Journal of Food Engineering 73 (2006) 198–202

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Research note

Physical properties of cactus pear (Opuntia ficus india L.)

grown wild in Turkey
Onder Kabas, Aziz Ozmerzi, Ibrahim Akinci *

Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Machinery, Akdeniz University, 07070 Antalya, Turkey

Received 12 May 2004; accepted 13 January 2005

Available online 13 March 2005

Abstract

Knowledge of the physical properties of cactus pear, which is grown wild in Turkey, is necessary for the design of equipment for
harvesting, transporting, cleaning, packing, storing, processing etc. of the fruit. In this study, some physical properties of cactus
pears were determined, and the effects of different water contents on the properties were investigated. At water content levels from
89.91% w.b. to 44.76% w.b., the linear dimensions decreased from 71.93 to 63.27 mm in length, 57.57 to 48.10 mm in width, and
52.08 to 44.99 mm in thickness. The geometric mean diameter and sphericity decreased from 59.68 to 51.08 mm, and 0.831 to
0.809, respectively. The moisture contents considered, the volume, surface area and mass of fruit varied from 89.96 to 61.38 cm3,
111.92 to 83.04 cm2, and 109.57 to 99.27 g, respectively. The projected area of fruit on the Y–Z and X–Z planes varied from
20.20 to 17.02 cm2 and from 15.57 to 12.92 cm2, respectively. The fruit density, bulk density and porosity varied from 1224.34 to
1766.77 kg/cm3, 641.74 to 588.66 kg/cm3, and 0.469 to 0.637 kg/cm3, respectively for the same water content range. The coefficients
of static friction, on galvanized iron steel, plywood and rubber surfaces, varied from 0.243 to 0.219, 0.261 to 0.232, and 0.296 to
0.268, respectively.

2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cactus pear (Opuntia ficus india L.); Physical properties

1. Introduction oer and juice concentrate. The nutritional, medicinal

Cactus pear [Opuntia ficus indica (L.) Mill.] is a very
important food source in satisfying the nutritional needs
of populations of various countries, especially those in
South America, the Mediterranean countries, South
Africa, and Israel (Pimienta Barrios, 1993). In Turkey,
it is located wildly in the Mediterranean Region. Cactus
pear may be used in a wide range of products made in
the home, in small enterprises or on industrial scale such
as jams, gelatine, syrups, dry fruit, candies, soap, mamp-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 242 3102464; fax: +90 242
2274564.
E-mail address: iakinci@akdeniz.edu.tr (I. Akinci).
and human health properties of cactus pears are factors
that could contribute to an increase in cactus pear con-
sumption (Hegwood, 1990). In Peru and Spain, certain
species of Opuntia are used as hosts of cochineal insects
(Dactylopius coccus Costa) from which a red dye highly
appreciated by pharmaceutical, cosmetics, food and tex-
tile industries is extracted (Schirra, 1998). Another po-
tential product that can be obtained during fruit
processing is seed oil. This oil is edible and has a yield
range between 5.8 and 13.6 (Sawaya & Khan, 1982).
Recently, the possibility of using seed oil from cactus
pear and in producing ethanol and antioxidants from
cladodes has been revealed. There are more than 40 vari-
eties, but the most popular are Morado, Gymno Carpo,
Algerian, Skinners Court (Everett, 1978).

0260-8774/$ - see front matter
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.01.016
 O. Kabas et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 73 (2006) 198–202
Tender cactus stems (Opuntia spp.) are harvested
commercially when they are 15–20 cm long and weigh
about 90–100 g (Cantwell, 1995).
Harvest is normally by hand, cutting the leaf at the
base of the insertion with a knife. Cactus leaves are
packed in typical reed baskets called ‘‘colotes’’, stacked
in cylindrical packs, packed in 5 to 20 kg wooden boxes
covered with paper or fibreboard cartons (Cantwell,
1995).
Cactus pear has total soluble solids (12–17%), titrata-
ble acidity (0.03–0.12%), and pH (6.0–6.6), and ascorbic
acid contents (20–40 mg/100 g fresh weight). Composi-
tion and nutritional value are: energy (172 kJ), Vitamin
C (14 mg), protein (0.7 g), fats (0.5 g), carbohydrates
(glucose) (7.8 g), fibre (1.8 g), potassium (220 mg), mag-
nesium (85 mg), calcium (56 mg), phosphorous (24 mg)
for 100 g edible portion (Kader, 2002). In regard to sug-
ars, the fruit pulp is about 53% glucose, and the remain-
ing 47% fructose (Kuti & Galloway, 1994).
Dehydration is an age-old process of preserving food.
Russell and Felker (1987) mentioned dried prickly pear
as another edible form of the product. In a slightly mod-
ified preservation procedure, Ewaidah and Hassan
(1992) tested prickly pear sheets using a Taifi cultivar.
The optimum formulation was obtained by adding
10% sucrose, 1.1% citric acid, 0.15% sodium metab-
isulphite and 0.5% olive oil to the fruit pulp. Sodium
metabisulphite improved the colour, and citric acid pro-
duced an acid taste similar to that of the traditional apri-
cot sheets. A small tasting panel found the sheets
extremely acceptable, rating them with a score of 8 out
of 9.
Information regarding the physical properties of cac-
tus pear is very important in the design of equipment for
harvesting, transporting, cleaning, separating, packing,
storing and processing it into different foods. Since cur-
rently used systems have been designed without taking
these criteria into consideration, the resulting designs
lead to inadequate applications. These cases result in a
reduction in work efficiency and an increase in product
losses. Therefore, determination and consideration of
these properties play an important role in designing
these equipments. These physical properties affect the
conveying characteristics of solid materials by air or
water and cooling and heating loads of food materials
(Sahay & Singh, 1994).
A specific knowledge of the cactus pear physical
properties such as linear dimensions, shapes, porosity,
volume, density, coefficient of static friction etc. and
the differences between the physical properties of fruit
is necessary to design of cactus pear processing equip-
ment. The functioning of many types of machines is
influenced decisively by the size and shape of the fruit
participating, and so in order to study a given process
should be described accurately. Also size, shape, pro-
199
jected area and porosity of the fruit is the most impor-
tant for packing, packed dimension etc. For instance,
sphericity is one of the most important properties be-
cause it affects how easily cactus pear can be processed
by the food industry. The volume and density of the
fruits play an important role in numerous technological
processes and in the evaluation of product quality. The
coefficient of static friction plays also an important role
in transports (load and unload) of goods and storage
facilities.
Many studies have been reported on the physical
properties of fruits, grains and seeds, such as Juniperus
drupacea fruits (Akinci, Ozdemir, Topuz, Kabas, &
Canakci, 2004), bambara groundnuts (Baryeh, 2001),
lentil seeds (Carman, 1996), hackberry (Demir, Dogan,
Ozcan, & Haciseferogullari, 2002), fababeans (Fraser,
Verma, & Muir, 1978), apricot pit (Gezer, Hacisefero-
gullari, & Demir, 2002), sunflower seeds (Gubta &
Das, 2000), pumpkin seeds (Joshi, Das, & Mukherjee,
1993), chickpea seeds (Konak, Carman, & Aydin,
2002), soybeans (Kulkarni, Bhole, & Sawarkar, 1993)
and white lupin (Ogut, 1998) but no detailed study
concerning physical properties of cactus pear have been
performed up to now.
The objectives of this study were:
• To determine the physical properties of cactus pear
grown wild in Turkey.
• To investigate the effects of different water contents
on physical properties of the fruit, such as fruit
dimensions, volume, surface area, projected area,
mass, fruit density and friction coefficient.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
In this study, the cactus pears used were harvested
from the village of Kayaburnu, near Antalya, Turkey
in August, 2003. The fruits were transported, individu-
ally, in cooled bags, and cleaned in an air stream cleaner
to remove all foreign matter such as dust, dirt and chaff
as well as immature and damaged fruits. Finally, the
fruits were stored in a refrigerator until the physical
properties were determined. In order to obtain the de-
sired water contents of fruit at 89.91%, 78.49%,
65.12%, 56.65%, and 44.75% w.b., the fruit samples were
harvested at five day intervals from 1 to 20 August 2003.
The water content of fruits on 1 August was 89.91%,
then after 5 days (the next harvest time) the water con-
tent of fruits had fallen down to 78.49%, 65.12% on 10
August, 56.65% on 15 August, 44.75% on 20 August.
Moisture contents of the fruits were determined by using
a standard method (USDA, 1970).
200 O. Kabas et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 73 (2006) 198–202
2.2. Methods
The physical properties were determined by the fol-
lowing methods:
Linear dimensions, i.e. length (L), width (W) and
thickness (T), were measured by using a digital calliper
with a sensitivity of 0.01 mm.
Geometric mean diameter (Dg), sphericity (/) and
surface areas (S) were calculated by using the following
equations:
1=3
Dg ¼ ðLWT Þ ;
/ ¼ Dg =L;
S ¼ pD2g ;
where L is the length, W is the width and T is the thick-
ness of the fruit (Fig. 1). These equations may be found
in the works of Baryeh (2001), Demir et al. (2002),
Mohsenin (1980), and Sitkei (1986).
Fruit mass (M) was measured by using a digital bal-
ance with a sensitivity of 0.001 g. The fruit mass deter-
mined on 100 randomly selected fruits and averaged.
Fruit volume (V) and fruit density (qf) were measured
by the liquid displacement method. Toluene (C7H8) was
used, rather than water, because it was not absorbed by
the fruits (Mohsenin, 1980; Sitkei, 1986).
Bulk density (qb) was determined with a weight per
hectolitre tester, which has calibrated in kilogram per
hectolitre.
Porosity (e) was calculated by using the following
equation:
e ¼ 1
qb =qf ;
where qb is the bulk density and qf is the fruit density.
Projected area (P) was determined from the pictures
of cactus pears which were taken by a digital camera
(Kodak DC 5000), in comparison with the reference
area to the sample area using the Sigma Scan Pro 5
programme.
Coefficient of static friction (ls) was measured by a
friction device on galvanized iron steel, plywood and
Z ered, the projected areas were higher on the Y–Z plane
X
W The mass of the fruits at different water contents was
T
Y
L tent, and was found to be statistically significant at 1%
Fig. 1. Axis and three major dimensions of fruit.
rubber surfaces. For this measurement, the material
was placed on the surface and it was gradually raised
by the screw. Vertical and horizontal height measure-
ments were read from the ruler when the material started
sliding on the surface. The tangent of the angle of incli-
nation of the surface was taken as the coefficient of static
friction (Baryeh, 2001; Dutta, Nema, & Bhardwaj, 1988;
Gezer et al., 2002; Sitkei, 1986; Suthar & Das, 1996).
All the physical properties for each moisture level
were investigated by three replications with 20 determi-
nations. Mean values were represented by the standard
error. Variance analysis was made for all the results
for each level. The differences between the means were
evaluated by using the DuncanÕs test at 1% or 0.1% sig-
nificance levels.
3. Results and discussions
Physical properties of cactus pears at different water
content and their relationships are given in Tables 1
and 2. The physical properties were found to be statisti-
cally significant at different probability levels, with the
exception of projected area and coefficient of static fric-
tion. The linear dimensions, volume, surface area, mass,
density and porosity are highly dependent on the water
content of the fruit, and they linearly decrease or in-
crease with decreases in the water levels.
Linear dimensions (length, width and thickness) and
shapes (geometric mean diameter and sphericity) were
found to be statistically significant at 1% and 0.1% prob-
ability levels. These dimensional characteristics linearly
decrease with decreases in the water contents.
The volume and surface area at different water con-
tents were found to have different means, varying from
89.96 to 61.38 cm3 and 111.92 to 83.04 cm2, respectively.
The variation in the properties was found to be statisti-
cally significant at 1% and 0.1% probability levels. The
volume and surface area are closely related to the water
content. As the water content decreased, the volume and
surface area linearly decreased.
Projected area of the fruits on the Y–Z and X–Z
planes varied from 20.20 to 17.02 cm2 and 15.57 to
12.92 cm2, respectively. At all the water contents consid-
compared to the X–Z plane. The projected areas on
the two planes slightly decrease as the water content de-
crease. The difference in both planes was found to be
statistically insignificant.
found to have different means, varying from 109.57 to
99.27 g. The mass highly correlated with the water con-
probability level. As the water content decreased mass
linearly decreased.
 O. Kabas et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 73 (2006) 198–202 201

Table 1
Physical properties of cactus pear
Water content (% w.b.) Significant level
89.91 78.49 65.12 56.65 44.76
Length (mm) 71.93 ± 0.09a 69.46 ± 0.63ab 68.90 ± 0.61ab 66.31 ± 0.81bc 63.27 ± 1.95c **
Width (mm) 57.57 ± 0.34a 55.94 ± 0.50a 52.80 ± 0.35b 50.92 ± 0.14bc 48.10 ± 1.28c ***
Thickness (mm) 52.08 ± 0.31a 50.54 ± 0.40b 48.98 ± 0.37c 47.19 ± 0.21d 44.49 ± 1.46e ***
Geometric mean 59.68 ± 0.04a 57.87 ± 0.46 ab 55.97 ± 0.39bc 53.92 ± 0.32 cd 51.08 ± 1.53d ***
diameter (mm)
Sphericity 0.831 ± 0.001a 0.834 ± 0.004a 0.815 ± 0.004ab 0.815 ± 0.006ab 0.809 ± 0.003b **
Volume (cm3) 89.96 ± 1.53a 83.61 ± 1.67ab 72.65 ± 3.18bc 67.80 ± 4.06c 61.38 ± 5.13c **
Surface area (cm2) 111.92 ± 0.17a 105.32 ± 1.66b 98.89 ± 1.34c 92.02 ± 1.05d 83.04 ± 4.71d ***
Projected area (cm2)
X axis 20.20 ± 0.79 19.06 ± 0.78 18.95 ± 0.79 17.61 ± 0.64 17.02 ± 0.42 ns
Y axis 15.57 ± 1.09 14.85 ± 1.09 14.26 ± 1.02 13.37 ± 1.23 12.92 ± 1.20 ns
Mass (g) 109.57 ± 1.42a 105.76 ± 1.35ab 104.62 ± 1.30abc 100.34 ± 1.03bc 99.27 ± 0.88c **
Fruit density (kg/m3) 1224.34 ± 16.32c 1272.45 ± 40.84bc 1560.33 ± 86.06ab 1596.28 ± 97.28a 1766.77 ± 127.36a **
Bulk density (kg/m3) 641.74 ± 4.50a 634.64 ± 4.61a 630.44 ± 3.53a 612.59 ± 2.28b 588.66 ± 3.26c ***
Porosity 0.469 ± 0.011c 0.494 ± 0.020bc 0.561 ± 0.020ab 0.587 ± 0.25a 0.637 ± 0.030a **
Coefficient of static friction
Galvanized iron steel 0.243 ± 0.004 0.237 ± 0.005 0.234 ± 0.003 0.225 ± 0.005 0.219 ± 0.007 ns
Plywood 0.261 ± 0.009 0.258 ± 0.010 0.254 ± 0.008 0.243 ± 0.007 0.232 ± 0.003 ns
Rubber 0.296 ± 0.028 0.290 ± 0.029 0.287 ± 0.025 0.275 ± 0.020 0.268 ± 0.016 ns
All data represent the mean of three replications with 20 determinations.
**, *** significant levels at 1%, 0.1%, respectively. ns: not significant.
a,b,c,d,e
Letters indicate the statistical difference in rows.

Fruit density, bulk density and porosity at different and the porosity increased significantly. For those char-
water contents varied from 1224.34 to 1766.77 kg/cm3, acteristics attributed to the moisture content, different
641.74–588.66 kg/cm3, and 0.469 to 0.637, respectively. results were reported in some previous studies i.e. bulk
The variation in the properties was found to be signifi- density increases for apricot pit (Gezer et al., 2002)
cant at different probability levels from p < 0.01 to and decreases for soybean (Deshpande, Bal, & Ojha,
0.001. As the water content decreased, the fruit density 1993), hackberry (Demir et al., 2002), chickpea seeds
linearly increased, the bulk density changed very little, (Konak et al., 2002), and for Juniperus drupacea fruits
(Akinci et al., 2004).
The coefficients of static friction, which was deter-
mined with respect to galvanized iron steel, plywood
Table 2 and rubber surfaces, varied from 0.243 to 0.219, 0.261
The relationships, y = a + bx, between physical properties and water
to 0.232, and 0.296 to 0.268, respectively. The coefficient
content of cactus peara
of static friction slightly decreased with decrease in the
a b R2
water levels. The difference between the means of coeffi-
Length (mm) 55.884 0.1805 0.943 cient of static friction for different friction surfaces was
Width (mm) 38.768 0.2134 0.993
found to be statistically insignificant. At all water con-
Thickness (mm) 37.660 0.1642 0.976
Geometric mean diameter (mm) 43.140 0.1876 0.984 tents considered, the coefficients of static friction was
Sphericity 0.7824 0.0006 0.865 highest for rubber and lowest for galvanized iron steel.
Volume (cm3) 31.375 0.6524 0.994 This is due to the properties of friction surfaces. The
Surface area (cm2) 55.999 0.6306 0.989 fruits stick more to the friction surfaces as the water
Projected area (cm2)
content decreases. The adhesion forces between the
X axis 13.970 0.0687 0.934
Y axis 10.163 0.0602 0.983 fruits and surface materials increase when using rough
Mass (g) 88.538 0.2295 0.947 materials such as rubber. Similar results were found by
Fruit density (kg/m3) 2331.8
12.656 0.960 Akinci et al. (2004) for Juniperus drupacea fruits, Baryeh
Bulk density (kg/m3) 546.22 1.1255 0.878 (2001) for bambara groundnuts, Chung and Verma
Porosity 0.8063
0.0038 0.988
(1989) for beans and peanuts, Demir et al. (2002) for
Coefficient of static friction
Galvanized iron steel 0.1971 0.0005 0.971 hackberry and Konak et al. (2002) for chick pea seeds.
Plywood 0.2064 0.0006 0.902 The physical properties of the cactus pear were de-
Rubber 0.2413 0.0006 0.939 scribed in order to better design a specific machine for
a
y = Physical properties of the cactus pear, x = water content (% harvesting and post-harvesting operation. In this study,
w.b.). many properties were determined to be significantly
202 O. Kabas et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 73 (2006) 198–202
different. Therefore, the differences between the physical
properties of fruit must be considered in optimising cac-
tus pear product and post-product mechanization and
food processing.
4. Conclusions
Several physical properties of cactus pears were deter-
mined in order to facilitate design of the specific equip-
ment for harvesting, transporting, cleaning, packing,
storing etc. processes. The effects of different water con-
tent on the physical properties of the fruits, such as fruit
dimensions, volume, surface area, projected area, mass,
fruit density and friction coefficient were determined.
The general calculations, which were presented in the
Tables 1 and 2, can be used to determine the relationship
between the physical properties and water contents. For
cactus pears, many properties were found to be statisti-
cally significant at different probability levels. Therefore,
the differences between the physical properties should be
considered in cactus pear mechanization and food
processing.
Acknowledgement
This study was partly supported by the Scientific Re-
search Administration Unit of Akdeniz University, An-
talya, Turkey.
References
Akinci, I., Ozdemir, F., Topuz, A., Kabas, O., & Canakci, M. (2004).
Some physical and nutritional properties of Juniperus drupacea
fruits. Journal of Food Engineering, 65, 325–331.
Baryeh, E. A. (2001). Physical properties of bambara groundnuts.
Journal of Food Engineering, 47(4), 321–326.
Carman, K. (1996). Some physical properties of lentil seeds. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 63, 87–92.
Cantwell, M. (1995). Post-harvest management of fruits and vegetable
stems. In G. Barbera, P. Inglese, E. Pimienta-Barrios (Eds.), Agro-
ecology, cultivation and uses of cactus pear. FAO Plant Production
and Protection Paper 132. Rome: FAO. pp 216.
Chung, J. H., & Verma, L. R. (1989). Determination of friction
coefficients of beans and peanuts. Transactions of the ASAE, 32(2),
745–750.
Demir, F., Dogan, H., Ozcan, M., & Haciseferogullari, H. (2002).
Nutritional and physical properties of hackberry (Celtis australis
L.). Journal of Food Engineering, 54, 241–247.
Deshpande, S. D., Bal, S., & Ojha, T. P. (1993). Physical properties of
soybean. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 56, 89–98.
Dutta, S. K., Nema, V. K., & Bhardwaj, R. J. (1988). Physical
properties of gram. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research,
39, 259–268.
Everett, T. (1978). Encyclopedia of horticulture. The New York
Botanical Garden: Rodale Press.
Ewaidah, E. H., & Hassan, B. H. (1992). Prickly pear sheets: A new
fruit product. International Journal of Food Science and Technol-
ogy, 27, 353–358.
Fraser, B. M., Verma, S. S., & Muir, W. E. (1978). Some physical
properties of fababeans. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 23, 53–57.
Gezer, I., Haciseferogullari, H., & Demir, F. (2002). Some physical
properties of Hacihaliloglu apricot pit and its kernel. Journal of
Food Engineering, 56, 49–57.
Gubta, R. K., & Das, S. K. (2000). Fracture resistance of sunflower
seed and kernel to compressive loading. Journal of Food Engineer-
ing, 46, 1–8.
Hegwood, D. A. (1990). Human health discoveries with Opuntia sp.
(prickly pear). HortScience, 25, 1315–1316.
Joshi, D. C., Das, S. K., & Mukherjee, R. K. (1993). Physical
properties of pumpkin seeds. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 54, 219–229.
Kader, A. A. (2002). Cactus (prickly) pear: recommendations for
maintaining postharvest quality. Available from http://rics.ucda-
vis.edu/postharvest2/produce/ ProduceFacts/ Fruit/cactus.shtml.
Konak, M., Carman, K., & Aydin, C. (2002). Physical properties of
chick pea seeds. Biosystem Engineering, 82(1), 73–78.
Kulkarni, S. D., Bhole, N. G., & Sawarkar, S. K. (1993). Spatial
dimensions of soybeans and their dependence on grain moisture
conditions. Journal of Food Science Technology, 30, 335–388.
Kuti, J. O., & Galloway, C. M. (1994). Sugar composition and
invertase activity in prickly pear. Journal of Food Science, 59(2),
387–393.
Mohsenin, N. N. (1980). Physical properties of plant and animal
materials. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Ogut, H. (1998). Some physical properties of white lupin. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 56, 273–277.
Pimienta Barrios, E. (1993). El nopal (Opuntia spp.): Una alternativa
Ecológica productiva para las zonas áridas y semiáridas. Ciencia,
44, 339–350.
Russell, C. E., & Felker, P. (1987). The prickly pears (Opuntia spp): a
source of human and animal food in semiarid regions. Economic
Botany, 41, 433–445.
Sahay, K. M., & Singh, K. K. (1994). Unit operations in agricultural
processing. New Delhi: Vikas.
Sawaya, W. N., & Khan, P. (1982). Chemical characterization of
prickly pear seed oil, Opuntia ficus indica. Journal of Food Science,
47, 2060–2061.
Schirra, M. (1998). Storage trials of cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica
Miller L.) fruit with non-conventional methods. International
Symposium Proceedings: Cactus pear and nopalitos processing and
uses. Office of Arid Lands Studies, Chile.
Sitkei, G. (1986). Mechanic of agricultural materials. Budapest:
Akademiai Kiado.
Suthar, S. H., & Das, S. K. (1996). Some physical properties of
karingda seeds. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 65,
15–22.
USDA (1970). Official grain standards of the United States. US
Department of Agricultural Consumer and Marketing Service
Grain Division (Revised).