Comparison of equipment for grain sampling
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-43662019000300209 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT Grain sampling requires the use of appropriate and accurate equipment. This study aimed to compare grain samplers, manual and mechanical, used in the sampling of soybean loads, during their reception by storage units. The used devices were the manual sampler with 1.80 m length and three opening stages, 2.10 m length and three opening stages; and 2.10 m length and one opening stage, besides the mechanical sampler (pneumatic) and the pelican sampler. The analyzed parameters were the contents of impurity, broken grains, pods, immature grains, and moisture. The significance of effect of treatment was determined by F Test and the means were compared by Tukey test (p < 0.05). The devices used for sampling of soybean grains in vehicles, during their reception by storage units, affect the determination of broken grains, pods and immature grains. However, there was no difference between the types of sampling equipment in the determination of impurity content, and the pelican sampler collected greater percentages of pods and immature grains from the sampled vehicles. |
id |
UFCG-1_1684b6b15ef53c366a8a51334b9a0dfb |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1415-43662019000300209 |
network_acronym_str |
UFCG-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Comparison of equipment for grain samplingclassificationgrain samplersimpuritiespodsABSTRACT Grain sampling requires the use of appropriate and accurate equipment. This study aimed to compare grain samplers, manual and mechanical, used in the sampling of soybean loads, during their reception by storage units. The used devices were the manual sampler with 1.80 m length and three opening stages, 2.10 m length and three opening stages; and 2.10 m length and one opening stage, besides the mechanical sampler (pneumatic) and the pelican sampler. The analyzed parameters were the contents of impurity, broken grains, pods, immature grains, and moisture. The significance of effect of treatment was determined by F Test and the means were compared by Tukey test (p < 0.05). The devices used for sampling of soybean grains in vehicles, during their reception by storage units, affect the determination of broken grains, pods and immature grains. However, there was no difference between the types of sampling equipment in the determination of impurity content, and the pelican sampler collected greater percentages of pods and immature grains from the sampled vehicles.Departamento de Engenharia Agrícola - UFCG2019-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-43662019000300209Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental v.23 n.3 2019reponame:Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG)instacron:UFCG10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v23n3p209-214info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessQuirino,José R.Resende,OsvaldoFonseca,Natalia N.Oliveira,Daniel E. C. deRosa,Elivânio S.eng2019-03-07T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1415-43662019000300209Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/rbeaaPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||agriambi@agriambi.com.br1807-19291415-4366opendoar:2019-03-07T00:00Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Online) - Universidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparison of equipment for grain sampling |
title |
Comparison of equipment for grain sampling |
spellingShingle |
Comparison of equipment for grain sampling Quirino,José R. classification grain samplers impurities pods |
title_short |
Comparison of equipment for grain sampling |
title_full |
Comparison of equipment for grain sampling |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of equipment for grain sampling |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of equipment for grain sampling |
title_sort |
Comparison of equipment for grain sampling |
author |
Quirino,José R. |
author_facet |
Quirino,José R. Resende,Osvaldo Fonseca,Natalia N. Oliveira,Daniel E. C. de Rosa,Elivânio S. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Resende,Osvaldo Fonseca,Natalia N. Oliveira,Daniel E. C. de Rosa,Elivânio S. |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Quirino,José R. Resende,Osvaldo Fonseca,Natalia N. Oliveira,Daniel E. C. de Rosa,Elivânio S. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
classification grain samplers impurities pods |
topic |
classification grain samplers impurities pods |
description |
ABSTRACT Grain sampling requires the use of appropriate and accurate equipment. This study aimed to compare grain samplers, manual and mechanical, used in the sampling of soybean loads, during their reception by storage units. The used devices were the manual sampler with 1.80 m length and three opening stages, 2.10 m length and three opening stages; and 2.10 m length and one opening stage, besides the mechanical sampler (pneumatic) and the pelican sampler. The analyzed parameters were the contents of impurity, broken grains, pods, immature grains, and moisture. The significance of effect of treatment was determined by F Test and the means were compared by Tukey test (p < 0.05). The devices used for sampling of soybean grains in vehicles, during their reception by storage units, affect the determination of broken grains, pods and immature grains. However, there was no difference between the types of sampling equipment in the determination of impurity content, and the pelican sampler collected greater percentages of pods and immature grains from the sampled vehicles. |
publishDate |
2019 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2019-03-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-43662019000300209 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1415-43662019000300209 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v23n3p209-214 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Departamento de Engenharia Agrícola - UFCG |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Departamento de Engenharia Agrícola - UFCG |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental v.23 n.3 2019 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG) instacron:UFCG |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG) |
instacron_str |
UFCG |
institution |
UFCG |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental (Online) - Universidade Federal de Campina Grande (UFCG) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||agriambi@agriambi.com.br |
_version_ |
1750297686531112960 |