Journal of Food Engineering 78 (2007) 12911297

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Air-drying characteristics of tomatoes

_
Ibrahim
Doymaz

Department of Chemical Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, 34210 Esenler, Istanbul, Turkey
Received 15 June 2005; accepted 20 December 2005
Available online 28 February 2006

Abstract
The drying characteristics of tomatoes were investigated at 55, 60, 65 and 70 C with air ow rate of 1.5 m/s. Prior to drying, tomatoes
were subjected to dipping in alkaline ethyl oleate solution (2% ethyl oleate + 4% potassium carbonate). Also, drying of raw tomatoes was
taken as a control. During the experiments, tomatoes were dried to the nal moisture content of 11% from 94.5% (w.b.) It has been found
that pre-treatment and air temperature aect the course and rate of drying. The increase in the air temperature in the range 5570 C
markedly increased the drying rate of tomatoes. The experimental data were tted to two drying models: Henderson and Pabis, and Page
models. The models were compared using the coecient of determination and reduced chi-square. The Page model best described the
drying curve of tomatoes. A diusion model was used to describe the moisture transfer and the eective diusivity at each temperature
was determined. The eective diusivity of pre-treated and untreated varied between 5.657.53 1010 and 3.916.65 1010 m2/s,
respectively. The temperature dependence of the diusivity coecient was also described by the Arrhenius type relationship. The activation energy of tomatoes was in the range of 17.4032.94 kJ/mol.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Air-drying; Rehydration capacity of tomatoes; Thin-layer drying models; Eective diusivity; Activation energy

1. Introduction
Tomato is the worlds most commonly commercially
produced vegetable. The world tomato production reached
124,111,781 metric tons and Turkey produced about
9,440,000 metric ton of tomatoes in the 2004 (FAO,
2005). United States, Turkey, Italy, and Spain are the leading tomato growing countries (Jumah, Banat, Al-Asheh, &
Hammad, 2004). Tomato is used to great extent in the fresh
state, and in some processes as juice, puree, sauces and
canned varieties (Akanbi, Adeyemi, & Ojo, 2006). Moreover, dried tomato products are used as a component for
pizza and various vegetable and spicy dishes.
Drying is the most common form of food preservation
and extends the food self-life. The major objective in drying
agricultural products is the reduction of the moisture con-

Tel.: +90 212 449 17 32; fax: +90 212 449 18 95.
E-mail address: doymaz@yildiz.edu.tr

0260-8774/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.12.047

tent to a level, which allows safe storage over an extended

period. Also, it brings about substantial reduction in
weight and volume, minimising packaging, storage and
transportation costs (Okos, Narsimhan, Singh, & Witnauer, 1992). In the Mediterranean countries the traditional technique of fruit and vegetable drying is by using
the sun. This technique has the advantages of simplicity
and the small capital investments, but it requires long drying times that may have adverse consequences to the product quality: the nal product may be contaminated from
dust and insects or suer from enzyme and microbial activity (Andritsos, Dalampakis, & Kolios, 2003). In order to
improve the quality, the traditional sun drying technique
should be replaced with industrial drying methods such
as hot-air and solar drying (Ertekin & Yaldiz, 2004; Diamante & Munro, 1993).
Generally, some fruits and vegetables such as grapes,
plums, apricots, peppers and tomatoes are covered
naturally with a thin layer of wax. This outer layer oers
benets such as protection to the fruit or vegetable from

_ Doymaz / Journal of Food Engineering 78 (2007) 12911297

I.

1292

Nomenclature
a
De
D0
Ea
k
k0
L
Mt
Me

drying constant
eective diusivity, m2/s
pre-exponential factor of Arrhenius equation,
m2/s
activation energy for the moisture diusion, kJ/
mol
drying constant, 1/min
slope
the half-thickness of the halve in samples
moisture content, kg water/kg dry matter
equilibrium moisture content, kg water/kg dry
matter

environmental and external factors. The wax layer also

aects the ow of moisture from inside the fruit to its
surface, a crucial process in drying (St. George et al.,
2004). Prior to drying process, chemical dipping such as
methyl and ethyl ester emulsions or alkaline pre-treatment
in aqueous solutions of sodium hydroxide, sodium chloride, potassium carbonate and calcium chloride has been
used to overcome the wax barrier on fruits or vegetables.
Dipping waxy fruits for several seconds in solution of
ethyl oleate or other suitable compound (usually fatty
acid derivatives used as wetting agents and emulsiers)
greatly reduces drying time. The eects of dipping solutions on various fruits and vegetables during drying are
reported in literature (Bolin, Petrucci, & Fuller, 1975;
Doymaz, 2004; Doymaz & Pala, 2002; Raouzeos & Saravacos, 1986; Riva & Peri, 1986). Tomatoes before drying
process are pre-treated various solutions such as calcium
chloride (Lewicki, Le, & Pomaranska-Lazuka, 2002; Lewicki & Michaluk, 2004), sodium chloride (Sacilik, Keskin,
& Elicin, 2006), and sodium chloride-sucrose (Kross,
Mata, Duarte, & Junior, 2004) and then can be dried in
dierent shapes such as halves, slices and quarters (Telis
& Sobral, 2002; Zanoni, Peri, Nani, & Lavelli, 1999).
However, no reports have been found detailing the eects
of alkaline ethyl oleate solution on drying of tomatoes in
the literature. The purpose of the present work was to
investigate the eect of alkaline ethyl oleate solution on
tomatoes drying and rehydration capacity of tomatoes,
to calculate eective moisture diusivity and the t the
experimental data to Page and Henderson and Pabis
models.
2. Materials and methods
Fresh tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) were
purchased from a local market in Istanbul, Turkey. Freshly
samples were sorted visually for colour and size (average
diameter and weight of 5 0.2 cm, 135 5 g). The initial
moisture content of tomato samples was determined by

M0
N
n
R
R2
T
t
z
v2

initial moisture content, kg water/kg dry matter

number of observations
drying constant, positive integer
ideal gas constant, kJ/mol K
coecient of determination
temperature, C
drying time, min
number of constants in models
reduced chi-square

using the oven method at 105 C for 4 h. Average moisture

content was found to be 94.5% (w.b.).
2.1. Drying process
Drying experiments were performed in a laboratory
scale hot-air dryer, described previously by Doymaz
(2004) and installed in the Chemical Engineering Department of Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Desired experiments conditions inside the dryer were
obtained for at least 1 h prior to each run.
Tomatoes were washed in fresh running water, dipped in
alkaline ethyl oleate solution (AEEO: 2% ethyl oleate + 4%
potassium carbonate) for 1 min, cut into halves with a
knife, and then spread on a perforated tray. Drying runs
of tomato were conducted at four temperatures (55, 60,
65, and 70 C) with xed airow (1.5 m/s). The drying
experiment involving untreated (NAT) samples was also
performed at same conditions. Moisture loss was recorded
at 30 min intervals during drying by means of a digital balance (Mettler, model BB3000) with an accuracy of 0.1 g.
The drying was carried out to nal moisture content of
11% from initial moisture content of about 94.5% (w.b.).
After drying, all products were packed in polyethylene bags
wrapped in aluminium foil to prevent light damage and
stored at ambient temperature. Drying runs were done in
triplicate.
2.2. Rehydration capacity
Five grams of the dried products were added to 200 ml
distilled water, in a 400 ml ask beaker at 25 C for 24 h.
Then, the samples were weighed by a Mettler balance
(model BB3000), which has 03000 g measurement range
with an accuracy of 0.1 g. Rehydration capacity was calculated as the maximum amount of water absorbed (kg)
per kg of dry material as determined at the end of the rehydration time for each experiment. Determinations were
made in triplicate.

_ Doymaz / Journal of Food Engineering 78 (2007) 12911297

I.

1293

2.3. Mathematical modelling of drying curves

3. Results and discussion

The moisture ratio (MR) of samples was calculated

using by the following equation:

3.1. Eect of pre-treatments on drying time

where Mt is the moisture content at any time (kg water/

kg dry solid), M0 is the initial moisture content (kg water/
kg dry solid), and Me is equilibrium moisture content of
sample (kg water/kg dry solid). The values of Me are relatively small compared to Mt or M0, hence the error involved in the simplication is negligible (Diamante &
Munro, 1993).
Drying curves were obtained for the tomatoes were tted with Henderson and Pabis, and Page models. Simplifying general series solution of Ficks second law generally
derives mentioned models. The Henderson and Pabis
model is the rst term of a general series solution of Ficks
second law. This model has been to model thin-layer drying
characteristics of various agricultural products (Chinnan,
1984; Henderson & Pabis, 1961). This can be written as:
MR a expkt

where a and k are drying constants, t is drying time in

minutes.
The Page model, developed by Page (1949) has also been
widely used to describe the drying characteristics of various
vegetables and fruits such as apricots, red pepper, eggplant
and purslane (Akpinar & Bicer, 2004; Doymaz, 2004; Doymaz & Pala, 2002; Kashaninejad & Tabil, 2004). The model
is given as:
MR expktn

The eects of the pre-treatment of alkaline ethyl oleate

on the moisture ratio of the tomatoes over drying time
are shown in Figs. 15. From these gures, pre-treatment
solution is a very factor for the tomatoes drying because
it aect the drying time. While the drying process took
2130, 1680, 1590 and 1440 min at 55, 60, 65 and 70 C,
respectively, for untreated tomatoes, drying after alkaline
ethyl oleate solution in the drying time of 1950, 1500,
1350, and 1260 min at same temperatures. Hence, alkaline
ethyl oleate can decrease the drying time about 8.45%,
10.71%, 15.09% and 12.50% at 55, 60, 65 and 70 C, respectively. A similar eect of alkaline ethyl oleate has been
found in the air-drying of red pepper (Doymaz & Pala,
2250
AEEO
NAT

2000
Drying time (min)

Mt  Me
M0  Me

1750

1500

1250

1000

where n is drying constant.

2.4. Analysis of drying data
The Henderson and Pabis, and Page moisture ratio
models were tted to the drying data and the models
parameters determined using non-linear regression analysis. The term used to evaluate goodness of t of the tested
models to the experimental data are the coecient of determination (R2) and the reduced chi-square (v2) between the
experimental and predicted moisture ratio values. The
reduced chi-square (v2) can be calculated as following:
PN
2
MRexp;i  MRpre;i
2
4
v i1
N z
where MRexp,i and MRpre,i are experimental and predicted
moisture ratios, respectively, N is number of observations,
and z is number of drying constants. The best model
describing the thin-layer drying characteristics of tomatoes
was chosen as the one with the highest coecient of determination and the least reduced chi-square (Sarsavadia,
Sawhney, Pangavhane, & Singh, 1999).

50

55

60
65
Drying temperature (C)

70

75

Fig. 1. Inuence of drying temperature and pre-treatment solution on

drying time of tomatoes.

1
AEEO
NAT
Page model

0.8

Moisture ratio

MR

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Drying time (min)

Fig. 2. Variation of experimental and predicted moisture ratio by the Page
model with drying time at 55 C for pre-treated and untreated tomatoes.

_ Doymaz / Journal of Food Engineering 78 (2007) 12911297

I.

1294

1
AEEO
NAT
Page model

0.6

0.4

NAT

0.8

Moisture ratio

Moisture ratio

0.8

AEEO
Page model

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2
0
0

500

1000
Drying time (min)

1500

2000

0
0

Fig. 3. Variation of experimental and predicted moisture ratio by the Page

model with drying time at 60 C for pre-treated and untreated tomatoes.

500

1000
Drying time (min)

1500

Fig. 5. Variation of experimental and predicted moisture ratio by the Page

model with drying time at 70 C for pre-treated and untreated tomatoes.

was mainly controlled by diusion mechanisms. Similar

results have been reported in the literature for various
fruits and vegetables (Akanbi et al., 2006; Akpinar & Bicer,
2004; Ertekin & Yaldiz, 2004; Ozdemir & Devres, 1999;
Sacilik et al., 2006; Sogi, Shivhare, Garg, & Bawa, 2003).

AEEO
NAT

Moisture ratio

0.8

Page model

0.6

3.2. Modelling of drying kinetics

0.4

0.2

0
0

500

1000
Drying time (min)

1500

2000

Fig. 4. Variation of experimental and predicted moisture ratio by the Page

model with drying time at 65 C for pre-treated and untreated tomatoes.

2002), apricot (Doymaz, 2004), grapes (Raouzeos & Saravacos, 1986; Saravacos, Marousis, & Raouzeos, 1988).
Figs. 25 show the experimental data (moisture ratio
versus drying time) obtained for air at temperatures ranging from 55 C to 70 C, and a constant ow rate of
1.5 m/s. As it would be expected, during the initial stages
of drying there was a rapid moisture removal from the
product, which later decreased with increase in drying time.
From these gures, it can be seen that the moisture ratio
decreases continually with drying time. As expected that
the drying air temperatures had much more eect on the
drying moisture content of tomatoes. The temperature
inuence was highest at 70 C air temperature. There is
no constant rate-drying period in these curves, all drying
processes occurred in falling rate-drying period and during
the falling drying rate period, the drying process of tomato

The drying data obtained were tted by Handerson and

Pabis, and Page models. The models were evaluated based
on coecient of determination (R2) and the reduced chisquare (v2). The results of statistical analysis for two models are shown in Table 1. Acceptable R2 of greater than
0.98 were obtained for both models tted to all drying
tests. The Page model gave higher R2 and the lower v2 values than the Henderson and Pabis model. The R2 ranged
from 0.9819 to 0.9951 and 0.9943 to 0.9985 for Henderson
and Pabis, and Page models, respectively. The v2 values
varied from 0.00041 to 0.00186 and 0.00012 to 0.00076
for Henderson and Pabis, and Page models, respectively.
Therefore, based on R2 and v2 values, it can be concluded
that Page model gave the best results than the Henderson
and Pabis model to describe the drying characteristics of
tomatoes at 5570 C. Figs. 25 show the variations of
experimental and predicted moisture ratios by the Page
model with drying time. According to these gures, Page
model showed good agreement with the experimental data
obtained from the drying experiments. Similar results were
reported in the literature for various vegetables (Ahmed &
Shivhare, 2001; Akpinar & Bicer, 2004; Doymaz & Pala,
2002; Kashaninejad & Tabil, 2004).
3.3. Calculation of eective diusivity and activation energy
Ficks second equation of diusion was used to calculate
the eective diusivity, considering a constant moisture

_ Doymaz / Journal of Food Engineering 78 (2007) 12911297

I.

1295

Table 1
Curve tting criteria for the thin-layer drying models for drying of tomatoes
Code

T (C)

Models and constants

AEEO

55

Handerson and Pabis (a: 1.0755,

Page (k: 0.0003, n: 1.2283)
Handerson and Pabis (a: 1.0591,
Page (a: 0.0006, n: 1.1985)
Handerson and Pabis (a: 1.0760,
Page (k: 0.0004, n: 1.2089)
Handerson and Pabis (a: 1.0740,
Page (k: 0.0003, n: 1.2900)

k: 0.0018)

Handerson and Pabis (a: 1.0575,

Page (k: 0.0005, n: 1.1537)
Handerson and Pabis (a: 1.0544,
Page (a: 0.0004, n: 1.1940)
Handerson and Pabis (a: 1.0538,
Page (k: 0.0005, n: 1.1705)
Handerson and Pabis (a: 1.0757,
Page (k: 0.0006, n: 1.1876)

k: 0.0016)

60
65
70
NAT

55
60
65
70

diusivity, innite slab geometry and uniform initial moisture distribution (Crank, 1975):
!
2
1
8 X
1
2n 1 p2 Deff t
MR 2
exp 
5
p n0 2n 12
4L2
where De is the eective diusivity (m2/s), L is the halfthickness of the halve in samples (m), and n is a positive
integer. This equation (Eq. (5)) can be simplied by taking
the rst term of series solution:
 2

8
p Deff t
MR 2 exp 
6
p
4L2
The eective diusivity is also typically calculated by using
the slope of Eq. (6), namely, when natural ln (MR) versus
time was plotted, a straight line with a slope k0 was
obtained:
p2 Deff
7
4L2
The calculated values of De for dierent temperatures are
presented in Table 2. The eective diusivity values of
dried samples at 5570 C were varied in the range of
5.657.53 1010 m2/s for pre-treated samples and 3.91
6.65 1010 m2/s for untreated samples. The obtained values are in the suitable range for similar products reported
k0

Table 2
Values of eective diusivity obtained for tomato samples at dierent
temperatures
Code

T (C)

De (m2/s)

AEEO

55
60
65
70

5.65 1010
6.11 1010
6.56 1010
7.53 1010

NAT

55
60
65
70

3.91 1010
4.91 1010
5.78 1010
6.65 1010

k: 0.0024)
k: 0.0020)
k: 0.0024)

k: 0.0018)
k: 0.0018)
k: 0.0022)

R2

v2

0.9910
0.9985
0.9916
0.9979
0.9840
0.9953
0.9819
0.9950

0.00080
0.00012
0.00073
0.00018
0.00151
0.00047
0.00172
0.00047

0.9951
0.9984
0.9895
0.9961
0.9879
0.9949
0.9837
0.9943

0.00041
0.00013
0.00091
0.00033
0.00107
0.00045
0.00186
0.00076

in the literature (Zogzas, Maroulis, & Marinos-Kouris,

1996). It can be seen that the values of De increased greatly
with increasing temperature. Drying at 70 C gave the
highest De values. De values for tomatoes are similar to
those estimated by dierent authors for tomatoes and other
vegetables: 2.39.1 109 m2/s for tomatoes dried from
60 C to 110 C (Giovanelli, Zanoni, Lavelli, & Nani,
2002); 3.7212.27 109 m2/s for tomatoes dried from
45 C to 75 C (Akanbi et al., 2006); 0.871.0 109 m2/s
for cherry tomato dried from 40 C to 60 C (Varadharaju,
Karunanidhi, & Kailappan, 2001); 0.872.17 109 m2/s
for potato dried from 50 C to 70 C (Ahrne, Prothon, &
Funebo, 2003); 24.2 1010 m2/s for garlic slices dried
from 50 C to 90 C (Madamba, Driscoll, & Buckle,
1996). These values are consistent with the present estimated De values for tomatoes.
The eect of temperature on diusivity can be described
by an Arrhenius-type equation:


Ea
Deff D0 exp 
8
RT 273:15
where D0 is the pre-exponential factor of the Arrhenius
equation (m2/s), Ea is the activation energy for the moisture
diusion (kJ/mol), R is the ideal gas constant (kJ/mol K),
and T is the temperature in (C).
The activation energy was calculated by plotting the
ln De versus the reciprocal of the temperature (1/
(T + 273.15)), and presented in Fig. 6. Eqs. (9) and (10)
show the eect of temperature on De of pre-treated and
untreated tomatoes with following coecients:


2092:7
Deff 3:284  107 exp 
AEEO 9
T 273:15


3961:6
NAT 10
Deff 6:987  105 exp 
T 273:15
The activation energy values were found to be 17.40 and
32.94 kJ/mol, for pre-treated and untreated samples,
respectively. Pre-treated tomatoes clearly showed slightly

_ Doymaz / Journal of Food Engineering 78 (2007) 12911297

I.

1296

drying with a temperature 65 C is found to be the optimum temperature for tomatoes.

-20.8
AEEO
NAT
-21

4. Conclusions
R2

= 0.9706

ln Deff

-21.2

-21.4

-21.6

R2 = 0.9902

-21.8
0.0029

0.00295

0.003

0.00305

0.0031

1/(T+273.15) (1/K)
Fig. 6. Inuence of temperature on the eective diusivity for pre-treated
and untreated tomatoes.

lower activation energy compared to untreated tomatoes.

It is higher than the activation energies of red chilli drying
(41.95 kJ/mol) (Gupta, Ahmed, Shivhare, & Raghavan,
2002) and green peas drying (28.40 kJ/mol) (Simal, Mulet,
Tarrazo, & Rosello, 1996) and lower than the activation
energy of okra drying (51.26 kJ/mol) (Doymaz, 2005).
3.4. Rehydration capacity
The results for rehydration capacity are shown in Fig. 7.
Rehydration of pre-treated samples with alkaline ethyl oleate solution was much faster than untreated samples. The
pre-treatment yielded structurally a more compact product
after drying process. This factor adversely inuenced the
rehydration of pre-treated tomatoes. The rehydration tests
show that the rehydration at 65 C is faster than other temperatures. From the rehydration capacity point of view,

5.0
Rehydration capacity (kg water/kg dry
matter)

AEEO
NAT

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

55

Fig. 7. Rehydration
temperatures.

60
65
Temperature (C)
capacities

of

tomatoes

70

at

dierent

drying

The eect of alkaline ethyl oleate solution and temperature on the drying kinetics of tomatoes was investigated.
Alkaline ethyl oleate solution used in tomato drying
aected strongly the drying characteristics and rehydration
capacities of the dried product. Pre-treated tomatoes with
alkaline ethyl oleate solution dried faster than untreated
samples. Moreover, rehydration capacity of pre-treated
samples is faster. Drying curves of tomatoes did not show
a constant rate-drying period under the experimental
employed and showed only a falling rate-drying period.
The drying data were tted to Henderson and Pabis, and
Page models. Two statistical tools were used to quantify
the goodness of tting: the determination of coecient
(R2) and the reduced chi-square (v2). The Page model,
which gave higher the coecient of determination and lowers the reduced chi-square, was considered the best for
explaining the drying characteristics of tomatoes. The eective diusivity of pre-treated and untreated varied between
5.657.53 1010 and 3.916.65 1010 m2/s, respectively.
Eective diusivity increased with increased of temperature. The temperature dependence of the eective diusivity was also described by the Arrhenius type relationship.
The activation energy for moisture diusion was 17.40
and 32.94 kJ/mol for pre-treated and untreated samples,
respectively.
References
Ahmed, J., & Shivhare, U. S. (2001). Eect of pre-treatment on drying
characteristics and colour of dehydrated green chillis. Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 38, 504506.
Ahrne, L., Prothon, F., & Funebo, T. (2003). Comparison of drying
kinetics and texture eects of two calcium pretreatments before
microwave-assisted dehydration of apple and potato. International
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 38, 411420.
Akanbi, C. T., Adeyemi, R. S., & Ojo, A. (2006). Drying characteristics
and sorption isotherm of tomato slices. Journal of Food Engineering,
73, 141146.
Akpinar, E. K., & Bicer, Y. (2004). Modelling of the drying of eggplants in
thin-layers. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 39,
19.
Andritsos, N., Dalampakis, P., & Kolios, N. (2003). Use of geothermal
energy for tomato energy. GMC Bulletin(March), 913.
Bolin, H. R., Petrucci, V., & Fuller, G. (1975). Characteristics of
mechanically harvested raisins produced by dehydration and by eld
drying. Journal of Food Science, 40, 10361038.
Chinnan, M. S. (1984). Evaluation of selected mathematical models for
describing thin layer drying of in shell pecans. Transactions of the
ASAE, 27, 610615.
Crank, J. (1975). The mathematics of diusion (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK:
Clarendon Press.
Diamante, L. M., & Munro, P. A. (1993). Mathematical modelling of the
thin layer solar drying of sweet potato slices. Solar Energy, 51,
271276.
Doymaz, I. (2004). Eect of pre-treatments using potassium metabisulphide and alkaline ethyl oleate on the drying kinetics of apricots.
Biosystems Engineering, 89, 281287.

_ Doymaz / Journal of Food Engineering 78 (2007) 12911297

I.
Doymaz, I. (2005). Drying characteristics and kinetics of okra. Journal of
Food Engineering, 69, 275279.
Doymaz, I., & Pala, M. (2002). Hot-air drying characteristics of red
pepper. Journal of Food Engineering, 55, 331335.
Ertekin, C., & Yaldiz, O. (2004). Drying of eggplant and selection of a
suitable thin layer drying model. Journal of Food Engineering, 63,
349359.
FAO (2005). FaoStat Database. Available from http://faostat.fao.org.
Giovanelli, G., Zanoni, B., Lavelli, V., & Nani, R. (2002). Water sorption,
drying and antioxidant properties of dried tomato products. Journal of
Food Engineering, 52, 135141.
Gupta, P., Ahmed, J., Shivhare, U. S., & Raghavan, G. S. V. (2002).
Drying characteristics of red chilli. Drying Technology, 20, 19751987.
Henderson, S. M., & Pabis, S. (1961). Grain drying theory. II: Temperature eects on drying coecients. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research, 6, 169174.
Jumah, R., Banat, F., Al-Asheh, S., & Hammad, S. (2004). Drying kinetics
of tomato paste. International Journal of Food Properties, 7, 253
259.
Kashaninejad, M., & Tabil, L. G. (2004). Drying characteristics of
purslane (Portulaca oleraceae L.). Drying Technology, 22, 21832200.
Kross, R. K., Mata, M. E. R. M. C., Duarte, M. E. M., & Junior, V. S.
(2004). Drying kinetics of tomatoes (Lycopersion esculentum L.),
submitted to a previous osmotic treatment. In Drying 2004Proceedings of the 14th international drying symposium, Sao Paulo, Brazil,
August 2225 (pp. 21332140).
Lewicki, P. P., Le, H. V., & Pomaranska-Lazuka, W. (2002). Eect of pretreatment on convective drying of tomatoes. Journal of Food
Engineering, 54, 141146.
Lewicki, P. P., & Michaluk, E. (2004). Drying of tomato pre-treated with
calcium. Drying Technology, 22, 18131827.
Madamba, P. S., Driscoll, R. H., & Buckle, K. A. (1996). The thin-layer
drying characteristics of garlic slices. Journal of Food Engineering, 29,
7597.
Okos, M. R., Narsimhan, G., Singh, R. K., & Witnauer, A. C. (1992).
Food dehydration. In D. R. Heldman & D. B. Lund (Eds.), Handbook
of food engineering. New York: Marcel Dekker.

1297

Ozdemir, M., & Devres, Y. O. (1999). The thin layer drying characteristics
of hazelnuts during roasting. Journal of Food Engineering, 42, 225233.
Page, C. (1949). Factors inuencing the maximum rates of air drying of
shelled corn in thin layer. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.
Raouzeos, G. S., & Saravacos, G. D. (1986). Solar drying of raisins.
Drying Technology, 4, 633649.
Riva, M., & Peri, C. (1986). Kinetics of sun and air drying of dierent
varieties of seedless grapes. Journal of Food Technology, 21, 199208.
Sacilik, K., Keskin, R., & Elicin, A. K. (2006). Mathematical modelling of
solar tunnel drying of thin layer organic tomato. Journal of Food
Engineering, 73, 231238.
Saravacos, G. D., Marousis, S. N., & Raouzeos, G. S. (1988). Eect of
ethyl oleate on the rate of air-drying of foods. Journal of Food
Engineering, 7, 263270.
Sarsavadia, P. N., Sawhney, R. L., Pangavhane, D. R., & Singh, S. P.
(1999). Drying behaviour of brined onion slices. Journal of Food
Engineering, 40, 219226.
Simal, S., Mulet, A., Tarrazo, J., & Rosello, C. (1996). Drying models for
green peas. Food Chemistry, 55, 121128.
Sogi, D. S., Shivhare, U. S., Garg, S. K., & Bawa, A. S. (2003). Water
sorption isotherm and drying characteristics of tomato seeds. Biosystems Engineering, 84, 297301.
St. George, S. D., Cenkowski, S., & Muir, W. E. (2004). A review of
drying technologies for the preservation of nutritional compounds in
waxy skinned fruit. In 2004 North Central ASAE/CSAE Conference,
Manitoba, Canada, September 2425, 2004.
Telis, V. R. N., & Sobral, P. J. A. (2002). Glass transitions for freeze-dried
and air-dried tomato. Food Research International, 35, 435443.
Varadharaju, N., Karunanidhi, C., & Kailappan, R. (2001). Coee cherry
drying: A two-layer model. Drying Technology, 19, 709715.
Zanoni, B., Peri, C., Nani, R., & Lavelli, V. (1999). Oxidative heat damage
of tomato halves as aected by drying. Food Research International, 31,
395401.
Zogzas, N. P., Maroulis, Z. B., & Marinos-Kouris, D. (1996). Moisture
diusivity data compilation in foodstus. Drying Technology, 14,
22252253.