DAYALBAGH EDUCATIONAL

INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
STREAM SEMINAR
COURSE CODE : AEM-702

SUBMITTED BY:-
Aditya Dubey SUBMITTED TO:-
2104065 Er. Mukesh Seetpal
B.Tech 4th Year (Assistant Professor)
Agricultural engineering
Title:- ‘Development and performance
evaluation of a refrigerated storage
structure for preserving fresh
fruits and vegetables’
 INTRODUCTION
• Bangladesh's diverse agro-climatic conditions enable the production of various fruits and
vegetables.
• High post-harvest losses occur due to poor handling, with 20–30% of fruits and 30–35%
of vegetables wasted during the post-harvest process.
• The climacteric nature of fruits and vegetables accelerates perishability through metabolic
changes.
• Food security, encompassing both food production and quality, is a critical issue in
Bangladesh and globally.
• Fruits and vegetables, rich in antioxidants and polyphenols, are essential for health,
offering benefits such as immune support, cardiovascular health, and protection against
oxidative damage.
• Preservation devices for fresh produce aim to retain moisture, inhibit spoilage, and extend
shelf life
• Bangladesh faces challenges such as a lack of cold storage facilities, limited post-harvest
technologies, and insufficient knowledge of handling and storage practices.
• Farmers often sell produce below market value due to significant post-harvest losses.
• Effective refrigeration systems are crucial for preserving the quality of fresh produce by
maintaining appropriate temperature and humidity levels.
• Temperature and relative humidity significantly influence the shelf life of fruits and
vegetables, with optimal storage requiring specific conditions above freezing points.
• Various low-temperature storage methods, including evaporative cooling, cold storage, and
hybrid systems, have limitations such as high costs, complexity, and energy requirements.
• Innovative solutions like solar-based cold storage, biomass heater systems, and
biodegradable active packaging show promise but require further development.
• Reducing post-harvest losses of fruits and vegetables remains a global priority.
• A unique storage device addressing these challenges could retain freshness, flavor, and
nutritional quality while extending shelf life.
• The design and optimization of refrigeration systems must consider operating conditions to
ensure efficiency.
• A prototype refrigerated storage device was developed to maintain temperature, relative
humidity, and energy efficiency, aiming to enhance the preservation and marketability of
high-moisture produce.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Study Author’s Year of Findings
Name Publication
 The cooling system achieved an 83%
efficiency with a temperature drop of 6–
1. Design and 10°C and a relative humidity increase to
construction of an Zakari M. D et al 2016 85%.
evaporative cooling  Tomatoes stored in the cooling system
System for the retained better weight, firmness, and
storage of fresh tomato color, with only 0.05–0.18% daily weight
loss compared to 0.30–0.60% under
ambient conditions.
 Testing showed the shelf life of spinach
2. Design and and coriander extended to 72 hours,
Experimental Study Swatisweta Parida and tomatoes to 168 hours, with
of Prototype Cold et al 2020 reduced weight loss compared to
Storage for Various vegetables stored outside.
Vegetables Stored  Potatoes stored in the prototype
exhibited negligible sprouting and
minimal water loss after 15 days.
 Study Author’s Name Year of Findings
Publication
3. Design and Analysis of a  The system achieved temperature reductions
Thermoelectric Water-Cooled of 20.8°C (no load) in 210 minutes and
Mobile Refrigerator for Prasad Chavan et al 2021 23.6°C (with 30 kg load) in 360 minutes.
Produce Preservation  Achieved COP of 0.85, higher than similar
thermoelectric systems (0.15–0.50).
 Design proposed for a low-cost cold storage
system to store 32,250 lbs of produce,
4. Design of a Small-Scale, Dr. John Biernbaum reducing electricity use by 70%.
Low-Cost Cold Storage et al 2014  Economic analysis suggests a payback period
System of 3.3 years for basement storage and 2.4
years for aboveground units.
5. Optimal design and  The system reduces life-cycle cooling costs
application of a compound by 40%, operational costs by 76%, and
cold storage system combining Chengchu Yan et al 2015 annual electricity consumption by 22% in
seasonal ice storage and the tested case study.
chilled water storage  A real-world application in Beijing
demonstrated effective cooling for a 2000
m² building with a total storage volume of
351 m³ and a chiller capacity of 62.5 kW.
 ‘Development and performance evaluation
of a refrigerated storage structure for preserving
 fresh fruits and vegetables’
Objectives:-
1. Design and develop a prototype refrigerated storage device for preserving fresh fruits and
vegetables.
2. Evaluate the cooling time and efficiency of the device.
3. Assess energy consumption and cost efficiency for operating the device.
4. Maintain quality and shelf life of stored products under controlled temperature and
humidity.
5. Compare physiochemical quality of products stored in refrigerated versus
ambient conditions.
 MATERIAL AND METHOD
 Calculation of holding capacity of the cooling chamber:
The capacity of the cooling chamber was calculated using Eq. (1):
V=L*B*H
where, L=length (m), B=width (m), and H=height (m).
The total product holding capacity of the device is expressed by the following formula:
Total product holding capacity=ρ×V.
Where, V=device chamber volume (m3), ρ=product bulk density (kg/m3).

Heat transmitted by the refrigerator

Equation (2) was used according to Arora [30] for the calculation of transmitted heat:
qt = (A)(U)(Tout − Tin)
Where,
qt = represents the rate at which heat is transmitted (W)
A is the total surface area for heat transfer (m2)
U denotes the overall heat transfer coefficient (w/m2K)
Tout and Tin are the temperatures outside and inside the storage chamber
 Infiltration load
The air change load occurs when the refrigeration space is exposed to external air due to the lid being
opened, leading to heat infiltration.
Equation (3) was used according to Arora [30] to calculate the air infiltration load.
qa = ma (h0 − hi)
Where,
qa is the air change load (kJ)
ma is the mass of air (kg) entering the storage chamber
ho and hi are the enthalpy (kJ/kg) of the outside and inside air

 Product load
The amount of heat needed to keep the product above its freezing point was calculated
according to Arora [30] using the following Eq. (4).
qpa = (m)(c)(ΔT)
Where, qpa is the amount of heat above the freezing point (kJ),
m is the mass of the product (kg),
c is the specific heat capacity at the given state (kJ/kg.K)
ΔT is the temperature change of the product (k).
 Light load
The heat emitted by the lights installed in the refrigerated area was determined according to Arora [30] using the
following Eq. (6).
qL = Light rating (W) × Time (s)
Where,
qL represents the light load (kJ).

 Total cooling load

The overall cooling load is the sum of all individual loads, expressed as:
qTCL = qt + qa + qpa + qpb + qL
where,
qTCL represents the total cooling load (kJ).

The total cooling load (QTCL) in watts was determined using the Eq. (8):
QTCL = qTCL (KJ)/Time taken (s)
 Factors of safety
A 10% safety factor was incorporated into the design of the refrigerated device. This factor was incorporated into
the overall cooling load as shown in Eq. 9.Safety factor = 10% of QTCL
 Performance evaluation of the refrigerated device
(a)Cooling efficiency (CE) of the device
The cooling efficiency was calculated according to Harris [29] as given in Eq. (10)
CE =T1(db) − T2(db)/T1(db) − T2(wb)
where, T1 (db)=dry bulb outdoor (ambient) temperature (°C),
T2 (db)=dry bulb temperature of the cooling chamber (°C),
T2 (wb)=wet-bulb temperature of the cooling chamber (°C).

(b)Required equipment capacity (REC)

Required equipment capacity was calculated according to Eq. (11).
REC = (Total Cooling Load) × (24 hour)/Desired running time in hour

 The coefficient of performance of the refrigerated device

The maximum possible coefcient of performance (COP) is that of a Carnot cycle which was calculated according
to Arora
[30] by using Eqs. (12) and (13):
COPcarnot = Tevap/Tcond − Tevap
COPreal = 0.8 ∗ COPcarnot
where, COPcarnot=coefcient of performance for a Carnot cycle,
Tevap=evaporating temperature, and
Tcond=condensing temperature.
 Assessment of specific energy consumption
 Energy consumption by the motors of a compressor, cooler fan, humidifier, air circular fan
The following formula (14) was used for calculating the electrical energy consumed by the motors in KWh. Voltage
and current were recorded approximately at 30 min intervals.
Emotor = (14) VI Cos 𝜃 × t/1000
where, V=single phase line voltage (volt),
I=single phase line current (A),
Cos θ=power factor,
t=the operating time of motor (hr).
(a)Specific energy consumption by the motors of the compressor, cooler fan, humidifier, air
circular fan :
Specific energy consumption was calculated by dividing energy consumption in motors by the amount of product
preserved in the structure.
(b)Total specific electrical energy consumption
The total specific electrical energy consumption (TSPEEC) by the compressor (SPEEECcompressor), compressor
cooler fan
(SPEECcompressor cooler fan), humidifer (SPEEChumidifer), and air circular fan motor (SPEEC air circular fan)
were calculated in kWh per kg product to be stored in the device chamber following Eq. (15).
TSPEEC = SPEEECcompressor + SPEECcompressor cooler fan + SPEEChumidifier + SPEECair circular fan
where, SPEEC = Total energy consumed /Total amount of product to be stored
(c)Calculation of electric energy cost for the device
The electrical energy cost of the device for storing fresh fruits and vegetables was calculated according to the
following formula (17),
Electrical energy cost (TK/kg)= TSPEEC(kwh/kg )× Electricity cost( TK/kwh)
where, TSPEEC=total specific electrical energy consumption.

 Quality evaluation of the stored products:

(a)Determination of weight loss%

 Weight loss = Original weight of sample − Weight of stored sample/Original weight of sample × 100

(b) Assessment of firmness

The digital firmness tester or penetrometer (Brand: Gtech and Model: GY-04) was used to measure the firmness
of the samples as penetration force kg/cm2. The penetration probe size was 8.01 mm and 11.11 mm for guava and
cauliflower samples, respectively. The penetrometer penetrated the samples, and the reading shown on the display
was noted.
  RESULT AND DISCUSSION
1. Cooling profile of the refrigerated device

Fig. 1 The cooling time profile of the device gains at cooling temperature of 5 °C

Fig. 2 Temperature profile of device in empty and load condition at 6 ºC Fig. 3 Temperature profile of device in empty and load condition at
for cauliflower preservation 5 °C for guava preservation
2. Evolution of temperature and relative humidity

Fig. 4 Relative humidity profile of the device Fig. 5 Relative humidity profile of the device in
in empty and load condition at 5 ºC for guava empty and load condition at 6 °C for cauliflower
preservation

3. Cooling efficiency (CE) of the device

The study revealed that the cooling efficiency of the device was 93±2%, notably surpassing the 86% efficiency reported
by Olosunde et al. [11]
4. Specific electrical energy consumption in the refrigerated device
Table 1 Specific energy consumption and preservation cost of high moisture fresh fruits and vegetables
Fruits & Vegetables TSPEEC(kWh/kg/day) Device Cost
(Tk/kg/day)
Guava 0.0524 0.42
Cauliflower 0.1104 0.88
TSPEEC means total specific electrical energy consumption
5. Quality assessment of the stored products

(a)Weight loss of guava and cauliflower

• Guava stored in a refrigerated device showed a
weight loss of only 3.78% over 18 days,
compared to 17.5% in 9 days under
ambient conditions.
• Cauliflower stored under refrigeration
experienced a weight loss of 7.12% over 18
days, while ambient storage led to a
20.94% loss in 9 days.
Figure 6 Effect of storage duration on weight loss in ambient refrigerated
storage conditions; A guava at 5 °C and B cauliflower at 6 °C
(b)Firmness of guava and cauliflower

The firmness of guava during refrigerated storage of 18 days was found to decrease from14.67 kg/cm2 to 11.27 kg/cm2
Whereas, firmness of fruit in ambient storage was found to decrease severely, and an approximate similar level decrease
of firmness (from 14.67 kg/cm2 to 10.50 kg/cm2) was observed only after 9 days of storage

Fig. 7 Effect of storage duration on firmness in ambient and refrigerated

device; A guava at 5 °C and B cauli- flower at 6 °C
(c)Shelf Life of Stored guava & Cauliflower

• The shelf life of guava was 18 days under refrigerated storage and 5 days under ambient storage.
• After 18 days, refrigerated guava showed 3.78% weight loss, firmness of 11.28 kg/cm², acidity 0.18%, pH 4.8,
TSS 12.9°Brix, and greenness index a* −5.37.
• After 5 days, ambient-stored guava showed 17.5% weight loss, firmness of 10.50 kg/cm², acidity 0.39%, pH
4.71, TSS 14.6°Brix, and greenness index a* −5.53.
• Fresh guava had firmness 14.67 kg/cm², acidity 0.59%, pH 4.01, TSS 9.6°Brix, and greenness index a* −6.57.
• The shelf life of cauliflower was 18 days under refrigerated storage and 6 days under ambient storage.
• After 18 days, refrigerated cauliflower showed 7.17% weight loss, firmness of 7.17 kg/cm², acidity 0.18%, pH
6.59, TSS 6.4°Brix, and whiteness index L* 64.19.
• After 6 days, ambient-stored cauliflower showed 20.94% weight loss, firmness of 6.67 kg/cm², acidity 0.22%,
pH 6.53, TSS 6.5°Brix, and whiteness index L* 67.71.
 CONCLUSION
o A low-cost refrigerated storage structure using local materials demonstrated 93% cooling efficiency for
high-moisture produce.
o The structure features simple design, affordable construction, easy transport, easy operation, and
installation, with uniform cooling throughout.
o It ensures superior long-term storage performance and maintains acceptable quality for stored fruits and
vegetables.
o The system uses a simple vapor compression refrigeration system with an automatic temperature and
humidity controller.
o Refrigerated storage maintains better physiochemical properties of stored fruits and vegetables compared to
ambient storage.
o Guava and cauliflower stored in refrigerated conditions showed fewer physiochemical changes and a shelf
life of 18 days, outperforming ambient storage.
Future Scope and Target Group
Future Scope
• Addressing Post-Harvest Losses
• Development of Low-Cost Technology
• Performance Efficiency
• Preservation of Quality
• Supporting Food Security
• Potential for Commercial Scaling
• Environmental Sustainability

Target Groups
• Smallholder Farmers
• Food Vendors
• Agro-Processing Industries
• Policy Makers and NGOs
• Academic and Research Institutions
REFERENCES
1. Hossain, A., Akhtaruzzaman, M., Mondal, M. H. T., Islam, M. R., Roy, J., Hasan, S. K., & Sarker, M. S.
H. (2024). Development and performance evaluation of a refrigerated storage structure for preserving
fresh fruits and vegetables. Discover Food, 4(1), 76.
2. Zakari, M. D., Abubakar, Y. S., Muhammad, Y. B., Shanono, N. J., Nasidi, N. M., Abubakar, M. S., ... &
Ahmad, R. K. (2016). Design and construction of an evaporative cooling system for the storage of fresh
tomato. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(4), 2340-2348.
3. Parida, S., Roy, A., & Anjankar, P. (2020). Design and experimental study of prototype cold storage for
various vegetables stored. In Techno-Societal 2018: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Advanced Technologies for Societal Applications-Volume 1 (pp. 447-455). Springer International
Publishing.
4. Chavan, P., Sidhu, G. K., Alam, M. S., & Kumar, M. (2021). Mathematical design and performance
investigation of evaporator water cooled storage‐cum‐mobile thermoelectric refrigerator for
preservation of fruits and vegetables. Journal of Food Process Engineering, 44(8), e13770.
5. Roots, L. (2012). Design of a small-scale, low-cost cold storage system. Cornell University.
6. Yan, C., Shi, W., Li, X., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Optimal design and application of a compound cold storage
system combining seasonal ice storage and chilled water storage. Applied Energy, 171, 1-11.