Powder Technology 188 (2008) 1–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Powder Technology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / p ow t e c

Handling and frictional characteristics of soybean as a function of moisture content

and variety
M. Kashaninejad ⁎, M. Ahmadi, A. Daraei, D. Chabra
Department of Food Science & Technology, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Beheshti Ave., Gorgan, 49138-15739, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Handling and frictional properties of soybean are needed for the design of the storage, processing, drying,
Received 8 June 2007 aeration and handling systems. In this research some handling properties (dimensions, volume, sphericity,
Received in revised form 11 February 2008 surface area, bulk and kernel densities, porosity) and frictional properties (empyting angle of repose and
Accepted 21 March 2008
friction coefficients against five different surfaces) were investigated for four varieties of soybean: Williams,
Available online 1 April 2008
BP, LWK and Sahar, as a function of moisture content in the range from 8 to 24 (w.b.%). All physical
Keywords:
characteristics of soybean varieties were significantly affected by changing moisture content in the studied
Angle of repose range. The results showed that the principal dimensions, unit mass, geometric mean diameter, surface area,
Bulk density volume, kernel density and porosity increased linearly with increasing moisture content for all varieties,
Geometric mean diameter while sphericity decreased linearly and bulk density showed a quadratic trend for all varieties when the
Kernel density moisture content increased from 8 to 24 (w.b%). The coefficient of static friction increased linearly against all
Porosity the tested surfaces as the moisture content increased. As well as angle of repose for emptying increased
Soybean linearly with increasing of moisture content for four varieties. The relationships between the measured
Sphericity
properties and moisture content of soybean varieties were obtained and represented by regression
Static coefficient of friction
equations.
Surface area
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Soybean is a major member of the legume family and it plays an
important role in healthy nutrition because of its valuable composi-
tion. Its protein content (38–44%) is higher than that of other legumes
(20–30%) and much greater than that of cereals, (8–15%) [1]. This,
coupled with its good amino acid profile, enhances its value as a
foodstuff, and is one of the reasons for the economic importance of
soybean.
The design of storage, handling and processing systems for bulk
materials such as soybean requires data on bulk and handling
properties namely, dimensions, sphericity, bulk and kernel densities,
and friction coefficients of bulk materials on most commonly used
structural materials. Theories used to predict the pressures and loads
on storage structures require bulk density, angle of repose and friction
coefficients against bin wall materials. Also the design of hoppers for
processing machinery requires data on bulk density and angle of
repose. Bulk density is also used in design of drying and aeration
systems because it affects the resistance to airflow of a stored bulk.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +98 171 4426432.
E-mail addresses: kashaninejad@yahoo.com, kashani@gau.ac.ir (M. Kashaninejad).
Bulk density, kernel density, and porosity can be useful in sizing grain
hoppers and storage facilities; they can also affect the rate of heat and
mass transfer of moisture during aeration and drying process.
Principle axial dimensions of seeds are useful in selecting sieve
separators and calculating grinding power during size reduction. They
can also be used to calculate surface area and volume of kernels which
are important during modeling of seed drying, aeration, heating, and
cooling. Such information is useful in sizing motor requirements for
seed transportation and handling. Therefore the determination and
consideration of these properties has an important role in the soybean
industry [2–4].
Bulk and handling properties have been studied for various crops
such as pigeon pea, rapeseed, safflower seed, lentil seeds, cocoa beans,
sunflower seed, chick pea seeds, cotton seed, caper seed, green
soybean, pistachio nut and sorghum [5–16]. Although some physical
properties of soybean and green soybean have been reported [14,17],
but some important handling and frictional properties such as static
coefficient of friction against various surfaces and angle of repose have
not been reported.
The objective of this study was to determine some flow and
handling properties of four varieties of soybean (Sahar, LWK, BP and
Williams) as a function of moisture content in the range from 8 to 24%
(w.b.). In this research three axial dimensions, geometric mean

0032-5910/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2008.03.004
2 M. Kashaninejad et al. / Powder Technology 188 (2008) 1–8
diameter, sphericity, unit mass, kernel volume, surface area, kernel
density, bulk density, porosity, static coefficient of friction against
various surfaces and angle of repose for four varieties of soybean were
investigated at five level moisture contents.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample preparation
The four varities (Sahar, LWK, BP and Williams) of soybean seeds
used in the present study were obtained from Oilseeds Research
Institute in Gorgan, a city in the east north of Iran. The seeds were
manually cleaned to remove all foreign materials and broken seeds.
The initial moisture content of samples was determined by drying
about 15 g of samples in an air convection oven at 103 ± 2 °C until a
constant weight was obtained (ASAE S352.2) and was found to be
8.20, 9.30, 9.60 and 9.00 (% w.b.) for Williams, BP, LWK and Sahar
varieties, respectively. The experiment was repeated three times to
determine mean values. [18].
In order to obtain samples with higher moisture content, a cal-
culated quantity of distilled water must be added to the sample. The
quantity of distilled water was calculated from the following equation:
 
M1  M2
W2 ¼ W1 
100  M1
Then the sample was sealed and kept at 5 °C in a refrigerator
for at least a week to enable the moisture to distribute uniformly
throughout the product. It is necessary to let the samples to warm up
to room temperature before starting each test [15]. All the physical
properties of the seeds were obtained for five moisture contents in the
range 8–24% (w.b.). The tests were carried out with five replications
for each moisture content, unless stated otherwise and the average
values are reported.
2.2. Dimensions, sphericity, unit mass and surface area
In order to determine dimensions, sphericity and unit mass one
hundred soybean seeds were randomly selected and for each, the
three principal dimensions, namely minor diameter (thickness),
intermediate diameter (width) and major diameter (length), were
measured using an electronic digital caliper (GUANGLU) having a least
count of 0.01 mm at each moisture level.
To obtain the unit mass, each seed was weighed on a precision
electronic balance (Sartorius, TE313S, Canada) reading to 0.001 g.
Geometric mean diameter and degree of sphericity were calculated at
each moisture level by using following equations [2]:
D ¼ ðLWTÞ1=3
ðLWTÞ1=3
/¼  100
L
The surface area of soybean grain was found by analogy with a
sphere of same geometric mean diameter. In obtaining the surface
area of the samples, the equations given by McCabe, Smith, and
Harriott [19] was used as:
S ¼ pD2
2.3. Volume, bulk density, kernel density and porosity
Bulk density was calculated from the mass and volume of the
circular container with known volume that was filled with the
soybean seeds. After filling the circular container, excess seeds were
removed by passing a stick across the top surface using five zigzag
motions. The samples were not compacted in any way [15].
The kernel density is defined as the ratio of the mass of the seed to
the solid volume occupied by the sample, was determined using an
electronic balance reading to 0.001 g and a burret [7]. Volume of
soybean seeds was determined using the liquid displacement method.
Toluene (C7H8) was used instead of water because it is absorbed by
seeds to a less extent and because of its low surface tension it can fill
even shallow deeps in a seed [2].
The porosity (ε) of the bulk is the ratio of the volume of internal
pores in the kernel to its bulk volume and was determined by the
following equation [2]:
 
q
e¼ 1  b  100 ð5Þ
qk
2.4. Coefficient of static friction
Static coefficient of friction for soybean seeds was determined
against surfaces of concrete, galvanized iron sheet, fiberglass, plywood
and rubber at different moisture content. A wooden box of 100 mm
length, 100 mm width and 40 mm height without base and lid was
filled with the sample and placed on an adjustable tilting plate, faced
with the test surface. The sample container was raised slightly (5–
10 mm) so as not to touch the surface. The inclination of the test
surface was increased gradually with a screw device until the box just
ð1Þ
started to slide down and the angle of tilt was read from a graduated
scale. For each replication, the sample in the container was emptied
and refilled with a new sample [15]. The coefficient of friction was
calculated from the following relationship:
A ¼ tan a ð6Þ
2.5. Angle of repose
In general, the angle of repose in situations where the material is
being emptied from a bin called the angle of repose for emptying [2].
In order to obtain this angle samples were filled in a 15 × 15 × 15 cm
hand made wooden box with a slide side door. After quickly opening
the door, the angle of the shaped bulk was calculated by measuring
the height of seeds using the following equation:
 
1 H
h ¼ tan ð7Þ
a
Where a was 15 cm in this work.
2.6. Data analysis
All these experiments were replicated five times, unless stated
otherwise, and the average values are reported. Mean, maximum,
ð2Þ minimum and standard deviation of dimensions and unit mass of one
ð3Þ
ð4Þ
Fig. 1. Effect of moisture content on length of soybean varieties.
 M. Kashaninejad et al. / Powder Technology 188 (2008) 1–8 3

Fig. 2. Effect of moisture content on width of soybean varieties. Fig. 4. Effect of moisture content on unit mass of soybean varieties.

hundred soybean seeds were determined using Microsoft Excel

the minimum length (7.22 mm), width (6.22 mm), thickness
(2003) software program. The effect of moisture content on different (5.17 mm) and seed mass (0.15 g) at 9% moisture content. Deshpande
physical properties of soybean seeds were determined using the
et al. (1993) stated the length, width and thickness of JS-7244 soybean
analysis of variance (ANOVA) method and significant differences of seed ranged from 6.32–6.75 mm, 5.23–5.55 mm and 3.99–4.45 mm,
means were compared using the Duncan's test at 1% significant level
respectively as the moisture content increased from 8.7 to 25.0 (d.b.%)
using SAS software (2001) program. The best relationship between [17].
moisture content and physical properties of soybean seeds were also
The relationships obtained for length, width, thickness and unit
determined using regression analysis of SAS software (2001) program. mass of soybean as a function of moisture content can be represented
by equations given in Table 1. As it can be found, the relationship
3. Results and discussion between these parameters and moisture content for all varieties was a
positive linear relation. Similar trends have been reported for
3.1. Dimensions and unit mass groundnuts, gram, pigeon pea and neem nut [20–23]. A linear increase
in thousand seed mass with increase in moisture content has also been
The variation of the axial dimensions and unit mass of soybean reported for lentil, guna seeds, green gram, white lupin and cumin
seeds at different moisture contents are given in Figs. 1–4. Analysis of
seeds [8,24–27].
data shows significant differences were observed among dimensions
and unit mass of soybean seeds with increase in moisture content. It
3.2. Geometric mean diameter and sphericity
can be seen that all dimensions (length, width and thickness) for
different varieties of soybean have increased linearly with increase in
Figs. 5 and 6 show the variation of geometric mean diameter and
moisture content. This indicates that during the moisture desorption sphericity for different varieties of soybean seeds at different moisture
process (such as drying), the soybean seeds will show some decrease
content levels. These figures indicate that the geometric mean
in length, width and thickness with moisture. Similar results were diameters of all varieties increased with increasing moisture content
found for pistachio nut and its kernel, sorghum, lentil seeds and
soybean [15,16,8,17]. Deshpande et al. (1993) reported that three
principal dimensions of JS-7244 soybean appear to be linearly
Table 1
dependent on the moisture content [17]. As observed in these figures, Regression equations obtained for dimensions, unit mass, geometric mean diameter
the values for length, width, thickness and unit mass of Williams and sphericity of soybean varieties
variety are higher than values of other varieties, and Sahar variety are
Variety Moisture content (w.b.%) Equation R2
lower than other varieties. Williams variety showed the maximum
Williams 8.20–23.60 L = 0.0489Mc + 7.3345 0.95
length (8.54 mm), width (6.86 mm), thickness (6.03 mm) and seed W = 0.0065Mc + 6.7086 0.94
mass (0.25 g) at 23.6% moisture content and Sahar variety presented T = 0.0096Mc + 5.7976 0.95
M = 0.0029Mc + 0.1728 0.94
D = 0.0169Mc + 6.6026 0.93
φ = −0.2679Mc + 89.395 0.93
BP 9.30–24.10 L = 0.0529Mc + 6.7167 0.95
W = 0.0215Mc + 6.2655 0.94
T = 0.0208Mc + 5.3415 0.95
M = 0.0026Mc + 0.1459 0.93
D = 0.026Mc + 6.0694 0.92
φ = −0.2062Mc + 90.235 0.94
LWK 9.60–23.72 L = 0.0514Mc + 7.0134 0.96
W = 0.0161Mc + 6.2109 0.95
T = 0.0112Mc + 5.2222 0.97
M = 0.0025Mc + 0.1465 0.97
D = 0.0159Mc + 6.2129 0.93
φ = −0.2327Mc + 86.62 0.93
Sahar 9.00–23.90 L = 0.0181Mc + 7.0709 0.95
W = 0.0095Mc + 6.1372 0.90
T = 0.0068Mc + 5.105 0.96
M = 0.002Mc + 0.1304 0.91
D = 0.0248Mc + 5.8108 0.92
φ = −0.0591Mc + 85.589 0.93
Fig. 3. Effect of moisture content on thickness of soybean varieties.
4 M. Kashaninejad et al. / Powder Technology 188 (2008) 1–8

Fig. 5. Effect of moisture content on geometeric mean diameter of soybean varieties.

Fig. 7. Effect of moisture content on surface area of soybean varieties.

and sphericity of all varieties decreased with increasing moisture with increasing moisture content. There was about 7.98, 11.12, 7.72,
content. Analysis of data shows significant differences (P b 0.01) were and 13.27% increase for the surface area value of Williams, BP, LWK
observed among sphericity and geometric mean diameter with and Sahar varieties, respectively. Deshpande et al. (1993) have re-
increase in moisture content. The geometric mean diameter of the ported the surface area of JS-7244 soybean grain increased from 0.813
soybean increased from 6.76 to 7.02 mm, 6.32 to 6.67 mm, 6.39 to to 0.952 cm2 with increasing moisture content. Dursun and Dursun
6.62 mm and 6.02 to 6.36 mm for Williams, BP, LWK and Sahar (2005) obtained a similar result working with caper seeds [13]. How-
varieties respectively, while the sphericity of soybean decreased from ever, Hsu et al. (1991) found the surface area of pistachios decreased
86.91 to 82.82%, 88.53 to 85.46%, 83.99 to 80.71% and 85.15 to 84.26% with increasing moisture content [33]. It seems that the observed
for Williams, BP, LWK and Sahar varieties respectively, when the difference has been arisen as a result of different drying methods used
moisture content increased. Deshpande et al. (1993) have reported the in these research works. Table 2 shows the linear relationship be-
values for sphericity of JS-7244 soybean as 80.6–81.6 which is close to tween surface area and moisture content in soybean grain.
results of this investigation [17]. As observed in Figs. 5 and 6, the
values for geometric mean diameter and sphericity of Williams variety 3.4. Bulk density
are higher than values of other varieties. Geometric mean diameter of
soybean seeds was higher than those reported for caper seed, sor- The values of bulk density at different moisture levels for soybean
ghum seeds and flaxseed [13,16,28]. However, it was considerably varieties of Williams, BP, LWK and Sahar decreased from 720 to 693,
lower than those reported for pistachio nut and its kernel, star apple 730 to 693, 740 to 696 and 716 to 700 kg/m3 respectively as the
seed and gumbo fruit [15,29,30]. moisture content increased. Between the varieties, Williams had
The regression relationships between geometric mean diameters lower value of bulk density at all of moisture levels. Furthermore, the
and moisture content as well as sphericity and moisture content for higher bulk density value was found for LWK variety. The results also
each variety of soybeans are presented in Table 1. The positive linear indicated that there is a quadratic trend in bulk density of soybean
relationship of geometric mean diameter with moisture content was with an increase in moisture content (Fig. 8). The decrease in bulk
also observed by other research workers for pistachio nut, amaranth
seeds and millet [15,31,32].
Table 2
3.3. Surface area Regression equations obtained for surface area, kernel volume, bulk density, kernel
density, porosity and emptying angle of repose of soybean varieties
The values of surface area were calculated by Eq. (4) and its
Variety Moisture content (w.b.%) Equation R2
variations with moisture content for soybean varieties is plotted in
Williams 8.20–23.60 S = 0.0073Mc + 1.3668 0.93
Fig. 7. As it can be seen, the surface area of soybean grain increased V = 0.003Mc + 0.1392 0.96
ρb = 0.00042 0004M2c − 0.0142Mc + 0.8096 0.98
ρk = 0.004Mc + 1.1478 0.94
ε = 0.3339Mc + 37.318 0.91
θ = 0.2894Mc + 27.948 0.98
BP 9.30–24.10 S = 0.0101Mc + 1.1633 0.95
V = 0.0034Mc + 0.1014 0.97
ρb = 0.0003M2c − 0.0115Mc + 0.8126 0.99
ρk = 0.0028Mc + 1.1506 0.94
ε = 0.3427Mc + 35.469 0.94
θ = 0.2303Mc + 29.474 0.97
LWK 9.60–23.72 S = 0.0059Mc + 1.2172 0.95
V = 0.0031Mc + 0.1057 0.95
ρb = 0.0003M2c − 0.0146Mc + 0.8489 0.98
ρk = 0.0029Mc + 1.1408 0.96
ε = 0.4156Mc + 33.414 0.91
θ = 0.2859Mc + 29.497 0.97
Sahar 9.00–23.90 S = 0.01Mc + 1.052 0.94
V = 0.0017Mc + 0.1139 0.92
ρb = 0.0001M2c − 0.0047Mc + 0.7492 0.99
ρk = 0.0035Mc + 1.1199 0.99
ε = 0.2731Mc + 35.67 0.95
θ = 0.2125Mc + 30.114 0.96
Fig. 6. Effect of moisture content on sphericity of soybean varieties.
 M. Kashaninejad et al. / Powder Technology 188 (2008) 1–8
Fig. 8. Effect of moisture content on bulk density of soybean varieties.
density of soybean varieties from initial moisture content to 18–20%
(w.b.) indicates that kernel volume increasing is higher than mass
increasing up to this moisture content. The trend reverses when the
seed is moistened to higher moisture contents. These discrepancies
between different varieties could be due to the cell structure and the
volume and mass increase characteristics of the samples, as the mois-
ture content of seeds increases. These changes are related to structural
properties of the seeds. The negative relationship of bulk density with
moisture content was also observed by Deshpande et al. (1993) for JS-
7244 soybean [17]. The equations representing relationship between
bulk density of soybean and moisture content for each variety and
their coefficient of determination (R2) is presented in Table 2. As it can
be found, there was negative relationships with very high correlation
between bulk density and moisture content for all soybean varieties.
The negative relationship of bulk density with moisture content was
observed by various research workers for cocoa beans, sunflower
seeds, chick pea seeds, gram and green gram [9–11,21,25]. In contrast,
some researchers have reported positive relationship between bulk
density and moisture content for guna seeds, lentil seeds, pumpkin
seeds, pigeon pea, cumin seed and neem seeds [24,8,34,22,27,23].
3.5. Kernel volume and kernel density
Fig. 9 shows kernel volume changes of soybean varieties at
different moisture contents. The range of volume for Williams, BP,
LWK and Sahar varieties obtained 0.166–0.213, 0.131–0.186, 0.135–
0.183 and 0.130–0.152 cm3, respectively when the moisture content
increased. Between these varieties, Williams had more volume than
others and Sahar had less volume among all varieties in the range of
moisture content that experiments were carried out. Deshpande et al.
Fig. 9. Effect of moisture content on kernel volume of soybean varieties.
5
Fig. 10. Effect of moisture content on kernel density of soybean varieties.
(1993) have reported the volume of JS-7244 soybean increased
linearly from 0.091 to 0.113 cm3 with increasing moisture content
[17]. The relationship between kernel volume and moisture content of
soybean varieties are given in Table 2. As it can be found, a positive
linear correlation in all cases obtained. There is a similarity between
the results of this paper and the findings for gram, lupin, pigeon pea
[21,26,22]. In these results, the volume of seed increased linearly with
the increase of moisture content.
The values of kernel density of Williams, BP, LWK and Sahar soy-
bean at different moisture levels were 1186–1250, 1178–1223, 1171–
1209 and 1149–1203 kg/m3, respectively. The results showed that
William variety had higher kernel density than other varieties at all
moisture content. In addition, Sahar variety had less kernel density
among all varieties at different moisture contents.
The effect of moisture content on kernel density of soybean
showed a linear increase with increasing moisture content (Fig. 10).
The regression equations obtained and their high R2 values confirmed
these linear behaviors (Table 2). The increase in kernel density may be
attributed to the possible higher mass increase of seed in comparison
to its volume expansion on moisture gain. An increase in kernel
density with increase in moisture content was reported for cumin
seeds, sunflower, pigeon pea, pistachio nut and its kernel [27,10,5,15].
However, Ozarslan (2002) and Konak (2002) have found that the
kernel density of cotton seed and chickpea respectively decreases as
the moisture content increases [12,11].
3.6. Porosity
Since the porosity depends on the bulk as well as kernel densities,
the magnitude of variation in porosity depends on these factors only.
Fig. 11. Effect of moisture content on porosity of soybean varieties.
6 M. Kashaninejad et al. / Powder Technology 188 (2008) 1–8
Fig. 12. Effect of moisture content on emptying angle of repose of soybean varieties.
The variations of porosity values depending on moisture content in
soybean varieties is shown in Fig. 11. As it can be seen in this figure, the
porosity has been increased with increasing moisture content. The
range of porosity for Williams, BP, LWK and Sahar obtained 39.29–
44.54%, 38.01–43.33%, 36.78–42.45% and 37.68–41.83%, respectively.
Between the varieties, Williams presented more porosity than other
varieties. As well as LWK had less porosity among all varieties in the
initial range of moisture content that experiments were carried out.
Other researchers reported a similar increase in porosity for lentil
seeds, sunflower seeds and white lupin [8,10,26] when the moisture
content increased. Contrary to these results, Joshi et al. (1993); Konak
et al. (2002) and Visvanathan et al. (1996), however found the porosity
of pumpkin seeds, chick pea seeds and neem nuts, respectively de-
creased with increasing the moisture content [34,11,23]. The relation-
ship between porosity and moisture content for four soybean varieties
is represented in Table 2. As it can be found, a linear correlation in all
cases was obtained.
3.7. Emptying angle of repose
The results of the emptying angle of repose of soybean for four
varieties at different moisture levels are shown in Fig. 12. As it can be
seen, the emptying angle of repose with soybean varieties was the
greatest for LWK (32.30–36.03°), then Sahar (32.15–35.17°), BP (31.88–
35.24°) and the lowest obtained for the Williams (30.26–35.06°), as the
moisture contents increased. It is also observed that the emptying
angle of repose, for all four soybean varieties increased with an
increase in moisture content. It seems that it is due to the higher
moisture contents and therefore higher stickiness of the surface of the
seeds that confines the easiness of sliding seeds on each other. The
Fig. 13. The static coefficient of friction of soybean on concrete surface as a function of
moisture content and variety.
Fig. 14. The static coefficient of friction of soybean on galvinized iron sheet as a function
of moisture content and variety.
greater value for LWK variety is also due to the higher moisture content
and lower sphericity in comparison with other varieties. The equations
representing relationship between emptying angle of repose of
soybean and moisture content for each variety and their coefficient
of determination (R2) are presented in Table 2. As it can be found, there
was a linear relationship with very high correlation between emptying
angle of repose and moisture content for all soybean varieties.
The emptying angle of repose for soybean was greater than
reported values for locust bean seeds, hemp seeds, quinoa seeds, hazel
nut, African star apple seeds and lower than reported values for
pumpkin seeds, guna seeds, green gram, flaxseed and caper seed [35–
38,29,34,24,25,28,13].
3.8. Static coefficient of friction
Experimental data of static coefficient of friction for soybean
varieties on frictional surfaces of concrete, galvanized iron, fiberglass,
plywood and rubber at various moisture levels are plotted against
moisture content in Figs. 13–17, respectively. As presented in Fig. 13,
the static coefficient of friction on concrete surface for Williams
(0.410–0.556) was the greatest and then, BP (0.400–0.534), LWK
(0.390–0.543) and the lowest value obtained for Sahar (0.400–0.512).
The static coefficient of friction with respect to concrete surface for
soybean varieties were greater than reported value for pine nuts [39].
As shown in Fig. 14, on galvanized iron sheet surface, the highest
friction was obtained for Williams (0.400–0.520), followed by LWK
(0.405–0.500), BP (0.415–0.470), and the lowest for Sahar (0.340–
Fig. 15. The static coefficient of friction of soybean on fiberglass surface as a function of
moisture content and variety.
 M. Kashaninejad et al. / Powder Technology 188 (2008) 1–8 7

Table 3
Relationships between static coefficient of friction against different surfaces and
moisture content of soybean varieties

Variety Moisture content (w.b.%) Surface Equation R2

Williams 8.20–23.60 Concrete μ = 0.0092Mc + 0.3485 0.96
Galvanized iron μ = 0.007Mc + 0.3485 0.94
Fiberglass μ = 0.0039Mc + 0.3962 0.91
Plywood μ = 0.0065Mc + 0.33 0.92
Rubber μ = 0.0072Mc + 0.4199 0.96
BP 9.30–24.10 Concrete μ = 0.0086Mc + 0.3381 0.93
Galvanized iron μ = 0.0036Mc + 0.3771 0.95
Fiberglass μ = 0.005Mc + 0.374 0.97
Plywood μ = 0.0038Mc + 0.4065 0.97
Rubber μ = 0.0049Mc + 0.4296 0.96
LWK 9.60–23.72 Concrete μ = 0.0105Mc + 0.2993 0.98
Galvanized iron μ = 0.0063Mc + 0.3537 0.94
Fiberglass μ = 0.008Mc + 0.3122 0.95
Plywood μ = 0.0063 Mc + 0.3299 0.94
Rubber μ = 0.0075Mc + 0.41 0.96
Fig. 16. The static coefficient of friction of soybean on plywood surface as a function of Sahar 9.00–23.90 Concrete μ = 0.0071Mc + 0.3498 0.94
moisture content and variety. Galvanized iron μ = 0.0121Mc + 0.2435 0.98
Fiberglass μ = 0.0103Mc + 0.2531 0.99
Plywood μ = 0.0156Mc + 0.195 0.99
0.530), although the static coefficient of friction of Sahar variety in- Rubber μ = 0.0092Mc + 0.3654 0.95
creased rapidly at higher moisture contents. Based on reported values
of static coefficient of friction on galvanized iron sheet surface it was
concluded that these values for soybeans were greater than pearl
millet, locust bean seed, pine nuts, gumbo fruit, pistachio nut, caper
seed, faba beans and less than cumin seed, category B cocoa and Sultani and Amarya varieties of gumbo fruit and less than caper seed
African star apple seed [40,35,39,30,15,21,41,27,9,29]. and faba bean [9,30,13,41].
As seen in Fig. 15, the static coefficient of friction on fiberglass It was also observed that the static coefficient of friction for each
surface was the greatest for Williams (0.420–0.486), then followed by soybean variety on all five structural surfaces increased as the
BP (0.420–0.500), LWK (0.405–0.500) and finally the lowest for Sahar moisture content increased (Figs. 13–17). The reason for the increased
(0.353–0.500). Based on reported values of static coefficient of friction friction coefficient at higher moisture content may be owing to the
on fiberglass surface it was concluded that these values for soybeans water present in the seeds offering a cohesive force on the surface of
were greater than oil bean seed and locust bean seed [42,35]. contact. As the moisture content of seeds increases, the surface of the
However, the results obtained for friction coefficient for soybean samples becomes more sticky. Water tends to adhere to surfaces and
varieties on plywood surface as shown in Fig. 16 indicated that the the water on the moist seed surface would be attracted to the surface
highest value was for BP (0.440–0.495), then followed by Williams across which the sample is being moved. Other researchers found that
(0.370–0.480), LWK (0.383–0.469) and the lowest for Sahar (0.340– as the moisture content increased, the static coefficient of friction also
0.570). In comparison with reported values of static coefficient of friction increased [34,8,10,26,15].
on plywood surface, the obtained values for soybean were greater than The regression equations and their R2 values obtained by fitting
faba bean, African star apple seed and less than locust bean seed, the experimental data of static coefficient of friction as a function of
category B cocoa, caper seed and pistachio nut [41,29,35,9,13,15]. moisture content are listed in Table 3. It can be found that the rela-
As it can be seen in Fig. 17, the greatest coefficient of friction on tionship of static coefficient of friction of soybean with moisture
rubber surface was for Williams (0.480–0.600), and the least was for content was linear for all friction surfaces and varieties. These linear
Sahar (0.460–0.600) and LWK (0.475–0.582), and BP (0.470–0.540) in behaviors are in accordance with similar reported papers for cumin
the between, respectively, although the static coefficient of friction for seed, sunflower seed, white lupin, millet, Sultani and Amarya varieties
Sahar variety increased rapidly at higher moisture contents. The static of gumbo fruit, pistachio nut [27,10,26,32,30,15]. In contrast the non-
coefficient of friction with respect to rubber surface for soybean linear relationship has been reported for the chick pea and QP-38
varieties were greater than reported value for category B cocoa, pigeon pea [11,5].

4. Conclusions

In this paper, some frictional and handling properties of soybean

investigated as a function of moisture content and variety. These
characteristics are necessary in order to design equipments and
machineries for transporting, sorting, handling, processing, drying,
and storage of soybean. The following are concluded from this re-
search into the frictional and handling properties of soybean varieties:
1- The handling and frictional properties of soybeans for different
varieties were dependent to their moisture content, significantly.
2- All the linear dimensions of soybean increased with an increase in
moisture content with high correlation for all varieties.
3- An increasing relationship was found between surface area and
moisture content in soybean varieties.
4- The geometric mean diameter at all moisture contents was almost
Fig. 17. The static coefficient of friction of soybean on rubber surface as a function of the same and it increased with an increase in soybean moisture
moisture content and variety. content.
8 M. Kashaninejad et al. / Powder Technology 188 (2008) 1–8

5- Sphericity decreased very gently with increase in soybean mois- [4] N.D.G. White, D.S. Jayas, Physical properties of canola and sunflower meal pellets,
Canadian Biosystems Engineering 43 (2001) 49–52.
ture content. [5] E.A. Baryeh, B.K. Mangope, Some physical properties of QP-38 variety pigeon pea,
6- Unit mass of soybean was found to increase with increasing the Journal of Food Engineering 56 (2002) 59–65.
moisture content in all varieties of soybean. Williams variety had [6] S. Çalışır, T. Marakoğlu, H. Öğüt, Ö. Öztürk, Physical properties of rapeseed (Brassica
napus oleifera L.), Journal of Food Engineering 69 (2005) 61–66.
more unit mass (0.198–0.247 g) than others during moisture [7] E. Baümler, A. Cuniberti, S.M. Nolasco, I.C. Riccobene, Moisture dependent physical
content studied. and compression properties of safflower seed, Journal of Food Engineering 72
7- Williams variety had more volume (0.166–0.213 cm3) than other (2006) 134–140.
[8] K. Carman, Some physical properties of lentil seeds, Journal of Agricultural
varieties. As the moisture content increased, the volume of soy- Engineering Research 63 (1996) 87–92.
bean varieties also increased linearly. [9] A. Bart-Plange, E.A. Baryeh, The physical properties of category B cocoa beans,
8- The effect of moisture content on kernel density of soybean showed Journal of Food Engineering 60 (2003) 219–227.
[10] R.K. Gupta, S.K. Das, Physical properties of sunflower seeds, Journal of Agricultural
a linear increase with increasing moisture content. Williams variety
Engineering Research 66 (1997) 1–8.
had more kernel density (1186–1249 kg/m3) than other soybean [11] M. Konak, K. Çarman, C. Aydin, Physical properties of chick pea seeds, Biosystems
varieties. Engineering 82 (1) (2002) 73–78.
9- Bulk density of soybean varieties decreased non-linearly with [12] C. Ozarslan, Physical properties of cotton seed, Biosystems Engineering 83 (2002)
169–174.
increasing the moisture content. LWK variety presented more [13] E. Dursun, I. Dursun, Some physical properties of caper seed, Biosystems
bulk density (740–696 kg/m3) than other soybean varieties. Engineering 92 (2) (2005) 237–245.
10- The porosity of soybean increased linearly with increasing of [14] P. Sirisomboon, P. Pornchaloempong, T. Romphophak, Physical properties of green
soybean: criteria for sorting, Journal of Food Engineering 79 (1) (2007) 18–22.
moisture content for all varieties. Among the varieties, Williams [15] M. Kashaninejad, A. Mortazavi, A. Safekordi, L.G. Tabil, Some physical properties of
had more porosity (39.29–44.54%) than other varieties Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.) nut and its kernel, Journal of Food Engineering 72 (2006)
11- For all varieties, as the moisture content increased, the emptying 30–38.
[16] G. Mwithiga, M.M. Sifuna, Effect of moisture content on the physical properties of
angle of repose increased linearly. At all moisture contents, the three varieties of sorghum seeds, Journal of Food Engineering 75 (2006) 480–486.
emptying angle of repose of soybean was the greatest for LWK [17] S.D. Deshpande, S. Bal, T.P. Ojha, Physical properties of soybean, Journal of Agricul-
(32.30–36.03°) and the least for Williams (30.26–35.06°) variety. tural Engineering Research 56 (1993) 89–98.
[18] ASAE S352.2, Moisture Measurement — Unground Grain and Seeds, ASAE
12- For all varieties, as the moisture content increased, the static standards, vol. 555, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, 1997.
coefficient of friction on different surfaces increased linearly. [19] W.L. McCabe, J.C. Smith, P. Harriott, Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering,
13- The variation in physical properties of soybeans may be due to McGraw-Hill Publisher, New York, 1986.
[20] E.A. Baryeh, Physical properties for Bambara groundnuts, Journal of Food
varietal differences.
Engineering 47 (2001) 321–326.
[21] S.K. Dutta, V.K. Nema, R.J. Bhardwaj, Physical properties of gram, Journal of
Nomenclature Agricultural Engineering Research 39 (1998) 259–268.
a Length of wooden box (cm) [22] H. Shepherd, R.K. Bhardwaj, Moisture dependent physical properties of pigeon
pea, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 35 (1986) 227–234.
D Geometric mean diameter (mm) [23] R. Visvanathan, P.T. Palanisamy, L. Gothandapani, V.V. Sreenarayanan, Physical
H Depth of free surface of sample (cm) properties of neem nut, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 63 (1) (1996)
L Length of seed (mm) 19–25.
[24] N.A. Aviara, M.I. Gwandzang, M.A. Haque, Physical properties of guna seeds,
M Mass of seed (g) Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 73 (1999) 105–111.
M1 Final moisture content (w.b.%) [25] P.M. Nimkar, P.K. Chattopadhyay, Some physical properties of green gram, Journal
M2 Initial moisture content (w.b.%) of Agricultural Engineering Research 80 (2) (2001) 183–189.
[26] H. Ogut, Some physical properties of white lupin, Journal of Agricultural
Mc Moisture content (w.b.%) Engineering Research 56 (1998) 273–277.
R2 Coefficient of determination [27] K.K. Singh, T.K. Goswami, Physical properties of cumin seed, Journal of Agricultural
S Surface area (cm2) Engineering Research 64 (1996) 93–98.
[28] Y. Coşkuner, E. Karababa, Some physical properties of flaxseed (Linum usitatisimum L.),
T Thickness of seed (mm) Journal of Food Engineering 78 (2007) 1067–1073.
V Volume of seed (cm3) [29] O.J. Oyelade, P.O. Odugbenro, A.O. Abioye, N.L. Raji, Some physical properties of
W Width of seed (mm) African star apple (Chrysophyllum alibidum) seeds, Journal of Food Engineering 67
(2005) 433–440.
W1 Sample weight (g)
[30] R. Akar, C. Aydin, Some physical properties of gumbo fruit varieties, Journal of Food
W2 Distilled water weight (g) Engineering 66 (2005) 387–393.
α Angle of inclination [31] R. Abalone, Some physical properties of Amaranth seeds, Biosystems Engineering
ε Porosity (%) 89 (1) (2004) 109–117.
[32] E.A. Baryeh, Physical properties of millet, Journal of Food Engineering 51 (2002)
μ Coefficient of static friction 39–46.
ρb Bulk density (kg/m3) [33] R.H. Hsu, J.D. Mannapperuma, R.P. Singh, Physical and thermal properties of
ρk Kernel density (kg/m3) pistachios, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 49 (1991) 311–321.
[34] D.C. Joshi, S.D. Das, R.K. Mukherjee, Physical properties of pumpkin seeds, Journal
/ Sphericity (%) of Agricultural Engineering Research 54 (1993) 219–229.
θ Angle of repose for emptying [35] J.O. Olajide, B.I.O. Ade-Omowaye, Some physical properties of locust bean seed,
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 74 (1999) 213–215.
[36] K. Sacilik, R. Ozturk, R. Keskin, Some physical properties of hemp seed, Biosystems
Acknowledgments Engineering 86 (2) (2003) 191–198.
[37] C. Vilche, M. Gely, E. Santalla, Physical properties of quinoa seeds, Biosystems
The authors wish to thank Oilseeds Research Institute, Gorgan, for Engineering 86 (1) (2003) 59–65.
[38] F. Ozdemir, I. Akinci, Physical and nutritional properties of four major commercial
preparing the samples for this research. They also would like to Turkish hazelnut varieties, Journal of Food Engineering 63 (2004) 341–347.
acknowledge Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural [39] F. Ozguven, V. Kubilay, Some physical, mechanical and aerodynamic properties of
Resources in providing the equipment and supporting this project. pine (pinus pinea) nuts, Journal of Food Engineering 68 (2004) 191–196.
[40] R.K. Jain, S. Bal, Physical properties of pearl millet, Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research 66 (1997) 85–91.
References [41] E. Altuntaş, M. Yıldız, Effect of moisture content on some physical and mechanical
properties of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) grains, Journal of Food Engineering 78 (2007)
174–183.
[1] H.E. Synder, T.W. Kwon, Soybean Utilization. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold [42] K. Oje, E.C. Ugbor, Some physical properties of oil bean seed, Journal of Agricultural
Company Press, 1987. Engineering Research 50 (1991) 305–313.
[2] N.N. Mohsenin, Physical Properties of Plants and Animal Materials, Gordon and
Breach Science Publishers, NW, New York, 1980.
[3] M. Rameshbabu, D.S. Jayas, W.E. Muir, N.D.G. White, J.T. Mills, Bulk and handling
properties of hulless barley, Canadian Agricultural Engineering 38 (1996) 31–35.