Citation: Md. Shaha Nur Kabir, Kamal Rasool, Wang-Hee Lee, Seong-In Cho, Sun-Ok Chung. Influence of delayed cooling on the quality of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) stored in a controlled chamber[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(2): 272-285. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.2.272
[1] | Wenxue Huang, Yuanyi Pan . On Balancing between Optimal and Proportional categorical predictions. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(1): 129-137. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016.1.129 |
[2] | Dongyang Yang, Wei Xu . Statistical modeling on human microbiome sequencing data. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2019, 4(1): 1-12. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2019001 |
[3] | Wenxue Huang, Xiaofeng Li, Yuanyi Pan . Increase statistical reliability without losing predictive power by merging classes and adding variables. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 341-348. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016014 |
[4] | Jianguo Dai, Wenxue Huang, Yuanyi Pan . A category-based probabilistic approach to feature selection. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2018, 3(1): 14-21. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017020 |
[5] | Amanda Working, Mohammed Alqawba, Norou Diawara, Ling Li . TIME DEPENDENT ATTRIBUTE-LEVEL BEST WORST DISCRETE CHOICE MODELLING. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2018, 3(1): 55-72. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2018010 |
[6] | Xiaoxiao Yuan, Jing Liu, Xingxing Hao . A moving block sequence-based evolutionary algorithm for resource investment project scheduling problems. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(1): 39-58. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017007 |
[7] | Yaguang Huangfu, Guanqing Liang, Jiannong Cao . MatrixMap: Programming abstraction and implementation of matrix computation for big data analytics. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 349-376. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016015 |
[8] | Tao Wu, Yu Lei, Jiao Shi, Maoguo Gong . An evolutionary multiobjective method for low-rank and sparse matrix decomposition. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(1): 23-37. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017006 |
[9] | Wenxue Huang, Qitian Qiu . Forward Supervised Discretization for Multivariate with Categorical Responses. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(2): 217-225. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016005 |
[10] | Yiwen Tao, Zhenqiang Zhang, Bengbeng Wang, Jingli Ren . Motality prediction of ICU rheumatic heart disease with imbalanced data based on machine learning. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2024, 8(0): 43-64. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2024003 |
Multi-nominal data are common in scientific and engineering research such as biomedical research, customer behavior analysis, network analysis, search engine marketing optimization, web mining etc. When the response variable has more than two levels, the principle of mode-based or distribution-based proportional prediction can be used to construct nonparametric nominal association measure. For example, Goodman and Kruskal [3,4] and others proposed some local-to-global association measures towards optimal predictions. Both Monte Carlo and discrete Markov chain methods are conceptually based on the proportional associations. The association matrix, association vector and association measure were proposed by the thought of proportional associations in [9]. If there is no ordering to the response variable's categories, or the ordering is not of interest, they will be regarded as nominal in the proportional prediction model and the other association statistics.
But in reality, different categories in the same response variable often are of different values, sometimes much different. When selecting a model or selecting explanatory variables, we want to choose the ones that can enhance the total revenue, not just the accuracy rate. Similarly, when the explanatory variables with cost weight vector, they should be considered in the model too. The association measure in [9],
To implement the previous adjustments, we need the following assumptions:
It needs to be addressed that the second assumption is probably not always the case. The law of large number suggests that the larger the sample size is, the closer the expected value of a distribution is to the real value. The study of this subject has been conducted for hundreds of years including how large the sample size is enough to simulate the real distribution. Yet it is not the major subject of this article. The purpose of this assumption is nothing but a simplification to a more complicated discussion.
The article is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the adjustment to the association measure when the response variable has a revenue weight; section 3 considers the case where both the explanatory and the response variable have weights; how the adjusted measure changes the existing feature selection framework is presented in section 4. Conclusion and future works will be briefly discussed in the last section.
Let's first recall the association matrix
γs,t(Y|X)=E(p(Y=s|X)p(Y=t|X))p(Y=s)=α∑i=1p(X=i|Y=s)p(Y=t|X=i);s,t=1,2,..,βτY|X=ωY|X−Ep(Y)1−Ep(Y)ωY|X=EX(EY(p(Y|X)))=β∑s=1α∑i=1p(Y=s|X=i)2p(X=i)=β∑s=1γssp(Y=s) | (1) |
Our discussion begins with only one response variable with revenue weight and one explanatory variable without cost weight. Let
Definition 2.1.
ˆωY|X=β∑s=1α∑i=1p(Y=s|X=i)2rsp(X=i)=β∑s=1γssp(Y=s)rsrs>0,s=1,2,3...,β | (2) |
Please note that
It is easy to see that
Example.Consider a simulated data motivated by a real situation. Suppose that variable
1000 | 100 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 300 | 200 | 1500 | |||
200 | 1500 | 500 | 300 | 500 | 400 | 400 | 50 | |||
400 | 50 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 300 | 700 | |||
300 | 700 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 400 | 1000 | 100 | |||
200 | 500 | 400 | 200 | 200 | 400 | 500 | 200 |
Let us first consider the association matrix
0.34 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.25 | |||
0.13 | 0.48 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.23 | |||
0.24 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.36 | 0.15 | |||
0.25 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.46 |
Please note that
The correct prediction contingency tables of
471 | 6 | 121 | 83 | 98 | 34 | 19 | 926 | |||
101 | 746 | 159 | 107 | 177 | 114 | 113 | 1 | |||
130 | 1 | 167 | 157 | 114 | 124 | 42 | 256 | |||
44 | 243 | 145 | 85 | 109 | 81 | 489 | 6 | |||
21 | 210 | 114 | 32 | 36 | 119 | 206 | 28 |
The total number of the correct predictions by
total revenue | average revenue | |||
0.3406 | 0.456 | 4313 | 0.4714 | |
0.3391 | 0.564 | 5178 | 0.5659 |
Given that
In summary, it is possible for an explanatory variable
Let us further discuss the case with cost weight vector in predictors in addition to the revenue weight vector in the dependent variable. The goal is to find a predictor with bigger profit in total. We hence define the new association measure as in 3.
Definition 3.1.
ˉωY|X=α∑i=1β∑s=1p(Y=s|X=i)2rscip(X=i) | (3) |
Example. We first continue the example in the previous section with new cost weight vectors for
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.3057 | 12016.17 | 1.3132 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.8546 | 17072.17 | 1.8658 |
By
We then investigate how the change of cost weight affect the result. Suppose the new weight vectors are:
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.7420 | 15938.17 | 1.7419 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.3424 | 12268.17 | 1.3408 |
Hence
By the updated association defined in the previous section, we present the feature selection result in this section to a given data set
At first, consider a synthetic data set simulating the contribution factors to the sales of certain commodity. In general, lots of factors could contribute differently to the commodity sales: age, career, time, income, personal preference, credit, etc. Each factor could have different cost vectors, each class in a variable could have different cost as well. For example, collecting income information might be more difficult than to know the customer's career; determining a dinner waitress' purchase preference is easier than that of a high income lawyer. Therefore we just assume that there are four potential predictors,
total profit | average profit | ||||
7 | 0.3906 | 3.5381 | 35390 | 3.5390 | |
4 | 0.3882 | 3.8433 | 38771 | 3.8771 | |
4 | 0.3250 | 4.8986 | 48678 | 4.8678 | |
8 | 0.3274 | 3.7050 | 36889 | 3.6889 |
The first variable to be selected is
total profit | average profit | ||||
28 | 0.4367 | 1.8682 | 18971 | 1.8971 | |
28 | 0.4025 | 2.1106 | 20746 | 2.0746 | |
56 | 0.4055 | 1.8055 | 17915 | 1.7915 | |
16 | 0.4055 | 2.3585 | 24404 | 2.4404 | |
32 | 0.3385 | 2.0145 | 19903 | 1.9903 |
As we can see, all
In summary, the updated association with cost and revenue vector not only changes the feature selection result by different profit expectations, it also reflects a practical reality that collecting information for more variables costs more thus reduces the overall profit, meaning more variables is not necessarily better on a Return-Over-Invest basis.
We propose a new metrics,
The presented framework can also be applied to high dimensional cases as in national survey, misclassification costs, association matrix and association vector [9]. It should be more helpful to identify the predictors' quality with various response variables.
Given the distinct character of this new statistics, we believe it brings us more opportunities to further studies of finding the better decision for categorical data. We are currently investigating the asymptotic properties of the proposed measures and it also can be extended to symmetrical situation. Of course, the synthetical nature of the experiments in this article brings also the question of how it affects a real data set/application. It is also arguable that the improvements introduced by the new measures probably come from the randomness. Thus we can use
[1] |
Wilcox JK, Catignani GL, Lazarus S, et al. (2003) Tomatoes and cardiovascular health. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 43: 1-18. doi: 10.1080/10408690390826437
![]() |
[2] |
Ali A, Maqbool M, Ramachandran S, Alderson PG, et al. (2010) Gum Arabic as a novel edible coating for enhancing shelf life and improving postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit. Postharvest Biol Technol 58: 42-47. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.05.005
![]() |
[3] |
Arab L, Steck S (2000) Lycopene and cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr 71: 1691-1695. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/71.6.1691S
![]() |
[4] | Ali A, Magbool M, Alderson PG, Zahid N, et al. (2013) Effect of gum Arabic as an edible coating on antioxidant capacity of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol Technol 76: 119-124. |
[5] | Thompson AK (2015) Fruit and vegetables: harvesting, handling and storage, 3 Eds., West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
[6] | Arah IK, Ahorbo GK, Anku EK, Kumah EK, Amaglo H, et al. (2016) Postharvest handling practices and treatment methods for tomato handlers in developing countries: A mini review. Adv Agric 2016: 1-8. |
[7] |
Lim BS, Lee JS, Park HJ, Oh SY, Chun JP, et al. (2016) Effects of ethylene treatment on postharvest quality in kiwi fruit. Korean j Agric Sci 43: 340-345. doi: 10.7744/kjoas.20160035
![]() |
[8] | Ben-Arie R, Lurie S (1986) Prolongation of fruit life after harvest. In: Monselise SP, Hand Book of Fruit Set and Development, Florida: CRC press, 493-520. |
[9] |
Tolesa GN, Workneh TS (2017) Influence of storage environment, maturity stage and pre-storage disinfection treatments on tomato fruit quality during winter in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J Food Sci Technol 54: 3230-3242. doi: 10.1007/s13197-017-2766-6
![]() |
[10] |
Tano K, Oulé MK, Doyon G, Lencki RW, Arul J, et al. (2007) Comparative evaluation of the effect of storage temperature fluctuation on modified atmosphere packages of selected fruit and vegetables. Postharvest Biol Technol 46: 212-221. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2007.05.008
![]() |
[11] |
Aghdam MS, Jannatizadeh A, Luo Z, Paliyath G, et al. (2018) Ensuring sufficient intracellular ATP supplying and friendly extracellular ATP signaling attenuates stresses, delays senescence and maintains quality in horticultural crops during postharvest life. Trends Food Sci. Technol 76: 67-81. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.003
![]() |
[12] | Roberts KP, Sargent SA, Fox AJ, et al. (2002) Effect of storage temperature on ripening and postharvest quality of grape and mini-pear tomatoes. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, 115: 80-84. |
[13] | Gharezi M, Joshi N, Sadeghian E, et al. (2012) Effect of postharvest treatment on stored cherry tomatoes. J Nutr Food Sci 2: 157. |
[14] | Cantwell M (2001) Properties and recommended conditions for the long-term storage of fresh fruits and vegetables, Storage Recommendations. Davis: Department of Plant Sciences, University of California. |
[15] | Suslow TV, Cantwell M (2000) Tomato: Recommendations for maintaining postharvest quality. Tomato Produce Facts, Postharvest Technology Center, Davis: University of California. |
[16] | Arah IK, Amaglo H, Kumah EK, Ofori H, et al. (2015) Preharvest and postharvest factors affecting the quality and shelf life of harvested tomatoes: A mini review. Int J Agron 2015: 1-6. |
[17] | Pila N, Gol NB, Rao TVR, et al. (2010) Effect of post-harvest treatments on physicochemical characteristics and shelf life of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruits during storage. American-Eurasian J Agric and Environ Sci 9: 470-479. |
[18] |
Kusumaningrum D, Lee SH, Lee WH, Mo C, Cho BK, et al. (2015) A review of technologies to prolong the shelf life of fresh tropical fruits in Southeast Asia. J of Biosystems Eng 40: 345-358. doi: 10.5307/JBE.2015.40.4.345
![]() |
[19] | Kader AA (2005) Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce. Acta Horticulture 682: 2169-2175. |
[20] | Wu CT (2010) An overview of postharvest biology and technology of fruits and vegetables. In: Huang CC, Proc. of the AARDO Workshop on Technology on Reducing Post-Harvest Losses and Maintaining Quality of Fruit and Vegetables 2010. Taiwan: Agricultural Research Institute, 2-11. |
[21] | Kader AA, Stevens MA, Albright-Holton M, Morris LL, Algazi M, et al. (1977) Effect of fruit ripeness when picked on flavor and composition in fresh market tomatoes. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 102: 724-731. |
[22] | Satyan SH, Patwardhan MV (1983) Organic acid metabolism during ripening of fruits. Indian J Biochem Biophys 20: 311-314. |
[23] |
Barrett DM, Beaulieu JC, Shewfelt R, et al. (2010) Color, flavor, texture, and nutritional quality of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables: desirable levels, instrumental and sensory measurement, and the effects of processing. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 50: 369-389. doi: 10.1080/10408391003626322
![]() |
[24] | Simson SP, Straus MC (2010) Post-harvest technology of horticultural crops. Jaipur: Oxford Book Company, 249-302. |
[25] |
Kim DG, Cho BK, Lee WH, et al. (2016) A novel approach in analyzing agriculture and food systems: Review of modeling and its applications. Korean j Agric Sci 43: 163-175. doi: 10.7744/kjoas.20160019
![]() |
[26] | Nirupama P, Gol NB, Rao TVR, et al. (2010) Effect of postharvest treatments on physicochemical characteristics and storage life of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruits during storage. Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 9: 470-479. |
[27] |
Gormley RS, Egan S (1978) Firmness and colour of the fruit of some tomato cultivars from various sources during storage. J Sci Food Agric 29: 534-538. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2740290607
![]() |
[28] | Choi IL, Yoo TJ, Jung HJ, Kim IS, Kang HM, Lee YB, et al. (2011) Effects of active modified atmosphere packaging on the storability of fresh-cut Paprika. J Bio-Environ Control 20: 227-232. |
[29] | Khairi AN, Falah MAF, Suyantohadi A, Takahashi N, Nishina H, et al. (2015) Effect of storage temperatures on color of tomato fruit (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) cultivated under moderate water stress treatment. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 3: 178-183. |
[30] | Pinheiro J, Alegria C, Abreu M, Gonçalves EM, Silva CLM, et al. (2013) Kinetics of changes in the physical quality parameters of fresh tomato fruits (Solanum lycopersicum, cv. 'Zinac') during storage. J Food Eng 114: 338-345. |
[31] | Žnidarčič D, Ban D, Oplanić M, Karić L, Požrl T, et al. (2010) Influence of postharvest temperatures on physicochemical quality of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). J Food Agric Environ 8: 21-25. |
[32] | Guillén F, Castillo S, Zapata PJ, Martínez-Romero D, Serrano M, Valero D, et al. (2007) Efficacy of 1-MCP treatment in tomato fruit. 1. Duration and concentration of 1-MCP treatment to gain an effective delay of postharvest ripening. Postharvest Biol Technol 43: 23-27. |
[33] | Moneruzzaman KM, Hossain ABMS, Sani W, Saifuddin M, Alenazi M, et al. (2009) Effect of harvesting and storage conditions on the post-harvest quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) cv. Roma VF. Aust J Crop Sci 3: 113-121. |
[34] |
Li L, Lichter A, Kenigsbuch D, Porat R, et al. (2015) Effects of cooling delays at the wholesale market on the quality of fruit and vegetables after retail marketing. J Food Process Pres 39: 2533-2547. doi: 10.1111/jfpp.12504
![]() |
[35] | Madani B, Mirshekari A, Imahori Y, et al. (2019) Physiological responses to stress. In: Yahia EM, Carrillo-López A, Postharvest Physiology and Biochemistry of Fruits and Vegetables, Massachusetts: Woodhead Publishing, 405-423. |
[36] |
Batu A (2004) Determination of acceptable firmness and colour values of tomatoes. J Food Eng 61: 471-475. doi: 10.1016/S0260-8774(03)00141-9
![]() |
[37] |
Lana MM, Tijskens LMM, Kooten O, et al. (2005) Effects of storage temperature and fruit ripening on firmness of fresh cut tomatoes. Postharvest Biol Technol 35: 87-95. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2004.07.001
![]() |
[38] |
Majidi H, Minaei S, Almasi M, Mostofi Y, et al. (2014) Tomato quality in controlled atmosphere storage, modified atmosphere packaging and cold storage. J Food Sci Technol 51: 2155-2161. doi: 10.1007/s13197-012-0721-0
![]() |
[39] |
Mahmood A, Hu Y, Tanny J, Asante EA, et al. (2018) Effects of shading and insect-proof screens on crop microclimate and production: A review of recent advances. Sci Hrotic 241: 241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.06.078
![]() |
[40] |
Tigist M, Workneh TS, Woldetsadik K, et al. (2013) Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions. J Food Sci Technol 50: 477-486. doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0378-0
![]() |
[41] | Majidi H, Minaei S, Almasi M, Mostofi Y, et al. (2011) Total soluble solids, titratable acidity and repining index of tomato in various storage conditions. Aust J Basic & Appl Sci 5: 1723-1726. |
[42] | Guillén F, Castillo S, Zapata PJ, Martínez-Romero D, Valero D, Serrano M, et al. (2006) Efficacy of 1-MCP treatment in tomato fruit. 2-Effect of cultivar and ripening stage at harvest. Postharvest Biol Technol 42: 235-242. |
[43] |
Zapata PJ, Guillén F, Martínez-Romero D, Castillo S, Valero D, Serrano M, et al. (2008) Use of alginate or zein as edible coatings to delay postharvest ripening process and to maintain tomato (Solanum lycopersicon Mill.) quality. J Sci Food Agric 88: 1287-1293. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3220
![]() |
[44] | Gould WA (1992) Tomato production, processing and technology. Maryland: CTI Publications Inc. |
[45] |
Luengwilai K, Tananuwong K, Shoemaker CF, Beckles DM, et al. (2010) Starch molecular structure shows little association with fruit physiology and starch metabolism in tomato. J Agric Food Chem 58: 1275-1282. doi: 10.1021/jf9032393
![]() |
[46] | Gautier H, Lopez-Lauri F, Massot C, Murshed R, Marty I, Grasselly D, Keller C, Sallanon H, Genard M, et al. (2010) Impact of ripening and salinity on tomato fruit ascorbate content and enzymatic activities related to ascorbate recycling. Funct Plant Sci Biotechnol 4: 66-75. |
[47] |
Beckles DM (2012) Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit: Review. Postharvest Biol Technol 63: 129-140. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016
![]() |
[48] | Renquist AR, Reid JB (1998) Quality of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) fruit from four bloom dates in relation to optimal harvest timing. N Z J Crop Hortic Sci 26: 61-168. |
[49] |
Campbell AD, Huysamer M, Stotz HU, Greve LC, Labavitch JM, et al. (1990) Comparison of ripening processes in intact tomato fruit and excised pericarp discs. Plant Physiol 94: 1582-1589. doi: 10.1104/pp.94.4.1582
![]() |
1000 | 100 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 300 | 200 | 1500 | |||
200 | 1500 | 500 | 300 | 500 | 400 | 400 | 50 | |||
400 | 50 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 300 | 700 | |||
300 | 700 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 400 | 1000 | 100 | |||
200 | 500 | 400 | 200 | 200 | 400 | 500 | 200 |
0.34 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.25 | |||
0.13 | 0.48 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.23 | |||
0.24 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.36 | 0.15 | |||
0.25 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.46 |
471 | 6 | 121 | 83 | 98 | 34 | 19 | 926 | |||
101 | 746 | 159 | 107 | 177 | 114 | 113 | 1 | |||
130 | 1 | 167 | 157 | 114 | 124 | 42 | 256 | |||
44 | 243 | 145 | 85 | 109 | 81 | 489 | 6 | |||
21 | 210 | 114 | 32 | 36 | 119 | 206 | 28 |
total revenue | average revenue | |||
0.3406 | 0.456 | 4313 | 0.4714 | |
0.3391 | 0.564 | 5178 | 0.5659 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.3057 | 12016.17 | 1.3132 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.8546 | 17072.17 | 1.8658 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.7420 | 15938.17 | 1.7419 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.3424 | 12268.17 | 1.3408 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
7 | 0.3906 | 3.5381 | 35390 | 3.5390 | |
4 | 0.3882 | 3.8433 | 38771 | 3.8771 | |
4 | 0.3250 | 4.8986 | 48678 | 4.8678 | |
8 | 0.3274 | 3.7050 | 36889 | 3.6889 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
28 | 0.4367 | 1.8682 | 18971 | 1.8971 | |
28 | 0.4025 | 2.1106 | 20746 | 2.0746 | |
56 | 0.4055 | 1.8055 | 17915 | 1.7915 | |
16 | 0.4055 | 2.3585 | 24404 | 2.4404 | |
32 | 0.3385 | 2.0145 | 19903 | 1.9903 |
1000 | 100 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 300 | 200 | 1500 | |||
200 | 1500 | 500 | 300 | 500 | 400 | 400 | 50 | |||
400 | 50 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 500 | 300 | 700 | |||
300 | 700 | 500 | 400 | 500 | 400 | 1000 | 100 | |||
200 | 500 | 400 | 200 | 200 | 400 | 500 | 200 |
0.34 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.22 | 0.27 | 0.25 | |||
0.13 | 0.48 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.23 | |||
0.24 | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.24 | 0.36 | 0.15 | |||
0.25 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.46 |
471 | 6 | 121 | 83 | 98 | 34 | 19 | 926 | |||
101 | 746 | 159 | 107 | 177 | 114 | 113 | 1 | |||
130 | 1 | 167 | 157 | 114 | 124 | 42 | 256 | |||
44 | 243 | 145 | 85 | 109 | 81 | 489 | 6 | |||
21 | 210 | 114 | 32 | 36 | 119 | 206 | 28 |
total revenue | average revenue | |||
0.3406 | 0.456 | 4313 | 0.4714 | |
0.3391 | 0.564 | 5178 | 0.5659 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.3057 | 12016.17 | 1.3132 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.8546 | 17072.17 | 1.8658 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
0.3406 | 0.3406 | 1.7420 | 15938.17 | 1.7419 | |
0.3391 | 0.3391 | 1.3424 | 12268.17 | 1.3408 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
7 | 0.3906 | 3.5381 | 35390 | 3.5390 | |
4 | 0.3882 | 3.8433 | 38771 | 3.8771 | |
4 | 0.3250 | 4.8986 | 48678 | 4.8678 | |
8 | 0.3274 | 3.7050 | 36889 | 3.6889 |
total profit | average profit | ||||
28 | 0.4367 | 1.8682 | 18971 | 1.8971 | |
28 | 0.4025 | 2.1106 | 20746 | 2.0746 | |
56 | 0.4055 | 1.8055 | 17915 | 1.7915 | |
16 | 0.4055 | 2.3585 | 24404 | 2.4404 | |
32 | 0.3385 | 2.0145 | 19903 | 1.9903 |