Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 62

Drying Technology

An International Journal

ISSN: 0737-3937 (Print) 1532-2300 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldrt20

Experimental and Fundamental Critical Analysis of


Diffusion Model of Airflow Drying

T. H. Nguyen, J.-L. Lanoisellé, T. Allaf & K. Allaf

To cite this article: T. H. Nguyen, J.-L. Lanoisellé, T. Allaf & K. Allaf (2016): Experimental and
Fundamental Critical Analysis of Diffusion Model of Airflow Drying, Drying Technology, DOI:
10.1080/07373937.2016.1155052

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2016.1155052

Accepted author version posted online: 16


Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ldrt20

Download by: [Library Services City University London] Date: 19 March 2016, At: 10:51
Experimental and fundamental critical analysis of diffusion model of airflow
drying

T.H. Nguyen 1,2,4 , J.-L. Lanoisellé 1 , T. Allaf 3 , K. Allaf 2


1
Univ. Bretagne Sud, Pontivy, France, 2University of La Rochelle, La Rochelle cedex,
France, 3ABCAR DIC Process, La Rochelle, France,4Hanoi University of Science and
Technology, Ha noi, Viet nam

Corresponding Author: E-mail: ha.nguyenthu3@hust.edu.vn


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Abstract

Scientific literature of agro-material drying presents contradictory conclusions in terms of

the kinetic effect of airflow velocity. Some authors confirmed that it does not trigger any

modification of drying; while some articles tried to establish empirical models of the

effective diffusivity Deff versus the airflow velocity; what is fundamentally erroneous. By

analyzing internal and external transfer phenomena, this research aimed at recognizing

that once air velocity is higher than a Critical Airflow Velocity CAV, the internal

transfers become the limiting phenomenon. CAV depends on the effective diffusivity and

the product size. It was calculated in the cases of two studied raw materials (apple and

carrot), differently textured by Instant controlled pressure drop DIC. Values of CAV

greatly depend on diffusivity of water within the matrix. At temperature T = 40 °C, they

were 1 m/s for untreated carrot and 2.1 m/s for DIC textured carrot, whose Deff values

were 1.31 and about 3 10-10 m2 s-1, respectively. Also, at temperature T = 40 °C, they

were 2.1 m/s for untreated apple and 3 m/s for DIC textured apple, whose Deff were 1.4

and about 10.4 10-10 m2 s-1, respectively.

1
KEYWORDS: Drying kinetic model, heat transfer, mass transfer, agro-material, Critical

Airflow Velocity CAV

1. INTRODUCTION

Drying is a complex operation; it includes simultaneous phenomena of internal and

external, heat and mass transfers. It is frequently assumed that, based on the drying rate,
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

drying operation can be divided into three periods [1]: 1) an initial unsteady rate,

warming-up, 2) a constant-rate, and 3) falling-rate.

Nevertheless, Rizvi [2] postulated that the constant-rate period, which only would exist in

some rare food systems, should be correlated with internal liquid water movement likely

controlled by weight forces. Though, within structured foods, water transfer is achieved

through complex internal capillary and diffusion liquid movement. Reaching the

interaction surface, water can be evaporated with a rate depending on airflow parameters.

When this last is adequately intensified, surface is not immediately replenished by liquid

water from the interior of the material [3]. Such drying cases are likely to perform without

exhibiting any constant-rate period. In fact, the experimental study on several products

noted that the drying kinetics was only the falling-rate period; such as: wood [4]; grape[5,
6]
; cassava, ginger and okra [7]; tomato [8, 9]; tapioca root [10]; sugar beet root [11]; avocado
[12]
; fish[13, 14]; leaves [15, 16]; herbs [17]; grains and oilseeds [18]; date palm [19]; apple [20, 21];

chilli [22, 23], green peas [24].

2
In the analysis of the drying rate, the impact of airflow velocity should take place in

terms of value but also the type and even, for perpendicular flows, the distance between

nozzles and products. However, in the present work, we limited our approach to a first

simplistic study of air velocity on the drying rate:

1. In some studies, no discernible effect of the airflow type and velocity on the

drying rate was observed in the range 0.5-2.5 m/s for potatoes ; 1-2 m/s for pistachios ;
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

0.5-1 m/s cross flow for garlics [27]; 1.5-2.6 m/s for vegetables [28], etc.

2. However, other studies revealed that drying rate increases with increasing air

velocity. This was obtained in the range of 0.2-1.5 m/s for apricots [29]; 0.5-1 m/s cross

flow for carrot [30]; 0.25-1 m/s for grape [31]; 0.3-0.7 m/s for banana in a counter-current

dryer [32], 1.4-2.7 m/s for chestnut[33], co-current flow at 0.6-1.8 m/s for apple [34] and at

0.64-2.75 m/s for apple [35], etc.

3. Finally, some works [36-42] stipulated that the effect of this air velocity is efficient

only below a limited value (). Although scarce, these observations are the most coherent

because an increasing of airflow velocity implies a decreasing of external resistance. This

induces a higher drying rate. Nevertheless, once the value of this external resistance is

lower than internal resistance, internal mass transfer becomes the limiting phenomenon.

Higher airflow velocities do not have effect on drying kinetics. From the Table 1, it

would be possible to estimate this critical airflow velocity CAV between 1 and 3 m/s

(depending on the product nature, structure and shape/size, as well as temperature and

air-humidity).

Table 1. The critical air velocity CAV value.

3
2. MODELING

2.1. State Of Art

Only once airflow velocity value is higher than CAV, drying is diffusion-controlled

process. Then, the effective moisture diffusivity inside the matrix can be deduced from

experimental results issued from drying curves (W = f(t)). Quantification of diffusivity

can not perform without proving that external transfer resistance is lower than internal
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

diffusion resistance. This inevitably should imply to analyze drying kinetics and achieve

comparison between airflow conditions and internal diffusion.

Several surveys on drying of fruits and vegetables under suitable drying conditions

proposed diffusivity values ranged from 10-9 to 10-11 m2/s at temperature 50 °C [43]. They

varied for apricots from 5.59 to 6.51 10-9 m2/s over temperature range of 50–80 °C

dependently on airflow rate range of 0.2–1.5 m/s [29], for red peppers from 3.723 to

9.961 10-10 m2/s in the temperature range of 50 to 70 °C independently on through-flow

air velocity of 0.5 m/s [44], for figs from 1.33 to 3.36 10-9 m2/s at 55–85 °C for airflow

velocity ranged in 0.5–3 m/s [39], and for kiwi from 3.00 to 17.21 10-10 m2/s at 30 and

90 °C, respectively for air velocity of 2.3 m/s [45]. These results proved that, normally the

effective diffusivity systematically depends on the temperature. In some cases, such as

Simal et al. [46] using the drying experiment performed at 90 °C with 0.020 m broccoli

stems; Tong and Lund [47] on white bread, plain sheet muffin, and baking powder biscuit

at temperatures between 20 and 100 °C; Garau et al. [48] on the orange skin within the

interval of temperatures and moisture contents comprised between 30 and 90 °C, and

0.25 and 3.66 kg water/kg db, respectively, it was presented also depending on water

4
content. In all these studies, the authors should have assumed the process as an internal

diffusion-controlled operation. Indeed, it is worth noting that too numerous authors

presented the effective diffusivity depending on airflow velocity. Such as Akpinar and

Dincer [49] on eggplant slices with 5 mm thickness and 35 mm diameter during drying at

the temperatures of 55, 65, and 75 °C and the velocities of 1.0 and 1.5 m/s, respectively;

Benhamou et al. [50] on marjoram leaves at three temperatures (40, 50 and 60 °C) and two
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

air flow (0.0227 and 0.0556 m3/s); Guan et al. [51] on tilapia fillets at the drying

temperature (35, 45 and 55 °C), hot air velocity (1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 m/s) and thickness (3, 5

and 7 mm). Also, Jin Park et al. [52] on mint leaves at the temperatures of 30, 40, and

50 °C and the velocities of 0.5 and 1.0 m/s; Kaya et al. [20] on apple using air

temperatures at 35, 45 and 55 °C, velocities at 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 m/s and relative humidity

values at 40%, 55% and 70%; Nicoleti et al. [53] on pineapple at the air velocity varied

from 1.5 to 2.5 m/s and the air temperature from 40 to 70 °C; Motevali et al. [54] on jujube

at temperature levels of 50, 60 and 70 ºC and hot air velocities of 0.5, 1 and 1.5 m/s;

Toğrul and Pehlivan [29] on apricot at a variety of flow rates (0.2, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 m/s)

and temperatures (50, 60, 70 and 80 °C). These authors presented an effective diffusivity

increasing with surrounding airflow velocity. Even more, some other authors; such as

Abbaszadeh et al. [55] on russian olive at air velocity of 0.5, 1 and 1.5 m/s and three air

temperature levels of 50, 60 and 70 °C; Aghbashlo et al. [56] on beriberi at temperature

from 50 to 70 °C with drying air velocities of 0.5–2 m/s concluded that the effective

diffusivity decreased when the air velocity increased.

5
Additionally, Babalis and Belessiotis [39], Clemente et al. [42], Clemente et al. [57] Blasco
[58]
presented their respective works on figs in the temperature range of 55–85 °C and the

airflow ranged in 0.5–3 m/s, pork under forced convection conditions (25 °C and air

velocity of 0.6 ± 0.1, 2.0 ± 0.1 and 2.8 ± 0.1 m/s), potato cubes of 1 cm side at 60 ºC and

0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4.5, 7, 8 and 10 m/s, and curcuma longa rhizomes at 100 ºC and air rates

of 0.2, 0.5, 0.7, 1.2, 2.1, 2.6, 3 and 4 m/s. They concluded that airflow velocity also
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

affected effective diffusivity. Undeniably, their work should not allow identifying the

diffusivity because it was performed at airflow velocity lower than CAV (critical airflow

velocity), which was identified to be 2 m/s according to the first three authors and from 1

to 2 m/s according to the last one. However, we do not agree with these authors that they

calculated the effective diffusivity at all values of air velocity. Indeed, drying process

cannot be used to determine the effective diffusivity without proving that the operation is

independent on airflow velocity, which means it is internal diffusion controlled process.

Thus, increasing velocity cannot accelerate the drying process. Then, it is worth noting

that:

When the airflow velocity is lower than CAV, the drying kinetics does not allow

accessing to the diffusion because drying is "controlled" by the external transfer.

When the airflow velocity is higher than CAV, the drying kinetics is "controlled"

by the internal transfer and effective diffusion is the limited phenomenon. Then, it is

possible to calculate the effective diffusivity from the drying kinetics.

CAV depends on the effective diffusivity, sample frame and size, and airflow humidity.

However, how can we know when internal diffusion is the limited phenomenon? Little

6
research attempted to answer this question. Marinos-Kouris and Maroulis [59] define a

dimensionless parameter similar to Biot number. Their model takes into account the

controlling mechanisms of heat and mass transfers. The transport properties (water and

thermal diffusivities, boundary heat and mass transfer coefficients) are included in the

model as parameters. The model considered has the following form:

Moisture diffusion into the solid:


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

ρW
ρD W (1)
t

a1 a2
D a 0 exp exp (2)
W T

Boundary layer vapor transfer:

ρD W k a we a w (3)

In this Eq. 3, one has to keep in mind that during the drying process the water activity to

be considered is that of the surface, which normally is different than global water activity

of the material[60].
c3
k c0 Wairc1 Tairc2 v air (4)

Heat conduction in the solid:

ρh s
kc T (5)
t

b1 b2
kc b0 exp exp (6)
W T

Boundary layer heat transfer:

kc T h T Tair Hs k a we a w (7)

7
d1 d 2 d 3
k d 0 Wair Tair v air (8)

Limited conditions such as initial water content, temperature, and thickness of material,

as well as airflow humidity, temperature, and velocity are also considered in the final

solution. Then the constants of the relative empirical equations are considered as model

parameters. In order to simplify the drying model, the heat and mass transfer–controlled

mechanism could be identified. Heat and mass transfer–controlled mechanism can be


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

deduced directly from differential transfer equations when rewritten in term of

dimensionless variables [61], using Biot numbers:

ρair k eq kcL
Bi m (9)
ρβ0 Deff 0

Wair,i
Wβe dWβi
Wβi
k eq (10)
Wβ 0 Wβ0 Wβe

Where: Bim is the modified mass transfer Biot number proposed by Cdrdova-Quiroz et al.
[62]

The experiments of Pavón-Melendez et al.[61] show that if Bim keq·(X 0 - X e) the

resistance of convection mass transfer at the interface is slower than that of diffusion

mass transfer in the interior of food, and therefore the phenomenon is diffusion

controlled. Under these conditions the external properties or variables, such as air

moisture or air velocity have no effect over drying kinetics. If Bim << Keq·(X 0 - X e) the

mass transfer is external convection controlled, and therefore under these conditions air

velocity and moisture are the most significant drying variables.

8
Ruiz-López et al. [63] and Barati and Esfahani [64] assumed that mass transfer mechanisms

during food drying were the following:

2
Wβ Wβ
Deff (11)
t z2


Deff ρβ |z d kρair Wj Wair (12)
z


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

|z 0 0 (13)
z

Wβ z,0 W0 (14)

The mass transfer coefficient k at the food interface is computed versus Re and Sc using

the following equation:

Dair
k 2 0.522 Re0.5 Sc0.33 (15)
L

The interface water content Wj may be calculated from following relation:

0.622p w,Ts a w
Wj (16)
Ptotal p w,Ts a w

Here, aw is the water activity of the material (and not only at the surface, as we stipulated

later )). The diffusivity is determined as the second Fick's law coefficient. By using

the equations from to one can calculate the air limit velocity.

2.2. Fundamental

Respecting the phenomenological drying model defined by Allaf and Allaf [65], drying

curve should systematically be divided into three stages: 1) a first surface interaction

9
stage; 2) an internal liquid water movement stage; and 3) an internal vapor water

movement stage.

This last is the famous paradoxical stage where both temperature and vapor pressure

gradients are directed from the product surface towards the core. Drying is then done by

progressive low water activity front. Normally, no shrinkage accompanies this third
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

stage.

As described by Allaf and Allaf [65], the first surface interaction stage systematically takes

place whatever the material structure is. The only way to get this stage as a constant-rate

period is to get a drying operation only controlled by the external interaction between

airflow and the product surface as the limiting process. This means that material should

avoid shrinkage and maintain constant both interaction surface and its water activity; it is

possible with pure liquid water.

In the most conventional drying cases, the intensification of airflow conditions are easily

carried out by increasing temperature, velocity and dryness of hot air. This results in a

rapid and efficient surface drying, which habitually would decrease water activity and

imply shrinkage. Therefore, consistently, the first stage of surface interaction period is

also a falling rate phase.

The next stage, in which the internal liquid water movement is controlling (as a limiting

process) the drying operation, is systematically a falling rate phase. Thus, the internal

10
liquid water transfer is usually considered as the limiting process, thus controlling the

main part of the entire drying operation. Various phenomena occur to ensure water

transfer from inside the product to the surface, such as gravity force, capillary, molecular

diffusion, etc.

At this respect, Allaf et al. [66] proposed the operation of drying as divided into four
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

processes, which are:

The heat transfer from the external environment to the exchange surface,

The heat transfer within the products,

The transfer of the liquid substance and / or steam, from the products to its

exchange surface,

Then the transport of water in vapor form to the external environment.

To understand more easily these processes, authors usually classify them into two

categories: 1) external transfer processes between the outside and the surface of the

product, and 2) process for which internal transfers between the exchange surface and the

product core.

In process 1: External heat transfer (convection) and vapor transport occur at the

exchange surface through the action of the air stream. The drying rate can be constant,

only when a) it takes into account the impact of shrinkage, b) there is no decrease in

water activity on the surface, and c) the evaporation rate at the surface is not limited by

11
the whole internal mass transfer. This last means that the limiting processes should then

be due to the external heat transfer and mass airflow evaporation.

This period only concerns the interaction between the airflow and the exchange surface.

It strictly depends on the gradient of vapor pressure between the exchange surface and the

airflow.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Convection heat flow generation:

Q hA Tair Ts (17)

However, Allaf [67] defined more precisely this vapor transport achieved at the surface A

by:

A p w,Ts a ws p w,air
W kρ v (18)
md Ptotal

Recently, Perré et al. [68] underlining the direct impact of the external mass and heat

transfers on the calculation of internal diffusion mass transfer coefficient from drying

kinetics. they developed a method to determine the mass diffusion coefficient in an

unsteady regime. It is based on imposing on one face a relative humidity and measuring

the humidity at the back face of the sample. Since such an operation is done

independently on any external air exchange with the surface, this new method is easy and

allows to determine the mass diffusivity by inverse analysis.

Usually, several authors tried to determine the internal diffusion mass transfer coefficient

from experimental data of drying kinetics. One can find numerous correlations in the

12
literature. Skelland [69] compiled some of them, which are based on the internal and

external heat and mass transfer analogy related to a particle shape. The most adequate

correlation for experimental conditions of the present work was that of Kays[70]:

For 500<Re<5000: Sh 0.43Re0.56Sc1/3 (19)

The characteristic dimension used for the calculation of Sh and Re numbers is defined as

the total surface area of the body divided by the perimeter of the maximum projected area
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

perpendicular to the airflow. The mass transfer coefficient k depends on the average

velocity v [37], as following:

1 2
0.56
v
3 D 3 0.56
k 0.43 v (20)
L0.44

In Process 2: Internal Heat Transfer

In airflow drying, the exchange surface temperature quickly increases to a high level and

a gradual spread of heat within the solid occurs. As previously mentioned, the presence of

water within the porous structure leads to a phenomenon of vaporization/condensation in

the holes. The heat transfer phenomenon thus generated has a temperature gradient as the

driving force. This can be reflected as a conduction-type transfer with an effective

conductivity that is much higher than the standard static value.

Internal Mass Transfer

Only when it can be assumed that external heat and mass transports do not limit the

whole operation, internal transfers become the limiting process [71]. Usually, increasing

13
temperature, velocity and airflow dryness can easily intensify the external transports. In

these conditions, as water transfer within the product becomes the principal restricting

factor for the drying kinetics, the model of Mounir and Allaf [72] can be adopted, with a

Fick-type relation [67]:

ρw ρw
vw vm Deff (21)
ρm ρm
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Heat and water can be transferred between the matrix and its environment in opposite

directions. Heat can be transferred by contact, convection, and/or radiation, or generated

by microwaves. In the airflow drying process, the heat flux depends on the temperature

and velocity of the surrounding medium (air). Thus, the higher the air temperature, the

higher the gradient of vapor pressure in the surrounding medium. However, the

temperature level must be limited to avoid thermal superficial degradation and/or

crusting. Another important airflow parameter is the humidity content, which must be

kept as low as possible, this depends on biological material and technical resources. By

using appropriate desiccators or by lowering the temperature before heating (e.g., with a

heating pump system), this important airflow parameter can be also controlled. However,

an airflow that is too dry may induce a specific degradation of the product surface both in

terms of quality and functionality aspects.

Nevertheless, airflow velocity is the main parameter that has to properly control to safely

obtain an appropriate external intensification. The higher the rate v, the higher the

Reynolds’s number Re, the heat h and mass convection coefficients k. Conversely,

external intensification is no longer relevant when the internal Fick’s diffusion mass

14
transfer becomes the limiting process. Thus, the impact of airflow rate stops once it

reaches a critical level vl corresponding to the critical value kl of the mass convection

coefficient [65].

To avoid the external convection transfer to become the limiting process, the following

conditions should be satisfied:


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

p w,Ts a w,s p w,air


ρw vw A z zsurface
 kρ v A (22)
Ptotal

dρ w p w,Ts a w,s p w,air


Deff A kρv A (23)
dz z zsurface Ptotal

dρ w
Deff Ptotal
dz z zsurface
k lim (24)
ρ v p w,Ts a w,s p w,air  

From this last equation, it is possible to identify the Critical Airflow Velocity CAV:

1.78
dρ w
0.56
1 Ptotal Deff
3
L0.44 dz z zsurface
CAV 2.33 2 2/3
(25)
0.56
3
D vapor air p w,Ts a w,s p w,air
v

Once airflow velocity is higher than CAV, drying becomes diffusion-controlled process.

However, another aspect has to be considered; it is the initial interaction between hot air

and the superficial zone of the product. Allaf et al. [66] introduced the concept of “starting

accessibility Ws” revealing this “washing” stage in a unique Coupled

Washing/Diffusion CWD model. The effective diffusivity was then determined based on

the second Fick's law. However, the phenomenological model of diffusion cannot

15
normally fit all the experimental data of drying because of the inevitable presence of an

initial interaction between airflow and the surface of the product during the first stage of

drying [65]. The only experimental data which are able to insert in such measurements of

second Fick’s law should be limited to time t > t1 to remove all washing-stage data, and

the part of drying where internal vapor transfer can be assumed to be negligible compared

to liquid water diffusion. Indeed, internal vapor transfer has a specific behavior with the
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

gradient of vapor pressure as driving force. Since vapor pressure is strictly function of

temperature independently of concentration, this part follows a paradoxical behavior and

can not be revealed through normal simple diffusion equation. Without excluding this

paradoxical part of drying kinetics, Perré [60] introduced a dimensionless number, the

Drying Intensity Number to chose the right level of modeling, depending on the drying

configuration.

The present research aimed at performing an experimental study of dehydration kinetics

of two types of products (carrot and apple). Our objective was to compare the impacts of

Traditional Hot Air Drying (THAD), and Swell- Drying (SD), which combines Instant

Controlled Pressure Drop (DIC) texturing treatment with conventional hot air drying.

Moreover, another Specific Controlled-Product SCP getting a very high internal

diffusivity was studied to compare these different situations.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Materials

16
Three types of materials were studied. They were carrot and apple bought from a local

supermarket at La Rochelle, France, and a Specific Controlled-Product SCP whose

internal diffusivity is very high. Carrot and apple were washed, peeled and cut into 0.8

cm thickness slices and 1 cm cube, respectively, similar to SCP. Initial water content was

634 ± 62% db (dry basis) for carrot, 656 ± 55% db for apple, and 7200 ± 43% db for

SCP.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

In order to obtain various diffusivity values, carrot and apple were treated at different

DIC conditions. Based on previous studies [73-75] and preliminary trials, the samples of

carrot and apple were dried at 45 °C till a water content of 25 ± 1% db for carrot,

15 ± 1% db for apple, to be treated by DIC (Détente Instantanée Contrôlée; French for

"Instant controlled pressure drop") followed by THAD final drying. THAD was carried

out on 5 samples of these DIC-textured and unprocessed apple and carrot samples (Table

1). The drying protocol is given in Figure 1.

Table 1. DIC operating parameters for the 5 experiment points of apple and carrot.

3.2. Treatment Processes

3.2.1. Description And Principle Of DIC

DIC reactor was defined and presented in various papers [65, 76, 77]. It includes three main

parts: a processing vessel, a vacuum tank and an instantaneous opening valve.

17
DIC treatment includes two main steps: establishment of high steam pressure (between

0.1 and 0.5 MPa), and an instant releasing of pressure towards a vacuum of about 5 kPa.

During the first step, the product is exposed to high temperature for a treatment time of

10 to 20 s. The second stage is carried out with a pressure drop rate higher than

5 105 Pa/s. In the present study, DIC absolute steam pressure in the treatment chamber P

and the high temperature treatment time t were adjusted, while the other DIC operating
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

parameters were kept constant. Five samples of differently DIC textured and one

untextured carrot and apple were studied (Table 2).

3.2.2. Description And Principle Of Set Up Dryer

Material was dried in the static dryer (Figure 2). The compressed air passes through

pneumatic valves (1,2) and then goes to the heater (3). Hot airflow is uniformly

distributed (4) perpendicularly to the samples in the tray (5). The GP-Pro Ex 2.5 Software

(Pro-face, Digital Electronics Corporation, Osaka, Japan) was used for programming and

monitoring the dryer. Drying was automatically performed using pre-selected parameters

of airflow temperature and velocity. Mass evolution was evaluated manually during the

operation.

3.2.3. Design Of Experiments (Doe) Methodology

For different situations, specific Design of Experiments (DoE) can be adopted in order to

get the highest efficiency with the lowest number of trials. To study and analyze the

drying operating parameters, central composite experiment method was adopted. In this

research, two operating parameters were studied: the airflow temperature T and velocity

18
v. The air humidity was kept constant at a vapor pressure of 265 Pa. The experiments

were performed following the operating conditions defined in Table 2.

Table 2. Levels of independent variables of airflow drying (temperature, velocity) in a 2-

parameter, 5-level Design of Experiments DoE


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

After preliminary experiments, we achieved the drying processes following specific DoE

with air velocity ranged from 3 to 15 m/s at various temperature values ranged from 20 to

60 ºC for apple, carrot, and Specific Controlled-Product SCP. Other complement study

was carried out at a constant temperature of 40 ºC, with airflow velocity at different

values ranged from 1 to 15 m/s for different samples of carrot and apple, and for SCP.

The treatment of results was executed by using STATGRAPHICS® software for

Windows® (Statgraphics centurion XV, StatPoint Technologies, Inc., USA), for each

response (dependent variable Y). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is retained to select

significant differences between operating parameters considered as independent variables

xi (P ≤ 0.10). Pareto chart is introduced to more conveniently reveal this aspect and used

to more clearly present the significance level of independent variables. This can

otherwise be verified by R² of the second-order polynomial expression used as a

prediction empirical model of the response parameter Y versus the independent variables

xi:

n n n
Y βo βi x i βii x 2
i βij x i x j ε 0 (26)
i 1 i 1 i 1

19
Where: β o , β i , β ii and β ij are the regression coefficients, and ε 0 the random error. Trends

and response surface, as well as Response Surface Methodology can also be used for

expressing Y vs different xi.

3.3. Assessment Methods And Drying Parameters

When the airflow velocity is higher than the CAV, drying should be diffusion-controlled
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

process after a first airflow/interaction surface stage. Coupled Washing/Diffusion CWD

model was defined through the three parameters of the final equilibrium water content

dry basis W∞, the effective diffusivity Deff, and the “starting accessibility Ws”. This last

is assumed to be carried out through a short time air/surface interaction coupled to a long

time diffusion process.

3.3.1. Effective Diffusivity Deff

The effective diffusivity Deff should be determined based on the second Fick's law, which

uses the relationship with the reduced water content MR as a dependent variable, can be

calculated as established by Allaf et al. [66].

The samples were assumed to be infinite slab (thickness of 7 mm versus 1500 mm2 as

surface for apple and thickness of 5 mm versus 1000 mm2 as surface for carrot). We

assumed that (1) the system was isotropic and uniform in terms of initial water content,

temperature, and structure, (2) there was no shrinkage of the product [78]. This gives the

diffusion coefficient expressed as:

20
2
W W 8 1 2n 1 π2 Deff t t1
exp (27)
W1 W π2 n 0 2n 1
2
4d 2

3.3.2. Starting Accessibility Ws

The diffusion model concerns are only for t > t1, the extrapolated value computed at t = 0

of water content Wo has a distinct value from the real initial water content Wi. The
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

difference is defined as the starting accessibility δWs expressed as % db or g H2O/g db


[66]
:

δWs  Wi Wo (28)

It represents that the water quickly removed from the surface independently from the

diffusion process. The starting accessibility δWs is defined to reveal the specific effect of

the surface-hot air interaction. It normally should be positive δWs > 0.

3.3.3. Mass Transfer Coefficient K

According Allaf [67] the convective mass transfer coefficient k , can be calculated by

equation or:

A p w,Ts a w,s p w,air


δWs k ρ v δt (29)
md Ptotal

With p w , Ts can be estimated from Antoine empirical model:

1681
10.09938
Ts 43.037
p w, Ts 10 (30)

If a w ,s 1 and p w ,air is very small, leads to:

21
δWs
k Ptotal (31)
A
ρv p δt
m d w ,Ts

The t can be easily calculated from the kinetics drying when we carry out continuous

experiments. In our case, we got t = t1.

4. RESULTS
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

4.1. Drying Operation

The drying kinetics was studied for the experimental plan in Table 2. Drying curves of

raw material (control) and the DIC sampled at T = 40 °C, v = 9 m/s are given in Figure 3.

It is clear that the DIC texturing stage have a significant influence on the drying kinetics.

As shown in the Figure 3, the drying time of all SD samples was shorter than control. The

necessary time to reach 5% db for SD sampled at 0.5 MPa for 15 s (DIC 1) was about

93 min, while control sample needs 470 min (Table 3). Nguyen et al. [79] obtained a

higher absolute expansion for higher both saturated steam pressure and processing time.

The higher the product porosity, the higher the water effective diffusivity.

We also studied the effect of air velocity on the drying kinetics of apple and carrot at air

temperature T = 40 °C and velocity varying from 1 to 15 m/s. By experimenting with

different points, we note that CAV was 1 m/s for untreated carrot and 2.1 m/s for carrot

expanded at the following DIC conditions: 0.35 MPa for 15 s, 0.2 MPa for 15 s,

0.15 MPa for 10 s, or 0.1 MPa for 10 s. CAV reached 3 m/s for carrot DIC expanded at

0.5 MPa for 15 s. Similar results were obtained with apple. CAV was 2.1 m/s for

22
untreated apple and 3 m/s for all DIC textured apple samples between 0.1 and 0.5 MPa

for 15 s to 20 s.

Conversely, SCP has a very specific behavior and its diffusivity was not accessible

because its kinetics systematically depended on air velocity (Figure 4). In all our drying

conditions, the extern transfers controlled drying process of SCP, and Critical Airflow
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Velocity CAV should have been higher than the highest experimental value we

used: 15 m/s.

4.2. Drying Response Parameters

According to Coupled Washing/Diffusion CWD model, effective diffusivity, starting

accessibility, as well as mass transfer coefficient k were calculated from drying curves

(W = f(t)) obtained only for airflow velocity higher than CAV, for both carrot and apple.

It was not possible to reach such condition for Specific Controlled-Product SCP.

4.2.1. Apple

4.2.1.1. The Effective Diffusivity Deff

The results presented in Table 3 indicate that the effective diffusivity Deff of dried apple

was ranged from 0.67 to 2.76 10-10 m2 s-1, which is in agreement with those reported by

other authors. Such as Kaya et al. [20] reported Deff value from 0.483 to 2.019 10-10 m2 s-1

and Velić et al. [35] obtained Deff value for apple between 1.7 and 4.4 10−9 m2 s-1.

23
After DIC texturing stage in SD, the effective diffusivity was improved by DIC caused

expanding the structure apple. It varied in the range of 10.02 10-10 to 32.79 10-10 m² s-1.

DIC texturing allowed effective diffusivity to be ten to fifteen times greater than

untreated sample. As example, DIC 1 sample (P = 0.5 MPa, t = 15 s) dried at 60 °C and

velocity at 9 m/s increased the effective diffusivity by 12.6 times compared to the

control’s (32.79 10-10 instead of 2.6 10-10 m2 s-1).


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Table 3. Results of evaluated drying kinetics parameters of apple: drying time to reach a

final water content of 5% db (td5%), effective diffusivity (Deff), starting accessibility

( Ws), mass transfer coefficient (k). The correlation coefficient (R2) between the

experimental and predicted data value of the model is always higher than 97.5%

They were statistically analyzed using STAGRAPHICHS, with ln(Deff) as response

(dependent variable) and v (m s-1) and 1/T (K-1) as independent parameters. General

trends (Figure 5) illustrates that 1/T as parameter had significant linear influence on

ln(Deff) of apple for DIC 1 sample (P = 0.5 MPa, t = 15 s). ln(Deff) was completely

independent on airflow velocity (from 3 to 15 m/s).

The empirical equation of the logarithm of the effective diffusivity for DIC 1 on

temperature had a high regression coefficient (R2 = 98.17%), which is described by

equation as follows:

2981.86
ln(Deff ) 10.5216 (32)
T

24
Thus, the effective diffusivity for DIC 1 is Arrhenius-similar model:

24791
Deff 2.69510 5 exp (33)
RT

Where Deff is expressed in 10-10 m2 s-1 and T in K. The experimental results fit well this

empirical model.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

4.2.1.2. Starting Accessibility Ws

According to CWD model, starting accessibility should play a key-role in the airflow

drying process. As presented in Table 3, after DIC texturing stage, the starting

accessibility was systematically greater up to 2.3 times more than untreated sample. From

Pareto chart in Figure 6, it is possible to identify the most significant effects on the

starting accessibility for DIC 1 sample as due to the air temperature T. The higher the

temperature, the higher the starting accessibility. Moreover, the air velocity v and T2

effects were very weak (as we can have from ANOVA: P-value = 0.088 for v and P-

value = 0.093 for T2).

The empirical equation was calculated to express the effective diffusivity of DIC 1 versus

the drying operative parameters. It was established with a regression coefficient

R2 =77.49%:

δWs   1.14   0.083T   0.038v   0.0008T 2 (34)

Where Ws is expressed in % db, T in ºC and v in m/s.

The experimental results fit this empirical model (Figure 6).

25
4.2.1.3. Mass Transfer Coefficient K

Mass transfer coefficient k was defined in . It should decrease when temperature

increases, and be higher for higher airflow velocity because of Ws evolution versus v.

Figure 7 indicates from general trends, the mass transfer coefficient was effected

inversely by the temperature and directly by the air velocity.


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Statistical analysis of the experimental design in the studied ranges of processing

parameters allowed identifying the prediction models for the masse transfer coefficient

with R2 = 78.02%:

k 2.13 0.033T 0.05v (35)

Where k is expressed in m/s, T in ºC and v in m/s.

Figure 7 shows that the experimental results fit this empirical model.

4.2.2. Carrot

4.2.2.1. The Effective Diffusivity Deff

Carrot Deff values presented in Table 4 are ranged from 0.7 to 2 10-10 m2 s-1. This

correlates literature values located Deff between 10-11 and 10-8 m2 s-1. Srikiatden and

Roberts [80] reported Deff values of carrot core from 6.42 to 14.7 10-10 m2 s-1 and carrot

cortex from 6.68 to 11.8 10-10 m2 s-1. Zielinska and Markowski [81] obtained Deff value for

carrot between 2.58 and 20.4 10−10 m2 s-1.

26
After DIC texturing stage in SD, the effective diffusivity was improved by DIC caused

expanding the structure of carrot and apple. For carrot, DIC 1 (P = 0.5 MPa, t = 15 s)

dried at 60 °C and velocity at 9 m/s increased the effective diffusivity by 4.6 times

compared to the control’s (8.3 10-10 instead of 1.8 10-10 m2 s-1).

Table 4. Results of evaluated drying kinetics parameters of carrot: drying time to reach a
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

final water content of 5% db (td5%), effective diffusivity (Deff), starting accessibility

( Ws), mass transfer coefficient (k). The correlation coefficient (R2) between the

experimental and predicted data value of the model is always higher than 95%

Pareto chart of Figure 8 illustrated the impact of drying operating parameters on the

logarithm of the effective diffusivity for DIC 2 carrot sample (P = 0.35 MPa, t = 15 s).

ln(Deff) was completely independent on airflow velocity (from 3 to 15 m/s).

Using an empirical equation to express the logarithm of the effective diffusivity for

DIC 1 versus the drying operative parameters, the following regression model could be

established with R2 = 79.2%:

2206.46
ln Deff 14.7478 (36)
T

or the effective diffusivity for DIC 2 is an Arrhenius similar model:

18344
Deff 3.93610 7 exp (36)
RT

27
4.2.2.2. Starting Accessibility Ws

Table 4 shows that after optimized DIC texturing stage, the starting accessibility was 1.5

times greater than the untreated sample.

The standardized Pareto (Figure 9) shows that the most significant effects on the starting

accessibility for DIC 1 (P = 0.5 MPa, t = 15 s) sample were due to the air temperature T,
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

and, more weakly, the air velocity v.

The empirical equation was calculated to express the starting accessibility of DIC 1

versus the drying operative parameters. It was established with a regression coefficient

R2 = 77.88%:

δWs   1 .6   0.013T   0.086v   0.0027Tv (37)

4.2.2.3. Mass Transfer Coefficient K

Figure 10 gives an effective negative effect of temperature on the mass transfer

coefficient k.

Statistical analysis of the experimental design in the studied ranges of processing

parameters allowed identifying the prediction models for the masse transfer coefficient of

DIC 1 with R2 = 85.92%:

k 5.418 0.0835T (38)

Where k is expressed in m/s, T in °C.

28
The difference of behaviors of apple and carrot ( and , respectively) would be connected

with the excessive impact of temperature directly acting on vapor pressure, while the

airflow velocity takes place at factor about v0.56 . Future research work shall be conducted

with a wide range of airflow velocity v and at determined value of temperature.

5. CONCLUSION
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

The drying kinetics of carrot, apple and a very high-diffusivity Specific Controlled-

Product SCP were studied. Our objectives were to identify the strict conditions of

adopting hot air drying HAD as diffusion-controlled operation. The concept of Critical

Airflow Velocity CAV has been defined. As long as hot air velocity is lower than CAV

drying kinetics depends on airflow velocity, and drying operation cannot be a diffusion-

controlled process. This essential condition should systematically be justified prior to any

determination of effective diffusivity from drying curve. This was not respected in

numerous concerned research works.

In the present work, we defined Critical Airflow Velocity CAV as well as Coupled

Washing/Diffusion CWD as phenomenological common model for hot air drying HAD.

After studying the kinetics versus the hot air flow conditions (temperature, relative

humidity and velocity), two possibilities can take place:

The first is when the air flow velocity is less than the limiting value CAV. In these

conditions, drying operation should have the external heat and mass transfers at the

interaction surface as the limiting processes. Drying kinetics should depend on airflow

29
velocity and the internal water transfer process (“effective diffusion” from the core to the

surface) stays invisible through drying curves.

The second is when the airflow velocity is greater than the Critical Airflow

Velocity CAV. Drying kinetics does not depend on airflow velocity and the internal

transfer (effective diffusion) of liquid water becomes the limiting process. Drying should

then reveal the effective diffusion phenomenon, which becomes visible from drying
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

experimental data, and the effective moisture diffusivity Deff can be determined. So the

effective moisture diffusivity Deff should depend on the material structure and the air

temperature but must stay independent on the air velocity.

The Critical Airflow Velocity CAV is a function of the internal water diffusion within the

matrix. In this study for carrot, CAV was 1 m/s for untreated carrot and 2.1 m/s for carrot

treated at 0.35 MPa for 15 s, 0.2 MPa for 15 s, 0.15 MPa for 10 s and for 0.1 MPa for

10 s. CAV reached 3 m/s for DIC treated carrot at 0.5 MPa for 15 s. Similar results were

obtained with apple. CAV was 2.1 m/s for untreated apple and 3 m/s for all DIC textured

apple samples between 0.1 and 0.5 MPa for 15 s to 20 s. The higher the effective

diffusivity, the higher the CAV. For Specific Controlled-Product SCP, since the effective

diffusivity was very high, Critical Airflow Velocity CAV could not be identified. It

should have been higher than the highest experimental value we used: 15 m/s.

NOMENCLATURE

Ws Starting accessibility

Q Total heat flow rate exchanged at the exchange surface (W)

30
W Rate of water content evolution (% db s-1)

A Effective exchange area at the solid surface (m2)

Ai,qi Crank’s coefficients according to the geometry of solid matrix

aw Water activity of the foodstuff (-)

aws Water activity at the surface. Normally, it is different than global water activity aw

of the material during drying process (-)


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Bim Modified mass transfer Biot number

CAV Critical Airflow Velocity (m s-1)

CWD Coupled Washing/Diffusion

d Half thickness of food (m)

Dair Diffusivity of vapor into air (m2 s-1)

Deff Effective diffusivity (m2 s-1)

h Heat exchange coefficient (W m-2 °C-1)

hs Material specific enthalpy

k Mass transfer convection coefficient between the surface and the surrounding

medium (m s-1)

Keq Partition constant between food and air moisture.

L Length of food, parallel to air flow (m)

md Weight of dry matter (kg)

P Absolute saturated steam pressure (Pa)

Ptotal Ambient pressure (Pa)

pW, air Vapor pressure of airflow (Pa)

pW, Ts Equilibrium vapor pressure at Ts (Pa)

31
R universal gas constant

vL
Re Reynolds number: Re (-)

Sc Schmidt number (-) Sc (-)


v Dvapor air

kL
Sh Sherwood number (-) Sh (-)
Dvapor air
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

T Temperatures (°C)

t Time (s)

td3% Drying time to reach water content 3% db (min)

v Air velocity (m s-1)

vm Absolute velocity of solid medium (m s-1)

vw Absolute velocity of water flow within the porous medium (m s-1)

W Water content (% db)

Wair Air water content (kg water vapor/kg dry air)

Wj Interface water content (kg water vapor/kg dry air)

xi Code value of the ith variable

Y Predicted response

z Position within the food (m)

Hs Heat of vaporization of water

Greek letters

Density (kg m-3)

v Density of vapor (kg m-3)

32
ρm Apparent density of dry material (kg m-3)

ρw Apparent density of water in the material (kg m-3)

Fick’s number

0 Offset term

i Coefficient of linear effect


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

ii Coefficient of square effect

ij Coefficient of interaction effect

ε0 Random error

Subscripts

air ambient air flow

at time t

e at equilibrium

in food

0 at the beginning of the drying kinetics

1 at time t1

i initial

j in the interface food–air

p product

s surface

33
Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Government of Vietnam for the financial support given to

this research.

References

1. Mujumdar AS. Handbook of industrial drying. CRC Press: Florida, United States, 2006;
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

1308 p.

2. Rizvi SSH. Thermodynamic properties of foods in dehydration. In Engineering

Properties of Foods; Rao MA, Rizvi SSH, Datta AK, Eds., CRC Press: Florida, United

States, 2005; 239-326.

3. Mounir S; Schuck P; Allaf K. Structure and attribute modifications of spray-dried skim

milk powder treated by DIC (Instant Controlled Pressure Drop) technology. Dairy

Science & Technology 2010, 90(2-3),301-320.

4. Khouya A; Draoui A. Détermination des courbes caractéristiques de séchage de trois

espèces de bois. Revue des Energies Renouvelables 2009, 12(1),87-98.

5. Fadhel MI; Kooli S; Farhat A; Belghith A. Séchage du raisin en plein air, dans un séchoir

et sous serre Modèle mathématique et validation expérimentale. Revue des Energies

Renouvelables CICME’08 2008,127-142.

6. Masmoudi G; Hermassi I; Azzouz S; Belghith A. Caractérisation expérimentale du raisin

sultanine: Cinétique de séchage et rhéologie. Revue des Energies Renouvelables

SMSTS’08 2008,193-202

34
7. Ahouannou C; Jannot Y; Lips B; Lallemand A. Caractérisation et modélisation du

séchage de trois produits tropicaux : manioc, gingembre et gombo. Science des aliments

2000, 20(4/5),413-432.

8. Boughali S; Bouchekima B; Nadir N; Mennouche D; Bouguettaia H; Bechki D.

Expérience du séchage solaire dans le Sahara septentrional est algérien. Revue des

Energies Renouvelables SMSTS’08 Alger (2008) 2008,105-110.


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

9. Queiroz R; Gabas AL; Telis VRN. Drying Kinetics of Tomato by Using Electric

Resistance and Heat Pump Dryers. Drying Technology 2004, 22(7),1603-1620.

10. Chirife J; Cachero RA. Through-circulation drying of tapioca root. Journal of Food

Science 1970, 35(4),364-368.

11. Vaccarezza LM; Lombardi JL; Chirife J. Kinetics of moisture movement during air

drying of sugar beet root. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 1974,

9(3),317-327.

12. Alzamora SlM; Chirife J. Some factors controlling the kinetics of moisture movement

during avocado dehydration. Journal of Food Science 1980, 45(6),1649-1651.

13. Bellagha S; Amami E; Farhat A; Kechaou N. Drying kinetics and characteristic drying

curve of lightly salted sardine (Sardinella aurita). Drying Technology 2002, 20(7),1527-

1538.

14. Sarr J; Sall M; Sow ML; Kane MM. Étude expérimentale des courbes de séchage du

poisson. Journal des Sciences 2003, 3(1).

35
15. Mohamed LA; Kouhila M; Jamali A; Lahsasni S; Kechaou N; Mahrouz M. Single layer

solar drying behaviour of citrus aurantium leaves under forced convection. Energy

Conversion and Management 2005, 46(9–10),1473-1483.

16. Aghfir M; Kouhila M; Jamali A; Ait Mohamed L. Séchage solaire convectif pour la

conservation des feuilles de romarin (Rosmarinus officinalis). In JITH 2007; Bezian J-

J,Eds; Enstimac:Albi, France; 13 èmes Journées Internationales de Thermique, Albi,


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

France., Août 28-30, 2007; 5 p.

17. Belghit A; Kouhila M; Boutaleb BC. Approche expérimentale de la cinétique de séchage

de la verveine (Lippia Citriodora). Revue des Energies Renouvelables 1999, 2(2),87-97.

18. Brooker DB; Bakker-Arkema FW; Hall CW. Drying and storage of grains and oilseeds.

Springer United States, 1992; 450 p.

19. Falade KO; Abbo ES. Air-drying and rehydration characteristics of date palm (Phoenix

dactylifera L.) fruits. Journal of Food Engineering 2007, 79(2),724-730.

20. Kaya A; Aydın O; Demirtaş C. Drying kinetics of red delicious apple. Biosystems

Engineering 2007, 96(4),517-524.

21. Doymaz İ. An Experimental Study on Drying of Green Apples. Drying Technology 2009,

27(3),478-485.

22. Arora S; Bharti S; Sehgal VK. Convective Drying Kinetics of Red Chillies. Drying

Technology 2006, 24(2),189-193.

23. Gupta P; Ahmed J; Shivhare US; Raghavan GSV. Drying characteristics of red chilli

Drying Technology 2002, 20(10),1975-1987.

36
24. Pardeshi IL; Arora S; Borker PA. Thin-Layer Drying of Green Peas and Selection of a

Suitable Thin-Layer Drying Model. Drying Technology 2009, 27(2),288-295.

25. Hassini L; Smida K; Azzouz S; Belghith A. Experimental study of drying behaviour of

an agricultural product. In Drying 2002: Proceedings of the 13th International Drying

Symposium (IDS’ 2002); C. W. Cao YKP, X. D. Liu, Y. X. Qu,Eds; University of

chemical technology:China, 13th International Drying Symposium (IDS’ 2002),


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Beijing, China, August 27-30, 2002; 1457-1463.

26. Tavakolipour H. Drying kinetics of pistachio nuts (Pistacia vera L.). World Applied

Sciences Journal 2011, 12(9),1639-1646.

27. Madamba PS; Driscoll RH; Buckle KA. The thin-layer drying characteristics of garlic

slices. Journal of Food Engineering 1996, 29(1),75-97.

28. Krokida MK; Karathanos VT; Maroulis ZB; Marinos-Kouris D. Drying kinetics of some

vegetables. Journal of Food Engineering 2003, 59(4),391-403.

29. Toğrul İT; Pehlivan D. Modelling of drying kinetics of single apricot. Journal of Food

Engineering 2003, 58(1),23-32.

30. Doymaz İ. Convective air drying characteristics of thin layer carrots. Journal of Food

Engineering 2004, 61(3),359-364.

31. Sawhney RL; Pangavhane DR; Sarsavadia PN. Drying studies of single layer thompson

seedless grapes. In International Solar Food Processing Conference, Indore, India;

International Solar Food Processing Conference Indore, India, January 14-16, 2009; 19 p.

37
32. Karim MA; Hawlader MNA. Mathematical modelling and experimental investigation of

tropical fruits drying. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2005, 48(23-

24),4914-4925.

33. Moreira R; Chenlo F; Chaguri L; Vázquez G. Mathematical modelling of the drying

kinetics of chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.): Influence of the natural shells. Food and

Bioproducts Processing 2005, 83(4),306-314.


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

34. Seiiedlou S; Ghasemzadeh HR; Hamdami N; Talati F; Moghaddam M. Convective

drying of apple: mathematical modeling and determination of some quality parameters.

International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 2010(12),171-178.

35. Velić D; Planinić M; Tomas S; Bilić M. Influence of airflow velocity on kinetics of

convection apple drying. Journal of Food Engineering 2004, 64(1),97-102.

36. Mulet A; Sanjuán N; Bon J; Simal S. Drying model for highly porous hemispherical

bodies. European Food Research and Technology 1999, 210(2),80-83.

37. Mitchell TJ; Potts CS. Through-circulation drying of vegetable materials. III.—carrots.

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1958, 9(2),93-98.

38. Mulet A; Berna A; Borr M; Pinaga F. Effect of air flow rate on carrot drying. Drying

Technology 1987, 5(2),245-258.

39. Babalis SJ; Belessiotis VG. Influence of the drying conditions on the drying constants

and moisture diffusivity during the thin-layer drying of figs. Journal of Food Engineering

2004, 65(3),449-458.

38
40. Mathioulakis E; Karathanos VT; Belessiotis VG. Simulation of air movement in a dryer

by computational fluid dynamics: Application for the drying of fruits. Journal of Food

Engineering 1998, 36(2),183-200.

41. Rossello C; Canellas J; Simal S; Berna A. Simple mathematical model to predict the

drying rates of potatoes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1992, 40(12),2374-

2378.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

42. Clemente G; Frías A; Sanjuan N; Benedito J; Mulet A. Influence of air velocity in

dehydration of potato cubes. In III European Drying Conference (EuroDrying’2011);

Rosselló C,Eds; European Drying Conference - EuroDrying'2011, Palma, Mallorca,

Spain, October 26-28 2011; 3 p.

43. Chareau A; Cavaillé R. Théorie et calculs. Techniques de l’Ingénieur 1995, J2480,25 p.

44. Sanjuán N; Lozano M; García-Pascual P; Mulet A. Dehydration kinetics of red pepper

(Capsicum annuum L var Jaranda). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture

2003, 83(7),697-701.

45. Simal S; Femenia A; Garau MC; Rosselló C. Use of exponential, Page's and diffusional

models to simulate the drying kinetics of kiwi fruit. Journal of Food Engineering 2005,

66(3),323-328.

46. Simal S; Rosselló C; Berna A; Mulet A. Drying of shrinking cylinder-shaped bodies.

Journal of Food Engineering 1998, 37(4),423-435.

47. Tong CH; Lund DB. Effective moisture diffusivity in porous materials as a function of

temperature and moisture content. Biotechnology Progress 1990, 6(1),67-75.

39
48. Garau MC; Simal S; Femenia A; Rosselló C. Drying of orange skin: drying kinetics

modelling and functional properties. Journal of Food Engineering 2006, 75(2),288-295.

49. Akpinar EK; Dincer I. Moisture transfer models for slabs drying. International

Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 2005, 32(1-2),80-93.

50. Benhamou A; Idlimam A; Lamharrar A; Benyoucef B; Kouhila M. Diffusivité hydrique

et cinétique de séchage solaire en convection forcée des feuilles de marjolaine. Revue des
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Energies renouvelables 2008, 11(1),75-85.

51. Guan Z; Wang X; Li M; Jiang X. Mathematical modeling on hot air drying of thin layer

fresh tilapia fillets. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 2013, 63(1).

52. Jin Park K; Vohnikova Z; Pedro Reis Brod F. Evaluation of drying parameters and

desorption isotherms of garden mint leaves (Mentha crispa L.). Journal of Food

Engineering 2002, 51(3),193-199.

53. Nicoleti JF; Telis-Romero J; Telis VRN. Air-drying of fresh and osmotically pre-treated

pineapple slices: Fixed air temperature versus fixed slice temperature drying kinetics.

Drying Technology 2001, 19(9),2175-2191.

54. Motevali A; Abbaszadeh A; Minaei S; Khoshtaghaza MH; Ghobadian B. Effective

moisture diffusivity, activation energy and energy consumption in thin-layer drying of

Jujube (Zizyphus jujube Mill). Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 2012,

14(3),523-532.

55. Abbaszadeh A; Motevali A; Ghobadian B; Khoshtaghaza MH; Minaei S. Effect of air

velocity and temperature on energy and effective moisture diffusivity for russian olive

40
(Elaeagnusan gastifolial L.) in thin-layer drying. Iranian Journal of Chemistry and

Chemical Engineering 2012, 31(1),65-69.

56. Aghbashlo M; kianmehr MH; Samimi-Akhijahani H. Influence of drying conditions on

the effective moisture diffusivity, energy of activation and energy consumption during

the thin-layer drying of berberis fruit (Berberidaceae). Energy Conversion and

Management 2008, 49(10),2865-2871.


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

57. Clemente G; Bon J; Sanjuan N; Mulet A. Drying modelling of defrosted pork meat under

forced convection conditions. Meat Science 2011, 88(3),374-378.

58. Blasco M. Effect of blanching and air flow rate on turmeric drying. Food Science and

Technology International 2006, 12(4),315-323.

59. Marinos-Kouris D; Maroulis Z. Transport properties in the drying of solids. In Handbook

of Industrial Drying, Third Edition; Mujumdar A, Eds., CRC Press: Florida, United

States, 2006; 82-120.

60. Perré P. The Proper Use of Mass Diffusion Equations in Drying Modeling: Introducing

the Drying Intensity Number. Drying Technology 2015, 33(15-16),1949-1962.

61. Pavón-Melendez G; Hernández JA; Salgado MA; Garcia MA. Dimensionless analysis of

the simultaneous heat and mass transfer in food drying. Journal of Food Engineering

2002, 51(4),347-353.

62. Cdrdova-Quiroz AV; Ruiz-Cabrera Ma; Garcfa-Alvarado Ma. Analytical solution of

mass transfer equation with interfacial resistance in food drying. Drying Technology

1996, 14(7-8),1815-1826.

41
63. Ruiz-López II; Córdova AV; Rodr guez-Jimenes GC; Garc a-Alvarado MA. Moisture

and temperature evolution during food drying: effect of variable properties. Journal of

Food Engineering 2004, 63(1),117-124.

64. Barati E; Esfahani JA. A new solution approach for simultaneous heat and mass transfer

during convective drying of mango. Journal of Food Engineering 2011, 102(4),302-309.

65. Allaf T; Allaf K. Instant Controlled Pressure Drop (DIC) in food processing. Springer-
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Verlag New York: United States, 2014; 183 p.

66. Allaf K; Mounir S; Allaf T. Swell-drying : séchage et texturation par DIC des végétaux

Techniques de l'ingénieur 2012, F3005,18 p.

67. Allaf K. Transfer phenomena and industrial applications. Teaching book, Lebanese

University, Faculty of Science, Beirut (Lebanon),1982.

68. Perré P; Pierre F; Casalinho J; Ayouz M. Determination of the Mass Diffusion

Coefficient Based on the Relative Humidity Measured at the Back Face of the Sample

During Unsteady Regimes. Drying Technology 2015, 33(9),1068-1075.

69. Skelland AHP. Diffusional mass transfer. John Wiley & Sons Inc: Hoboken, United

States, 1974; 528 p.

70. Kays WM; Crawford ME; Weigand B. Convective heat and mass transfer. McGraw-Hill

Higher Education: Boston, 2005; 546 p.

71. Al Haddad M; Mounir S; Sobolik V; Allaf K. Fruits and vegetables drying combining hot

air, DIC technology and microwaves. International Journal of Food Engineering 2008,

4(6).

42
72. Mounir S; Allaf K. Study and modeling of dehydration and rehydration kinetics within

porous medium. In Association Française de Séchage dans l'Industrie et l'Agriculture

(AFSIA), Lyon, France, May 14-15, 2009; 2 p.

73. Albitar N; Mounir S; Besombes C; Allaf K. Improving the drying of onion using the

Instant Controlled Pressure Drop technology. Drying Technology 2011, 29(9),993-1001.

74. Téllez-Pérez C; Sabah MM; Montejano-Gaitán JG; Sobolik V; Martínez CA; Allaf K.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Impact of Instant Controlled Pressure Drop treatment on dehydration and rehydration

kinetics of green Moroccan pepper (Capsicum annuum). Procedia Engineering 2012,

42,978-1003.

75. Alonzo-Macías M; Cardador-Martínez A; Mounir S; Montejano-Gaitán G; Allaf K.

Comparative study of the effects of drying methods on antioxidant activity of dried

strawberry (Fragaria Var. Camarosa). Journal of Food Research 2013, 2(2),92-107.

76. Allaf K; Vidal P. Feasibility study of a new process of Swell-Drying by instant

decompression toward vacuum of in pieces vegetables in view of a rapid rehydration;

Gradient Activity Plotting. France,1988.

77. Allaf K; Bouvier J-M; Forget M; Louka N; Parent F. Procédé de traitement de produits

végétaux en vue de la modification de leur texture, installation pour la mise en oeuvre

d’un tel procédé et produits ainsi réalisés. 1993, 9309720(PCT/FR94/00975),14.

78. Crank J. The mathematics of diffusion, 2 ed. Clarendon Press-Oxford: London, England,

1975; 421 p.

79. Nguyen TH; Lanoisellé JL; Allaf K. Effect of instant controlled pressure drop DIC

treatment on the properties of dried carot. In Proceedings of 19th International Drying


43
Symposium IDS’2014 (CD-ROM); Julien A, Roman P, Severine V,Eds; University

Claude Bernard Lyon:France; 19th International Drying Symposium (IDS’ 2014),

Lyon, France, August 24-27, 2014; ids2014130079, 8 p.

80. Srikiatden J; Roberts JS. Measuring moisture diffusivity of potato and carrot (core and

cortex) during convective hot air and isothermal drying. Journal of Food Engineering

2006, 74(1),143-152.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

81. Zielinska M; Markowski M. Air drying characteristics and moisture diffusivity of carrots.

Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 2010, 49(2),212-218.

44
Table 1. The limited value of air velocity

Material Type of Sample Variation of air Limited References

airflow size/form velocity (m/s) value

(m/s)
[31]
Broccoli Through-bed Hemispherical 0.8-3.5 2.5 Mulet et al.

flow 4.3 1.2 cm


[32]
Carrot Through- cube of 1 cm 0.65-1.26 1.14 Mitchell & Potts
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

circulation
[33]
Carrot Cross flow cube of 1cm 0.24-2.17 1.44 Mulet et al.

Fig Cross flow diameter of 0.5-3 2 Babalis &


[34]
about 6 cm. Belessiotis

Fig (simulation) Cross flow high product of 0.25-6 1.2 Mathioulakis et


[35]
5.5 cm al.

[36]
Potato Cross flow 1 - cm cube 0.2-6.43 2.05 Rossello et al.

[37]
Potato Through-bed cubes of 1 cm 0.5-10 2 Clemente et al.

flow

45
Table 2.The experiment points with steam pressure P and thermal treatment time t

Points DIC Steam pressure P (MPa) Thermal holding time t (s)

Apple-DIC 1 0.5 15

Apple-DIC 2 0.35 15

Apple-DIC 3 0.2 15
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Apple-DIC 4 0.15 10

Apple-DIC 5 0.1 10

Carrot-DIC 1 0.5 15

Carrot-DIC 2 0.35 15

Carrot-DIC 3 0.2 15

Carrot-DIC 4 0.15 20

Carrot-DIC 5 0.1 20

46
Table 3. Levels of independent variables of airflow drying (temperature, velocity) in a 2-parameter, 5-level

Design of Experiments DoE.

Coded levels -α -1 0 +1 +α

Temperature (°C) 20 25.9 40 54.1 60

Velocity (m/s) 3 4.8 9 13.2 15


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

4
α (axial distance)= 2 k k is the number of orthogonal design variables

(in our case k = 2 and α = 1.4142).

47
Table 4. Results of evaluated drying kinetics parameters of apple.

Nº T v DIC1 Control

°C m/s td3% Deff dWs k td3% Deff dWs k

-10 2 -1 -3 -1 -10 2 -1 -3 -1
min 10 m s % db 10 m s min 10 m s % db 10 m s

2 6 9 59 32.79 1.4 0.56 275 2.6 1.51 1.18

0
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

3 4 15 93 19.47 1.41 1.63 470 1.6 0.68 1.42

5 5 13. 61 30.01 1.5 0.76 266 2.76 0.81 0.85

4 2

6 5 4.8 68 27.99 1.14 0.59 277 2.61 1.24 1.25

8 2 4.8 166 11.71 0.65 1.37 684 1.13 0.59 2.25

9 2 13. 152 12.49 0.94 2.08 759 0.98 0.66 2.65

6 2

10 2 9 209 10.02 0.59 1.69 1083 0.67 0.41 2.39

11 4 3 92 20.79 0.96 1.05 373 2.03 0.8 1.59

AC 4 9 96± 20.41±0.9 1.4±0.2 1.38±0.3 477±2 1.55±0.02 0.67±0.0 1.32±0.1

P 0 5 3 8 4 0 9 5 5

48
td3%: drying time to reach a final water content of 3% db

Deff: effective diffusivity

Ws: starting accessibility

k: mass transfer coefficient.

ACP: Average Center Point


2
The correlation coefficient (R ) between the experimental and predicted data value of the model is always

higher than 97.5%


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

49
Table 5. Results of evaluated drying kinetics parameters of carrot.

Nº T v DIC1 Control

°C m/s td3% Deff s k td3% Deff s k

-10 2 - -3 -1 -10 2 - -3 -1
min 10 m s % db 10 m s min 10 m s % db 10 m s
1 1

2 6 9 149 8.3 1.43 0.68 433 1.8 1.61 1.17


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

3 4 15 257 4.8 1.52 2.30 790 0.8 1.46 2.72

5 5 13. 171 7.5 1.64 1.01 377 2 1.07 0.75

4 2

6 5 4.8 197 6.3 1.21 1.07 460 1.7 1.35 0.98

8 2 4.8 419 3.2 1.17 4.20 733 1.1 1.15 3.27

9 2 13. 420 3 0.96 2.92 929 0.7 0.95 2.58

6 2

10 2 9 457 2.7 1.01 3.76 942 0.8 0.94 3.63

11 4 3 292 4.2 1.13 1.69 693 1.1 0.86 1.47

AC 4 9 298±1 4.2±0.3 1.39±0.1 1.75±0.2 702±7 0.9±0.1 1.12±0.1 1.63±0.1

50
P 0 5 2 3 5 1 5

td3%: drying time to reach a final water content of 3% db

Deff: effective diffusivity

Ws: starting accessibility

k: mass transfer coefficient.

ACP: Average Center Point.


2
The correlation coefficient (R ) between the experimental and predicted data value of the model is always
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

higher than 95%.

51
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

Figure 1. Drying protocol of carrots and apples

52
Figure 2. Dryer set up: 1 - Compressed air valve, 2 - Flow valve, 3 - Heater, 4 - Air distributor; 5 -

Drying plateau
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

53
Figure 3. Drying curves at air temperature T = 40 °C, and velocity v = 9 m/s of apple raw

material and DIC samples.


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

54
Figure 4. Drying curves at air temperature T = 40 °C and velocity varying from 1 to 15 m/s of

Specific Controlled-Product SCP.


Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

55
Figure 5. Statistical analysis of the impact of drying parameters; temperature (°C) and velocity

(m/s) on the logarithm of the effective diffusivity of apple at point DIC 1; (Left) General trends,

and (Right) Comparison between experimental results values calculated from the empirical

model.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

56
Figure 6. Statistical analysis of the impact of drying parameters; temperature (°C) and velocity

(m/s) on the starting accessibility of apple at point DIC 1; (Left) Pareto chart (p-value = 0.1), and

(Right) Comparison between experimental results values calculated from the empirical model.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

57
Figure 7. Statistical analysis of the impact of drying parameters; temperature (°C) and velocity

(m/s) on the mass transfer coefficient k of apple at point DIC 1; (Left) General trends, and (Right)

Comparison between experimental results values calculated from the empirical model.
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

58
Figure 8. Statistical analysis of the impact of drying parameters; temperature (°C) and velocity

(m/s) on the logarithm of the effective diffusivity of carrot at point DIC 2; Pareto chart (p-

value = 0.1).
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

59
Figure 9. Statistical analysis of the impact of drying parameters; temperature (°C) and velocity

(m/s) on the starting accessibility of carrot at point DIC 1; Pareto chart (p-value = 0.1).
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

60
Figure 10. Statistical analysis of the impact of drying parameters; temperature (°C) and velocity

(m/s) on the mass transfer coefficient of carrot at point DIC 3; Pareto chart (p-value = 0.1).
Downloaded by [Library Services City University London] at 10:51 19 March 2016

61

Вам также может понравиться