Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng
Abstract
Simulation of dehydrofreezing process is a difficult task as two processes are involved: a mass transfer of soluble solids and water
between the product and the osmotic solution and heat transfer during freezing. A model developed in a prior work for the dehy-
drating step, was linked with the heat transfer process involved during the freezing step. In this case, the heat transfer process was
modelled using the enthalpy formulation with a finite volume scheme. The results of the model were successfully confronted with
experimental data obtained on pear disks and apples cubes dehydrated using two osmotic syrups (sucrose and glucose solutions) and
followed by freezing in a conventional air-blast tunnel (air at 40 C). A good quantitative agreement was obtained between the
experimental and calculated results for the whole dehydrofreezing process, that is, the dehydration followed by freezing.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction (Islam & Flink, 1982; Lenart & Lewicki, 1988; Ponting,
1973; Ponting, Walters, Forrey, Jackson, & Stanley,
During osmotic dehydration, the food product is in 1966) are the most typical.
contact with a low water activity solution (in most cases Osmotic dehydration for partial drying of fruits and
concentrated salt and/or sugar solutions) and a two-way vegetables followed by freezing (osmo-dehydrofreezing)
mass transfer is established: (i) water is transferred from offers some of the advantages of both processes avoiding
the product to the solution, often accompanied by natu- many of the disadvantages of each, when they are used
ral substances (sugars, vitamins, pigments, flavours) and separately. The main advantages are not only economi-
(ii) in the opposite direction, solute is transferred from cal. Although savings in energy, packaging and distribu-
the solution to the vegetable or fruit pieces. As a conse- tion costs due to weight and size reduction of the
quence of this exchange, the product loses weight and product are important, the dehydrofreezing process in-
shrinks. However, the dehydrated product is not yet duces quality improvements in the products as well
microbiologically stabilised. A subsequent treatment is (Ponting, 1973; Ponting et al., 1966; Raoult-Wack,
necessary for product long-term conservation. Several 1994; Vial et al., 1991).
treatments were proposed till now: freezing (Flink, Simulation of heat and mass transfer during dehydro-
1975; Hawkes & Flink, 1978) and convective drying freezing is a difficult task as two processes are involved:
mass transfer of solids and water between the product
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +54 221 4890741/4254853. and the osmotic solution and, later, heat transfer dur-
E-mail address: magnelli@volta.ing.unlp.edu.ar (M.E. Agnelli). ing freezing. In this paper, a model developed for the
0260-8774/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.08.034
416 M.E. Agnelli et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 69 (2005) 415–424
Nomenclature
Ai area of the extracellular volume in the i ui displacement rate of the solution relative to
volume the moving surface of the food volume
Brix soluble solids content of the sample V volume
Cj extracellular concentration of the species j Vc cellular volume
Cw water concentration Ve extracellular volume
fji transmembrane flux of the j species in the Vr volume reduction of the sample
volume i Wj concentration of the species j in the cellular
h enthalpy volume
H heat transfer coefficient WL (%) loss of water during the dehydrating process
k thermal conductivity referred to the water content of the fresh
kj mass transfer coefficient of the species j sample
L length or height WR (%) weight reduction of the sample before and
mf final mass of the dehydrated sample after treatment
mi initial mass of the fresh sample xg weight fraction of glucose or fructose
mij mass of the species j in the extracellular vol- xj weight fraction of the species j
ume i xs weight fraction of sucrose
mjc mass of the species j in the cellular volume
mje mass of the species j in the extracellular Greek symbols
volume Dzi integration step in the z-axis
nij extracellular flux of the species j in the vol- Dap0j apparent diffusion coefficient of the species j
ume i Dapij apparent diffusion coefficient of the species j
q heat flux in the volume i
Si area of the cellular membrane in the volume i / water content
SG (%) solids from the dehydrating solution entering c ice fraction
the sample referred to the solid content of the q product density
fresh sample li viscosity of the solution in volume i
t time l0j viscosity of the solution of the species j
T temperature with a water content equal to that of the
Tcrg freezing point of glucose or fructose with a mixture
water content equal to that of the mixture lm viscosity of the mixture
Tcrs freezing point of sucrose with a water content
equal to that of the mixture
dehydrating step in a prior work (Spiazzi & Mascheroni, 20 L of capacity. The vessel is provided with a coil
1997), was linked with the heat transfer process involved through which circulates an etilenglycol–water mixture
during the freezing step. In this case, the heat transfer from a thermostat used to heat the osmotic solution.
process was modelled using the enthalpy formulation The equipment (Fig. 1) is equipped with a stirrer to en-
with a finite-volume scheme. The results of the model sure homogeneous mixing of the solution over the whole
were successfully confirmed with experimental data ob- system.
tained on pear disks and apple cubes dehydrated using Runs were made on pear disks of 2 cm diameter and
two osmotic syrups (sucrose and glucose solutions) 1 cm height, and on apple cubes of two sizes: 1.5 cm and
and followed by freezing in a conventional air-blast tun- 2 cm side. The samples were submerged in the dehydrat-
nel (air at 40 C). A good quantitative agreement was ing solution at 30 C for different immersion times. The
obtained between the experimental and calculated re- osmotic concentration agents were glucose (99.5%) and
sults for the whole process, that is, the dehydration fol- sucrose (Commercial Grade). The concentrations of
lowed by freezing. the osmotic solutions are indicated in Table 1.
Once the immersion time was reached, the samples
were taken from the vessel, intermittently washed during
2. Experimental 30 s with distilled water, blotted in absorbent paper and
finally weighed. The evolution of mass transfer was
Osmotic dehydration: Experiments of osmotic dehy- measured through the variation in time of weight loss
dration were performed in a stainless steel vessel of (WR), total solids (TS) and soluble solids content
M.E. Agnelli et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 69 (2005) 415–424 417
WR TS TS0
Solid gain: SG ¼ 1 100
100 100 100
ð2Þ
V
Volume reduction: Vr ¼ 100 ð3Þ
V0
where V is the actual volume and TS0 and V0 are the ini-
tial values of the solid content and volume, respectively.
Freezing: After the dehydration step, the sample was
frozen in a conventional air-blast tunnel (40 C). The
progress of freezing was followed by the measurement
of temperature with a copper-constantan thermocouple
placed in the centre of the product.
Table 5
Table 3
Values of the freezing point and enthalpy of solutions for different
Values of mass transfer and apparent diffusivity coefficients for apple
solute concentration
and pear dehydration
x [wt] Glucose or fructose Sucrose
Species Water Glucose Fructose Sucrose
Tcr (C) Hcr (kJ/kg) Tcr (C) Hcr (kJ/kg)
Apple kj · 109 (m/s) 200 0 1 0
Dapj 109 (m2/s) 2.250 0.195 0.195 0.140 0.15 1.6 319 1.0 337
Pear kj · 109 (m/s) 200 0 1 0 0.30 5.0 216 2.7 255
Dapj 109 (m2/s) 1.250 0.150 0.150 0.1 0.45 10.7 114 5.6 175
420 M.E. Agnelli et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 69 (2005) 415–424
0.7
(a)
0.6
0.5 60
0.4
WL or SG (%)
X (wt)
40
0.3 24h
0h
0.2 12h 4h
20
0.1 24h 4h
12h
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
z/z°
time (h)
0.7
(b) 100
0.6
0.5 80
°Brix or Vr (%)
0.4
60
X (wt)
24h
0.3
12h 40
24h 4h
0.2 12h 0h
4h
0.1 20
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 5 10 15 20 25
z/z° time (h)
Fig. 3. (a) Concentration profiles of sucrose and fructose (in grey) as a Fig. 4. Experimental and calculated evolution of the water loss (WL),
function of the dehydrating time under a sucrose solution. (b) solid gain (SG), volume reduction (Vr) and soluble solid content
Concentration profiles of glucose and fructose (in grey) as a function (Brix) of pear disks with the dehydrating time under a sucrose
of the dehydrating time under a glucose solution. solution. SG and Vr in grey.
M.E. Agnelli et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 69 (2005) 415–424 421
30
60
20
WL or SG (%)
40
10
20
T (°C)
0 0h
0 5 10 15 20 25 4h
time (h) -10 12h
100
-20 24h
80
°Brix or Vr (%)
60 -30
40
-40
0 200 400 600 800 1000
20 time (s)
0.5
30
0.4
X (wt)
24h
24h 0h
0.3 12h
20
0.2 12h
4h
10 0.1
4h 0h
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 z/z°
T (°C)
0h
0.7
(b)
-10 4h
12h 0.6
24h
0.5
-20
0.4 0h
X (wt)
24h
0.3
-30 24h
12h
0.2
12h 4h
-40 0.1 0h
0 200 400 600 800 1000
4h
time (s) 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fig. 6. Experimental (symbols) and calculated (full lines) evolution of z/z°
temperature profiles during freezing of pear disks samples previously
dehydrated for different times (0, 4, 12 and 24 h) under a sucrose Fig. 8. Concentration profiles of sucrose and fructose (in grey) as a
solution. The + symbol indicates the air temperature in the tunnel function of the dehydrating time under a sucrose solution obtained for
evolution considered constant for calculations. apple cubes of (a) 1.5 cm side, (b) 2.0 cm side.
422 M.E. Agnelli et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 69 (2005) 415–424
0.7 100
(a) (a)
0.6
80
0.5
WL or SG (%)
0.4 60
X (wt)
24h
0.3 12h 0h
24h 4h 40
0.2 12h 4h
20
0.1
0h
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 5 10 15 20 25
z/z° time (h)
0.7 100
(b) (b)
0.6
80
0.5
Brix or SG (%)
0.4 60
X (wt)
24h
0.3
0h 40
24h 12h
0.2 4h
12 20
0.1 0h
h 4h
0.0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 5 10 15 20 25
z/z° time (h)
Fig. 9. Concentration profiles of glucose and fructose (in grey) Fig. 10. Calculated and experimental evolution of (a) water loss (WL),
obtained for apple cubes as a function of the dehydrating time under solid gain (SG), and (b) volume reduction (Vr) and soluble solid
a glucose solution of (a) 1.5 cm side and (b) 2.0 cm side. content (Brix) for samples of 1.5 cm (full line and void symbols) and
2 cm (dotted line and black symbols) with the dehydrating time under
sucrose solution.
solutions are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The model predicts 5.2. Apple
very well the water loss, solid gain and soluble solid con-
tent in both cases. On the other hand, the calculated vol- The solutions of the mass balance for each species for
ume reduction with processing time is less accurate, the dehydration process of apple cubes of 1.5 and 2 cm
particularly in the case of glucose solution. However, side with sucrose syrup are shown in Fig. 8(a) and (b),
it is worth remarking that the measurement of this var- respectively These figures present the predicted concen-
iable is difficult because of the shape deformation tration profiles of sucrose and fructose in the apple cube
accompanying the volume reduction. at different times of treatment (4, 12 and 24 h). As be-
The outcome of the solution of the mass balance was fore, the z-axis is normalized with the decreasing value
then introduced to predict the temperature profile that of the half height at each dehydrating time (z0). Com-
occurs during freezing. Fig. 6 presents the results ob- paring (a) and (b), it can be seen that the size of the sam-
tained for samples previously dehydrated for different ple affects the concentration profile, meaning that the
times in a solution of sucrose. The experimental temper- control step of the mass transfer is the diffusion step. Be-
ature profiles are also shown in the figure. As can be sides, in both cases, it can be seen that the penetration of
seen the model can predict quite precisely the thermal sucrose is not very significant towards the center of the
evolution during freezing. cube. Then, the increase in fructose concentration is
Fig. 7 shows the calculated and experimental results due to the volume contraction originating from the
obtained during freezing of the samples dehydrated dehydration process.
using glucose as the osmotic dehydrating agent. In this Analogously to Fig. 8, Fig. 9(a) and (b) show the con-
case, the model prediction is less accurate than in the centration profiles for each species when the dehydration
preceding situation. Particularly, the 12 h and 24 h tem- process is performed using a glucose solution. Both pic-
perature histories are less accurate, probably due to a tures indicate, in this case, that the glucose penetration
shift in the position of the thermocouple. is higher than that of sucrose. As a consequence, the
M.E. Agnelli et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 69 (2005) 415–424 423
60
40
40
30
20
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 10
time (h)
T (°C)
0
100
(b)
-10 0h
80
12h 4h
24h
Brix or SG (%)
-20
60
-30
40
-40
20
0 200 400 600 800 1000
time (s)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 Fig. 12. Calculated (full lines) and experimental (symbols) tempera-
time (h) ture profiles during freezing of previously dehydrated samples
(L = 1.5 cm) for different times (0, 4, 12 and 24 h) under sucrose
Fig. 11. Calculated and experimental evolution of (a) water loss (WL), solution. The + symbol indicates the air temperature in the tunnel
solid gain (SG), and (b) volume reduction (Vr) and soluble solid evolution considered constant for calculations.
content (Brix) for samples of 1.5 cm (full line and void symbols) and
2 cm (dotted line and black symbols) with the dehydrating time under
glucose solution.
40
0
cases. As stated before, the calculated volume reduction
with the processing time is less accurate, principally in 0h
6. Conclusions Hawkes, J., & Flink, J. M. (1978). Osmotic concentration of fruit slices
prior to freeze dehydration. Journal of Food Processing Preserva-
tion, 2, 265–284.
In this work, the osmotic dehydration model devel- Islam, M. N., & Flink, J. N. (1982). Dehydration of potato II. Osmotic
oped by Spiazzi and Mascheroni for foods with high concentration and its effect on air drying behaviour. Journal of
water content was tested against new data including dif- Food Technology, 17, 387–403.
ferent food shapes and sizes. The agreement between Khan, A. A., & Vincent, J. F. V. (1990). Anisotropy of apple
experimental and predicted data was very good in all parenchyma. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 52(4),
455–460.
cases for all the dehydration variables except for the vol- Lenart, A., & Lewicki, P. P. (1988). Osmotic preconcentration of
ume reduction, which could not be properly measured carrot tissue followed by convection drying. In S. Bruin (Ed.),
during these set of experiments. Preconcentration and drying of food materials (pp. 307–308).
The results of the dehydration model were then intro- Marcellin, O., & Phan Phuc, A. (1970). Mesure de la surface spécifique
duced into the thermal balance to predict the temperature des pommes. Physiologie Végétale, 8, 173–187.
Ponting, J. D. (1973). Osmotic dehydration of fruits––Recent modi-
thermal history during freezing of the fresh and dehy- fications and applications. Process Biochemistry, 8, 18–20.
drated samples. Thermal properties were expressed as a Ponting, J. D., Walters, G. G., Forrey, R. R., Jackson, R., & Stanley,
function of the water and solid contents. The simulation W. L. (1966). Osmotic dehydration of fruits. Food Technology, 20,
of the dehydrofreezing process presented in this work was 125–128.
successfully validated with experimental results obtained Raoult-Wack, A. L. (1994). Recent advances in the osmotic dehydra-
tion of foods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 5, 255–
on pear disks and apple cubes of different sizes. 260.
Thus, the model allows us to adequately predict the Saurel, R. (1993). Déhydratation-impregnation par immersion en
concentration of solids and temperature profiles within solutions ternaires: Etude des transports d’eau et de solutes sur gel
the fruit, the freezing time and the dehydrating para- et produits d’origine animal. Dr. thesis, Univ. de Montpellier.
meters. Spiazzi, E. A., & Mascheroni, R. H. (1997). Mass transfer model for
osmotic dehydration of fruits and vegetables. I. Development of
the simulation model. Journal of Food Engineering, 34(4), 387–
410.
References Succar, J., & Hayakawa, K. (1983). Empirical formulae for predicting
thermophysical properties of food at freezing or defrosting
Chang, H., & Tao, L. C. (1981). Correlations of enthalpies of food temperatures. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-Technologie, 16(6),
systems. Journal of Food Science, 46(5), 1493–1497. 326–331.
Chau, K. V., & Gaffney, J. J. (1988). A finite difference model for heat Tocci, A. M., & Mascheroni, R. H. (1995). Numerical models for the
and mass transfer in products with internal heat generation and simulation of the simultaneous heat and mass transfer during food
transpiration. Journal of Food Science, 55(2), 484–487. freezing and storage. International Communications in Heat and
Choi, Y., & Okos, M. R. (1986). Effects of temperature and Mass Transfer, 22(2), 251–260.
composition on the thermal properties of foods. In M. Le Maguer Tocci, A. M., Spiazzi, E. A., & Mascheroni, R. H. (1998). Determi-
& P. Jelen (Eds.), Food Engineering and Process Applications, Vol. 1 nation of specific heat and enthalpy of melting by differential
Transport Phenomena. London: Elsevier Applied Science scanning calorimetry: Application to osmodehydrated fruits. High
Publishers. Temperatures–High Pressures, 30, 357–363.
de Cindio, B., Correra, S., & Hoff, V. (1995). Low temperature sugar– Vial, C., Guilbert, S., & Cuq, J. L. (1991). Osmotic dehydration of
water equilibrium curve by a rapid calorimetric method. Journal of kiwifruits: Influence of process variables and ascorbic acid content.
Food Engineering, 24(4), 405–415. Sciences des Aliments, An International Journal of Food Science &
Flink, J. M. (1975). Process conditions for improved flavor quality of Technology, 11(1), 63–84.
freeze dried foods. Journal of Agriculture Food Chemistry, 19, Weast, R. C. (Ed.). (1975). Handbook of chemistry and physics (56th
1019–1026. ed.). Cleveland, OH: CRC Press.