HIWIWWWIIJHHW

1
\

WIHHWHIWWWII

THS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III III I I IIIIIIIIIIII III I

. 29 93 1077860482

THC: - r
I‘ m TI. j*{
'*”I l-Ht‘fi‘

hi. 0 o a”? 3
.~. r no: mo.-
Swan‘s-:1. w-mwiw
'

II 0 o
4. <.» - :n’n luv 1".
' III. a ‘9- “Ci

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

CARBON DIOXIDE EVOLUTION AS A MEARUSE OF
DAMAGE TO FRESH APPLES HANDLED IN
CORRUGATED SHIPPING CONTAINERS

presented by

JAMES MICHAEL BROWN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. s. degreein PACKAGING

 

 

”7'11?” /‘9‘ ’<

Dr. Julian J.L. Lee

Major professor

10/1/85

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

 

LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
Ail-ESIIIL your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
“1*vwxb

“0,37

 

 

 

CARBON DIOXIDE EVOLUTION AS A MEASURE OF DAMAGE TO FRESH
APPLES HANDLED IN CORRUGATED SHIPPING CONTAINERS

by

James Michael Brown

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Packaging

1985

Copyright by
James Michael Brown

1985

ABSTRACT

CARBON DIOXIDE AS A MEASURE OF DAMAGE TO FRESH
APPLES HANDLED IN CORRUGATED SHIPPING CONTAINERS

by

James Michael Brown

An objective, non-destructive method for determining the level of damage
to horticultural commodities would be valuable for evaluating the
peformance of produce shipping containers. Previous research has
indicated that mechanically damaged apples show enhanced C02 output when
compared to non-damaged fruit.1/

Apples (Malus domestica Borkh., cv. 'Empire') were packaged in two types
of corrugated shipping containers. Three forces (impact by dropping,
compression and vibration) with all combinations of packing and forces
were applied to the shipping containers. The apples were removed from
the shipping containers and placed in air-tight plastic buckets where
carbon dioxide evolution was measured 1, 2, 3, II and 5 hours post
treatment. Later, a visible rating of mechanical injury was given to
the apples.

Visible injury scores positively correlated with the C02 evolution of
mechanically damaged apples at 99% confidence limits. The type of
1) force(s) applied, 2) packaging, and 3) fruit position within a
container caused significant differences in 002 output. and visible
injury scores. A method was developed where the change in C02 output of
damaged apples can be measured for determining the protective
characteristics of shipping containers.

 

1/ Klein, J. D. 1983. Physiological causes for changes in carbon
dioxide and ethylene production by bruised apple fruit tissues. Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank J. Lee, my major professor and the other members
on my committee, A. C. Cameron and R. Brandenburg; and, D. H. Dewey, who
provided me with encouragement and support throughout my undergraduate

and graduate programs at Michigan State University.

I would also like to thank: Weyerhaeuser Company, who supported the
completion of my thesis while I was employed in their Shipping Container
Division. Especially, R. S. Ernsberger, Manager of Technology, Shipping
Container Division, and S. K. Kaluzny, Unit. Manager, Statistics and

Applied Math.

Portions of this research were sponsored by American-Israel Binational
Agricultural Research Fund, Project No. I-118-80, administered jointly

by Drs. D. H. Dewey and K. Peleg.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION

LITERATURE REVIEW
Physiological Responses of Injured Fruit
Simulated Transit Testing of Shipping Containers
Impact by Dropping
Vibration
Compression/Load Forces

CARBON DIOXIDE RESPONSE OF APPLES DAMAGED IN
CORRUGATED SHIPPING CONTAINERS
Materials and Methods
Results
Relationship Between CO Output and Injury Scores
Split-Plot Analysis of ariance
Split Plot by Factorial Effects - Main Effects
Split Plot by Factorial Effects - Significant
Two-way Interactions
Split Plot by Factorial Effects - Significant
Three-way Interactions
Split Plot by Treatment Combination
Summary

DISCUSSION
CO Evolution as a Method to Determine the Protective
Characteristics of Shipping Containers

LIST OF REFERENCES

APPENDIX
CO evolution 1, 2, 3, A and 5 hours post treatment
ang injury score ratings of cv. 'Empire' apples
damaged in corrugated shipping containers for each
treatment combination

iv

ix

.—3

QO‘UIU'IUOUJ

10
17
17
17
22

25
39
A8
51
52
56
59

62

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table A

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

LIST OF TABLES

Application of force treatments by
incomplete blocks on K.P. and tray-pack
shipping containers with cv. 'Empire'
apples.

Relationship between CO? production and
injury score rating of Empire' apples
1, 2, 3, A and 5 hours post treatment.

Relationship between CO2 production,
treatment and injury score rating of
'Empire' apples A hours post treatment.

Split plot by factorial effects for
CO2 ut/gm-hr - hour A of cv.

'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated
shipping containers.

Split plot by factorial effects for
injury scores of cv. 'Empire' apples
damaged in corrugated shipping
containers.

Comparison of treatment main effects on
C0 production and injury scores for cv.
'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated
shipping containers.

Treatment comparisons within the drop x
position treatment interaction on GO
production and injury scores for cv.
'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated
shipping containers.

Treatment comparisons within the vibrate x
package type treatment interaction on C02
production and injury scores for cv.
'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated
shipping containers.

18

18

20

21

23

28

32

Table 9

Table 10

Treatment comparisons within the vibrate 35
x position treatment interaction on C02

production and injury scores for cv.

'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated

shipping containers.

Treatment comparisons within the package 38
type K position treatment interaction on

C0 production and injury scores for cv.

'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated

shipping containers.

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Placement of sample fruit in shipping
containers.
Figure 2 The relationship between C02 evolution

and injury scores of 'Empire' apples at
A hours post treatment.

Figure 3 Interaction effect between dropping and
position on CO2 ut/gm-hr evolved from
'Empire' apples measured A hours post
treatment.

Figure A Interaction effect between dropping and
position on injury score of 'Empire' apples.

Figure 5 Interaction effect between vibrating and
package type on CO2 ut/gm-hr evolved from
'Empire' apples measured A hours post

treatment.

Figure 6 Interaction effect between vibrating and
package type on injury score of 'Empire'
apples.

Figure 7 Interaction effect between vibrating and

position on C02 ut/gm-hr evolved from
'Empire' apples measured A hours post
treatment.

Figure 8 Interaction effect between vibrating and
position on injury score of 'Empire' apples.

Figure 9 Interaction effect between package type and
position on C0 ut/gm-hr evolved from 'Empire'
apples measureg A hours post treatment.

Figure 10 Interaction effect between package type and
position on injury score of 'Empire' apples.

vii

Figures 11 and 12

Interaction effect between dropping, vibrating
and compressing on CO2 uE/gm-hr evolved from
'Empire' apples measured A hours post

treatment.

Figures 13 and 1A

Interaction effect between dropping,
compressing and package type on C02 ut/gm-hr
evolved from 'Empire' apples measured A hours

post treatment.

Figures 15 and 16

Interaction effect between dropping,
compressing and package type on injury score

of 'Empire' apples.

Figures 17 and 18

Interaction effect between dropping, package
type and position on C0
'Empire' apples measures

treatment.

Figures 19 and 20

ut/gm-hr evolved from
A hours post

Interaction effect between vibrating, package
type and position on C0
'Empire' apples measure8

Figures 21 and 22

uz/gm.hr evolved from
A hours post treatment.

Interaction effect between vibrating, package
type and position on injury score of 'Empire'

apples.

Figure 23 Mean C02 production of 'Empire' apples A hours
post treatment. Means with the same letter are

not significantly different by Duncan's multiple

range test, 5% level.

Figure 2A Mean injury scores of 'Empire' apples examined
A days after treatment.

Means with the same

A2

A3

AA

A6

A7

A9

50

letter are not significantly different by Duncan's
multiple range, 5% level.

viii

C02
cm
CV

gm

hr
hz

in.

ul or uL

mm or mL

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

carbon dioxide
centimeter
cultivar

ethylene

gram

gravity

hour

hertz

inch

meter

microliters
milliliter

Newton

oxygen

pounds of force
relative humidity
significant at 5% level of probability

significant at 1% level of probability

ix

INTRODUCTION

During distribution, fresh fruit and vegetables are susceptible to
physical damage, causing major post-harvest losses at all levels of
marketing. Produce packaged in shipping containers is likely to
encounter various handling hazards, such as dropping, compressive loads
and vibration inputs. Before the performance of a produce shipping
container can be determined, individual fruit must be inspected and
assigned a subjective rating of physical damage. An objective,
nondestructive method for readily assessing damage would be useful for
evaluating the effects of transit forces on fresh produce packaged in
shipping containers.

Many horticultural crops respond to injury by changes in carbon
dioxide output. Work by Klein (15) and unpublished results by Dewey and
Parker” have suggested that the increased carbon dioxide output of
damaged apples, tomatoes and oranges is related to the level of visible
bruising on these crops. A method by which this change in carbon
dioxide production could be captured and measured after damage to fruits

might provide an objective, rapid index of injury.

 

1/ D. H. Dewey, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus and Michael L. Parker,
Graduate Student, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI A882A.

2

Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is fourfold: 1) to determine
how the change in CO2 output of bruised apples correlates to a
subjective rating of visible damage, 2) to examine the effects of
various simulated transit inputs (impact by dropping, vibration,
compression and combinations thereof) and fruit position within a
container on CO2 output and visual injury scores of apples, 3) determine
whether the change in carbon dioxide evolution of apples can be used to
evaluate the protective characteristics of shipping containers, A) to
provide a method by which the change in CO2 output of apples after
damage can be measured and utilized as an objective method for

determining the protective characteristics of shipping containers.

LITERATURE REVIEW

PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF INJURED FRUITS

Many studies have focused on the enhanced C02 or ethylene production
of crops after mechanical damage. Tomato (1,15,17,21,22), apple (22),
banana (19), cantaloupe (20), cherry (26) and «citrus (6,1A,31) show
enhanced CO2 output following injuryu .Similarly, enhanced ethylene
following injury has been observed in apple (5,22,27), avocado (33),
cantaloupe (20), citrus (36) and tomato (17,22).

MacLeod et a1. (17) reported higher levels of CO2 production within
2A hours for tomatoes after bruising by impact. Additionally, an
increase in the number of drops correlated with higher levels of C02 and
ethylene production. Six days after damage, increased CO2 production
could not be detected.

Nakamura and Ito (21,22) found an increase in respiration rate of
tomato fruit after vibration. The increase in respiration was observed
after vibrating fruit at 1 and 2 g at specified durations from 30
minutes to 5 hours. When vibration times were short, there was a
proportional increase in CO2 production with respect to the acceleration
level.

Other studies have shown that harder surfaces, higher compressive
loads and higher vibration accelerations increased the production of C02

in citrus (6). Vines et a1. (36) reported higher respiration rates and

u
ethylene levels in grapefruit after fruit was dropped from a height of A
and 6 feet onto a hard surface. The grapefruit returned to normal
respiration rates with time. They concluded that C2Hu after damage was
a stress symptom and not a normal metabolic product in citrus.

Information regarding the biochemical changes that take place in
damaged fruit is limited. Many studies refer to the increase in C02
production of bruised fruit as enhanced respiratory activity. Pollack
and Hills (27) observed that following bruising of red tart cherries,
"the increase in carbon dioxide output greatly exceeded the increase in
oxygen utilization". Oxygen consumption increased 50%, while CO2 output
increased 126%. Hyodo et al. (1A) observed almost twice the C02 output
as compared to 02 uptake during the first 5 hours post-treatment after
Satsuma mandarin fruit were dropped. Later 02 uptake and C02 evolution
were similar. Robitaille and Janick (28) suggested that an increase in
C02 production after bruising of apples was not the result of increased
respiration.

Klein (15) demonstrated that excess C02 after dropping apple fruit
"came exclusively from the bruised tissue." He found cortical tissues
.5 cm below the epidermis produced 77 ut/g-hr at the bruise site and
35 ut/g-hr-1 at the control site on the fruit. Additionally, excised
bruised tissues displayed a greater response to damage than whole
fruit. Klein concluded that "the increase in 002 evolution from apples
after bruising is not due to enhanced aerobic or anaerobic respiratory
activity, but rather due to decarboxylation of malic acid in cortical
tissues at the bruise site," but gave litle evidence for this statement.

Whatever the cause of increased CO2 evolution of damaged fruit is,

the preceding studies have shown that enhanced C02 output occurred from

5
damaged fruits when compared to nondamaged fruits, and increasing the
level of damage by increasing the impact force, number of impacts, and
the duration or magnitude of vibration resulted in a proportionally

increased C02 evolution in these fruits.

SIMULATED TRANSIT TESTING OF SHIPPING CONTAINERS

A simulated transportation environment can be designed in one of two
ways: 1) to record transit vibrations and reproduce them with a servo
hydraulic vibrator, or 2) to reproduce the damage observed in the
transportation environment by trial and error with arbitrarily chosen
impacts and vibrations (8,10). A knowledge of the transportation
environment is necessary to develop meaningful tests; however, no one
simulated transit test can be used to determine the performance of a
container (12,13,37). The design of tests to simulate the
transportation environment and to subsequently reproduce the damage in
the laboratory basically consists of three types of forces: impact by

dropping, vibration and compression.

IMPACT BY DROPPING

Ostrem and Godshall (25) have indicated that impact damage caused by
dropping is affected by the size, weight, contents and shape of the
container. During distribution, container bottoms will receive 70% of
all drops; the remaining 30% of drops will occur on container sides,
edges or tops (25). Edge and corner drops occur from greater heights
than flat drops. Most containers will be dropped at low levels numerous
times, and will experience few drops from high levels. There is a

direct correlation between drop height, weight and the size of a

6
container; the heavier and larger the package, the lower the drop
height. Palletized loads experience lower and fewer drops than
nonpalletized loads.

Many studies have focused on predicting the level of injury to crops
within packages with mathematical expressions after impact
(12,31,3A,35). These mathematical expressions are capable of predicting
the level of damaged fruit based on drop height, number of drops, fruit
variety and package type. However, in addition to drops, produce
containers experience compressive loads and vibration inputs; therefore,
these equations fall short of predicting how a particular package system
would provide protection from all the hazards experienced in a
transportation environment.

Guillou et al. (10) recommends using 50 two-inch flat drops in the
laboratory to simulate impact damage to produce containers. Schoorl
(30) dropped apple packs from heights of 6" and 12" (1, 3, 9 and
27 times), 18" (1, 3 and 9 times), 2A" (1 and 3 times) and A8"
(1 time). American Society for Testing Materials D-A169, Performance
Testing of Shipping Containers and Systems (3), suggests A drops on each
base edge of the container from a height of 3", 6" or 9" (depending on
the assurance level chosen) to simulate damage to a palletized

truckload.

VIBRATION

Frequencies encountered in the transportation are primarily below
25 Hertz, with 3-15 Hertz being most prevalent (7,9). Vibration inputs
are usually from .2 to .8 g at 3 to 10 Hertz for rail transportation and

from .1 to .8 g at 3 to 20 Hertz for trucks (7). In a study of the

7
causes of fruit damage on transport trucks, it was shown that
frequencies can range from 3 to 20 Hertz with accelerations less than
.1 g to slightly higher than 1 g (2A).

According to O'Brien (23), the vibration of fruit within containers
depends on: 1) the depth of the container, 2) the tightness of fill,
3) type of suspension system used in the truck, A) the magnitude of
force exerted to the truck from the roadbed, 5) the vibrating
characteristics of the fruit species. Fruit in the upper layers of
containers experience greater injury (9,2A) since this fruit receives
higher levels of acceleration during distribution.

Guillou reported that a test of 12 Hertz at 1g for 30 minutes
satisfactorily reproduced damage in the laboratory to produce in
shipping containers (10). ASTM D-A169 (3) recommends testing packages
from 5-15 minutes (depending on assurance level chosen) at the resonant
frequency of the package system at .5 g to simulate truck transport and
.25 g to simulate railroad transport at each possible shipping position

of the container, up to four positions.

COMPRESSION/LOAD FORCES

Fruits within containers are subject to compression bruises when a
corrugated shipping container collapses and the fruit is required to
carry the weight from other containers (29). Shipping containers are
usually tested empty under standard conditions of 23°C and 50% R.H. at
deformation rate of 1/2" per minute (2). Ultimately, the load a
container can support in the distribution environment is dependent on
several factors: moisture content of the board, the way the load is

applied, length and rate at which the load is applied, previous handling

8
of the package (29), length of time in storage, vibration during
transport and stacking pattern (2). Additionally, the failure of
containers in storage is primarily related to the creep characteristics
of the material (8).

The reacthma of a stacked load to vibration can produce forces to
lower container's useful strength more than the dead-load weight of a
stack. Therefore, Godshall (7) recommends utilizing a single container
to represent the bottom container with a dead-load mass on top to
represent the other containers in a stack. Godshall simulated vertical
dynamic loading with dead loads from 10 to 70% of the compressive
strength of the container and applied acceleration inputs from .2 to
.8 g at increments of .1 g with frequencies of A, 6, 8 and 10 Hertz for
1-1/2 hours. With these vibration inputs, it was determined that
containers could be loaded to 70% of their compressive strength and
survive the effects of vertical dynamic loading experienced during
distribution.

ASTM D-A169 (3) recommends loading containers utilizing the

following equation to simulate loads during transport and storage.

 

L=w(I(I;lI)‘)xF
where:
L = minimum required load, lbf or N
W = weight of one shipping unit or individual container, lbf or N
h = height of shipping unit or individual container, in or m
F = a factor to account for the combined effect of the individual

factors described above

9
Balodis (A) suggested the following schedule for compression testing
produce containers to simulate the storage environment: two weeks in a
cool store with each pack under a A00-lb. load; two days in a
conditioned room under 300 1b.; five days in a cool store under a
300-lb. load; and one day in a conditioned room under a 200-1b. load.
The conditioned rooms could be set at 20°C and 65% RH for moderate

testing or 30°C and 85% RH to simulate tropical markets.

CARBON DIOXIDE RESPONSE OF APPLES DAMAGED
IN CORRUGATED SHIPPING CONTAINERS

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

Apples (Malus domestica Borkh., cv. 'Empire') without apparent
bruises and defects and relatively uniform in size (2 3/A" in diameter)
were taken out of controlled atmosphere storage from the upper layers of
fruit orchard bins during April of 198A. The apples were placed in foam
trays and corrugated shipping containers and stored under refrigeration
at 0°C for later use.

Twenty-four hours before conducting each block, fruits were removed
from cold storage and repacked into the test containers. This allowed
sufficient time for the apples to equilibrate to test temperature and
for the possible handling effect of increased C02 output to subside
before testing.

Apples in one-bushel boxes having internal dimensions of 19 3/A" x
11 1/2" x 12" were subjected to various drop, vibration and compressive
inputs. After treatment, entire apple boxes were placed in airtight
containers having internal dimensions of 20 1/A" x 13 5/8" x 12 3/A".
The airtight containers had sampling ports on diagonally opposite sides
where gas measurements were taken hourly. There was no significant
difference between damaged and nondamaged fruit C02 responses. It was

hypothesized that the C02 response of the damaged fruit was not detected

10

11
because the C02 within the airtight containers was diluted since all the
fruit within the corrugated boxes was not damaged“ 'Therefore, an
alternate method where individual sample fruits from damaged corrugated
boxes were placed in small airtight buckets was used in this study, and
is discussed below.

Before placing the sample fruit in the shipping containers to be
tested, they were labeled individually with a permanent ink marker. A
total of 60 fruits, 20 for the top, middle and lower layers of the test
containers, was labeled (see Figure 1). There were 5 layers of fruit in
each container, 125 apples per container. Carbon dioxide response and
visible injury scores were taken only from fruit in the top, middle and
bottom layers. Sixteen shipping containers was prepared for one
replication, and three forces were applied to two types of containers:
drop, compression and vibration, with all combinations of packages and
forces applied. In total, four replications were run.

Two package types were tested, both of full telescope half-slotted
design: 1) tray-pack having internal dimensions of 19-3/A" x 11-1/2" x
12", the top and bottom corrugated combined board were of A2/33/A2 and
69/33/69 construction, respectively; and 2) one-bushel boxes having
internal dimensions of 19-7/16" x 11-5/8" x 10-1/A", the top and bottom
corrugated combined board were of A2/26/A2 and 69/26/69 construction,
respectively. The numbers that describe the construction of the
corrugated board refer to the weight of the liners and medium in pounds
per 1000 square feet. Containers without fruit were allowed to
condition at approximately 50% R.H. and 20°C for one week prior to being

tested.

12

 

Placement of Sample Fruit Within Shipping Containers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Placement of sample fruit in shipping containers.

13

The compressive strength of the two types of containers was determined
in accordance with ASTM D-6A2 (2), Compression Test For Shipping
Containers. The pulp spring cushion trays used in the tray packs were
capable of holding 25 fruit each, for a total of 125 fruit per
container. The one-bushel boxes were hand pattern packed using a pulp
tray in the bottom to aid in producing the pattern of successive layers
of fruit by the K.P. system (26).

The lengthy period of time required to apply the treatments
prevented all 16 treatment combinations and replications from being
performed on the same day. Therefore, the treatments were split into
two blocks (see Table 1).

Since the 16 treatment combinations were split into two blocks, the
Drop x Vibrate x Compression x Package (tray) interaction was confounded
due to incomplete blocks by day. Four variables were studied: drop,
vibrate, compression and package type each having two levels. With time
all 16 treatment combinations (2A = 16) were replicated A times.
Additionally, each container was sampled at 6 positions within each
container. Therefore, the experimental design was a split plot with
main plot treatments represented by the 2" factorial and subplot
treatments by position.

Force treatments were applied first by dropping followed by
vibration and then compressing. Drops were performed with an MTS (MTS
Systems Co., Minneapolis, MN) shock machine which had a guided table and
a 2 ms impact programmer to produce a repeatable shock which was
transmitted to the package on the table.. Dropping consisted of two
25 cm flat drops. To ensure reproducibility, containers were securely

fastened to the table.

1A

Table 1. Application of force treatments by incomplete blocks on K.P.
and tray-pack shipping containers with cv. 'Empire' apples.

Time 1

Treatment

mfimm-EWN-b

Time 2

Treatment

9
1O
11
12
13
1A
15
16

Type of Force

 

None
Compress

Vibrate

Vibrate x Compress
Drop
Drop
Drop
Drop

X

Compress
Vibrate
Vibrate x Compress

KN

Drop

Drop x Compress

Drop Vibrate

Drop x Vibrate x Compress
None

Compress

Vibrate

Vibrate x Compress

X

Package Type

 

K.P.
Tray
Tray
K.P.
Tray
K.P.
Tray
Tray

K.P.
Tray
Tray
K.P.
Tray
K.P.
K.P.
Tray

(confounded)

15

Compression testing was performed with a Baldwin-Emery compression
tester. The load was applied in accordance with ASTM D-6A2 (2) with a
continuous motion of .5 + .1 in./min. to 1600 lbs.

Vibration testing was performed on a MTS servo hydraulic vibration
table. Shipping containers were securely fastened to the table with two
3/8" steel rods which screwed into the table and a 1" x 1" piece of
wood. Vibration testing consisted of brining the table up sinusoidally
from 3 Hertz to 9.5 Hertz at a constant g level of .8 g and maintaining
the vibration level at .8 g and 9.5 Hz for 30 minutes. All simulated
transit testing was performed at 50% R.H. and 23°C.

After the treatments had been applied, fruit samples were removed
from the packages and placed in plastic 6000 m2 buckets. Ten fruit were
placed in each bucket, equaling two buckets per layer and six buckets
per corrugated container. The lids for the buckets were modified with
two 1/A" holes where gas samples could be taken at 1, 2, 3, A and
5 hours post treatment. The tubs were closed and sealed with airtight
lids in the same order and time sequence at which C02 samples were
obtained. The gas samples were taken with an ADC (Analytical
Development Company) analyzer utilizing an infrared detector with a
built in recirculating pump and digital percentage readout. Gas samples
were taken by inserting the two needles of the analyzer through the lid
holes covered with gas-proof tape. Fifteen to 20 seconds were required
to obtain a stable C02 reading. After each reading, a fresh piece of
tape was immediately placed over the holes to prevent the escape of the
atmosphere from the bucket.

After the fifth-hour reading, lids were removed from each bucket and

the fruit was weighed. The apples were then held A days at 20°C and

16

rated for visible damage. A rating system of from 1 to 5 was
utilized: 1 = no damage; 2 = slight but noticeable; 3 = moderate,
affects marketing; A = severe, reduces value; 5 = very severe,
unmarketable.

The microliters of C02 evolved per gram of fruit per hour were
calculated as follows:

(C02)(.01)(Avolume)
(fruit weight)(time)

 

C02 (pi/gm-hr) :

C02 : reading from analyzer
Avolume : gross volume of containers (m2) - fruit weight (grams)

time = length of time the tubs were sealed (hourly reading)

17

RESULTS

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 ut/gm-hr AND INJURY SCORES 0F 'EMPIRE' APPLES

The highly significant positive correlation of CO2 evolution of the
apples at the fourth hour following treatment to the subsequently
measured injury scores is shown in Figure 2. These Ath-hour C02
readings yielded the highest r-square value to the injury scores and the
1st-hour readings the lowest (Table 2). Therefore, only the Ath-hour
C02 readings are presented in the results and discussion sections of the
text. The CO2 reading for all other hours (1, 2, 3 and 5) are tabulated
in the appendix.

Each variable tested (drop, compress, vibrate, package type: and
position) correlated at 99% confidence limits with the visual injury
scores of the apples. However, r-square values varied from a high of
.6039 for Position F to a low of .2801 for dropping (Table 3); the

overall r-square value for the Ath-hour reading was .A568.

SPLIT-PLOT ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

The data were analyzed two ways: 1) as a split plot by factorial
effects where all 6 variables were included (drop, vibrate, compress,
package type, position and replication (blocks) - see Tables A and 5),
and 2) as a split plot by treatment combination where 16 treatments
(2 drop x 2 vibrate x 2 compress x 2 package type = 16) with the C02
output and injury scores for the 6 positions within each container

grouped together as one mean.

18

Table 2. Relationship between CO production and injury score rating of
'Empire' apples at 1, 2, 3, A and 5 hours post treatment

 

Hour r-sguare F
1 .3335 191.18**
2 .11521 315.23"
3 .AA72 309.02**
A .A568 321.22**
5 .A528 316.06**

Table 3. Relationship between C02 production, treatment and injury score
rating of 'Empire' apples A hours post treatment

 

Treatment r-s uare F
Drop .2801 73.93““
Vibrate .A6A8 16A.98**
Compress .3957 12A.39**
Package Type .SAAO 226.66**
Position -

A .5611 79.28**
B .AO99 A3.07**
C .3735 36.96"
D .3AA8 32.63””
E .5903 89.32**
F .6039 9A.5A**

19

.u

or...

18

a 4
1 1

.£.eee:a§sosxho

12

10

‘05

4.0

2.0

1.5

1.0

Injury Score

evolution and injury scores of

Eat.

The relationship between CO

'Empire' apples at A hours post treatme

Figure 2.

20

Table A. Split plot by factorial effects for CO2 ut/gm-hr - hour A of
cv. 'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated shipping containers

 

Source DE Anova SS F Value PR>F
BLOCK 3 27.21 2.19 .1019
TREATMENT 15 390.97 6.30 .0001**
DROP 1 102.61 2A.81 .0001**
VIBRATE 1 151.28 36.58 .0001**
COMPRESS 1 10.25 2.A8 .122A
PACKAGE 1 2.22 0.5A .A672
DROPxVIBRATE 1 A.17 1.01 .3208
DROPxCOMPRESS 1 8.A0 2.03 .1609
DROPxPACKAGE 1 0.A9 0.12 .7322
VIBRATExCOMPRESS 1 A.A9 1.09 .3030
VIBRATExPACKAGE 1 36.90 8.92 .00A5"
COMPRESSxPACKAGE 1 13.9A 3.37 .0730
DROPxVIBRATExCOMPRESS 1 23.00 5.56 .0228“
DROPxVIBRATExPACKAGE 1 0.72 0.17 .6786
DROPxCOMPRESSxPACKAGE 1 22.3A 5.A0 .02A7*
VIBRATExCOMPRESSxPACKAGE 1 A.36 1.05 .3102
DROPxVIBRATExCOMPRESSxPACKAGE 1 5.80 1.A0 .2A2A
BLOCKxTREATMENT (Error 1) A5 186.08 A.A3 .0001**
'POSITION 5 55.00 11.77 .0001**
DROPxPOSITION 5 53.0A 11.35 .OOO1**
VIBRATExPOSITION 5 112.87 2A.16 .0001**
COMPRESSxPOSITION 5 6.37 1.36 .2A01
PACKAGExPOSITION 5 78.7A 16.85 .0001**
DROPxVIBRATExPOSITION 5 7.73 1.65 .1A75
DROPxCOMPxPOSITION 5 A.81 1.03 .A005
DROPxPACKAGExPOSITION 5 30.19 6.A6 .0001**
VIBRATExPACKAGExPOSITION 5 A.3O 0.92 .A686
VIBRATExPACKAGExPOSITION 5 79.66 17.05 .0001**
COMPRESSxPACKAGExPOSITION 5 8.81 1.89 .0967
DROPxVIBRATExCOMPRESSxPOSITION 5 3.76 0.80 .5506
DROPxVIBRATExPACKAGExPOSITION 5 0.50 0.11 .9900
DROPxCOMPRESSxPACKAGExPOSITION 5 A.72 1.01 .A12A
VIBRATExCOMPRESSxPACKAGExPOSITION 5 8.25 1.77 .1197
DROPxVIBRATExCOMPRxPACKxPOSITION 5 5.68 1.22 .3003
(Error 2) 250 22A.2A
TOTAL 383

0A

21

 

Table 5. Split plot by factorial effects for injury scores of cv.
'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated shipping containers
Source DE Anova SS F Value PR>F
BLOCK 3 1.17 1.A3 .2A56
TREATMENT _ 15 276.3A 151.63 .0001**
DROP 1 161.20 591.23 .0001**
VIBRATE 1 AA.15 161.91 .0001**
COMPRESS 1 10.21 37.A3 .0001**
PACKAGE 1 17.68 6A.85 .0001**
DROPxVIBRATE 1 1.58 5.78 .020A*
DROPxCOMPRESS I 1 A.A6 16.37 .0002**
DROPxPACKAGE 1 7.26 26.63 .0001**
VIBRATExCOMPRESS 1 0.92 3.38 .0728
VIBRATExPACKAGE 1 1A.81 5A.30 .0001**
COMPRESSxPACKAGE 1 8.A6 31.03 .0001**
DROPxVIBRATExCOMPRESS 1 1.0A 3.82 .0569
DROPxVIBRATExPACKAGE 1 0.08 0.28 .6003
DROPxCOMPRESSxPACKAGE 1 A.13 15.13 .0003**
VIBRATExCOMPRESSxPACKAGE 1 0.09 0.3A .5605
DROPxVIBRATExCOMPRESSxPACKAGE 1 0.28 1.03 .31A9
BLOCKxTREATMENT (Error 1) A5 12.27 2.2A .0001**
POSITION 5 2.07 3.A0 .0056**
DROPxPOSITION 5 A2.33 69.68 .0001**
VIBRATExPOSITION 5 33.A9 55.12 .0001**
COMPRESSxPOSITION 5 1.52 2.50 .031A*
PACKAGExPOSITION 5 18.29 30.11 .0001**
DROPxVIBRATExPOSITION 5 0.72 1.19 .31A7
DROPxCOMPxPOSITION 5 1.A0 2.30 .0A57
DROPxPACKAGExPOSITION 5 0.6A 1.05 .3890
VIBRATExPACKAGExPOSITION 5 1.61 2.65 .0236”
VIBRATExPACKAGExPOSITION 5 23.9A 39.A1 .0001**
COMPRESSxPACKAGExPOSITION 5 2.12 3.A9 .00A6
DROPxVIBRATExCOMPRESSxPOSITION 5 0.93 1.53 .1811
DROPxVIBRATExPACKAGExPOSITION 5 0.A6 0.76 .579A
DROPxCOMPRESSxPACKAGExPOSITION 5 0.37 0.61 .6923
VIBRATExCOMPRESSxPACKAGExPOSITION 5 0.31 0.51 .7686
DROPxVIBRATExCOMPRxPACKxPOSITION 5 0 1A 0.23 .9A92
(Error 2) 239 29.16
TOTAL 383 I.

22
Split Plot by Factorial Effects - Main Effects
The variables drop, vibrate and position had a statistically
significant effect on CO2 evolution, Table 6. Vibration had the
greatest effect on 002 ut/gm-hr, followed by position, dropping,
compression and package type, respectively. Dropping had the greatest
effect on injury scores, followed by vibration, package type,

compression, and position, respectively.

Dropping ,

Dropping containers significantly enhanced 002. evolution by
1.03 uz/gm-hr and injury scores by 1.30 units compared to not
dropping containers. The significant increase in CO2 evolution for
dropped fruit amounted to 9% over that of fruit which was not
dropped but otherwise exposed to all other treatments; the increase

in visible damage was 61%.

Vibrating

Vibrating containers significantly enhanced C02 evolution by
1.26 ut/gm-hr and injury scores by .68 unit compared to not
vibrating containers. The significant increase in CO2 evolution for
vibrated fruit amounted to 10% over that of fruit which was not
vibrated but otherwise exposed to all other treatments; the increase

in visible damage was 28%.

23

Table 6. Comparison of treatment main effects on C02 production and
injury scores for cv. 'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated
shipping containers

 

Treatment C02 Evolution Injury Score
(Variable) N ut/gm~hr Rating
Duncan Duncan
Mean Grouping Mean Grouping
Dropping (+) 192 13.17 A 3.AA A
(-) 192 12.13 B 2.1A B
Vibrating (+) 192 13.28 A 3.13 A
(-) 192 12.02 B 2.A5 B
Compressing (+) 192 12.81 A 2.95 A
- 192 12.A9 A 2.62 B
Package Type (tray) 192 12.73 A 3.00 A
(K.P.) 192 12.57 A 2.57 B
Position:
Top Layer a 6A 12.A2 C 2.79 ABC
6 6A 12.51 C 2.85 A
Middle Layer c 6A 12.29 C 2.71 BC
d 6A 12.37 C 2.81 AB
Bottom Layer e 6A 12.95 B 2.68 C
f 6A 13.35 A 2.88 A

Means with the same letter are

not significantly different at a=.05.

2A

Compressing

 

Compressed containers did not significantly enhance C02
evolution of the apples; however, injury scores were significantly
increased .33 unit compared to non-compressed containers. The
increase in CO2 evolution for compressed fruit amounted to 3% over
that fruit which was not compressed but otherwise exposed to all

other treatments; the increase in visible damage was 13%.

Package Type

 

C02 evolution was higher for apples in the K.P. container;
however, there was no significant difference between the two types
of containers tested. Injury scores were significantly higher by

.A3 unit for apples in the K.P. container.

Position

The position of apples in a package had a significant effect on
their C02 output and injury scores. Positions E and F in the top
layer yielded significantly higher C02 values than one another and
positions A, B, C and D, while positions A, B, C and D were not
significantly different from one another with respect to 002
output. Positions A, B, D and F did not produce significantly
different injury scores than each other, but damage to apples in
these positions was significantly higher than in positions C (middle

layer) and E (top layer).

25
Split Plot by Factorial Effect - Significant Two-waygInteractions
The highly statistically significant interactions of Drop x
Position, Vibrate x Package, Vibrate x Position, and Package x Position
on CO2 uA/gm-hr and injury scores are presented in Figures 3 through
10. Additionally, Drop x Vibrate, Drop x Compress, Drop x Package,
Compress x Package and Compress x Position were significant treatment

interactions for injury scores but not 002 evolution.

Drop x Position (Figures 3 and A and Table 7)

When containers were not dropped, C02 evolution was the lowest
for positions A and B (bottom layer) followed by positions C, D, E
and F, see Figure 3. Injury scores for non-dropped containers
followed a similar trend, see Figure A and Table 7. When containers
were dropped, position D (middle layer) had the lowest C02 output,
followed by positions C, E, A, B and F - fruit in the middle of the
container had the lowest CO2 output.

Apples in positions A, B, C and D when dropped had a higher 002
output when compared to non-dropped apples. Carbon dioxide
evolution for positions E and F, both located in the upper layer of
the containers, were least affected by dropping. Injury scores for
fruit in dropped containers were the highest for apples in the
bottom of containers, followed by those in the middle and top,
respectively. Injury scores for all of the positions were
significantly affected by dropping except positions E and F (top
layer). Therefore, when containers were dropped, apples located
near the bottom of the containers were injured most, and apples

located near the top, the least.

26

DROP x POSITION

Carbon Dioxide (uL/gm-hr)
17 —

16—

14—

13—

 

E 12.93

 

 

12 b D 11.91
c 11.65
a 11.61
A 11.43

11 I—

10 A I I

 

(+) (-1
Drop

Figure 3. Interaction effect between dropping and position on CO2
ut/gm-hr evolved from 'Empire' apples measured A hours post treatment.

27

DROP x POSITION
Injury Score
5.0 P

4.5 —

4.0 r-

3.5 ’3247 c

 

 

3.04 F
3-0 ’29s E
r 2.73
2.5 —
E 2.41
o 2.11
2.0 — a 1.95
c 1.94
A 1.70
1.5 —
1.0 _ I I

 

(+) H
Drop

Figure A. Interaction effect between dropping and position on injury
score of 'Empire' apples.

28

Table 7 Treatment comparisons within the drop x position treatment

(d’,
(d',
(d',
(d',
(d',
(d’,

interaction on C0 production and injury scores for cv.

'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated shipping containers.

Treatment Comparison

positionA)
position )
position )
positionD)
position )
position )

V8
V8
V3
VS
VS
VS

positionA)
position )
position )
position )
positions)
position )

 

Mean Mean
Diff. Diff.
€02 ut/ Injury
ggmohr F Score
1.98 3.89“” 1.82
1.80 3.5A** 1.80
1.29 2.5A** 1.53
.92 1.81”“ 1.A1
.05 0.10 .5A
.15 .30 .31

__1?__

13.9u**
13.79**
11.72**
1o.80**
n.1u
2.37

29
Vibrate x Package Type (Figures 5 and 6 and Table 8)

Vibration increased C02 output in the tray containers by 1.87
ut/gm-hr (16%) and injury scores by 1.07 units (52%). Vibrating
K.P. containers increased C02 output by .63 ut/gmohr (5%) and injury
scores by .28 unit (10%). When containers were not vibrated, the
K.P. container had a higher C02 and injury score reading; however,
when containers were vibrated, the tray-pack container had a higher
C02 output and a similar injury score reading when compared to the
K.P. container. Therefore, the effect of vibrating was greater for

tray-pack containers than for K.P. containers.

Vibrate x Position (Figures 7 and 8 and Table 9)

Vibration resulted in the highest CO2 output and injury scores
in the top layer of the shipping containers, positions E and F.
Vibration caused no significant effect on C02 output or injury
scores for fruit in positions A and B, located in the bottom layer
of the containers but did significantly increase C02 evolution for
apples located in the top (positions E and F). Non-vibrated
containers displayed higher C02 output and injury scores for fruit

located toward the bottom and middle of the containers.

Package Type x Position (Figures 9 and 10 and Table 10)
Positions E and F (top layer) in the tray-pack container had
the highest C02 output, while positions A and B (bottom layer) had

the highest C02 output for the K.P. container.

30

VIBRATE x PACKAGE

Carbon Dioxide (AL/gm-hr)

17 —
Package
‘6 T — K.P.
IO...- Tfay
15 '-
14 ~
13.51 ..
13 _ 13.04 \
12.41
12 F- .0”...
””1154
11 _

 

10“ I J

 

(+) , (-)
Vibrate

Figure 5. Interaction effect between vibrating and package type on C02
ut/gm-hr evolved from 'Empire' apples measured A hours post treatment.

31

 

 

VIBRATE x PACKAGE
Injury Score
5.0 7'
Package
4.5 — —— K.P.
moo-m Tray
4.0 L-
3.5 ‘-
3.14
3.0 _ 3.11 ’9‘...
’0... 2.86
2.5 -- ....o..
2.0 - 2.04
1.5 —
1.0 _. I J
(+) (--I
Vibrate

Figure 6. Interaction effect between vibrating and package type on
injury score of 'Empire' apples.

32

Table 8. Treatment comparisons within the vibrate x package type
treatment interaction on CO2 production and injury scores

for cv. 'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated shipping

containers.

Treatment Comparison

(v‘,
(v',
(v’,
(V',
(V',
(VI,

'U'U'U'U'U'U

tray + tray
tray; 3: I: ’ 3K.P.;
tray) vs (v': pK.P.)
K.P.) VS (V+, ptray)
K.P. VS (V+, pK.P.)
tray) vs (v+, pK.P.)

Mean

Diff.

1.87
1.A

0.77
1.10
0.63
0.A7

gmohr

6.37!“
A.77”
2.62
3.75
2.15
1.60

Mean

Diff.
Injury
Score

1.07
1.10
0.82
0.25
0.28
0.03

F

1A.20**

1A.60**

10.88**
3.32
3.72
.A0

33

VIBRATE x POSITION

Carbon Dioxide (uL/gm-hr)

 

17 .—
15 —
15 —
14.61 F.
\
14.26 E‘
14 I— \
‘3 5 19.1.2.
12360 c
12.59 6‘” a 12.43
8 13119
12 _ 'c 11299
1: 11.90
E 11.64
11 —

 

10 | J l
(+) . i-I
Vibrate

 

Figure 7. Interaction effect between vibrating and position on CO2
ut/gm-hr evolved from 'Empire' apples measured A hours after treatment.

3A

VIBRATE x POSITION

Injury Score

51) r-

4.5 I...

4.0 —

3.5

3.0

2.5

 

2.0

1.5 —

 

1.0 .. I I

(+) I-)
Vibrate

 

Figure 8. Interaction effect between vibrating and position on injury
score of 'Empire' apples.

35

Table 9. Treatment comparisons within the vibrate x position treatment
interaction on CO2 production and injury scores for cv.
'Empire' apples damaged in corrugated shipping containers.

Treatment Comparison

(v , positionA) vs
(v', positionB) vs
(v’, position ) vs
(v‘, position ) vs
(v‘, position ) vs

(v , position ) vs

positionA)
positionB)
position )
position )
position )
position )

Mean
Diff.
C02 ul/
gm-hr

.52
.16
.61
.71
2.62
2.91

1.02
.31
1.20
1.AO
5.15”
5.72”

 

Mean

Diff.

Injury

Score F
.12 .92
.01 .08
.55 A.21*
AA 3.37

1:A8 11.341!
1.47 11.26““

36

PACKAGE x POSITION

Carbon Dioxide (uL/gm-hr)

 

 

 

17 -
16 —
15 -
14 —
12.
13 e- 12.36
12.87
12.81
12.47
12.40
12 P’
11 —
10 I l I
K.P. Tray
Package

Figure 9. Interaction effect between package type and position on 002
ut/gm-hr evolved from 'Empire' apples measured A hours after treatment.

37

 

 

 

PACKAGE x POSITION
Injury Score
EEO F‘
4J5 L—
4!) -
:35 ‘-
3.33 o ..
3.21 a \\.
.03 A \
3.0 — 3.02 c m -- F 291
.‘o 2‘ /
2.80 F ___.——-“‘ 0.... E 2 74
2.62 E .2 -: '
5
2.5 — ‘bfi 224519
.«c 2.39
‘o 2.30
21) -
‘L5 .—
‘LO __ I I
K.P. Tray
Ihmkage

Figure 10. Interaction effect between package type and position on
injury score of 'Empire' apples.

38

 

 

 

Table 10 Treatment comparisons within the package type x
position treatment interaction on C0 production
and injury scores for cv. 'Empire' apples damaged
in corrugated shipping containers.
Mean Mean
Diff. Diff.
C02 92/ Injury
Treatment Comparison gm-hr F Score F
(pK'P , pos.A) vs (ptray, pos.A) 0.99 1.95 0.A8 3.68
(pK°P , pos.B) vs (ptray’ pos.B) 0.78 1.53 0.72 5.52*
(pK'P', pos.C) vs (ptray’ pos.C) 0.35 0.69 0.63 A.83*
(pK'P', pos.D) vs (ptray, pos.D) 1.0 1.97 1.03 7.89**
(pK'P , pos.E) vs (ptray, pos.E) 1.1 2.16 .12 .92
(pK'P , pos.F) vs (ptray’ pos.F) 1.08 2.12 .17 1.30

39

Split Plot by Factorial Effects - Significant Three-way Interactions

The Drop x Compress x Package and the Vibrate x Package x Position
three-way interactions were significant for CO2 evolution and injury
scores, while the Drop x Vibrate x Compress and the Drop x Package x
Position three-way interactions were significant for C02 evolution but
not for injury scores; and the Vibrate x Compress x Position and the
Compress x Package x Position were signficant for injury scores but not

for CO2 evolution.

Drop x Vibrate x Compress.(Figures 11-12)

The effect of vibrating on fruit C02 output when containers
were not dropped or compressed was to increase C02 by 2.17 ut/gm~hr
(20%) and to increase injury scores 1.01 units (7A%). The effect of
vibrating containers that were compressed and dropped was to
increase C02 1.32 (11%) ut/gm-hr and injury scores .56 unit (17%).
The effect of dropping on C02 output when containers were not
vibrated or compressed was to increase C02 by 2.02 ut/gmohr (19%)
and injury scores by 1.75 units (129%). The effect of dropping when
containers were vibrated and compressed was to increase C02 1.02
ut/gm-hr (8%) and injury scores by 1.06 units (39%). The effect of
compressing when containers were not dropped or vibrated was to
increase 002 1.33 ut/gm-hr (12%) and injury scores .75 unit (55%).
The effect of compressing when containers were dropped and vibrated
was to increase CO2 by .30 ut/gmohr (2%) and injury scores .12 unit
(3%). Containers dropped, not vibrated and not compressed had .2A
higher CO2 ut/gmohr (2%) than containers dropped, not vibrated and

compressed.

A0

DROP x VIBRATE x COMPRESS
Drop (-I

“but! 0601““ (AL/9min)

17

10

15

14

12

11

10

Figures 11 and 12.
compressing on C0

—

 

— (+)

_.... (-1

12.91

12a:
\\
\ 1297

\
\
\
\
\

\ 10.74

 

(+) H
Vibrate

A hours post treatment.

DROP x VIBRATE x commas:
Drop (+)

Carbon Dioxih (uL/lm-hr)

17

10

15

14

13

12

11

10

I

 

'Empire'

_ (+)

--o ‘-)

 

It) I-)
Vibrato

Interaction effect between dropping, vibrating and
ut/gm-hr evolved from

apples measured

A1
Drop x Compress x Package Type (Figures 13-16)

When containers were dropped and compressed, the K.P. package
had .12 C02 uE/gm~hr (1%) and .80 (26%) injury score unit higher
than the tray-pack container. K.P. containers compressed and not
dropped had .95 C02 ut/gm~hr (8%) and .66 (32%) injury score unit
higher than the tray-pack container. Tray-pack containers dropped
and not compressed had .32 002 ui/gm-hr (2%) and .62 (20%) injury
score unit lower than K.P. containers. Therefore, the combined
effect of dropping and compressing was greater for the K.P. than the

tray-pack container on C02 output and injury scores.

Drop x Package Type x Position (Figures 17-18)

In the K.P. containers that were not dropped, fruit in
positions A and B (bottom layer) evolved the lowest C02, or 2.56 C02
ut/gm-hr lower than in K.P. containers that were dropped. Top-layer
fruit (positions E and F) evolved the highest CO2 in K.P. containers
that were not dropped and the lowest CO2 in containers that were
dropped. Positions C and D (middle layer) in the K.P. container
evolved moderate levels of C02 for both dropped and not dropped
containers. Positions E and F evolved the highest C02 in the tray-
pack containers whether they were dropped or not dropped.
Positions A and D evolved the lowest C02 in the tray-pack containers
whether the containers were dropped or not dropped. Therefore,
dropping affected the ordering of the positions in the K.P.

containers more than in tray-pack containers.

A2

 

DROP x COMPRESS x PACKAGE mop ‘ COMPRESS x PACKAGE
Drop I-l Drop (+)
Carbon 016x16. (AL/am-hr) Carbon Dioxid- IuUam-hr) '
17 P 11 _
Pache-
15 _ — K.P. 1e ..
15 — 16 -
14 - 14 —
1324 1331
13 — 12.92 13 — ‘11P“ 2. 12.99

 

‘2 _ ".97\ 12 _
11.43

11 1... “

 

I—

10 10 1 1

(+) H (+) H
Compress Compress

 

Figures 13 and 1A. Interaction effect between dropping, compressing and
package type on C02 ut/gm-hr evolved from 'Empire' apples measured
A hours post treatment.

A3

 

 

 

 

 

DROP 11 COMPRESS x PACKAGE mop , ”may 3 owns:

Drop H 0199 M
hm hm hm hm
5.0 '- .5 —

m m
— 1 . Tm
ray
‘ o w \
3.09
’65 — u I-
10 __ ,3 __ 309 397
2.74
2'0 — 2.08 \ 2.“ 2.0 '-
1.69
1.0 I 1 1.0 I I
(+) H I+I I-I
Compass W

v

Figures 15 and 16. Interaction effect between dropping, compressing and
package type on injury score of 'Empire' apples.

AA

DROP x PACKAGE 1: POSITION

0'09 H

Orton Dioxih (uL/gm-hr)

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

Figures 17 and 18.
and position on C02

 

'/' F 13.44
13.11 :7 E 13.15
12..
12.10 0‘.
‘

A hours post treatment.

DROP x PACKAGE a: memo»:
Drop (+)

Clrbon Dioxich OIL/9111417)

17

15

15

14

13

12

11

10

I

14.10 AI

 

 

I

KP. Tray
Pacing

Interaction effect between dropping, package type
ut/gm-hr evolved from

'Empire' apples measured

A5
Vibrate x Package Type x Position (Figures 19-22)

Positions F and E (top layer) evolved the lowest levels of CO2
ut/gm-hr and injury scores for non-vibrated tray-pack containers.
Vibrating tray-pack containers caused Positions F and E to evolve
the highest levels of CO2 ut/gmohr and injury scores. Vibrating
K.P. containers did not change the ordering of positions for injury
scores when compared to nonvibrating K.P. containers. Vibrating
K.P. containers did change the ordering of positions for C02
ut/gm-hr, but the effect of vibrating and position was not as great

as for vibrating tray-pack containers.

A6

VIBRATE x PACKAGE 1: POSITION VIBRATE x PACKAGE )1 POSITION
Vim I-I Vim (+)
Clrhon Dioxih (AL/WT") Carbon DIOXIO InL/gm‘hfl
‘7 '- 17 I"

      

 

 

 

 

16 - 1g ._
‘5 — 16 _
13 — a“ . 13 '—
§
12.78 A \‘
8.45 r .
.37 o “N.
11.06 E I 11.05
‘2 c 11.96 12 '-
O 11.55
A 11.54
. E 11.43
F 11.35
11 -- 11 ,_
10 I l 10 1 1
K.P. THY K.P. Tray
Pack-on Pedro's

Figures 19 and 20. Interaction effect between vibrating, package type
and position C02 ut/gm-hr evolved from 'Empire' apples measured A hours
post treatment.

VIBRATE x PACKAGE x POSITION
Vibrato {-1

Injury Soon
5.0 —

4.5 --

4.0 '-

15 ’-

2.5

2.0

1.5

 

1 .0 I
K.P.

Figures 21 and 22.

 

I 2.53
A 2.41

C 2.14
D 1.59

“7

VIBRATE x PACKAGE 1: POSITION
Vilnu (+)

Injury Soon

4.5

4.0

3.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

—

 

 

K.P. Tray

Interaction effect between vibrating, package type
and position on injury score of 'Empire' apples.

48
Split Plot by Treatment Combination

The data obtained from this study was also analyzed as a split plot
by treatment combination. For this analysis, the mean CO2 output and
injury scores of the six positions in each container were grouped
together. Therefore, there was one C02 output and injury score reading
for each container tested instead of six readings as in the split plot
by factoral effects discussed previously. The split plot by treatment
combination showed which treatment forces for a specific package type
yielded the highest or lowest CO2 output or injury scores without taking
position into consideration.

The split plot by treatment combination analysis of the data yielded
significant differences among treatment combinations at 95% confidence
limits by Duncan's multiple range test (see Figures 23 and 2”). All
forces applied (drop, vibrate and compress) produced the highest C02
output for the tray-pack container, and were significantly different
than eight other treatment combinations; injury scores followed a
similar trend. When forces were not applied, the lowest C02 output and
injury score was obtained for the tray-pack container. The tray-pack
container with no forces applied was significantly different than any
container with a force applied, except for the compressed tray-pack
container and the non-treated K.P. container. The dropped or compressed
K.P. containers were not significantly different from one another. Mean
C02 values differed from a high of 111.15 ui/gmohr for the drop x
vibrate x compress tray container to a low of 10.63 ui/gm-hr for the
tray container with no forces applied, while injury score varied from a
high of 3.91 for the drop x vibrate x compress K.P. container to 1.35

units for the tray with no forces applied.

119

TREATMENT vs. CARBON DIOXIDE (uL/gm-hr at Hour 4)

< , .. .. . .
°m< . ..\ .. .. ., . 1. w .

flqQflqQQq€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€d€¢§3¥
D O m < vnenononononeHOMO"0N0MOHOHONOHONONOHONOMONONOHONOMONOMONONOHOO.

D

“‘-“““““““““““““‘
I...IIII.IQIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIQQIOA
K.».u.»a.»sssnssssssssmnsfismssfi.»

waom<

m a o m < vnouonon.nonononononononononououonononononononononououonono

I...

"“““‘-““““-““-““.-‘
9000909009000.9600600000000000.
W O O m < VHONOMOMONOHome"ONOHQMONONONONONONONOHONONONONOHOHONOHONONO .

O

   

““‘ “‘-“““““““““‘
.OIIII IQIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIO.IIIA
maom< monououou0.0.91.1.»ououonononononflouononfiononononouonouonon.

O

 

.101910191940401016191010104010191010101010(01610191010101.
“Goon .nonon.nononououonouonononononon.no».nonouonononononononon.
mun—O .m. .1.w...,v.£_...,.... .5. 1.. .. . in... .;. 1. ,.
u-WO «1...... :.. first...” . .. .. 1,,
0mm . ., .. ,. ,. 21.; t... ,. .U...........,...o...
104010101010101010101919101.101610101010161”0191010401.
vooooooooo 0009 00 o o
Gum baaKfor3bkumpaabhmmnyshmaflRAMWBK
h 10¢ ,. ufw1.flsfi.{nnuxw. Clfii
U nfififlfl€€€€€€€€€€€d€d€€d§332
w .io mwasKwanmwmafiswvwwbamwwmbhmxwm
a
u I 31f....¢m........;....j.. a-..“ .. .. ,. has“... 4 .
m
4J1 ..... .._.. .11... ...... ....._
.... .o. s o

12

14 5

1

13

Tannin

-m
e of Force

mu-

LEGEID: PACKAGE

T

Treatment Number

3

S

e

r

3 D.

s m

e C

r s D

D. see

W at.»
raa

C Prr

3 I WOO
see .11
ett CVV
raa III
eprrppppp
"Mb-000000
0 lirrrrr
NCVVDDDDD

123u56789

Drop'Compress
Drop'V ibrate

S

3

e

r

p

m S
3

C e

I r

. W.

a

r. C

b 3 I

.1. see

v at:

I "133

pep—Kr

OHMbb

r0 1‘...

DNCVV

23u56

11111

apples II hours post

the same letter are not significantly different

'Empire'

production of

%

CO
t
by Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.

Mean
Means wi

Figure 23.
treatment .

50
TREATMENTvmlNJURYSCORE

 

Ways”-

4 - 2 < ‘
j m ... 1'1'1
. m < 1'1'1 1.1.1 1.1.1

< 11 11 11
- In ’1’1‘ ’1'1‘ "‘
. , 1'1'1 111 111 111
1.1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1 1 ’
' ’ 11 11 11 11
- 111 . 111 111 111
. 11 , 11 11 11
111 . 111 111 111
- M 1 M M M
11 11 11 11

3 ' O 111 111 111 111

. 11 11 11 11
o 111 111 111 111 111

1 11 11 11 11 11
1 0 0 '1’1‘ '1’1‘ ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘
. 0 0 ... 111 111 111 111 111
11 11 11 11 11 11

. 111 111 111 111 111 111
11 11 11 11 11 11

- , 111 l 111 111 111 111 111
,~ 11 11 11 11 11 11

1 . 111 111 111 1 111 111 111
. , 11 , x1 11 . 11 . 11 11 11

I O ' ~ '1’1‘ , r ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘ ' ’1’1‘ '1’1‘ '1'1‘
‘ 5 VV '1 >1 VV VV VV VV 'VV

’7 VV 4- ‘ VV “ n" VV VV - MV' VV' VV

. 111 -.. z 111 .1 - 111 111 > 111 111 111
11 - 11 .. J 11 11 11 11 11
. m 111 . 111 . .- 111 111 . 111 111 111
11 . 11 1. 11 11 11 11 11
. 111 . . 111 . ,. 111 111 111 111 111
.11. . 11 ' 1.1 .1.” 11 11 11
‘ Lu W 1’1 . ’1’1‘ 1 ’11‘ 11 '1’1‘ '1’1‘ '1’1‘
- ... ' 111 - - 111 . a 111 111 111 111 111
. 11 ., 11 11 .. 11 11 11 11 11
111 111 111 p, 111 111 111 111 111
. 11 j 11 ~- 11 1. 11 11 1 11 11 11
111 111 a! 111 , 111 111 111 111 111
. 11 11 .. 11 . 11 11 11 11 11
111 n 111 1 111 , L 111 111 111 111 111
1 - 11 g 11 _ 11 - 11 , 11 11 11 11
« 111 111 .. . 111 111 1 111 . 111 111 111
- ,. 11 . 11 .. , 11 . , 11 11 . 11 11 11
. 1 111 , 111 .. . 111 1. 111 111 111 111 111
11 ., 11 -.. 11 11 11 . 11 11 11
1 ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘ -" "a ’1’1‘ - ’1’1‘ '1’1‘ ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘ '1’1‘
‘ '1’1‘ '1’1‘ 3’ ~ 5' ‘ ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘ '1’1‘
. 7 111 3‘ 111 u. g 111 ~. 111 111 111 111 111
11 11 a. 11 11 x 11 11 11 11
~ 111 - 111 .. 111 _. 1 111 111 111 111 111
. 11 1 11 11 , v 11 . 11 11 11 11
111 < 111 111 . 111 111 111 111 111
. 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
'1’1‘ ’1’1‘ ’1’1‘ ’1'1‘ ’1’1‘ '1’1‘ ’1’1‘ '1’ I
0 1 1.1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1 1.1.1
13 1 2 15 16 10 14 5 3 4 11 I 8 7 I 12
Tue-11111111
LEGENm PACKAGE m K:- - Tm
Treatment Number Type of Force
1 None
2 Compress
3 Vibrate
ll Vibrate'Compress
5 Drop
6 Drop'Compress
7 Drop'Vibrate
8 Drop'Vibrate'Compress
9 Drop
10 Drop'Compress
11 Drop'Vibrate
12 Drop'Vibrate'Compress
13 one
111 Compress
15 Vibrate
16 Vibrate'Compress

Figure 2". Mean injury scores of 'Empire' apples examined u days after
treatment. Means with the same letter are not significantly different
by Duncan's multiple range, 5% level.

51
SUMMARY
The C02 response of apples subsequent to simulated transit testing
provided an objective method for readily identifying and measuring

the visual level of injury to apples.

The effects of dropping, compressing and vibrating were greater on
CO2 evolution and injury scores when each were applied individually
than when any combination thereof was applied to a particular
container. Vibrating resulted in the largest increase in C02
production following by dropping and compressing, respectively, when

compared to non-damaged fruit.

The CD2 evolution of apples post treatment detected the effects of
different forces (dropping, vibrating and compressing) and on
different shipping containers and how the effects of these forces
interact. The C02 output of apples also provided an index which
indicated the least injurious position for an apple within a

particular container for a specific force or combination of forces.

Visual injury scores were significant for all the main effects
(drop, vibrate, compress and package) and drop and vibrate were the
only significant main effects for C02 evolution. Additionally,
analysis of the data resulted in 9 and 4 significant two-way

interactions for injury scores and CO2 evolution, respectively.

DISCUSSION

The I4th—hour CO‘2 reading yielded the highest r-square value for
injury scores by the bucket method. There was a significant correlation
between CO2 evolution and injury scores; but, r-squares were not
particularly high. The low correlation coefficients might have occurred
because it was difficult to see all the damaged cells on the apple fruit
or the increased CO2 output may be detecting a different type of injury
than simply mechanical damage» More study would be beneficial to
determine the response of individual apple fruits to different
destructive forces. The highest CO2 outputs were obtained for the 1st-
hour after—treatment and declined steadily through the Sth-hour reading
(see Appendix). Klein (31) indicated that C02 output was highest
between 3 and 6 hours post damage to apples. Pollack and Hills (27)
showed a linear C02 response of bruised red tart cherry through the
6-hour post treatment, while Hyodo, Hasegawa, Iba and Manago (1“) showed
that C02 production was greatest immediately following damage of Satsuma
Mandarin. Other studies (17, 20, 36) have shown the greatest 002
response after damage occurs within the first 2“ hours following damage
to horticultural crops.

Vibration had the largest effect on CO2 evolution when compared to
dropping or compressing. When the apples rolled within the containers
during vibration, this may have damaged more cells than dropping or

compressing, especially in the layers of fruit tissue closest to the

52

53

epidermis. Additionally,a 2nd or 3rd injury (bruise) to tissue that
had already sustained impact damage by vibration would likely show no
great CO2 response. However, vibration may have been a more severe
treatment than either dropping or compressing. Since dropping was the
first force treatment applied to the apples, followed by vibration and
compression, the overall C02 response of dropping and vibration may not
have been captured, thus suggesting a lower CO2 output for dropping or
vibration than what was actually observed.

The effect of compressing was decreased when containers were
dropped, and the effect of dropping was decreased when containers were
compressed. Compressing reduced the effect of dropping, but not to the
extent that dropping reduced the effect of compressing. Possibly,
dropping permitted settling of fruit within the containers; therefore,
when containers were compressed, the opportunity for fruit to be damaged
was likely reduced since the height of the fruit within the shipping
container was reduced. The fact that compressing reduced the effect of
dropping on C02 output and injury scores may indicate once again that a
2nd or 3rd bruise to tissue that had already been damaged may show no
great C02 response or increased visible damage.

When containers were dropped, apples located near the bottom of the
containers were injured the most, and apples located near the top
sustained the least damage. Holt, Schrool and Lucas (12,13) showed that
bruising was more severe on the bottom of shipping containers than on
the top layers of fruit after dropping by impact. They claimed that
fruit in the lower layers of shipping containers receive multiple
impacts, whereas apples in the top layers receive only one during
dropping. Additionally, apples in the lower portion of a container

support the weight of the apples above.

54

The effect of vibrating on CO2 production of apples was greater for
tray-pack containers than for K.P. containers. Simulated vibration
testing conducted prior to this study indicated that fruit within the
K.P. containers resonated at approximately 8 Hz, while fruit in the K.P.
containers resonated at approximately 12 Hz. During this pre-
experimental study, it was noted that the trays in the tray-pack
container acted as one large spring mass system, which permitted
sustained bouncing of fruit. Movement of fruit in the K.P. container
was less noticeable and occurred over a smaller range of frequencies
than for the tray-pack container. Therefore, there was greater
opportunity for apples in the tray-pack container to experience impacts
due to bouncing from vibration, thus increasing C02 evolution and injury
scores.

Holt and Schoorl (30) showed fruit located in the bottom portion of
shipping containers experienced lower acceleration levels than fruit in
upper levels. O'Brien (23) quantified the level of injury in various
layers within produce containers and found upper layers of fruit had
more injury after vibration testing. Similarly, in this study vibrating
resulted in the highest C02 output and injury scores in the top layer of
the shipping containers, positions E and F.

The effect of compressing on injury scores was greater for the K.P.
container than fer the tray-pack container because the K.P. container
did not prevent the compressive load force from coming in contact with
the fruit. Compression strength testing of the two types of containers
yielded mean compression strength values of 1002 and 26MB for the K.P.

and tray-pack corrugated shipping containers, respectively.

55

The effect of positions differed depending on the type of container
tested. Positions E and F (top layer) in the tray-pack container had
the highest C02 output, while positions A and B (bottom layer) had the
highest C02 output for the K.P. container. This interaction effect
occurred because positions E aux! F (top layer) were affected more by
vibration in the tray-pack container and positions A and B being greatly
affected by dropping in the K.P. container.

The effect of vibrating on 002 evolution and injury scores was less
if containers were dropped and compressed; the effect of dropping on C02
evolution and injury scores was less if containers were vibrated and
compressed; the effect of compressing on CO2 evolution and injury scores
was less if containers were dropped and vibrated. Vibrating and
dropping permitted settling of fruit within the containers and may
account for the reduced effect of compressing when containers were
vibrated and dropped. Similarly, dropping containers settled fruit,
which resulted in a denser pack, thus lessening the effects of vibration
and compression.

The combined effect of dropping and compressing was greater for the
K.P. than the tray-pack container on C02 output and injury scores,
since: 1) the K.P. container had a lower mean compressive strength
value (1002 lbs) compared to the tray-pack container (26115 lbs), and
2) dropping had a smaller effect in the tray-pack container because the
trays probably provided shock-absorbing material during impact. These
trends were seen in the significant Drop x Compress and Drop x Package
interactions for injury scores and the significant Drop x Compress x

Package Type interaction for CO2 evolution and injury scores.

56

Dropping affected the ordering of the positions in the K.P.
containers more than in tray-pack containers. The pulp trays within the
tray-pack container provided protection against impact by dropping,
thus, the position of an apple in a K.P. package was more critical than
in a tray—pack container. This was evident when K.P. containers were
dropped, causing C02 evolution to be highest for apples in the bottom of
the container, while the 002 evolution from apples in the tray-pack
containers was only negligibly affected by dropping.

Vibrating the K.P. container did change the ordering of positions
for C02 evolution, but not to the extent that vibrating altered the
ordering in the tray-pack container. Vibrating affected fruit located
in the upper layer of the tray-pack containers more than in the K.P.
containers since the trays amplified the simulated vibration inputs,
resulting in sustained bouncing of the fruit. Additionally, apples
located in the top layer of the tray-pack container were affected most,
where the highest acceleration is.

902 EVOLUTION AS METHOD TO DETERMINE THE PROTECTIVE
CHARACTERISTICS OF SHIPPING CONTAINERS

Simulated transit handling of apples in shipping containers resulted
in an increase in 002 evolution similar to those applied to individual
fruits by previous investigators. Therefore, a damage detector system
for assessing the protective characteristics of produce shipping
containers which utilizes the objective increase in carbon dioxide of

mechanically injured apples could be carried out as follows:

57
Select fruit of similar variety free from obvious physical damage
and physiological disorders, uniform in size and maturity. An
entire shipping container can be filled with optimum fruit or the
fruit C02 response will be measured from can be carefully placed

among less than optimum filler fruit of similar size and maturity.

Fruit should be pre-conditioned to the test temperature upon removal

from cold storage.

Various ferces (e.g., dropping, compression and/or vibration) are
applied in a designated order to the different shipping containers
the experimentor wishes to evaluate, or the CO2 response could be

measured from apples after a truck, rail or air ride.

Following damage treatment, the fruit is carefully removed and
placed in an airtight container which provides a minimum amount of

headspace.

Gas samples are analyzed from the airtight containers using a gas
chromatograph or infrared CO‘2 analyzer four to five hours after

sealing the containers.

After sampling the accumulated C02 within the airtight containers

the fruit is weighed.

The level of C02 detected by a gas chromatograph or infrared CO2
analyzer is calculated based on fruit weight and headspace volume of

the airtight containers.

58

The rates of C02 outputs from the apples that were located in
different locations and/or shipping containers with various forces
applied can then be compared to one another, and to nondamaged fruit

of similar variety, size and maturity in the same test.

LIST OF REFERENCES

10.

11.

12.

LIST OF REFERENCES

. Abdul-baki, A. C. 1964. Respiratory changes in normal and bruised

tomatoes during ripening. Ph.D. thesis. University of Illinois,
Champaign. Dis. Abst. 25:6138.

. Anon. American Society for Testing Materials D-642. 1983.

Compression test for shipping containers.

. Anon. American Society for Testing Materials D-4169. 1983.

Performance testing of shipping containers and systems.

. Balodis, V; 1971. Laboratory evaluation of fibreboard containers

for special uses. Australian Packaging 19(9):22-24.

. Burg, S. P. and K. V. Thimann. 1960. Studies on the ethylene

production of apple tissue. Plant Physiol. 35:24-35.

. Chuma, Y., H. Izumi and T. Matsuoka. 1967. Bruise and respiration

characteristics of citrus unshiu as related to material handling and
intransit injury. J. Soc. Agr. Machin. Japan 29:104-109.

. Godshall, W. D. 1968. Effects of vertical dynamic loading on

corrugated fibreboard containers. USDA Forest. Service Research
Paper, FPL 94.

. Goff, J. W. and D. Tweede. 1984. "Box" Car test: Influence and

response of can shipping containers to the rail mode of
transportation. Michigan State University, School of Packaging,
East Lansing.

. Goff, J. W. and D. Tweede. 1979. Boxes, bags and cans:

Performance of packages for the transportation of agricultural
products. Special Report No. 14, Michigan State University, School
of Packaging, East Lansing.

Guillou, R., N. F. Sommer and G. F. Mitchell. 1962. Simulated
transit testing for produce containers. Tappi 45(1):176-179.

Holt, J. E. and D. Schoorl. 1978. The prediction of fruit bruising
from fruit, packaging and handling studies. Mimeo of paper
presented at a technical conference of the Institution of Engineers,
Australia.

Holt, J. E., D. Schoorl and C. Lucas. 1981. Apple Packs.
Transactions ASAE 242-247.

59

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

60

Holt, J. E., D. Schoorl and C. Lucas. 1981. Prediction of bruising
in impacted multilayered apple packs. Transactions ASAE 24:242-247.

Hyodo, H., Y. Hasegawa, Y. Iba and M. Manago. 1979. Enhancement of
CO2 evoluthm1 by Satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu Marc.) fruit by
dropping. J. Japan Soc. Hort. Sci. 48:353-358.

Klein, J. D. 1983. Physiological causes for changes in carbon
dioxide and ethylene producticwl by' bruised. apple fruit tissues.
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Lougheed, E. C. and E. W. Franklin. 1974. Ethylene production
increased by bruising of apples. HortScience 9:192-193.

MacLeod, R. F., A. A. Kader and L. L. Morris. 1976. Stimulation of
ethylene and C0 production of mature-green tomatoes by impact
bruising. HortScience 11:604-606.

Massey, L. M. Jr., B. R. Chase and M. S. Starr. 1982. Effect of
rough handling on CO2 evolution from 'Hawes' cranberries.
HortScience 17:57-58.

Maxie, E. C., R. Amezquita, B. M. Hassan and C. F. Johnson. 1968.
Effect of gamma irradiation on the ripening of banana fruits. Proc.
Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 92:235-254.

McGlasson, W. B. and H. K. Pratt. 1964. Effects of wounding on
respiration and ethylene production by cantaloupe fruit tissue.
Plant Physiol. 39:128-132.

Nakamura, R. and T. Ito. 1976. The effect of vibration on the
respiration of fruit. 1. Changes in the respiration rate of tomato
fruit during and after vibration. J. Japan Soc. Hort. Sci. 45:313-
319.

Nakamura, R., T. Ito and A. Inada. 1977. The effect of vibration
on the respiration of fruit. II. Effects of vibration on the
respiration rate and the quality of tomato fruit during ripening
after vibration. J. Japan Soc. Hort. Sci. 46:349-360.

O'Brien, M., L. L. Claypool, S. J. Leonard, G. R. York and J. H.
MacGillivray. 1963. Causes of fruit bruising on transport
trucks. Hilgardia 35:113-124. ‘

O'Brien, M., J. P. Gentry and R. C. Gibson. 1965. Vibrating
characteristics of fruit as related to intransit injury. Trans. of
ASAE 8:241-243.

Ostrem, F. E. and W. D. Godshall. 1979. An assessment of the
common carrier shipping environment. USDA Forest Products
Laboratory general technical report FPL 22.

Peleg, K. 1978. The K.P. produce packing system. Amer. Soc. Agr.
Eng. Paper No. 78-6538.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

61

Pollack, R. L. and C. H. Hills. 1956. Respiratory activity of
normal and bruised red tart cherry (Prunus cerasus). Federation
Proceedings 15:328.

Robitaille, H. A. and J. Janick. 19T3. Ethylene production and
bruise injury in apple. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 98:411-413.

Schoorl, D. 1972. Package Performance Evaluation. Department of
Primary Industries, Queensland. 9 pp.

Schoorl, D. and J. E. Holt. 1974. Bruising and acceleration
measurements in apple packs. Qld. J. of Agric. and Anim. Sci.

31:83-92.

Schoorl, D. and J. E. Holt. 1980. Bruise resistance measurement in
apples. J. Text. Stud. 11:389-394.

Schoorl, D. and J. E. Holt. 1977. The effects of storage time and
temperature on the bruising of Jonathan, Delicious, and Granny Smith
apples. J. Text. Stud. 8:409-441.

Schoorl, D. and J. E. Holt. 1982. Impact bruising in 3 apple pack
arrangements. J. of Agri. Eng. Res. 27:507-512.

Schoorl, D. and W. T. Williams. 1972. Prediction of drop-testing
performance of apple packs. Qld. J. of Agric. and Anim.
Sci. 29:187-197.

Schoorl, D. and W. T. Williams. 1973. Robustness of a model
predicting drop-testing performance of fruit packs. Qld. J. of
Agric. and Anim. Sci. 30:247-253.

Vines, H. M., W. Grierson and G. J. Edwards. 1968. Respiration,
internal atmosphere, and ethylene evolution of citrus fruit. Proc.
Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 92:227-232.

Walker, R. J., D. Schoorl and J. E. Holt. 1978. The vibration
bruising of apples. Mimeo of paper presented at a technical
conference of the Institution of Engineers, Toowoomba, Australia.

Zauberman, G. and Y. Fuchs. 1981. Effect of wounding on 'Fuerte'
avocado ripening. Hort. Science 16:496-497.

APPENDIX

CO Evolution 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Hours
$ost Treatment and Injury Score
cv. 'Empire' Apples Damaged in
Corrugated Shipping Containers
for Each Treatment Combination

62

 

 

 

.e.m. ...m. .¢.m. .=.=. .o... oc.~ oc.. om.. om.o om.o m.. a .m.. - - .
o:.o. om.o. ...o. mm.~. .m.=. o:.. a... No.0 o..o .z.o 2.. m .m.. - - .
o..o. mo.o. mm.o. oo... mm.m. .... mm.. mo.. a..o ==.o m.m a sat. - - .
mo.o. =m.o. .m... om.m. o..=. a:.. w... mo.o mo.o o=.o ..m o .cL. - - .
.m.m. o..m. m=.~. mo.m. .~.o. .... .=.. we.. o..o .:.o m.m m .mg. - - +
m..~. o..~. =c.~. mo.m. mo.o. .m.. o:.. m... mw.o .=.o m.m a .m.. - - .
.~.m. .m.m. om.=. m=.m. o¢.m. om.. mm.. mm.. mw.o :m.o m.= a .a.x + . -
~.... o.... mo.~. o=.m. om.m. =9.. mm.. .o.. m..o m=.o ..m m .a.x + . -
mm.~. m=.~. m=.~. o=.m. .o.m. .... ==.. wo.. m..o m=.o ..m a .a.: + + -
m..~. om.~. .=.~. m..m. ao.o. o... om.. mo.. ...o ma.o o.~ u ...: + . -
zm.o. .~.o. .o.o. ma... mm.=. em.. =~.. oo.o ~..o m:.o m.~ m .a.x + + -
am.o. om.o. .m.o. mm... .m.m. om.. m~.. oo.o o..o o=.o m.. c .a.x . . -
mm.:. m:.=. mm.m. me.m. oo.a. -.~ o... m:.. No.0 .o.o ~.= a .m.. - + -
om.=. c..m. so.o. a.... mo.- =..~ om.. om.. mo.. mo.o ~.= m amt. - + -
mm.oo aa.oo mm.o. mm... o=.=. om.. .~.. co.o m..o ==.o m.. 9 .mL. - . -
o..o. .~.o. .o.o. 0o... .a.=. .m.. om.. .o.. =..o on.o =.. u .a.. - . -
om.o. .m.o. m.... .m.~. .~.m. o... o:.. mo.. o..o o=.o ..m m sage - + -
om.o. .o.o. oe.o. .m.~. -.m. am.. .m.. oo.. a..o .=.o m.. a sale - + -
m..oo .o o. mo.o. mm.m. ma.m. mm.. m... mo.o ...o ma.o m.. m away . - -
..... .o... mm.~. so.m. om.m. .... ==.. 9... =m.o mm.o m.. m .m.. . - -
am... em... .m.m. .m.=. oo.m. .o.. .m.. .... mm.o am.o ... a zeta + - -
.m.~. em.~. .o.m. mm.=. mm.o. oo.. mo.. om.. =o.o .o.o 9.. 9 hate + - -
.z... ~o... om.~. 3m.m. ..... .o.. om.. mo.. .m.o ~m.o m.~ m .at. + - -
~=.o. ac.o. mm... ...m. no.0. mm.. m~.. oo.. ...o o=.o ~.~ a .mg. . - -
mm.o. om.o. MN... ...m. .o.m. mm.. N... .o.o oo.o m=.o ... a .a.x - - -
mm.o. mm.o. mm... om.~. a..m. so. =m.. .o.. om.o om.o ... m .a.x - - -
~=.oo mm.oo m=.o. as... mm.=. .m.. co.. .m.o mw.o o=.o m.. o .a.x - - -
.m.oo mo.o. m..o. mo.m. =m.m. 30.. =m.. .o.. om.o .m.o =.. u .a.x - - -
mm... as... mo.m. oo.m. o=.o. .... m=.. a... ~m.o ~m.o ... m .a.x - - -
a~.o. om.o. o¢.o. .m.~. m:.m. oa.. .~.. oo.o w..o mz.o m.. a ...g - - -
m ..x a .5: m .g: N .L: . .L: m .L: = .L: m .L: .L: .n: mgoom cofia.nom vumxomm unmeasou oumnn.> moga
as: c
L:.Em\u: woo woo n a n

:o.»mc.neoo ucoEummLh comm no. nnmc.aucoo mc.na.:m teammagnoo c. uowmsma nmaaa<
.og.nsm. .>o no. nmgoom anaqc_ can unusumonh unom unso: m new a .m .m .. couuzqo>m moo

MMMMMM 3:13:33 mmmmmm

NNNNNN

 

acme
nanosh

"FFFFF ...—FF...- o-v-o-Pv—v—

PQ—FFPF

 

co.uao
-..aoz

63

 

 

 

am... ..... .m... ...m. 0:.m. mo.. .~.. .¢.o m..o ==.o o.. a .m.. . -
.e.~. om.~. .=.m. a..m. z..o. ~o.. .m.. a... =w.o .m.o 0.. m .m.. + -
mm... am... as... oo.m. o=.m. =o.. wa.. wo.o =..o ==.o m.m 2 .m.. + -
ma.m. =m.m. m=.m. No.3. .0... cm.. m=.. mo.. ow.o ma.o m.m o .a.. + -
.m.m. m=.~. mo.m. mm.m. cm... on.. .z.. m... mm.o o=.o m.m x .mle . -
m..~. o..~. a~.m. mm.m. ma... =m.. .=.. m... =m.o mm.o ~.m a .mg. . -
.m... mo... mm... o~.m. mm.m. m... mm.. mo.. ...o m=.o o.m a .a.x - -
~=.~. m~.~. em.~. oo.m. m..o. m... .a.. mo.. ow.o m=.o o.~ m .a.x - -
oo.m. eo.m. ...m. =~.=. m~.o. mo.. =m.. m... =m.o m=.o m.: a .a.x - -
.m.~. o=.~. om.~. mm.m. mm.o. .m.. o:.. m... mm.o oa.o ..a o .a.g - -
.m.=. mm.=. oz.=. =o.m. m..o. mm.. ==.. oo.. ow.o m=.o ~.= m .a.x - -
...m. mm.m. o~.=. ~o.=. o.... o..~ a... cm.. .o.o =m.o ~.: ¢ .a.x - -
mw.m. =..m. m=.o~ m~.o~ oo.m~ m..~ om.~ a... m... .o.o o.m a sat. . .
o~.m. no... m~.o. mo.o. .o.o. .~.~ .m.. ~=.. .o.o .m.o m.m m .aae + +
o~.m. m~.=. mm.=. mm.=. mm... o=.~ .o.~ om.. mo.. no.0 ~.= a hat. . +
m~.=. .o.=. mo.=. mc.m. mm.m. o..~ m... ~m.. mo.o am.o ..= 0 sale . +
=m.~. m~.m. m~.m. m~.=. m=.c. .m.. =m.. c... mm.o m:.o m.m m amt. + +
mm.~. mo.m. e..m. oo.=. eo.o. mm.. em.. a... =m.o m=.o ~.= a .m.. . .
mm.o. =0.o. mm... mo.~. m..m. om.. .~.. no.o o..o mz.o e.~ a .a.x - +
om... ao.~. m=.~. ~=.m. om.o. a... ¢=.. m... .m.o om.o m.m m .a.x - .
oo.~. .=.~. ...m. mm.m. mm.e. mo.. mm.. co.. ...o o=.o m.= o .a.x - +
om.~. mo.m. m..m. oo.=. m.... mm.. .m.. om.. mm.o mm.o o.= o ...: - .
.m.~. .m.~. co.m. ...m. ...o. m... m=.. mo.. m..o o=.o ~.= m .a.x - .
oo.~. o=.m. ...m. o=.=. .m... oo.~ m... ~m.. ~o.o mm.o =.: a .a.x - .
mm.m. ~..~. .o.~. .m.=. .o.m. a... mm.. mo.. o..o oa.o ~.m a .a.x + -
m~.m. a..m. =..m. mo.m. m..m. .... o:.. mo.. om.o cm.o m.m m .a.x + -
3.9 3.2 and. 3.... am... 5.. mm. 36 2.6 .....o .... a ...... + .
~m.m. m..m. m..~. m=.=. =o.m. a... .=.. wo.. om.o om.o 3.: u .a.x . -
mm.a. mm.=. ~=.=. .o.o. mo.c~ =o.m mo.. m~.. .o.o .m.o m.= m ...: + -
a..a. om.=. om.=. om.m. ...m. mo.~ oo.. o~.. mo.o mm.o o.= a .... + -
m .n: a .L: m .L: N .L: . .L: m .L: z .c: m .L: N .L: . .L: oLoom couudnom cumsoam anogneou oumcn.>
as: c
L;.Ew\an moo moo u q n

.uo:c.u:ou. x.ucmaa¢

§+§§§§ QQOOOQ
O
'-
v—u-v-v-v-o- q—v-v—v-v—v-

+§§++§

++§+++

hbhl’hfil‘ commenced: oooooo
o—v-v-v-c—v- FPO-PFC-

§++§+§

\D\D\O\O\D\D
v-o-v-o-o-v—

 

 

mono acme co.umo
-uaote -..amz

64

 

 

30.N. .0.N. m0... 0N.m. 00.0. 00.. 30.. 00.. 30.0 N3.0 0.N N .N.: - .
00.N. 00.N. .0.N. .0.3. 00.0. 3... 0... 00.. 00.0 03.0 0.. N .N.. - +
00... 00... 00.0. m..N. 00.0. m... 00.. N0.. 00.0 03.0 0.. 0 .N.. - +
0..0. 00.0. 00.0. N0.N. 00.0. 00.. 3N.. 00.0 ...0 00.0 0.N 0 .N.. - .
03... 30... 00... 00 N. 0N.3. 00.. 3N.. 00.0 .0.0 00.0 0.N 0 .N.. - .
.N.0. N..0. 00.0. 00.N. .N.m. 00.. 0... 00.0 ...0 00.0 0.. 0 .N.. - .
00.3. 00.3. 00.0. 03.0. N0..N 0N.N N0.. 03.. 00.. 30.0 0.0 N .N.. . -
03.0. 30.0. N0.0. 00.0. N0.0. 00.. 33.. N... 00.0 00.0 m.N N .0.: . -
00.0. N0.N. 00.0. N0.3. 00.0. N... 00.. 00.. 00.0 00.0 N.m 0 .0.: + -
3..3. 3..3. 0N.3. 0N.0. 0N.0. 0N.N 0... 00.. 00.0 00.0 m.N 0 .0.: + -
N0.0. 00.0. 30.0. 0N.0. 0N.0. 00.N N0.. NN.. 00.0 00.0 0.0 0 .N.. + -
03.0. N..m. 00.m. 00.3. 00.0. mo.N 00.. mN.. 00.0 00.0 N.m 0 .N.: o -
00.0. 00.0. ...0. 3..N. 0N.3. 03.. .... 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.. N .000 - -
NN .. 00.0. 0.... 00.N. N..m. 00.. 0N.. 30.0 N0.0 33.0 N.. N :00. - -
00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.N. 00.0. 00.. 0... .0.0 00.0 03.0 ... 0 .00. - -
30.0. 0..0. 00.0. N0... 00.3. .0.. 0... N0.0 00.0 N3.0 3.. 0 .000 - -
0.... 0.... 00... .0.0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 0N.. 00.0 00.0 0.. 0 .000 - -
00.0. 00.00 00.0. 03... N0.m. 00.. 0N.. 00.0 00.0 03.0 0.. 3 .000 - -
00... N0... 00... 00.0. 30.0. N... 30.. .0.. 00.0 03.0 ..N N .N.. . +
00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.3. 00.0. 0... 00.. 30.. 00.0 03.0 ..N N .N.. + +
00.0. 3..0. 00.0. 00.3. 0.... 00.. 03.. 0... N0.0 00.0 0.3 0 .N.. . +
00.3. 00.3. 00.3. 30.0. .0.0. .0.N 00.. 0N.. 00.0 00.0 0.3 0 .N.. + .
m0.N. 00.N. 0..m. 0N.3. 03.0. 30.N N0.. 3N.. 00.0 00.0 0.3 0 .N.. . +
00.3. N..m. 00.0. 03.0. 30.0. 00.N 00.. 03.. 00.. 00.0 0.3 3 .0.: + .
0N.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 0..0. 0N.N 00.. 03.. 00.0 00.0 0.0 N .00. - .
03.0. 00.0. 3N.0. 00.0. 0N.0. 0..N 00.. N0.. 30.. 00.0 ..3 N :00. - +
03... .0... 0.... 0..m. N..0. .... 00.. 00.. 00.0 03.0 0.N 0 :00. - +
0N... ..... m0... NN.0. N3.0. 00.. .N.. 00.0 N..0 N3.0 ..0 0 .000 - +
0N.m. 33.0. N0.m. 00.3. 03.0. 30.. 00.. NN.. 00.0 .m.0 3.0 0 0000 u +
.0.N. 30.0. N3.m. N0.3. 00.0. 00.. 03.. m... 00.0 03.0 0.0 3 .000 - .
m .0: 3 .0: 0 .0: N .0: . .0: m .0: 3 .0: 0110: N .0: . .0: .00W0m 00.0.00: 0003000 00000500 00000.0
L3:
0:.Em\u: woo Now a w

.0030.000N. 0.000000

a m.
u m.
u m.
a m.
u m.

I
2
._
"...-...... ...-Pp...—

I
M
...
...-....PF

1
M
,—

N.
N.
m.
N—
m.
N—

{9000*

.p
F.
p—
.—
—p
——

++O+$+

pppfipw

 

 

mOLG econ co.umo
uuuosh u.~ao¢

65

 

 

00.0. 0N.0. 30.0. N0... .0.0. 00.N N... N0.. 00.0 00.0 0.0 0 .0.. . . -
00.N. 0N.0. 3..0. ...0. .N .. 30.. 00.. 00.. ...0 33.0 0.N N .0.. + o -
no.9 mm.m. 9.0.. 0..... 00.9 I... 0.... 0o... 0.00.0 ~26 m.m a .0... + o u
00.N. 00.0. 0N.0. N0.0. .0.0. 30.. N0.. 0... .0.0 03.0 0.0 0 .0.0 + + -
.3.N. 00.N. N0.N. .0.0. 00.0. 0... 03.. 0... ...0 03.0 0.N 0 .0.0 + . -
.0.N. 0N.0. 00.0. No.3. 00.0. .0.. .0.. .N.. 00.0 03.0 0.. 0 .0.. + + -
.0.0. 30.0. 00.0N N0.0N 00.0N 0..N 00.N 30.. NN.. ...0 0.3 0 .00. - . -
33... .N.0. 00.0. 3. 0. .0 .N 03.N 00.N 00.. .0.. 00.0 ..3 N .00. - + -
30.3. 0N.3. 00.0. 0..0. .3... 0..N 0... .0.. N0.0 00.0 0.. 0 .00. - + -
00.0. 00.0. .0.3. 00.0. 00... .0.N 00.. 00.. .0.0 30.0 N.N 0 .00. - . -
03.0. 00.0. 00.3. 0..0. 00.0. ...N 0... .0.. 00.0 00.0 0.. 0 .00. - + -
...0. .N.0. 30.0. N0.3. 00.0. .... N3.. 0... ...0 03.0 0.. 0 000. - . -
00.00 03.00 .0.0. 30... 0..N. 00.. N0.0 0..0 00.0 .0.0 N.. 0 000. + - -
.3... 0.... 0N.N. 00.0. 03.0. .0.. .0.. .0.. 0..0 03.0 3.. N .00. + - -
N3.N. .0.N. 0..N. N0 0. 00.3. 0... .0.. 00.. 3..0 .3.0 3.. 0 .00. + - -
0..0. 03.0. 00.0. 03.3. 0N.0. N0.. 03.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.. 0 :00. 0 - -
.0... 00... .0.N. .0.0. .0.0. 0... 03.. .... 00.0 03.0 ..N 0 .00. + - -
00.N. .0.0. 00.0. 30.3. 00.0. .0.. 00.. 0N.. 00.0 .3.0 0.. 0 .00. + - -
00.0. 03.0. 00... 0..N. 0..3. 00.. N... 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.. 0 .0.0 - - -
0..N. 00... 00.N. .N.0. ...0. 00.. 0N.. N0.. N..0 .3.0 ... N .0.. - - -
00.N. 0..N. 3..0. 0. 0. 0..0. 00.. 00.. NN.. 00.0 .3.0 0.. 0 .0.. - - -
.0... N.... .0.N. 03.0. 0N.0. 00.. .N.. 00.. 0..0 33.0 0.. 0 .0.. - - -
...N. 00.N. 00.N. 00.0. 30.0. 0... 03.. .... 0..0 03.0 3.. 0 .0.. - - -
00.0. 00.0. 00... 0N.N. 30.0. 03.. 0... 00.0 .0.0 .0.0 ... 0 .0.. - - -
00.0. 00.0. 0..0. 00... 30..N .N.N 0... 0N.. 30.0 .0.0 ..3 0 .00. + + -
...0. 00.0. ...0. 0..0. NN 0N 0..N 0... 0N.. 00.0 00.0 0.0 N 000. + + -
0..N. 00... 00... 00.0. 3..0. 0... 03.. 00.. .0.0 03.0 0.N 0 000. + + -
0N... .0... 0.... .0.N. 33.0. 30.. 0N.. .0.0 0..0 03.0 0.. 0 .00. + . -
.0... 03... N3.0. 00.0. .3.0. .0.. 0... .0.0 ...0 03.0 N.. 0 .00. + + -
03... 00... 03... 0..0. 00.0. 00.. .0.. 00.0 0..0 03.0 3.. 0 .00. . + -
0 .0: 3 .0: 0 .0: N .0: . .0: 0 .0: 3 .0: 0 .0: N .0: . .0: 00000 00.0.000 000.000 00000000 00000.. 0000
00:0c0
05.53.... ~0u moo a

.00:0.0000. 0.000000

NNNNNN MMMMMM 33333:?

 

acme
nanoLh

NNNNNN NNNNNN NNNNNN

NNNNNN

pw’FPP

 

no.0wo
nuanvz

66

 

00.0. .N.3. 00... N0.0. N0 NN 00.. 00.. 0N.. 00.0 00.0 ..N 0 .0.. - -
03.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00... 00.N. 03.. 0... 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.N N .0.. - -
N..N. 0..N. .N N. 00.0. .0.3. .... N3.. .0.. 0..0 N3.0 0.3 0 .0.. - -
.0.0. 30.0. .0.0. 00.0. 0..0. 00.. .0.. 0... 00.0 00.0 0.0 0 .0.. - -
NN.0. .0.0. 03.0. 0N.0. ...0. 00.N 00.. 0N.. 00.0 03.0 0.3 0 .0.. - -
.0.3. 3..3. 0..0. 03.0. 00... 0N.N 00.. 03.. .0.0 00.0 ..3 0 .0.. - -
30.0. 30.0. 03.0. 03 0. N0... 3..N 0... 00.. N0.0 00.0 3.3 0 .00. . .
00.3. .0.0. 00.0. 30.0. NN... ...N 0... 00.. 00.0 03.0 0.3 N .00. + .
.3.N. 0..N. 30.N. .0.0. 0..0. 0... .3.. 00.. ...0 N3.0 0.N 0 .00. o .
0N.0. 00.0. 33.3. 00.3. 00 .. .0.N 00.. .0.. 00.0 00.0 0.0 N .00. . .
.3 .. .0... N3.N. 0N.0. 00.0. .... .3.. 0... N0.0 03.0 N.0 0 .00. + +
N0... 00... 00.N. ...0. 00.3. 00.. 00.. 00.. 0..0 .3.0 N.0 0 .00. + .
00.N. 00.0. 0. 0. 0..3. 30.0. N0.N 00.. 00.. 00.0 N0.0 0.N 0 .0.. - +
.3 3. 00.3. 03.3. N0.3. 00... .0.. .0.. NN.. 30.0 03.0 0.0 N .0.. - .
03.N. .0 N. 0N.0. 00.0. 03.0. 30.. 00.. 0N.. 00.0 03.0 ..3 0 .0.. - .
30... 00.N. 00.N. 0..3. 0N... .0.. .0.. 00.. ...0 .3.0 ..0 0 .0.. - .
No.0. N3.0. 00.0. 30.0. 00.0. 0..N 0... 00.. .0.0 N0.0 0.0 0 .0.. - .
N..0. 00.0. 3..3. 0. 3. ...0. 0N.N 30.. 03.. .0.0 00.0 0.3 0 .0.. - +
00... .N.N. 00.N. N0.0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. .0.. 0..0 33.0 ..0 0 .0.. . -
.0.N. 00.N. 00.N. 3..0. 0..0. 00.. .0.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 0.N N .0.. + -
00.0. 0..3. 00.3. .0.3. 00... 00.. 00.. 0N.. N0.o 03.0 0.0 0 .0.. + -
...0. 00.0. .. 3. N0.0. 00 0. N... N3.. .... 00.0 03.0 0.3 0 .0.. + -
00... 0..N. .0.N. ...0. 00.0. 00.. 03.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.3 0 .0.. . -
00.0. 00.0. 30.3. 0..3. 0. 0. 00.. 30.. .... N0.0 03.0 ..3 0 .0.. + -
0N.0. 00.3. 3N.3. 00 3. .N .. 00.N .... 30.. N0.0 30.0 ... 0 .00. - -
30.N. 03.0. .0.N. 03.0. 0..0. 00.. 00.. 0N.. 30.0 03.0 ... N .00. - -
0..N. 0N.N. 0..N. .0.0. 03.0. 0... 00.. 00.. ...0 33.0 0.0 0 .00. - -
.0.0. .0.0. 00.3. 3N.0. 0N.0. .0.N 00.. 00.. 00.0 30.0 0.0 0 .00. - -
00.N. 00.N. 33.0. NN.3. 00.0. N0.N 00.. 0N.. .0.0 30.0 0.3 0 .00. - -
00... 3..N. .0.N. 03.0. 0..0. 3... .3.. 00.. 0..0 33.0 3.0 0 .00. - -
m .L: 3 .LI m .L: N .L: p .LI m .LI 2 .L: M .Lz N .Lz — .L: GLOOW coduqnom wMonmm unvLQEOU vuaunu>
0.30:
05.20.00 Nov Nov u N

.00::.N:oov ..00000:

+ o N
+ o N
0 o N
o a N
+ o N
0 o N
+ m N
o m N
+ m N
0 o N
+ m N
0 m N
+ 0 N
+ p N
+ h N
+ p N
o s N
+ h N
+ o N
+ o N
+ o N
+ o N
+ o N
o o N
o m N
+ m N
o m N
o m N
+ m N
+ m N

 

 

mOLG uCOE codumo
-0000. -..000

67

 

0..0. ...0. .N... 3N.3. ...3. o... .3.. .0.. ...N 03.0 0.. . .0.. + -
0.... 0..0. 0.... co... 0.... NN.. 30.. 00.0 ...N 00.N ..N N .... + -
.0... 30... 0.... .3.0. .N... .N.. 00.. N..0 0..N N..0 0.0 0 ...N 0 -
.N.0. 00.N. 0..N. ..... .3.0. N:.. m... .0.0 00.o 3..0 0.. N .0.. . -
N..N. ....o .0.N. .N... 0.... NN.. 30.. No.o 0..N ...0 N.. N .0.. + -
3..N. 3N.~. N..0. oo.m. 0..3. oo.. NN.. o... mm.o N3.o N.. 3 .0.. + u
.0... co... .0... .3.0. 03.0. NN.. 30.. 0..N 0..N Nm.o ... m .00. - -
30.N. 0N.N. 3..N. mo... .N.0. .3.. N... N0.N 00.N mm.o N.. N .00. - -
N0.N. 00.N. No... 00.0. mm.m. NN.. .N.. 00.0 00.N ...N N.. N .00. - -
N..N. ...N. .0... No.0. 00.N. m... NN.. 00.0 00.N 30.0 N.. N .00. - -
Nm.~. N3.N. 00.N. NN... .N.N. NN.. .N.. N... 3N.o .3.o 3.. N .00. - -
No.00 .N..o 00.N. mm... 00.0. .3.. .... 00.N .N.N N..0 3.. 0 .00. - -
No.0. 0.... .N... .0.0. 0..3. .N.. .0.. 0..N 0..N N..0 0.0 N .... + +
.m... 00... .. .. 0..0. ...N. a... NN.. N... NN.o N3.o ..3 N .... + +
30.N. .N.N. ...0. 00.0. 00.0. ...0 N... .N.. «..N 3m.o 0.3 N .0.. + +
No.3. No.3. .0.3. N..N. N..N. .N.. NN.. 00.. N0.N .3.0 0.3 N .... + +
30.3. .N.N. m..m. N..N. m.... .N.N NN.. .N.. mm.o m3.o ..3 N .N.. o +
N..0. N..0. 0..N. ...3. .0.3. NN.. N3.. .... oN.o 03.0 ..3 3 .0.. + .
.N.N. 00.0. mm... N3.N. o0..~ 00.N N..0 .N.. m... .0.0 0.3 m .00. - +
0.... .N... ...N. .3.N. N..Nw 03.0 00.0 NN.. NN.. .N.N 0.3 N .00. - +
.N... 30... .N... ...N. 33.3. 00. .N.. ...N ...N N3.0 0.0 N .00. - +
NN... NN... No... ...0. .3.3. .0.. .N.. 30.. 0..N 03.0 ..N N .00. - +
N..0. 00.0. ...0. 03.0. 3..N. .... 03.. 00.. N..0 33.0 N.N N .00. - .
NN... No... No... .0.N. 0..3. N... NN.. 0..N 0..N ...0 0.0 4 .00. - +
0.... 00... NN... 00.0. .N... 30.. .3.. o... .N.N 03.0 3.0 N .00. . -
No... 00.N. 00.N. N0.N. N3.N. NN.. NN.. 00.. m..o 00.N m.. N .00. + -
N3.m. .o.m. ...m. ...3. 30.N. 0... mm.. .N.. .N.N N3.o N.N a .00. + -
0.... N3... 03.N. 03.3. 30.N. .N.N .N.. .0.. .N.N .3.0 0.0 N .00. + -
0..3. No.3. 3. 3. .N.N. 30.0. N... NN.. N... 00.0 N3.0 N.. N .00. 0 -
.N... m.... 00... .0.0. ...N. 00.. Nm.. ...0 3..0 .0.0 3.0 0 .00. + -
m .0: 3 .0: m .0: 0 .0: . .0: m .0: 3 .00 m .0: m .0: . .0: .00mom 00.0.00. 0N0xo0. 0000mamN 0.000..
L3:
.:.ew\ua N00 N00 a _

.000:.NcoN. ”.000000

I
=
NNNNNN

l
M
NNNNNN

|
M
.—

++§+++
N
NNNNNN

§+++§+
'—
r-

o—
o—
o—
o.
o.
O.

§§+§++

NNNNNN NNNNNN

 

 

mega ucua co.Nmo
lacuna n—unoz

68

 

00.3. 0..0. 3..3. 03.0. .0.0. 00.0 00.. 00.. 00.. 00.0 3.3 N .00. - +
00.0. 00.0. 00.3. 00.0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 0... .0.0 33.0 0.3 N .00. - +
30.0. 0..0. 00.0. 00.3. ...0. 00.. 00.. 0... 00.0 .3.0 ..0 0 .00. - o
0. 3. 00.3. .0.3. 00.0. 00.0. 00.. 03.. 0... 0..0 33.0 ..0 N .00. - +
00.0. 00.0. 03... 00.0. 0..0. 00.. .0.. 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 N .00. - +
.. .. 00... 00.0. 00.0. .0.3. 00.. 00.. 30.. 0..0 03.0 0.. 0 .00. - 0
.0.00 .3.00 00.00 00.0. .. .. 00.. 0... .0.0 00.0 30.0 ... N .00. + -
00.0. 03.0. 00.0. 0.... 00.0. 00.. 0... 00.0 00.0 30.0 3.. N .00. + -
0..0. 00.0. 00.0. ..... 30.0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 00.0 30.0 0.. 0 .00. . -
00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 0..0. 03.. 0... 00.0 00.0 .0.0 0.. N .00. . -
00.0. 00.0. .0... 0..0. ...0. .N.. 00.. .0.. 0..0 00.0 N.. N .00. o -
0..0. 00.0. 00.0. 0.... 00.0. 00.. 0... 00.0 00.0 00.0 N.. 0 .00. . -
.3.0. 00.0. 3.... .0.0. 0..0. .3.. 0... 00.0 00.0 .0.0 3.. N .N.. - -
03.0. .0.0. 0.... 00 0. 00.0. 03.. 0... 00.0 00.0 00.0 3.. N .N.. - -
03.0. .0.0. 0. 0. 00... .0.0. 00.. .0.. 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.. 0 .N.. - -
00.00 00.00 00.00 00... 0..0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 0..0 03.0 0.. N .N.. - -
0..00 00.00 03.0. 03... 00.0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 00.0 30.0 0.. N .N.. - -
.0.0. 0..0. 00 .. 00.0. 00.0. 03.. 0... 00.0 .0.0 .0.0 0.. 0 .N.. - -
03.3. .3.3. 00.3. 00.0. 00... 00.. 00.. 0... 00.0 03.0 ..3 N .00. . .
30.3. 0. 3. 0..3. 00.3. 03.0. .0.0 30.. 00.. .0.0 03.0 3.0 N .00. 0 +
00... 0..0. 00... 00.0. 0. 0. 00.. 0... .0.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 0 .00. + +
00.0. 0..0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 30.0 00.0 0.0 N .00. + +
00.0. 30.00 03.0. .0... .0... 00.. 00.. 00.0 30.0 00.0 0.. N .00. . +
.0... 03... 00... 00.0. 03.0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 ...0 .0.0 ..0 N .00. + 0
30.0. .0.0. 03.0. 33... .3..0 00.0 00.. 03.. .0.. 00.0 0.0 N .N.. - 0
00.0. 00.0. .3.0. 03.0. .0... .0.0 00.. 00.. .0.0 00.0 0.0 N .N.. - +
.0.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.3. 03.0. 00.0 .0.. .0.. 00.0 00.0 0.0 0 .N.. - +
0..0. 00.0. 30.0. .0.0. .0.3. .... 00.. 00.. N..0 00.0 0.. N .N.. - +
0..00 00.00 00 0. 30... 00... 00.. 00.. 00.0 .0.0 00.0 0.. N .N.. - +
30... 0.... 30... 00.0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 .0.0 .0.0 ... 0 .N.. - +
m .L: a .L: m .L: N .0: p .L: m .L: .0: m .5: m .L: .L: cgoom no.0.nom 000x000 nnmgmeou ouaun0>
as: :
.:.Em\0: N00 N00 a n m

.00:0.0000. 0.000000

. I I

NNNNNN MMMMMM MMMMMM MMMMMM

I
m
'-
NNNNNN

 

 

mega 0:06 coqumo
nuuoLb nuunwz

69

 

 

03.0. 0..0. 00.3. .0.0. 0... 03.. 00.. ...0 03.0 ..3 N .00. . .
00.0. .3.3. .. 3. 00.0. 00.. 30.. 0... .0.0 03.0 0.0 N .00. 0 .
00... 00... 00.0. 00.0. 30.. 30.. 30.. 0..0 00.0 0.0 0 .00. 0 .
00 .. 03.0. 00.0. .0.0. 00.. 30.. .0.0 0..0 00.0 ..0 N .00. . .
0..0. 0..0. 0. 0. 30.0. 00.. 00.. 0... 00.0 .0.0 ..0 N .00. o +
00.0. 00.0. 30.3. 03.0. 00.. .0.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.0 0 .00. o .
00.0. 0..0. .0 .. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 0..0 00.0 3.0 N .0.. - 0
.. .. 00... 0..0. 00.0. 30.. 00.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 0.0 N .0.. - .
.0... .0.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. .... .0.0 03.0 0.0 0 .0.. - .
00.0. 0. 0. 0..0. 00.3. 00.. 00.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.0 N .0.. - o
00.3. 00.0. 00.0. .0 .. .0.0 00.. 03.. 00.0 00.0 3.3 N .0.. - 0
00.3. 00.3. 00.0. 00.0. 00.. .0.. .0.. 00.0 03.0 ..3 0 .0.. - 0
00.0. 00.0. .0... .0.0. 00.. 00.. 00. 00.0 00.0 0.3 N .N.. . -
00.00 00.0. .0... .0.0. .0.. 0... 00.0 00.0 00.0 ..0 N .0.. + -
...0. 3. 3. 00.3. 00.0. .0.. 00.. 00.. 00.0 03.0 0.0 0 .0.. + -
.0... 0..0. 00.0. ...0. .0.. 00.. 00.0 0..0 03.0 0.0 N .0.. . -
00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.3. 0... 03.. 00.. ...0 00.0 3.3 N .0.. . -
03 0. 0..0. 00.0. 00 3. 30.. 00.. 0... .0.0 03.0 ..3 0 .0.. + -
..... 00... 00.0. 00.0. 30.. 00.. 00.0 00.0 00.0 N.. N .00. - -
00.0. 03.0. .3.3. .3.0. 0... 03.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 ..0 N .00. - -
00... 00... 00.0. 00.3. 00.. 30.. 30.. 0..0 03.0 ..0 0 .00. - -
00... 0.... 0..0. 00.3. .0.. 00.. 30.0 0..0 00.0 0.0 N .00. - -
00.00 30.0. 00... 0..0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 30.0 00.0 0.0 N .00. - -
30... .0... 00.0. .0.3. 00.. 00.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 0.0 0 .00. - -
00.3. 00.3. 00.0. 0.... 00.. .0.. 00.. 30.0 .3.0 ..0 N .0.. . .
0..0. 00.0. 33.0. 00... 00.0 0..0 00.. .0.. 00.0 0.0 N .0.. o .
00.0. 03.0. 03.0. 00.0. 03.0 0..0 00.. 0... 00.0 0.0 0 .N.. 0 +
00.0. 00.3. .0.3. 0.... 00.. 00.. 00.. 00.0 .0.0 3.0 N .N.. 0 o
30.0. 0..0. 00.0. 0..3. 0... 33.. 00.. ...0 03.0 ..0 N .N.. + 0
0.... 00.0. .0.0. .0.3. 0... .3.. 00.. ...0 03.0 0.0 0 .0.. + +
a .L: m ..z N .0: . .0: m .0: ..1 mxng N .0: . .0: v0oom co.0.mom wwwxomm nnwgaeou 00009.>
0.30:—
0£.Em\u: Nou Now a

.0000.000N. 0.000000

0 m m
o m m
o m m
o m M
+ 0 m
+ w m
o 0 m
o 0 m
o . m
+ . m
o 0 m
0 . m
+ 0 m
o 0 m
+ 0 m
o 0 m
+ 0 m
o o M
o m m
o m m
o m m
+ m m
o m m
0 m m
u a m
- a m
u a m
- a m
u a m
u a m

 

No.9 0:05 co.Nmo
numwgh -0000:

70

 

 

.0 .. .3 .. 00... 00.0. .0 0. 00. 00.. .0.. 0..0 00.0 0.. N .00. - -
00.00 00.00 0. 0. .0... 30.0. 00.. 00.. 30.0 .0.0 00.0 ... N .00. - -
.0 0. 00... 03... .0.0. 00.3. 00.. 00.. 00.0 ...0 .0.0 0.. 0 .00. - -
00.00 .3.00 .0.0. 00... 00.3. 00.. 00.0 00. 00.0 .0.0 0.. N .00. - -
00.0. 33.0. 00.0. 00... 00.0. 03.. 0... 00.0 .0.0 00.0 0.. N .00. - -
00.00 0..00 33.00 00.00 .0... 00.. 00.0 0..0 00.0 00.0 ... 0 .00. - -
30.0. .0.0. 0..0. 00.3. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.0 N .0.. + 0
.0.0. 0..0. 0..0. 3..0. 00.0. 30.. 03.. 0... 0..0 00.0 0.0 N .0.. + +
33.0. .0.0. 03.0. 00.0. 00 0. 00.0 00.. 03.. 00.0 00.0 0.3 0 .0.. + +
0..0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 0... 00.. 00.. 0..0 .0.0 0.0 N .0.. + +
30.0. 00.0. 00 0. 33.3. 00 0. 00.. 00.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.3 0 .0.. 0 +
.0.0. 00.0. 00.0. ...0. 00... 0..0 0... 00.. 00.0 .0.0 ..m 0 .0.. + o
.0.3. 00.0. 03.0. 03.0. 0.... N..0 0... 00.. 00.0 .0.0 0.3 N .00. - +
00.3. 03.0. 30.0. .0.0. 00... 00.0 00.. .0.. .0.0 00.0 0.0 N .00. - 0
30.0. 0..0. 0..0. 0..3. 00.0. 0... 03.. 00.. 0..0 30.0 0.0 0 .00. - 4
00.0. .0.0. 00 0. 03.3. 00.0. 00.. 30.. 0... 00.0 03.0 ..0 N .00. - +
.0.0. 00.0. 0..0. 30.0. 00.0. 0... 00.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 ..0 N .00. - +
.0 0. 0..0. 03.0. 00.3. .0.0. 00.. 03.. 0... 0..0 00.0 ..0 0 .00. - .
00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 30.0. .0.0. 00.. 00.. 30.0 00.0 00.0 ... N .00. + -
.0.0. 00 0. 00.0. .0... 00.0. 0... 00.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 0.. N .00. + -
00... 00... 00... 00.0. 00.3. 0... 00.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 ... 0 .00. + -
00... .0... 00.0. 00.0. .0.3. 00.. 00.. .0.0 0..0 00.0 ..0 N .00. + -
00... 0..0. 00.0. 0..0. 00.3. .... 03.. .... 0..0 33.0 3.0 N .00. o -
0.... 00.0. 00.0. 0. 0. 0..0. 0... 00.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.0 0 .00. + -
00.0. 00.0. 0..0. 00.3. 3..0. 00.. .3.. 00.. 00.0 03.0 0.0 N .0.. - -
3.... 0.... 30... 0..0. .0.3. 03.. 3... 00.0 00.0 .0.0 0.. N .0.. - -
00.0. 30.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 0... 00.0 .3.0 ..3 0 .0.. - -
00.0. 0..0. 30.0. 00.3. 00.0. 30.. .0.. 3... 00.0 .3.0 0.0 N .0.. - -
30.0. 03.3. 30.3. ...0. .N... 00.0 00.. .0.. 00.0 .0.0 ..3 N .0.. - -
.0.0. 0..3. 03 3. 00.0. 00... 00.0 0... 00.. 00.0 .0.0 ..3 0 .0.. - -
m ...: z ...: m ...: N ...: _. ...: m ...—I ...: m ...: N ...: p ...: OLOUW COau.MON Quay-oat anLQEOU Oumgnu>
00:0:
Ls.Em\N: Nov Nov u 0

.0000.N0oN. 0300000..

§§§+§§
N
o-

.—
.—
p.
——
.—
.—

+§§4§§ +++§++
O
'-

MMMMMM MMMMMM MMMMMM MMMMMM MMMMMM

OO‘U‘O‘U‘O‘

§§++§§

 

 

No.9 News co.»mo
-0000. -..000

71

 

00... 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. ...0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.. N .00. + -
.0... 03... 00... 0..0. .0.0. 0.03.. 0... 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.. N .00. + -
.0.0. 00.0. 00.0. .0.0. 03.0. 00.. 00.. 00.. 00.0 .0.0 0.. 0 .00. + -
00... 00... 00... 00.0. 00.3. 00.. 00.. .0.. 0..0 .3.0 0.. N .00. + -
00.0. 00.0. 00.0. .0.0. 00.0. 00.. 03.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.. N .00. . -
30.0. 03.0. 03.0. 00.0. 3..3. 00.. 03.. 00.. ...0 03.0 0.. 0 .00. + -
00.0. 00.0. 3.... 0..0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.. N .0.. - -
30... .3... .3 .. 00.0. 00.0. 00.. 30.. .0.. 3..0 00.0 0.. N .0.. - -
.0... .3... 00... 03.0. 0..0. 0... 00.. 30.. 0..0 03.0 0.. 0 .0.. - -
00 0. 0..0. 00.0. 30... 00... 03.. 00.. 00.0 .0.0 00.0 0.. N .N.. - -
30.0. 00.0. 00 0. 00... 00.0. 03.. 00.. 00.0 .0.0 00.0 0.. 0 .0.. - -
00.0. 00... 00... 00.0. 0..0. 00.. 00.. .... 00.0 03.0 3.. 0 .0.. - -
00.0. 30.0. 00.0. 30.0. 00.0. 00.0 30.. 00.. .0.0 00.0 0.3 N .00. + +
30 3. 00.3. 03.3. 03.3. 03.0. 00.0 0... 00.. 00.0 03.0 0.0 N .00. + +
0..0. 30 0. .0... 00... 33.0. 33.. 3... 00.0 30.0 00.0 ..0 0 .00. + +
00... 0.... 00... 0..0. .3.3. 00.. 00.. 00.. 3..0 03.0 ..0 N .00. + +
00... 00... 0..0. 00.0. 00.3. 3... .3.. .0.. 0..0 33.0 3.. 0 .00. - +
00.0. 0..0. 00... .0... 00.0. 00.. 00.. 00.. ...0 .3.0 0.. 0 .00. + +
00.0. 3..0. 3..0. 00.0. 00.0. 0... 33.. 00.. N..0 03.0 0.. N .N.. - -
.0.0. 00.0. .0.0. .0.3. 00.0. 00.. 00.. .... 0..0 03.0 0.0 N .0.. - +
.0.0. 0..0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 0... 00.. 00.. 3..0 03.0 0.0 0 .0.. - 0
00.0. 00.0. 0..0. 00.3. 00.0. 3... .0.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 0.0 N .N.. - +
.0.0. ...0. 00.0. 0..0. .0.0. 00.. 00.. m... .0.0 03.0 0.. N .N.. - +
00... ...0. 00.0. 00.0. .0.0. .0.. 00.. 00.. 0..0 00.0 0.. 0 .N.. - +
.0.0. 03.0. 30.0. 0..3. 0..0. 00.. 03.. 00.. ...0 03.0 3.0 N .N.. + -
00.0. 00.0. 0..0. 00.3. 33.0. 00.. 00.. 00.. 30.0 03.0 0.0 N .0.. + -
00.0. .0.0. 00.0. 03.3. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 0... 00.0 33.0 0.0 0 .0.. + -
00.0. 0..0. 00.0. .0.0. .0.0. 3... .3.. .0.. ...0 33.0 0.. N .N.. + -
00.0. ...m. 0..0. 20.... .0.0. 00.. .0.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.0 0 .0... + -
0..0. .0.0. .0.0. .0.0. 00.3. 0... 00.. 00.. 3..0 .0.0 0.. 0 .0.. + -
m ...: a ...: m ...: N ...: .. ..0: m ...: ... ...: 0.1.0: N ...: . ...: ogoom c0330.. mumxomm unease“. 000.5;
0..: c
02.50:: Nov Now a n 0

.0000.00000 0.000000

I
NNNNNN
83232:?

I
FFPP...’

u z—
- 2—
u =—
- =—
u .2
u .2

I
I.“
.—
MMMMMM MMMMMM MMMMMM 323333

 

 

No.5 8:0... guano
-0000. -..000

72

 

 

 

03.3. 3..3. 00.3. .3.0. 0..0. 00.. 00.. .0.. 00.0 03.0 0.0 N .N.. - +
30.0. ...0. 00.0. .0.0. .0.0. .0.. 00.. 00.. 0..0 .3.0 0.0 N .0.0. - 0
00.0. .0.0. 30.0. 0..0. .0... 00.0 00.. 00.. 00.0 .0.0 0.3 0 .N.. - .
.0.0. 00.0. 30.0. 0..N. 00... 0..0 3... 00.. 00.0 00.0 0.3 N .N.. - o
33.3. 00.3. 00.0. 00.0. 0.... N..0 0... 30.. .0.0 .0.0 0.3 N .0.. - .
00.0. 00.0. .0.0. 03.0. 0..0. 00.0 30.. 03.. 00.0 00.0 0.3 0 .N.. - .
03.0. 0..0. .0 0. .0.0. 0..N. 30.. 00.. 00.. 30.0 .3.0 ..0 N .N.. 0 -
.0.0. .0.0. 00.0. 03.0. 03.0. 00.. 30.. .... 00.0 .3.0 0.0 N .N.. + -
00... 0.... 00... 0..0. .0.0. 00.. 00.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 3.3 0 .N.. + -
00.0. 00.3. 00.3. 00.3. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.0 N .N.. o -
0..0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0 00.. 03.. 00.. 00.0 0.3 N .0.. + -
.0.3. 03.3. .0.0. .0.3. 00.0. 30.. 00.. 00.. 00.0 03.0 0.3 0 .0.0 + -
30... ...0. 00.0. .3.0. 00.3. 30.. 00.. .0.. 3..0 .3.0 0.0 N .00. - -
.0.0. .0.0. .0 0. 00.0. 0..N. 0... N3.. 0... 0..0 33.0 0.. N .00. - -
30.0. 00.0. 00.0. .0.0. 00.0. .... 33.. 00.. 0..0 03.0 0.0 0 .00. - -
30 0. 03.0. 03 0. 00.3. 00 0. 30.. 00.. 0... 00.0 03.0 0.0 N .00. - -
0..0. 00 0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.. 03.. .... 0..0 33.0 3.0 N .00. - -
3..0. .0.0. .0.0. 03.3. 00.0. 00.. 03.. .... 0..0 33.0 0.0 0 .00. - -
00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. .0.. 00.. 0... 00.0 03.0 ..0 N .N.. 0 0
.0.0. 0..0. 0..0. 00.3. .0.0. 00. 00.. 0... 0..0 .3.0 0.0 N .0.. 0 -
00.3. 0.... 00.3. 00.0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 0... 0..0 03.0 0.0 0 .N.. + 0
03.0. 00.0. 00.0. 0..0. 30.3. 0... 03.. 00.. 0..0 .3.0 0.0 N .N.. + 0
00.0. .0.0. .0 0. 03.3. 00 0. 00.0 00.. 00.. 00.0 03.0 0.0 N .N.. + -
00.0. 03.0. 00 0. ...0. 00.0. 00.. 00.. 0... .0.0 03.0 0.0 0 .N.. + +
0.... 03.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0 0..0 00.. .0.. 00.0 ..3 N .00. - +
30.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0. 00 0. ...0 0... .0.. 00.0 03.0 0.0 N .00. - 0
03.0. 00.0. 03.0. 00.0. .0.3. 00.. 30. 0... .0.0 30.0 ..0 0 .00. - +
00.0. 0..0. 00.0. .0.3. ...0. 00.0 0... .0.. .0.0 00.0 ..0 N .00. - +
00.0. 00.0. .0.0. .0.0. ...0. .0.. 00.. 00.. 00.0 03.0 0.. N .00. - 0
00.0. 30.0. 30.0. 0..0. .0 3. .0.0 00.. .0.. 00.0 03.0 0.0 0 .00. - .
0 .00 3 .00 0 .0: 0 .0: . .00 m .0: 3 .0: 0-000 0 .00 . .00 00000 00.0.000 000.000 00000000 0.000..
>030:—
L:.Em\u: Nov Nov n

.0000.00000 0.000000

F-h-h-P-h—h—
=-='='=-=’=*

§§§+++ +++§++ §O+§§+
mmmmmm 000000
33233:?

33333:? 333383

I
MMMMMM 333383

833333

 

 

No.9 0:03 00.000
tuneup auuavx

73

 

 

.N.N. N..N. mm.N. .N.N. N0.N. N0.N NN.. .N.. mo.N mm.o N.N N .N.N . +
NN... NN... NN... N..N. N..N. .N.. NN.. NN.o N..N .N.N ..m N .N.N . .
=N.~. N..N. om.m. «N.N. «N.N. .N.. .N.. NN.. NN.N .N.N N.N N .N.N . .
NN... .N... N.... om.m. NN.N. NN.. NN.. .N.N N..o NN.o N.N N .N.N + +
MN.N. 0N.N. NN.N. .N.N. NN.N. NN.. .N.. NN.. NN.N NN.N N.N N .N.N + .
N..N. N..N. «N.N. NN.N. NN... NN.. NN.. NN.. .N.N NN.N ..N N .N.N . +
N..N. NN.N. NN.N. N.... NN.N. NN.N NN.. NN.. NN.N NN.N ..N N .NN. - +
N..N. N..N. NN.N. NN... N..N. NM.~ .N.. NN.. NN.. NN.N N.N N .N.. - +
.N... NN... mo.~. mm.m. N..N. NN.. NN.. NN.. N..N .N.N N.N N .NN. - +
mm... mm... N.... N..N. NN.N. NN.. NN.. .N.N NN.N Nm.o N.N N .0.. - .
NN.~. NN.~. No.~. N..N. NN.N. NN.. NN.. m... NN.N NN.N N.N N .NN. - +
~N.M. N..N. NN.N. .N.N. NN.N. NN.. .N.. N... NN.N .N.N N.N N .N.. - +
NN... NN... NN... NN.~. Nm.N. m... NN.. NN.. ...N MN.N N.. N .mN. N -
...N. Nm.~. NN.N. NN.N. .N.N. .N.. .N.. N... NN.N N=.N N.N N .NN. + -
N..N. Nm.m. .N.N. .N.N. NN.N. mo.~ NN.. NN.. NN.o ~N.N N.N N .N.. + -
NN.~. .N.N. NN.N. NN.N. NN.N. NN.. NN.. .... N..N NN.N ..N N NNN. + -
mm.~. .N.N. NN.~. .N.N. N..N. .N.. NN.. NN.. N..N NN.N N.N N NNN. + -
.N.N. NN.~. N..N. NN.N. N..N. mN.. NN.. N... .N.N NN.N N.N N .0N. + -
No.m. mm.m. NN.N. .N.N. .N.N. mo.m .N.. NN.. NN.N om.o N.N N .N.N - -
...N. ...N. 0N.N. Nm.m. NN.3. o... NN.. .N.. m..N ~N.N N.N N .N.N - -
m~.m. NN.N. ...N. NN.=. .N.N. oo.~ NN.. NN.. NN.N .N.N N.N N .N.N - -
.N.N. Nm.m. NN.m. NN.N. N~.N. NN.. .N.. .... NN.N NN.N N.N N .N.N - -
-.N. -.N. .N.N. .N.N. NN.N. N..N NN.. NN.. NN.N Nm.o N.N N .N.N - -
N..N. N..N. ~N.N. No.m. N.... mo.m NN.. NN.. N0.N .N.N N.N N .N.N - -
...N. .N... NN... NN... NN.N. mm.~ .N.. NN.. NN.N NN.N N.N N .NN. + *
oo.m. mm.o. .N.N. .N.N. ma.o. .N.N NN.. NN.. No.o Nm.o N.N N .0.. + +
.N.N. .N.N. .N.N. N~.N. N..N. .... NN.. NN.. N..N NN.N ..N N NNN. . +
N..N. NN.N. N..N. .N.N. N..N. oo.~ NN.. NN.. NN.N NN.N ..N N NNN. + +
.N.N. NN.N. NN.N. ~N.N. .N... NN.. NN.. N... ~N.N NN.N ..N N .00. . +
.N.N. ...N. .N.N. NN.N. NN... NN.. mm.. N... .N.N NN.N N.N N .0.. + +
N ..N N .NN m ..N w .NN . ..N m .NN N ..N mwaN ~ .0: . ..N .0Nw0m coNNNNoN 0NNN0NN 000NN20N 000NNNN
L3:
L:.Em\u: woo woo a .

.N0NNNNN0N. NNNN0NNN

o N. a
+ N. z
o m. a
+ m. a
+ N. z
+ N. a
o .. a
o .. z
+ .. 3
¢ .. z
+ .. a
+ .. a
+ o. a
+ o. =
+ o. a
4 o. a
+ o. a
+ o. a
+ o a
o o a
+ m z
+ o a
+ a a
+ o a
o m a
+ o N
+ o N
N m a
+ o N
+ o a

 

 

mono News NONNmo
nuaONh u..avm

74

 

 

NN.N. NN.N. N..N. .N.N. NN.N. 0..N N... NN.. NN.N om.o N.N N NNN. + .
.N.N. NN.N. NN.N. NN.N. NN... NN.N N... NN.. No.0 .N.N N.N N NNN. + .
N..N. NN.0N NN.NN om... N..N. NN.. NN.. .N.N NN.N mm.o N.N N .NN. + +
NN... N.... .. .. NN.N. N..N. .N.. NN.. NN.N N..N NN.N N.N N .N.. + .
NN... NN.N. .N... .N.N. NN.N. NN.. NN.. NN.o ...N .N.N N.. N NNN. + +
NN.N. N..N. N..N. N..N. .N.N. .N.. NN.. NN.N N..N NN.N ... N .0.. + +
NN... NN... .N... NN.N. NN.N. NN.. NN.. .N.N N..N .N.N ..N N .N.N - +
...N. NN.N. NN.N. 0N.N. ...N. .... .N.. .N.. N..0 NN.N N.N N .N.N - +
N..N. N..NN .N.No NN... NN.N. NN.. .... NN.N NN.N NN.N N.. N .N.N - +
No... N..N. NN.N. NN.N. NN.N. NN.. .N.. NN.N NN.N NN.N N.. N .N.N - +
NN.NN NN.NN N..NN NN... NN.N. NN.. .... NN.N .N.N Nm.o N.. N .N.N - +
N.... N.... NN.N. NN.~. NN.N. NN.. .N.. N... NN.N .N.N N.. N .N.N - +
N..N. NN.N. NN.N. .. .. mN.N. mm.~ NN.. NN.. NN.. .N.N N.N N .N.N + -
N..N. NN.N. NN.N. .N.N. .N.N. N0.N NN.. NN.. .N.N om.o N.N N .N.N + -
.N.N. NN... NN... N..N. NN.N. NN.. NN.. NN.N N..N NN.N ..N N .N.N . -
No... N..N. NN.N. NN.N. N0.N. NN.. N... NN.N NN.N Nm.o N.N N .N.N + -
.N... NN.N. NN... NN.N. NN.N. NN.. NN.. NN.N NN.N .N.N ..N N .N.N . -
NN.N. .N.N. N.... NN.~. N0.N. NN.. .N.. N... .N.N .N.N N.N N .N.N . -
NN.N.. NN.N. .N.N. NN.~. ...N. NN.. NN.. NN.N ~..N .N.N N.. N .N.. - -
NN... NN... .N... NN.N. NN.N. .... NN.. NN.. N..N NN.N N.. N .NN. - -
N..N. NN.N. N..N. NN... N..N. NN.. .N.. NN.N ...N .N.N N.. N .N.. - -
NN.N. NN.N. NN.N. NN... N..N. NN.. NN.. NN.N N..0 .N.N N.. N .N.. - -
.N... N..N. N..N. .N.N. No.N. NN.. N... NN.N NN.N Nm.o N.. N NNN. - -
NN... N.... NN... .N.N. NN.N. NN.. .N.. .N.N N..o NN.N N.. N .NN. - -
m .LI 2 .L: m .L: N .L: F .L: m .L: a .L: m .L: N .Lz . .Lx OLOOW comu.nom mmmxomm nnwLQEoo ouaLn.>
Anzac.
Nz.Em\N: moo wen u

.N0NNNNNoN. N.NN0NNN

I
UN
'-
333333 3333::

I
M
v-
333333 333333

 

 

mono uch coauwo
-0N0N. -..N0N