EFFECT OF STORAGE CONDITIONS ON THE QUALITY

OF DRY AND PROCESSED NAVY BEANS

BY

Sineenart Vongsarnpigoon

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

1979

ABSTRACT

EFFECT OF STORAGE CONDITIONS ON THE QUALITY
OF DRY AND PROCESSED NAVY BEANS
By

Sineenart Vongsarnpigoon

Storage factors affecting navy bean quality, including relative
humidity and bean moisture, temperature, and time, were evaluated in
a series of four studies.

Study 1 (packaging study) and Study 2 (chemical study) involved
the storage of beans in Mylar® pouches. Studies were designed to in-
dependently evaluate quality change due to packaging environments (vacuum,
air, 002) and chemical treatments (Grain 'I‘reet® and 802). Additional
beans were dry stored for up to one year at various moisture contents
prior to processing. An equilibrium moisture isotherm was obtained
Over static saturated salts at 70°F.

Results indicated increased bean discoloration and hard texture
occurred with increased bean moisture, and increased storage temperature,
time and relative humidity. Vacuum and C02 packaging did not provide
significant maintenance in color stability and tenderness. Grain Treet®
caused severe darkening of seedcoats and firmness of texture. Sulfur
dioxide retained bean color and gave processed product with equivalent

quality to air.

To my parents, brothers and sisters.

ii

V;
«up.
n b.

‘N
\

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Mark A. Uebersax,
my advisor, for his constant guidance, encouragement and valuable
suggestions during the course of my work at Michigan State University.
Appreciation is also extended to other members of the committee, Dr.
Jerry N. Cash, Dr. Hugh E. Lockhart and Dr. Pericles Markakis for their
comments and suggestions.

Special acknowledgment goes to the Royal Thai Government and
Kasetsart University in Thailand which provided me a scholarship.
Materials and supplies used in this research were purchased inpart with
funds contributed by the Michigan Bean Commission.

I sincerely thank Prasong, my best friend, who patiently gave
encouragement and support throughout the program. I also thank friends
at Michigan State University, especially Apinya, Kanha and Ninnart for
their help in laboratory work and thesis preparation.

I gratefully acknowledge the Donald Willis family, my host
family, for their continuing support and the beautiful experiences they
provided during my stay in the United States. I am grateful to my
brothers and sisters for their interest and support. Above all, my
special gratitude and appreciation are expressed to my parents who gave
me this opportunity for studying, understanding and for their unending

encouragement 0

iii

79..-

5"). L;

"R-

\ l
Lag; v

It:

'1‘?

f,

rnMAm—nr—cm

LIST OF TABLES . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE .

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Page

0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 V1
0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 ix
0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 1
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3

Handling and Storage of Dry Beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moisture Content Effect .
Temperature Effect

Relative Humidity (RH) EffECt o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Processing and Evaluation of

Soaking . . .
Blanching . .
Filling . . .
Exhausting .
Processing .
Equalization
Wholeness . .
Consistency .

Absence of Defects

Flavor . . .
Color . . . .
Texture . . .

Water Activity (aw) in Foods

Ca

Mylar - A Packaging Material

MATERIALS AND METHODS .

Raw Materials . .

nned Beans . . . . . . . . . .

3
5
5
Storage Time Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6
9
9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Dry Bean Preparation and Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Bean Processing .

Canned Bean Evaluation .
Analytical Methods . . . . .
Statistical Analysis . . . .

iv

0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O I 24
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 26
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

q--."

’\ ‘
rh..~.L....,

:‘1‘0‘1 . : -

..
'~‘-h~..

'7“ - "fl:
IQ.»

'--._

Page

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 29
Packaging EnVironment StUdy o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 29
Chemical Treatment Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Long-Term Storage StUdy o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 88
Equilibrium Moisture Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION o . o . o o . . o o o o o o o o o . o o o o 123

overView O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 124

RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . o . o . . . . . 125

APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O C O O O O O 126

LIST OF REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 129

“Us .-
.:..c

;‘
O

Table

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

LIST OF TABLES

Dry and processed navy bean characteristics dry stored
at varying moisture content under selected packaging
environments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months
prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of dry and processed navy bean
characteristics dry stored at varying moisture content
under selected packaging environments and at 70° and
90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . .

Response of dry bean moisture content and storage time
intervals for beans stored at varying moisture under
selected packaging environments and at 70° and 90°F
for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . .'. . .

Mean sensory scores for processed bean quality attributes
dry stored under different packaging environments for
selected moisture content at 70° and 90°F for up to
3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of sensory scores for processed bean
quality attributes dry stored under different packaging
environments for selected bean moisture content at 70°
and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . .

Sensory scores under main effects of packaging environ-
ments, storage temperature and bean moisture for pro-
cessed bean quality attributes after 3 month storage .

Dry and processed navy bean characteristics dry stored at
varying moisture content under selected chemical treat-
ments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior
toprOCeSSingooooooo00.000.000.000

Analysis of variance of dry and processed navy bean
characteristics dry stored at varying moisture content
under selected chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F
for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

30

41

44

58

59

60

62

73

U.
1V
xi.
‘A.
A‘.

l

p) (b ‘11. hKV
s- L qi l l

Table Page

9. Response of dry bean moisture content and storage time
intervals for beans stored at varying moisture under
selected chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F
for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . 75

10. Mean sensory scores for processed bean quality attributes
dry stored under different chemical treatments at
varying moisture and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3
months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

11. Analysis of variance of sensory scores for processed bean
quality attributes dry stored under different chemical
treatments at varying moisture and at 70° and 90°F
for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . 90

12. Mean sensory scores under main effects of chemical treat-
ments, storage temperature and bean moisture for
processed bean quality attributes after 3 month
Storage..........................91

13. Dry and processed navy bean characteristics dry stored at
varying moisture content at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up
to 1 year prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

14. Analysis of variance of dry and processed navy bean
characteristics dry stored at varying moisture content
and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1 year prior
to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

15. Response of dry bean moisture content and storage tempera-
ture intervals for beans stored at varying moisture and
at 50°, 70° and 90° for up to 1 year prior to
prOCBSSingsococoo-00000000000000.0100

16. Mean sensory scores for processed bean quality attributes
dry stored at varying moisture content at 50°, 70° and
90°F for up to 1 year prior to processing . . . . . . . . . 113

17. Analysis of variance of sensory scores for processed bean
quality attributes dry stored at varying moisture content
at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1 year prior to
processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

180 Mean sensory scores under main effects of storage time and

temperature and moisture for processed bean quality
attributes after long-term storage . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

vii

o ‘ '
“32.2

ha
KL)
.

‘U.

‘7‘

Table Page

19. Analysis of variance of dry bean moisture content (fresh
basis) dry stored at varying relative humidity con-
trolled by saturated salt solutions at 70°F . . . . . . . . 117

20. Dry and processed navy bean characteristics and analysis
of variance of the characteristics dry stored at varying
relative humidity controlled by saturated salt solu-
tions at 70°F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

21. COIHPOSition 0f navy beans 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 126

viii

.U

\l

‘V

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Mean moisture contents (over packaging environment,
storage temperature and time) for beans dry stored at
varying initial moisture content (14-22%) under
selected packaging environments and at 70° and 90°F
for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . 43

2. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, storage
temperature and time) for beans dry stored at varying
initial moisture content (14-22%) under selected
packaging environments and at 70° and 90°F for up
to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, packaging
environment and storage time) for beans dry stored at
varying initial moisture content (14-22%) under
selected packaging environments and at 70° and 90°F
for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . 48

4. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, packaging
environment and storage temperature) for beans dry
stored at varying initial moisture content (14-22%)
under selected packaging environments and at 70° and
90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . 49

5. Overall main effect mean processed bean drained weight
for beans dry stored at varying initial moisture con-
tent (14-22%) under selected packaging environments
and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to
processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6. Overall main effect mean shear resistance for beans dry
stored at varying initial moisture content (14-22%)
under selected packaging environments and at 70° and
90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . 52

7. Overall main effect mean Hunter L value for dry and pro-
cessed beans dry stored at varying initial moisture
content (14-22%) under selected packaging environments
and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to
processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

ix

. ‘V
:lguL e

11,

13

lg.

Figure Page

8. Overall main effect mean Hunter aL value for dry and

processed beans stored at varying initial moisture

content (l4-22%) under selected packaging environments

and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to

processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

9. Overall main effect mean Hunter bL value for dry and

processed beans dry stored at varying initial

moisture content (14-222) under selected packaging
environments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months

prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

10. Mean moisture contents (over chemical treatment, storage
temperature and time) for beans dry stored at varying
initial moisture content (18-22%) under chemical
treatments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months
prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

11. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, storage
temperature and time) for beans dry stored at varying
initial moisture content (18-22%) under chemical
treatments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months
prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

12. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, chemical
treatment and storage time) for beans dry stored at
varying initial moisture content (18-22%) under
chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3
months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

13. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, chemical
treatment and storage temperature) for beans dry stored
at varying initial moisture content (18-22%) under
chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3
months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

14. Overall main effect mean processed bean drained weight
for beans dry stored at varying initial moisture content
(18-22%) under chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F
for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . 82

15. Overall main effect mean shear resistance for beans dry
stored at varying initial moisture content (18-22%)
under chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F for up
to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

16. Overall main effect Hunter L values for dry and processed
beans dry stored at varying initial moisture (18-22%)
under chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F for up
to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

X

Fl

TM
5;.

7‘)
cg.

to
U l

26

Figure Page

17. Overall main effect Hunter aL values for dry and pro-

cessed beans dry stored at varying initial moisture

content (18-22%) under chemical treatments and at

70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to

processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

18. Overall main effect Hunter b values for dry and pro-
cessed beans dry stored at varying initial moisture
(18-22%) under chemical treatments and at 70° and
90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing . . . . . . . 86

19. Mean moisture contents (over storage temperature and
time) for beans dry stored at varying initial moisture
content (8-18%) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1
year prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

20. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture and storage
time) for beans dry stored at varying initial moisture
content (8-182) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1
year prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

21. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture and storage
temperature) for beans dry stored at varying initial
moisture content (8-18%) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F
for up to 1 year prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . 105

22. Overall main effect mean processed bean drained weight
for beans dry stored at varying initial moisture con-
tent (8-18%) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1
year prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

23. Shear resistance for beans dry stored at varying initial
moisture content (8-18Z) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F
for up to 1 year prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . 107

24. Hunter L value for beans dry stored at varying initial

moisture content (8-182) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for

up to 1 year Prior to proceSSing o o o o o o o o o o o o o 109
25. Hunter aL value for beans dry stored at varying initial

moisture content (8-18%) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for

up to 1 year prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
26. Hunter bL value for beans dry stored at varying initial

moisture content (8-182) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for
up to 1 year prior to processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

xi

.c

v . o o o

.. ~ 1 3c .0. . .y
sin .. b a: b . 8 «<J
vu .

w...

Figure Page
27. Bean moisture content (dry and fresh basis) after
storage in desiccators at various relative humidity
controlled by saturated salt solutions at 70°F . . . . . . 116
28. Water sorption isotherm of navy beans at 70°F . . . . . . . 118

29. Attributes and hedonic scales used in visual examination
OfcannednavybeanSoooooo000000000000.127

30. Attributes and hedonic scales used in sensory evaluation
OfcannednaVYbeanSo00.000000000000000128

xii

INTRODUCTION

Legumes are generally recognized as good sources of vegetable
protein. Dry edible beans have traditionally been widely consumed by
native populations in the North and South American continents. Beans
are popular in most American diets regardless of their high traditional
meat consumption. In addition, considering the world nutritional problem,
beans play a most important role as a source of protein for people in
developing countries.

Dry edible beans rank as the third largest source of income
among Michigan's agricultural crops, following corn and wheat (Robertson
and Frazier, 1978). Navy beans which make up 85 to 90 percent of the
production are the most common class. Recently, there has been an in-
creasing demand for dry bean storage. Processors store beans prior to
canning and growers store them after harvesting in September until the
Iexpected increased market demand, commonly occurring during the next
spring. Moreover, Michigan navy beans are now being promoted for world-
wide export. Michigan navy bean exports have increased from none during
the years 1950-54 to an annual average of 1,200 to 1,400 thousand hundred-
weight during the years 1960-74. Since 1970, annual exports have varied
from 19 to 30 percent of the U.S. crop (USDA, 1952-75). Thus, dry
storage during handling and transportation accounts for a significant

portion of the crops.

2

Generally, quality degradation of beans occurs during storage.
Such deterioration results from development of mold growth or texture
changes. All of these deteriorations are attributed to storage condi-
tions, such as moisture content of stored beans, storage temperature
and time.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of various
storage conditions on stored and processed bean quality. The investiga-
tion involved physical factors including bean moisture content, and
temperature and time of storage; and the use of chemical treatments
applied to beans before storage. The experiment was divided into four
studies. Study 1 was designed to evaluate the effects of packaging
environments. Beans with moisture content ranging from 14-22% were
packaged in Mylar ® pouches and stored under three different packaging
environments. Study 2 was designed to evaluate the effects of chemical
treatments. High moisture beans (18-227.) were treated with Grain Treet ®
and sulfur dioxide ($02)’ packaged in Mylar® pouches and stored.

Study 3 consisted of the long-term storage of cans of beans having 8-
18% moisture. Study 4 provided the equilibrium moisture content of
beans at various relative humidities. After the designated storage time
for the first three studies and the equilibrium moisture content for the

last study were reached, beans were processed and evaluated for quality.

u .
‘n .

,"‘..

D.

‘A -A

B“ah

that

iinera

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Handling and Storage of Dry Beans

 

Nearly all of the United States navy or pea beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris) are grown in Michigan. The statistical figures show that
Michigan has accounted for 94 to 100% of the U.S. production of navy
beans, with the peak production during 1960-64 of 6,710 thousand
hundredweight representing 99.5% of the nationwide production (SRS,
1952-75).

Seventy-nine percent of Michigan navy beans were used in the
domestic market during the period 1971-75. They were mostly in the
form of canned products as pork and beans, beans and tomato sauce,
and baked beans. A relatively small proportion was sold as dry beans.
Twenty-one percent of Michigan navy beans were exported during the
same period of time to the United Kingdom (the largest customer), the
Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, West Germany, Italy and Spain.

The five leading counties for Michigan navy bean production are
'Huron, Tuscola, Saginaw, Gratiot and Bay. Prevalent varieties grown
are Sanilac, Gratiot, Seafarer, Kentwood, Fleetwood, Charity, Upland,
Snow Flake and Show Bunting.

Navy bean seeds are chalky white, round to ovoid in shape, and
weigh about 17 to 19 g per 100 seeds. Composition (Adams, 1972) shows
that navy beans serve as good sources of protein, carbohydrate, and
minerals, especially calcium and iron (Table 21).

3

o. g

.-
‘l ‘-

4

Navy beans are harvested in September at a moisture content of
17-18% which provides beans enough moisture to avoid mechanical damage
during harvest yet minimizes spoilage from mold. Higher moisture levels
require mechanical drying prior to storage.

Nearly all dry beans are stored in weather tight silos. However,
moisture migration in silos is a common problem (Troller and Christian,
1978). Being cooled from outside weather in fall or winter, the top
and sides of the silos are lower in temperature than the middle. Water
vapor from the warmer region then migrates to the cooler areas, giving
the top and sides of the silos high moisture conditions favorable to
mold growth. This moisture migration phenomenon is reversed during the
summer. Mold may develop in the middle of the silos since water vapor
migrates from the sides which are warmer. This problem can be terminated
by installation of an aeration unit to uniformly circulate air through-
out the beans within the silo.

Maddex (1978) suggested not using existing silos because aera-
tion systems were difficult to install in them and filling equipment for
loading beans into a silo usually caused bean damage. Recommended for
bean storage were flat-bottomed, overhead wooden bins, round steel bins
(recently the most popular form of storage), and concrete bins equipped
with aeration systems.

Major factors to be considered in the storage condition of beans
are moisture content, temperature, and time. Given favorable conditions,
beans can be stored for a long time with good retention in quality.

In contrast, beans stored under unfavorable conditions will lose quality
dramatically. Generally, problems of prolonged bean storage are mani-
fested as long cooking time due to hard texture, loss in nutritive value,

off-flavor, off-color, and mold growth.

2”...—

.CL._:‘

“ears

0;;

5

Moisture Content Effect. During storage high moisture beans
may develop off-flavors, undergo lipid oxidation, darken in color and
become hard in texture.

Morris and Wood (1956) reported that beans with moisture content
above 13% deteriorated significantly in both flavor and texture after
6 months at 77°F, and became unpalatable within 12 months. However,
beans having moisture content below 10% maintained their quality for 2
years at 77°F. Additionally, rancid off-flavor and color changes were
obvious in high moisture beans stored at high temperatures.

Morris (1963, 1964) studied the cooking quality of stored beans.
The cooking time for low moisture beans was almost constant. High
moisture samples required longer cooking time after 4 months of storage
and the cooking time increased with increased moisture content.

Burr 33 a1. (1968) reported an increase of cooking time with
high moisture content beans. It was found that pintos with 16% moisture
required 60 minutes to cook as compared to 20 minutes for pintos with
8.2% moisture. They also stated that soaking time was reduced when
beans had high moisture.

Bedford (1972) reported that beans stored at high moisture (15-
l8%), showed a significant increase in their required cooking time while
low moisture (8-9%) beans stored at 68-81°F for 4 years did not lose
their cooking quality.

Temperature Effect. Quality degradation is faster at high
temperature than at low temperature. Beans stored at high temperatures
get darker in color and require longer cooking times. The deteriora-
tive effect of high moisture on bean quality is increased by high

temperature.

C)
T 7
U)
“A

text

Pro;

mOIC

betk

6

Long cooking time of beans from high temperature storage was
observed by Dawson gt El! (1952), Morris (1963) and Burr £5 51. (1968).
Mbrris (1964) stated that the reduction of 15°F in storage temperature
had the same effect as the decrease of 0.6% moisture content to yield
an equivalent short cooking time. Uebersax (1972) reported that deteriora-
tion rate both in discoloration and mold growth was minimized in beans
stored at 55°F under relative humidities ranging from 75-100%. The in-
fluence of increased storage temperature became greater at higher rela-
tive humidity.

Storage Time Effect. Extended storage of beans results in hard
texture, off-flavor, darkening and loss of nutritive value because of
prolonged cooking.

Bigelow and Fitzgerald (1927) stated that canners sometimes found
the heat process required to sterilize cans of stored beans was insuffi-
cient to make them tender. The increase in cooking time with increased
storage time was also revealed by other researchers (Morris, 1963 and
1964; Burr £3 31., 1968; Bedford, 1972). Muneta (1964) reported that
bean geographic origin had a considerable effect on cooking after ex-
tended storage. Molina (1975) reported a decrease in protein efficiency
ratio (PER) for stored beans due to long cooking time.

Relative Humidity (RH) Effect. Snow st 31. (1944) studied the
mold development of locust beans held at various humidities. The plot
between equilibrium relative humidity (%) and log time to molding (days)
was utilized to predict storage life which appeared to be 1 month at
75% RH, 5 months at 70% RH and 2 years at RH not exceeding 65%.

Dexter 32 a1. (1954) studied the storage of beans at various

temperatures and RH controlled by sulfuric acid solution and reported

the e:

ture 1'

at 7‘1

to be.

7

the equilibrium moisture content and mold growth. The equilibrium mois-
ture increased as RH increased. Mo1ding was prominent at 75% RH and
temperature between 70° and 100°F. Severe discoloration (darkening)
and chemical deterioration were shown in samples held at high tempera-
tures and RH. Sulfuric acid solutions did not maintain constant RH
during the first few days of the experiment. Dexter (1968) reported
using sawdust-salt mixture to control RH of bean storage.

Bedford (1972) reported that the mold growth of beans stored in
a closed constant RH desiccator greatly increased at RH higher than
75%. Uebersax (1972) used saturated salt solutions to control RH for
bean storage in static desiccators at 55°, 70°, 85°F temperatures. The
quality of beans was maintained at 75% RH and all temperatures through-
out 84 days of storage. Low temperature showed increased storage poten-
tial at all RH. As storage time, temperature and RH increased, bean
deterioration, off-flavor, mold count and firmness also increased.

Molina 25 a1. (1975) observed the hardness of black beans stored
at 77°F and 70% RH for 9 months, and reported that heat treatment applied
to beans prior to storage could reduce the hard-to-cook phenomenon.

Another factor which governs the keeping quality of beans in
addition to storage conditions is the original quality of bean seeds
themselves. Starting with good and perfect seeds under suitable condi-
tions, stored beans will remain at high quality for a long time. Un-
fortunately, some beans arrive for storage damaged. This decreases the
quality and shelf life of stored beans and subsequently of the canned
products as well.

Damage to beans begins in the field because of improper growing,

harvesting, sorting, and storing. Factors involved include insects,

(I
f“
U:
I!

I
I

n)

' .'
:11!

8
disease, mechanical and bin-burn damage, foreign matter infestation,
and mold development (Dajani, 1977). It has been found that beans
initially damaged during harvest are likely to be more susceptible to
damage from subsequent handling and procesSing (Hoki and Pickett, 1972).

The most common types of damage are cracked skin or checked
seedcoats, and complete splitting of the beans. These defects are
caused by improper seed handling during harvesting and drying. If these
seeds are canned, they will result in a highly disintegrated and un-
attractive product because solids are released from split seeds causing
clumping of beans and firm gelatinization of the sauce.

Prevention of splits and checked seed coats can be done by har-
vesting beans at 17-18% moisture and using a gentle threshing method
(Steinbuch, 1978), handling as few times as possible, while avoiding
handling beans at below freezing temperatures.

Another important problem is moldy beans. Mold usually develops
with severe storage conditions, such as high moisture content of beans,
high relative humidity and warm temperature of storage. Moreover,
Saettler (1972) suggested that production diseases like bacterial
blight and root rot may influence the mold level of dry beans after
harvest.

Prevention of mold development is done by control of storage
conditions, such as storing clean beans at less than 17-18% moisture
and providing sufficient aeration. A promising method in mold inhibi-
tion is use of chemicals. Khan and Tao (1973) reported that a fungicide
termed PCNB (Pentachloronitrobenzene) dissolved in dichloromethane gave

bean seeds good resistance to storage fungi infection.

quali

9

A commercial mold inhibitor Grain Treet® which is a mixture of
acetic, benzoic and propionic acids is under investigation for potential
use with navy beans. Grain Treet ® was introduced many years ago by
Kemin, Inc., Des Moines, Iowa. It was tested to be effective in keeping
animal feed high moisture grains stored under adverse conditions in ex-
cellent quality for over a year (Smith, 1977). Deyoe and Tu (1977)
reported the successful application of Grain Treet ® with high moisture
soybeans and soy products.

At the time of transportation, beans may be prepackaged in bags
or shipped in bulk. The packaging materials generally used are paper,
polypropylene, or burlap bags. Johnson (1964) reported that multiwall
’paper bags provided comparable protection and better stackability than
burlap bags. However, handling precautions to avoid torn bags had to be
taken.~ Johnson also pointed out that bulk shipment vs. bag shipment has
the advantage of reducing loading and handling time, while also making
sampling easier and more representative.

During overseas transportation, beans are readily subject to
quality degradation because of the extreme differences in climatic
zones. For example, condensation of water occurred in a shipment of
pea beans frOm Detroit to London (Thompson £5 31., 1962) and the re-
sultant water dripped onto the bags and favored mold growth. Consequent-
ly, handling treatments such as aeration during transportation are

recommended.

Processing and Evaluation of Canned Beans
Beans may be processed in water or brine, tomato sauce and/or

molasses. Beans to be processed should: 1) contain a moisture level

ture, a

aCCelerE

SUcb add

10
of 12-16%; 2) be of uniform size; 3) be fully mature; and 4) be free
from foreign materials and seed coat defects. Using high moisture beans
(>18%) results in mold growth in dry beans, rancidity, high free fatty
acid content and unacceptable products. Low moisture beans (9-1l%)
cause seed brittleness and seed coat checks which make poor canned pro-
ducts.

Processing of beans was reviewed by Adams and Bedford (1975),
Bedford (1972), and Steinbuch (1978). It includes the following steps:
soaking, blanching, filling, exhausting, processing, and equalization.

Soaking. The purpose of soaking is to ensure uniform expansion
in cans during the thermal process, to ensure product tenderness, to
increase product yield, and to facilitate bean cleaning.

Beans are soaked at 59-68°F for 8-16 hours or at 180-212°F for
20-40 minutes to reach 53-57% moisture content. The high temperature-
short time soaking is preferred since it reduces labor cost, extensive
equipment, floor space and potential bacteriological problems which
might occur during a long soaking period.

Soak water is relatively soft with optimum quantity of calcium
in the range of 25-50 ppm. Split and mushy beans occur in very soft
soak water; whereas beans develop tough skins and firm texture while
soaked in hard water. Soak water is also checked for metal (Fe, Cu)
content to prevent bean discoloration and for microbial load to prevent
potential spoilage.

Water uptake during soaking is influenced by initial bean mois-
ture, age and composition, and storage condition. However, it can be
accelerated by application of heat and vacuum during soaking; use of

such additives in soak water as polyphosphate, ethylene diamine-tetracetic

. g ’
"2;.
&

time.

and t0

Sary f

11
acid (EDTA) and alkali carbonate; or through use of gamma irradiation
prior to soaking.

Blanching. The purpose of blanching is to continue bean swell-
ing, to obtain the ultimate moisture content of 50-55%, to extensively
clean, to expel air from bean tissue, and to lower bacterial counts.

The process used is water blanching at l94-203°F for 3-8
minutes in a standard rotary water blancher. Over blanching can cause
skin splitting. After blanching, beans might be washed again with cold
water spray in a continuous rod washer while broken beans and loose
skins are automatically removed between the rods.

Filling. Cans are filled to not less than 90% of total capacity.
Cans packed with too many beans will look too solid with crushed beans,
and the desired tenderness and flavor of the final product cannot be
achieved. Although too few beans in a can give a sloppy pack, it is
more desirable than an overpack. The usual soaked bean fill is 9.5-
11.5 ounces for No. 2 (307x409) cans and 7-8.ounces for No. 303 (303x
406) cans.

Sauces added to beans can be tomato sauce, brine, or diluted
molasses which are heated to boiling in order to prevent entrainment
of air among beans.

Exhausting. The purpose of exhausting is to expel air from
cans, to provide uniform closure temperature, and to reduce processing
time.

Processing. The purpose of processing is to sterilize products,
and to obtain the desired smooth texture.

In order to obtain desired tenderness, it has been found neces-

sary for navy beans to be processed 10-30% longer than the processing

tize

trol

12
time required for sterilization. Processing can be done in various
ways depending on the desired final color and texture, the nature of
soaking and blanching, and the type of sauce. The following processes
are used for No. 2 l/2 cans or smaller of beans packed in brine or in
low levels of tomato pulp without added starch:

a) 230°F / 125 minutes

b) 240°F / 45 minutes

c) 250°F / 20 minutes

d) 260°F / 12 minutes

e) 270°F / 9 minutes

It is recommended to use a lower temperature such as 230-240°F
for processing with tomato sauce to minimize the darkening of the
sauce. Agitation during cooling is beneficial since it decreases the
level of gelling produced by released pectin and starch from beans.

Equalization. Beans will continue to absorb water for several
days after processing, therefore, an equalization period of at least 2
weeks should be allowed before any evaluation.

Examination of processed beans is a part of normal quality con-
trol to comply with government regulations and to maintain high quality
for consumers. The judgements from food scientists and from consumers
use somewhat different criteria because the consumers have specific
expectations and preferences in mind while informally judging products
(Leveille 25 a1., 1978).

Several researchers have reviewed the examination procedures
and quality attributes of canned navy beans (Adams and Bedford, 1975;

Bedford, 1972). There are as follow:

13

1. Wholeness is defined as the tendency of legume seeds to re-
main whole throughout the processing operations, not to break apart,
burst or disintegrate. The measurement in the laboratory is done by
visual inspection. Consumers react most readily to the wholeness of
beans by downgrading or rejecting disintegrated beans.

2. Consistency is described as the smoothness and clarity of
the sauce or brine, and the ease of bean separation from sauce. The
inspection is done visually. While not necessarily recognizing the
causes, consumers can easily notice the undesirable or grainy fluid of
canned beans. The consistency is related to the amount of beans in the
can. When excess beans are put into a can, they may cause seed matting
and grainy sauce. On the other hand, too few beans result in complete
separation of beans and sauce and clear sauce.

3. Absence of defects is expressed as the degree of freedom
from extraneous materials, loose skins, and mashed beans. It is detected
with visual examination. This property is related to processing. Using
excessively dry beans results in cracked and split products. Inadequate
inspection and sorting of raw materials introduce more defects. Over
blanching causes loose skins; over filling causes mashed beans.

4. Flavor, i.e. off-flavors caused by mold, containers, and
chemicals are detected by sensory evaluation. Consumers tend to express
opinions about the flavor of the sauce rather than of the beans. How-
ever, they are able to recognize moldy odor and foreign flavors imparted
by packaging materials or chemicals.

5. £ng£_of beans packed in brine retain a normal white color,
while beans packed in sweetened or tomato sauce become brownish. Off-

color is looked for during the inspection. Color evaluation is done

butes

tEXtuX

ThESe

14
either by visual inspection or instrumental measurement. Uebersax
(1972) used a Hunterlab Color Meter to determine the color of dry and
processed beans. Consumers are more likely to react to and reject un-
characteristic colors than to notice and object to slight variations
of a standard color.

6. Texture is defined as the tenderness of beans which should
not be too firm or too soft and is evaluated either by sensory evalua-
tion or instrumental determination. The Lee Kramer Shear Press was
utilized by Binder and Rockland (1964) to measure the texture of cooked
lima beans, and by Uebersax (1972) for canned navy beans. Other instru-
ments include the Ottawa Texture Measuring System (O.T.M.S.) (Voisey and
Larmond, 1971), the Instron Universal Testing Machine (Bourne, 1972),
and the A110 Kramer Shear Press (Davis, 1976).

Consumers can generally recognize differences in bean texture.
Genetic differences in flavor and texture, however, can only be detected
by skilled professional tasters. Many factors resulting from storage
and processing influence the texture of beans. These may include
storage time and conditions, soak time and temperature, and hardness of
water used in soaking, blanching, and sauce preparation.

In addition to the aforementioned specific bean quality attri-
.butes (wholeness, consistency, absence of defects, flavor, color and
texture), other evaluations for normal canned products are also conducted.

These measurements include vacuum, headspace and drained weight.

Water Activity (aw) in Foods

 

The quantity of water present in foods is generally expressed in

terms of percent water or moisture content. However, this term is

v

Fhere

SUCrO:
teSPEI
hunidj

isothe

1y Vit
monola
(regio
Solute

high I.

15
inadequate to describe the property and availability of existing water
for chemical and microbial reactions. The term."water content" can also
cause confusion because the value varies according to food form; for
example, the moisture content of whole peanuts, kernels and shells in
equilibrium with relative humidity of 75% was 10.5, 9.4 and 15%,
respectively (Karon and Hillery, 1949). Thus other terms such as water

activity (aw) or equilibrium relative humidity (ERH) are used extensively.

 

Definition
8 g L
w po
ERH = a x 100
w
where p = vapor pressure of solution

po = vapor pressure of solvent

Water activity (aw) of pure water is equal to 1.00. Glycerol,
sucrose, and sodium chloride have aw values of 0.9816, 0.9806 and 0.967,
respectively. When moisture content in equilibrium with various relative
humidities is plotted with aw or relative humidity (RH), a water sorption
isotherm is obtained.

The hydration process of a dry material is explained theoretical-
ly with the water sorption isotherm. It begins with the formation of a
monolayer at very low RH (region C), followed by multilayer adsorption
(region B), the uptake into pores and capillary spaces, dissolution of

solutes and finally mechanical entrapment of water (region A) at the

high level of RH (Troller and Christian, 1978).

16

c /

aw or E.R.H.

7.oner conle nT

 

 

 

 

General Water Sorption Isotherm

Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) isotherm of Brunauer £3 21. (1938)
was the first to estimate the size of the monolayer of absorbed water.
The monolayer is important since it is considered to be the most stable
water content of most foods and is related to the rate of many reactions,
such as lipid oxidation and nonenzymatic browning in foods.

The water sorption isotherm is applicable to the prediction of
storage life and development of suitable storage conditions for dry
materials, so that their moisture contents at the storage temperature
and RH do not exceed the critical values.

To obtain the water sorption isotherm, samples are equilibrated
at various relative humidities until there is no change in moisture
content. The final or equilibrium.moisture content at each RH is plotted
against RH. Relative humidity during equilibration is usually maintained
by using saturated inorganic salt solutions. The relative humidity
values exerted by saturated salt solutions were reviewed by Washburn

(1926), Stokes and Robinson (1949), Wexler and Hasegawa (1954), Rockland

of
51

C"
Se 1

Ca-
41
a

for
t

17
(1960), and Weast (1972-1973). The reported values vary, however, the
values reviewed by Stokes and Robinson (1949) are thought to be the
best, currently available. A solution of sulfuric acid could also be
used in place of the saturated salt solution, but preparation and handling
of strong acidic solutions are more difficult and concentrations may change
due to adsorption or desorption of water.

The amount of water present in food is involved in many biologi-
cal and chemical reactions leading to the quality changes in food. -In—
crease in moisture may accelerate or decelerate the reaction rate. The
optimum condition is defined for many reactions in terms of aw.

l. Lipid oxidation. The rate is high when aw is below the mono-
layer level.of moisture, and decreases as the aw increases to the range
of 0.3-0.5, then increases again. Labuza 25 El- (1970) reported that
the oxygen uptake by a cellulose-containing model system supplemented
with 30% glycerol was greater at RH less than 0.1% than at 75, 52 or 20%.

2. Enzymatic reaction. At aw less than the monolayer, minimal
or no enzymatic reaction occurs because little free water is available
for the movement of substrate and products. On the contrary, as aw
increases above the monolayer, free water dissolves more substrate and
the enzymatic reaction is accelerated. Although each enzyme possesses
different optimum aw, generally, enzymatic activity increases with aw.

3. Microbialggrowth. Bacteria require higher aw to grow than
yeasts and molds. MOst bacteria have maximum.growth rates at aw in the
range of 0.997-0.980. The multiplication of yeasts occurs at aw greater
than 0.90, whereas molds still grow when the aw level is much below 0.90
aw. Halophilic bacteria, osmophilic yeasts and xerophilic molds con-

tinue their growth at low aw, e.g. below 0.85 aw.

twe'
pro:
vies
feat
loss
beCal
was C

l8

4. Textural change. Increase in RH results in an increase of
hardness and chewiness of foods until the RH of 40-50% is reached
(Heldman 35 31., 1972).

5. Color changg. Most pigments from plants and animals are
stabilized with increasing aw except for chlorophyll, for which degrada—
tion to pheophytin increases at aw greater than 0.32.

6. Nutritional change. Ascorbic acid is relatively stable at
low aw levels. The destruction of this vitamin is increased at high
aw (Labuza, 1973).

7. Nonenzymatic browning reaction. The complex reactions be-
tween reducing sugars and the amino groups of amino acids or proteins
produce highly colored compounds. The nature of these reactions was re-
viewed in 1953 by Hodge. Lea and Hannan (1949) studied the browning
reaction of a casein-glucose solution model system and reported that the
1093 of amino nitrogen (increase in browning) was increased with aw
because of greater mobility of protein molecules at high aw. The loss
was decreased after 0.70 aw because the dilution effect reduces sub-
strate available for reaction.

Browning in foods has been evaluated by numerous investigators.
It was reported that the browning reaction generally increased to a maxi-
mum as aw increased to the value of 0.60-0.80 and then decreased as aw
increased. The aw for maximumerowning reaction varies with food types.
Present data suggest that maximum browning reaction rate in fruit and
vegetable products occurs in the 0.65-0.75 aw range, whereas for meat
and muScle products it is in a wider range of 0.30-0.60 aw.

In addition to aw, other factors such as temperature, pH and

sugar type, influence the rate of browing reaction.

’1

9th,
is
the,

and

19
The reaction between amino groups of protein and reducing sugars

causes major loss to proteins during drying and storage of foods. The
specific loss of the e—amino groups of lysine usually occurs by a con-
densation with reducing sugars or other carbonyl compounds. In addi-
tion, pigments produced from nonenzymatic browning reaction could poly-
merize or complexe with the protein (Labuza, 1972). Such changes in
protein and carbohydrate in bean cotyledons from nonenzymatic browing
reaction are likely to be responsible for variation in bean hydration,

processed bean drained weight and shear resistance.

Mylar® - A Packaging Material

 

Mylar® is the trade name of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
Inc. for polyester film. Mylar® is usually produced from a condensa-
tion reaction between ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid which gives
it its name "polyethlene terephthalate." It was developed in 1940 by
J. R. Whinfield and J. T. Dickson.

Mylar® is a transparent film possessing exceptional tensile
strength over 20,000 psi and elongation above 50% giving good impact
strength. It is resistant to greases, oils, and most chemicals except
strong acids, strong alkalines, phenols, cresols and benzyl alcohol.
Moisture permeability of Mylar® is fairly high. The water vapor trans-
mission rate of oriented polyester film is 1.7 g/24 hr/lOO sq in/mil at
95°F, 90% RH; compared to 1.3 g/24 hr/lOO sq in/mil for low density poly-
ethylene and 19 g/24 hr/lOO sq in/mil for nylon (Hanlon, 1971). Mylar®
is a good barier to gases and odors. It has lower gas permeability
than many other films. Its permeability to CO2 is greater than to O2

and N2, with the rate of 16 cc/24 hr/100 sq in/mil at 77°F, 50% RH for

In

a.

rh

20

CO , compared to the values of 4 and 1 for O2 and N2 permeability,

2
respectively. Mylar® has poor sealability. Self sealing with heat
and pressure is possible but difficult. Usually it is utilized in the
form.of coated or laminated film. Coatings can be done with either
vinylidene chloride or polyethylene. These coatings provide the
sealability and improve moisture barrier properties.

The drawback of Mylar ® is the high cost, it being three times
as much as some other transparent films. However, because of its high
strength, Mylar ® can be utilized with less thickness than other films,
thus helping to reduce the cost.

Application of Mylar ® in food packaging is in the field of

frozen foods, heat-and-serve foods and gas packaging of meats and

cheeses.

:1

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Raw Materials

 

Dry navy beans were supplied by B & W Co-Op, Inc., Breckenbridge,

Michigan in a 100 1b multiwall paper bag. The moisture of beans was in

the range of lO.6-ll.7%.

Dry Bean Preparation and Storage

 

The storage experiment consisted of four studies. Each study

was factorial for treatment, moisture content, temperature and time as

follows:

Study 1-Packagin ,environment

treatment:
moisture:
temperature:
time:

Study 2 - Chemical

treatment 3

moisture:
temperature:

time:

vacuum, air, carbon dioxide (C02)
l4-22%

70°F and 90°F

1, 2, and 3 months
treatment

control (air), Grain Treet® (0.75%),
sulfur dioxide ($02) (100 ppm)

18-22%

70°F and 90°F

1, 2, and 3 months

21

'h

0f

C.

Ca

22
Study 3-Long:term storage in cans
moisture: 8-18%
temperature: 50°F, 70°F and 90°F
time: 1, 12 and 24 (not shown) months

Study 4-Equilibrium moisture

 

moisture: 9.2%
temperature: 70°F
RH: 48-97%

Beans were initially sorted by hand to remove cracked or imper-
fect seeds and foreign materials (soil and stones).

For the packaging and chemical treatments (Studies 1 and 2)
beans were adjusted to moisture content ranging from 14 to 22%. The
adjustments were done in a closed cabinet, using a small humidifier as
a moisture supplier to layers of beans spread on perforated trays. The
rate of moisture gain was approximately 0.75% per hour, checked periodical-
ly with the Motomco model 919 Moisture Meter.

Duplicate samples of 250 g beans were stored in 18.8x15.8 cm
polyethylene laminated Mylar® bags, commonly used for frozen food.

The thickness of the film was 3 mil (0.003 inch). The film had the
water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) measured according to the ASTM
standard E96 of 0.55 g/m2-24hr at 72°F, 50% RH, and of 3.77 g/m2-24hr at
100°F, 82% RH.

For the packaging study (Study 1), beans were packaged under one
of three gases: vacuum, air or C02. The Kenfield Vacuum Sealer model

C-l4, (International Kenfield Distributing Co., Broadview, Illinois)

capable of vacuum drawing and backflushing, was used to seal the bags.

23
Chemical treatments (Study 2) were performed before packaging
beans under air. Chemicals were applied on a weight basis to a thin layer
of beans with a chromatographic sprayer. Grain Treet® solution ob-
tained from Kemin Industries, Inc., Des Moines, Iowa, was sprayed to a
level of 0.75% (w/w). SO2 (100 ppm, bean weight basis) was obtained by

spraying a 5% (w/w) NaHSO solution which provided 55% available SO

3 2°

Adjustment of bean moisture for the long-term storage study
(Study 3), was done in a forced air chamber. Beans were held in this
chamber and supplied with moist air. Beans were removed from the cham-
ber when the proper moisture content was reached. Beans were then
packaged in 303x406 cans. The cans were held in a walk-in refrigerator
(50°F), at room temperature (70°F), and in a controlled temperature
chamber (90°F), for the specified storage time.

For the equilibrium moisture study (Study 4), eight pairs of
desiccators were filled with various saturated salt solutions which
maintained different levels of RH as follows: KNO2 (48% RH), Mg(N03)2

(53% RH), NaNO2 (64% RH), NaCl (75% RH), (NH $04 (80% RH), KCl (86%

4)2
RH), KNO3 (92% RH), and K2804 (97% RH). Each desiccator was equipped
with a small motor and fan to facilitate the atmospheric movement within
the desiccator and in turn to accelerate equilibration rates. The fans
were operated periodically during the equilibration period.

Samples of 150 g beans were placed in small cylindrical baskets
made of wire mesh. Eight baskets were placed in each desiccator. Beans
were allowed to equilibrate with the controlled RH. Moisture content
determination (oven drying method) and color evaluation (Hunterlab)

were performed periodically until the moisture content remained station-

ary. This final or equilibrium moisture content was recorded.

24
Equilibrated beans were canned in four replicates and evaluated with

the same procedure used for the storage studies.

Bean Processing

At the end of each storage period moisture content of the beans
was determined with the Motomco Moisture Meter. One hundred grams of
bean solids were weighed and put into individual nylon mesh bags for
soaking. Beans from Study 1 and 2 were processed in duplicate, while
beans from Study 3 were processed in four replications.

Soaking was done in two steps. Cold soaking at 75°F for 30
minutes was followed by hot soaking at 190°F for 30 minutes. Soak
water contained 50 ppm calcium. Hot soaked beans were cooled by dipping
in cold tap water and then drained. Weight gain during soaking was
‘recorded.

Beans were filled into 303x406 cans. Boiling brine added was
formulated with 5 oz. of sugar and 4 oz. of salt in 20 lb of water
containing 50 ppm calcium. Cans were exhausted and sealed.

A still retort was employed to process beans at 240°F for 45
minutes, followed by cooling to 100°F with cold running water for 15
minutes. Canned products were equilibrated at room temperature for two

weeks prior to evaluation.

Canned Bean Evaluation

 

The following scheme was used to evaluate canned products:

1. Physical properties

 

Total and net weight, vacuum, headspace and drained weight

were determined.

if;

r:

b.

We

of
1'I’i
CO

St,

25

Drained weight. Canned beans were emptied onto a number 8

 

mesh screen (0.094 inch openings) and washed by a slow swirling motion
for 1 minute in 70°F tap water to remove adhering brine. The screen
was drained at a 15° angle for 2 minutes. Bean weight was recorded as
washed drained weight.

2. Visual examination

 

During the 2 minute drain on the screen, bean samples were
visually judged by hedonic scales in comparison with a commercial sample
(Figure 29).

3. Color and texture measurement

'gglgg, The Hunterlab Model D25 D2L Digital Color and Color
Difference Meter (Hunter Associates, Fairfax, Virginia) was used for
objective color measurement of beans. Two hundred g of dry or 100 g
of washed processed beans were evenly distributed in an optically pure
glass sample dish, which was placed over the optical port, and covered
with a black can to shield interfering light. The instrument was
standardized using a standard white tile no. C2-6004 having L = +95.25,
aL = -0.6 and bL = +0.4 coordinates.

Two and four separate samples were taken from dry and processed
beans, respectively. To normalize surface irregularities, two readings
were taken for eacm sample; the second reading was recorded after turning
the sample dish 90° from its original position.

Texture. After color determination, each sample (100 g)
of processed beans underwent texture analysis. Firmness was measured
with the Lee-Kramer Recording Shear Press, Model TR-l (Food Technology

Corporation, Reston, Virginia). The 3,000 lb test ring no. 10107 and

standard shear compression cell and blade no. C 338 were employed. The

tin:
sen

8.1:;

Were
dew .‘
VertE
beans

Vich

26
rate of shear-compression blade travel was standardized to 0.52 cm/sec.
The instrument was usually set at range 10 (300 lb of force full scale),
except for very firm beans which required a range 20 (600 lb force full
scale). The resistance to shear was shown as a peak curve. The result
[fl‘was expressed as peak pound force per 100 g of sample.
Additionally, final moisture content of sheared beans was de-

termined by oven drying.

4. Sensory evaluation

 

Unopened cans of beans were heated in boiling water for 10
minutes. Cans were opened and held warm in hot water baths until
serving time. Each sample was assigned a three digit random number.
Samples were served in one ounce plastic portion cups, 8-9 samples
divided into 2-3 sets per panel. They were evaluated under neutral
white light in individually segregated panel booths. Panelists were
selected randomly from students, faculty and staff of Michigan State
University, primarily from the Department of Food Science and Human
Nutrition. The panelists were asked to taste and evaluate each sample

according to a 7 point hedonic scale (Figure 30).

Analytical Methods

 

1. Moisture content
Mbisture meter. Two hundred and fifty g of stored dry beans
were used in the Motomco Moisture Meter model 919 (MOtomco Inc., Clark,
New Jersey). The temperature and meter reading were recorded and con-
verted to % moisture content with the calibration chart no. B-5 for navy
beans. The result from the moisture meter was initially shown to agree

with that from oven drying at 208°F for 6 hours.

27

Air oven method. Moisture content of 100 g sheared beans

 

was determined with the oven methods (AOAC, 1970). Beans were dried at
176°F to a constant weight. Moisture content (% w/w) was calculated
from the weight change which was assumed to be due to water loss

alone.

2. Water vapor transmission rate (WVTR)

 

The film of plastic bags used for dry bean storage was
tested for WVTR according to the method of the American Society of
Testing Materials (ASTM) no. E96 (1972). The film was cut into a 9-cm
circle with a sample cutter blade. The cut samples were placed over
standard aluminum dishes containing dry desiccant and the edges were
sealed with wax. The dishes were weighed and held both at room condi-
tion (72°F, 50% RH) and in a walk-in controlled humidity cabinet (100°F,
82% RH). The weight change during storage was recorded and calculated

for WVTR (g/m2-24hr) for both conditions.

Statistical Analysis

 

The "Jeremy D. Finn's Multivariance-Univariate and Multivariate
Analysis of Variance, Covariance, and Regression" modified and adapted
by Scheifley and Schmidt (1973) for use on the CDC 6500 computer
operated by Michigan State University Computer Laboratory was used to
assist statistical analyses.

The multivariate analysis of variance, observed means and stan-
dard deviation, least square estimates and correlation matrix were
determined from the Finn program. Mean squares from the analysis of
variance were reported with significant level of 5% (*), 1% (**), and

0.1% (***).

m

'4‘

di

28

Tukey's HSD (honestly significant difference) was calculated at
95% confidence limit for each main effect. Means which were not signifi-
cantly different were indicated with like letters. Scheffe's method
according to the "Comparisons among Treatment Means in an Analysis of
Variance," ARS/H/6 of USDA was used to determine the response to treat-
ment trends (Chew, 1977).

The significance of correlation matrix was examined with the
"Statistical Tables" (Rohlf and Sokal, 1969).

Coefficient of variability (% CV) defined as the sample standard
deviation expressed as a percentage of the sample mean was also calcu-

lated (Steel and Torrie, 1960).

A;

3V1

ya

to

an.

be.

f0;

Ce:

We:
Va1
his

0t}

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Packaging Environment Study

Mean values of dry and processed bean characters following
storage under various physical conditions are summarized in Table l.
The analysis of variance, Tukey's HSD and coefficient of variability
of data are presented in Table 2.

The initial bean moisture content ranged between 14-22% and
averaged 12% moisture after the storage period. The Mylar® film
water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) was 0.55 g/m2-24 hr at 72°F, 50%
RH, and was 3.77 g/m2—24 hr at 100°F, 82% RH. This relatively low
WVTR should have minimized dry bean moisture loss during storage.
However, moisture losses occurred at greater rates than accountable
to film permeation rate. Imperfections of the bags, such as pinholes
and leakage in sealed areas may be responsible for the accelerated
bean moisture loss reported in the study.

Dry bean moisture increased from approximately 12% to 51%
following soaking and attained a final bean moisture of 69% after pro-
cessing. Soaked and processed bean moisture decreased as initial dry
bean moisture during storage increased (Figure 1). These decreases
were linearly significant (Table 3). These data indicated that the
water uptake capacity during soaking and processing was reduced for
high moisture stored beans and may be caused by changes of protein and
other constituents within cotyledon matrix. Rockland (1963) reported

29

30‘

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Dry and processed navy bean characteristics dry stored at
varying moisture content under selected packaging environments
and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing.1

Time Initial Bean Moisture (%)

month 14 16 18 20 22

Dry Bean Moisture (%)

70°F
Vacuum
l 10.85: .07 10.30:l.27 12.15: .07 13.75: .49 15.40: .71
2 11.15: .07 11.35: .35 11.45: .07 12.55: .35 13.85: .21
3 11.35: .35 12.35: .21 12.95: .21 13.70: .42 15.80: .14
Air
1 10.60: .14 11.90: .00 12.401314 13.60: .57 15.10: .42
2 10.55: .14 11.90: .00 11.30: .00 12.55: .07 13.10: .28
3 10.80: .28 12.95:1.20 12.85: .35 13.70: .00 15.40:1.13
C02
1 10.45: .21 11.55: .35 12.40: .14 13.55: .35 15.65: .07
2 10.50: .14 11.15: .07 11.70: .28 12.65: .49 13.70: .14
3 10.75: .35 12.20: .14 12.20: .00 14.25: .07 15.35: .21
90°F
Vacuum
1 10.50: .00 11.40: .00 12.20: .42 12.45: .35 14.90: .85
2 10.65: .21 10.70: .00 11.70: .42 12.35: .64 13.45: .92
3 10.50: .14 11.60: .14 12.70: .00 12.90: .28 14.80: .00
Air
1 9.70: .71 11.30: .28 12.35: .07 13.50: .28 15.70: .57
2 9.95: .07 10.65: .35 10.85: .21 13.05: .78 12.90: .00
3 10.00: .00 11.05: .07 11.30: .57 12.60: .57 14.35: .49
002
l 10.05: .21 11.35: .49 11.60:_.28 12.90: .71 15.10: .14
2 9.60: .42 10.25: .07 10.95: .21 12.15: .07 13.60:l.13
3 10.15: .07 11.20: .28 11.40: .14 13.00: .42 13.40: .00

31

 

 

 

 

Table 1. (cont'd.)
Time Initial Bean Moisture (%)
month 14 l6 18 20 22
Soaked Bean Moisture (%)
70°F
Vacuum
1 53.05: .35 51.75:_.35 51.60: .00 50°95i.*49 50.70: .57
2 52.15: .07 51.95: .49 49.95: .21 49.15:l.20 47.85:2.05
3 53.00: .28 52.25: .07 51.85: .07 50.60: .14 50.30: .28
Air
1 53.00: .28 52.25: .07 51.85: .07 50.60: .14 50.30: .28
2 52.75: .35 52.05: .07 50.20:1.27 49.15: .92 48.80: .28
3 51.40: .14 51.85: .78 51.10: .57 49.50: .00 49.70: .42
C02
1 53.00: .42 52.35: .21 51.85: .21 51.00: .14 50.85: .49
2 53.30: .14 51.70: .85 51.15: .07 50.00: .71 48.70:_.57
3 52.40: .00 52.40: .71 50.50: .14 50.60: .28 50.35: .64
90°F
Vacuum
1 52.85: .35 52.05: .21 51.30: .00 50.40: .00 49.95: .07
2 52.30:_.99 52.15:_.64 49.95:_.21 48.55: .21 48.20:2.69
3 51.85: .07 51.15: .07 51.25: .07 50.00: .00 49.70: .70
Air
1 52.50: .57 52.10: .00 51.85: .07 50.50: .99 50.80: .28
2 52.60: .42 51.25: .07 50.55: .49 49.60: .00 48.15: .07
3 51.80: .00 51.35: .49 50.90: .28 49.75: .07 50.00: .28
C02
1 52.95: .07 52.40: .28 51.60: .42 50.75: .49 50.50: .28
2 52.40: .71 51.45: .07 51.30: .42 50.30: .14 49.25: .49
3 52.20: .42 52.05: .21 50.75: .35 50.40: .14 49.25: .78

v—l

11:.

I'd

32

 

 

 

 

Table l. (cont'd.)
Time Initial Bean Moisture (%)
month 14 16 18 20 22
Processed Bean Moisture (%)
70°F
Vacuum
l 70.00: .27 70.31:2.68 70.00: .08 71.15:l.52 69.75: .08
2 69.40: .23 69.69: .29 67.05:l.70 69.08: .25 68.75: .57
3 70.00: .03 70.50: .35 69.80: .06 69.45: .33 69.04: .04
Air
1 70.07:_.33 70.30:2.84 70.85: .72 70.80:l.57 69.95:_.54
2 70.05: .51 70.10: .25 69.53: .04 69.10: .01 69.20: .21
3 69.90: .40 70.40: .29 69.85: .06 68.50:l.59 68.98: .18
C02
1 69.40: .24 71.40:1.48 70.40: .19 70.66:}.20 69.90: .47
2 70.35: .04 66.10: .37 69.25: .50 ‘69.10: .84 68.55: .33
3 70.00: .27 70.95:l.21 69.55: .07 69.50: .34 68.85: .27
90°F
Vacuum
l 70.35: .16 69.931fla72 68.85: .98 69.70:1.l4 68.40: .19
2 69.50: .18 69.06: .21 67.40: .13 67.50: .00 67.95: .21
3 70.00: .06 69.47:;.40 67.90: .06 67.25: .52 67.00: .13
Air
1 69.85: .31 71.00:l.33 69.60: .54 68.35: .98 69.90:1.14
2 69.58: .33 68.55: .21 67.20: .96 67.58: .39 67.20: .08
3 69.95:_.33 69.55: .18 68.15: .32 ‘ 68.48:1.80 67.05: .24
C02
1 69.47:}.44 70.30:1.43 69.65: .04 69.95:1.45 68.60: .23
2 70.10: .61 67.40: .34 68.30: .23 67.68: .61 67.46: .50
3 69.85: .04 69.34: .74 68.00: .11 67.50: .57 .66.90: .08

33

Table 1. (cont'd.)

 

Time Initial Bean Moisture (%)

 

month l4 l6 18 20

 

Processed Bean Drained Weight (g)

 

70°F
Vacuum
1 285.0: 6.0 275.0: 4.0 276.4: 2.0 276.5:
2 297.7: .0 284.9: 2.0 277.8: .0 270.8:
3 296.3: 2.1 299.1: 2.1 283.5: .0 275.8+
Air
1 286.4: 4.0 283.5: 4.0 280.7: .0 270.8:
2 297.7: .0 289.2: .0 283.5: 4.0 275.0:
3 296.3: 2.1 297.3: 4.5 287.8: 6.0 261.0:
C02
1 284.9: 2.0 269.4:16.1 284.9: 2.0 273.6:
2 303.4: .0 290.6: 6.0 280.7: 8.0 275.0:
3 293.5: 6.0 294.5: 4.6 283.5: 4.0 276.2:
90°F
Vacuum
1 289.2: 8.0 285.0: 6.0 273.6: 2.0 260.8:
2 302.0: 2.1 279.3: 2.1 269.4: .1 273.6:1
3 303.4: 4.0 285.5: 1.1 273.6: 2.0 260.1:
Air
1 290.6:Io.0 270.8:22.0 279.3: 6.0 260.8:
2 299.1: 2.0 279.3: 2.1 269.4: 4.0 269.4: 4
3 294.9_ 4.0 284.3: 2.8 276.5_ 6.0 263.9:
02
1 287.8: 6.0 268.0:18.o 272.2: 8.0 270.8:
2 299.1:10.0 287.8_ 2.1 279.3: 2.1 266.5:
3 303.0: 4.0 285.5: 1.1 273.6+ 2.0 260.l+

34

 

 

 

 

Table 1. (cont'd.)
Time Initial Bean Moisture (%)
month 14 16 18 20 22
Shear Resistance (g1100:gbean)
70°F
Vacuum
1 120.8:15.9 129.5: 2.6 112.8:12.2 90.6: 5.1 146.1: 5.1
2 129°7112°3 ll4.7:£4.3 141.0:14.9 140.0:30.8 151.0:33.7
3 95.0:_l.1 66.5:_ .0 105.0: 3.0 160.5: .0 158.5: 6.4
Air
1 114.9: 6.9 120°41L5°7 132.0:25.0 115.9:17.2 115.5:12.3
2 120.7:14.6 88.2:_ .0 129.0:81.4 l43.0:25.2 137.4:_ .4
3 77.5:21.6 63.0: .0 102.0:15.7 262.5:_ .0 158.0: 8.3
C02
1 ll9.7:d4.9 104.0: 6.2 l45.4:ޤ.7 l32.0:22.1 143.5:17.0
2 97.0: 7.4 111.5:17.8 109. : 7.9 133.7:14.2 l40.0:12.9
3 67.5: 8.5 89.4:' .0 128.7: 8.9 167.5:' .0 l69.0:20.1
90°F
Vacuum
1 122.1: 7.2 125.0: 7.9 202.5:_2.1 220.0: 4.4 182.5:19.4
2 l30.5:27.4 136.0: 7.4 211.1: 7.4 247.1:13.8 237.0__4.8
3 91.5:23.8 lOl.7+ .0 197. _10.0 292.5: .0 286.0_ 8.4
Air
1 122.5: 1.5 135.0: 6.2 175.0: 7.9 168.5:35.5 198.0:33.9
2 120.5: 6.6 152-7iL2°5 l84.l:24.4 211.5:48.8 243.5: 7.0
3 78.5: 1.5 93.0: .0 202.5:16.6 264.0: .0 281.0: 2.8
C02
1 136.0: 8.6 142.0:20.4 164.5:73.2 l95.0:14.4 l73.4:d4.4
2 116.0:18.7 145.4:13.4 175.1: 1.9 214.1:40.5 242.3:39.2
3 69.0:13.2 138.0: .0 227.0+l4.2 251.5: .0 277.5: .6

ml;

a

H—

IIIIIII

121.‘

35

(cont'd.)

Table 1.

 

Initial Bean Moisture (%)

Time

22

20

18

16

14

 

month

 

70°F

 

Hunter L Value of Dry Beans

Vacuum

120
6

+_+e+_
.5.an

665

602

+_+_+_
Abnuro

010
666

312

+_+_+_
42.0

.l.l.l
,6,b,o

123

111...

+_+_+_
QIQIAu

000
666

430

+_+_+_
“21310

O I
.l.l.l
,o,o,o

123

C02

1141

+_+_+_
348
o o o
110
666

133

+_+_+_
898
O O O
000
666

133

+_+_+_
1.7.11

0 o o
111
666

123

90°F

Vacuum

111111

+_+_+_
“318.4

555

411...
to.

+_+_+_
,6.4.9

555

135

+_+_+_
.8.0.4

000
666

13.1.

+_+_+_
975

000
666

123

C02

111
o o o
+_+;+_
892
o o o
987
555

414

+_+_+_
.J.w.l

009
665

.U.l.l
O O O

+_+a+_
“0.8,0
O O O
Ilnvo,
,6,6.5

1.1111
0 O 6
+_+_+_
no.4.)
O O C
Iinunu
,b,b,o

“0.1.1
0

+_+_+_
9.0.0,

o o o
100
666

123

22

20

18
70°F
Vacuum

36
Initial Bean Moisture (Z)

16

(cont'd.)
l4

 

 

 

 

Hunter aL Value of Dry Beans

Table 1.
Time
month

011

+_+_+_
423
1.1.

110

+_+_+_
.4.4.A

11

011
+_+_+_
132

11

111inu
+_+_+_

210
o

123

90°F
Vacuum

100

+_+_+_
735

111

+_+_+_
,4.3,b
1.11

nvnv1.
+_+_+_
1.1.11

11

011

+_+_+_
1... 2 3

14.0.
+_+_+_
2 4 0

123

C02

T2

37

(cont'd.)

Table 1.

 

Initial Bean Moisture (2)

Time

22

20

18

16

14

 

month

 

70°F

 

Hunter bL Value of Dry Bean

Vacuum

123

C02

90°F

Vacuum

1.1.1.
0 O O
+_+_+_
1.nu11
O O 0
.4.4.4
1.1.1.
1.1.nu
O C C
+++T+_
.4,O.U
O O 0
1.9.1.
1.1.1.
n.1.1.
O O O
+;+—+_
2.7.0.
0 O O
nu1.1.
1.1.1.
1.1.1.
0 O O
+;+;+;
,b.l.3
O O O
n.1.1.
1.1.1.
1.1.1.
0 O O
+++r+_
1.9.0.
0 O 0
n.nu1.
1.1.1.
11.4.5

C02

1.n.n.
O O O
+—+—+.
n.1.7.
O O O
n.1.1.
1.1.1.
nu1.n.
O C I
+—+—+_
.4.8.u
. O .
n.n.1.
1.1.1.
1.9.1.

22

20

18
70°F
Vacuum

38
Initial Bean Moisture (Z)

16

14

 

(cont'd.)

 

 

Hunter L Value of Processed Beans

 

Table 1.
Time
month

.6.4.D
+_+_+_
&.0.1.

989
44A.

043

+_+_+_
691
.0.
989
444

n.1.9.
O O O
+_+_+_
n.1.:.
O I 0
0.0.0.
.4.4.4

.8.6.4
0 O O
+_+_+_
n.1.R.
. C .
0.0.0.
.4.4.4

045
+_+_+_
701“

899
44/4

020

+_+_+_
183
0..
989
44.4

050
+_+_+4
2.1.4

998
I444

261

+_+_+_
2.1.1.

899
44/...

218

+_+_+_
790

889
I44]...

111

+_+_+_
0.1.7.

899
444

C02
90°F
Vacuum

042
000

+_+_+_
7.0.2.
. C .
.8,6.D
A.A.A.

410
one

1
+_+_+_
238
.0.
987
444

612

+_+_+_
28nd

[44/4

123

119

+_+_+_
907

875
44/4

06/4

. C .
+_+_+_
q.s.1.
O C O
Rupunu
.4.4.4

123

C02

321

+_+_+_
88 7

876
[44/4

.l.l./

+_+—+_
357

o o
987
44/4.

123

17.3 1343

39

(cont'd.)

Table 1.

 

Time

 

16 18 20 22

14

month

 

70°F

 

Hunter aL Value of Processed Beans

Vacuum

,4./.I

+_+_+_
rJronJ
qJnJ.4

041..
000

+_+_+_
76 1...

334..

111

+_+_+_
786
333

.4.l.4
. O C
+_+_+_
.8.6.4
. . .
.JaJnJ

020

+_+_+_
.J.U.J
.L.4.L

1.23

014
o. o
+_+_+.
760
so 0
334

041...

+—+_+_
.I.O.D
.J.J.4

211..

+_+_+_
,6_J.I
1L1L1L

O33

+_+_+_
,6.J.4
.L.L.L

1.1.1.

+.+_+_
.J.U.4
.L.4.L

123

C02

I414

+_+_+_
1.1.9.
.J.4.J

032

it:
1.89...
33]...

120

+++_+_
.4.J.J

333

603

iii
5.7....
333

023

+_+_+_
.J.J.J
.L.L.L

123

90°F

Vacuum

anl

+_+.+_
0.9...

346

.30.
+_+_+_

AmnW—l
34.4..

011..

+_+_+_
.qunJ
1L1L1L

044

+_+_+_
.1.J,J
1L1L1L

311
o

+_+_+_
4.93
333

Air

113

+_+_+_
0.0.0.

345

012
o

+_+_+_
802
34”]...

310

+.+_+_
.I.D.I
1.1.1.

322

+_+_+_
563
333

004
o

it:
694.
333

123

C02

110

+_+_+_
././.4
345

101...

+_+_+_
.I.l.6
.J.4.4

012

+_+_+_
879
1L1L1L

534

+.+_+_
.b.b.8
1.1.1.

013

O O O

+++_+_
.J.U.J
.L.4.L

123

20 22

18
70°F
Vacuum

40
Initial Bean Moisture (Z)

16

(cont'd.)
l4

 

Hunter bL Value of Processed Beans

Table 1.
month

Time

 

 

 

nu.l.U
. C .
+_+_+_
.l.4n4
. C 0
.4.4.4
1.1.1.
1.9.Q.

Air

230

+_+J+_
“8.4,0

111...

123

COZ

90°F
Vacuum
Air

.30
l

+_+_+_
30.3

.4,b,o
1.1.1.

ohg
+_+_+_
.4an

.4.D.3
1.1.1.

211

+L+é+_
nalonz

.4.4.3
1.1.1.

312

+_+_+_
$6.9"

.J.4.4
1.1.1.

012
0..
+_+;+_
.8.4.4
.0.
.J.4.4
1.1.1.

C02

023
o

+—+_+_
1“an

445
1.1.1

123

 

1Mean values and standard deviation (n - 2 replicate samples).

Tabl

Sour
Yarj

[A 3
ball

41

Table 2. Analysis of variance of dry and processed navy bean charac-
teristics dry stored at varying moisture content under
selected packaging environments and at 70° and 90°F for up
to 3 months prior to processing.

 

Dry and Processed Bean Characteristics

 

 

 

Soaked Processed
Dry Bean Bean Bean Drained Shear
Source of Moisture Moisture Moisture Weight Resistance
Variation df (%) (Z) (2) (g) (g/100 g)
Mean Squares

Main Effects

Moist(M) 4 90.36*** 51.89*** 11.42*** 4676.73*** 57578.9***

Treat(Tr) 2 .85** 3.05** .65 43.13 375.3

Temp(Tp) 1 15.02*** .49 40.58*** 1178.62*** 136741.7***

Time(Tm) 2 13.81*** 16.61*** 29.24*** 292.55** 310.6**
M x Tr 8 .44* .17 .85 50.25 373.5
M,x Tp 4 .03 .07 3.37*** 171.61** 11444.1***
M x Tm 8 1.68*** 2.09*** 3.28*** 315.96*** 9699.8***
Tr x Tp 2 .45 .06 .15 9.94 513.5
Tr x Tm 4 .66** .39 .22 49.79 594.9
Tp x Tm 2 2.46*** .06 1.19 84.17 2292.5**
M x Tr x Tp 8 .33 .16 .18 40.22 1522.4**
M x Tp x Tm 8 .31 .12 .28 16.19 988.9**
M x Tr x Tm 16 .25 .48 l.34** 34.90 746.4**
Tr x Tp x Tm 4 .18 .14 1.23 15.12 375.7
MxTrprme 16 .20 .22 .64 42.95 343.0
Residual 90 .17 .32 .70 32.98 337.3

Tukey's HSD

Moisture 1.16 1.57 2.33 16.03 51.26
Treatment .99 1.35 1.99 13.72 43.87
Temperature .83 1.12 1.66 11.43 36.56
Time .99 1.35 1.99 13.72 43.87
Z CV 3.39 1.11 1.20 2.06 12.07

 

 

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. (cont'd.)
Dry and Processed Bean Characteristics
Source of Dry Bean Color1 Processed Bean Color1
Variation df L aL bL L aL bL
Mean Squares
Main Effects
Moist(M) 4 15.25*** 9.05*** 24.35*** 3.17*** 3.61*** 6.58***
Treat(Tr) 2 .79*** .74*** .15*** 1.05*** .01 .06
Temp(Tp) 1 ’ 26.60*** 1.84*** 73.47*** 21.15*** 2.69*** 6.92
Time(Tm) 2 10.01*** 16.01*** 16.21*** 3.15*** 2.43*** 6.14***
M x Tr 8 .09* .27*** .13*** .28 .08 .07
M x Tp 4 3.09*** .56*** 3.89*** 4.72*** 2.07*** 2.20***
M x Tm 8 .84*** 1.05*** 1.01*** 1.46*** 1.44*** 1.40***
Tr x Tp 2 .05 .05** .04** .00 .08 .14
Tr x Tm 4 .02 .01 .01 .33 .13* .01
Tp x Tm 2 2.88*** .20*** 2.56*** 3.17*** .80*** l.69***
M x Tr x Tp 8 .04 .01 .02* .08 .09 .15
M x Tp x Tm 8 .36** .10*** .14*** 1.03*** .29*** .36***
M x Tr x Tm 16 .04 .11*** .01 .15 .07 .09
Tr x Tp x Tm 4 .03 .02 .00 .13 .13* .08
MxTrprme 16 .05 .01 .01 .12 .06 .11
Residual 90 .04 .01 .01 .15 .05 .09
Tukey's HSD
Moisture .59 .27 .26 1.08 .63 .85
Treatment .50 .23 .23 .92 .54 .73
Temperature .42 .19 .19 .77 .45 .61
Time .50 .23 .23 .92 .54 .73
Z CV .3 11.30 .84 .79 6.00 2.11

 

1Hunter value L, a

L’ and bL.

 

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROCESSED
70- 142.12.;
60-
A SOAKED
.\°
: 313.1% a
E 50" jޣ1
*—
i!
O
o .
3:: 4o-
: ~L
O
2 20"
3 DRY
'53 a c1b_‘_3.'£'r--1
Io~ 4'1
l4 I8 IO 20 22 I4 IS IS 20L22 1l4 l8 IO 20 22
O
BEAN MOISTURE BEFORE STORAGE (%)
Figure 1. Mean moisture contents (over packaging environment, storage

temperature and time) for beans dry stored at varying initial
moisture content (14-222) under selected packaging environ-
ments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to process-

ing (like letters within each group indicate no significant
differences).

44

 

.Hm>mH Nm um samosmaamflma

 

 

 

 

 

Aquouum muvaMum A>.Hlummo.mVAHIuN\HH Ayv ummuuaoo n.0wmmnomH
N.N ou o.m I m.H cu q.N I «o.H 0» e. «N. on e. «w. cu m. H oHumuvmoo
*N.nH on m.m «m.¢ ou N.H «m. I on m. I am. I on N. I N. on H. H ummGHH
N QEHH
¢.MH ou m.m I o.q ou n.H I N. on N. I c. on N. I H. on q. H owuumso
«N.HHI ou n.OMI o.N cu m.m I m. on e. I n. ou H. I w. on o. H canoe
<.m ou o.oHI m.m 0» N. I n. 0» q. I m. on m. I «n. ou N. H oHumuvmso
an.ew ou N.No km.mHI ou o.mNI so. I on m.HI «H.NI ou N.NI *¢.m ou m.N H umoaHH
q mmmmmmmwm
Am ooa\wv Amv ANV ANV ANV mu aofiumfium>
mosmumHmom ustoB ououmHoz muaumHoz muauwfioz mo munaom
ummnm wosHmun comm vomwoooum noon wmxmom comm hum
umduuaou mo wwwmm
H.wnHmwmooun

ou HOHHQ msusoa m on a: you moom mam com um mam mucosaouH>am wanmxomm wouooHom Home: munumHoa
wnHmum> um monoum momma you mHm>umunH maHu mwmuoum mom uamudoo unaumHoa sump hum mo mmsoommm .m mHnma

45

vauouum unavamum A

>.NIumno.

0H0>wH NW um HamUHHI—ncwfimwm

.5 31:. H 9.1.;

ammuusoo n.0mmmnomH

 

 

 

 

 

N. on H.I c. on H.I N. on o. .N. I cu N. I Is. I on m.I «N. I as N. I N UNumusmao
to. co c. «e. on N. «N.I ou m.I «m. on N. «0. cu n. «q. I on o. I H HomaHH
N mEHH
IN.I on q.I N. ou H.I m. on N.I o. ou N. I N. on o. N. on o. N UNSHmao
«H.I Ou m.I H. ou N.I H. ou m.I «H. on 0. RH. Cu O. «H. I on m. I H UHnnu
N. cu H.I «o. on N. {H.I ou n.I «q. cu m. O. on H.I «m. I on m. I H UHumuvmao
«a. on 0. so. on c. *N.I ou o.I «o.H ou m.H «H.H on m. «H.HI ou m.HI H ummsHH
N mmmmmmmm.
an nouns: Hm “muss: A nouns: Hp amusam Hm Hausa: H “muss: up GOHumHum>
HOHoo comm ommmmooum MOHoo doom hum mo mousom

 

ummuuaou mo ownmm

 

A.u.ua00v .m «Hams

46
protein changes in dry lima beans during maturation and storage at 90°F
and at high moisture levels.

No significant differences were shown among packaging environ-
ments for dry, soaked and processed bean moisture (Figure 2). Slight
decreases in soaked and processed bean moisture were shown for dry beans
stored under vacuum. Vacuum stored beans possessed idented seedcoats
due to atmospheric pressure on pouches. This may have physically
altered the micro structure and thus inhibited imbibition and swelling
of cotyledons.

The dry, soaked and processed bean moisture for dry beans
stored at 90°F were each lower than those stored at 70°F (Figure 3).
Moisture loss in the dry state was significantly greater at 90°F. No
significant differences among storage time were shown for all bean
moistures (Figure 4).

The hydration ratio after soaking (not shown) which equals the
weight of soaked beans divided by the weight of dry beans ranged be-
tween 1.7-1.9. Nordstrom and Sistrunk (1977) reported hydration ratios
in the range of 1.842.0 for other types of dry beans.

Water absorbed during soaking and processing contributes a
direct effect on drained weight assuming that intact beans undergo
little loss of solids during thermal processing. Therefore, drained
weight (Figure 5) followed the same significant linear decreasing
relationship as soaked and processed bean moisture.

No significant differences in drained Weight were shown for
packaging environment, storage temperature and storage time.

Shear resistance of processed beans was approximately 152 g/

100g with 278 g drained weight. The processed beans had relatively

47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROCESSED
. O o
Ex?
5 60
nu
*—
z SOAKED v
8 0 0 ° 3 c
m 50_ “fl”? 3 I: o,
a:
:> I? M R
l- 4 V
9 A
0 - c A c
2 20 u ' 02
z DRY u R
‘1 ha
as 3 ° °
IO-’ A A

c | c

3 R 02

ha

0
PACKAGING ENVIRONMENT
Figure 2. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, storage tempera-

ture and time) for beans dry stored at varying initial
moisture content (14-222) under selected packaging environments
and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing
(like letters within each group indicate no significant
differences).

70

60

3:3

I...

2

In

p.

z

850

Lu

as?

B

51320

C)

2

E

III

mIO
0

Figure 3.

 

48

PROCESSED
._ . ° 0
F—T—fi
SOAKED
a o
— F—u—j.
L 70 90
DRY 7O 90
.. (Fa—7
71) ‘90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STORAGE TEMPERATURE (%)

Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, packaging en—
vironment and storage time) for beans dry stored at varying
initial moisture content (14-222) under selected packaging
environments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to

processing (like letters within each group indicate no signi-
ficant differences).

7O

60

50

20

BEAN MOISTURE CONTENT (%)

IO

Figure 4 o

1_ll
ll'v

 

49

PROCESSED
r— ""O"' O 0 I
+1
SOAKED
0 a 0
.. 'l—fl
DRY
o 0 °
-1__4"T
I 2 3 I Z 3 I 2 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STORAGE TIME (MONTH)

Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, packaging environ-
ment and storage temperature) for beans dry stored at varying'
initial moisture content (l4-22Z) under selected packaging
environments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to

processing (like letters within each group indicate no signi-
ficant differences).

fl\\ Ir. u‘uIIlIII

300 '

290 '-

280 —

270 '-

PROCESSED BEAN DRAINED WEIGHT (G)

260 -

 

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figur e 5 o

c
“I 91 a
a , 3'1
w [aflfl % L
ob
"7 v
A A
a C I CO 70 so I z 3
lJ R 2
U
I4 nela:u>22 M
‘f
‘ MOISTURE PACKAGING STORAGE STORAGE
CONTENTM ENVIRONMENT TEMPI'FI TIMEIMONTHI

Overall main effect mean processed bean drained weight for
beans dry stored at varying initial moisture content (14-221)
under selected packaging environments and at 70° and 90°F
for up to 3 months prior to processing (like letters within
each group indicate no significant differences).

firne'
quali

drain

proce
Dry I
resi
tion
whit

and

affe
and
(197
text
(192
UN;
ing
flu
Cha

0f

teh

51
firmer texture than commercial canned beans used as a standard in the
quality evaluation of which shear resistance was 132 g/lOOg with 284 g
drained weight.

There was a significant variation in Kramer shear resistance of
processed beans among moisture levels and between storage temperatures.
Dry beans stored under these conditions had significantly higher shear
resistance than beans stored under low moisture and temperature condi-
tions (Figure 6). These results agree with numerous previous studies
which reported longer cooking time for beans stored at high moisture
and temperature levels.

The hydration of beans during soaking and processing does not
affect texture peruse. The correlation coefficient of drained weight
and shear in this experiment was not significant. Hosfield and Uebersax
(1979) reported no association between soak water uptake properties and
textural differences among tropical bean genotypes. Molina gt 31.
(1975) and Burr 33 31. (1968) obtained the same result. However, water
uptake may be associated with other factors affecting texture, includ-
ing changes in protein and other constituents during storage which in-
fluenced the amount of absorbed water. Morris (1963) stated that
changes in the cotyledons not the seedcoat were responsible for most
of the changes in cookability of high moisture beans.

No significant differences for shear resistance of processed
beans were shown among packaging environments.

Shear resistance of processed beans increased with storage time.
The relationship between shear and time was linearly significant (Table
3). The results agree with the previous literature which indicated
that stored beans required long cooking time to obtain the desired

tenderness.

ZOOI-

I80-

I60—

I40-

IZOP-

SHEAR RESISTANCE ( G/ IOOG I

IooL-

 

I;

52

 

b
lira
ab 0 o
O A 51'
—IO 0 H
fipfi
O
I—
X
A
0 I C
I" u If“; . . .
0 U
H M 70 90
I4 I6 ID 20 22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOISTURE CONTENT PACKAGING STORAGE STORAGE

Figure 6.

(%) ENVIRONMENT TEMP(’FI TIMEI MONTH)

Overall main effect mean shear resistance for beans dry
stored at varying initial moisture content (l4-22Z) under
selected packaging environments and at 70° and 90°F for up
to 3 months prior to processing (like letters within each
group indicate no significant differences).

53

Bean discoloration increased remarkedly during storage and pro-
cessing. Beans prior to storage had Hunter values of L (lightness)
65.3, aL (red) —0.3 and bL (yellow) +12.2. After dry storage these
values were 60.0, +1.0 and +1l.0, respectively. They changed again
after processing. Processed bean Hunter values were L = 48.0, aL =
+11.0 and bL = +15.0. These changes indicate increase in browning
during dry storage which is further increased during canning process.
It was observed that discolored beans possessed firmer texture, de-
creased levels of splits with more whole beans than acceptable colored
beans.

Color difference was noted among moisture levels. For dry
bean color, Hunter L value decreased while aL and bL values increased
significantly as been moisture content before storage increased
(Figures 7 through 9). Processed beans also showed a slight reduction
in L value, and increase in 8L and bL values.

Dry beans stored at 90°F were darker in color than those stored

at 70°F. Changes in Hunter L, a and bL values shown at elevated

L

temperature were similar to those observed for increased initial
moisture content.
Brown color of beans increased with increase in storage time.

Changes in Hunter L, a and bL values were similar to those shown for

L

moisture and temperature effects. Significant differences in Hunter L,

aL and bL values were only shown in the dry beans and not for processed

beans. There were no significant differences among packaging environ-
ments for Hunter L, aL and bL values.
Dry bean moisture was significantly correlated to soaked (r =

0.31**) and processed (r = -0.33**) bean moisture. Soaked bean moisture

DRY

DRY

DRY

DRY

 

 

54

.AmoocmHmHMHv ucmo

IHMHanm on oumonnH msouw comm anuHs muouuoH oxHHv wchmoooum ou HOHHQ nausea n so a: mom
moom mam ooh on was mucoanouH>dm wnmexumo wouomHmm noon: ANNquHv unmunoo unnumHoa HmHuHaH
wthum> um monoum hum momma vmmmmooun new man How m=Hm> A amazon some uummwm nHmE HHmuw>o .N mudem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EL
2.3.202 v NZ; wmadfimimh 5.5220352” 02—04541 gthMPZOO HEP—.902 I
LI
_u I:
. . m...” .. 9.
nn~_ min _ a.» 4 ~n_om.o
N N. _ . uncam.¢. uh
«N __ _
o o 0 fr. fl” [Tr k Tffffl m
amwmoomm Dummwocmm memmoog No m OmmmUUOE l on m
a
o o m _I
.. B m
n
fin
F
rear rr . . . r. I om
one a
>¢o >¢o >03 >¢O

55

.AmmunmummmHv unmoHMHame on ouMUHvaH maouw some aHnUHa muouumH mxHHv maHmmoooum ou HOHHQ nausea m
an a: you boom was com um can munmanouH>sm wnmexomn vouomHmm Hows: HMNNI¢HV unousoo muoumHoa

HNHuHcH waHmum> um omuoum momma momwmuoun vow mun How m=Hm> Hm Hmuasm some uomwmm aHma HHmuo>o

$3325.52 pfizzomSzu 0264on

32.52.28 mango:

 

 

 

 

 

e...
ommmuoomm

2.320! V m2:

nN

ran

00
NO

 

 

 

Fa.
oummwooma

_O—O_
ON

Ea

 

 

<~¢
><onal

 

 

 

 

owmmuoomm

 

"O
""9
RV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a...

._
ommmuoomn

.w muanm
o
.1— “H
m
IN 1
a
Ln 0
fiI
Iiv W
m

 

56

.Ammonm
lumNMHu unmonHanm on oumoHvdH anoum sumo :HsuHa mumuuoH mxHHv wusmououm ou HOHHQ mnunoa m on
a: now moom was ac“ on new nonmanouH>nm wnmexumn omuumHmm Home: ANNNIQHV unmunou munumHoa HmHu

IHGH wnHmum> um omuoum mun mason vommmooum was hut How maHm> Ha “madam some oommmo nHmB HHmum>o .m muanm

21.—.202. NEE. Eovwmahhmmazwr Pzwizomgzu ozadxugn. $Shzmhzoo magma!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ i N n N006? NO¢0¢ Iwn
NN_ NN_ mm mw. wmm NN___ NN... IO_m—Hn
I. > HI MN
I k or 1 I__ m...
r r New. :3 I N. a
. II
:3 :3 .«m r .M
>8 I
m. w
m
H... L In IS
E w. . Z 1 m.
ommwuooma 88.32... 3388.. .. ..
ommmuooca

 

57

was significantly correlated to processed bean drained weight (r = 0.40**)
and shear resistance (r = -O.33**). Hunter L andefi values were signifi-
cantly correlated for both dry (r = -0.38**) and processed (r = -0.36**)
beans. Hunter aL and bL values were significantly correlated for both
dry (r = 0.22*) and processed (r = 0.39**) beans.

Bean moisture content, storage temperature and time resulted
in greatest changes in bean color, texture and water uptake. Non-
enzymatic browning may be implicated in causing these changes due to
accelerated rates at increased moisture and temperature levels. Vacuum
and CO2 packaging environments were selected to provide reduced oxygen
tension. However, these environments did not provide significant con?
trol of bean browning. The gas permeability of the Mylar® film may
not have been sifficient to maximize the effect of these treatments
during storage.

Sensory Evaluation. Examination of dry beans following storage
indicated that darkening and molding occurred for high moisture samples.

Visual examination of beans during drained weight procedure
indicated that all processed beans in this study were larger in size,
more elongated in shape and contain less free starch in sauce and less
clumping than the commercial sample used for comparison.

Sensory scores for processed bean quality attributes are sum?
marized in Table 4. The analysis of variance, Tukey's HSD for these
data are presented in Table 5.

High moisture beans (20%) were judged to be significantly darker
in color and significantly more firm in texture than low moisture beans
(16%) (Table 6). The scores for flavor and acceptability were not

significantly different.

58

Table 4. Mean sensory scores for processed bean quality attributes
dry stored under different packaging environments for
selected bean moisture content at 70° and 90°F for up to 3
months prior to processing.1

 

 

 

Bean Attributes
Moisture Color2 F1avor3 Texture“ AcceptabilityS
70°F
Vacuum
16 2.75:1.14 3.75:1.54 2.42:1.24 4.00:2.00
20 4.1%: .83 3.75_1.06 2.83:1.34 4.75:1.36
Air
16 3.12: .94 4.00:1.71 4.00: .95 5.33:1.23
20 3.33: .89 3.92:1.24 4.17:1.03 4.75:1.14
C02
16 2.75:1.36 3.75:1.96 2.83:1.34 4.50:1.62
20 4.58:1.00 3.91:1.51 4.1%: .83 4.00:1.60
90°F
Vacuum
l6 3.92:1.08 4.58:1.31 4.08:1.08 4.83:1.19
20 4.83: .83 4.08:1.62 5.33: .65 3.75:1.96
Air
16 3.11:1.19 4.33:1.78 3.50:1.51 5.171;.40
20 3.75:1.29 3.67: .89 4.58:1.31 5.00:1.21
C02
16 3.92:1.24 3.75:1.22 4.08:1.38 4.33:1.50
20 5.03: .90 3.91:1.56 5.58:1.08 3.58:}.93

 

1Mean values and standard deviation from 12 panelists.
2Seven = very dark (brown).
3Seven 8 very strong.

“Seven = very firm/dense.

5Seven - very acceptable.

Table 5.

Analysis of variance of sensory scores for processed bean

quality attributes dry stored under different packaging
environments for selected bean moisture content at 70° and
90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing.

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Attributes
Variation df Color Flavor Texture Acceptability
Mean Squares
Main Effects
Treat(Tr) 2 7.01** .55 1.22 12.02**
Temp(Tp) l 13.34*** 1.56 36.00*** .44
Moist(M) 1 37.01*** .84 42.25*** 5.44
Two-Way
Tr x Tp 2 1.80 1.27 10.19*** .34
Tr x M 2 4.01* .97 2.02 .63
Tp x M l .56 1.17 1.36 2.78
Three-Way
Tr x Tp x M 2 1.02 .30 .63 4.01
Residual 132 1.15 2.19 1.40 2.37
Tukey's HSD
Treatment 1.03 1.42 1.13 1.47
Temperature .86 1.18 .95 1.23
Moisture .86 1.18 .95 1.23
% CV 28.33 37.43 29.32 34.24

 

60

Table 6. Sensory scores under main effects of packaging environments,
storage temperature and bean moisture for processed bean
quality attributes after 3 month storage.1

 

 

 

 

 

Main Attributes
Effects Color2 FlavorT Texture“ AcceptabilityS
Packaging
Environment
Air 3.35a 3.98a 4.06a 5.06a
Vacuum 3.92a 4.04a 3.85a 4.33a
co2 4.08a 3.83a 4.17a 4.10a
Temperature
70°F 3.46a 3.85a 3.53 4.568
90°F 4.11a 4.06a 4.53 4.443
Moisture
16% 3.28 4.03a 3.49 4.693
202 4.29 3.888 4.57 4.318

 

1Mean values from 12 panelists.

2Seven - very dark (brown).

3Seven - very strong.

l*Seven = very firm/dense.

5Seven = very acceptable.

61
Chemical Treatment Study

Mean values of dry and processed bean characters following
treatment with SO2 and Grain Treet ® prior to storage at varying bean
moisture and temperature conditions are summarized in Table 7. The
analysis of variance, Tukey's HSD and coefficient of variability of
data are presented in Table 8. Response to bean moisture and storage
time treatment are shown in Table 9.

Moisture levels selected for this study were higher than those
practical for dry storage of beans due to the development of the exces-
sive mold and discoloration. The chemical treatments were applied to
these high moisture beans in an attempt to control these deteriorative
reactions.

Initial dry bean moisture content prior to storage ranged from
18-22% and bean moisture following storage was 18%. Soaked bean mois-
ture was 53% and processed bean moisture was 68%. These data were
similar to those reported in the packaging environment study (Figure
10). Significant differences were shown in the processed but not in
the soaked bean moisture. These data indicate that beans with high
moisture lose water absorption capacity during storage, possibly attri-
butable to changes in protein/starch matrix of the cotyledons.

The application of Grain Treet ® resulted in significantly
lower moisture contents for dry, soaked, and processed beans than SO2
treated and control beans (Figure 11). This suggests that the organic
acids of Grain Treet ® suppressed water uptake capacity of beans. In-

creased storage temperature and time prior to processing also reduced

the final processed bean moisture content (Figures 12 and 13).

62

Table 7. Dry and processed navy bean characteristics dry stored at
varying moisture content under selected chemical treatments
and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing.1

 

Time ' % Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20 22

 

Dry Bean Moisture (%)
70°F

Control (Air)

 

 

 

 

l 17.60: .00 19.60: .14 21.40: .00
2 17.30: .14 19.25: .07 20.90: .00
3 17.20: .14 19.00: .00 20.40: .00
Grain Treet ®
1 17.40: .00 19.15: .21 20.85: .07
2 17.05: .07 18.80: .14 20.10: .14
3 16.70: .00 18.55: .07 19.80: .28
802
1 17.80: .14 19.75: .07 21.30: .14
2 17.55: .07 19.25: .07 21.25: .07
3 16.65: .78 19.20: .00 20.75: .21
90°F
Control (Airl
1 17.40: .14 19.20: .00 20.90: .14
2 16.50: .00 18.30: .14 20.10: .00
3 15.60: .00 17.70: .00 18.60: .00
Grain Treet ®
1 16.90: .00 18.80: .14 20.25: .07
2 15.95:_.07 17.95: .21 19.40: .14
3 15.40: .14 17.20: .28 18.40: .00
$02
1 17.45: .07 19.30: .00 21.05: .07
2 l6.75+ .21 18.70+ .14 20.10+ .00

3 15.355 .35 17.905 .14 10.055 .07

63

Table 7. (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time % Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20 22
Soaked Bean Mbisture (%)
70°F
Control (Air)
1 53.15: .07 52.90: .57 52.70:_.28
2 53.95: .49 53.75: .49 53.65: .35
3 54.45: .35 54.55: .07 53.70: .14
Grain Treet ®
1 51.40: .14 51.95: .07 51.15: .07
2 53.05: .21 53.30: .42 52.80: .14
3 53.10: .14 53.50:_.14 52.40: .28
$02
1 53.15: .49 53.05: .21 52.45: .35
2 53.65: .35 53.20:_.28 53.25: .35
3 54.50: .00 54.50: .14 53.85: .21
90°F
Control (Air)
1 52.90:1.l3 52.85: .07 52.45:_.35
2 53.20: .14 54.00: .70 53.80: .14
3 54.25: .49 53.85: .35 53.45: .21
Grain Treet ®
1 51.65: .21 51.65: .21 50.70: .00
2 53.10: .28 53.15: .07 52.55: .07
3 52.70: .42 52.95: .07 52.45:_.21
$02
1 53.00: .14 52.55: .35 52.45: .21
2 53.40: .57 53.80: .28 53.70: .00
3 53.80: .42 53.85: .07 53.30: .71

64

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. (cont'd.)
Time % Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20 22
Processed Bean Moisture_$%)
70°F
Control (Airl
1 71.05:l.08 71.25: .11 70.45: .07
2 69.60: .00 69.55: .35 69.05: .14
3 69.40: .32 68.40: .22 68.05: .35
Grain Treet ®
1 69.65: .18 69.30: .46 68.83: .25
2 68.35: .28 68.20: .25 67.65: .11
3 67.90:1.10 68.15: .18 67.80: .42
802
1 71.25: .04 70.90: .14 70.60: .11
2 69.65: .28 69.00: .46 68.65: .32
3 69.40: .28 68.65: .11 68.10: .14
90°F
Control (Air)
1 70.30: .25 70.00: .00 69.40: .21
2 68.25:_.18 67.95: .07 67.10:_.32
3 67.55: .11 66.75: .11 66.30: .35
Grain Treetcg
1 69.00: .42 68.05:_.14 69.45:_.67
2 66.85: .14 66.95: .21 67.10: .18
3 67.10: .39 66.40: .00 66.43: .39
$02
1 70.55: .21 69.00: .17 69.45: .67
2 68.55: .25 67.70: .11 67.10:_.18
3 67.77: .18 66.85: .07 66.43: .39

65

Table 7. (cont'd.)

 

Time % Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20 22

 

Processed Bean Drain Weight (g)
70°F

Control (Air)

 

 

 

 

1 300.5: .0 294.0: .0 289.1:4.0
2 283.5: .0 280.5: .0 277.0: .0
3 293.5:2.1 284.0: .7 275.5: .7
Grain Treet ®
1 287.7:2.0 282.0:6.0 279.2_2.0
2 276.4:1.9 269.5: .0 265.1:1.9
3 281.3: .8 275.5: .7 264.0:1.7
302
1 296.0:2.0 290.0:1.9 287.5:2.0
2 287.7:2.0 282.1:1.9 280.5: .0
3 286.0: .1 281.1: .6 276.0:1.4
90°F
Control (Air)
1 286.5: .0 286.5: .0 279.5:2.0
2 276.4:1.9 272.0: .0 265.5:1.9
3 273.0:2.8 267.0: .0 258.0:1.2
Grain Treet ®
1 277.0:4.0 275.0: .0 266.5: .0
2 263.0:4.0 262.2:2.0 256.0:1.9
3 268.1:2.3 258.5: .4 251.0: .9
802
l 290.0:l.9 284.9:1.9 277.0: .0
2 276.4:1.9 269.5: .0 265.5:1.9
3 273. 2.4 266.8+ .4 255.4 3.6

66

Table 7. (cont'd.)

 

Time % Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20 22

 

Shear Resistance (g/100_g)

 

70°F

Control (Air)

 

 

 

 

l 61. 5:.2. 9 67.5: 9.3 72.5: 4.0
2 103.3: 1. 4 132.7: 5.3 120.9: 9.7
3 76. 0:13. 3 113.5:37.1 115.2:14.4
Grain Treet ®
1 102.0: 2.5 132.0: 6.3 142.0:36.4
2 173.5: 2.5 167.0: 2.5 181.2:15.2
3 108.0:_ .6 134.0:12.5 146.0: 1.0
$02
1 74. 5: 9.5 61.5: 6.5 104.7:21.2
2 151. 0:62. 4 113.7_ 3.8 128.0:11.8
3 94. 5:30. 5 109.0_31.4 160.5: 7.2
90°F
Control (gir)
l 112.5:10.9 88.5: 5.7 127.5: 1.7
2 131.5: 0.2 219'9i. .8 244.0:22.9
3 175-9il8°7 231.0: 8.4 261.5:11.2
Grain Treet ®
1 150.0:22. 0 155. 5:_4. 8 201.0:21.8
2 281.4:11. 4 257. 0:2 6. 3 275.1: 4.6
3 192.0: 8. 4 228. 0:54. 6 226.0: .6
S 2
1 89.5: 3.1 86.2: 5.3 132.5:18.8
2 160.2: 4'2 213.5: 8.0 240.5_ 8.0
3 188. 12.5 235.5: 2.3 238.4 4.1

67

Table 7. (cont'd.)

 

Time % Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20

 

Hunter L Value of Dry Beans

 

70°F

Control (Air)

 

 

 

 

1 61.0: .0 60.5: .1
2 60.7: .1 59.4: .4
3 60.7: .0 59.5: .2
Grain Treet ®
1 61.5: .2 60.0: .2
2 60.0:_.1 59.5: .4
3 60.5: .2 60.5: .4
$02
1 61.5: .0 60.0: .2
2 60.7: .0 59.5: .0
3 60.0: .2 60.5: .0
90°F
Control (Air)
1 60.5: .0 59.9: .1
2 59.7: .2 58.3: .1
3 59.6: .2 57.9: .0
Grain Treet ®
1 60.0: .3 59.5: .0
2 59.5: .1 56.0: .2
3 58.5: .3 55.7: .1
$02
1 61.0: .4 60.4: .0
2 59.5: .0 58.0: .0
3 59.0: .1 58.4: .0

.0
.0
.2

.1

_.o

_.o

—.0

_.1

.2

.1

.0

.2
.4

68

Table 7. (cont'd.)

 

Time % Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20

 

Hunter aL Value of Dry Beans

 

LANE-I WNH

WNH WNW WNW

(3.)

GOO GOO GOO
I—‘N NOON
I$I+I+ I+I+I+

u>s~oa
I+I+I+

000 000
C 0
wow 930‘
I+I+I$

I+I+I+

C? o
U U
I+I5I3I+

.1
.0
.0

.0
.1
.0

.0
.0
.0

.1
.0
.0

.0
.0
.0

70°F

Control (Air)

 

4 .
6 .
3 .

c>c>c>
I+I+I+
c>c>c>

Grain Treet ®

 

-0.l_‘I_'_ .0
0.35 .0
0.15 .1

802
0.45 .0
0.75 .1
0.35 .0

90°F

Control (Air)

 

 

“m" I$I$I$

I+I+I+

{$09.5

NJFDP‘ har‘h‘
I‘JIEI-‘Ii I$I$I5

Igflgfii?

.0
.0
.0

.0
.0
.0

.0
.0
.0

.0
.0
.0

.0
.0
.0

.0
.0
.3

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. (cont'd.)
Time % Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20 22
Hunter bL Value of Dry Beans
70°F
Control (Air)
1 10.2: .0 10.0:_.1 11.5: .0
2 10.0: .0 11.5: .0 11.5: .1
3 10.5: .0 11.5: .0 12.0: .0
Grain Treet ®
1 10.6: .0 10.9: .0 11.4: .0
2 11.5: .1 11.0: .0 12.5: .2
3 11.5: .2 12.0: .0 13.0:_.0
802
1 10.1: .0 10.5: .0 10.0: .0
2 10.5: .0 11.0: .1 11.5: .0
3 10.0: .1 11.1: .2 12.5: .0
90°F
Control (Air)
1 11.0: .0 11.5: .0 13.0: .0
2 11.0: .0 12.7: .0 14.5: .0
3 14.7: .0 14.0: .0 14.8: .0
Grain Treet ®
1 11.5: .0 12.5: .1 13.5: .0
2 13.3: .0 14.5: .0 15.5: .0
3 14.5: .0 14.5: .0 14.5: .1
$02
1 10.5: .0 11.3:_.0 12.5: .0
2 11.5: .0 12.0: .0 14.5: .0
3 12.0: .0 14.0: .0 14.5: .1

70

Table 7. (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time % Initial Bean Mbisture
month 18 20 22
Hunter L Value of Processed Beans
70°F
Control (Air)
1 50.4:043 49.0: .2 49.5: .0
2 49.6: .0 49.1: .3 48.8: .0
3 48.7: .9 49.3: .1 48.1: .8
Grain Treet ®
1 50.5: .2 50.5: .3 49.5: .0
2 50.5: .2 49.5: .0 46.5: .2
3 49.0: .7 46.5:1.0 41.5: .4
$02
1 49.0: .0 49.0: .6 49.9: .8
2 49.5: .5 49.3: .0 49.5: .3
3 49.0: .4 49.5:_.6 48.5: .7
90°F
Control (Air)
1 49.0: .2 48.9: .3 49.5: .3
2 49.0: .0 48.0:_.0 46.5: .4
3 47.5:1.2 47.5: .0 41.0:1.6
Grain Treet ®
1 50.0: .2 47.0: .2 43.5: .2
2 47.0: .2 41.0: .3 36.1: .0
3 43.5: .9 35.0: .9 30.5: .7
$02
1 50.1: .0 49.8: .1 49.7: .5
2 49.4: .2 48.0: .0 46.5: .3
3 48.0: .8 46.5:1.0 38.5: .7

71

Table 7. (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time % Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20 22
Hunter a Value of Processed Beans
L o
70 F
Control (Air)
1 2.4: .3 2.0: .0 2.9: .0
2 3.3: .2 3.2: 01 307i .0
3 3.2: .6 3.5: .4 3.81- .5
Grain Treet ®
1 3.2: .3 3.1: .2 3.6: .0
2 3.1: .2 3.5: .0 5.0: .0
3 4.5: .8 5.5: .9 7.5: .9
$02
1 2.0: .0 2.5: .0 2.5: .4
2 3.2: .2 3.5: .0 3.3: .0
3 3.3: .3 3.7: .6 3.5: .7
90°F
Control (Air)
1 2.0: .3 2.0: .2 2.9: .0
2 2.0: .0 3.0: .0 4.5: .0
3 3.4: .4 406i .7 702:1.2
Grain Treet ®
1 3.3: .1 4.5: .0 6.5: .0
2 4.3: .1 6.7: .0 7.6: .0
3 6.3:1.0 8.5: .9 7.5: .7
802
1 2.5: .1 2.5: .1 2.0: .1
2 3.5: .0 3.0: .0 5.0: .l
3 3.5: .6 5.5: .9 8.1: .4

72

Table 7. (cont'd.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Z Initial Bean Moisture
month 18 20 22
Hunter b Value of Processed Beans
L o
70 F
Control (Air)
1 15.1:1.1 15.9: .2 14.9: .4
2 15.9: .0 14.9: .0 14.9: .0
3 13.9: .1 14.6: .2 14.9:_.1
Grain Treet ®
1 14.9: .0 14.9: .2 15.9: .0
2 15.1: .1 15.9: .1 15.9:_.0
3 15.5: .3 16.9: .4 15.9: .7
S02
1 14.9: .2 13.9: .1 13.9: .4
2 14.9: .2 14.3: .0 13.9: .0
3 13.8: .0 14.4: .7 14.6: .4
90°F
Control (Air)
1 l4.7:;.0 14.9: .1 14.9: .1
2 15.9: .5 14.9: .0 15.9: .0
3 14.2: .0 15.6: .7 15.1: .4
Grain Treet ®
1 15.9: .0 16.2: .0 15.9: .1
2 15.9: .0 15.7: .1 13.9: .0
3 15.9: .4 13.9: .4 11.9: .2
$02
1 14.9: .0 14.9: .0 14.6:1.0
2 14.9: .1 15.9: .2 15.4: .1
3 14.3+ .2 15.9: .4 14.9: .7

¥

1Mean values and standard deviation (n

A

= 2 replicate samples).

73

Table 8. Analysis of variance of dry and processed navy bean charac-
teristics dry stored at varying moisture content under
selected chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F for up to
3 months prior to processing.

 

Dry and Processed Bean Characteristics

 

 

 

 

Soaked Processed
Dry Bean Bean Bean Drained Shear
Source of Moisture Moisture Moisture Weight Resistance
Variation df (Z) (Z) (Z) (3) (g/100 g)
Mean Squares
Main Effects
Moist(M) 2 107.55*** 2.44*** 7.95*** 1193.88*** 13332.53***
Treat(Tr) 2 3.41*** 13.42*** 14.04*** 1144.99*** 20565.90***
Temp(Tp) 1 21.96*** 1.14** 51.07*** 3933.73*** 147533.97***
Time(Tm) 2 14.26*** 16.94*** 46.80*** 1988.66*** 55637.68***
Two-Way
M x Tr 4 .14*** .18 .26 2.35 645.70
M x Tp 2 .06 .05 .35 12.63* l610.23**
M x Tm 4 .16*** .27 .14 40.51*** 1111.33**
Tr x Tp 2 .01 .00 .13 5.57 589.58
Tr x Tm 4 .05 .64** 1.26*** 20.02** 3677.52***
Tp x Tm 2 2.50*** .46* .60* 120.56*** 10327.34***
Three-Way
MxTrpr 4 .02 .09 .03 9.64 956.70**
Mprme 4 .02 .18 .10 3.46 1081.50**
MxTrme 8 .09** .07 .18 1.75 879.05**
Trprme 4 .02 .12 .09 15.74** 621.55
Four-Way
MxTrprme 8 .04 .09 .10 8.30 457.65
Residual 54 .03 .12 .13 3.81 11.38
Tukey's HSD
Moisture .39 .83 .87 4.71 38.84
Treatment .39 .83 .87 4.71 38.84
Temperature .33 .69 .73 3.92 32.31
Time .39 .83 .87 4.71 38.84
2 CV .88 .65 .53 .71 10.48

 

74

 

 

 

 

Table 8. (cont'd.)

Dry and Processed Bean Characteristics
Source of Dry Bean Color1 Processed Bean Color1
Variation df L a b L a b

L L L L

 

 

Mean Squares

Main Effects

 

 

Moist(M) 2 69.95*** 6.78*** 27.83*** 141.01*** 21.51*** 1.06***
Treat(Tr) 2 9.06*** .03* 10.07*** 146.78*** 32.62*** 3.71***
Temp(Tp) 1 92.78*** 12.88*** 95.20*** 299.00*** 32.45*** .51
Time(Tm) 2 34.65*** 2.08*** 23.13*** 167.59*** 36.60*** 1.19***
Two-Way
M x Tr 4 1.06*** .06*** .15*** 24.48*** 1.27*** .53**
M x Tp 2 7.21*** 1.67*** 1.04*** 40.25*** 4.28*** .32
M x Tm 4 3.14*** .28*** .30*** 19.14*** 2.33*** .47*
Tr x Tp 2 5.43*** .79*** .15*** 68.29*** 2.94*** 3.37***
Tr x Tm 4 1.10*** .27*** .08*** 21.08*** .82** .51**
Tp x Tm 2 12.70*** .80*** 1.44*** 49.56*** 3.38*** 1.01**
Three-Way
MxTrpr 4 .19** .02* .36*** 3.43*** .71* 2.61***
Mprme 4 1.74*** .18*** .74*** 4.56*** .30 .55**
MxTrme 8 .06 .01 .04*** 1.95*** .53* 1.31***
Trprme 4 .57*** .02** .25*** 3.87*** .57* 2.79***
Four-Way
MxTrprme 8 .06 .03*** .11*** 2.83*** 1.43*** .48**
Residual 54 .05 .01 .01 .34 .22 .14
Tukey's HSD
Moisture .52 .20 .22 1.41 1.14 .90
Treatment .52 .20 .22 1.41 1.14 .90
Temperature .44 .16 .19 1.18 .95 .75
Time .52 .20 .22 1.41 1.14 .90
Z CV .37 11.11 .75 1.24 11.41 2.51
1Hunter Value L, aL, bL.

75

0Hm>mH Nm um “cWUHWHGmevm

 

 

 

 

.vauouum runwamum A>.Hlummo.mVAHIuy\ MuAyv ammuuaou m.mmmm£omH
*q.m~n on m.~qu «q.m ou m.m so. cu m. «N. u on m.: H. on H. u H UHumuemao
*o.mq cu o.mm .o.mn on m.OHu «¢.Hn ou ~.Hn *o.H cu m. *w. u as o.Hn H “mmaHH
N waHe
m.n on o.m u m. on ~.H u .N. ou H. u «o. u on 4.: *H. u on m. n H oHumuumao
«o.qm on s.o~ *m.nn on m.w : «m. 1 cu m. u «N. u on 3.: m.~ cu q.~ H ummaHH
H mmmwmmmm
Aw OOH\wV Awe HNV HNV HNV we aoHumHum>
monmumwmmm unwfim3 mucumfioz mHSumfioz mudumwoz mo mousom
ummnm woawmum amom commoooum comm vmxmom comm mun

 

ammuuaoo mo owdmm

 

H.waammmooun
ou uowua mnuaoa m cu a: you moom cam can um pom mucoaummuu Hmofiaoso wouomaom nova: manumfios
wafixum> um monoum momma Mom mHm>uouaH mafia owmuoum vow uaouaoo unduwwoa camp hub mo mmaoammm .m mHan

76

.AWVHouum unawamum A

«In alum O
H no mVH

.Hm>mH Nm um unmonHcmHm«

 

Hluyx Huayv umduudoo w.mmwmnomH

 

 

 

 

 

«H.u ou «.n N. on N. n «H. a on o. u «H. u on N. u «N.. cu m.: «N. on m. H UHumuumso
o. o. N.- «o.H ou N.H «w.Nn ou m.ms «N.H ou H.H «m. as N. «N.H: on «.H. H «mmaHH
N maHH
«H.. on m.. N. on N. u «N. a on N. u «N. on o. «H. on o. «H. s cu m. u H UHumuumso
«H.. on N.. «N.H cu m. «m.Nn ou o.mu «N.H on N.H «c. on m. «N.H: ou H.Nu H «moaHH
N _mmmmmmmm.
an nouns: gm nouns: A umuanm an Hounds gm.uoucsm A umuasm up dofiumfium>
uoaoo comm vmmmmooum uoHoo comm mun mo mousom

 

ammuuaoo mo mwdmm

 

A.w.uaoov .m mHnma

77

 

 

PROCESSED
70' —-"~_2H_°_
65"

“60"

2‘: someo

E55- 0 o o

m A —1

550-

o

o L

uJ W\

2‘:

E, 25 DRY .

g 20: __1

3 I5-

'66
IO

I8 20 22 IB 20 22 IB 20 22
0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEAN MOISURE CONTENT BEFORE STORAGE (%)

Figure 10. Mean moisture contents (over chemical treatment, storage
temperature and time) for beans dry stored at varying ini-
tial moisture content (18-22%) under chemical treatments
and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing

(like letters within each group indicate no significant
differences).

 

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROCESSED
.. o 0
70 'ran
65"
g 60r-
E SOAKED
LIJ 55:- 0 0
+2- rum
8 so—
3?! ”L e
a T DRY E 53
g 20? 'L-“OT 3* ’4 30 E a”:
2 15- S R ER 2 E
E . a: 5‘3? ‘1
‘5' I0“ R £302
E
5—
O CHEMICAL TREATMENT -
Figure 11.

Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, storage tempera-
ture and time) for beans dry stored at varying initial
moisture content (18-222) under chemical treatments and at
70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing (like

letters within each group indicate no significant
differences).

 

 

 

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROCESSED
70— h.
65"
28 60~
'2 SOAKED
w 55- o o
'—
c2)
0 50-
3:J it
E DRY
<12 20- ‘_
0 ~——»
2
<2: l5
m —
m IO 70 90 7O 90 7O 90
£5.—
0
STORAGE TEMPERATURE (°F)
Figure 12. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, chemical treat-

ment and storage time) for beans dry stored at varying ini-
tial moisture content (18-22%) under chemical treatments and
at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to processing (like
letters within each group indicate no significant differ-

ences).

80

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROCESSED
70'— ‘"‘10 o
A “1.1
o\"
'— _.
E, 60 SOAKED
SE C! O
8 H“
a:
E =E
g DRY
:E :2()"' -—H__1
z "1
4
DH
m
'0'" I 2 3 I 2 3 l 2 3
O
STORAGE TIME (MONTH)

Figure 13. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture, chemical treat-
ment and storage temperature) for beans dry stored at vary-
ing initial moisture content (18—222) under chemical treat-
ments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to
processing (like letters within each group indicate no
significant differences).

81

Dramatic decreases in drained weight were shown for increased
initial dry bean moisture, increased storage temperature and time
(Figure 14). No significant differences were shown between air-packaged
(control) and SO2 treated beans. The drained weight of beans treated
with Grain Treet ® was significantly lower than other treatments,
further implicating organic acid suppression of water holding capacity.

Shear resistance was 154 g/100 g with a 277 g drained weight
in average. Significant differences in shear resistance were shown
with increased initial dry bean moisture, storage temperature and time
(Figure 15). These data are similar in relationship and magnitude to
data obtained in the packaging environment study.

The shear resistance of beans treated with Grain Treet ® was
significantly higher than that of control but not significantly higher
than 802 treated beans. Nordstrom and Sistrunk (1977) reported lower
drained weight and higher shear resistance of beans canned in tomato
sauce than those canned in salt brine and stated that organic acids
tended to produce insoluble complexes with the amylose components of
starch, making rigid and low soluble starch helices. In addition, the
acidity reduced the water imbibition of starch and protein.

No significant differences were shown in shear resistance
between $02 treated and air-packaged (control) beans.

Beans prior to storage had Hunter values of L 65.3, aL -0.3
and bL +12.2. Following dry storage and processing the L, aL, and bL
values were 59, +1 and +12, and 47, +4 and +15, respectively. Bean
darkening increased during storage and processing. Decreased Hunter L
and increased Hunter aL and bL values were shown in both dry and pro-
cessed beans held at increased moisture, temperature and time (Figures

16 through 18).

82

 

 

 

8

F: 290—

: I I

g . ”I

5;: ‘-_I ‘0 o -_1

I3 280_- 1

Z "I

g '1...
° 27o~ ‘7‘ ”r "I

2! e

‘t 2

B 3:. 8°: "9° ' 2 ’
o T

w 260— 2

g I8 20 22 E

w

o

o .L

E T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOISTURE CHEMICAL TEMPERATURE TIME
wNTENT TREATMENT I’ F 1 I MONTH I

(96)

Figure 14. Overall main effect mean processed bean drained weight for
beans dry stored at varying initial moisture content (18-22Z)
under chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3

months prior to processing (like letters within each group
indicate no significant differences).

200

I80-

I60-

I40 -

I20-

SHEAR RESISTANCE (G/IOOG )

ICXJE-

\\

 

83

"”1134 z-bro
D
0’

In
In
L
J

I
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 15.

MOISTURE CHEMICAL STORAGE STORAGE
CONTENT TREATMENT TEMP. (’F) TIME (MONTH)

Overall main effect mean shear resistance for beans dry
stored at varying initial moisture content (18-222) under
chemical treatments and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months
prior to processing (like letters within each group indi-
cate no significant differences).

84

.AmooamquMHv unmoawficwam o: oumoHvGH msouw some canuu3 muouuoa oxHHv wafimwoooum
ou uoaua mnuaoa m on a: How moom can ooh ad was muaoaumouu Hmouamno nova: ANNNIva musumfioa

Hmauwcw wafihhm> um wououm huv momma commoooum vow hub How mosam> A amass: uomwmo Gama Hawuo>o .oH ouswfim

3.2.202. u}: an... 9.2.41ng hzwzdwmh 1.40—Euro 12.—22.200 munch—02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L.
_FN _ n N _ IONIC» who". RON o. .NNON o. WVW
, d
F m
[ I

fil: fl. 06 on f 0 fine 10% cm”: mm
o E . low 1
08885 $qu 8339... m. H. .__ 8832: A
z < I Hv
. 1|
a n
. .. mm 3

F[ F F? FF

0
OF. F o o F I8
2.3 >8 :3 En

85

.AmooaoquMHo unmoHMHame o: muoowosfi msouw zoom afinufis muouuma oxHHV wsfimmoooum ou uoaum
anacoa m ou.mo How mooa can com um cam munoauoouu Hmowswso woos: AmNNIwHV uamucoo manumaoa

Amanda waahuo> um omuouo map msomn commoooum vac ago How mosam> Ho “madam uoommo Gama Haoum>o .NH muswwm

 

 

 

 

 

AIPZOSVMEF .uovmmahdmmazwr hzmihdumh .20—Zulu Srzzmhzoo 95.5.02
I , om o» N a («N oN o.
n N . _ _ _ _ko_«_ — *IWIH
nN. 82 ooo «N821-
>10 >mo » a >10 >mo
womfiw 5..
G
P
.11. z I!
o FL. _Flvurl. o
II_ o u o ,fil.
no II. no
r... 8339... I. a
oummuoocn. owmmuoomn.

oummwooca

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tom¢f0N

 

3mm 1In samnH

86

.Amooaouwmmao uaooawaawam o: ouoofioaa moon» Sumo cfinufi3 mumuuoa oxHHv wswmwmooum
ou uoaun onunoa m cu a: mom mooo odo com on cam muaoaummuu amoaawno Hoods ANNNIwHV mucumfioa

Hofiufiaa wowxuo> um oououo muo mamas vmmmoooum odd asp How mooao> An nouns: uoomwm :Hma Haouo>o .wa ouomwm

2.1.2020 mic.

H.100 m10k<1wazw>

Pzw2h<m1h .30—Euro H$0>zm>zoo N19553—

 

 

H1

0

 

 

.1.

 

o
oummuoomi

O

 

 

 

 

 

 

>10

 

 

 

 

>10

 

 

 

O.

 

o
0mmmw0011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_.H
c
N8 m o
...
p
I “I
Noam. a o o o
u 4
c _rlu
..
>10
2
H
F” o
t.
0mmmw001n—

 

ENON o.

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O O

0mmmwoo1m

NN

 

NF.

 

 

 

 

 

ON a. “HWV_
H
n
m
I I 3
N_ no
n1
1
>10
I... m
.I
n
3
10.

 

87

Sulfur dioxide provided good retention of bean color. Beans
treated with SO2 and stored at 70°F were whiter than all other treat-
ments, however, no control of discoloration was attained for SO2 treated
beans stored at 90°F. The overall Hunter values of SO2 treated and air-
packaged (control) beans were not significantly different. In contrast,
browning of beans treated with Grain Treet ® was obviously recognized
in both dry and processed samples.

Hunter L and aL values were significantly correlated for both
dry (r = -0.35**) and processed (r - -0.84**) beans. In processed
beans, significant correlations were shown between Hunter L and bL

values (r = -0.35*) and between Hunter a and bL values (r 8 0.56**).

L
The effects of initial dry bean moisture content, storage
temperature, and time in increasing darkening and hardening and decreas-

ing water uptake capacity of stored beans were observed in this study
as in the packaging environment study. Changes of bean cotyledonary
constituents from nonenzymatic browning reaction may be associated with
these quality alterations.

In this study, SO treatments gave beans with comparable

2
quality attributes to control in addition to improved color retention

at low storage temperature. The application of Grain Treet® was under-
taken to aid in control of mold growth quality deterioration of high
moisture beans in a manner similar to its application in high moisture
soybeans. This treatment was not effective in stabilizing quality
deterioration of navy beans due to increased firmness and increased dis-

coloration as compared to untreated beans. Further work is necessary

to elucidate the mechanism for this increased quality loss.

88

Sensory Evaluation. Visual examination of dry beans following

 

storage indicated that high moisture beans were darker and molded.
Beans treated with Grain Treet ® had strong acidic odor, obvious brown-
ing with yellow spots and limited mold mycelium.

Processed beans were examined during the drained weight proce-
dure. Grain Treet ® resulted in fewer splits and cracks and strong
acidic odor than both control and $02. Sulfur dioxide treatment re-
sulted in whiter processed beans than control.

Sensory scores for processed bean quality attributes are sum?
marized in Table 10. The analysis of variance, Tukey's HSD for these
data are presented in Table 11.

No significant differences were shown in bean flavor, texture
and acceptability for all conditions tested in this evaluation (Table
12). Twenty-two percent moisture beans were judged significantly darker
than other moisture levels. Beans stored at 90°F were darker than those
stored at 70°F. Grain Treet® beans were significantly darker than
control. No significant differences were shown in color between 80

2

and control.

Long-Term Storage Study

 

Mean values of dry and processed bean characteristics following
dry storage in cans at various initial moisture and storage tempera-
ture are summarized in Table 13. The analysis of variance, Tukey's
HSD and coefficient of variability of data are presented in Table 14.
Response to bean moisture and storage temperature treatment are shown

in Table 15.

89

Table 10. Mean sensory scores for processed bean quality attributes
dry stored under different chemical treatments at varying
moisture and at 70° and 90°F for up to 3 months prior to

 

 

 

 

 

processing.1
Bean Attributes
Moisture Color2 Flavor3 Texture“ AcceptabilityS
70°F
Control (Air)
18 4.29:1.14 4.08:1.44 3.79:1.42 5.00:1.28
20 3.39: .89 3.92:1.24 4.17:1.03 4.79:1.14
22 4.29:1.54 3.89:1.85 5.42:}.08 4.69:1.61
Grain Treet ®
18 3.50:1.24 4.59:1.24 4.49: .67 5.39:1.15
20 5.29: .75 4.49:1.24 4.59:1.51 4.19:1.85
22 6.59: .67 5.39:1.87 5.09:1.24 2.49:1.88
802
18 4.39:1.23 4.09:1.60 3.79:1.66 4.69:1.61
20 4.39:1.07 4.59:1.51 4.19:1.53 4.83:1.64
22 4.39:1.37 4.29:1.36 4.00:1.71 5.39:1.15
90°F
Control (Air)
18 4.50: .90 3.99: .90 5.09: .90 5.39:1.23
20 3.75:1.29 3.69: .89 4.59:1.31 5.09:1.21
22 6.49: .79 5.49:2.07 6.00:1.13 2.09:2.11
Grain Treet ®
18 5.00:1.04 4.79: .97 4.99: .90 3.79:1.82
20 6.49: .51 5.79:1.14 5.49: .90 2.67:2.06
22 7.09: .00 5.79:1.96 6.09: .67 1.99:1.44
802
18 3.69: .78 4.29:1.22 4.49:1.16 3.59:1.62
20 5.49:1.00 5.42:1.08 5.49: .67 3.59:1.44
22 6.89: .39 5.33:1.44 5.79:1.06 2.89:1.75

 

 

 

1Mean values and standard deviation from

2Seven
3Seven =
”Seven =

5Seven =

very dark (brown).
very strong.
very firm/dense.

very acceptable.

12 panelists.

90

Table 11. Analysis of variance of sensory scores for processed bean
quality attributes dry stored under different chemical
treatments at varying moisture and at 70° and 90°F for up
to 3 months prior to processing.

 

Source of Attributes
Variation df Color Flavor Texture Acceptability

 

Mean Squares

 

Main Effects

 

Treat(Tr) 2 27.25*** 16.54*** 4.50* 22.78***

Temp(Tp) l 52.02*** 18.38** 46.30*** 72.34***

Moist(M) 2 53.92*** 9.39* 18.67*** 37.00***
Two-Way

Tr x Tp 2 .03 .54 1.19 4.03

Tr x M 4 10.00*** 2.37 2.42 9.57

Tp x M 2 8.12*** 4.06 .46 6.70
Three-Way

Tr x Tp x M 4 7.80*** 2.87 1.56 7.81*
Residual 198 .99 2.05 1.40 2.52

Tukey's HSD

Treatment .95 1.37 1.13 1.52
Temperature .80 1.15 .95 1.27
Moisture .95 1.37 1.13 1.52

Z CV 20.07 30.97 24.53 39.69

 

91

 

 

 

 

 

Table 120 Mean sensory scores under main effects of chemical treat-
ments, storage temperature and bean moisture for processed
bean quality attributes after 3 month storage.1

Main Attributes
Effects Color2 Flavor3 Texture“ AcceptabilityS
Chemical Treatment
Control (Air) 4.42a 4.14a 4.83a 4.47a
Grain Treet R 5.63b 5.10a 5.08a 3.38a
302 4.82ab 4.643 4.58a 4.14a
Temperature
70°F 4.46 4.33a 4.37a 4.57a
90°F 5.44 4.92a 5.30a 3.42a

Moisture

18% 4.21a 4.26a 4.39a 4.618
20% 4.75a 4.63a 4.72a 4.178
22% 5.90 4.99a 5.39a 3.21a

 

1Mean values from 12 panelists.

2Seven =
3Seven =

1+Seven =

5Seven

very dark (brown)
very strong.
very firm/dense.

very acceptable.

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H. MNHm o. MNHm «. HNNm N.H mmNn H. Wan o.H Mia NH
m. +o.Nm H. +«.Hm «. +N.Nm H. +o.Hm H. +H.on H. +N.HH H
woos
m. Hmw.qm o.H mo.mm o.H mw.Nm H. mw.mm H. mw.mm q. mw.Nn NH
m. +«.Nm N. +N.Nn s. +N.Hm N. +¢.cn H. +o.om q. +o.N« H
mooN
N. mw.«n q.H mo.«m m. mw.mn m. mw.mm e. mw.mn H. mw.Nm NH
s.H +N.Nm m. +H.Nm m. +N.Hn N. +N.om H. +o.s« m. +m.wq H
moon
ANM.mu=umHoz comm omxoom
H. mw.mH o. www.«H H. mw.NH H. mo.HH H. mw.m H. mw.o NH
o. +H.oH H. +N.sH H. +N.NH H. +N.oH m. +o.m o. +o.N H
moom
o. MHSH H. mi: N. MoNH m. moHH 0. mm... o. we... NH
H. +N.OH H. +N.«H N. «a.NH N. +N.HH H. +¢.m o. +o.N H
mooN
H. mw.oH H. ”mo.mH o. Hmw.NH «. mw.HH H. mw.o o. mw.o NH
o. +N.oH H. +o.mH H. +m.NH H. +N.HH H. +N.m o. +¢.N H
Noon
ANV musumaoz comm hum
NH oH «H NH OH N guaoa
ANV ousumwoz comm HoHuHcH mafia

H.wcfimmmooua ou uofium you» H ou as How boom woo ooh
.oom um uamucoo ououmfioa wcfimum> um oououw haw moaumHuouoouono coon m>mc oommoooum poo hum

.NH «Hams

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.NHMN.NNN H.H_MN.NNN N.N mw.HN o. MN.NNN H. mw.NNN N.H mo.NNN NH
N.N +N.HNN N.N +N.HNN N.N +N.NN o. +N.NNN H.H +N.NNN N.N +N.NNN H
I I NooN I I I
o. ”N.NNN N.H ”N.NNN N.N HxaNNN o. ”N.NNN N.N ”N.NNN o. .Hm.ooN NH
N. +N.NNN N.H +N.HNN N.NH+N.NNN o. +N.NNN N. +N.HNN N.N +N.NNN H
N.NN
N. mo.NN N.N mw.NNN N.N mw.NNN N.N MN.NNN N.N mw.NNN N.HHmN.NNN NH
N. +H.NN o. +N.NNN H.H +N.NNN N.N +N.NNN N.N +N.NNN o. +N.NNN H
N.NN
va uawwoz coonHQ comm oommmooum
N. MH.NN N. MN.NN N. MN.NN N. “MN.NN N. ”MN.NN H. mo.oN NH
H. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN H. +N.NN N. +N.NN H
N.NN
N. mw.NN N. mw.NN N. MN.NN H. MN.NN N. mw.NN o. HmH.oN NH
N. +H.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN o. +N.NN H
N.NN
N. mw.NN H. MN.NN o. mv.oN H. mw.NN H. mw.NN H. mw.oN NH
N. +N.NN N. +H.NN o. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN H
N.NN
NNV ousumfioz comm oommoooum
NH NH NH NH NH N Nance
Axv musumfioz comm HmHuHaH oEHH
H.N.uaouv .NH NHNNH

94

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N. MN.NN o. mw.oN N. mw.NN H. MN.NN N. mw.NN H. mw.NN NH
H. +N.NN o. +N.NN o. +N.NN o. +N.NN H. +N.NN o. +N.NN H
N.NN
o. MNNN H. MNNN N. MNNN N. MNNN H. WNN N. MNNN NH
N. +N.NN H. +N.NN H. +N.NN H. +N.NN H. +N.NN o. +N.NN H
N.NN
H. MN.NN H. mw.NN o. mw.NN H. MN.NN H. mw.NN H. UMN.NN NH
H. +N.NN o. +N.NN H. +N.NN H. +N.NN o. +N.NN o. +N.NN H
moon
comm mun mo msHm> H “madam
N.NHmw.NNN N.N MN.NNN N.NNMN.NNN N.N mw.NNH N.N MN.NN N.H_mo.NN NH
N.NN+N.ooN N.NN+N.NNH N.N +N.NNH N.NH+N.NN N.NN+H.NNH N.NN+N.NNH H
N.NN
H. N MN. NNN N.N HH.NoN N.~mwN.NNH N.N MH.HN N.NHmw.NN N. mw.NN NH
N. NN+N. NNH N.NN N.NHH N. +N.HHH N.N N.NNH H.HN+N.NNH N.N +N.NNH H
N.NN
N. MN.NN N.N MN.NN N.N MN.NN N.N mN.NN o N MN. HN N.N_mo.NN NH
N.HN+N.NHH N.NH+N.NHH N.NH+N.HNH N.NH+N.NNH N.NH +N. NNH N.HN+N.NNH H
N.NN
mm ooa\wv mucoumfimom Homnm
NH NH NH NH NH N Nuaoa
ANV oHSumHoz comm HoHuNGH mafia
H.N.NaouN .NH NHNNH

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o. MN.NH N. MN.NH H. ”N.NH N. MN.NH H. MN.NH H. MN.NH NH
H. +N.NH o. +N.NH H. +N.NH H. +N.NH H. +N.NH o. +N.NH H
N.NN
H. MN.NH H. ”MN.NH H. MN.NH H. “MN.NH H. MN.NH H. MN.NH NH
H. +N.NH H. +N.NH H. +N.NH H. +N.NH H. +N.NH o. +H.NH H
NooN
o. MN.NH o. MN.NH H. MN.NH H. MN.HH H. MN.NH H. MN.HH NH
H. +H.NH H. +N.NH H. +N.NH o. +H.NH H. +H.NH o. +N.NH H
N.NN H
comm mum mo mcHo> m Hmuccm
H. MwuH H. MN.H H. MN. 0. MN. H. MN. H. MN. NH
o. +H. | 0. +H. H. +m. H. +m. H. +m. o. +q. H
N.NN
o. MN.H H. MN. H. MN. H. MN. o. MN. H. MN. NH
o. +H. I o. +N. H. +N. H. +N. H. +N. 0. +N. H
N.NN
o. MN. I 0. MN. 0. MN. o. MN. 0. MN. 0. MN. I NH
H. +N. I N. +H. H. +N. o. +N. H. +N. o. +N. I H
coon
comm hum mo mcao> Ho umuccm
NH NH NH NH NH N Nazca
an mucumfioz comm HoNuHcH mafia
N.N..aouo .NH .HNNH

96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H. MN.N H. ”MN.N N. MN.N H. MN.N N. .HN.N H. MN.N NH
H. +N.H N. +N.N H. +N.H H. +H.N H. +N.N N. +N.N H
N.NN
H. waQ H. mmOM H. MOCm o. quM O. WGCM H. HwCM N.H
H. +N.H N. +N.H H. +N.H H. +N.N N. +N.N N. +N.N H
N.NN
H. MN.N H. MN.N N. HMN.N H. MN.N H. MN.N N. MN.N NH
N. +N.H N. +N.H H. +N.N H. +H.N H. +N.N N. +N.N H
N.NN
comm ommomooum mo mcHo> mo Hmuccm
N. MN.NN N. MN.NN N. MN.NN N. MN.NN H. MN.NN N. MN.NN NH
N. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN H. +H.NN N. +N.NN H
N.NN
H. MN.NN H. MN.NN N. MN.NN N. MN.NN H. MN.NN H. MN.NN NH
N. +N.NN N. +H.NN H. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN H. +N.NN H
N.NN
N. MNHN H. MNHN N. mNHN H. MN.NN H. MN.NN H. MNHN NH
N. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN N. +H.NN N. +N.NN N. +N.NN H
N.NN
comm omwmmooum mo mcHo> m Hmuccm
NH NH NH NH NH N Nazca

 

an mucumfioz comm HoNuHcH

maHN

 

H.N.Noouo .NH mHNNH

97

.Ammaccom muooHHcmH o u cv coHuoN>mo ouoocoum oco mmcHo> comzH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H. MN.NH N. MN.NH H. MN.NH N. MN.NH H. MN.NH N. MN.NH NH
N. +N.NH N. +N.NH H. +N.NH H. +H.NH H. +N.NH N. +N.NH H
m 00m
H. MN.NH H. MN.NH H. MN.NH H. MN.NH N. MN.NH N. MN.NH NH
N. +N.NH H. +N.NH H. +N.NH H. +N.NH N. +N.NH H. +N.NH H
N.NN
N. MN.NH H. MN.NH H. “MN.NH H. MN.NH N. MN.NH N. MN.NH NH
H. +N.NH H. +H.NH H. +N.NH H. +N.NH N. +N.NH N. +N.NH H
N.NN H
Gmmm fimmmeOh—m m0 QDHM> D kuGDm
NH NH NH NH NH N Nazca
«Nu mucumfioz comm HoHuHcH mEHH
N.N.Naouv .NH NHNNN

98

 

 

 

 

om.HH on.H Hm. MH.H 0H.H >0 N
Nw.om NH.OH Hm. HN.H mm. mEHH
wm.¢¢ 0N.NH mm. o¢.H mo.H mucuoummama
mo.¢m 0H.mH mo.H ow.H HM.H mucumfioz
NNN NNHNHNN
HH.mNm MH.mN NH. om. 0H. om Hocvfimmm
«*NoH.MHNm «««NH.~MH. ««*mm.H No. «O. OH 89 x ca x z
mozimmuca
«««on.mmmmm «*Nom.mom ««*HN.mH «0H.H Ho. N ea c c9
*Nme.mHmmm «««mo.mmo «««NH.¢ «NNNm.m «««mH. m 89 x z
NNNNm.mmNoH **«om.mmH **«m0.H no. «*«HH. OH 0H x z
mozloze
*«*m~.m0HH~ Hm.H «««Ho.m %««Nm.om *«xom. H AEHVmBHH
«*ch.mmqmn «««Ho.mmm «««mN.NH «*Nm.H «*«mm. N AchcamH
«NNnm.mmmmm ««*mm.omm «#«oo.m «*«nm.HH ««*mm.qu m szumHoz
muommwm chS
mmcocwm com:
AN NNHNNN NNN ANN NNN NNN HN NoHNmHNm>
mocoomemm uanmz mucumHoz mucumHoz mucumHoz mo moucom
Homcm omcHoHQ comm ommmmooum comm omxoom comm mum

 

moHumHHmuoocono comm ommmmooum oco mum

 

.wchmmoouc ou HOHHc Homh H OH cc HON moom oco con .oon uo oco ucmucoo mucumHoE

wcHhuo> Ho omuoum mac moHuoHumuoouono comm >>oc omommooum oco mum mo mocoHuo> mo mHthoc< .NH mHnoH

99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om. mm.m «0. mm. NM. mm. >0 N
RN. mm. «o. HN. HH. mm. mBHH
NN. NN. NN. NN. NH. NN. ouoooumcsma
cc. mm. mm. Hm. 0H. wQ. mHDumHQZ
NNN N.NNHNN
No. HO. mo. HQ. 00. mo. om Hosvamm
«*«mm. «*«mN.H «««nH.HH «««nm. «««mw. ««*m~.N OH as x me x z
mozlmchH
«««ON. {««mn.q ***oo.mo ««NHN.m «««OH.H *«NHm.OH N as x ca
«*«om. «««mc.m {*«mm.mm {««HH.m «*«mq. «««mo.m m 89 x z
*«xon. «*«Nm.H «*«NH.MH *««mm.H ««xmm. NNNQm.m 0H me x z
mozlose
&««Hm.nm *«Noo.mm mo. «*«mn.Hm «««NH.N «««mm.m~ H AsevaHH
«««NN. «««NH.N «««NH.NN NN.NN «««NH.H «««NN.NH N HNHNNamH
*«qu. ¥««No.H *«xNH.HH *qum.m ***mm. *«Nmm.m m szumHoz
muommwm GHoZ
mmuocUm comz
Hm Hmucom o Hmucom H umucom m Hmucom Ho Hmuccm H Hmuccm mo cOHuoHuo>
HOHoo comm ommmmooum HOHou comm hum mo moucom
moHumHHmuoouocU comm omwwmooum oco hum
N.N.Naoov .NH mHNmN

100

.Hm>mH NN um NamoHNHaNHN«

 

 

 

 

 

 

N I m . I
.vauouum ouoocoum A? H u no NVAHluvx + ANV umouucoo m.mmmmcomH
«N.NN ou N.N N.H Om N.N I H. ou m. I N. ou n. I *H. I on N. I H oHuoHooco
*m.mm ou m.om «m.m I on N.0HI «a.I ou N.HI «H. OH N. I «H. I on N. I H HomcHH
N mucuoumccma
N.NN ou H.0HI N.N ou N.N I m. ou N. I N. ou m. I mN. ou H. I H oHucho
N.N ou m.mNI m.m ou N.m I N. ou m. I N. ou m. I N. I ou N. I H oHuHoco
«N.H I on N.le *N.0H ou m. m. on N. I «N.H om H. No. ou m. H oncu
«N.Nm ou N.HN m.m ou N.N I H. OH 0. I *N. I ou m.HI «N. I ou N. I H oHuouooco
NN.NNH ou m.mml N.N I ou N.NHI «N.I ou N.HI «N.N ou N.H «N.N ou m.N H HomcHH
n mucumHoz
AN NNHNNV NNN NNN NNN HNN NN :oHumHNm>
mocoumHmmm uanmB mucumHoz mucumHoz mucumHoz mo moucom
Homcm omcHoum comm ommmmooum comm omxoom comm Nun
amouucoo mo mmcom
H.mchmmoon ou HoHHc comm H on as How moom mco ooN .oom uo oco mucumHoa chHuo>
uo omcoum mcomm How mHo>HmucH mucuoumcsmu mmououm oco ucmucoo mucumHoa comm hum mo mmcocmmm .nH mHmoH

101

.vauouum vuovcoum A

>.HIu.NN.

.Hm>mH NN um ucmuHmHaNHN«

NNHHINNN H NNN ammuucoo N.NNNNNNN.

 

 

 

 

«H.I ou N.I «m. ou N. «m. I OH m. I «N. on H. «N. ou H. «m. I ou N. I H oHuouooco
0. OH H.I «N. oo o. «N.HI ou H.NI «N.H ou N.H «N. ou m. «H.HI ou N.HI H HomcHH
N mucuoummamH
N. o. H.I H. N. N.I N. o. N. I N. on H. N. No H.I N. o. N. I H NHuaHNN
H. OH N.I o. ou m. N. on N. I 0. on N. o. ou H.I H. ou N. I H oHuHoco
«N.I ou N.I «m. on H. «m. I OH m. I H. ou N. o. ou .I «N. ou H. H on30
«H.I om N.I «N. ou m. «m.HI ou N.HI H. on H. «N. on H. «m. I on m. I H oHuoHooco
N. ou H.I «N. on N. «o.HI ou N.HI «N.H ou N.H «N. ou m. «N.HI ou m.HI H HomcHH
q mucumHoz
H H H Ho
m Hmuccm o Hmocom H Hmuccm n Hmuccm Hmuccm H umuccm mo cOHuoHHo>

 

HOHoo comm cmmmmooum

 

HOHoo comm Nwm

 

umouucoo mo mwcom

mo moucom

 

N.N...ooo

.mH mHmoH

102

Dry stored beans with the initial moisture between 8-18% averaged
12% moisture after storage. Soaked and processed bean moisture was 52%
and 68%, respectively. These data were similar to those observed in the
packaging environment and chemical studies.

Processed bean moisture decreased significantly as initial bean
moisture and storage temperature increased (Figures 19 and 20). No
significant differents were shown in processed bean moisture after 1
and 12 month storage of dry beans (Figure 21).

No significant differences were shown in soaked bean moisture
with varying storage temperature. Significant increases in soaked
bean moisture content occurred with increased initial dry bean moisture
and storage time. This relationship was attributed to soaking of a
constant 100 g of bean solids (dry weight) per can rather than soaking
a constant fresh weight of dry beans.

No significant differences in drained weight were shown for
moisture content, storage temperature and time (Figure 22).

Long-term stored beans had higher average shear resistance (155
g/100 g) and drained weight (285 g) than beans in the packaging environ-
ment and chemical studies. Significant increase of shear resistance
was shown with increased moisture content and storage temperature but
not with storage time. Dramatic increase of been firmness was apparent-
ly indicated by high shear resistance values for beans stored with
initial moisture greater than 12%, at temperature greater than 70°F and
with increased storage time (12 months) (Figure 23). I

Hunter L, aL and bL values varied from 65.3, -0.3 and +12 for
dry beans prior to storage to 64.8, +0.2 and +13 after storage, and to

49, +3 and +15 after processing. These data indicate increased bean

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROCESSED
70— 1:33,... 0606 o
—_1
E
5 60-
w SOAKED
g Lii°°
o SOI- t"
m
a: ~L
2:) ‘r
F-
92 20L
0 DRY
2
2 F“
< a -*
g Ioh £4
FIOIZM IGIB B IOI2|4I6I8 8 IO l2 I4 IS I8
0 I

MOISTURE CONTENT BEFORE STORAGE (%)

Figure 19. Mean moisture contents (over storage temperature and time)
for beans dry stored at varying initial moisture content
(8-18%) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1 year prior to
processing (like letters within each group indicate no
significant differences).

104

 

PROCESSED
70- ‘o o
7‘11?
33
I- 60”
5 SOAKED
'2 .2. 0 o
""-1
8 50—
3% ~:
2: I
B
5 20*-
: DRY
2
<1 CI 0 o
N ION
50 70 90 5O 70 90 50 70 90
O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STORAGE TEMPERATURE (°F)

Figure 20. Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture and storage time)
for beans dry stored at varying initial moisture content
(8-182) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1 year prior to
processing (like letters within each group indicate no
significant differences).

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROCESSED
70— ° °

A 60—

88 SOAKED

I- .

LIZ, __

I— 50-

Z

O ~L

O

U.) T

9% 20-

E DRY

O

2 .51.. °

2 IO—

Q I I2 I I2 , I I2

0 ..
STORAGE TIME (MONTH)

Figure 21.

Mean moisture contents (over bean moisture and storage tempera-
ture) for beans dry stored at varying initial moisture con-
tent (8-182) and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1 year prior

to processing (like letters within each group indicate no
significant differences).

106

 

 

 

 

 

 

(‘9: 300+-
I-
3:
(3 0
III a a o
3 290— ‘—
53 a (I 0
.2.
g o
2ao~ ‘1" a 0
”'1 ,
z — '7
<1
DJ
CD
CD _-
UJ 211)
83 D ID I2 uIIs "I so nasoI I I2
DJ
8
O: 260—
CL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOISTURE mNTENT (%) TEMPERATUREI'F ) TIME (MONTH)

Figure 22. Overall main effect mean processed bean drained weight for
beans dry stored at varying initial moisture content (8-182)
and at 50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1 year prior to process-

ing (like letters within each group indicate no significant
differences).

107

.wchmmoouc ou HOHHQ comm H cu a: How moom oco ooN
.oom uo oco NNmHImv ucmucoo mucumHoa HoHuHcH mcHNHo> uo omuoum Nut mcomm How mucoumHmmH Homsm .mN mucmHm

 

H.H..Hm10h41mm2m» 33.53200 95.5.02 schzuhzoo 55.55!
82.00 BEEN—0.0 m.o_¢_m_o.o
H H IH H H H H H HI H H H H, H H I
S
H
co. m
5:2... “70... I:
w.
5.3.... S
108 8
“_.ON fl
N
O
3
Q 0 II \II
5: EN. 2.2.3:. N. can 9
V
100.. I
E x N.H e» x 2 N» x .2

 

108

darkening from storage and processing. Increased moisture, temperature
and time of storage decreased L value and increased aL and bL values for
both dry and processed beans as reported in the packaging environment

and chemical treatment studies. Such changes in Hunter L, a and bL

L
values were most apparent at dry bean moistures greater than 14% when
stored at 90°F for 12 months (Figures 24 through 26). The storage
temperature of 50°F and 70°F did not contribute much change to color
except for beans with extremely high initial moisture (18%).

For dry beans Hunter L and aL values were significantly corre-

lated (r = -0.47**) and for processed beans Hunter a and bL values were

L
significantly correlated (r = O.45**). Shear resistance was signifi-
cantly correlated to soaked bean moisture (r = -0.37*) and to pro-

cessed bean moisture (r = -0.65**).

Increase in bean discoloration and firmness with increase in
initial dry bean moisture content, storage temperature and time was
affirmed in this study. These data indicate that minimum.bean discolora-
tion and hardness occurred in beans stored at 70°F or less at less than
14% moisture. Long-term storage of beans at high temperature (90°F)
and greater than 12% moisture resulted in loss of bean quality. These
data suggest that holding beans during the summer season may deteriorate
color and increase firmness though not to the extent exhibited in this

long-term constant temperature experiment.

Sensory Evaluation. Visual examination following storage

 

indicated that high moisture beans were red brown in color. Musty odor
and mold appearance were also detected.
Processed beans examined during drained weight procedure showed

discoloration when initial dry bean moisture was greater than 14%.

109

.waHmmmuoun ou uOHunH Hook H cu a: How hoom was ecu
.oom um H28 ANwHIwV acoucoo 0.25388 HmHuHaH mafia“: um voyeum be memos How wsz> 1H .3353 .3. 93me

 

H.H.Humafimuazm... 35.5328 £5.56: 3 ezmpzoo $5.56:
82.0... SEEN. o_ o 29¢. ~_o_ o
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H J:
Nov
u.om
2.28:. N. I H. Hy
nHHHcoENH H
8389... 8889... 3339... m
:2.
5.3.... l
52.05 _ u 0 OF B
n.00
[um M
V
HI
n
u.om
.. ow
2:35 N. Ea 2.85. Ea .55
5.3.... “roe 1 em
Econ: / moon
.5. x a» E x .2 a» x 2
L on

 

110

.waHmmmooum ou HOHHQ Ham.» H 3 a: How hoom new con

.oom um HEM anlev unsucoo ousumHoE HMHuHGH 95.3.3» um monoum hum mamwp How msHm> am .3355 .mN 92.me

 

 
 

I:-
H usumazmuazup 35 pzmpzoo $5.56: 352328 $558:
58.... Ti 5.35% m.on.|1..\nnwum o
ow\m...o.n m. m. .m. m. .o not. 2.. ~._ a. m
2.23:5. >mo ufcoEN. :5 o H. >10
“:8
.l- H
n
N
5.35. w...
.HHcoE_o\oIo IN no
8339... n
“_.on 1A
3332: 8.338.. In v
e2 m
3

¢

u£HCOEN_\ \( n— om l n
o
23:05 N-

Eth. Ehx! 8.x:

 

lll

.waHmmoooum ou HOHHQ Hush H cu a: How hoom can com

com um can ANlewv uamucoo ousumHoa HmHuHGH waHmum> um monoum hum momma you o=Hm> Hp “madam .om shaman

 

   

        

Caucafimmazm» 395328 2358: sshzupzoo 2.2.20:
82.9... o. m. S «.0. m o. 2! w. o. o n
H H H H H H H H H H H J H H 1 H
47
:3 >8 1m.
“.8 H
5:2... £56. 0
In. W.
a:
meow 9. a
. a.
\ontl til ...I lV- HI
5.3... _ o. . 5.3... _ .\\v $16--.. .72. m
2.85. . 8338.. “_.on m
«Ecosfi «SHEEN. \r} m cm In. 3
2=H_HOH.H._N_ /’ ssxo / \‘\ no mug
I. x X
88.88.. «tk um.
6» x as s» x .2 as x s.

 

112

Strong odor was still detectable. Low moisture beans which are suscepti-
ble to crack and splits had higher degree of clumping, splitting and
'graininess of the sauce than high moisture beans.

Sensory scores for processed bean quality attributes are sum-
marized in Table 16. The analysis of variance, Tukey's HSD for these
data are presented in Table 17.

Significant differences were shown only in bean texture and
acceptability under the temperature effect. Hard texture increased

and acceptability decreased with increased temperature (Table 18).

Equilibrium Moisture Study

 

Changes in bean moisture content (dry and fresh weight basis)
held under various RH in sealed desiccators with time are shown in
Figure 27. The analysis of variance, Tukey's HSD and coefficient of
variability are presented in Table 19.

Bean moisture content increased by adsorption of water with
storage humidities greater than 64% and increased time. With storage
humidities less than 64% bean moisture changes occurred by desorption.
A dramatic change in moisture content occurred between 12 and 53 days
of storage, however, no intermediate values were obtained during this
time.

End-point equilibrium moisture content (dry and fresh weight
basis) of beans are shown in Figure 28. Dexter gt a1. (1954) and
Dexter (1968) reported the higher equilibrium moisture content using
sulfuric acid solutions or sawdust-salt mixtures to control relative

humidity.

113

Table 16. Mean sensory scores for processed bean quality attributes
dry stored at varying moisture content at 50°, 70° and 90°F
for up to 1 year prior to processing.1 -

 

 

 

Bean Attributes
Moisture Color2 Flavorji Texture‘+ Acceptability5
1 Month
50°F
10 3-5Qtl-57 4.11:1.34 4.0Qil.48 5.42: .90
14 3.61:1.44 4.48:1.44 3.98:1.44 4.92:1.24
18 3.28:1.14 4.2%: .97 4.33:1.15 5.25:1.06
70°F
10 3.92:1.31 4.08:1.08 4.58:1.16 5.12:1.34
14 3.92:1.16 4.25:1.22 4.25:1.36 5-08:.-79
18 3.75:1.22 4.00:1.04 4.33: .98 5-0&: .90
90°F
10 4.33:1.44 4.5&:1.38 4.5&:l.08 4.83:1.40
14 3.58:1.51 3-581l-44 5.25:1.06 5-08il-24
18 3.92:1.16 4.1z11.53 4-5911-24 4.62:1.30
12 Months
50°F
10 3-SQtl-3l 4.25:1.66 4.0Q:1.48 5.09:1.35
14 3.5&:1.16 3.62:1.07 3.75:1.22 5.1211.4o
18 3.5Q:1.3l 3.33:1.15 4.08:1.38 5.61:1.07
70°F
10 3-4%t .79 4.33:1.30 39.211.08 5.38:1.15
14 3.88: .94 4.58:1.16 4-7511-22 4.62:1.23
18 5.42:_.51 5.42:1.62 6.28: .75 3.0Q:l.65
90°F
10 3.0&: .90 3.92:1.44 3.671;.98 5.0Q:1.21
14 4.59:1.00 4.75:1.48 6.0&: .67 2.92:1.31
18 6.92: .29 5.23:2.30 6.98: .29 1.1%: .39

 

1Means values and standard deviation from 12 panelists.
2Seven = very dark (brown).

3Seven = very strong.

l*Seven very firm/dense.

SSeven = very acceptable.

114

 

 

 

 

Table 17. Analysis of variance of sensory scores for processed bean
quality attributes dry stored at varying moisture content at
50°, 70° and 90°F for up to 1 year prior to processing.

Source of Attributes

Variation df Color Flavor Texture Acceptability

Mean Squares

Main Effects '

Time(Tm) l 10.23** 2.67 6.69* 38.34***
Temp(Tp) 2 14.45*** 3.85 27.92*** 30.45***
Moist(M) 2 13.41*** .85 19.31*** 17.50***

Two-Way

Tm x Tp 2 3.20 7.68* 6.00** l6.59***
Tm x M 2 22.69*** 1.85 19.03*** 12.98***
Tp x M 4 6.09** 1.88 4.38** 8.39***
Three-Way
Tm x Tp x M 4 6.26** 4.42 3.94* 8.52***
Residual 198 1.36 1.96 1.27 1.43
Tukey's HSD

Time .93 1.12 .90 .96

Temperature 1.12 1.34 1.08 1.14

Moisture 1.12 1.34 1.08 1.14

% CV 29.33 32.75 24.51 25.77

 

 

115

Table 18. Mean sensory scores under main effects of storage time and
temperature and moisture for processed bean quality
attributes after long-term storage.

 

 

 

 

 

Main Attributes
Effects Color2 F1avor3 Texture“ AcceptabilityS
Time
1 month 3.76a 4.17a 4.42a 5.06a
12 months 4.19a 4.39a 4.77a 4.21a
Temperature
50°F 3.50a 4.01a 3.93a 5.24b
70°F 4.04a 4.44a 4.68ab 4.72ab
90°F 4.39a 4.383 5.17b 3.94a
Moisture
10% 3.63a 4.22a 4.04a 5.13a
14% 3.85a 4.21a 4.67a 4.64a
18% 4.46a 4.40a 5.07a 4.14a

 

1Mean values from 12 panelists.
2Seven = very dark (brown).

3Seven = very strong.

“Seven very firm/dense.

5Seven = very acceptable.

’23
‘2
(D40
835
O
0
2‘,
1-30
2
was
.-
z
820
E
DIS
'—
92 IO
0
2
z 5
a
an O

Figure 27.

 

 

l

l

116

 

 

 

 

J

l

l

J

fig;

1

L

(d
C)

no
(I

h)
(D

 

 

0

IO 20 30 40 so so 70 80
STORAGE TIME ( DAY )

BEAN MOISTURE CONTENT (°/o FRESH BASIS)

Bean moisture content (dry and fresh basis) after storage
in desiccators at various relative humidity controlled by

saturated salt solutions at 70°F.

117

Table 19. Analysis of variance of dry bean moisture content (fresh
basis) dry stored at varying relative humidity controlled
by saturated salt solutions at 70°F.

 

Source of Variation df Moisture Content (% Fresh Basis)

 

Mean Squares

 

Main Effects

 

Relative Humidity 7 115,15***

Time 5 151,13***
Two-Way

Relative Humidity x Time 35 17.44***
Residual 48 .16

Tukey's HSD

Relative Humidity 1.28
Time 1 . 20

% CV 3.25

 

118

HmHm<m Immmu o\oH FZMFZOO mePMHOsH EDHmmHJHDOw

 

 

 

 

w «a. m. w m 5 W
+ H fl H H I
10
9
10
no
In
10
6
1w
.8
[I
1H
H H H H
O O O O 0

4 3 2 I

HmHm<m >m0o\ovkzwkzoo mePmHOsH Egan—450w

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%)

Water sorption isotherm of navy beans at 70°F.

Figure 28.

119

The mean values and statistical summary of dry and processed bean
quality characteristics after 80 day equilibration in various RH condi-
tions are reported in Table 20.

Soaked and processed bean moisture and drained weight signifi-
cantly decreased with increased RH. These data indicate the reduction
of bean water uptake capacity at high RH storage. Processed beans from
high humidity storage showed significant higher shear resistance than
those stored at lower humidities. Dramatic increases in firmness
occurred in beans stored above 80% RH.

Hunter L, a and bL values changed from 60.3, 0 and +10.2 before

L
dry storage to 58.2, +0.4 and +10.9 after storage, and to 49.4, +3.8
and +14.5 after processing. These data indicate bean darkening during
storage at various RH and during processing. Significant changes among
all Hunter values occurred with increased storage RH indicating an
overall deterioration of bean surface color under these conditions.

Visual examination of dry beans following storage indicated
discoloration, extensive mold mycelium and musty odor at RH greater
than 86%.

Examination of processed beans during drained weight procedure
indicated that beans stored at low RH (48-64%) had high degree of
clumping due to the cracking of low moisture cotyledons. The presence
of molds and musty odor was detected from beans held at high RH.

Bean moisture content increased with increased storage RH.
Therefore, the effect of storage RH on keeping and processed qualities
of beans were identical to that of bean moisture content as reported in
the packaging environment, chemical treatment and long-term storage

studies. Browning and hard texture of beans increased with high

120

.mMHaamm wumoHHmmH c n :H

 

 

 

 

 

 

SH SH 8. on. «H.H >04.
om.aH «N.HH om. HH. HH.
amm m.Huxse
3.2 85 3. .3. no. 3&3 H3383
$43.32 4.3.2.42 .5...an its. titan 2&3 H3355
0>HumHmm
mmumnmm com:
H.meaémH 8o. H.H.m. .5 8m. mH.$ fiH. Mama 8. MRS 3
H.HHHHHH 8o. NHo. 2H H.H. HRS mm. H.H.mn H. H92 3
HHHI .HH H80. own. SH emH. HHS fie. HH.? H. HH.: 3
HRHHHS... ewe. HHm. SH 0H. HH.: 8%. H33 o. HH.: om
finéwmém Bo. mHH. EH 8N. HS: H.H. HH.? H. HTS 2
Ham. HH.: oo. HHm. SH as. HS: 3... H3; H. HHHH S
«HHHOHH oo. Hm. 88H 8... HS: BH. Moan 8H. Hts mm
8m.H+m.$ UH. H+m. 3N U.HH. +H.: HUUH. +H.} H..H. +~.m we
QHDHHUEEH
o>HumHoM
HQOHUMH>MQ whmvfimum + wdem> Gmmz
3 8:3 3 Q; Q: g
monoumHmmm uanmz musumHoz ounumHoz manumHoz
ummsm wmaHmun comm commoooum doom vmxmom comm hum

 

moHumHumuomumnu comm vmmmmuoum was hum

 

.MoON um mcoHuaHom uHmm woumusuwm %n vMHHouucoo hquHasn 0>HHMHmu waHmum> um vmuoum hum

moHumHumuomumno man no oucmHum> mo meHHmsm vow moHumHumuumumno noon m>mc vommououm can mun

.ON mHan

.moHaamm mumoHHmmu c n CH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nH.H mm.m mo. n¢.H HN.NN mH.H >UN
no. Hm. mm.H mo. Nq. mn.m
9mm m.»oxaa
mo. mH. NH. no. Ho. we. Amuwvv HmsvamM
*«mH. kkxmn. ««amm.¢ «kknn. «««mm. ««smo.NN Anumvv hquHabm
o>HHMHom
mouwadm and:

mm. mw.eH mH. mw.m mH. mw.oe H. mw.~H mm. my. 88.Hmw.mm Hm
an..HH.qH an._Hm.m mm..HH.mq H..Hm.HH mo._Hm. MH.HHM.~n mm
onH. H%.qH pH. HH.¢ AH..H«.ac mo. No.0H an..Hm. am. Hb.mm mm

oan. H¢.¢H an. Hfi.m HH. H&.om mm. Ho.QH no..Hm. HH. Hw.oc ow
onH..HR.¢H pH..HH.q n~..Hm.om mH..H«.0H no._Hm. HH..Hm.oo on
one. HR.¢H H. Hh.~ 9H. Hm.om mo. HH.OH o. HH.H no. Hw.mn «o
oH. Hw.qH HHH. Hw.q no. Mw.om mH..Hm.OH nH. Hm. nq._Hm.oo mm
oan +m «H nH +m q 3H +N om mo +¢ OH no +0 nH +m oo wq
HNHHHHeHasm
o>HumHom
HGOHumH>mQ vumvcmum + mmsHm> saw:
an umucsm Hm Hausa: H umucsm an nouns: Hm “madam H umuasm
HOHou comm wmmmmooum HOHoo cmmmlxun
moHumHumuomumao comm wmmmmooum cam mun
H.H.uaOUV .om «Heme

122
humidity storage. Beans stored at RH less than 75% did not undergo
rapid deterioration for the quality characteristics evaluated in this
experiment. The water sorption isotherm (70°F) indicates that this RH
corresponds to a final bean moisture content of approximately 14%.
This moisture content and storage RH are critical values in minimizing

quality deterioration during dry storage.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The data obtained in the packaging environment study indicated
that dry beans stored with high initial moisture content developed
dark color and hard texture and lost water uptake capacity. The quality
loss of dry and processed beans were accelerated with increase in storage
temperature and time. Changes in protein/starch constituents of bean
cotyledons perhaps due to nonenzymatic browning reaction may have
caused these quality deteriorations. Vacuum and C02 packaging environ-
ment did not stabilize bean color perhaps due to the insufficient levels
of vacuum and 002 used or due to the gas permeability properties of
Mylar® or imperfections in film and seal.

In the chemical treatment study, the effects of initial dry
bean moisture, storage temperature and time in increasing bean dis-
coloration and firmness were similar to those observed in the packaging
study. Grain Treet ® provided limited benefit on mold inhibition in
this study and resulted in beans with brown color and firm texture.
Sulfur dioxide treatment stabilized stored bean color at low tempera-
ture without alteration in other bean properties. However, the
efficiency of 802 was reduced with increased moisture and temperature.

The data from the long-term storage study reconfirms that stor-
age of high moisture beans at high temperatures causes severe destruction

of dry and processed bean qualities. Bean discoloration and firm

123

124
texture were obvious following long-term storage. The data suggest
bean storage with initial moisture less than 14% at temperatures below
70°F should be maintained to assure good quality retention.

Increased storage RH resulted in high moisture content, mold
mycelium, darkening and hardening of beans. Changes in bean quality
characteristics were observed at RH greater than 75%.which corresponded
to an equilibrium bean moisture of 14% (fresh weight basis) obtained

from the water sorption isotherm at 70°F.

Overview

The data from these studies indicated that browning and hard
texture of beans increased with increased initial bean moisture,
storage temperature, time and RH. These storage conditions also de-
creased water uptake capacity and drained weight of beans which will
adversely affect the potential canned bean yield.

Sulfur dioxide treatment showed potential as a dry bean treat-
ment prior to storage at low temperature since SO2 maintained both
color and texture quality during storage. However, limited benefit
was obtained from SO2 treatment at high temperature storage. Other
physical and chemical treatments may also be effective in improving
storage stability of dry navy beans, but they require further investi-
gation prior to recommendation for use.

Low moisture beans exhibited a high degree of clumping and
splitting due to seedcoat and cotyledonary rupture. High moisture
beans developed discoloration and firm texture, and favored mold growth

during storage. The bean moisture critical value during dry storage

was suggested to be 14%. Recommended Optimum bean storage conditions

were below 70°F temperature and less than 75% RH with minimized storage time.

fl' - wflflu‘qH-H =

 

 

RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

1. Utilization of other types of packaging material providing
varied permeabilities for storage of beans and evaluation of bean
keeping quality.

2. Continuation of the Grain Treet ® study for mold inhibition
in beans and the effect of Grain Treet ® on bean color and texture.

3. Examination of the practical use of $02 for dry bean
storage.

4. Emphasis on bean low temperature (50°F) storage and the
shelf life prediction.

5. Establishment of the water sorption isotherm of navy beans
at other temperatures to determine critical shifts in equilibrium

moisture.

125

APPENDIX

126

Table 21. Composition of navy beans (values per 100 g dry beans).1

 

Water 10.9%
Energy 340 cal
Protein 22.3 g
Fat 1.6 g
Carbohydrate 61.3 g
Calcium 144 mg
Phosphorus 425 mg
Iron . 7.8 mg
Sodium 19 mg
Potassium 1196 mg
Vitamin A O IU
Thiamin 0.65 mg
Riboflavin 0.22 mg
Niacin 2.4 mg
Ascorbic acid ' 0 mg

 

1values from Adams (1972).

127

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dry Bean Processing Uebersax
Canned Bean Evaluation FSC 128
Subjective Quality Difference1 Operator:
Date:
Sample Code/
Conditions: Control Sample:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Color Size Shape Free Gen. Clump-

Can +1ighter +larger +rounder Starch Accept. ing Splits Comments

Code -darker -smaller -elongate +more +better (1-5) (1-5)
-1ess -worse

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Scale columns 2-6 (+3 to -3; 0 equals no difference from control);
columns 7 and 8, rating scale l=none, 2=slight, 3=moderate, 4'very, 5=severe.

Figure 29. Attributes and hedonic scales used in visual examination
of canned navy beans.

.msmon h>ma ooaamu mo ooHumaHm>m anomaom :H vow: mmHmom 0Haooo£ mam mouonHuuu< .om mustm

H H H ‘ 1|.

 

 

128

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz mHQEmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_
oHnmvaooomod hnm> H hamss\vmom hho> H oHHs hho> H Ampanv vamHH hpo> H .
oHnmvmooomc: .608 N hamss\vmom .coe N UHHE hHmpmnmvoe N HopHnsv PsmHH .cos N
mempgwooaqs .HHm m H:m:&\pmom .pHm m eHHe HHpHmHHm n Hmpngv HHmHH .pHm m
Hampmmoomc: Hmom eHHe pgmHH
}\mHnmpmooom HospHo: 3 \SQHH HoanoG : \chHPm Hoanoc : \xomm HospHm: 3
mHnmpmooom .va m smooc\aHHm .PHm m wcoppm hHPstHm m Ansonnv Hymn .pHm m
oHnmpmooom .oos o mmCmm\sHHm .voa o wsoppm zHopmHomoS w Aczounv Home .608 w
oHnmeooom hum> m smooc\suHH huo> m wooupm ano> n Aczopnv Mpmc huo> n
zPHHHmeQooo¢ Hmnocoo oudpxoe Ho>mHm MOHoo

 

 

 

.opanvam Homo soHon oHpmv
CH mPHSmoH cuoomm .oPSQHHPpm Homo pom onom wchmu poHoa m opmHHgopaam one op wchoooom
oHQEMm Homo mo thHHnmvmmoom Hohocom mam .mnszop .Ho>mHm .HOHoo mpmsHm>m «chHposupmcH

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, M. W. 1972. On the quest for quality in the field bean. In:
Nutritional Improvement of Food Legumes by Breeding, Protein
Advisory Group of the United Nations System, United Nations,
New York. 143.

Adams, M. W. and Bedford, C. L. 1975. Breeding food legumes for
improved processing and consumer acceptance properties. In
"Nutritional Improvement of Food Legumes by Breeding," John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

AOAC. 1970. "Official Methods of Analysis," 11th ed. Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D.C.

ASTM. 1972. Standard E96. The American Society of Testing Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.

Bedford, C. L. 1972. Bean storage and processing. Proceedings of the
International Dry Bean Symposium, August 22-24, at Michigan
State University, E. Lansing, MI. 63.

Bigelow, W. D. and Fitzgerald, F. F. 1927. Suggestions for canning
pork and beans. Bull. lS-L—Rev, National Canners Association.

Binder, L. and Rockland, L. 1964. Use of the automatic recording
shear press in cooking studies of large dry lima beans
(Phaseolus lumatus). Food Technol. 18(7):127.

Brunauer, S., Emmett, P. H. and Teller, E. 1938. Adsorption of gases
in multimolecular layers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 60:309.

Bourne, M. C. 1972. Texture measurement of individual cooked dry
beans by the puncture test. J. Food Sci. 37:751.

Burr, H. K., Kon, S. and Morris, H. J. 1968. Cooking rates of dry
beans as influenced by moisture content and temperature and
time of storage. Food Technol. 22(3):336.

Chew, V. 1977. Comparisons among treatment means in an analysis of
variance. ARS/H/6, USDA, Washington, D.C.

Dajani, U. H. 1977. Dry edible beans quality aspects that concern
the canner. Michigan Dry Bean Digest 2(1):6.

129

130

Davis, D. R. 1976. Effect of blanching methods and processes on
quality of canned dry beans. Food Product Development. 10(7):
74.

Dawson, E. H., Lamb, J. C., Toepfer, E. W. and Warren, H. W. 1952.
Development of rapid methods of soaking and cooking dry beans.
Bull. 1051, U.S. Dept. Agr. Tech., Washington, D.C.

Dexter, S. T. 1968. Moisture and quality control in harvesting and
storing white beans for canning. Presented at the Bean
Improvement Cooperative Meeting, March 6, Geneva, New York.

Dexter, S. T., Anderson, A. L., Pfuhler, P. L. and Benne, E. J. 1954.
Responses of white beans to various humidities and temperature
of storage. Agron. J. 12:246.

Deyoe, C. W. and Tu, M. F. 1977. Effect of organic acids on stored
high moisture soybeans. Presented at Kemin Sales Meeting,
December 7, at Des Moines, Iowa.

Hanlon, J. F. 1971. Handbook of Package Engineering. McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York.

Heldman, D. R., Bakker-Arkema, F. W., Naoddy, P. 0., Reidy, G. A.,
Paltnicker, M. P. and Thompson, D. R. 1972. Investigation of
the energetics of water binding in dehydrated foods at very low
moisture levels in relation to quality parameters. Rep. 72-10-
LF, U.S. Army Natick Lab. Tech.

Hodge, J. E. 1953. Dehydrated foods. Chemistry of browning reactions
in model systems. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1:928.

Hoki, M. and Pickett, L. K. 1972. Analysis of mechanical damage to
navy beans. Paper 72-308, ASAE. St. Joseph, MI.

Hosefield, G. L. and Uebersax, M. A. 1979. Canning quality evaluations
of tropical and domestic dry bean germplasm. Michigan Dry Bean
Digest 3(4):4.

Johnson, R. M. 1964. Maintenance of dry beans quality during trans-
portation, handling, and storage. Proceedings of the Seventh
Research Conference on Dry Beans, December 2-4, at Ithaca and
Geneva, New York. ARS 74-32:20.

Karon, M. L. and Hillery, B. E. 1949. Hygroscopic equilibrium of
peanuts. J. Am. 011 Chem. Soc. 26:16.

Khan, A. A. and Tao, K. L. 1973. Protects seeds from deterioration.
New York's Food and Life Science 6(3):3.

Labuza, T. P. 1972. Nutrient losses during drying and storage of
dehydrated foods. Crit. Rev. Food Technol. 3:217.

131

Labuza, T. P. 1973. Effects of dehydration and storage. Food
Technol. 27:20.

Labuza, T. P., Tannenbaum, S. R. and Karel, M. 1970. Water content
and stability of low moisture and intermediate moisture foods.
Food Technol. 24:543.

Lea, C. H. and Hannan, R. S. 1949. Studies of the reaction between
proteins and reducing sugars in the "dry" state. I. The effect
of activity of water, of pH and of temperature on the primary
reaction between casein and glucose. Biochem. Biophys. Acta.
3:313.

Leveille, G. A., Morley, S. S. and Harpstead, D. D. 1978. Beans -
A food resource. In "Dry Bean Production - Principles and
Practices," p. 31. Bull. E-1251, Agric. Exp. Stn., Michigan
State University, E. Lansing, MI.

Maddex, R. L. 1978. Handling and storage. In "Dry Bean Production -
Principles and Practices," p. 196. Bull. E-1251, Agric. Exp.
Stn., Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI.

Molina, M. R., De La Fuente, G. and Bressani, R. 1975. Interrelation-
ships between storage, soaking time, cooking time, nutritive
.value and other characteristics of black bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris). J. Food Sci. 40:587.

Morris, H. J. 1963. Cooking qualities of dry beans. Proceedings
of the Sixth Annual Dry Bean Conference, January 2-4, at Los
Angeles, CA. 11.

Morris, H. J. 1964. Change in cooking qualities of raw beans as in-
fluenced by moisture content and storage time. Proceedings of
the Seventh Research Conference on Dry Beans, December 2-4, at
Ithaca and Geneva, New York. ARS 74-32:37.

Morris, H. J. and Wood, E. R. 1956. Influence of moisture content on
keeping quality of dry beans. Food Technol. 10:225.

Muneta, P. 1964. The cooking time of dry beans after extended storage.
Food Technol. 18(8):130.

Nordstrom, C. L. and Sistrunk, W. A. 1977. Effect of type of bean,
soak time, canning media and storage time on quality attributes
and nutritional value of canned dry beans. J. Food Sci. 42(3):
795.

Robertson, L. S. and Frazier, R. D. 1978. Dry bean production -
principles and practices. Extension Bull. E-1251, Agric. Exp.
Stn., Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI.

Rockland, L. B. 1960. Saturated salt solutions for static control of
relative humidity between 5° and 40°C. Anal. Chem. 32:1375.

132

Rockland, L. B. 1963. Chemical and physical changes associated with
processing of large dry lima beans. Proceedings of the Sixth
Annual Dry Bean Conference, January 2-4, at Los Angeles, CA. 9.

Rohlf, F. J. and Sokal, R. R. 1969. Statistical tables. W. H. Freeman
and Company, San Francisco, CA.

Saettler, A. W. 1972. Mold populations in the navy bean associated
with production diseases. Proceedings of the International Dry
Bean Symposium, August 22—24, at Michigan State University,
E. Lansing, MI. 54.

Scheifley, V. M. and Schmidt, W. H. 1973. Jeremy D. Finn's multi-
variance—univariate and multivariate analysis of variance,
covariance, and regression modified and adapted for use on the
CDC 6500. Occasional paper no. 22, Office of Research
Consultation, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI.

Smith, V. 1977. Mode of action-product comparison - considerations of
high moisture grain programs. Proceedings of the Kemin
International Conference, at Des Moines, Iowa.

Snow, D., Crichton, M. H. G. and Wright, N. C. 1944. Mould deterioration
of feeding stuffs in relation to humidity of storage. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 31:102.

SRS. 1952-1975. Crop production - annual summary. Statistical
Reporting Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. "Principles and procedures
of statistics," McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.

Steinbuch, E. and Decnop, C. 1978. Processing and flavoring of white
beans. Michigan Dry Bean Digest 2(2):8.

Stokes, R. H. and Robinson, R. A. 1949. Standard solutions for
humidity control at 25°C. Ind. Eng. Chem. 41:2013.

Thompson, J. A., Sefcovic, M. S. and Kingsolver, C. H. 1962. Main-
taining quality of pea beans during shipment overseas. Mark.
Res. Rep. 519, USDA.

Troller, J. A. and Christian, J. H. B. 1978. "Water activity and food,"
Academic Press, New York.

Uebersax, M. A. 1972. Effects of storage and processing parameters on
quality attributes of processed navy beans. M. S. Thesis,
Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI.

USDA. 1952-1975. Agricultural statistics. United States Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

133

Voisey, P. W. and Larmond, E. 1971. The effect of storage time before
processing on baked bean texture.. Rep. 6903-1, Engineering
Research Service and Food Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Washburn, E. W., ed. 1926. "International Critical Tables of
Numerical Data, Physics, Chemistry and Technology," lst ed°
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.

Weast, R. C., ed. 1972-1973. "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,"
53rd ed., Chem. Rubber Publ. Co., Cleveland, Ohio.

Wexler, A. and Hasegawa, S. 1954. Relative humidity - temperature
relationships of some saturated salt solutions in the tempera-
ture range 0° to 50°C. J. Res. Nat'l. Bur. Stand. 53:19.

It.“ 'l’mmfi'il