Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Food Engineering 85 (2008) 606612

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Eect of egg shape index on mechanical properties of chicken eggs

Ebubekir Altuntas a,*, Ahmet S
ekeroglu b
a

Department of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Gaziosmanpasa, 60240 Tasliciftlik, Tokat, Turkey
b
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Gaziosmanpasa, 60240 Tasliciftlik, Tokat, Turkey
Received 28 May 2007; received in revised form 22 August 2007; accepted 30 August 2007
Available online 24 October 2007

Abstract
Eggs are available in dierent shapes. These shapes can be dierentiated using a shape index (SI). The shapes most often encountered
are sharp, normal (standard), and round eggs which are enumerated on the SI as <72, 7276, and >76, respectively. In this study, the
eect of egg shape on the mechanical behaviour of chicken eggs under a compression load was investigated. The resistance of chicken
eggs (Lohmann) to damage was determined by measuring the average rupture force, specic deformation, rupture energy and rmness
along the X-front (Xf), X-back (Xb) and Z-axes at dierent compression speeds (0.33, 0.66 and 0.99 mm/s). The greatest amount of force
required to break the eggs was required when eggs were loaded along the Xf-axis and the least compression force was required along the
Z-axis. The specic deformation and rupture energy required for the eggs tested was lower along the Xf-axis than the Xb- or Z-axes. The
highest measure of rmness in the eggs tested was found to be along their Xf-axis. The results indicated that when testing the eects of
compression speed the rupture force is highly dependent on SI. The greatest force needed to rupture eggs was found in eggs with high SI
values that were tested at low compression speeds.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Chicken egg; Egg shape index; Mechanical properties; Compression axes and speed

1. Introduction
The mechanical properties of animal and plant materials are necessary considerations in the design and eective
utilization of the equipment used in the transportation,
processing, packaging and storage of agricultural products. In a natural environment, eggshells must be strong
enough to prevent cracking in order to preserve the
embryo until hatching. In the context of a farm, shell
strength is necessary to prevent damage from handling
and to preserve eggs during transport from farm to market. There is natural variability in egg shape and this variability can be characterized using a shape index (SI). Eggs
are characterized by the SI as sharp, normal (standard)
and round if they have an SI value of <72, between 72

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 356 2521616; fax: +90 356 2521488.
E-mail address: ealtuntas@gop.edu.tr (E. Altuntas).

0260-8774/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.08.022

and 76, and >76, respectively (Sarica & Erensayin, 2004).

Normal chicken eggs have an elliptical shape. If the
chicken eggs are an unusual shape; such as being long
and narrow, round, or at-sided; they are not regarded
as Grade-AA or -A (USDA, 2000). Round and unusually
long eggs have poor appearance, and they do not t properly in preformed packaging. Further, they are less resistant than normal shaped eggs to rupture during shipping
(Jacob, Milles, & Mather, 2000).
A chicken egg is an packaged food and an important
quality aspect of the packaged egg material is the mechanical strength of the eggshell. A commonly used technique
for the measurement of the shell strength is the quasi-static,
non-destructive compression of an egg between two parallel steel plates (Coucke, Jacobs, Sas, & De Baerdemaeker,
1998; De Ketelaere et al., 2002).
Egg size and the eggshell thickness are strongly related
to each other (Harms, Rossi, Sloan, Milles, & Christmas,
1990). While egg weight increases during the production

E. Altuntas, A. S
ekeroglu / Journal of Food Engineering 85 (2008) 606612

607

Nomenclature
Dg
Dr
Ea
Fx, Fz
L
Lu
Lf
Q
R2
S

geometric mean diameter (mm)

deformation (mm)
rupture energy (N mm)
axial force (N)
length (mm)
undeformed egg dimension (mm)
deformed egg dimension (mm)
rmness (N mm1)
determination coecient
surface area (%)

period, eggshell thickness and breaking strength usually

decrease. Eggshell quality depends on egg size and weight.
Egg properties such as SI and shell thickness aect the proportion of damaged eggs during handling and transport
(Anderson, Tharrington, Curtis, & Jones, 2004). These
physical properties of eggs, and their resistance to damage
through mechanical shock, can be characterized by measures such as rupture force, specic deformation, rupture
energy and rmness (Abdallah, Harms, & El- Husseiny,
1993; Altuntas & Yldz, 2007; Olaniyan & Oje, 2002; Voi zguven, 2004).
sey & Hunt, 1969; Vursavus & O
Eggshells must be strong enough to prevent cracking,
weak enough to allow the chick to break through when
hatching and thin enough to allow gas exchange. Eggshell
strength has been described using various variables such as
thickness of eggshell, shell stiness and rupture force (De
Ketelaere et al., 2002). The rupture force of hen eggs
depended on various egg properties such as egg specic
gravity, egg mass, egg volume, egg surface area, egg thickness, shell weight, and shell percentage. The strongest correlation was found between shell rupture force and shell
percentage (Narushin, van Kepmen, Wineland, & Christensen, 2004). Breaking strength is correlated with shape
index (Carter, 1976).
Several researchers have investigated the physical and
mechanical properties of chicken and Japanese quail eggs
by testing them against various compression loads (De
Ketelaere et al., 2002; Lin et al., 2004; Narushin et al.,
2004; Polat, Tarhan, C
etin, & Atay, 2007). Breaking
strength as a direct variable to measure of eggshell
strength, is a dicult variable to measure, because only
one measurement can be taken from each egg, and is highly
dependent on compression speed (Voisey & Hunt, 1969).
However, there is a paucity of technical information and
data in the scientic literature with regards to the mechanical behaviour of chicken eggs under dierent compression
orientations.
The objective of this study was to investigate the eect of
SI value on the mechanical properties of chicken eggs. The
mechanical properties examined were rupture force, specic deformation, rupture energy and rmness.

SI
ST
V
V0
W
k
X
Z
e
U

shape index
shell thickness (mm)
volume of egg (mm3)
total volume (mm3)
width (mm)
packaging coecient of egg
loading axis through the length dimension
transverse axis containing the minor dimension
specic deformation (%)
sphericity (%)

2. Materials and methods

In this experiment, Lohmann-type chicken eggs were
obtained from the chicken breeding unit in Tokat, Turkey
(39520 40550 north latitude and 35270 37390 east longitude). The average air temperature and relative humidity
was 19.5 C and 52% during the egg collection period.
The chickens were 16 month old and the facility housed ve
chickens per cage. White eggs were used in this experiment.
The composition of the diet used to feed the laying hens is
presented in Table 1.
In this experiment, a total sample of 270 eggs were used,
the data was analyzed using a randomized complete block
design with split block. In this design, the main factor is
shape index and sub-factor is compression axis and speed.
Length (L) and width (W) of eggs were measured with a
digital calliper to the nearest 0.01 mm. The unit mass of
each egg was weighed with an electronic balance to the
nearest 0.001 g. The shell thickness was determined according to Monira, Salahuddin, and Miah (2003).
Shape index (SI) was determined using the following
equation (Anderson et al., 2004)
 
W
SI
 100
L
Table 1
Composition of chicken feding ingredients, nutrient values and metabolizable energy (kcal/kg)
Ingredients

Percentage
(%)

Calculated
nutrients

Percentage
(%)

Maize
Wheat
Sunower residue
Full fat soybean
Mosaic
Salt
Meat and bone
our
Premix 15/10
DL-Methionine
Phytase
Rovable

23.64
34.00
14.6
15.00
8.6
0.30
3.3

Crude protein
ME (kcal/kg)
Crude oil
Crude ber
Calsium
PAvaliable
Met.

18.73
2830.22
5.18
4.22
3.965
0.33
0.47

0.25
0.15
0.06
0.1

Met.+Cystine
Lysine

0.79
0.91

E. Altuntas, A. S
ekeroglu / Journal of Food Engineering 85 (2008) 606612

608

The geometric mean diameter (Dg), sphericity (U), volume (V), surface area (S) and packaging coecient (k) of
eggs sampled were determined using the following
equations:

1=3
Dg LW 2
1
"
#
2 1=3
LW
 100
2
U
L
p
V
3
W2
6
4
S pD2g
k V 0 =V

where L = length (mm), W = width (mm); V = volume

(mm3), and V0 = packed total volume (mm3) in a
150  100  200 mm long rectangular box (Mohsenin,
1970; Olajide & Ade-Omowaye, 1999; Polat et al., 2007;
zdemir, 2005).
Topuz, Topakc, C
anakc, Aknci, & O
The static and dynamic coecients of friction were calculated using the following equation:
ls

Fs
Nf

where ls is the coecient of friction; Fs is the measured

friction (N) and Nf is the normal force (N).
The measurement was conducted using all three shapes
of eggs characterized using the SI value and the following
friction surfaces: glass, galvanized metal, chipboard, plywood and rubber. To determine the coecient of static
friction, the sample egg was placed on the friction surface,
and then the surface was gradually tilted from its initial
horizontal position by the adjustable screw. Horizontal
and vertical height values were measured using a standard
ruler at the point when the egg started sliding over the friction surface. The tangent value of the angle gave the coefcient of friction (Baryeh & Mangope, 2003; Polat et al.,
2007).
A biological materials test device was used to determine
the mechanical properties of the eggs tested. This device
(Zwick/Roell, Instruction Manual for Materials Testing
Machines/BDO-FB 0.5 TS) has three main components:
a moving platform, a driving unit and a data acquisition
(load cell, PC card and software) system (Altuntas &
Yldz, 2007). Compression force was measured by the data
acquisition system. The egg sample was placed on the moving platform and loaded at three compression speeds (0.33,
0.66 and 0.99 mm/s) and pressed with a plate xed on the
load cell until the egg ruptured. All these speeds are relevant with studies by several researchers (Ahmed et al.,
2005; Buchar, Nedomova, & Simeonovova, 2003; De
Ketelaere et al., 2002; Instron, 2007; Voisey & Hunt,
1969). It was assumed that rupture occurred at the bioyield point, which is the point on the force-deformation
curve in which there was a sudden decrease in force. From
the compression speed and time, eggshell deformation was
recorded and rupture force (Fr) and deformation (Dr) was

measured directly from the plotted force-deformation

curve (Fig. 1). As the compression begin and progressed,
a force-deformation curve was plotted automatically in
relation to the response of each egg to compression (De
Ketelaere et al., 2002; Mamman, Umar, & Aviara, 2005).
The force-deformation curves obtained at each loading orientation and compression speed level for the three shape
index.
Two compression axes (X and Z) of an egg were used to
determine the rupture force, specic deformation, rupture
energy and rmness. There were three replications for each
test and ten samples were used. The X-axis (force Fx) is the
loading axis through the length dimension measured as
X-front (Xf-axis) and X-back (Xb-axis), while the Z-axis
(force Fz) is the transverse axis containing the minor
dimension (width or thickness) (Fig. 2).
The specic deformation was obtained from the following equation:


Lf
e 1
 100
7
Lu
where e is the specic deformation (%), Lu (mm) is the
undeformed egg length measured in the direction of the
compression axis and Lf (mm) is the deformed egg length
measured in the direction of the compression axis (Braga,
Couto, Hara, & Neto, 1999).

Fig. 1. Example of experimental force-deformation curve in the study.

Z
Fz
X

Fx-front

Fx-back
W
L

Fig. 2. Description of the two axes and three perpendicular dimensions of

chicken egg: X-axis, loading axis through the length dimension (length, L);
Z-axis, transverse axis containing the minor dimension (width or
thickness, W); Fx, and Fz axial forces.

E. Altuntas, A. S
ekeroglu / Journal of Food Engineering 85 (2008) 606612

Energy absorbed (Ea) by an egg at the moment of rupture was determined by calculating the area under the
force-deformation curve from the following equation:


F r Dr
Ea
8
2
where Fr is the rupture force and Dr is the deformation at
the point of rupture on the egg (Braga et al., 1999).
Firmness is regarded as a ratio of compressive force to
deformation at the rupture point of a chicken egg. The
rmness was obtained from the following equation:

Fr
Q
9
Dr
where Q is the rmness (N mm1), Fr is the rupture force
(N), and Dr is the corresponding deformation at the rupture point (Olaniyan & Oje, 2002).
Results were analyzed using analysis of variance according to signicant level (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01) and the
means were compared using LSD test as described as
described by Gomez and Gomez (1984).
3. Results and discussion
In this study, the mean SI values were 69.78, 73.91 and
77.66 for sharp, normal and round eggs, respectively. The
physical properties of chicken eggs are presented in Table
2. The mean length and width (or thickness), geometric
mean diameter and unit mass of chicken eggs ranged from
64.02 to 59.28, 44.61 to 46.16, 50.28 to 49.97, and 72.34 to
70.31 g for the three SI categories tested. The mean sphericity, packaging coecient, surface area and volume of
chicken eggs ranged from 1.12% to 1.08%, 0.700 to 0.777,
7980 to 7853 mm2 and 1053.5 to 1116.8 mm3 for eggs tested
with SI values that ranged from <72 to >76. The length,
geometric mean diameter, unit mass, sphericity, and surface area decreased as SI values increased. The width,

609

packaging coecient and egg volume increased with an

increase in SI value.
The mean shell thickness increased from 0.344 to
0.351 mm as SI increased. De Ketelaere et al. (2002)
observed that hen eggs range in shell thickness from 0.32
to 0.36 mm.
The static coecients of friction ranged from 0.065 to
0.108 for glass, 0.142 to 0.165 for plywood, 0.086 to
0.120 for galvanized metal, 0.167 to 0.243 for rubber and
0.100 to 0.121 for chipboard over the range of SI tested
(Table 2).
The static coecients of friction increased linearly with
respect to SI value for all ve surfaces investigated. The
static coecient of friction was the highest in rubber, followed by plywood, chipboard, galvanized metal and glass.
In this study, rubber oered the maximum friction. The
glass gave the least amount of friction due to its smooth
and polished surface. Similar results have been reported
zarslan, 2006); cactus
for sweet corn (Coskun, Yalcn, & O
pears (Kabas, Ozmerzi, & Akinci, 2006); plum cultivars
(Ertekin, Gozlekci, Kabas, Sonmez, & Akinci, 2006); faba
beans (Altuntas & Yldz, 2007); neem nuts (Visvanathan,
Palanisamy, Gothandapani, & Sreenarayanan, 1996); and
raw cashew nuts (Balasubramanian, 2001).
3.1. Mechanical properties
3.1.1. Rupture force
The force required to initiate egg rupture in samples
with varying SI values at the three dierent compression
axes is presented in Table 3. The force required to initiate
egg rupture on the Z-axis decreased as SI values increased
from 72 to 76. The rupture force decreased as the compression speed increased from 0.33 to 0.99 mm/s for eggs with
SI values of <72, 7276 and >76; respectively. The results
indicated that the rupture force along X and Z axes is
highly dependent on SI value over the compression speed

Table 2
Eect of shape index on some physical properties of chicken egg
Physical properties

SI < 72

SI = 7276

Mean

Max.

Min.

Sd

Mean

Max.

Min.

Sd

Mean

Max.

Min.

Sd

Length (mm)
Width (mm)
Geometric mean diameter (mm)
Unit mass (g)
Sphericity (%)
Shell thickness (mm)
Surface area (mm2)
Volume (mm3)
Packaging coecient

64.02
44.61
50.28
72.34
1.122
0.344
7979.8
1053.5
0.700

69.28
46.75
53.19
83.43
1.145
0.407
8887.5
1189.8
0.730

45.16
42.12
45.33
60.36
0.992
0.253
6454.2
928.9
0.664

2.836
1.054
1.491
5.959
0.016
0.026
469.05
61.33
0.029

61.47
45.40
50.02
70.40
1.102
0.351
7867.5
1079.8
0.766

65.94
48.17
53.27
83.25
1.114
0.417
8915.8
1214.9
0.779

57.44
42.50
46.81
57.77
1.092
0.258
6884.2
945.8
0.748

1.883
1.271
1.400
5.639
0.006
0.050
438.8
60.28
0.013

59.28
46.16
49.97
70.31
1.083
0.351
7852.9
1116.8
0.777

64.05
48.83
53.24
83.10
1.093
0.403
8904.8
1248.5
0.794

50.52
42.48
46.13
56.87
1.036
0.260
6686.3
944.9
0.755

2.300
1.400
1.534
5.91
0.011
0.004
479.2
67.26
0.016

Coecient of friction
Galvanized metal
Plywood
Rubber
Chipboard
Glass

0.086
0.142
0.167
0.100
0.065

0.114
0.221
0.265
0.134
0.094

0.059
0.058
0.100
0.078
0.033

0.022
0.070
0.056
0.022
0.023

0.100
0.150
0.230
0.110
0.081

0.110
0.200
0.250
0.160
0.089

0.080
0.130
0.200
0.060
0.067

0.020
0.030
0.020
0.040
0.010

0.120
0.165
0.243
0.121
0.108

0.160
0.291
0.280
0.128
0.148

0.070
0.091
0.200
0.111
0.064

0.004
0.076
0.040
0.009
0.032

Max.: Maximum value, Min.: Minimum value, Sd: standard deviation.

SI > 76

E. Altuntas, A. S
ekeroglu / Journal of Food Engineering 85 (2008) 606612

610

ranges investigated. Greater force was required to rupture

eggs with high SI values being tested at the lowest compression speed.
The loading orientation with the least resistance to rupture force is the Z-axis. The rupture force measured when
loading along the lateral axis (Z-axis) was found to be
29.55 to 25.54 N and 28.8727.43 N for eggs with SI values
of <72 and >76, respectively. The highest rupture forces
required when loading along the X-front axis were found
to be 24.2426.09 N and 31.7228.46 N as the SI value
increased through the three test categories.
The eect of compression axes on rupture force was not
signicant; whereas, the eect of SI value and compression
speed on rupture force was signicant (p < 0.05 and
p < 0.01, respectively). The average rupture force for the
horizontally placed hen eggs has been reported to range
from 30.9 to 37.8 N (De Ketelaere et al., 2002). The mean
breaking forces of hen egg ranged from 33.4 to 35.3 N
(Zlatica, Vitorovic, Lukic, & Spasojevic, 2003). The mean
rupture forces of Japanese quail egg ranged from 10.51
to 6.83 N along the Xfront, Xback and Z-axis (Polat et al.,
2007).
3.1.2. Specic deformation
The specic deformation increased along the Xf-axis,
Xb-axis and Z-axis as both the SI value and compression
speed increased. The specic deformation values ranged
from 0.36% to 0.54% as the compression speed increased
through the three test speeds for sharp, normal and round
eggs, respectively. The results show that the specic defor-

mation along any of the Xf-, Xb- and Z-axes is highly

dependent on the SI value over the range of compression
speeds investigated. The highest specic deformation was
obtained for eggs loaded along the Z-axis, whereas the least
specic deformation was obtained along the Xf-axis (Table
4).
The eect of SI value on specic deformation was not
signicant; whereas, the eects of compression axes and
speed at specic deformation was signicant (p < 0.01).
The loading orientation that yielded the least specic
deformation was the Xf-axis. The specic deformation
measured while loading along the lateral axis (Xf-axis)
was found to be 0.240.57% (sharp); 0.300.41% (normal);
and 0.310.39% (round) for the three egg shapes examined.
The highest rupture force values were observed to be 0.54
0.65% (sharp); 0.530.65% (normal); and 0.470.66%
(round) when loading along the Z-front axis.
The specic deformation values for chicken eggs compressed along the Z-front axis were higher than those compressed along the Xf-axis and Xb-axis. The mean
deformation values of Japanese quail egg ranged form
1.5, 1.0 and 0.9 mm for the Xf-, Xb-, and Z-axes (Polat
et al., 2007).
3.1.3. Rupture energy
The energy of rupture decreased along the X- and Zaxes as the SI values increased through the three test categories. The results show that the rupture energy along any
of the test axes (Table 5) is generally highly dependent on
the compression speed and SI value of the sample tested.
The highest rupture energy was obtained for chicken egg

Table 3
Eects of shape index, compression axes and speed on rupture force of
chicken egg (N)
Mean

Table 4
Eects of shape index, compression axes and speed on specic deformation e (%) of chicken egg

26.09
25.81
25.54
25.816

25.734
28.140
27.926
27.266 ba

Shape index

Compression axes

Compression speed (mm/s)

0.33

0.66

0.99

SI < 72

31.44
30.99
28.63
30.353

27.11
26.21
24.24
25.853

29.790
29.581
27.984
29.118 a

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean

0.24
0.29
0.54
0.357

0.30
0.34
0.65
0.430

0.57
0.38
0.65
0.534

0.371
0.338
0.612
0.440

SI = 7276

30.75
29.45
28.79
29.662
29.291 a
29.689
29.484
28.700

28.46
28.06
27.43
27.982
26.550 b
27.220
26.693
25.738

30.309
29.456
28.363
29.376 a

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean

0.30
0.39
0.53
0.407

0.40
0.38
0.53
0.426

0.41
0.45
0.65
0.500

0.358
0.402
0.574
0.445

SI > 76

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean
Mean
Xf mean
Xb mean
Z mean

0.31
0.32
0.47
0.364
0.376 ca
0.284
0.331
0.514

0.37
0.41
0.58
0.455
0.437 b
0.350
0.375
0.585

0.39
0.39
0.66
0.543
0.526 a
0.451
0.468
0.657

0.358
0.435
0.570
0.454

Shape
index

Compression
axes

Compression speed (mm/s)

0.33

0.66

0.99

SI < 72

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean

24.24
30.59
29.55
28.126

26.88
28.02
28.68
27.857

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean

31.82
31.55
31.08
31.149

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean
Mean
Xf mean
Xb mean
Z mean

31.72
30.86
28.87
30.483
29.919 ab
28.924
31.000
29.835

SI =
7276

SI > 76

28.611
29.059
28.091

SI: Shape index; Xf: X-front axis, Xb: X-back axis, Z-axis.
a
The shape index means in the same group not followed by the same
letter (within same column) are not signicantly dierent according to
Fisher protected LSD test (P = 0.05).
b
The compression speeds compaction means in the same group not
followed by the same letter (within same line) are not signicantly dierent
according to Fisher protected LSD test (P = 0.01).

Mean

0.362 ba
0.392 b
0.586 a

SI: Shape index; Xf: X-front axis, Xb: X-back axis, Z-axis.
a
The compression speeds and axes means in the same group not followed by the same letter (within same column and line) are not signicantly dierent according to Fisher protected LSD test (P = 0.01).

E. Altuntas, A. S
ekeroglu / Journal of Food Engineering 85 (2008) 606612

611

Table 5
Eects of shape index, compression axes and speed on rupture energy Ea
(N mm) of chicken egg

Table 6
Eects of shape index, compression axes and speed on rmness Q
(N mm1) of chicken egg

Shape
index

Compression
axes

Compression speed (mm/s)

0.66

0.99

Shape
index

Compression
axes

Compression speed (mm/s)

0.33

0.33

0.66

0.99

SI < 72

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean

1.90
2.92
3.57
2.798

2.66
2.91
4.15
3.240

4.77
3.14
3.71
3.875

3.111
2.993
3.808
3.304

SI < 72

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean

156.3
162.0
125.0
147.73

137.0
129.4
100.7
122.40

97.9
111.9
101.6
103.80

130.40
134.43
109.10
124.64

SI = 7276

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean

3.01
3.64
3.76
3.471

3.54
3.54
3.59
3.555

3.47
3.58
3.66
3.568

3.339
3.587
3.668
3.531

SI =
7276

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean

177.4
143.5
129.3
150.07

142.3
138.3
117.6
132.70

105.8
96.9
81.2
94.65

141.83
126.24
109.36
125.81

SI > 76

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean
Mean
Xf mean
Xb mean
Z mean

2.93
3.01
3.15
3.032
3.100 ba
3.012
3.192
3.493

2.52
3.67
3.91
3.366
3.389 ab
2.905
3.373
3.882

3.23
3.30
3.88
3.468
3.637 a
3.825
3.339
3.748

2.893
3.325
3.647
3.289
3.131
3.115 ba
3.302 ab
3.708 a

SI > 76

Xf-axis
Xb-axis
Z-axis
Mean
Mean
Xf mean
Xb mean
Z mean

173.2
160.0
133.9
155.73
151.18 aa
168.96
155.17
129.41

144.4
120.6
117.7
127.59
127.56 b
141.24
129.45
112.00

130.3
124.4
92.48
115.73
104.73 c
111.36
111.08
91.75

149.33
135.02
114.70
133.02

Mean

SI: Shape index; Xf: X-front axis, Xb: X-back axis, Z-axis.
a
The compression axes means in the same group not followed by the
same letter (within same column) are not signicantly dierent according
to Fisher protected LSD test (P = 0.05).

loaded along the Z-axis (Fz), while those loaded along the
Xf-axis (Fxf) required the least energy to rupture.
The eect of SI value on rupture energy was not significant; whereas, the eects of compression axes and speed
on rupture energy were signicant (p < 0.05).
Loading along the Xf-axis required the least amount of
energy to rupture the shell, relative to the other two orientations. The rupture energy measured when loading along
the lateral axis (Xf-axis) was found to be 1.90
4.77 N mm, and 2.933.23 N mm for samples with SI values of <72 and >76, respectively. The rupture energy values
were determined to be 3.573.71 N mm, 3.763.66 N mm
and 3.153.88 N mm when loading along the Z-front axis
as SI values increased through the three test categories.
The rupture energy values for chicken eggs compressed
along the Z-front axis were higher than those compressed
along the Xf- and Xb-axes. The mean rupture energy values
of Japanese quail egg ranged form 7.88, 3.41 and
4.35 N mm along the Xf-, Xb and Z-axis, respectively (Polat
et al., 2007).
3.1.4. Firmness
Firmness along the Xf-axis (Table 6) is highly dependent
on SI values over the range investigated. Firmness values
determined along the Z-axis were lower than those
observed for either the Xf-, and Xb-axes. This indicated that
lower force was required to rupture eggs along the Z-axis.
The rmness observed when testing eggs oriented along the
Z-axis was greater than that of the other axes tested (at the
higher SI values).

Mean

140.52 aa
131.90 a
111.05 b

SI: Shape index; Xf: X-front axis, Xb: X-back axis, Z-axis.
a
The compression speeds and axes means in the same group not followed by the same letter (within same column and line) are not signicantly dierent according to Fisher protected LSD test (P = 0.01).

The eect of the SI value on rmness was not signicant;

whereas, the eect of the compression axes and speed on
egg rmness was signicant (p < 0.01).
The loading orientation with the lowest values of rmness was the Z-axis. Firmness measured while loading
along the lateral axis (Z-axis) was 125.0101.6 and 133.9
92.48 N mm1 for SI values of <72 and >76, respectively.
The rmness values were determined to be 156.3
97.9 N mm1 (sharp), 177.4105.8 N mm1 (normal) and
173.2130.3 N mm1 (round) when loading along the
X-front axis for the three shape categories tested. The
rmness values for eggs tested in the Xf-axis were higher
than eggs tested in the Xb- and Z-axis orientations.
4. Conclusion
The results indicated that the rupture force is highly
dependent on SI value at all three compression speeds.
Greater force was required to rupture eggs with high SI
values while being tested using the lowest compression
speed. The specic deformation and rupture energy values
observed for chicken eggs compressed along the Z-front
axis were higher than the values obtained when testing eggs
in the X-back and X-front orientations. The rmness of
chicken eggs tested along the Xb- and Xf-axes were higher
than those tested in the Z-axis orientation. The eects of
SI value on rupture force were statistically signicant;
whereas, the eects of compression axes and speed on specic deformation, rupture energy and rmness were statistically signicant.

612

E. Altuntas, A. S
ekeroglu / Journal of Food Engineering 85 (2008) 606612

References
Abdallah, A. G., Harms, R. H., & El- Husseiny, O. (1993). Various
methods of measuring shell quality in relation to percentage of cracked
eggs. Poultry Science, 72, 20382043.
Ahmed, A. M. H., Rodriguez-Navarro, A. B., Vidal, M. L., Gautron, J.,
Garcia-Ruiz, J. M., & Nys, Y. (2005). Changes in eggshell mechanical
properties, crystallographic texture and in matrix proteins induced by
moult in hens. British Poultry Science, 46, 268279.
Altuntas, E., & Yldz, M. (2007). Eect of moisture on some physical and
mechanical properties of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) grains. Journal of
Food Engineering, 78, 174183.
Anderson, K. E., Tharrington, J. B., Curtis, P. A., & Jones, F. T. (2004).
Shell characteristics of eggs from historic strains of single comb white
leghorn chickens and relationship of egg shape to shell strength.
International Journal of Poultry Science, 3, 1719.
Balasubramanian, D. (2001). Physical properties of raw cashew nut.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 78, 291297.
Baryeh, E. A., & Mangope, B. K. (2003). Some physical properties of QP38 variety pigeon pea. Journal of Food Engineering, 56, 5965.
Braga, G. C., Couto, S. M., Hara, T., & Neto, J. T. P. A. (1999).
Mechanical behaviour of macadamia nut under compression loading.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 72, 239245.
Buchar, J., Nedomova, S., & Simeonovova, J. (2003). Identication of the
eggshell elastic properties. Experimentalni Analiyza Napeti.
Carter, T. C. (1976). The hens egg: Shell forces at impact and quasi-static
compression. British Poultry Science, 17, 199214.
zarslan, C. (2006). Physical properties of
Coskun, M. B., Yalcn, I., & O
sweet corn seed (Zea mays saccharata Sturt.). Journal of Food
Engineering, 74, 523528.
Coucke, P., Jacobs, G., Sas, P., & De Baerdemaeker, J. (1998).
Comparative analysis of the static and dynamic mechanical eggshell
behaviour of a chicken egg. In International Conference on Noise &
Vibration Engineering (ISMA23). Vol. 1618, September 1998.
De Ketelaere, B., Govaerts, T., Couke, P., Dewil, E., Visseher, T.,
Decuypere, L., et al. (2002). Measuring the eggshell strength of 6
dierent strains of laying hens: Techniques and comparison. British
Poultry Science, 43, 238244.
Ertekin, C., Gozlekci, S., Kabas, O., Sonmez, S., & Akinci, I. (2006).
Some physical, pomological and nutritional properties of two plum
(Prunus domestica L.) cultivars. Journal of Food Engineering, 75,
508514.
Gomez, K. A., & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical procedures for
agricultural research. In K. A. Gomez & A. A. Gomez (Eds.), An
international rice researches institute book (2nd ed., pp. 137186).
Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, Ch. 4.
Harms, R. H., Rossi, A. F., Sloan, D. R., Milles, R. D., & Christmas, R.
B. (1990). A method for estimating shell weight and correcting specic
gravity for egg weight in egg shell quality studies. Poultry Science, 73,
599602.

Instron, 2007. Compression Strength of Fresh Eggs, Application Report.

Instron Industrial Products.
Jacob, J. P., Milles, R. D., & Mather, F. B. (2000). Egg quality. University
of Florida extension, Institute of food and agricultural science, p. 11.
Kabas, O., Ozmerzi, A., & Akinci, I. (2006). Physical properties of cactus
pear (Opuntia cus India L.) grown wild in Turkey. Journal of Food
Engineering, 73, 198202.
Lin, H., Mertens, K., Kemps, B., Govaerts, T., De Ketelaere, B., De
Baerdemaeker, T., et al. (2004). New approach of testing the eect of
heat stress on eggshell quality: mechanical and material properties of
eggshell and membrane. British Poultry Science, 45, 476482.
Mamman, E., Umar, B., Aviara, N. (2005). Eect of moisture content and
loading orientation on the mechanical properties of Balanites Aegyptiaca nuts. Agricultural Engineering International. The CIGRE Journal,
Vol. VII. Manuscript FP 04 015. December 2005.
Mohsenin, N. N. (1970). Physical properties of plant and animal materials.
New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Monira, K. N., Salahuddin, M., & Miah, G. (2003). Eect of breed and
holding period on egg quality characteristics of chickens. International
Journal of Poultry Science, 2, 261263.
Narushin, V. G., van Kepmen, T. A., Wineland, M. T., & Christensen, V. L.
(2004). Comparing infrared spectroscopy and egg size measurements for
predicting eggshell quality. Biosystems Engineering, 87, 367373.
Olajide, J. D., & Ade-Omowaye, B. I. O. (1999). Some physical properties
of locust bean seed. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 74,
213215.
Olaniyan, A. M., & Oje, K. (2002). Some aspect of the mechanical
properties of shea nut. Biosystems Engineering, 81, 413420.
Polat, R., Tarhan, S., C
etin, M., & Atay, U. (2007). Mechanical behaviour
under compression loading and some physical parameters of Japanese
quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) eggs. Czech Journal of Animal
Science, 52, 5056.
Sarica, M., & Erensayin, C. (2004). Poultry products. Bey-Ofset, AnkaraTurkey (in Turkish).
zdemir, F. (2005).
Topuz, A., Topakc, M., C
anakc, M., Aknci, I., & O
Physical and nutritional properties of four orange varieties. Journal
Food Engineering, 66, 519523.
USDA (2000). Egg grading manual USDA AA grade. Washington: The US
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Visvanathan, R., Palanisamy, P. T., Gothandapani, L., & Sreenarayanan,
V. V. (1996). Physical properties of neem nut. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research, 63, 1925.
Voisey, P. W., & Hunt, J. R. (1969). Eect of compression speed on the
behaviour of eggshells. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research,
14, 4046.
zguven, F. (2004). Mechanical behaviour of apricot pit
Vursavus, K., & O
under compression loading. Journal of Food Engineering, 65, 255261.
Zlatica, P., Vitorovic, D., Lukic, M., & Spasojevic, I. (2003). Improving
eggshell quality by replacement of pulverised limestone by granular
limestone in the hen diet. Acta Veterinaria (Beograd), 53, 3540.