See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236596404

Optimization of solar dryer for the dehydration of fruits and vegetables

Article  in  Journal of Food Processing and Preservation · March 2012

DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4549.2011.00668.x

CITATIONS READS
3 1,318

7 authors, including:

Hector Martinez-Flores Ma Guadalupe Garnica Romo

Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo
74 PUBLICATIONS   737 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   390 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jorge I. Aranda-Sanchez J. L. Fernández-Muñoz

Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo Instituto Politécnico Nacional
47 PUBLICATIONS   128 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   391 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stoichiometry calculation in BaxSr1-xTiO3 solid solution thin films, prepared by RF-cosputtering, using X-ray diffraction peak positions and Boltzmann sigmoidal
modelling View project

Chemically modified graphene oxide for energy and environmental applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hector Martinez-Flores on 31 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Food Processing and Preservation ISSN 1745-4549

OPTIMIZATION OF SOLAR DRYER FOR THE DEHYDRATION OF

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES jfpp_668 489..495

ELIZABETH SÁMANO DELGADO1, HÉCTOR EDUARDO MARTINEZ-FLORES2,7,

MA GUADALUPE GARNICA-ROMO3, JORGE ISIDRO ARANDA-SANCHEZ4,
CARLOS RUBÉN SOSA-AGUIRRE5, CONSUELO DE JESÚS CORTÉS-PENAGOS2 and
JOSÉ LUIS FERNÁNDEZ-MUÑOZ6
1
Programa Institucional de Maestría en Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico
2
Facultad de Químico Farmacobiología, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Tzintzuntzan 173, Col. Matamoros, Morelia, Michoacan
58098, Mexico
3
Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico
4
Facultad de Ciencias Físico-Matemáticas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolas de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico
5
Instituto de Investigaciones Químico-Biológicas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacan, México
6
Centro de Investigación en Ciencia Aplicada y Tecnología Avanzada del Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Unidad Legaria, Legaria, México

7
Corresponding author. ABSTRACT
TEL: 443-3142809;
FAX: 443-3142809; Currently, several solar dehydrator designs exist on the market, and some of these
EMAIL: hedu65@hotmail.com designs require expensive materials, which makes the prototype expensive and dif-
ficult to obtain for small producers. The aim of this study was to build a low-cost
Accepted for Publication December 14, 2011
solar dryer with high energy efficiency based on a previous solar dryer model. The
doi:10.1111/j.1745-4549.2011.00668.x
optimization of the previous solar dryer model was characterized via temperature
profiles and drying kinetics to identify gaps. Theoretical and numerical modeling
was used to correct the gaps, and a new prototype was then built. The inclination
angle was changed from 45° in the previous model to 20° in the new model. As
compared with the old model, the results indicated that the new model improved
the efficiency by 43.75% for banana fruit, thereby demonstrating the optimization
of the new model.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The solar dryer developed in this study will be applied to dehydrate fruits and veg-
etables with a capacity of up to 10 kg. It is a dryer built with low-cost materials,
simple operation and high energy efficiency. Preserved safe products are obtained
with solar dryer.

According to Tripathy and Kumar (2011), several studies

INTRODUCTION
The moisture content of fresh fruits and vegetables is more
than 80%, and fruits and vegetables are considered highly
perishable products. Therefore, fruits and vegetables are dried
to enhance storage ability, minimize packaging requirements
and reduce transport weight (Sagar and Kumar 2010). Dehy-
dration of food is a commonly accepted method of preserva-
tion for agricultural crops (Pangavhane and Sawhney 2002;
Chen et al. 2005; Bennamoun and Belhamri 2006; Beltagy
et al. 2007; Russon et al. 2009).
have been carried out focusing on the design, development
and testing of several solar dryers including direct, green-
house, indirect and mixed mode drying methods. The mixed
mode dryers are the most effective dryers in terms of product
drying rate and drying cost. In the mixed mode drying
method, the food to be dried absorbs energy in two steps: (1)
solar energy that crosses through the chamber, which is gen-
erally constructed with a translucent material; and (2) hot air
coming from the solar energy collector attached to the drying
cabin.

Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 37 (2013) 489–495 © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 489
SOLAR DRYER FOR USE IN FOOD
FIG. 1. ORIGINAL SOLAR DEHYDRATOR BEFORE OPTIMIZATION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW MODEL
Previously in the research, one mixed mode solar dryer,
with the goal of using to dehydrate fruits and vegetables on a
small scale. This model is shown in Fig. 1. This equipment
was simple and was built with low-cost materials. The solar
collector consisted of a flat surface made of aluminum, which
was painted black to absorb the solar radiation transmitted
through the glass cover. The cabin was built with an alumi-
num frame, which was covered with transparent polycarbon-
ate (thickness of 6 mm), and plastic trays to hold the products
were placed inside the cabin. Ventilation was provided by
natural convection inside the collector and drying cabin. The
collector was attached to the cabin at a 45° angle. However,
the original model had problems with drying efficiency, and
the original model was not evaluated critically to optimize its
efficiency.
For this reason, the objective of this study was to build a
new low-cost solar dehydrator with high drying time effi-
ciency for use in dehydrating fruits and vegetables. The dryer
was designed to optimize the previously built dehydrator as
described above. To optimize the equipment, the previous
model was characterized through temperature profiles and
drying kinetics to identify gaps. Theoretical and numerical
modeling was used to correct the gaps, and a new prototype
was then built. Then, our research group developed an
improved small-scale solar dryer optimized in energy effi-
ciency terms with the hope of increasing the feasibility of the
dehydration of foods for individual and local market use and
storage.
490 Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 37 (2013) 489–495 © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
E.S. DELGADO ET AL.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The following products used in this study were purchased
from a local market in Morelia (Michoacan, Mexico):
banana (Musa paradisiaca), a variety known as Tabasco;
white guava (Psidium guajava J.); mango (Mangifera indica
L.), a variety known as Haden; and cladodes (vegetable
stems) from cactaceae Opuntia tomentosa. The fruits were
washed with tap water. The bananas and mangos were
peeled. The bananas and guava fruits were cut into pieces
with thicknesses of 2 ⫾ 0.10 and 3 ⫾ 0.12 cm, respectively,
using a meat slicer (Cooks meat food slicer, model
FS-9001A, Intertek listed US). Mangos were cut into rect-
angles (5 cm ¥ 2 cm) with a thickness of 3 ⫾ 0.15 mm.
O. tomentosa cladodes were cut into 1-cm squares with a
thickness of 3 ⫾ 0.15 mm. The mango and cactus cuts were
made manually with a blade. All samples were measured in
thickness with a Vernier caliper (NationSkander California
Corp., Anaheim, CA).
Design of Dehydrator
To determine the experimental temperature profile of the
previous dryer, the dehydration temperatures were measured
at different points in the cabin and on the shelves where the
products were placed to determine if the drying chamber was
adiabatic and to examine the relationship between tempera-
ture and distance inside the chamber. The drying kinetics
were run for the guava and banana slices. The tests were
carried out using batches of standardized product. For each
fruit, the kinetics were performed in triplicate.
The efficiency of the solar dryer was determined based on
the following formula:
D
E=
T
where E is the efficiency of the solar dryer, D is the dehydrated
fruit (kg) and T is the time (1 h).
To acquire the dimensions for the construction of the new
dehydrator model, several calculations were made with the
following considerations taken into account: (1) heat loss
through convection and conduction in each sample and tray;
(2) drop in air temperature when the air flowed over each
sample; (3) maximum possible temperature gradient in the
air between the first and last trays because the drying rate sig-
nificantly varied depending on the number of trays in the
model and model area; (4) air humidity when the air flowed
on each tray to verify that there was no condensation; (5)
number of trays that could be added to the dryer when the
average air temperature was increased in a range of 5–10C;
E.S. DELGADO ET AL.
and (6) thickness of the layer of air separating the polycar-
bonate sheet.
First, the heat loss by convection was calculated as follows:
Q = hc As (Tm − Ts )
where Q is the convection heat transfer (W); hc is the
coefficient convective of heat transfer (W/m2C); As is the solid
surface area (m2); Tm is environmental temperature (C); and
Ts is the surface temperature (C).
Subsequently, the heat transfer by conduction was calcu-
lated using the Fourier equation of heat conduction accord-
ing to Çengel (2003) as follows:
= KA ⎛ ⎞ L
T1
Qcond
⎝ T 2⎠
where Qcond is the conduction heat transfer (W); K is the
thermal conductivity of the material (W/C); A is the
cross-sectional area (m2); T1 is the inlet temperature (C); T2 is
the outlet temperature (C); and L is the slice thickness (m).
Based on these findings, the total number of trays in the
dryer, dryer area and the tray separation distance was
calculated.
The most suitable materials to build the cabin providing
the least amount of heat loss through the walls were evalu-
ated. The calculations were performed for four different
models. All of these models were based on using a double
layer of polycarbonate and an insulator to separate the layers
of polycarbonate. The insulator type varied according to the
model as follows: air, fiberglass, rubber and polyurethane
foam.
AutoCAD (2009) software was used to develop the solar
dryer design. The complete prototype was developed in a
three-dimensional version, and orthogonal views (front, top
and side) of the dryer were also elaborated.
The analytical temperature profile of the drying cabin
was developed using the conditions and materials of the
model that used air as an insulator (model 1). Thermal
analysis was performed using the ANSYS 11.0 program
(ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA) through a combined con-
ductive and convective heat transfer model. The model was
solved using the finite element method.
The newly optimized solar dryer was built according to the
experimental evidence and theoretical calculations. Drying
kinetics were performed on guava and banana slices using the
dehydrator. Various tests were conducted to evaluate the per-
formance of the new solar dryer to assure that it worked
according to the predicted theoretical calculations. The fol-
lowing tests were used: (1) comparative drying using both
models simultaneously and under the same drying condi-
tions; (2) an experimental temperature profile of the drying
cabin to measure the temperature gradient inside the cabin;
(3) a drying test with the equipment at maximum product
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 37 (2013) 489–495 © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
SOLAR DRYER FOR USE IN FOOD
capacity; and (4) drying mango and cactus pieces to evaluate
the performance and efficiency of the dryer with different
products.
The systematic error (SE) of the equipment was calculated
according to Lash and Fink (2003). Thirty banana slices were
monitored during the drying process. The slices were taken
from different areas of the drying cabin and at different loca-
tions in each tray to evaluate the error caused by the position
of the pieces regardless of the product. The error was calcu-
lated with the following equation:
SE = μ − X
where SE is the systematic error of the dehydrator; m is the
average of all measurements (drying time/slice); and X is the
theoretical value of the drying time/slice.
Microbiological Evaluation
A microbiological evaluation was performed on the dehy-
drated bananas and guavas to verify that the dehydration
process did not allow microorganism growth on the
products. The existence of molds, yeasts, aerobic mesophilic
bacteria, Salmonella, total coliforms, fecal coliforms and Sta-
phylococcus aureus was determined according to the methods
of the AOAC (1990).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characterization of Previous Model
In the previous solar dryer, the temperature gradients in the
solar collector and drying chamber were evaluated using the
experimental temperature profile (Fig. 2). The drying kinet-
ics were measured using 1-kg batches of banana and guava
fruits. The average increase of air temperature was between
14.7 and 15C. According to Piacentini and Cortes (1983), a
collector of high efficiency is defined as a collector achieving
increases in air temperature greater than 15C. Therefore, the
collector was considered of high efficiency according to this
criterion.
The graphic clearly shows that the temperature gradient
inside the cabin oscillated in a range of 5–10C. The statistical
difference among the temperatures inside the drying cabin
was evaluated using the coefficient of variation (CV). In this
study, the CV was greater than 10% in more than 60% of the
cases. According to Narvaiza et al. (2005), a CV greater than
10% is not suitable to indicate a lack of significant differences
between samples. Therefore, the temperature inside the
chamber was statistically different, and the system was not
adiabatic because the drying rate was not uniform. Therefore,
uniform batches will not be obtained with this system (previ-
ous model).
491
SOLAR DRYER FOR USE IN FOOD E.S. DELGADO ET AL.

FIG. 2. TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS IN THE

COLLECTOR AND DRYING CHAMBER

where t is the drying time (h); Ls is the dry weight of solid

Design and Construction of New Dryer Model
To calculate the new dehydrator dimensions, the rate of heat
transfer by convection and conduction was determined.
Based on the convection velocity, the maximum possible tem-
perature gradient inside the cabin that did not significantly
alter the heat transfer was calculated as shown in Table 1. The
calculation was carried out by iterating until the CV was lower
than 10%. A possible gradient of 5C was determined. More-
over, the number of trays was calculated with the following
equations:
(kg); A is the area of drying surface (m2); rc is the drying rate
(m/s); x1 is the initial moisture content (kg H2O/kg dry solid);
and x2 is the end moisture content (kg H2O/kg dry solid).
The dehydrator usually works with 13 trays. However, the
dryer can hold 16 trays. However, as shown in Table 2, the
number of trays could only be increased when the average air
temperature was also increased.
The heat loss through the walls of the dryer was deter-
mined for the four different models (Table 3). The models

Number of trays = 5C 0.361 = 14 trays with banana TABLE 1. CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE GRADIENT
IN THE DRYING CHAMBER
Number of trays = 5C 0.402 = 13 trays with guava Tmedium Qslice DT Coefficient of
Trays (C) (W) (C) variation (%)
For reasons of optimization, the smallest number of trays
was selected. Therefore, the final number of trays was 13 1 55 0.3011 0 0
when the average temperature of dehydration was 55C. 2 54.6 0.2901 0 1.79
3 54.2 0.2792 1 2.63
According to El-Sebaii et al. (2002), the optimal temperature
4 53.8 0.2682 1 3.12
range for drying most agricultural product is between 45.5 5 53.4 0.2573 2 3.77
and 55.5C. 6 53 0.2463 2 4.36
All previous calculations were performed considering an 7 52.6 0.2354 3 4.97
average air temperature of 55C. The number of trays that 8 52.2 0.2244 3 5.54
could be added to the solar dehydrator when the average air 9 51.8 0.2135 3 6.2
temperature increased from 5 to 10C was also calculated 10 51.4 0.2025 4 6.86
11 51 0.1916 4 7.48
during the months when the air temperature and incidence of
12 50.6 0.1806 5 8.17
solar radiation were high (Table 2). Therefore, the total time 13 50.2 0.1697 5 8.81
of drying at a temperature of 55C was obtained as a reference. 14 49.8 0.1587 5 9.53
The drying time for the drying surface was obtained accord- 15 49.4 0.1478 6 10.21
ing to Geankoplis (2003) with the following equation:
Ls
t= ( x1 − x 2) TABLE 2. RESULTING DRYING TIME WITH INCREASING TRAY NUMBER
Arc AND AIR TEMPERATURE

No. of Drying time for Total drying

T (C) trays each tray (h) time (h)
1
The temperature gradient was obtained when 53 banana slices
were placed on 14 trays. 55 13 0.6410 8.33
2 60 14 0.5926 8.30
The temperature gradient was obtained when 54 guava slices
65 16 0.5054 8.09
were placed on 13 trays.

492 Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 37 (2013) 489–495 © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
E.S. DELGADO ET AL.
TABLE 3. HEAT LOSS THROUGH THE DEHYDRATOR WALLS WITH
DIFFERENT MODELS
Model
1. Polycarbonate – air – polycarbonate
2. Polycarbonate – fiberglass – polycarbonate
3. Polycarbonate – rubber – polycarbonate
4. Polycarbonate – polyurethane – polycarbonate
* Heat loss.
were based using a double layer of polycarbonate and an insu-
lator to separate the layers of polycarbonate. The insulator
type varied according to the model as follows: (1) air; (2)
fiberglass; (3) rubber; and (4) polyurethane foam. Models 1
and 4 were the most suitable models because they reduced the
heat loss to a greater extent, 17.13 and 15.97 (W), respectively.
However, a comparison of costs showed that model 1 was
more economically viable. Therefore, model 1 was used to
construct the final prototype.
FIG. 3. TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRYING CABIN IN THE NEW MODEL
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 37 (2013) 489–495 © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
SOLAR DRYER FOR USE IN FOOD
All conditions of the drying cabin were simulated using the
ANSYS program (ANSYS Inc.) to determine the temperature
Q* (W) distribution within the prototype (Fig. 3). The temperature
17.13 tended to decrease toward the top and at the center of the
22.66 drying cabin. When comparing the temperatures between the
20.55 hottest area (T = 59.9C) and the coldest area (T = 55.0C),
15.97 however, the system was statistically adiabatic because the
gradient did not exceed 5C.
Once the final dimensions of the solar dryer were obtained, a
three-dimensional model was drawn using AutoCAD (2009).
The solar collector inclination was defined at 20°, which was
based on the latitude of Morelia City because this location has
been reported to have the largest occurrence of solar capitation
(Sarmiento and Del Moral 2006). The new solar is shown in
Fig. 4.The new dryer has the following dimensions: total height
of 168 cm, length of the cabin 108 cm, 20-cm space where the
solar collector is inserted,the cabin width of 55 cm,length of the
solar collector 184 cm, and width solar collector of 115 cm.
493
SOLAR DRYER FOR USE IN FOOD E.S. DELGADO ET AL.

hand, according to the value of relative humidity inside

the chamber, there was no condensation (relative humid-
ity < 100%).
Mango and cactus pieces were dehydrated with the new
solar dryer to verify that the solar dryer worked appropriately
and according to the predicted behavior with different prod-
ucts: with these products, the new solar dryer was still consid-
ered to be a high-efficiency model (Table 5). The drying times
were not longer than 10 h, suggesting that the dryer was also
considered a high-efficiency model for mango and cactus
products.
The SE of the new model was 0.12. According to Juran et al.
(1998), an SE value equal to 0.12 ⫾ 0.107 is not significant

TABLE 4. TEMPERATURE GRADIENT AND HUMIDITY INSIDE THE

DRYING CHAMBER WITH A MAXIMUM LOAD

T Tmedium Ttray 1 Ttray 13 HR medium HR chamber Radiation DT

(min) (C) (C) (C) (%) (%) (W/m2) (C)
0 16.9 49.9 46.2 41 37 381 3.70
20 17.5 52.4 48.3 41 37 462 4.10
40 18.4 53.6 49.2 39 36 483 4.40
FIG. 4. NEW MODEL OF THE SOLAR DRYER 60 20.2 55.7 51.6 37 35 511 4.10
80 21.1 56.8 52.1 37 35 569 4.70
100 21.8 58.2 54.6 35 32 598 3.60
120 22.5 59.4 54.9 33 32 611 4.50
A comparative test between the two models was conducted. 140 22.8 61.3 56.5 33 31 624 4.80
160 23.4 61.9 58.4 32 29 646 3.50
For this test, 1 kg of banana slices were dehydrated in each
180 22.6 59.5 55.6 31 29 652 3.90
model under the same drying conditions. The drying effi- 200 23.1 60.3 56.8 31 27 683 3.50
ciency in the previous model was of 0.16 kg/h while in the 220 23.6 61.4 57.7 30 27 677 3.70
new model was of 0.23 kg/h. According to these results, the 240 24.2 60.8 57.9 30 25 655 3.10
new model was estimated to improve the efficiency by 43.75% 260 24.2 60.1 57.2 29 25 653 2.90
for bananas, which demonstrates the optimization of the new 280 24.0 59.6 57.2 29 24 665 2.40
model. *m = 3.8
The experimental temperature profile within the drying * Average temperature gradient.
cabin of the new dryer was measured to verify that the new
cabin was adiabatic even when it was operating at maximum TABLE 5. DRYING TIMES AND EFFICIENCIES OF CACTUS AND MANGO
product capacity (Table 4). The average temperature gradient
Drying Drying efficiency
inside the cabin was 3.8C, which did not exceed 5C. There- Product time (h) (kg/h)
fore, the new dryer was considered an adiabatic system even
Cactaceae 5 0.20
when operating with a maximum load of product because
Mango 7.5 0.13
the temperature did not vary significantly. On the other

TABLE 6. MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTS IN DRIED BANANAS AND GUAVA

Aerobic mesophilic Total coliforms Total Molds and Staphylococcus

Fruit bacteria (cfu) in plate (cfu) coliforms (cfu) yeasts (cfu) Salmonella Aureus (MPN/g)

Banana
Fresh 0 0 0 0 Negative Negative
Dried 14 7 0 4 Negative Negative
Guava
Fresh 0 0 0 0 Negative Negative
Dried 0.66 0 0 0.33 Negative Negative

cfu, colony forming units; MPN, most probable number.

494 Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 37 (2013) 489–495 © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
 E.S. DELGADO ET AL.
(P < 0.05), and the variation in this value is generated by the
position of the product within the drying cabin.
Finally, microbiological tests were performed on the dried
bananas and guavas (Table 6). These tests demonstrated that
the count was less than 100 cfu in all cases and that the
samples were negative for Salmonella and S. aureus. These
results suggested that the products were safe and harmless.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated that the new solar dryer system was
statistically adiabatic, which allowed batches to be uniformly
dried. Moreover, dehydration of banana, guava, mango and
cactus pieces was achieved in less than 10 h using the new
solar dryer. Furthermore, this model did not favor microbial
contamination resulting in a safe product. The SE of the
equipment was not significant suggesting that the dryer was
reliable.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Coordinación de la Investigación
Científica of the UMSNH for funding this research. The
student Elizabeth is grateful for the Masters scholarship
granted by CONACYT.
REFERENCES
AOAC 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of the
Official Analytical Chemists, 15th Ed., AOAC Press,
Arlington, TX.
AUTOCAD 2009 Software. Autodesk, Inc., San Rafael, CA.
BELTAGY, A., GAMEA, G. and ESSA, A. 2007. Solar drying
characteristics of strawberry. J. Food Eng. 78, 456–464.
BENNAMOUN, L. and BELHAMRI, A. 2006. Numerical
simulation of drying under variable external conditions:
Application to solar drying of seedless grapes. J. Food Eng. 76,
179–187.
ÇENGEL, Y.A. 2003. Heat transfer: A practical approach. In
Mechanical Engineering, McGraw-Hill series, 2nd Ed. (Y.A.
Çengel, ed.) pp. 95–435, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 37 (2013) 489–495 © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View publication stats
SOLAR DRYER FOR USE IN FOOD
CHEN, H., HERNÁNDEZ, C. and HUANG, T. 2005. A study of
the drying effect on lemon slices using a closed-type solar
dryer. Solar Ener. 78, 97–103.
EL-SEBAII, A.A., ABOUL-ENEIN, S., RAMADAN, M.R.I. and
EL-GOHARY, H.G. 2002. Experimental investigation of an
indirect type natural convection solar dryer. Ener. Convers.
Manag. 43, 2251–2266.
GEANKOPLIS, C.J. 2003. Transport Processes and Separation
Process Principles, 4th Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
JURAN, J.M., GRYNA, F.M. and BINGHAM, R.S. 1998.
Quality Control Handbook, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
LASH, T.L. and FINK, A.K. 2003. Semi-automated sensitivity
analysis to assess systematic errors in observational data.
Epidemiology 14, 451–458.
NARVAIZA, J.L., LAKA, J.P., MADARIAGA, J.A. and UGARTE,
J.V. 2005. Estadística descriptiva y Probabilidad, 4th Ed., Désclee
De Brouwer, Bilbao, Spain.
PANGAVHANE, D.R. and SAWHNEY, R.L. 2002. Review of
research and development work on solar dryers for grape
drying. Ener. Convers. Manag. 43, 45–61.
PIACENTINI, R.D. and CORTES, A. 1983. Colectores solares a
flujo de aire empleados en el secado de productos agrícolas. In
Seminario sobre secagem de produtos agrícolas com energía solar
(Universidade Estadual de Campinas, ed.) pp. 87–132,
UNICAMP, Campinas, SP, Brasil.
RUSSON, J.K., DUNN, M.L. and STEELE, F.M. 2009.
Optimization of a convective air flow solar food dryer. Int. J.
Food Eng. 5, 1–11.
SAGAR, V.R. and KUMAR, P.S. 2010. Recent advances in drying
and dehydration of fruits and vegetables: A review. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 47, 15–26.
SARMIENTO, S.A. and DEL MORAL, M.C. 2006. Influencia de la
orientación de los colectores solares en la captación de energía,
Centro de Estudio de Tecnologías Energéticas Renovables
(CETER), Ciudad de La Habana, Cuba.
TRIPATHY, P.P. and KUMAR, S. 2011. Different approaches for
mass transfer studies on potato cylinders and slices during solar
drying. Int. J. Food Eng. 7, 1–20.
495