Changes of Technological Characteristics of Sugar Beet Roots during Storage as Effected by Some Chemical Treatments

Main Article Content

H. S. Abd Alraoof
S. I. El- Syiad
A. A. Abdel- Hamid
Sanaa A. El- Sherif

Abstract

Background: It is necessary to manufacture sugar beet roots directly after harvest to reduce sugar loss and obtain best chemical and technological characteristics and to also control dextran level and the total viable count and leuconostoc mesenteriodes of sugar beet roots  but if manufacturing is difficult after harvest because of unsuitable environmental conditions, transportation difficulties or roots are in surplus treatment of beet roots, The aim of the current study is to reduce the loss of sugar and dextran formation during storage and minimize the deterioration rate and fit the required technological properties along the manufacture process.

Materials & Methods: This work was carried out to reduce the deterioration and to extend the shelf life of sugar beet roots after harvest and before processing. Roots were divided to four groups (100 root for each group) The first group without treatment (control). The second group was treated by dipping in calcium hydroxide for 10 min at concentration of 1%, 5% and 10%. The third group was treated with sulfur dioxide at 500, 1000 and 2500ppm (sulfur dioxide was obtained by burning sulfur in selected cabinet) The fourth group was treated by dipping sodium hydroxide of 0.1, 0.5, 1N for 10 minutes during storage periods temperature from 18°C to 31°C and relative humidity ranged from 55% to 85%. Analysis was carried out at 0,3, 6 and 9 days after harvest.

Results: Subjected deferent treatments (Ca (OH)2, So2 and NaoH at deferent concentrations and stored for 9 days in open air. The technological characteristics of sugar beet roots were studied. It necessary to manufacture sugar beet directly after harvest to reduce sugar loss and obtain best technological characteristics. On the other hand, when roots are in surplus.

Conclusion: Should be treated by dipping in sodium hydroxide solution 0.5 NaoH for 10 min. to reduce the loss of sugar and minimum deterioration and fit the technological properties required along manufacture process.

Keywords:
Sugar beet, sulfur dioxide, technological characteristics, concentrations, harvest.

Article Details

How to Cite
Alraoof, H. S. A., Syiad, S. I. E.-, Hamid, A. A. A.-, & Sherif, S. A. E.-. (2020). Changes of Technological Characteristics of Sugar Beet Roots during Storage as Effected by Some Chemical Treatments. Asian Journal of Research and Review in Agriculture, 2(1), 70-78. Retrieved from https://globalpresshub.com/index.php/AJRRA/article/view/885
Section
Original Research Article

References

Arslanoglu H, Tumen F. A study on cations and color removal from thin sugar juice by modified sugar beet pulp. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012;49(3):319– 327.

Salazar-Ordóñez M, Pérez-Hernández PP, Martín-Lozano JM. Sugar beet for bioethanol production: An approach based on environmental agricultural outputs. Energy Policy. 2013;55:662–668.

Ferweez H, Abbas HM, Abou El-Magd BM. Determination of the losses in yield, quality and profitability of sugar beet roots resulted from exceeding nitrogen fertilization and processing delay. Minia J. of Agric. Res. And Develop. 2006;26(1): 27-44.

Liebe S, Varrelmann M. Effect of environment and sugar beet genotype on root rot development and pathogen profile during storage. Phytopathology. 2016; 106(1):65–75.

Morris GA, Ralet M, Bonnin E. Physical characterisation of the rhamnogalacturonan and homogalacturonan fractions of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) pectin. 2010;82:1161–1167.

Asadi M. Beet-sugar Handbook. John Wiley and Sons, Inc,New Jersey. 2007; 884.

Abou-Shady KhAA. Chemical and technological studies on sugar beet and its wastes. M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. of Agric., Al-Azhar Univ. 1994;136.

Kaur K, Singh AK. Curricular greening is deficient in universities. African J. Agric. Res. 2015;10(21):2197–2202.

Le Docte A. Commercial determination of sugar in sugar beet using the socks sugar. J. 1977;29:488-492.

Brown JD, Lilland O. Rapid determination of potassium and sodium by flam photometry. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1964;48:341-316.

Silin PM, Silina NP. Chemical control in sugar technology. Food Technol., pub. USSR. 1977;120-126.

Sapronova A, Joshman A, loseava V. General technology of sugar and sugar substances. Pischevay apromy shennost pub. Moscow. 1979;464.

Abd El-Mohsen NE. Chemical and technological studies on sugar beet. Egypt. J. Food Sci. 1996;24(1):1-14.

Ram B. L Handbook of Cane Sugar Technology. Publish by Mahen Primalani, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co; Delhi. 11001 India. 1978;38-39.

El-Geddawi IH. Deterioration of sugar crops.1- Sugar beet deterioration. Alexandria Science Exchange. 1988;9(3): 385-405.

Payne MG, Schmehl L. Powers and Follet RH, E.R. Effect of genetic population and soil fertility level on the chemical composition of sugar beet tops. Tech. Bull. Colombia Agric. Expt. Stat. 1964;28:32.

Dexter ST, Frakes MG, Wyse RE. Damage to sugarbeet roots from various degrees of wilting at various temperatures. J. Sugarbeet Res. 1969;15(6):480–488. DOI: 10.5274/jsbr.15.6.480

Armstrong MJ, Milford GFJ. Storage root quality in sugarbeet in relation to nitrogen uptake. J. Agric. Sci. 1990;115(3):355–362. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859600075791

Aksu G, Altay H. The effects of potassium applications on drought stress in sugar beet. Sugar Tech. 2020;4(2):157–168. DOI: 10.1007/s12355-020-00851-w

Tsialtas JT, Maslaris N. Nitrogen effects on yield, quality and K/Na selectivity of sugar beets grown on clays under semi-arid, irrigated conditions. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2013;7(3):355–371.

Mokhless AM, Abd El-Rahman, Safaa A Limam, Mennat-Allah MA El-Geddawy. Effect of storage conditions on the sugar recovery, sucrose loss in wastes and juice purity during sugar beet manufacture. Suez Canal Univ. J. Food Sci. 2019;6(1): 65–73.

El Shahaby OA, Zohri A-NA, Yousef MM, Hafez ESE, Yousef MM. Determination of sucrose losses in beet sugar manufacturing at Dakahlia sugar company, Egypt. Egypt. Sugar J. 2014;7: 28–50.