 3. 9-11+-51 3a-6-l 9.2R 2.66 6.5 9.6R 2.66 6.6 9.8R 2.65 6.5 .ijYR 3 • 9-114.-51 7a-6-1 9.1R 2.81 6.5 8.6r 2.80 6 .I1 8.8r 2.82 6 4 4 Y R 3. 9-19-51 la-7-1 8.5R 2.75 6.6 8.8r 2.78 6.8 8.8r 2.71 6.6 •IjYR 3. 9-19-51 8a-7-l ♦ 6YR 3.02 5 4 9 4 R 2.95 5.8 9.9R 2.95 5.5 l.ljjR 3. 9-19-51 3a-7-l 9.2R 2.85 6.5 8.8r 2.87 6 «5 9 4 R 2.81 6.5 .3YR 3. 9-19-51 lb-7-1 8.1R 2.80 6 4 7.9R 2.82 6.8 8.5R 2.77 6.6 .3YR 3. 8-9-52 . la-1-2 8.3R 2.58 6.8 7.6R 2.66 7.1 8. OR 2.55 6.7 »3YR 3. 8-9-52 lb-1-2 9.OR 2.8-3 6.7 8.6R 2.55 7.2 8.3R 2.63 6.6 .2YR 3. 8-9-52 7a-l-2 9.2R 2.83 6.1 8.1+R 2.78 6.5 9.2R 2.78 6.1 10. OR 3. 8-9-52 la-2-2 8.8R 2 4 6 6.8 6.5R 2.58 7.2 8.2R 2.50 7.0 8.8r 3. 8-9-52 7 r -2-2 9.6R 2.50 6.5 8.5R 2.52 6.7 9.1R 2.59 6.5 9.o r 3. 8-9-52 3a-2-2 9.OR 2 4 6 7.2 8.2R 2.55 6.8 9. OR 2 4 6 7.2 8,8r 3. 9-11-52 7a-l|-2 9.2R 2.76 5.9 8.6r 2.75 6.2 8.1R 2.78 5.8 .7YR 3. 9-11-52 3a-i|.-2 8.8R 2.83 6.2 8.7R 2.87 6.3 8.7R 2.83 6'.0 .27R 3. 9-11-52 la-Ij.-2 8.7R 2.75 6.0 8.3R 2.77 6.3 8.8r 2.72 6.1 4 Y R 3. 9-11-52 8a-lj.—2 9.9R 3.05 5 4 .8YR 3.05 6.3 • 2YR 3.01 5.5 1.2YR 3. 9-17-52 la-5-2 8.9R 2.55 5.7 8.3R 2.50 6.3 8.6R 2.53 5*8 .1YR 2. 9-17-52 7a-5-2 9.2R 2.76 5 4 9.OR 2.70 5.5 9.OR 2.74 5.5 • 3YR 3. 9-25-52 la-6-2 10. OR 2.72 5.9 8.9R 2.68 6 4 9.1R 2.66 6.0 1.9YR 2. 9-25-52 7a-6-2 9.5R 2.78 5.7 9.3R 2.75 5.9 9.6R 2.75 5.8 *6YR 3. 9-25-52 3a-6-2 9.5R 2.72 5.8 9.OR 2.71 6.1 9.6R 2.70 5.9 10.o r 3. 9- 25-52 8 a—6 —2 9.7R 2.9 2 5.6 9.8R 2.95 6.2 .2YR 2.89 5.7 • 8y r 3. 9-25-52 lb-6-2 9.7R 2.71 6.2 9.7R 2.72 6.1 9.OR 2.91 6.6 4 Y R 3- d Chroma Renotations Corrected fcjr Munsell Value (Calculated r Data) of Samples for the "Coldbreak" Two Extraction Plate aken at the Extractor (1st and 2n d Extract), Blender, Filler, pection (5 months) and 3rd Inspec tion (10 months) and. USDA aspectors by Comparison to Munsell Spinners *
Storage (Months) USDA Color Filler ______1 5 ______10 _____ Scores oma Eue Value/Chroma Eue Value/Chroma Hue Value/ Chroma Hue Value/Chroma 1 Y 10 .8 9.9R 3.15 7 4 9.2R 3.11 7.6 9.1R 3.07 7.1 8.9R 3.19 7 4 29 29 30 .0 .?YR 3.33 7.1 9.8R 3.38 6.2 10.OR 3.28 7.2 .6YR 3.26 6 4 28 28 27 .6 ,6y r 2.87 6.7 ,l|YR 2.93 6.6 .i|YR 2.96 6 4 9.9R 3.08 6.5 28 27 28 .0 .2YR 3.02 6.2 .9YR 3.05 6 4 1.7YR 2.94 5.3 .1YR 3.05 6.3 27 28 27 .5 1.0YR 2.99 6.5 ,6YR 2.91 6,6 •5yr 2.99 6 ,i| .i|YR 2.99 6.3 29 28 27 .6 •3YR 2.98 6.9 . .3YR 3 . 4 6,6 ,57R 2.94 6.3 10. OR 3.07 6.7 30 29 28 .2 • 3YR 3.08 6.8 .5YR 3.08 6.5 .3YR 3.06 6.2 .3YR 3.11 6.7 28 29 27 .3 .9YR 3.26 6.5 1.1YR 3.2ii 7.0 ,8y r 3.29 6.3 .7YR 3.33 6.5 27 27 25 .7 .2YR 3.05 7.1 ,6YR 2.96 6.7 • 3YR 2.94 6.6 .2YR 2.99 6.9 30 27 28 .8 .3YR 3.0i| 7.1 ,3YR 2.98 6,9 ,2YR 2.93 6,2 ,i|YR 2.99 6.6 29 29 29 • 3YR 7.0 .8y r 3.21 6.7 1.1YR 3 .4 5.8 .6YR 3.22 6.6 27 27 28 .5 3.25 U 0 ' cVd 4 ,6YR 3.25 7.1 .6YR 3.18 6,8 .9YR 3.06 y O 3.19 6.6 27 28 27 *7 9.7R 2.93 7.0 10. OR 2.93 6.7 • 3YR 2.86 6.3 10. OR 3.00 6.9 28 29 28 .0 .6YR 3.Oij. 7.2 .5YR ; 2.95 7.2 .1YR 3.01 6.7 .1YR 3.05 7.0 27 27 28 .5 .2YR 3.21 7.7 10. OR : 3.16 7.3 10. OR 3.09 6.9 9.9R 3.19 7.3 29 29 28 .5 .ijJR 3.13 7.1 10. OR 3 . 4 7.1 ,8yr 3.15 7.1 9.8R 3.23 7.1 29 28 29 4 .1|IR 3*38 7 4 .1YR ' 3.38 7.2 .2YR 3.30 6.7 9.9R 3 41 7 4 28 27 28 .6 4 y r 3.21 7.2 .1YR 3.16 7.2 .7YR 3.11 6.8 ,2YR 3.19 7.2 29 28 28 .5 l.i|YR 3.75 . 6.6 1.7YR 349 6.7 2.1YR 346 .6.1 l.ijJR 3.57 6.7 25 2ii 2 i| .5 .3YR 3.33 7.3 .5YR 3.23 7.0 .6YR 3.23 7.0 .5YR 3.28 6.8 27 28 26 .6 • 3YR 3.30 7.3 10.0R ; 3.29 7.3 ,1YR 3.24 6.9 ,2YR 3.30 7.7 29 28 27 .7 .3YR 3.13 7 4 9.8R 3.13 6.9 9.8R 3.09 7.1 - - - 29 27 - .6 .2YR 3.16 7.0 .1YR 3.10 6.6 9.7R 3.16 7.2 - - - 29 29 - .1 10. OR 3.35 7.3 1.2YR ; 3.36 6.3 ,1YR 346 7-2. - - - 27 27 - .0 8.8R 3.15 8.7 9.7R 3.08 6.9 9.1R 3.07 7.1 -- 30 29 - 9.OR .2YR 6.9 - - - 28 28 - .5 341 A 3.25 6.5 .57R 3.23 .2 8.8r 3.19 8 4 94R : 3.20 6.9 9.5R 3.17 7.0 -- - 29 30 - .8 .7YR 3.22 6,6 1.1YR 3.19 6.2 ,8y r 3.17 6.6 --- 27 27 - .0 .2YR 3.19 7.3 10. OR 3.06 6 4 .i|YR 3.17 6.8 - - - 28 28 - .1 .i|IR 3.06 6.9 «2YR 3.09 6.2 .ifrR 3.09 6.6 - - - 30 30 - .5 1.2YR 3.50 7.5 1.7YR 3.39 6.2 i .6yr 3 4 2 6.6 m - - 25 25 - .8 .1YR 2.95 6.5 1.7YR 3.09 6.2 .6YR 3.09 6 4 - -- 27 28 - .5 .3YR 3.13 6.6 .7YR 3.H 6.1 l.i|YR 3.25 6.2 0 - - 26 26 - .0 1.9YR 2.99 6.5 .5YR 2.99 6.1 1.3YR 3.16 6.1 m - - 27 27 - ,8 .6YR 3.09 6.8 •7YR 3.06 6.1 1.8YR 3.28 6.2 - - - 26 26 - 10.OR 3.02 6.7 .kYR 3.09 6 4 .9YR 3-23 6.6 .9 mm *■“ .7 ,8YR 3-29 7.5 3.0YR 3.35 6.6 2.0YR 3.3k 6.2 - % % .6 .i|YR 3.09 7.5 .7YR • 3.0i| 6.0 1.3YR 3.22 6.1 - ~ “ 27 26 - -l^l-
Appendix Table C. Hunter Color and Color-Differe: “Hot-break” Plate-pasteurized process (Process 2) r. 1st Inspection (1 month), 2nd Inspection (5 months
Date Lot Approximate Stages of Manufacture - Sample No. Preheater Chopper____ Preheater Extractc Temp. (F°) L . a b L a b L____ a .. _ 26.5 8-25-31 la - 3-1 197 23*3 18.6 8.5. 21.5 8-25-51 lb -3-1 16 0 23.3 18.6 8.5. — — 25.2 18.9 8-25-51 l c - 3-1 180 23.3 18.6 8 .5. -— - 25.2 21.0 8-25-51 7a-3-l 170 23.8 17.2 8.5 - - - 21.1 19.5 8-25-51 8a-3-l 175 25-2 15.8 8.7 ' - -- 25.8 17.9 8-25-51 3a-3-l 180 23.U 17.1 0.3 ' - -- 25.1 18.7 8-31-51 8a-l+-l 180 23.0 21.1 9.5- - - - 25.0 21.2 8-31-51 Ia.-I4.-I 180 22.6 22.2 8 .5 23.6 22.3 9.8 23.5 21.9 9-6-51 8a-5-l 180 23.3 19.0 9.9 25.5 21.7 11.3 25.6 22.6 9-7-51 3a-5-l 180 22.8 21.5- 9.2 26.5 25.0 11.7 25.6 22.7 9-7-51 7 a-5-1 180 23.3 22.7 9.5. 25.5 21.6 10.3 25.3 22.7 9-7-51 la-5-1 180 22.0 22.5 8.8 25.2 25.3 11.0 22.5 20.3 9-7-51 8b-5-1 180 23.3 19.0 9.9 2 5 .O 21.5 10.6 25.0 19.5 9- 11-51 It.-6-1 160 23.0 21.7 9.5- 23.7 22.7 10.8 23.5 19.9 9-15-51 lb -6 -1 156 22.7 22.0 9.2 2k . 3 22.6 10.3 25.5 22.5 9-15-51 7a-6-l 157 23.3 21.1}. 9.5 25.5. 22.1 1 0 .9 25.2 22.0 9-15.-51 1 c —6 —1 186 22.8 23.1 9.3 23.9 23.5 10.5 25.8 23.9 9-19-55 l a -7-1 158/180 23.3 22.1 9.6 2k ol 21.9 11,1 23.5 21.2 9-10-52 la -5 -2 155 Ext. 23.3 20.8 8.7 26.3 22.3 11.3 25.3 20.7 27 .0 22.2 22.2 9-10-52 lb -5-2 1[i-2 !! 23.6 21.5- 9*5- 12.3 25.3 9-10-52 8a-5-2 158 n 26.1 17.7 10.5 29.0 13.7 12.9 28.8 19.8 9-17-52 l a -5-2 - 22.8 19.1 8.6 26.1 22.0 11.2 25.7 20.1 9-17-52 7 a-5-2 - 23.3 18.1 9.7 27 .8 21.8 12.5 25.9 20.5 9-17-52 3a-5-2 - 23.8 19.5 9.3 25.9 20.0 10.2 25-.7 20.5 9-17-52 8 a—5—2 - 25.3 17.8 10.0 30.0 21.7 13.1 27.5 19.9 9-17-52 7b-5-2 - 23.5 19.It- 9.3 27.1 22.2 11.7 25.8 20.7 9-19-52 8b-5-2 - 22.8 18.2 8.6 25.3 18.8 9.8 23.8 18.1 9-19-52 7c-5-2 - 21.9 1 8 .2 8.3 25.1 20.5 10.1 22.5 18.5 9-25-52 7a-6-2 - 25- 1 17.5- 9.2 25.8 20.3 11.1 25.7 19.3 9-25-52 3a-6-2 - 23.5 18.5. 8.8 2L.6 19.3 10.1 25.7 19.9 9-25-52 8a-6-2 - 25.2 16.7 9.9 2 7 .5 18.0 12.3 27.1 19.3 fference Meter L, a^ and Readings of Samples for the s 2) Taken at the Chopper, Preheater, Extractor, Filler lonths), 3rd Inspection (10 months)* ample Points______Storage (Months) tractor Filler 1 5 10 T a b L a b L, a b .Li a b ±J a b
21 .^ 10.8 27.5 22.5 12.2 27.7 21.3 11.6 28 .6 23.4 12 .1 18.9 9.5 -- - 27.4 22.2 12.0 27.1 20.9 11.6 28 .0 22.0 11 .9 21.0 10.0 -- - 28.6 23.2 12.8 27.2 21.'3 '11.4 27 .7 22.0 11 .7 19.1+ 10.0 - • - tm 28.7 21.6 12.7 27.4 19.2 11.9 27 .5 20.6 11 . 8 - M . 1 17.9 10.0 - 29.1 21.2 13.0 28.1 19.0 12.2 29• s 20,5 12 .7 18.7 9.9 - -- 27.9 21.2 12.0 27.7 19.9 11.6 28 • 4 20.9 12 .1 21.2 11.1 26.9 22.5 13.0 26.9 23.1 12.9 27.0 22.0 12.8 27 .5 22.1 12 . 6 21.9 10.2 26 23.7 12.4 27.1 23.5 12.6 26.5 22.7 12.4 27 •4 23.1 12 .4 22.6 11.6 26 .2 22.1 13.2 26.2 21.2 12.5 26.4 19.6 12.3 26 .6 21.5 12 • 5 22.7 10.7 26.3 22.0 12.0 25.6 21.5 12,3 25.3 19.8 11.4 26 .7 21.9 12 .2 22.7 10.6 2.5 .5 21.5 11.8 25.5 21.7 12.6 25.8 20.4 11.7 26 .-0 21.6 12 .2 20.3 9.5 25 .0 22.9 12.5 25.3 21.3 12.0 25,2 20.9 11.9 25 .5 21.4 11 .7 19.4 10.6 26.3 20.9 12.9 26.5 20.2 12.3 26.0 20.0 12.3 27 * c. 21.4 12 .8 19.9 10.1 25 .7 25.5 12.4 25.3 22.3 12.1 24*5 20.9 11.7 25 .3 22.8 12 .0 22.4 10.5 26 .5 23.8. 12.4 25.8 23.9 12.3 25.8 22.7 12.1 26 .2 23.3 12 .1 22.0 11.0 26 .7 23.7 12.9 26.7 23.3 12.5 26.0 21.9 12.0 27 .0 23.5 12 .7 23.9 11.3 26 .8 24.5 12.8 26.3 24.4 12.7 26.3 22.9 11.9 26 * 6 24*5 12 . 6 21.2 10.7 26 .6 23.9 13 »1 26.8 23»0 12.9 26,6 21.4 12.3 27 •4 23.6 13 .1 20.7 10.9 26.3 21.8 12.7 26.4 19.5 11.8 26.3 20.5 12.1 - - 22,2 11.1 26.6 22.5 12.8 25.3 21,2 11.1 27.0 21.6 12.4 — —- 19.8 12.9 28 .6 19.7 14.0 26.9 19.3 12*4 29.0 18.7 13.5 m m - - 20.1 11.5 25 .7 22.2 11.9 25.9 19.7 11.6 26.1 21.2 12.3 m m — - 20.5 10.8 25 .9 23.7 12.5 27.0 19.4 12.1 27.0 20.9 12.8 mm - - 20.5 10.3 25 .8 22.9 12,1 26.5 19.6 12.0 26.7 21.1 12.7 — _ — 19.9 11.6 27 .2 18.8 12.4 26.8 ‘17.9 11.9 28.5 17.8 13.3 m m ■■ 20.7 10.9 25 . 8 21.6 12.3 27.0 18.6 12.3 27.1 19.9 12.8 — — - 18.1 9.9 25 . 8 19.8 11.3 26.8 18,1 12.0 26.5 18.4 12.3 ■■ - - 18.5 8.6 2k.1 19.5 10.8 26.1 18.6 11.7 25.8 20.0 12,1 - -- 19.3 10.6 26 .2 19.2 12.2 26.7 19,2 ,11.9 28.4 19.9 13.3 - m m - 19.9 10.6 26.0 20.2 12.0 27.1 3.9.4 12.8 28.0 19.8 12.9 - - m m 19.8 12.2 27 •4 19.9 12.9 27.1 18.5 12.2 29.3 17-9 13.5 - - m m Appendix Table D. Munsell Hue and Chroma Renotations Correc Hunter Color Difference Meter Data) of Samples for the "Hot-: cess 2),Taken at the Chopper, Preheater, Extractor, Filler, (5 months), and 3rd Inspection (10 months) and USDA Color Sc Comparison to Munsell Spinners.
Date Lot Stages of Manufacture - Sample Points No. Chopper Preheater Extractor Fille] Hue Value/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Hue Value/ Chroma Hue ValU(
8-25-51 la-3-1 8.5R 2.72 5.7 9.1R 3.10 6.5 8-25-51 lb-3-1 8. 5R 2.72 5.7 9.3R 2.83 6.0 8-25-51 lc-3-1 8.5R 2.72 5-7 -- 8.7R 2.95 7.2 8-25-51 7a-3-l 9.OR 2.78 5 4 -- 9 4 * 2.9k 6.0 V *■* — 8-25-51 8a-3-l 9.9R 2.83 5.1 10.OR 3.02 6.5 •VP* 8-25-51 3a-3-l . 8.9R 2.7k 5 4 — 9.7R 2. 9k 5.9 8-31-51 8 a 4 - 1 8.OR 2.78 6 4 — 9.9R 2.93 6.6 10. OR 3.1! 8-31-51 la 4 - 1 7.6r 2.6I4. 6.7 8.7R 2.76 6.8 9.2R 2.75 6.8 9.9R 3 .Of 9-6-51 8a-5-l .1YR 2.72 6.2 . 2YR 2.98 7.3 9.8R 3.00 6.9 1.2YR 3.07 9-7-51 30-5-1 8.6r 2.66 6.6 9.2R 3.10 7.3 9.1R 2.88 7.0 .2YR 3.08 9-7-51 70-5-1 8.2R 2.72 6.9 9.1R 2.86 6.6 9.5R 2.72 7.1 .3YR 2.9S 9-7-51 la-5-1 8.2R 2.57 6.9 9. OR ■ 2.83 7 4 9.5R 2.6 3 6.5 9.6R 2.93 9-7-51 8b-5-l ,1YR 2.72 6.2 9.3R 2.93 6.6 4 y r 2.81 6.2 1.1YR 3.08 9-11-51 la-6-1 8.6R 2.69 6.7 9.5R 2.77 7.1 9.9R 2.75 6.9 10.OR 3.01 9-4-51 lb-6-1 8 4 r 2.65 6.8 8.8r 2.85 6.9 9.OR 2.86 6,8 10. OR 3.1C 9-li).-5l 7a-6-l 8.7R 2.72 6.6 9.6r 2.86 6.9 9.8r 2.83 6.9 .3YR 3.13 9-4-51 lc-6-1 8.2R 2.66 7.0 8.9R 2.80 7.1 9.2R 2.91 7.3 10.OR ■ 3.Iff 9-19-51 la-7-1 8.6R 2.72 6.8 10.OR 2.82 6.9 • 1YR 2.7 5 6.6 .liYR 3.11 9-10-52 la-I|-2 8. OR 2.72 6.3 9 4 R 3.08 6.8 9 4 R 2.96 6.3 .8YR 3.08 9-10-52 lb-(.-2 8.i|R 2.76 6.5 . 2YR 3.16 7.0 9 4 R 2.96 6.8 .6YR 3.11 9-10-52 8a4 - 2 4YR 3.06 5.6 l.IpfR 3.39 6.k 1.1YR 3.36 6.9 1.9YR 3.314 9-17-52 la-5-2 8.7R 2.66 6.0 9.5R 3 .06 6.6 .8y r 2.89 6.5 .5y r 2.89 9-17-52 7a-5-2 I.3YR 2.72 5.9 .3YR 3.25 7.0 9.7R 3.01]. 6.3 . 2YR 3* Ok 9-17-52 30-5-2 9.OR 2.78 6.1 9.4R 2.92 6.2 9.1|R 2.89 6 4 . 2YR 3.02 9-17-52 8a-5-2 ,1YR 2.96 5.6 9.5R 3.50 6 4 .2YR 3.21 6*3 1 4 Y R 3.19 9-17-52 7b-5-2 9.1R 2.75 6.1 9.7R 3.17 6.8 9.7R 3.02 6.3 ,6YR 3.02 9-19-52 8b-5-2 9.6R 2.66 6,6 9.7R 2.85 5.9 9.2R 2.78 5.7 1.2YR 2.91 9-19-52 7c-5-2 9.OR 2.55 5.8 9 4 R 2.82 6 4 9.1R 2.63 5.9 ,6y r 2.82 9-25-52 7a-o-2 9.7R 2.82 5.5 .1YR 3.02 6.3 .3YR 3.01 5.8 1.2YR 3.07 9-25-52 3a-6-2 9 c OR 2.7^ 5.8 9.7R 2.88 6.1 10. OR 2.89 6.3 .8y r 3.05 9-25-52 8a-6-2 «5y r 2.95 5 4 • 5lR 3.21 6.0 .9YR 3.17 6,6 1.3YR 3.21 I
I ; P.
orrected for Munsell;Value (Calculated from "Hot-break" Plate-pasteurized Process (Pro- ler, 1st Inspection (1 month), 2nd Inspection :>r Scores Determined! by USDA Inspectors by
Storage (Months) USDA Color Hiller - 1 5 ' 10 Scores Value/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Hue ~ Yalue/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma 1 5 10
1.8YR; 3,22 7.0 9.9R 3.24 6.6 9.4R 3.34 7.0 - 28 29 9.9R ; 3.21 6.9 10.OR 3.17 6.5 9.8R 3.28 6.8 29 29 29 10.OR . 3.34 7.1 9,7R 3.19 6.6 9.6R 3.24 6.8 29 29 28 •4YR 3.35 6.9 .7YR 3.21 6.3 • 2YR 3.22 6.5 28 27 27 .6YR; 3.40 6.9 .6YR 3.29 6.3 .6YR 3.42 6,6 28 26 26 • HR, 3.26 6.7 .3YR 3.24 6.3 .2YR 3.32 6.6 29 27 28 3.15 7.3 .l+YR 3.15 7 4 .9YR 3.16 7.4 • 4YR 3.22 7.0 28 27 28 3.06 7.4 ,1YR 3.17 7.2' . 2YR 3.10 7.2 10. OR 3.21 7.2 28 29 29 3.07 7.3 ,6fR 3.07 7.0 1.2YR 3-09 6,6 ,7YR 3.11 7.0 27 27 27 3.06 6.9 .7YR 3.00 7.0 .5YR 2.96 6.4 .3YR 3.13 6.9 28 28 28 2.99 6.9 1.0YR 2.99 7.1 .$YR 3.02 6.5 ,5YR 3.05 6.9 28 27 27 2.93 7.0 .5YR: 2.96 6.7 .5YR 2.95 6.8 .3YR 2.99 6.7 28 29 27 3.08 7.0 .5YR. 3.10 7.1 1.1YR 3.06 6.7 .8YR 3.19 7.0 27 26 27 3.01 7.5 *3YR: 3.01 7.5 ,8YR 2.87 6.8 ,1YR 2.96 7.1 28 29 28 3.10 7.4 10.OR 3.02 7.4 .2YR 3.02 7.1 9.9R 3.07 7.2 28 30 29 3.13 7.5 .1YR 3.13 7.3 .3YR 3.05 6.9 ,2YR 3.16 7.4 27 29 28 3-llj. 7.7 9.1R ; 3.O8 7.4 9.9R 3.08 7.0 10. OR 3.11 7.5 29 29 28 3.11 7.6 .5yr: 3.14 7.4 .5vr 3.11 6.9 •4y r 3.21 7.5 27 28 27 3.08; 7.1 .8YR 3.09 6.4 .7YR 3.08 6.7 — 27 27 - 3.11 7.3 9.8r 2.96 6.5 ,5yr 3.16 6.9 — 28 28 - 3.34 8,8 1.3YR. 3 .1 5 6.5 1.9YR 3.39 6.6 -- 25 24 - 2.89 7.1 1.1YR; 3 .1 5 6.5 .7YR 3.06 6.9 m m 27 28 - 3.04 7.4 *9YR 3.I6 6.5 10.OR 3.16 6.9 m m 27 26 - 3.02 7.1 . 9YR 3-io 6.4 9.OR 3.13 7.0 — 27 27 - 3.19 8.4 1.4YR 3.14 6.0 2.2YR 3.33 6.4 m m - 25 - 3.02 7.0 1.4YR; 3,16 6.3 1.3YR 3.17 6.7 — 26 26 - 2.91 6.4 l.liYR'.' 3.14 6.1 1.5YR 3.10 6.3 -- 26 26 _ 2.82 6.3 1.1YR 3.06 6.,2 10.OR 3.02 6.6 -- 27 27 - 3.07 6.5 .9YR 3.13 6.3 1.4YR 3.32 6.8 -- 25 25 - 3.05 ■ 6.6 1.7YR 3.17 6.6 1.2YR 3.28 6.7 -- 26 26 _ 3.21. 6.7 1.3YR 3.17 6.2 1.7YR 3.43 6.4 — 24 24 - Appendix Table E. Hunter Color and Color-Differeiice M the "Cold-break" Two Extraction Conventional Process ( 2nd Extract), Blender, Filler, 1st Inspection (1 month
Stages of Manufacture - Sample Points Date L o t ______Extractor ______No, (1st) 12nd) Blender Filler £ a b L a b L a b £ a
8-31-51 la-lj.-l 22.9 21.9 9.3 22.9 234 9.2 23.0 22.3 9.5 26.9 23.9
8-31*51 8a4 -l 23.7 19.3 9 4 2t|..2 22.8 10.2 24.3 23.2 10.2 25.5 19.3
9-11-51 la-6-1 23.0 21.0 9 4 23.2 21.0 9.5 23.2 20.7 10.2 • , .
9-19-51 lb-7-1 23.9 20.7 9.7 2i(..l 22.5 9.7 23.7 21.7 9.6 26.2 23.1
Appendix Table F. Munsell Hue and Chroma Renotations 1 from Hunter Color Difference Meter Data) '6f Samples fo: ventlonal Process (Process 7) taken at the Extractor 1st Inspection (1 month), 2nd Inspection (5 months), a; Color Scores Determined by USDA Inspectors by Compari3
Stages of Manufacture - Sample Points Date Lot Extractor “ No. (1st) (2nd) Blender Fille: Hue Value/ Chroma Sue Value/Chroma Sue Value/Chroma Sue Value>
8-31-51 la 4-1 8.5R 2.68 6.7 7.9R 2.68 7 4 8.5R 2.69 6.8 9.8R 3.15
8-31-51 8 a 4-1 9.2R 2.77 6.1 8.7R 2.83 6.1 . 8 4 R 2.85 7.0 .5tr 2.99
9-11-51 la-6-1 9.8R 2.I4 6.9 8.9R 2.71 6.5 9.8r 2.71 6.6 - «•
9-19-51 lb-7-1 8.9R 2.80 6 4 8.2R 2.82 6.8 8.5R 2.77 6.6 10. OR 3.07
• L5-: -w ; \ wJ l " f t ?
1, * -- - , -V: '.' - ■ V ; Color-Difference Meter L, sir and bjt, Readings of Samples for entional Process (Process 77 T a k e n l at the Extractor (1st and nspection (1 month), 2nd Inspection (5 months) and 3rd Inspection (10 months) its .______Storage (Months)
Filler 1 5 10 ~L--- a b t a b £> a b L a b
5 26.9 23.9 12.Ij. 2^.6 20.9 11.2 23.7 18.8 1 0 .i|. 2L|..7 21.1 10.8
2 25.5 19.3 11.2 2^.8 18.5 1 1 .h 2l(..8 16 .1). 10.5 25.3 17.0 11.0
2 . . - - 2i|..3 19.7 11.3 2I4..2 17.8 10.8 2i|..5 19.4 11.5
6 26.2 23.1 12.2 25.7 21.7 12.1 25.5 21.0 12.0 25.5 21.9 11.9
hroma Renotations Corrected for Muhsell Value (Calculated ata) ST Samples for the "Cold-break" Two Extraction Con- at the Extractor (1st and 2nd Extract), Blender, Filler, tion (5 months), and 3rd Inspection (10 months) and USDA ectors by Comparison to Munsell Spinners, ints
Filler 1 hroma Sue V alue/Chroma hue Value/Chroma hue V alue/Chroma Hue Value/fl
6.8 9.8R 3.15 7.h .3YR 2.88 6*7 •6YR 2.77 6,2 9.8R 2.89
7.0 •5TR 2.99 7.h 1.2YR 2.91 6.2 1.2YR 2.91 5.5 1.3YR 2.96
6.6 - «* mm 1.7YR 2,58 6,8 1.2YR 2,83 6,0 1.1YR 2,87
6.6 10. OR 3.07 7.2 .5TR 3.01 6.9 •6YR 2.99 6.8 .3YR 2.99
Wr-tr'-i 'ViV '5=/^ ■ I
- 154-
Appendix Table G. Hunter Color and Color-Differt for the "Hot-break" Conventional Process (Procest tor, Filler, 1st Inspection (1 Month), 2nd Inspe<
Stages of Manufacture - Sample Points Date Lot Chopper Preheater Extractor Fille No. L a b L a b L a b L j
8-31-51 8a—4*1 23.8 21.1 9.4 - m* - 24.6 21.5 10.7 25.6 21.
8-31-51 la-4-1 22.6 22.2 8.5 23.6 22.3 9.6 23.2 21.7 9.8 2$.0 22.
9-11-51 la-6-1 23.0 21.7 9.4 23.7 22.7 10.8 24.0 21.2 10.5 25.4 21. 9-19-51 la-7-1 23.3 22.1 9.6 24*1 21.9 11.1 23.5 21.2 10.7 24.9 22.
Appendix Table H. Munsell Hue and Chroma Renotat from Hunter Color Difference Meter Data) of Sampl (Process 8) Taken at the Chopper, Preheater, Extr Inspection (5 Months), and 3rd Inspection (10 Mon Inspectors by Comparison to Munsell Spinners.
Chopper Preheater Extractor Hue Value/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Hue
8-31-51 8a-4"l 8.5R 2.78 6.$ m m 9.6R 2.88 6.7 .5*R 8-31-51 la-4-1 7.9R 2.64 6.7 8 .6R 2.76 6,9 9.OR 2.71 6.8 9.9R
9-11-51 la-6-1 8.6R 2.69 6.7 9.6R 2.11 7.1 9.6R 2.81 6.7 •6YR
9-19-51 la-7-1 8.7R 2.12 6.1 10.OR 2.82 7.0 10. OR 2.75 6.8 .5?R Lfference Meter L, aj, and b^ i Readings of Samples •ocess 8) Taken at the Choppjer, Preheater, Extrac- -nspection (5 Months), and 3 rd Inspection (10 Months).
Storagea® (Months) Filler 1 5 10 a B L a b L a b L a b
21.8 12.2 25.9 20.1 12.0 2ij..7 18.8 10.9 25.1 20.7 11.5
' 22.5 11.5 25.5 21.8 11.8 2l{..l 19.6 10.5 25.2 22.2 1 1 4 . 21.6 12.2 2lj..2 20.5 11.3 21).. 1 19.2 10.9 4 4 19.5 1 1 4 22.0 11.9 25.0 21.6 11.9 25.1 21.0 1 1 4 25.3 214 11.6
notations Corrected for Mnw Isell Value (Calculated Samples for the "Hot-break" - Conventional Process Extractor, Filler, 1st Inspection (1 Month), 2nd 6 Months) and USDA Color.Sc ores Determined by USDA
Storage (Months)______USDA Color Hller" 1 10 Scores Sue Value/ Chroma Hue V alue/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma Hue Value/Chroma
.5*R 3.00 7.0 .8YR 3.01). 6.6 .7YR 2.89 6.1 .8YH 2.91). 6.7 29 28 28
).9R 2.93 7.0 .3YR 2.99 6.9 • 2TR 2.82 6.3 9.9R 2.95 6.9 29 29 28
.6YR 2.98 7.0 .7YR 2.83 6.7 .8yr 2.82 6.6 1.0YR 2.86 6 4 28 27 27 4YR .5YR 2.92 7.1 •55fR 2.93 7.0 2.4 6.6 .7YR 2.96 6.6 28 28 29 - 155-
Appendix Table I. Hunter Color a n d . Col< ^Cold-break*1 One Extraction Plate-pastei Extractor, Filler, 1st Inspection (1 Moi
Stages in Manufacture — Sample ] Date Dot Sub- Extractor
No. —E— I* a - - b ■ a S
9 -6 - 5 0 l a - 2 - 0 2 5 .it .25.3 1 0 . 5 2l+".3 2 2 . 2 9 . 5 9-6-50 3©--2-0 2 6 . 8 2 7 . 9 1 1 . 3 2i+.2 2 1 . 9 9.2+ — 9-6-50 7 a-2-O 2 5 . 8 2 5 . 2 1 0 . 5 22+.0 1 9 . 9 9 . 3 - 9 -6 - 5 0 8 a — 2 - 0 2 6 . 1 2 2 . 0 1 0 . 3 2 5 . 8 2 0 . 5 1 0 . 0 — 9-13-50 la-3-O 23.^- 2 5 . 6 9 . 0 22+. 1 2 2 . 3 9 . 5 — 9-13-50 3©-3-0 2 2 . 8 2 2 . 6 8 . 8 2 3 .7 2 2 . 2 9.7 — 9-13-50 7 a-3-0 23.2+ 2 0 . 6 9 . 2 22+.5 21.7 9 . 8 - 9-15-50 la-2+-0 2 2 . 1 2 3 . 3 9.1 2 2 . 8 2 1 . 5 9 . 2 - 9 - 1 5 - 5 0 3a-lj.-0 2 9 . 9 2 2 . 6 9 . 2 2 3 . 3 2 0 . 8 9 . 5 — 9-19-50 la-5-0 2 3 . 1 2 3 . 6 9 . if- 2 3 . 9 2 0 . 8 9.7 — 9-19-50 3a-5-0 2 3 . 8 2 1 . 8 9 . 5 22+ .2+ 2 1 .7 1 0 . 0 - 9-19-50 7a-5—O 22+. 2 2 1 . 9 9 . 6 2 5 . 0 2 1 . 5 1 0 . 1 — 9-19-50 8a-5-0 2 3 . 1 1 9 . 8 9 . 3 2 1 + . 7 1 8 . 9 1 0 . 1 - 9-26-50 8&-6-0 22+. 8 2 3 . 0 1 0 . 8 2ii. 1 1 0 . 1 — 8-25-51 la-3-1 - - - 2 3 . 3 1 8 . 6 8 . if. — 8-25-51 3a-3-l -—— 2 3 . 4 1 7 . 1 § • 2 — 8 -2 5 - 5 1 7 a - 3 - l — — — 2 3 . 0 1 7 . 2 8 . 5 — 8 - 2 5 - 5 1 8 a -3 - 1 -—— 21}.. 2 1 5 . 8 8 . 7 - 6 - 2 7 - 5 1 8b - 3-1 -—— 2 3 . 0 1 7 . 7 9 . 0 — 8 -3 1 - 5 1 8 a-I+-l —-— 2 3 . 3 1 7 . 5 8 . 8 2 6 . i 8 - 3 1 - 5 1 8b -i+-l - — - 2 3 . 1 1 7 . 8 8 . 9 2 8 . i 9-9-51 la-5-1 ——— 2 3 . 2 2 1 . 1 9 . 3 2 6 .« 9-11-51 la- 6 - 1 - - - 2 3 . 0 2 1 . 0 9 . 5 26. < d Color-Dlfference Meter I*, ar, and. b^ Readings \ of* S a m p l e pasteurized Process. (Process 9) Taken of* a Sub- sample ar (1 Month.), 2nd Inspection (9 Months) and T nspectlori mple Points Storage (Months)
F i l l e r ______1 ______XT ! a F XT" a F ' I* a F
28.6 24.1 12.6 26.6 2 1 . 5 11.S 29.2 2ii.7 12.8 27.3 21.7 12.2 29.8 2)4..6 13.0 27.6 22.4 12.5 30.5 21.2 13.2 28.5 20.1 12.8 27.5 26*7 12.3 2 6 . 9 23-0 12. k 28.6 2 6 . 7 13.0 27.8 2*4..£ 12.0 2 9 . 3 26.1 1 3 . 14. 28.1 22.6 12.2 26.9 25.5 12.3 2^.9 ;20.9 10.8 28.1 25*3 13*2 2 6 . 9 21.8 1 1 . 5 28.2 24.0 1 2 . 5 26.4 21.8 11.6 28.8 21+.0 12.8 27.1 21.1 1 2 . 0 29*4 23.9 12.9 27.8 2 1 . 3 12.1 2 9 . 9 22.8 13.2 2 7 . 9 1 9 . 1 12.0 2 9 . U 22.0 1 3 . 3 2 8 . 1 18.8 12.1 28.8 21.6 12.3 2 7 . 1 20.0 1 1 . 7 28.6 20.8 12.3 27.8 19.0 11.4 28.8 20.1 12.2 28.2 19.2 11.7 29.4 19.9 12.7 2 9 . 1 18.1 11.8 28.0 21.7 12.2 27.6 1 9 . 5 11.8 26.4 19-3 12.3 27 .4 19.7 12.5 2 6 . 3 18.0 1 1 . 9 2 8.I4. 21.2 12.7 28.7 21.8 12.6 28.2 20.2 11.6 26.9 22.0 12.2 2 5 . 4 21.4 12.0 2 5 * 4 1 9 . 9 12.0 2 6 . 9 2^.8 13.2 25.2 21.4 12.1 2^.2 19.5 11.7 bei» Tm, ar and t>j^ Readings < of* Samples To r tine P r o c e s s 9) Taken of* a Svit>— sample and at the tion (5 Months) and 3*»d I nspectlon (IO Mont his) . Storage (Months) - 1 5 IO a b " b a b " “i; a to
?8.6 2l\. . X 1 2 . 6 2 6 .6 2 1 . 5 1 1 . 9 2 5 . 8 2lf.» 2 1 2 . 0 2 9 - 2 2 l | - . 7 1 2 . 8 2 7 . 3 2 1 . 7 1 2 . 2 2 6 . 6 2il.6 1 2 . 1 2 9 . 8 2i|.. 6 1 3 . 0 2 7 . 6 2 2 .4 1 2 . 5 2 7 . 3 2 6 . 5 1 2 . 7 5 0 . 5 2 1 . 2 1 3 . 2 2 8 . 5 2 0 . 1 1 2 . 8 2 7 . 2 2 3 . 0 1 2 . 5 2 7 . 5 2 6 . 7 1 2 . 3 2 6 .9 2 3 - 0 1 2 . if- 2 k . 9 2 1 . 7 1 1 . 0 2 8. 6 2 6 .7 1 3 . 0 2 7 .6 2 i | . . 5 1 2 . 0 2 6 . 6 2 6 . 1 1 2 . 3 2 9 . 3 2 6 .1 13.il- 2 8 . 1 2 2 . 6 1 2 . 2 2 7 . 3 2 5 . 9 1 2 . 6 2 6 . 9 2 5 . 5 1 2 . 3 2 5 . 9 ;20.9 1 0 . 8 2 5 . 5 2 3 . 8 1 1 . 6 2 8 . 1 2 5 . 3 1 3 . 2 2 6 . 9 2 1 . 8 1 1 . 5 2 6 . 5 2 i | . . 9 1 2 . 0 2 8. 2 2i|- • O 1 2 . 5 2 6 .1). 2 1 . 8 1 1 . 6 2 6 .4 2 i | . . 9 1 2 . 1 2 8 . 8 2i(-. O 1 2 . 8 2 7 . 1 2 1 . 1 1 2 . 0 2 6 . 4 2if . 3 1 2 . 3 29.14- 2 3 . 9 1 2 . 9 2 7 . 8 2 1 . 3 1 2 . 1 2 6 . 7 2 3 . 9 1 2 . 3 2 9 . 9 2 2 . 8 1 3 . 2 2 7 . 9 1 9 . 1 1 2 . 0 2 7 . 3 2 4 - 3 1 2 . 8 29.U 2 2 . 0 1 3 . 3 2 8 . 1 1 8 . 8 1 2 . 1 2 7 . 1 2 3 * 1 1 2 . 5 2 8 . 8 2 1 . 6 1 2 . 3 2 7 . 1 2 0 . 0 1 1 . 7 2 7 .6 2 0 . 7 1 1 . 7 2 8 . 6 2 0 . 8 1 2 . 3 2 7 * 8 1 9 . 0 ll.il. 2 8 . if. 2 0 . 7 1 2 . 0 2 8 . 8 2 0 . 1 1 2 . 2 2 8 . 2 1 9 . 2 1 1 - 7 2 9 . 9 2 1 . 7 1 2 . 7 29. 1 9 . 9 1 2 . 7 2 9 . 1 1 8 . 1 1 1 . 8 2 9 . 7 1 9 . 9 1 2 . 2 2 8 . 0 2 1 .7 1 2 . 2 2 7 * 6 1 9 . 5 1 1 . 8 2 7 . 3 1 8 . 2 1 2 . 0 27.il- 1 9 . 7 1 2 . 5 2 6 . 3 1 8 . 0 1 1 . 9 2 7 . 0 1 8 . 0 1 1 . 9 2 8 . 7 2 1 . 8 1 2 . 6 2 8 . 2 2 0 . 2 1 1 . 6 29.0 21.4 12.2 25.il- 2 1 . i|. 1 2 . 0 25.il- 1 9 . 9 1 2 . 0 2 6 . 4 2 0 . 9 1 1 . 9 2 5 - 2 2 1 . i|. 1 2 . 1 2 5 . 2 1 9 . 5 1 1 . 7 2 6 . 5 2 1 .8 1 2 . 4 -156
Appendix Table J. Munsell Hue and from Hunter Color Difference Meter pasteurized Process (Process 9) Tal spectlon (1 Month.), 2nd Inspection Scores Determined by USDA Inspectoi
Date Dot Sub - E x t r a c t o r - No. Sa m p l e (1 st) S u e " V alue/Chroma Hue V alue/ Chroma Hue
9-6-50 la-2-0 7-6 R 2.98 7-3 8 .OR 2 . 8 5 6.6 — 9-6-50 3a-2-0 7.1*-R 3.1 4 8.0 8.1R 2.83 6.6 - 9-6-50 7a-2-0 7 . 7R 3 . 0 2 7.3 8.7R 2.81 6.1 - 9 - 6 - 5 0 8a-2-0 8 .JLlR 3.06 6 . 5 8.7R 3.02 6 . 2 - 9-1 3 - 5 0 la-3-0 6 .8R 2.71*. 7 . 5 8.9R 2 . 8 2 6.9 - 9-13-50 3a-3-0 7.7R 2.66 6. 8 8.5 R 2.77 6.8 - 9-13 - 5 0 7 a-3-0 8 .7 R 6 . 5 8.5R 2.87 6.6 - 9 - 15-50 la-5,-0 8 .3 R 2.58 7.0 7.6R 2.66 6.6 tm 9 - 15- 5 0 3a-l*-0 6.3R 3.1*-9 6 .1*. 8.9R 2 . 7 2 6.5 - 9-19-50 la-5-0 8 . OR 2 . 7 0 7.1 8.9R 2.80 6 .1*. — 9-19-50 3 a -5-0 8.1*_R 2.78 6. 6 8.7R 2.86 6.6 - 9-19-50 7 a -5-0 8 .3 R 2.83 6.6 8.7R 2.93 6* 5 - 9-19 - 5 0 8a-5-0 9.1R 2.70 6.3 9.9R 2.8 9 6.0 - 9*26-50 8 a —6 —0 9.OR 2.91 7-0 9.8R 2.82 6. 2 - 8 - 2 5-5 1 la-3-1 —— 8.5R 2.72 5.8 - 8-25-51 3a-3-l ——- 9 . OR 2.7U 5.1*- - 8 - 2 5-5 1 7a-3-l —-- 9.1R 2.78 5.1*- ■ - 8-25-51 8 & -3-1 es es - 9.9R 2.83 5.1 - 8-27-51 8 b -3-1 —-- 9.7R 2.69 5.7 - 8 - 31-51 8 a - I j . - l -—- 8 .14R 2.72 5.6 1.3Y- 8-31-51 8 b - 5 - 1 — — - 8 . 1 j.R 3*32 5.2 . 5 * : 9-9-51 l a - 5 - 1 ——- 8.6R 2.71 6. 5 .2T 9-11-51 la-6-1 —-- 8.9R 2.69 6 .6 9.9R .1 Hue and Chroma Renotations Corrected for Munsell Value (Calcu mee Meter Data) of Samples for the "Cold-break”One Extractor PI seas 9) Taken of a Sub-sample and at-the Extractor, Filler, 1st Inspection (5 Months) and 3rd Inspection (10 months) and USDA Cc i Inspectors by Comparison to Munsell Spinners.
Sample Points Storage (Months)
F i l l e r 1 5 H u e V alue/ Chroma H u e V alue/ Chroma H u e Value/Chrom
9 . 6 R 3.3lt- 7 . 3 . 2 Y R 3 . 1 1 6 . 8 .. 9.it-R 3 - k l 7 . 5 . 2 Y R 3 . 2 0 6 . 8 _ — 9 . 5 R 3.1|-8 7 - 5 •SYR 3 . 2 3 7 . 1 _ • 5 Y R 3 - 5 5 6 . 8 • 9Y R 3 . 3 3 6 . 6 ■ft _ .. 8 . 6 R 3 . 2 2 7 . 9 • 1Y R 3 . 1 5 7 . 2 9 . 2 R 3 . 8 k 7 . 9 9 . 1 R 3 . 2 3 7 . 3 _ . — 9 . 5 R 3 * k 2 7 . 9 9 . 6 R 3 . 2 9 7 . 0 W .. .. 9 . 2 R 3 . 1 5 7 . 7 9 . k R 3 . 0 k 6 , k 9 . 8 R 3 . 2 9 7 . 8 9 . 7 R 3 . 1 5 7 . 0 _ 9 . 6 R 3 . 3 0 7 . 3 9 . 9 R 3 - 0 9 6 . 7 .. 9 . 7 R 3 . 3 6 7 * k • 3 Y R : 3 . 1 7 6 . 7 .. 9 . 7 R 3 * k 3 7 . 3 . 2 Y R 3 . 2 5 6 . 7 — _ . 1 Y R 3 « k 9 7 . 2 • 8y r 3 . 2 6 6 . 3 . 5 YR 3 . k 3 7 . 1 1 0 . O R 3 - 2 9 6 . 3 • 1Y R 3 . 3 6 6 . 8 •1|YR 3 . 1 7 6 .k «_ • 3Y R 3 . 3 k 6 . 6 . 3 Y R 3 . 2 5 6 . 1 _ . k Y R 3 - 3 6 6 . 5 . k Y R 3 . 3 0 6 . 2 . o Y R 3 . k 9 6 . 5 • oY R 3 * k o 5 . 9 • 1Y R 3.28 6 . 8 • 6Y R 3 . 2 3 6 . 3 1 . 3 Y R 3 * 0 9 6 . 5 1 . 1 Y R 3 . 2 1 6 . 6 l . ^ Y R 3 . 0 8 6 . 1 • 5Y R 3 . 3 5 6 . 8 . 3 Y R 3 - 3 5 6 . 6 1 0 . OR 3 - 3 0 6 . k • 2Y R 3 - 1 5 6 . 9 . 5 Y R 2 . 9 8 6 .8 1 . 0 Y R 2 . 9 8 6 . 0 9 . 9 R 3 . 1 5 7 . 9 • 7Y R 2 . 9 5 7 . 0 . 9 Y R 2 . 9 5 6 . 5 ■ected for Munsell Vjilue (Calculated ie "Cold-break"One Extractor Plate- at~tbe Extractor, Filler, 1st In- )ection (10 months) and USDA Color :ell Spinners, ______Storage, (Months)______USDA Color 5 10 S cores alue/Chroma Rue Value/ Chroma Hue Value/Chroma 1 IT 10
7.3 • 2YR 3.11 6 . 8 9.6R 3 . 0 2 7-b 29 29 29 28 7.5 .2YR 3 *20 6.8 9-bR 3.11 7-b 29 29 7-5 •2YR 3.23 7.1 9.2R 3.20 7.9 29 28 28 6.8 .9YR 3.33 6.6 • 1YR 3.19 7.2 26 28 27 7.9 • 1TR 3.15 7.2 9.7R 2.92 6.7 30 30 29 7.9 9.1R 3.23 7-3 9.1R 3.11 7.8 29 29 29 7.9 9.8R 3.29 7.0 9.3R 3.20 7.8 27 29 29 7.7 9-bR 3.0b. 6 .b 9.3R 2.99 7.2 29 30 29 7.8 9.7H 3.15 7 . 0 9.2R 3-10 7.5 28 29 29 7.3 9.9R 3.09 6.7 9.3R 3.09 7.5 29 30 28 7 «b .3YR : 3.17 6.7 9.7R 3.09 7-b 28 28 29 7.3 .2YR 3.25 6.7 9.8R 3.13 7.3 28 29 28 7-2 .8YR 3.26 6.3 9.9R 3.20 7.5 27 28 2l 7.1 1 0 . OR 3.29 6.3 • 1YR 3.17 7-3 2b 27 28 6,8 • i | Y R 3-17 6 «b • 1YR 3.23 6.5 29 28 27 6.6 • 3YR 3.25 6.1 .2YR 3.32 6.5 29 27 27 6.5 .bYR 3.30 6.2 • 1YR 3-b9 6.8 28 27 25 6.5 .SYR 3.b-o 5.9 • 3YR 3-b7 6 . b 29 27 2b 6.8 .6YR 3.23 6.3 1.0YR 3.20 5.6 27 27 26 6.6 I.I4YR 3.08 6.1 1.3YR 3.16 6.1 28 26 6.6 10. OR 3.30 6.k 10.OR 3.39 6.7 29 U 27 6.8 1.0YR 2.98 6 .0 .I4YR 3.09 6.7 29 30 28 7.0 • 9YR 2.95 6.5 .5YR 3.10 7-0 27 27 28 - l£ 7 -
Appen&ix Table K. Hunter Color and for the "Hot-break* Plate-pasteurize “Hot-break" Conventional Process (Us Preheater,-Extractor, Filler, 1st In Inspection (10 Months)*
Process Date Lot Stage of Manu
■ No. Choppe r Preheater L a b L a b
11 8-30-51 8 a-A]_-l 2k • 6 19.2 9.6 25.5 22.5 11.
12 8 -30-51 8 a-ij.-l 2I|..6 19.2 9.6 25.5 22*5 11.
1 1 8 -30-51 la-J^-l 26.0 26.7 10.9 2 5 . i t 2I4. . I 1 1 .
12 8-30-51 l a -14.-1 26.0 26.7 10.9 2 5 . i t 2lj..l 1 1 .
| Appendix Table I*. Munsell Hue and C] from Hunter Color Difference Meter Di Process (Using Vibrating Screen) (Pr< Vibrating Screen) (Process 12) Taken ! tion (1 Month), 2nd Inspection (5 Determined by USDA Inspectors by Com]
Prbeess Date Lot ______No* ChopperPreheater Sue V alue/ Chroma Hue Value/ filar 01
11 8-30-51 8a-i|.-l 9.2R 2.88 5-9 9.1R 2.99 6 J
12 8-30-51 8 a -1}.-1 9.2R 2.88 5.9 9.2R 2.99 6 J
11 8-30-51 l a -24.-I 7.5R 3.05 7.7 8 .8R 2.98 7.J 12 8-30-51 la-if-l 7.6R 3.05 7.7 8 .8 r 2.98 7 . ‘< id Color-Difference Meter L, aL and bL ReadipS 3 Samp l e s .zed Process (Using Vibrating Screen) (Procef 3 11) 3nd the Using Vibrating Screen (Process 12) Taken ap the Chopper, Inspection (1 Month), 2nd Inspection (5 Monphs) and 3rd mufacture - Sample Points Storag E x t r a c t o r Fill er H 0 H 1.0 25.9 21.7 » 28.2 22.0 13.3 27.9 22.8 13.0 27.2
1.0 2£.9 21.7 11.0 - - - 25.8 19.7 1 1. 9 25.0
1.2 2lf.8 22.3 10.8 26.8 23. 5 1 2 . 5 26.2 2lf.if 12.3 26.ij.
1.2 25.3 23.3 11.0 25.8 22 • If. 12.1 25.0 22.3 11.8 2lf..8
Chroma Renotations Corrected for Munsell Vialue (Calculated Data) of Samples for the "Hot-break* Plate -pasteurized Process 11) and the **Hot-break ** Conventiona 1 Process (Using en at the Chopper, Preheater, Extractor, FI ller, 1st Inspec- Months) and 3rd Inspection (10 Months) and &SDA Color.Scores omparlson to Munsell Spinners*
Stc E x t r a c t o r F i l l e r " 1 roma Hue Value/Chroma Hue . Value/Chrom/n Hue Value/Chroma Hue
6.8 9.ii-R 3*oi+ 6.2 .8YR 3.30 7.2| 3.26 7.3
6.8 9.i|-R 3 . olj. 6.6 3.02 6 . 5 l.lp2
7.2 9.3R 2.91 6*8 10.OR 3.Ilf 7*3 9 .8 R 3.07 7 . 5 9.5E
7.2 9.OR 2.96 7 .0 • 2TR 3.02 7.0! 2.93 7 . 0 10.01
t I
;s of Samples : 11 ) and the the Chopper, ls ) and 3**cl
Storage (Months) I 5- 10 L a b L a L a b
.9 22.8 13.0 27.2 21.7 12.5 27.6 22.7 12.7
.8 19.7 11.9 25.0 18.0 11.5 26.2 19.2 12.1 .2 2lj-.il- 12.3 26.1}. 23.3 11.7 2 6 . k 21}..6 11.9 .0 22.3 11.8 21}..8 21.0 11.0 25.0 22.0 11.5
ue (Calculated asteurized Process (Using er, 1st Inspec- DA Color Scores
______Storage (Months)______USDA Color 1 5 lO Scores Hue Valu e/ Chr oma Hue Value/ Chroma Hue V alue/ Chroma 1 $ id .1|YR 3.26 7 . 3 .5^R 3.19 7.0 *3YR 3.23 7.2 28 27 26
1.0YR 3.02 6.5 l.J+YR 2.93 6.2 1.2YR 3.07 6.5 28 27 27 9.8R 3.07 7.5 9.5R 3.09 7.1 9.2R 3.09 7 .i|- 28 2 9 28
.3YR 2.93 7.0 10. OR 2.91 6 .6 • 1YR 2.93 6.9 29 28 28 AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I, Rees Basil Davis, was born in Glouster, Ohio, April
28, 1923. I received my secondary school education in the public schools of Findlay, Grandview Heights, Columbus, Upper Arlington and Glouster, Ohio. My undergraduate train ing was obtained at The Ohio State University from which I received the degree Bachelor of Science in Food Technology in 19i|.9. From The Ohio State University, I received the degree of Master of Science in 19 $1. While in residence at The Ohio State University, I was a research assistant for the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station from 19^0 to
1951* In 19^2, I received an appointment as Instructor at The Ohio State University, where I specialized in the Horti cultural Products Division of the Department of Horticulture. I held this position while completing the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.