This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.

80
On: 27 Feb 2023
Access details: subscription number
Publisher: CRC Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Handbook of Food Preservation

Mohammad Shafiur Rahman

Methods of Peeling Fruits and Vegetables

Publication details
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.1201/9780429091483-4
Xuan Li
Published online on: 06 Jul 2020

How to cite :- Xuan Li. 06 Jul 2020, Methods of Peeling Fruits and Vegetables from: Handbook of Food
Preservation CRC Press
Accessed on: 27 Feb 2023
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.1201/9780429091483-4

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or
accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 3 Methods of Peeling Fruits and Vegetables
Xuan Li

CONTENTS
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ 19
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.80 At: 10:52 27 Feb 2023; For: 9780429091483, chapter3, 10.1201/9780429091483-4

3.2 Peeling Methods: Conventional.......................................................................................................................................... 19

3.2.1 Mechanical Peeling................................................................................................................................................ 19
3.2.2 Lye Peeling............................................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.3 Steam Peeling......................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.4 Flame Peeling......................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Emerging Peeling Techniques............................................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.1 Infrared Peeling...................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.3.2 Enzymatic Peeling.................................................................................................................................................. 21
3.3.3 Ohmic Peeling........................................................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.4 Ultrasonic Peeling.................................................................................................................................................. 21
3.3.5 Others..................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.4 Peeling Fundamentals......................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Peeling Performance and Product Quality......................................................................................................................... 22
3.6 Peeling Sustainability......................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.7 Final Remarks..................................................................................................................................................................... 23
References.................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.1 INTRODUCTION consumption involved in the peeling process has become an

Peeling is a common unit process for many fruits and vege-
tables to produce fresh-cut, minimally processed, and canned
food products. The peeling process intends to remove the
inedible or undesirable layer of rind or skin from raw produce.
Through the peeling process, peeled products are prepared
to meet high quality and safety requirements for human con-
sumption or for other forms of subsequent processing, such
as dicing, cutting, and canning. In food production lines, the
peeling operation represents an important preparatory step,
and it is typically performed at the initial stage [1]. After peel-
ing, the appearance, texture, flavor, or nutrient values of the
peeled product may be altered from raw materials. Hence, the
peeling process can significantly contribute to changes in the
storability, palatability, digestibility, and bioavailability of
final food products [2].
Historically, manual peeling was the most widely adopted
approach for thin skin removal and nowadays is still in prac-
tice for certain high-value fruits, such as mangoes [3]. The
simplistic goal of manual peeling is to remove peels with
as little loss as possible of the usable food materials [4].
Industrial peeling methods that are adaptable to large-scale
process operations were successfully developed around the
1940s to 1950s to reduce labor, time, and waste involved in
the peeling process [1]. Hot lye peeling and steam peeling
are two widely adopted methods suitable for peeling a broad
variety of fruits and vegetables, such as potatoes, tomatoes,
citrus, sweet potatoes, carrots, pumpkins, pears, peaches, and
apples [3]. In recent years, the reduction of energy and water
important consideration due to the dwindling water supply
and ever-tightening environment regulations [1, 4]. Producing
high quality peeled products in a cost-effective manner using
less water and energy drives the sustainable development of
novel peeling technologies.
3.2 PEELING METHODS: CONVENTIONAL
As a unit operation, peeling can be realized by means of
mechanical, chemical, or thermal treatments as well as any of
their combinations. Common industrial peeling methods and
emerging peeling techniques are described in the following
sections.
3.2.1 Mechanical Peeling
Mechanical peeling utilizes knives, blades, or abrasive
devices to remove the undesirable part directly from raw food
materials [5, 6]. Thereafter, skin residuals are washed away
using water. Since it is mostly performed in dry form at ambi-
ent temperature, mechanical peeling causes the least injury
to the freshness and nutritional values of peeled products [3].
As compared to other chemical- and thermal-based methods,
mechanical peeling operates using less energy and with lower
capital costs, and has the minimum negative environmental
impact. But relatively low throughput and high peeling losses
(23–30%) limit its application to some high-value fruits and
a few root vegetables that are difficult to peel using other
means. Common mechanically peeled products include citrus
19
 20
fruits, pears, pineapples, bulb onions, carrots, squashes, cas-
savas, and other tubers [7, 8].
Mechanical peeling can be classified as abrasive peel-
ing and non-abrasive knife peeling [9]. In abrasive peeling,
food materials, such as carrots and potatoes, are treated in a
batch or continuous process equipped with abrasive elements,
such as stiff brushes, carborundum rollers, and revolving
bowls or drums with abrasive surfaces along the inner wall
[10]. The abrasive element removes the outer skins through
the shear stress developed at the peel–flesh interface. In the
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.80 At: 10:52 27 Feb 2023; For: 9780429091483, chapter3, 10.1201/9780429091483-4
non-abrasive peeling, stationary knives or razor-like blades
are used to remove tough-skinned product by pressing the
cutting tool against the surface of the rotating materials [3,
4]. Abrasive peeling and non-abrasive knife peeling can be
integrated into one single process, which is usually used for
tough-skinned vegetables like parsnips, swedes, and turnips.
Such a design allows products to be treated in sequence by
the abrasive devices and knife tools with adjustable rotating
speed and controlled depth of knife penetration, yielding a
finished product with a much cleaner cutting surface. Cutting
tools and abrasive elements can be custom-designed to match
the geometrical characteristics of the food products and the
mechanical properties of the skin to be peeled. Variability
in product shapes and sizes, the difference in skin thickness,
texture, and strength of skin adhesion to the flesh are the key
considerations in the design of mechanical peeling devices.
3.2.2 Lye Peeling
Lye peeling, also known as caustic peeling, is a chemical
method used for peel removal of thin-skinned products, where
raw food materials are exposed to a heated solution contain-
ing caustic chemicals (most commonly, sodium hydroxide or
potassium hydroxide) that can dissolve the skin. After treat-
ment with lye, the loosened skins can be removed either by
high-pressure water sprays or through abrasive peel elimina-
tors, usually a perforated rotary drum or a mechanical pinch
roller [2].
Lye peeling can be further divided into two categories: wet
lye peeling and dry lye (dry-caustic) peeling. The wet lye peel-
ing is carried out by immersing products into a concentrated
lye solution of 8–25% at an elevated temperature from 60 to
100°C for a short residence time (15–30 s) [3]. Fundamentally,
the presence of hydroxyl (OH–) group in lye solution cleaves
the α (1–4) bonds of individual galacturonic acid units in
polysaccharides of skins [11]. As it moves further into the
product’s inner tissues through the diffusion mechanism, the
lye solution dissolves the pectic and hemicellulosic materi-
als and weakens the network of cellulose microfibrils, thus
loosening the skin [12, 13]. In some cases, different chemical
additives, such as surfactants or wetting agents, are added to
the lye bath to improve peeling efficiency or to reduce lye con-
centration while maintaining the peeling effectiveness [1, 14].
Dry-caustic peeling is a modification of the wet lye peel-
ing method. Instead of soaking products in a hot lye bath, a
lye solution is sprayed onto product surfaces under a high-
temperature environment, where thermal energy is utilized
Handbook of Food Preservation
to accelerate lye peeling activities [15, 16]. The dry-caustic
peeling combines the effects of chemical reaction and ther-
mal shock to soften the skin so as to reduce the use of water
and chemicals during the peeling process [17, 18]. As a result,
it has fewer waste disposal concerns in comparison with the
conventional wet lye peeling method.
Wet lye peeling is by far the most popular technique used
in commercial peeling processes, and it has been applied for
a wide variety of fruits and vegetables, like tomatoes, sweet
potatoes, potatoes, peaches, guava, pears, and apricots. Its
great suitability for various products, the ease of process
control and automation, high peeling quality, and efficiency
are practical advantages for industrial-scale operation [9].
Product immersion time in the lye solution, temperature of
the hot lye bath, and lye concentrations are the three major
controllable factors that affect the total usage of chemicals
and final peeling quality [19, 20]. Lye diffusion coupled with
heat penetration may cause cellular injury and discoloration
in tissues adjacent to the skin, resulting in a “heating ring”
appearance, which can become quite pronounced for certain
products such as potatoes, sweet potatoes, and peaches, and
considerably harm the sensory quality. Effluents from lye
peeling containing organic loads (BOD and COD) with high
pH values (11–13) cannot be directly released to the environ-
ment without appropriate neutralization treatments [3]. The
waste disposal problem and serious salinity contamination
inherent to the traditional wet lye peeling process become the
major issues for food processors [21].
3.2.3 Steam Peeling
The steam peeling technique involves placing raw fruits or
vegetables inside a pressure vessel, and exposing them to high
temperatures and pressurized steam for rapid heating in a
short period (15–30 s). As the pressure is released, thermo-
dynamic changes at the product surface cause peel detach-
ment [12, 22]. The loosened skins are subsequently removed
by pressurized water spray or mechanical pinch rollers [12].
As a chemical-free method, steam peeling has been increas-
ingly adopted by the food industry as a replacement for the lye
peeling of potatoes, tomatoes, pimiento peppers, sweet pota-
toes, and other vegetables [12, 23–25]. The main advantages
of steam are the reduction of chemical contamination and the
reduced salinity issue in wastewater treatment as compared
to lye peeling. Inferior appearance, decreased firmness, and
high mass losses are the major drawbacks of the commercial-
ized steam peeling technique. Modifications of the conven-
tional steam method, such as high-pressure steam peeling
with flash cooling, lye–steam peeling, and freeze–heat peel-
ing, were investigated in the past number of decades, target-
ing the minimization of peeling loss and improvement in the
quality of peeled products [1, 3].
3.2.4 Flame Peeling
In this thermal-based peeling method, a flame is used to scorch
the outer layer of products at extremely high temperatures
 Methods of Peeling Fruits and Vegetables
(>1000°C) in a controlled short time frame (1–3 s) [3].
Products are passed through a furnace tunnel equipped with
gas burners that are designed to provide adjustable and ade-
quate thermal intensity in a uniform manner. Flame peeling
is applied mainly to fruit and vegetable materials that contain
extremely high moisture content, such as peppers, garlic, and
onions [6, 26, 27]. Sufficient heat capacity of materials with
high moisture content allows relatively easy burn-off of the
outer skin of the material without overheating the product’s
internal flesh [10]. The main advantages of flame peeling are
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.80 At: 10:52 27 Feb 2023; For: 9780429091483, chapter3, 10.1201/9780429091483-4
(1) it can reduce the microbial populations, thus increasing the
shelf stability, and (2) it can preserve the ascorbic acid con-
tent. Since flame peeling involves the relatively complicated
construction, installation, and maintenance of equipment, the
high capital outlay precludes its adoption by small-scale food
processors [27].
3.3 EMERGING PEELING TECHNIQUES
Over the years, novel and sustainable peeling techniques have
been increasingly studied and developed to reduce the usages
of chemicals, energy, and water in the conventional peeling
methods. Recently reported alternative peeling techniques
include infrared dry-peeling, enzymatic peeling, ohmic peel-
ing, and ultrasonic peeling.
3.3.1 Infrared Peeling
Infrared peeling has been developed as a sustainable and
promising peeling technique that can eliminate the use of any
chemicals and any heating media like hot water or pressur-
ized steam to promote skin separation [2, 28]. Rapid heating
of the product surface at a low heat penetration depth (<1 mm)
is achieved by utilizing non-ionizing radiation from far- and
mid-infrared wavelengths. As a result, only a shallow layer of
product surface is subjected to the intense infrared radiation,
which causes the skin to loosen enough to be washed away
easily. Because of the rapid surface heating characteristics of
infrared, the edible inner part of the product stays at a low tem-
perature (<30°C) during infrared peeling, thus maintaining
minimal changes in the quality and nutritional values of the
peeled product [29, 30]. Since no water is used during infrared
heating, this process is referred to as the infrared dry-peeling
method [28]. When compared to lye peeling outcomes, infra-
red dry-peeling produces similar peelability, less weight loss,
and comparable product firmness and appearance [31].
Bench-scale and pilot-scale infrared dry-peeling systems
were designed, built, and tested for tomatoes, pears, and
peaches [21, 32]. Evaluations of a gas-based flameless catalytic
infrared peeler and an electricity-based infrared peeler were
conducted in pilot-plants and multiple commercial tomato pro-
cessing facilities over several growing seasons (2010–2018) [9].
The infrared dry-peeler consisted of three major sections: an
infrared heating section, a vacuum section, and a pinch roller
section [9]. Infrared-peeled tomatoes showed thinner peel-off
skin, better product integrity, and firmer texture than steam-
peeled tomatoes [9]. Because it is a chemical-free process,
21
tomato skins received from infrared dry-peeling can be reuti-
lized as a byproduct [9, 30]. Further, there is a lower cost in
wastewater treatment. Given these competitive advantages,
this alternative technique to lye/steam peeling could herald
a step-change for the food peeling process. Enhancement of
the overall heating rate and uniformity for products varying
in shapes and sizes while achieving an industrially acceptable
throughput need to be addressed before this novel technique
becomes a commercial reality [14, 29, 33, 34].
3.3.2 Enzymatic Peeling
Enzymatic peeling is a biological peeling method.
Polysaccharide hydrolytic enzymes such as pectinases,
hemicellulases, and cellulases can be used to infuse into
the surface of fruits and vegetables, resulting in a weakened
adherence of peel to flesh because of the degradation of the
pectin matrix and the breakdown of the hemicellulose–cellu-
lose network in fruit epidermal and hypodermal layers [3, 35].
Polygalacturonase (PG) and pectin methylesterase (PME) are
commonly used enzymes to hydrolyze the pectin materials
in plant cell walls and middle lamella. For different fruits to
be peeled, process parameters such as temperature, pH val-
ues, enzyme type, and concentrations are the key optimizable
variables to achieve successful bioseparation [36]. Enzymatic
peeling has been studied in several types of fruits, including
citrus, grapefruit, and stone fruit [35–38]. It is advantageous
that this method does not require extensively harsh treatments
often seen with chemical and thermal methods [34, 36].
3.3.3 Ohmic Peeling
The ohmic heating technique was investigated for the tomato
peeling process [14]. Ohmic peeling is achieved by electro-
heating of the tomato surface by controlling the electrical
conductivity of the peeling medium, where the tomato prod-
uct is immersed in a sodium chloride or sodium hydroxide
solution [39]. During the ohmic peeling, each tomato acts
as an electrical resistor and generates heat when electricity
is passed through it. The dissipation of electrical energy into
heat allows rapid and uniform heating throughout the tomato
surface. Bench-scale studies showed some promise that the
combined lye-ohmic peeling can improve the quality of
peeled tomatoes and reduce the peeling losses and lye con-
sumption [9].
3.3.4 Ultrasonic Peeling
Ultrasonic peeling involves using low-frequency ultrasound
(20–100 kHz) to treat fruits or vegetables that are submerged
in high-temperature water. The ultrasonic cavitation effect
through successive compression and rarefaction of high-
intensity sound waves is utilized to detach the skin from the
flesh [3, 34]. The synergistic effect of power ultrasound with
hot water is critical to achieving the desired peeling quality
[40]. This method was primarily investigated for the tomato
industry to replace the use of lye.
 22
3.3.5 Others
Other peeling methods, such as cryogenic peeling, vacuum
peeling, acid peeling, and peeling with ammonium salts or cal-
cium chloride, have been investigated in the past few decades
[1]. These methods can be considered as modifications of the
above-mentioned conventional methods. Successful commer-
cialization of these other alternatives has been hampered due
to the low throughputs and/or high processing costs [3].
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.80 At: 10:52 27 Feb 2023; For: 9780429091483, chapter3, 10.1201/9780429091483-4
3.4 PEELING FUNDAMENTALS
The mode of action associated with any chemical- or thermal-
based peeling process usually combines biochemical and bio-
physical changes occurring at the product’s outermost surface
and adjacent inner layers. In steam peeling, for example, thermal
shock induced by the pressurized steam strikes on the product’s
outermost surface first, causing the melting and reorganization
of cuticle waxes at the product’s epidermal layer which is known
as the phase transition [9, 12, 41]. As the heat transfers from the
surface into the product’s inner tissue, the increased tempera-
ture leads to the cell wall rupture. This vaporization of cellular
fluids moves to the adjacent epidermal layer, thus accelerating
various biochemical reactions at the product’s inner layers. The
occurrence of various biochemical reactions (e.g., hydrolysis
of polysaccharides and degradation of pectin) results in micro-
structural changes in the product’s epidermal and hypodermal
layers, and finally causes the separation of skin from flesh [11,
12, 31]. After peeling, changes in product quality, such as tex-
ture and nutritional content, are attributed to the thermal soft-
ening or chemical degradation in the peeling process, where
a kinetic modeling approach is typically employed to describe
any chemical process within the product’s surface tissues [42,
43]. In terms of transport phenomena, many peeling processes
involve complex heat and/or mass transport processes inside and
outside of the food product that may possess a unique skin struc-
ture. Knowledge of the skin anatomy and fruit physiology can
facilitate the evaluation of the multi-physicochemical transport
phenomena underlying a peeling process.
An integrated approach of experimental observations and
predictive modeling analysis has certainly enriched the elu-
cidation of skin detachment behaviors in the peeling process.
Numerical simulations of the transient heat transfer inside
irregularly shaped tomatoes in conjugation with biomechani-
cal measurements in the skin membrane allow an interpreta-
tion of the peel loosening and cracking phenomena (i.e., the
case of infrared peeling of tomatoes) [30]. Predictions of tem-
perature, vapor pressure, viscoelastic moduli, and shear stress
evolutions in the tomato surface during the infrared heating
process were quantitatively proposed and verified [13, 29, 30].
At the cellular level, a microscopic analysis evidenced that the
peel loosening was observed as the melting of extracellular
cuticles, collapse of surface cellular layers, thermal expan-
sion, and severe degradation of cell wall structures. These fac-
tors contribute to the increased peel stiffness and reduced peel
adhesiveness [30, 31]. Skin crack behaviors were attributed to
the rapid surface heating of infrared radiation, which reduced
Handbook of Food Preservation
the skin failure strength and caused a build-up of vapor pres-
sure under the skin membrane. When the vapor accumulated
to a certain level, skin cracking can occur as the shear stress
in the skin membrane exceeds the critical rupture stress [30].
Mechanistic understandings of a peeling process can
provide valuable insights into the development of new peel-
ing processes and the design of new peeling equipment. For
example, in the design of the first infrared peeler where the
infrared heating section must accommodate tomato popula-
tions of various shapes and sizes, curve-shaped infrared emit-
ters were custom-made to match the fruit’s geometric features.
The curve-shaped infrared emitters promote intensive and
uniform surface-to-surface radiation that can rapidly heat the
fruit surface from room temperature to boiling temperature in
about a few seconds [9, 21]. Immediately after infrared heat-
ing, a vacuum chamber was engineered to increase the forma-
tion of cracks by enlarging the pressure difference across the
skin membrane, which facilitates peel cracking, allows easier
subsequent peel removal and results in better peelability.
Clearly, the design of peeling processes and equipment would
benefit from a sound mechanistic understanding of the peel-
ing fundamentals. Understanding the peeling basics can not
only help the successful peel release but also prevents poten-
tial loss of nutritional content.
3.5 PEELING PERFORMANCE AND
PRODUCT QUALITY
An adequate peeling process must be established to (1) achieve
satisfactory peel removal with maximized peeling efficiency,
(2) produce premium-quality peeled product, (3) minimize
peeling loss, product quality changes, and pollution hazards
resulting from a peeling process, (4) reduce the consumption
of chemicals, water, and energy, and (5) save time, labor, and
economic cost [1, 29]. In practice, reliable assessment of the
peeling performance of incoming raw products is a challenge
due to the substantial amount of variability in raw product
physicochemical properties, cultivars, product defects, sea-
sonal variations, and many other agronomic factors [30, 44].
Peeling evaluation can consist of both objective and subjec-
tive quantifications. A general guideline is that using a single
grading scale or criterion in peeling evaluation can introduce
bias and should be avoided [14, 30]. Instead, the creation of an
inclusive metric from different efficiency, quality and product
safety perspectives allows better and comprehensive assess-
ments of the peeling process [31]. Some commonly used cri-
teria include the peelability, peeling yield/loss, the ease of
peeling, percentage of peel removal, peeled skin thickness,
peeling residence time, peeling efficacy, peeling throughput,
efficiency of water usage, energy consumption, and so on [11,
21, 31, 45, 46]. Additional consideration may also be given
to overall economic efficiency. Different evaluation matrices
can be developed to quantify the peeling performance, such
as raw materials to be peeled, and the desired final products.
Commercial processors are not concerned with only
the peeling performance but also the safety and quality of
peeled products. During peeling, removal of the skin induces
 Methods of Peeling Fruits and Vegetables
mechanical injuries in fruits and vegetables due to cellular
damage of the outer pericarp surface that protects the inner
edible tissue. Levels of food safety and quality are crucial
concerns in peeling processes. Because the increased sus-
ceptibilities to deterioration such as enzymatic changes and
microbial contaminations can take place at the peeled surfaces
anytime during food processing and handling, the quality and
shelf-life of peeled products may be compromised [6, 47, 48].
Accordingly, industrial quality controls of peeled products
include visual appearance, texture, flesh color, taste, nutrient
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.80 At: 10:52 27 Feb 2023; For: 9780429091483, chapter3, 10.1201/9780429091483-4
loss, integrity of peeled product, and so on. A sampling pro-
tocol for incoming products and fruit tagging procedures, like
the radio frequency identification (RFID) method, are practi-
cal options to monitor closely any quality changes throughout
the peeling process [14]. Novel techniques for quality control
by means of digital imaging analysis, analytical spectroscopic
techniques, dynamic thermal analysis, and magnetic reso-
nance imaging have been explored in order to achieve the best
quality assurance and management [13, 49, 50].
3.6 PEELING SUSTAINABILITY
Conventional peeling operations can consume extensive
amounts of water and energy, and inevitably generate waste that
requires additional waste management to avoid contaminating
the environment [4]. In recent years, the long-term water supply
concerns and the enforcement of wastewater discharge regula-
tions have exerted environmental pressure and financial burden
on food processors [28, 34, 51, 52]. Such new challenges for the
fruit and vegetable processing industry have created an incen-
tive and strong desire to develop sustainable and cost‐effective
peeling alternatives that can reduce the peeling wastage, water
and energy usage, and overall cost of the peeling process [9, 31].
Overall, the development and appropriate selection of peeling
methods need to consider the sustainable aspects in terms of
reducing energy and carbon footprints, minimizing chemical
contamination, and improving water-use efficiency.
3.7 FINAL REMARKS
Peeling is a widely used process to produce various premium-
quality products in the fruit and vegetable industry. As a unit
process, peeling can be water- and energy-intensive. The
selection of a proper peeling method for different fruits and
vegetables can impact the high-level production of finished
products: not limited to the product quality and safety, but
also the inherent waste management and operating expense.
Most popular industrialized processes that were developed a
few decades ago may result in enormous amounts of peeling
effluents with high costs of wastewater handling and disposal.
Future endeavors would be engaged with the development of
sustainable and cost-effective peeling alternatives that can
reduce water, chemical, and energy consumptions and mini-
mize wastewater generation while producing high-quality
products. A holistic approach must be taken to optimize any
emerging peeling technique that can be effectively and eco-
nomically applied to a wide range of food products.
23
REFERENCES
1. Setty, G. R., Vijayalakshimi, M. R. and Devi, A. U. (1993).
Methods for peeling fruits and vegetables: a critical evalua-
tion. Journal of Food Science and Technololgy, 30, 155–162.
2. Li, X. (2012). A Study of Infrared Heating Technology for
Tomato Peeling: Process Characterization and Modeling.
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California at Davis,
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Davis, CA.
3. Pan, Z., Li, X., Venkitasamy, C., Shen, Y. (2015). Food peeling:
conventional and new approaches. In: Reference Module in
Food Science. Geoffrey, W. S., ed., 1–9. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/
B978-0-08-100596-5.03091-2
4. Masanet, E., Worrel, E., Graus, W. and Galitsky, C.
(2007). Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving
Opportunities for the Fruit and Vegetable Processing
Industry. Energy Analysis Department, Environmental
Energy Technologies Division, Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley. Available at: http:​//www​.ener​gysta​r.gov​/ia/b​usine​
ss/in​dustr​y/Foo​d-Gui​de.pd​f.
5. Shirmohammadi, M., Yarlagadda, P. K., Kosse, V. and Gu, Y.
(2011). Study of tissue damage during mechanical peeling of
tough skinned vegetables. In Annual International Conference
Proceedings: Materials Science, Metal and Manufacturing
(M3 2011), 41–46. Singapore: Global Science and Technology
Forum.
6. Tapia, M. R., Gutierrez-Pacheco, M. M., Vazquez-Armenta,
F. J., Aguilar, G. A. G., Zavala, J. F. A., Rahman, M. S. and
Siddiqui, M. W. (2015). Washing, peeling and cutting of fresh-
cut fruits and vegetables. In Minimally Processed Foods:
Technologies for Safety, Quality, and Convenience. Siddiqui,
M. W. and Rahman, M. S. eds., 57–78. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
7. Adetan, D. A., Adekoya, L. O. and Aluko, O. B. (2006).
Theory of a mechanical method of peeling cassava tubers with
knives. International Agrophysics, 20(4), 269.
8. Ohlsson, T. and Bengtsson, N. (2002). Minimal Processing
Technologies in the Food Industry, 1–228. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
9. Pan, Z., Li, X., Khir, R., El-Mashad, H. M., Atungulu, G. G.,
McHugh, T. H. and Delwiche, M. (2015). A pilot scale electri-
cal infrared dry-peeling system for tomatoes: design and per-
formance evaluation. Biosystems Engineering, 137, 1–8.
10. Fellows, P. J. (2009). Food Processing Technology: Principles
and Practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
11. Das, D. J. and Barringer, S. A. (2006). Potassium hydroxide
replacement for lye (sodium hydroxide) in tomato peeling.
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 30(1), 15–19.
12. Floros, J. D. and Chinnan, M. S. (1988). Microstructural
changes during steam peeling of fruits and vegetables. Journal
of Food Science, 53(3), 849–853.
13. Wang, Y., Li, X., Sun, G., Li, D. and Pan, Z. (2014). A compar-
ison of dynamic mechanical properties of processing-tomato
peel as affected by hot lye and infrared radiation heating for
peeling. Journal of Food Engineering, 126, 27–34.
14. Ayvaz, H., Santos, A. M. and Rodriguez‐Saona, L. E. (2016).
Understanding tomato peelability. Comprehensive Reviews in
Food Science and Food Safety. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12195
15. Sproul, O., Vennes, J., Knudson, W. and Cyr, J. W.
(1975). Infrared Dry Caustic vs. Wet Caustic Peeling of
White Potatoes. Corvallis, OR: National Environmental
Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency EPA-660/2-74-088.
 24
16. Stone, H. E. (1974). Dry Caustic Peeling of Clingstone Peaches.
Corvallis, OR: National Environmental Research Center,
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency EPA-660/2-74-092.
17. Eskin, M. (1989). Quality and Preservation of Vegetables.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
18. Hart, M., Graham, R., Huxsoll, C. and Williams, G. (1970).
An experimental dry caustic peeler for cling peaches and
other fruits. Journal of Food Science, 35(6), 839–841.
19. Hartz, T. K., Miyao, G., Mullen, R. J., Cahn, M. D., Valencia,
J. and Brittan, K. L. (1999). Potassium requirements for maxi-
Downloaded By: 10.3.98.80 At: 10:52 27 Feb 2023; For: 9780429091483, chapter3, 10.1201/9780429091483-4
mum yield and fruit quality of processing tomato. Journal of the
American Society for Horticulture Science, 124(2), 199–204.
20. Athanasopoulos, P. E. and Vagias, G. A. (1987). Lye peeling
of mandarins. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 9(4),
277–285.
21. Li, X., Pan, Z., Bingol, G., McHugh, T. H. and Atungulu, G.
G. (2009). Feasibility study of using infrared radiation heat-
ing as a sustainable tomato peeling method. In International
Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers. Paper No. 095689. ASABE, ed. Reno,
NV, St. Joseph, MI: ASABE.
22. Mohr, W. P. (1990). The influence of fruit anatomy on ease
of peeling of tomatoes for canning. International Journal of
Food Science & Technology, 25(4), 449–457.
23. Garcia, E. and Barrett, D. M. (2006a). Peelability and yield
of processing tomatoes by steam or lye. Journal of Food
Processing and Preservation, 30(1), 3–14.
24. Smith, D. (1984). Peeled yield and quality of delicious apples
peeled by superheated steam, saturated steam, and caustic
peeling. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural
Science, 109(3), 364–367.
25. Smith, D. A., Dozier, W. A., Griffey, W. A. and Rymal, K.
S. (1982). Effect of steam temperature, speed of cooling and
cutin disruption in steam and lye peeling of apples. Journal of
Food Science, 47(1), 267–269.
26. Esser, J. A., Ramstad, P. E. and Young, K. J. (1950). Flame
peeling of mucilaginous seeds. US Petent Number, US2523635
A. USA.
27. Lustig, T. P. (1984). Onion peeling means. US Patent No.
US4450762. Google Patents.
28. Pan, Z., Li, X., Bingol, G., McHugh, T. H. and Atungulu, G.
(2009). Development of infrared radiation heating method
for sustainable tomato peeling. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture, 25(6), 935–941.
29. Li, X. and Pan, Z. (2014a). Dry peeling of tomato by infra-
red radiative heating: part II. Model validation and sensitivity
analysis. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 7(7), 2005–2013.
30. Li, X., Pan, Z., Atungulu, G. G., Wood, D. and McHugh, T. H.
(2014). Peeling mechanism of tomato under infrared heating:
peel loosening and cracking. Journal of Food Engineering,
128, 79–87.
31. Li, X., Pan, Z., Atungulu, G. G., Zheng, X., Wood, D.,
Delwiche, M. and McHugh, T. H. (2014). Peeling of tomatoes
using novel infrared radiation heating technology. Innovative
Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 21, 123–130.
32. Li, X., Zhang, A., Atungulu, G. G., Delwiche, M., Milczarek,
R., Wood, D., Williams, T., McHugh, T. H. and Pan, Z. (2014).
Effects of infrared radiation heating on peeling performance
and quality attributes of clingstone peaches. LWT – Food
Science and Technology, 55(1), 34–42.
33. Li, X. and Pan, Z. (2014b). Dry-peeling of tomato by infra-
red radiative heating: part I. Model development. Food and
Bioprocess Technology, 7(7), 1996–2004.
Handbook of Food Preservation
34. Rock, C., Yang, W., Goodrich-Schneider, R. and Feng, H.
(2011). Conventional and alternative methods for tomato peel-
ing. Food Engineering Reviews, 4, 1–15.
35. Pretel, M. T., Lozano, P., Riquelme, F. and Romojaro, F.
(1997). Pectic enzymes in fresh fruit processing: optimiza-
tion of enzymic peeling of oranges. Process Biochemistry, 32,
43–49.
36. Toker, I. and Bayndrl, A. (2003). Enzymatic peeling of
apricots, nectarines and peaches. LWT – Food Science and
Technology, 36(2), 215–221.
37. Baker, R. A. and Wicker, L. (1996). Current and potential
applications of enzyme infusion in the food industry. Trends
in Food Science & Technology, 7(9), 279–284.
38. Ben-Shalom, N. and Pinto, A. L. R. (1986). Pectolytic enzyme
studies for peeling of grapefruit segment membrane. Journal
of Food Science, 51(2), 421–423.
39. Wongsa-Ngasri, P. and Sastry, S. K. (2015). Effect of
ohmic heating on tomato peeling. LWT – Food Science and
Technology, 61(2), 269–274.
40. Rock, C., Yang, W., Nooji, J., Teixeira, A. and Feng, H. (2010).
Evaluation of roma tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) peeling
methods: conventional vs. power ultrasound. Proceedings of
the Florida State Horticultural Society, 123, 241–245.
41. Floros, J. D. and Chinnan, M. S. (1990). Diffusion phenom-
ena during chemical (NaOH) peeling of tomatoes. Journal of
Food Science, 55(2), 552–553.
42. Barreiro, J. A., Caraballo, V. and Sandoval, A. J. (1995).
Mathematical model for the chemical peeling of spherical
foods. Journal of Food Engineering, 25(4), 483–496.
43. Barreiro, J. A., Sandoval, A. J., Rivas, D. and Rinaldi, R.
(2007). Application of a mathematical model for chemi-
cal peeling of peaches (Prunus persica l.) variety Amarillo
Jarillo. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 40(4), 574–578.
44. Garcia, E., Watnik, M. R. and Barrett, D. M. (2006). Can we
predict peeling performance of processing tomatoes? Journal
of Food Processing and Preservation, 30(1), 46–55.
45. Barrett, D. M., Garcia, E. and Miyao, G. (2006). Defects
and peelability of processing tomatoes. Journal of Food
Processing and Preservation, 30(1), 37–45.
46. Schlimme, D. V., Corey, K. A. and Frey, B. C. (1984).
Evaluation of lye and steam peeling using four process-
ing tomato cultivars. Journal of Food Science, 49(6),
1415–1418.
47. Saravacos, G. D. and Kostaropoulos, A. E. (2002). Handbook
of Food Processing Equipment. Springer Science & Business
Media.
48. Siddiqui, M. W., Chakraborty, I., Ayala-Zavala, J. and Dhua,
R. (2011). Advances in minimal processing of fruits and vege-
tables: a review. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research,
70(9), 823–834.
49. Garcia, E. and Barrett, D. M. (2006b). Evaluation of process-
ing tomatoes from two consecutive growing seasons: quality
attributes, peelability and yield. Journal of Food Processing
and Preservation, 30(1), 20–36.
50. Milczarek, R. R. and McCarthy, M. J. (2011). Prediction
of processing tomato peeling outcomes. Journal of Food
Processing and Preservation, 35(5), 631–638.
51. Li, X., Pan, Z., Upadhyaya, S. K., Atungulu, G. G. and
Delwiche, M. (2011). Three-dimensional geometric modeling
of processing tomatoes. Transactions of the ASABE, 54(6),
2287–2296.
52. Barringer, S. (2003). Canned tomatoes: production and stor-
age. In Handbook of Vegetable Preservation and Processing,
150–162. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.