Development and evaluation of an onion peeling machine

El-Ghobashy, H
1
;

Adel H. Bahnasay
!
; "ami# A. Ali
$
; %. &. Afify
'
; (.
Ema#a
)
AB"&*A+&
n onion peeling machine was designed, manufactured,
developed and evaluated to suit the small and medium
processing units. The onion peeling machine consists of seven
parts, main frame, peeling drum, inlet and outlet openings, collection
basin, water and air supplying systems, and power transmission. The
machine was evaluated using different onion bulb sizes (small, medium
& large). A mixed sample of different sizes was also tested. The
evaluation process was conducted under three different drum rotational
speeds (!, "! and #! rpm), three different peeling residence times ($, %
and mins) and three different batch loads ($&, %" and !'g). The
optimum peeling efficiency of (".), *#.%", &!.!& and &#."#+ were
obtained at %"'g batch load (!.* ton,h.), %min peeling residence time
and "! rpm for small, medium, mixed and large sizes respectively. -ater
pump and air compressor were added to the peeler to improve the peeling
efficiency, and it was tested under the previous conditions. The
corresponding values of peeling efficiency for the machine with pump
water at water pressure of "!!'.a were (*.(, &.!*, )).%! and &(.") +,
respectively. -hile they were (*., (%.&(, &(.#! and &&.(+,
respectively for air pumping at pressure of #!!'.a. The estimated costs
of onions peeling machine were %&."(, %).#* and.(# /.0,ton for the
machine only, machine with water pump and machine with air
compressor respectively. These values of estimated costs using the
developed machine are very competitive with the cost of manual peeling
process which approached about (# /.0,ton.
A
1. ,-&*.D/+&,.-
1nions has been a popular food for many centuries. Today they are valued
for their flavor, aroma, and taste, being prepared domestically or forming
raw materials for a variety of food processes (dehydration, freezing,
canning and pic'ling).
22222222222222222222222222222
$ Assistant 3esearcher, Agric. 0ng. 3es. 4nstitute,. Agric. 3es. 5enter, 6o''i, 0gypt.
% .rofessor, Agric. 0ng. 6ept., 7aculty of Agric., 8oshtohor 9 :enha ;niversity
Associate .rofessor, Agric. 0ng. 6ept., 7aculty of Agric., 8oshtohor 9 :enha ;niversity
" /ecturer, Agric. 0ng. 6ept., 7aculty of Agric., 8oshtohor 9 :enha ;niversity
# head researcher, Agric. 0ng. 3es. 4nstitute,. Agric. 3es. 5enter, 6o''i, 0gypt.
They are probably the most universally used vegetable in most
countries. 1nion peeling is an essential step in producing many of the
onion products such as dehydrated onions, onion powder, onion
flavoring, onion salt, onion rings, and pic'led and canned onions. <everal
methods have been used for peeling onions. The common methods used
in modern onion processing industry are lye treatment, flame peeling,
and mechanical peeling. /ye peeling and flame peeling methods are
harsh and are not suitable for many onion products 01ang, 122$,
"#ivastava et al., 1223 and -ai4 et al., !5536.
-ai4 et al. 0!5536 designed and tested a batch type multiplier onion
peeling machine suitable for farm=level operation. 4nteraction studies
were carried out between the speed of rotation versus peeling efficiency.
6amage percentage, unpeeled samples and operational parameters were
optimized. The capacity of the peeler is #!=*!'g,hr. The peeling
efficiency was about )% + with unpeeled and damaged percentages of *
and % +, respectively. The cost of peeling was wor'ed out to be >%( per
tones.
"#ivastava et al. 012236 designed and tested a medium=size onion
peeling machine. The novelty of the machine was four scoring blades
assisted by compressed air ?ets to slit the outer layers of the onion s'in.
Tests were made to determine peeling performance as affected by onion
size, onion shape, compressed=air pressure, and onion feeding rate. The
performance of the machine was characterized by peeling efficiency,
peeling losses, and throughput rate. 7eeding chain speed and air pressure
significantly affected the machine@s performance. The interactions of
onion size with air pressure and onion shape with chain speed
significantly affected all performance parameters.
Guldas 0!55$6 found that hand peeling of 'iwi fruit has some
disadvantages such as difficulty during peeling, increase of loss in weight
and nutritional value. -eight (fruit tissue) loss in hand peeling was
higher than al'ali peeling.
Adnan 0!5156 designed and constructed an onion s'in peeling machine
to meet the standards reAuired by the customer or user. 4n general
machine construction methodology is based on the concept of friction on
the surface of the onion and topped with the use of water to helps soften
the surface of the onions before peeling process can be done. 8eanwhile,
the methods and the use of machines is based on the rotation of a soft
brush attached to the shaft and fully controlled by a single phase A5
motor. This process is expected to ma'e onion s'in come out. This
machine is build to meet the demand from small=and medium industry in
design, function, and price. This machine is also expected to be used for
wedding fest preparation in the villages. 0fficiency of this machine had
been measured and the data are being analyzed using 6esign 0xpert
software for the AB1CA procedure.
5onsidering the increasing demand for garlic products in domestic and
export mar'et, a low cost garlic clove peeler was developed and its
performance was evaluated. The developed garlic clove peeler consisted
of a $! mm diameter, "!! mm long peeling chamber mounted on a mild
steel (8<) angle frame. The top portion of the pressure chamber was
connected with a "! mm diameter reducer to separate the thin hus' from
the peeled material. A $! mm galvanized iron (D4) pipe was inserted and
positioned at a height of *! mm from the top surface of the garlic bed to
flow the air from the compressor. The peeling efficiency of )(.* percent
was observed with peeling time of (! s for a batch of #!! g (%udgal
and +hampaat, !5116.
Abrasive peeling was carried out for different types of vegetables with an
abrasive peeler. This is simply a drum with a rough inner surface and a
motor. After the vegetables are put inside the drum, the inlet is covered,
and the drum is allowed to rotate for a short time. This method is more
suitable for root vegetables than fruits, because the latter are usually
rather soft. <weet potato is usually peeled by this method 07in, 122)6.
7rom the previous wor', it is clear that the hand peeling process is very
tedious, time consuming wor' and costly as well, therefore, the main aim
of this study was to design, fabricate and evaluate an onion peeling
machine from local raw materials to assure high Auality, high peeling
efficiency and losses reduction with low cost. This machine could be
used in small and medium production units, such as restaurants, hotels and
small onion dryers.

!. E89E*,%E-&A7 9*.+ED/*E"
!.1 Desc#iption of the onion peeling machine.
The onion peeling machine consists of seven parts, included main
frame, peeling drum, inlet and outlet openings, collection basin, water
and air supply systems, and power transmission, as shown in 7ig. ($).
The peeling drum is considered the most important part in the machineE
it has a length of $!!! mm and diameter of "&! mm as shown in 7ig.
(%).
820
1
9
5
5
1
3
6
0
740
300
4
0
0
1390
1080
1
4
0
0
5
3
0
940
3
0
0
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
9
8
7
15
12
11
10
14
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
6
0levation <ide view
6im.mm
$. .eeler chassis &.-ater pressure hose $#. An iron arm
%. 1utlet opening ).Two inlet openings $*. -ater pump
. -ater by pass hose $!. 5ollection basin $(. C= belt ad?ust screw
". 0lectric motor $$. <ide cover $&. Dear box
#. -ater tan' pressure $%. A ?oint lin' $). <proc'et and chain cover
*. metal couples $. -ater pressure control %!. Top cover
(. -ater suction hose $". -ater pressure gage %$. :ac' cover
7ig. ($)F <chematic diagram of the prototype onion peeling machine.
The peeling drum consists of two circular frames of galvanized metal
sheets with " mm thic'ness, $!! mm length and "&! mm diameter.
Twenty four peeling beams of galvanized sheet ;=shaped with
dimensions of %# x # x %mm for height, width and thic'ness,
respectively, were fixed on the internal surface of the circular frame.
0ach beam was filled with a wooden slice to fix the steel plate saw
with a sharp edge tooth on it using bolts to hold the plate saw inside
the beam, and to reduce the impact of onion falling during rotation.
The depth of abrasive edge can be ad?usted by raising or lowering the
plate saw by external bolts. The upper distance from edge to edge of
the saw teeth is & mm, and the number of saw teeth of $ meter length is
$%# teeth. A %#!mm blan' space was left between each beam to
facilitate the delivery of the peels. The drum was fixed on a horizontal
shaft supported by one ball bearing (! mm 46) from the closed side of
drum and mounted on two wheels from the other opened sides.
1000
48
0
25
35
A
Detailes A
1
2
3
4
5
1000
25
8
3,5
1
Detailes A
1
2
3
4
5
1000
2
5
8
3
,5
1
$. <teel plate saw . peeling beam #. :eam bolt
%. -ooden slice ". 5ircular frame
7ig. (%)F <chematic diagram of the peeling drum
The inlet and outlet openings were made of galvanized sheet metal of
$.#mm thic'nessE one for feeding and the other for unloading. The
inlet opening consists of two upper doors ("!! x !! mm dimensions),
with an empty vertical distance between them ($"!mm.) to be easy in
raising or lowering the nozzles pipe. 6uring onion feeding, the outlet
opening is closed and these two doors are opened. The outlet opening
is placed under the inlet openingE the size of outlet opening is "!! x !!
mm.
The collection basin consists of four parts (the basin chassis, the water
and peel collection basin, the strainer stand and the strainer). The
basin chassis which is mounted on four wheels to carry the basin has
$!mm thic'ness, and dimensions of )%! x&%! x)!mm for length,
width and height, respectively. The basin was made of galvanized steel
sheet, of $.#mm thic'ness and the dimensions of basin are )!! x &!! x
"*! mm for length, width and height, respectively. The basin bottom is
opened with a hole of %# mm diameter attached with on,off valve to
drain the water.
!.!. 9oe# t#ansmission system:
The peeling drum is driven by a $.# '-, single phase electric motor. The
motor is connected to gear box to reduce the speed from $"#! to %) rpm
(#!,$) and convert the horizontal rotational motion to vertical .The
power was transmitted to the gear box by using different sizes of pulleys
and C=shape belts. Two sproc'ets with the same diameter ($"!mm,
"teeth) and chain were used to transmit the available power from the
gear box to the peeling drum shaft without slippage.
!.$. 1ate# and ai# supply systems:
A water pump of !.(# '- and "!! '.a maximum pressure and an air
compressor of !! liter capacity with $%!! '.a maximum pressure were
used to test the effect of compressed water or air in improving the
performance of peeling process as shown in 7ig. (). The water was
recycled at $=% h, interval due to the bloc'ed of screen filter mesh every
$=% h.
!.$. 9hysical p#ope#ties of the onions used fo# the e;pe#imental
o#4:
The mass and thic'ness of all onion components of Di za %! onion
cultivar were measured and statistically analyzed. ! onion bulbs were
ta'en randomly and divided into $! samples for =size categories 0small
sizeF G "! mmE medium sizeF from "!=(! mm& large sizeF H(!mm
0Bahnasay et al., !55!6), to get the mean values (Av.). All layers of
onion leaves sample were carefully separated, as well as the onion tip and
the onion root to determine the mass and thic'ness percentages. The
average moisture content of the onion used in the experiments was
&(."I!.+.
100
50
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
0levation <ide view 6im.mm
$. <creen filter *. -ater pump $$ Air pressure hose
%. Bone=return valve (. -ater tan' pressure $%. 7lange
. -ater excess hose &. an iron arm $. -ater pressure control
". -ater and air nozzles ).a ?oint lin' $". 8etal lin's group
#. Bozzles pipe $!. Air compressor
7ig. () <chematic diagram of water and air supply systems.
!.$.1. +alculations of the peels mass and thic4ness pe#centage:
The calculated peels mass percentage was defined as the ratio of the peels
mass to be removed to the total onion mass which could be determined as
followsF
($)
-hereF
8
c.p
J the calculated peels mass (+), to be removed.
8
f.s.l
J the first sAuamous leaf mass (g).
8
s.s.l
J the second sAuamous leaf mass (g).
8
t.s.l
J the third sAuamous leaf mass (g).
8
s.f.l
J the sAuamous fleshy leaf mass (g).
8
total

J the total onion mass (g).
The same eAuation was used to calculate the thic'ness components
percentage.
!.'. Evaluation of the onion peeling machine:
8achine peeling capacity, peeling efficiency and the percentage of
removed peels were the main items of the peeling machine performance
evaluation. These parameters were evaluated at different onion bulb sizes
(small, medium, large and mixed), different drum rotational speeds (!,
"! and #! rpm), different peeling residence times ($, % and min) and
different batch loads ($&, %" and !'g). Three replicates were used for
each experimentE a sample of six onions was used for each replicate.
0ach sample was mar'ed for identification. 7or mar'ing, different color
dyes were placed on the onion root. The sample was weighed before
feeding to the machine to determine the 8
i
(initial mass). The onion
sample was weighed again after peeling process to determine 8
m
(mass
after leaving the machine).
!.'.1. %achine peeling capacity:
8achine peeling capacity (t,h) was defined as the batch load of the
onions divided by the total peeling time (loading timeK peeling residence
timeK unloading time) in an hour, and could be calculated using the
following eAuationF
(%)
-hereF
+
p
<

machine peeling capacity 0ton,h)
/
b
Jbatch load ('g)
T
l
J loading time (min)
T
r
J peeling residence time (min)
T
u
J unloading time (min)
!.'.!. 9e#centage of the #emoved peels:
.eels removed percentage was defined as the ratio of the mass of peels
removed by the machine to the initial mass of the sample expressed as
percentage as followsF
()
0"#ivastava et al. 12236
-hereF
3
p
J the removed peels by the machine (+).
8
i
J initial sample mass (g).
8
m
Jsample mass after leaving the machine (g).
!.'.$. 9eeling Efficiency.
.eeling efficiency was defined as the ratio of the peels removed by the
machine (+) to the calculated peels mass (+),to be removed. 4t could be
computed as followsF
(")
-hereF
L
p
J peeling efficiency (+).
8
c.p
J the calculated peels mass (+), to be removed.
The closer the value of L
p
+ to $!! I <.6, the higher the peeling
efficiency, L
p
+ less than $!! I <.6 refers to an incomplete peeling
onions, while L
p
+ greater than $!! I <.6 denotes some loss of useful
onion flesh for the sized samples.
!.). %odifications fo# imp#ovement of the onion peeling machine:
After determining the most effective factors for the performance of the
proposed machine as a result of the previous evaluation tests, the water
pump and air compressor were used individually to improve the peeling
efficiency. .ressurized air or water is used to blow the peel down to the
collection basin. The same previous eAuation of the peeler evaluation
were used to determine the performance of the onion peeling machine, as
affected by (experimental factors) water and air pressures. Three levels of
water and air pressures were used in the experiment (%!!, !! and
"!!'.a) and ("!!, #!! and *!!'.a) respectively, with four sizes of
onions.
$. *E"/7&" A-D D,"+/"",.-
$.1. "ome physical p#ope#ties of the onions used in the studyF
$.1.1. &he mass and thic4ness of the onions:
Table ($) shows the mass and percentage of the peels to be removed
which represent the sum of the first, second and third sAuamous leaves
and the sAuamous fleshy leaf mass and thic'ness.
The results show that the average onion peels mass were %.&" I!.(%,
).!*I%.") and $&.)"I."" g for the variety Diza %! at three sizes (small,
medium & large). The highest and the lowest peels mass recorded values
were $&.)"I."" and %.&" I!.(%g for the large and small bulb sizes
respectively. The calculated peels mass percentages were *.(I$.(,
(.$&I$.& and (.&)I!.)( + for the previous three sizes. The calculated
peels mass percentage (8
c.p
) was used to calculate the peeling efficiency.
Table ($) 8ass of all onion components of Diza %! onion cultivar.
.nion
laye#
%ass, g %ass, =
"mall %edium 7a#ge "mall %edium 7a#ge
Av. "D Av. "D Av. "D Av. "D Av. "D Av. "D
%c.p !.>' 5.3! 2.5? !.'2 1>.2' $.'' ?.$3 1.35 3.1> 1.>$ 3.>2 5.23
%f.l..b .&! (.( $!!.%! %%.& $).# %$.)* (.# .!* ((.() ".") &!.& .&
%f.l.o.b *.%! $.$! $.)! .*) %!.)) $!.&* $.** $.%" $$.$! .!" &.& .$%
%tip $.*% !." %.&% !.(! .&$ !.&& .*" $.$! %.%( !.( $.*! !.&
%#oot $.! !."& %.!( !.*( .!" !.&% %.&$ !.(& $.** !.*% $.$ !."
%total "#.(# &.& $%&.!# %".(% %"!.$% ".%%
8
c.p
The calculated peels mass to be removed (g) and (+).
8
f.l.w.b
The fleshy leaves with blades mass (g) and (+).
8
f.l.o.b
The fleshy leaves without blades mass (g) and (+).
8
top
The top onion mass (g) and (+).
8
root
The root onion mass (g) and (+).
8
total
The total onion mass (g).
Table (%) shows the average thic'ness of all components of leaves
onions. As shown in the table the onion peels thic'nesses were
$.$$I!.$, $.(#I!."" and %."I!." for the previous three sizes. The
maximum and the minimum peels thic'ness recorded values were
%."I!." and $.$$I!.$ for the large and small size, respectively. The
calculated peels thic'nesses percentages were *.*I$.%#, #.&$I$." and
#.*)I!.(( + for the previous three sizes.
Table (%) Thic'ness of all onion components of Diza %! onion cultivar.
.nion
laye#s
&hic4ness, mm &hic4ness , %
"mall %edium 7a#ge "mall %edium 7a#ge
Av. <6 Av. <6 Av. <6 Av. <6 Av. <6 Av. <6
&c.p 1.11 5.$1 1.3) 5.'' !.'5 5.$' ?.?$ 1.!) ).>1 1.'$ ).?2 5.33
&f.l..b $!. $.*& %%.#! .!* .&$ %.") *%.#$ .() (".# ".*) &!.$( .!)
&f.l.o.b #.$! !.)) #.)! $.") *.!% $.** !.&* .*) $).** ".() $".$" .$%
&total $*.#" %.# !.$# .%$ "%.% .*$
T
c.p
The calculated peels thic'ness that to be removed (mm) and (+).
T
f.l.w.b
The fleshy leaves with blades as thic'ness (mm) and (+).
T
f.l.o.b
The fleshy leaves without blades as thic'ness (mm) and (+).
T
total
The total onion thic'ness (mm).
:ased on the obtained results of peels thic'nesses, the height of saw teeth
could be designed, as well as the strength of peels adhesion with bulb,
The smaller bulb size, the greater the strength of adhesion between the
peels with bulb and vice versa. <o that for teeth height design, leaves
thic'ness were considered. 7or small onion size category, $.$ mm
thic'ness was ta'en, mean while, $.(# mm was ta'en for the large size
category. 4n general, the height teeth were designed and ad?usted at $.#
mm, which achieves the best previous conditions
$.!. Evaluation of the onion peeling machine.
$.!.1. %achine capacity:
The productivity of the onion peeling machine was mainly affected by
the batch load and the peeling residence time. 7igs. (") and (#) show the
peeling machine capacity at different batch loads and peeling residence
times.
4t can be noticed that the increase of the batch load from $& to ! 'g,
tends to increase the capacity of the onion peeler from !.* to !.* ton,h at
$min residence time, from !.%( to !."# ton,h at %min and from !.%$* to
!.* ton,h at min peeling residence time. 4ncreasing the peeling
residence time from $ to min, tends to decrease the capacity of the
onion peeler from !.* to !.%$* ton, h at $& 'g batch load, from !."& to
!.%&& ton,h at %" 'g and from !.* to !.* ton,h at ! 'g batch load.
$.!.!. %achine peeling efficiency.
Table () and 7igs. (*) and (() show the peeling efficiency as affected by
rotation speed, batch load, peeling residence time and onion bulb size.
The results show that the machine efficiency increased by increasing the
pervious factors, where it reached the highest value at large size, !'g
batch load, min peeling residence time and "! rpm drum rotational
speed and the lowest value was obtained at small size, $&'g batch load,
one min peeling residence time and ! rpm drum speed.
&able 0$6 %achine peeling efficiency 0=6, of the tested onion peele#.
Drum
speed
(rpm)
Peeling
residen
ce time,
min)
Size (mm)
Small Medium Large Mixed
Batch load, kg Batch load, kg Batch load, kg Batch load, kg
1 !" #$ 1 !" #$ 1 !" #$ 1 !" #$
#$
1 !1.5$ '$.)3 '3.22 $1.31 $1.>5 $2.?? $2.1? ?5.3) >$.>1 )5.3$ '1.$2 )!.3>
! !$.3' '?.3$ )3.1! ''.)2 '!.)? )>.>! ').'' ?).2! 2).$3 )?.!? '2.3? ?!.31
# !?.!$ )$.1$ 3'.$) '3.') '2.13 ?1.3) '>.1? ?2.>) 15?.!) ?5.>2 )3.5) 3!.1>
"$
1 $).'> )1.21 2'.>1 )5.15 )5.1? ??.1' )!.>5 3>.$? 11'.)5 )!.!3 ?1.)$ >>.2)
! '1.>3 3'.25 11$.3' )).>> ?).!' 3>.5? )2.!! >).') 1!2.>) ?).)5 >5.5> 2?.)?
# '$.)1 >!.53 1!>.!3 ?3.11 ?3.?? >3.>$ ?!.21 >>.?> 1$$.32 35.?3 >>.$5 11!.$1
%$
1 $?.>> )!.!5 >>.>3 ''.>5 )'.)1 ?>.3' )3.2) 33.!3 2?.25 )'.!3 )>.)? >2.5)
! '!.'3 ?>.$2 15).33 )>.3> ?5.)3 >$.$$ ?).?5 >>.5! 11$.12 )>.?? ?2.!3 2?.$1
# ''.!> 3!.2? 111.>5 ?>.>5 ?1.)? 21.!3 35.3! 2?.!5 11>.?3 )2.>2 31.2> 155.$$
4t is worthwhile to notice that the peeling efficiency values at both "! and
#! rpm were almost similar, which means, wor'ing at rotation speed of
"! rpm will gave the same results as #! rpm.
Also, increasing the batch load to ! 'g caused a serious damage in the
onion which gave very wrong indication on the peeling efficiency, the
same was happened when the residence time increased from % to min.
The optimum peeling efficiency of (".), *#.%", &#."# and &!.!& + were
obtained at %"'g batch load, %min peeling residence time and "! rpm for
small, medium, large and mixed sizes respectively. 4t should be said that,
the above mentioned values of peeling efficiency was not selected based
on the highest values shown in tables (), but the interaction of both
efficiency and the final Auality of peeled bulbs, which included the
impacted and crac'ed bulbs.
$.$ Effect of the modification systems fo# imp#ovement of the onion
peeling p#ocess:
To improve the peeling efficiency, a water pump and air compressor were
used to remove the peels out from the peeling drum and to increase the
peels separation process, which increases the peeling efficiency. -ater
was pumped at pressure ranged from %!! to "!! '.a at flow rate ranged
from $."% to %.% m

,h. The air compressor presses the air at pressure

ranged from "!! to *!! '.a at flow rate ranged from !."" to !.#( m

,h.
Table (") .eeling efficiency (+), of the modified peeler at different water
pressures.
1ate#
9#essu#es,
49a
"i@e, mm
"mall %edium 7a#ge %i;ed
!55 (!.$! *).&% &(.$$ (&.*(
$55 (. (#.$( )$." &%.)
'55 (*.( &.!* )).%! &(.")
Table (#) .eeling efficiency, (+) of the modified peeler at different air
pressures.
Ai#
9#essu#e,
49a
"i@e, mm
"mall %edium 7a#ge %i;ed
'55 (%.%$ *.$$ &.&# &$."!
)55 (*. (%.&( &&.( &(.#!
?55 (#.! (".*# &(.)& &".$
The results indicated the highest peeling efficiency were (*.(, &.!*,
)).%! and &(.") + at "!!'.a for water pump improvement, while they
were (*., (%.&(, &&.( and &(.#! + at #!!'.a for air pumping system
for the small, medium, large and mixed sizes respectively.
7rom the results it could be seen that the proposed improvement systems
of peeling efficiency were worthy for medium, large and mixed sizes of
bulbs, while with it has not given any improvement with the small size
bulbs compared to the previous results of evaluation. This may be due to
the high adhesion force of the leaves in the small size bulbs.
'.$. 9oe# #eAui#ements:
The relationship between the power reAuirements for the peeler with,
without load and useful power are show in 7igs. (&) and ()). 4ncreasing
the water pressure from %!! to "!! '.a caused an increasing of the
power loaded and useful power from $."*" to $.#%$ '- and from !.("*
to !.&! '- for the power under load condition and useful power
respectively. And the increasing of the air pressure from "!! to *!! '.a
caused an increase of power under load condition and the useful power
from $.*$) to $.*) '- and from !.)!$ to !.)(% '-, respectively. 4t could
be noticed that the air compressor consumed more power than the water
pump.
'.$ +ost of onion peeling:
The initial price of the onion peeling machine including the fabrications
costs and the raw materials, was /.0. "#!! while it was reached, /.0.
#!!! and $!!#! for the machine with water pump and air compressor,
respectively.
The estimated costs of onions peeling machine were %&."(, %).#* and
.(# /.0,ton for the machine only, machine with using water pump and
machine with using air compressor, respectively. This is in comparison
with (# /.0,ton for hand peeling. 1r in other words was about %.% times
higher than that of the onion peeling machine.
8eanwhile, the machine is simple, maintainable and can be operated
using small power (about !.&&( '-) and consumes limited amount of
water about (!.$& m

,h) using water pump with water recycling and

constructed of standard locally manufactured components. This machine
can be considered as a labor saver and may solve the problem of labor
scarcity especially in onions peeling process.
'. +.-+7/",.-
A sample onion peeling machine was designed, manufactured and
evaluated successively for different bulb sizes and different operational
parameters such as rotational speed, feeding rate and peeling residence
time. The most important results could be summarized as followsF
The machine capacity increased from !.%&% to !."( ton,h, with
increasing of batch load from $& to ! 'g, while it was decreased
from !."& to !.%&& ton,h, with increasing the peeling residence time
from $ to mins.
.eeling efficiency increased with all parameter under study. The
optimum peeling efficiency of (".), *#.%", &#."#+and &!.!& were
obtained at %"'g batch load, %min peeling residence time and "! rpm
for small, medium, large and mixed sizes, respectively. -ith
consideration of the final Auality and soundness of the peeled bulbs.
-ater pump and air compressor were added to peeler to improve the
peeling efficiency. The highest peeling efficiency were (*.(, &.!*,
)).%! and &(.")+ at "!!'.a with water pump, and were (*.,
(%.&(, &&.( and &(.#! + at #!!'.a for air compressor for the
small, medium, large and mixed sizes, respectively.
.ower reAuirements under the conditions of loaded machine and the
useful power ranged from $."*" to $.#%$ '- and from !.("* to !.&!
'- for the machine with water pressure and ranged from $.*$) to
$.*) '- and from !.)!$ to !.)(% '- for the machine with air
pressure, respectively.
The estimated costs of onions peeling machine were %&."(, %).#* and
.(# /.0,ton for the machine before modification, machine with
water pump and machine with air compressor, respectively, compared
with (# /.0,ton for hand peeling.
A+B-.17EDGE%E-&
The authors gratefully ac'nowledge the help and support of 0ng.
Ahmed Dhareib, 8anager of 0l=BeanaMia 7or 6rying 5ompany, 8onofia
Dov., 0gypt, in providing them with useful informationMs about hand and
machine peeling. Also, the authorsM wishes to express deep appreciation
to staff members of :enha wor'shop, Agric. 0ng. <ector, Agric. 8inistry,
0gypt.
). *ECE*E-+E"
Adnan, -.H. 0!5156. 6esign and development of a portable onion
peeler machine. 8.<c. Thesis, 7aculty of 8echanical
0ngineering, 4ndian.
Bahnasay, A. H.; (. A. E,-Haddad; %. D. E,-Ansa#y and H. %.
"o#ou# 0!55!6. .hysical and mechanical .roperties of <ome
0gyptian onion cultivars. Annals of Agric <c., 8oshtohor. Col.
"!(")F %!%)=%!"%.
Guldas, %. 0!55$6. .eeling and the physical and chemical properties of
'iwi fruit. Nournal of 7ood .rocessing and .reservation. %(F ",
%($=%&".
7in, ".B. 0122)6. 6evelopment of 5ottage 7ood .rocessing 0nterprises
in 3ural Taiwan. 7ood 4ndustry 3esearch and 6evelopment
4nstitute, Osinchu, Taiwan, -or' 3eport $$", pp. $=*.
%udgal, E. D. and 9. ". +hampaat 0!5116 6evelopment of a Darlic
5love .eeler for <mall <cale 4ndustry, 4nternational Nournal of
7ood 0ngineeringF Col. (F 4ss., Article ".
-ai4, *; ". F. B. Annamali and D. +. 9. Amb#ose 0!5536.
6evelopment of batch type multiplier onion peeler. .roceedings
of the 4nternational Agricultural 0ngineering 5onference,
:ang'o', Thailand, =* 6ecember %!!(.
"#ivastava, A.; G. EanEe, *. 7edebuh#; D. 1elch and 7. 1ang
012236. 6esign and development of an onion peeling machine.
A<A0 Col. $(%)F$*(=$(
1ang, 7. 0122$6. .erformance testing of an onion peeling machine using
response surface methodology. 8.<c. Thesis, 8ichigan <tate
;niversity.
GHIJK LMNOPJ QJR SMMOTU LVWXT
YZ[I\JK QI]^ _`ab c[de 1 fU[dghi _b[e jk[l m ! , Y]l _`eK LM`n $ ,
opMpl ob[hT _`ab ' qr[`l _`ab [VLst , )
PQQRSTU VQQW XPQQYZ[\]^S _`QQabcS dQQR`ef gQQhi^S jkQQlm[^ PQQ^n oQQkkmfp jqrQQsf t^u vwi^S Sxy z{|q
X}pjQQf ~p{eQQ Xjklm[^S PSrsRS Xt{WT`u W P^S r[fp .`|SU tZ j]^S gWSr^S
`Qap .SrQ|^Sp `Qk]^S US{QW _` ,`Qk]^Sp jlm^S Vk]af rb ,Pjb gm Pr]aW ,jwW
k e T`k[S of ^ %! H) qT{f ` P "! ,(jk) "! = (! G,(Rr[W) (! (jki)
xQQy _S{\[QQRS oQQfp ,PQQRST{^S rQQr] PQQmZ[]^S ghiZ^ Pkkis^S Sr\^S PRSTU ofp (oW
jQQ]^S gQQWSrZ^ `qr[QQW dQQS T`QQk[S QQW PQQ^S okkmf of. P^S ok]hf `h\^S
QQ^p {QQb tQQZ SrQQy `QQp `kW Pi]Z _S{\[R` P^S SU kwf `-q of .`|SU tZ
.Pqp{k^S Pmqjs^` `|[T`mW p P^^ PqU`h[S gkl[^S k^`f `b ofp `|f`Y Vj^
FZq `] `|kZ ghw[]^S `[e^S oy `p
$ = QQk eQQh^ PQQ[^SS USjQQ]^S jQQlm^S PQQZ[ Pi Rr[W pSjf %! QQk `QQW *.( I $.( p (.&) I
!.)( .jklm[^S PkZ] `Y `w^ Pie^S xy W{\[RSp +
% = k `W P[^SS USj]^S jlm^S ]R Rr[W pSjf $.$$ I !.$ p %." I !." xy W{\[RSp oW
.jklm[^S ^ ]k]h[^S `YfTS {q{w[^ okm^S
= y `|]kkmf `eu jklm[^S P^ tZ]^S `Y^S (".) , *#.#" , &#."# p &!.!& jkh^S PYZ^ +
{e ^Sr[^S tZ PsZ[\]^Sp jki^Sp PsRr[]^Sp %" ,P{^S g]b oa % gQQSU `mi^S W PmkU
, P^S "! Ur T`i[S xcS VW okm^S Zf jk[S vkb jklm[^S P^n STpU PjR PmkU,PY^
.jklm[^S PkZ]
" = ` `Y dS {e P^S Pk`[u !.* .P`R,
# = t^S `]^S _S{\[R` jklm[^S P^n `Y US (*.(% , &.!* , )).% p &(.") {e+
"!! tQQ^u SrQQ|^S QQ _S{\[QQR`p `QQR` rZk (*. , (%.&( , &&.( p &(.# {QQe +
#!! .^Sr[^S tZ PsZ[\]^Sp jki^Sp PsRr[]^Sp jkh^S PYZ^ `R` rZk
* = ` jklm[^S P^ Vkeh[^Sp `W`\^S k^`f "#!! , #!!! p $!!#! , QQm jkQQlm[^S PQQ^ Pke
.^SrQQ[^S tQQZ SrQQ|^S `QQ _S{\[QQRS VQQW jklm[^S P^ p `k]^S Pi]Z _S{\[RS VW jklm[^S P^
y jklm[^S P^n gklf k^`f `p %&."( , %).#* p .(# `QQ QQkb tQ QQ , PQQke
ty p{k^S jklm[^S k^`f (# . ,Pke
( = jkQQ QQkb glfp PqU`h[Sp P`kh^S PZ|Rp dkj[^S Psk P^S xy Z\[ iR `]W
.ghi^S kYaf V`hW jki^S rs\^S o[^ `|Zq{f ]qp
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
$ .k 9 tU 9 PkST^S rwi^S jW 9 PkST^S PR{e|^S rw {|W 9 {`W vb`
% PR{e|^S o kTp 9 PkST^S PR{e|^S `[R .`|e PW` =j|[l] PST^S PkZ = PkST^S
% PR{e|^S o = {`]^S PkST^S PR{e|^S `[RS .`|e PW` =j|[l] PST^S PkZ = PkST^S
" PR{e|^S o = PkST^S PR{e|^S }T{W .`|e PW` =j|[l] PST^S PkZ = PkST^S
# 9 rw kT = .k 9 tU 9 PkST^S rwi^S jW 9 PkST^S PR{e|^S rw {|W