You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 www.elsevier.


Impregnation and osmotic dehydration of some fruits: effect of the vacuum pressure and syrup concentration 
pez-Malo b, E. Palou b, J. Welti-Chanes jica-Paz a, A. Valdez-Fragoso a, A. Lo H. Mu


a Facultad de Ciencias Qu ımicas, Universidad Auto noma de Chihuahua, Ciudad Universitaria, Chihuahua 31170, Mexico ricas-Puebla, Santa Catarina Ma rtir, Cholula, Puebla 72820, Mexico Departamento de Ingenier ıa Qu ımica y Alimentos, Universidad de las Ame

Received 1 August 2000; received in revised form 24 July 2002; accepted 29 July 2002

Abstract Apple, mango and melon were subjected to impregnation and osmotic dehydration at vacuum pressure (VI-VOD). The effect of the vacuum pressure (135–674 mbar) and concentration of the sucrose solutions (41–60°Brix) on the mass transfer parameters were evaluated. The lowest final aw levels in apple and mango were achieved with 50°Brix syrup and vacuum pressure of 674 mbar and in melon with 57°Brix and 593 mbar. Water loss of similar magnitude was observed in melon and mango, and there was water gain in the case of apple. The solids gain (SG) in apple was higher than in melon and mango. Minimal values of SG were detected in mango, and a maximum SG value was observed in apple. Melon and mango presented weight losses of up to 8.9% while the weight of apple increased. Results indicated that the impregnation phenomena predominated in the combined VI-VOD process of apple and osmotic dehydration phenomena in melon and mango. Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Impregnation; Osmotic dehydration; Vacuum pressure; Syrup concentration; Fruits

1. Introduction Osmotic dehydration (OD) is a process that allows to obtain partially dehydrated foods. This process has been broadly studied at atmospheric pressure (AOD), to know the effect of factors such as concentration of osmotic solution (OS), type of solute, temperature, time, agitation, etc., on the dehydration of many products (Hawkes & Flink, 1978; Le Maguer & Biswal, 1988; Lerici, Pinnavaia, Dalla Rosa, & Mastrocola, 1983; pez-Malo, Argaiz, & Welti Chanes, 1993). Palou, Lo Recently, both impregnation and OD at vacuum pressure (VI-VOD) have been studied, since a faster dehydration can be achieved by means of this treatment and, at the same time, active compounds can be impregnated in foods in a controlled way (Fito & Chiralt, 1994). One advantage of VI-VOD over AOD is that the solid–liquid interface area and the mass transfer between both phases could be increased by the use of sub-atmospheric , conditions (Fito, Chiralt, Barat, & Mart ınez-Monzo 2002).


Corresponding author. Tel.: +522-229-2005; fax: +522-229-2009. E-mail address: (J. Welti-Chanes).

In VI-VOD processes, product porosity and deformation behavior when subjected to vacuum pressures are required, since they determine the volume that could be occupied by an external liquid in the product tissue (Salvatori, Andr es, Chiralt, & Fito, 1998). These properties have been determined in several fruits, impregnating them with isotonic solutions at different vacuum levels (Andr es, Prado, Fito, & Chiralt, 1994; Guerrero, 1996; pez-Malo, Palou, & jica-Paz, Valdez-Fragoso, Lo Mu Welti Chanes, 2002; Salvatori, 1997). The effect of the concentration of the OS on the composition of some fruits subjected to VOD, such as apple (Barat, Chiralt, , Mart & Fito, 1998; Mart ınez Monzo ınez Navarrete, Chiralt, & Fito, 1998; Mata, 1992), mango (D avila, pez, Fito, Chiralt, & Fito, & Pensaben, 1993), kiwi (Lo D avila, 1994), and banana (Sousa, Pulido, Fito, & Serra, 1994), has also been studied. The hydrodynamic mechanism coupled with the relaxation–deformation phenomena has been used to explain and model mass transfer that occurs during VOD (Fito & Chiralt, 1994). Throughout the VI-VOD, the vacuum pressure and the OS concentration gradients can produce changes in the structure of the product and in the dehydration kinetics, which depend on a great extent on the viscoelastic properties of the solid matrix. To date, no

0260-8774/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 0 - 8 7 7 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 3 4 4 - 8

Experimental method and statistical analysis A central composite experimental design (Cornell.3).2. b1 . ww0 is the weight of water and ws0 is the weight of solids initially present in the fruit. ‘‘Manila’’). / Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 Nomenclature b0 .3. (4) wt weight of the fruit at the end of treatment wst weight of the solids in the fruit at the end of treatment ws0 initial weight of solids ww0 X 1 . Analytical methods Moisture content. followed by a 10-min relaxation period at atmospheric pressure. ‘‘Reticulado’’) were bought in the local market. b22 cross product and quadratic regression coefficients Eq. b2 . Sample preparation Mango (Manguifera indica var. and WR represent the solids gain. respectively response variables WL. Impregnation–dehydration treatment VI-VOD treatments were carried out at 25 °C in vacuum desiccators. 2. Torreggiani. Four slices of each fruit were weighed individually and submerged in the hypertonic solution in a 1/10 (w/w) fruit/syrup ratio.. . Treatments were applied at predetermined vacuum pressures for 10 min. 2. M ujica-Paz et al. wt and wst are the weight of the fruit and the weight of solids at the end of treatment.1. 1997). 1990) was used to study the effect of the OS concentration and vacuum pressure level on the OD parameters (Table 1). Apparent density (qa ) was measured in fruit pieces and real density (qr ) in fruit purees. In each treatment. using the picnometer method (Salvatori.0. OS were prepared with commercial sucrose. 31. Real porosity of the fruits was calculated as reported by Salvatori (1997). the present study was performed to investigate the combined effect of vacuum pressure and the OS concentration on the dehydration parameters of apple. ‘‘Golden Delicious’’) and melon (Cucumis melo var. respectively. 22. respectively.013. WL. OD of the three fruits was carried out at same levels of OS concentration and at atmospheric pressure (AOD) for 20 min.306 H. Materials and methods 2. The fruit samples were weighed and then blended to determine soluble solids. linear regression coefficients Eq. on dehydration parameters. respectively. Therefore. b11 . the OD parameters of the fruits were calculated based on the following equations (Giangiacomo.. apple (Malus domestica var. Data are analyzed by multiple regression through the least square method to fit the following equation: Y ¼ b0 þ b1 X1 þ b2 X2 þ b12 X1 X2 þ b11 X12 þ b22 X22 ð 4Þ The ANOVA statistical analysis was performed using Design Expert (1996. After OD treatment. the hypertonic solution adhered to the surface of the slices was eliminated.036. and aw percent global aw depression of fruits subjected to OD process (%) in-depth studies have been made on the effect of vacuum and OS concentration levels and the combined effect of both. WA). WR. Pullman. This methodology allows the modeling of a second-order polynomial that describes the response.4. (4) b12 . titrable acidity and reducing sugars content were determined according to the AOAC (1984) methods 22. water loss and weight reduction.008. Soluble solids content (°Brix) were measured with an Atago Hand refractometer (Atago Co. and water activity was determined with a Decagon CX-1 hygrometer (Decagon Devices Inc. & Abbo (1987)): WL ¼ ðww0 Þ À ðwt À wst Þ Â 100 ðws0 þ ww0 Þ ð 1Þ SG ¼ ðwst À ws0 Þ Â 100 ðws0 þ ww0 Þ ð 2Þ WR ¼ WL À SG ð 3Þ where SG. which present different structural and porosity characteristics. V.034–31.5. water activity and moisture content. Japan). mango and melon. 2. Additionally. X2 Y D aw initial weight of water coded values of the osmotic solution concentration and vacuum pressure. Osaka. 2. Fruit edible portion was cut into 3:5 Â 2:5 Â 1:2 cm slices and were subjected to OD treatments. SG.

987 0.993 0. melon.5 Æ 0.133 Æ 0.80 4.78 1.95 6.30 2.9 Æ 0.985 0. and water activity (aw ) throughout the atmospheric OD of apple.95 0.40 4.05 0.10 1.84 8.3 0. Therefore.49 7.H. melon and mango Product Apple Concentration (°Brix) 40 43 50 57 60 40 43 50 57 60 40 43 50 57 60 WL (%) 1. SG and WR increased with the concentration.1 Æ 0.992 0.95 )2.74 SG (%) 2.03 3.10 9.082 Æ 0.001 1.41 9.986 0.74 5.25 4.41 40 135 )1 43 213 0 50 404 1 57 595 1.03 0.18 6. Vacuum impregnation and vacuum osmotic dehydration The VI-VOD treatments of apple.46 8.7 16. Osmotic dehydration at atmospheric pressure Table 3 presents the obtained OD parameters for apple. except for SG in mango.90 Æ 0.8 14.2 0.30 4.980 0.03 3.918 Æ 0.982 0.80 2. All the fruits presented a firm texture and good organoleptic characteristics.6 Æ 0.006 9.011 Melon 94.19 1.66 1. Analytical results Table 2 shows the mean values and standard deviation of the physico-chemical characteristics of the studied fruits.15 )2.043 Æ 0.2 0.001 Apple 88.002 0.05 0. WL and WR of mango were greater than those obtained for melon and apple.01 3.991 Æ 0.020 0.8 13. 3.1.993 Æ 0. which tended to decrease.00 2.991 0.85 WR (%) )0. Table 3 Effect of the solution concentration on the WL.020 0. 3.71 6.38 Æ 0.95 3.22 0.4 Æ 0. a regression analysis was applied to Table 2 Physico-chemical properties of the studied fruits Property Moisture content (g water/100 g sample) Total soluble solids (°Brix) aw Tritable acidity (g acid/100 g sample)a Reducing sugars (g glucose/100 g sample) Apparent density (kg/m3 ) Real density (kg/m3 ) Real porosity (%) a Mango 84.93 )1.273 Æ 0.899 Æ 0. / Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 Table 1 Vacuum OD variables and experimental design levels Variable Coded value Concentration (°Brix) Vacuum pressure (mbar) Coded symbol X1 X2 Levels )1.001 0.77 1. SG.41 60 674 307 3.3.010 1.37 Æ 0.20 6.985 0.19 )1.01 4. and mango were carried out to fill a central composite design (Table 1) so that results might be displayed as response surfaces.152 Æ 0.993 0.988 Æ 0.20 Æ 0.985 0. and as citric acid for mango.25 2.04 0.985 Melon Mango .83 2.0 3.2 0.030 1. and the WL.35 3. M ujica-Paz et al. and melon.991 0.764 Æ 0.88 3.87 3.320 Æ 0. melon and mango.987 0.89 aw 0.88 8.2.65 7.6 Æ 0.000 1. Results and discussion 3. In general.985 0.87 2. subjected to AOD treatments for 20 min in OS ranging from 40 to 60°Brix. fruitÕs aw decreased as the concentration of the OS increased. WR.61 3.006 Expressed as malic acid for apple.051 Æ 0.1 Æ 0.

048 0. except for aw values (not shown).25 0. response surfaces for WL.17 F 9.315 pðF Þ 0.45 0. In the range of 55–60°Brix. It is observed that the regression models for the dehydration parameters were significant at p 6 0:10. The response surfaces presented in Fig.18 0. The negative values indicate that there is a water gain caused by the impregnation of the OS in the tissue.016 Analysis of variance Source Model Residual R2 ¼ 0:900 SG b0 b1 b2 b12 b11 b22 SS 11.177 0.79 0.25 8. 1 show that in the VI-VOD of apple. These results can be attributed to the fact that the low viscosity OS (<50°Brix) are impregnated in a massive way in the product resulting in a water gain.367 0. except for WR of melon (R2 ¼ 0:760). These phenomena predominate when solutions with concentrations up to 50°Brix are used.043 0.67 2.46 0.50 5. and aw with the independent variables.66 1.50 2. SG.25 )0. WR.67 0.76 0. index 1: concentration.5 0.12 F 8.49 0. melon and mango slices.16 df 5 5 SE 0.010 0.56 0.88 1. as well as the relative contribution of independent variables to the statistical fit. These graphs represent the evolution of such process parameters in function of the vacuum pressure and syrup concentration. All second-order polynomials agreed well with the experimental data and gave R2 values above 0. correlate the mean values of WL.46 df 5 5 0.054 0.99 5.01 0. index 2: vacuum) Response WL Coefficients b0 b1 b2 b12 b11 b22 SS 73.308 H.75 1.30 )1. and SG of mango (R2 ¼ 0:770). 1a).088 pðF Þ 0. 1–3.081 pðF Þ 0.67 MS 22. The resulting second-order polynomials are shown in Tables 4–6.21 MS 2.55 0.71 2.68 1.51 )13.56 0.12 2.76 )0.64 2.10.64 pðtÞ 0. positive WL values are observed that indicate an important WL probably due to the prevailing of the dehydration phenomena under these conditions.002 0. However.7 t-stat 5. similarly to what occurs in the process at atmospheric pressure. M ujica-Paz et al. Based on these models.73 )0.67 0. SG and WR were generated (Figs.18 )2.485 0.34 12.147 0.39 )0. and WR.21 0. while the high viscosity OS (>55°Brix) has .46 0.31 0.71 2.94 )0.55 MS 14.900.91 0.72 df 5 5 0. SG.9 )1.8 1.65 0.53 1.003 0.29 0.20 0.9 8. apple presented positive and negative WL values (Fig. / Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 Table 4 Regression coefficients and variance analysis of the second-order models to evaluate the VOD process applied to apple (index 0: constant. the WL increased as OS concentration increased.89 )1. respectively).003 0.014 Analysis of variance Source Model Residual R2 ¼ 0:900 WR b0 b1 b2 b12 b11 b22 SS 113.57 )3.06 0.94 )0.17 0.207 0.5 )4.60 F 9.010 Analysis of variance Source Model Residual R2 ¼ 0:900 The bold character indicates that the corresponding parameter has a significant effect on WL. The level of significance (p-value) of all significant coefficients was less than 0. Water loss.94 1.60 )2.18 0.

14 0.12 1.14 0.010 Analysis of variance Source Model Residual R2 ¼ 0:900 WR b0 b1 b2 b12 b11 b22 SS 26.72 )1.073 0.20 0.17 MS 1. It can be observed in Fig.47 0.68 0. difficulty penetrating the tissue pores.53 pðtÞ 0.06 0.55 0. as well as a quadratic effect of the OS concentration on the WL of apple (p < 0:10) (Fig. (1993) achieved higher WL values (15. D avila et al.20 0.145 0.131 pðF Þ 0. Fig.55 MS 5.H. in the case of mango at 50 and 60°Brix.23 1. The quadratic effect resulted from the combined action of the penetration of OS into the pores and OD processes. (1998) in VOD treatment of cylindrical samples of apple with grape must.20 MS 4.13 0. respectively (Fig.81 3.22 F 3.23 t-stat 5.178 0. which penetrate better into the pores .34 0.05 1.32 2.57 2.40 F 17. This fact can be explained by a possible prevailing of the OD mechanism over that of impregnation.2%) for mango under vacuum conditions and higher temperature (35 °C) than in this study (WL ¼ 3:5%).06 0.00 0. M ujica-Paz et al. The effect of OS concentration on WL of the studied  fruits is similar to the effect noted by Mart ınez Monzo et al.075 0.30 6.145 0. The quadratic effect implies that for each OS concentration there were VP levels at which a minimum WL was obtained.73 1. 1b shows the linear effect of VP (p < 0:01) and its interaction with OS concentration on the WL of melon (p < 0:05).68 df 5 5 SE 0.62 0. 1998). 1a) and mango (p < 0:01) (Fig. index 1: concentration.078 pðF Þ 0.12 0.60 1.46 0.17 0.14 5.26 1.22 2. 2a that at a determined VP. Solids gain.31 df 5 5 0.47 0.022 0.19 0. This behavior can be again attributed to the action of the diluted solutions.28 0. the minimum WL was 6.72 1.848 0. / Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 309 Table 5 Regression coefficients and variance analysis of the second order models to evaluate the VOD process applied to melon (index 0: constant.46 0.17 0. and WR. 1c).003 0.83 8.86 0.80 F 8.94 3.7% at 378 and 324 mbar.036 0.28 2.89 1.72 0.70 0. for high concentration syrups. For example. 1c). SG.100 Analysis of variance Source Model Residual R2 ¼ 0:760 The bold character indicates that the corresponding parameter has a significant effect on WL.35 3.003 Analysis of variance Source Model Residual R2 ¼ 0:946 SG b0 b1 b2 b12 b11 b22 SS 7. the SG in apple increased and then decreased with the OS concentration (p < 0:05).66 0. and this change is presented at approximately 50°Brix..41 0.16 4. and its greater osmotic pressure favors the outcome of water from the fruit (Barat et al.391 0.76 0.21 df 5 5 0.007 0. This effect was more noticeable at low syrup concentration levels and it reduced as the OS concentration increased. index 2: vacuum) Response WL Coefficients b0 b1 b2 b12 b11 b22 SS 19.0% and 7.45 0.23 0.24 0.001 0.37 1.019 pðF Þ 0.17 0.98 1.84 0.29 )0.

928 0. The important increase of the SG at high VP levels and OS concentration could be attributed to a deformation of the tissue structure by the action of vacuum. As shown in Table 4.76 6.780 0.26 0.14 2.23 MS 2. of the OS concentration.28 1. until reaching a maximum value.49 )0.170 0.02 )0.08 0. 2b.21 0. The form of Fig.30 0. 2002).21 0. as the concentration increases.06 1.100 Analysis of variance Source Model Residual R2 ¼ 0:77 WR b0 b1 b2 b12 b11 b22 SS 14. At low VP levels (ee ¼ 0:01) (Mu the fibrous structure of mango can be easily occupied by diluted solutions. however. the only effect on SG found was that of VP (p < 0:05) and of vacuum pressure–concentration interaction (p < 0:01).830 0. the application of high VP can open the fibrous structure of mango.23 4. On the other hand.07 0.268 0.62 )0. M ujica-Paz et al. Thus.31 0.21 0.96 df 5 5 0. the OS are more viscous and they have more difficulties penetrating the tissue.060 0. In the case of melon.05 0..001 0.34 0. and WR.92 0.020 pðF Þ 0.444 pðF Þ 0. and it can be observed that at a determined OS concentration. since its effective porosity is very low jica-Paz et al.58 1.48 )1. producing spaces that can be filled with a low concentration OS (low viscosity).42 0. the increase of the VP showed a quadratic effect on SG (p < 0:10).05 df 5 5 SE 0.32 0.310 H.27 0.002 0. the increase of vacuum favored the occupation of pores and as a consequence.25 MS 3. This deformation would allow penetration of the concentrated OS which.52 0.008 pðF Þ 0.30 MS 1. During the treatment of mango. if the quadratic effect of the concentration and the vacuum is taken into account. the SG of apple. and their interaction (p < 0:10) on SG can be observed in Fig. which can exit the .37 0.71 1.013 Analysis of variance Source Model Residual R2 ¼ 0:904 The bold character indicates that the corresponding parameter has a significant effect on WL.22 0.28 0.68 2.19 df 5 5 0.763 0.31 6.84 0. due to its high viscosity.33 0.36 0.09 )0.055 0.255 0. index 2: vacuum) Response WL Coefficients b0 b1 b2 b12 b11 b22 SS 19.26 0.61 0. the effect of VP (p < 0:05). index 1: concentration.449 0.83 F 9.32 0.42 0. than the concentrated ones and OD is less important.009 Analysis of variance Source Model Residual R2 ¼ 0:918 SG b0 b1 b2 b12 b11 b22 SS 8.55 6. will not flow out of the fruit during the relaxation period. SG.23 F 11.16 F 3.20 0.74 0.21 0.81 1.36 1.45 0.82 2.25 0. 2c indicates the presence of complex phenomena that could be explained considering the fibrous structure of mango.25 0.23 0.18 pðtÞ 0.30 0. / Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 Table 6 Regression coefficients and variance analysis of the second order models to evaluate the VOD process applied to mango (index 0: constant.6% at 47°Brix and 647 mbar.94 0.35 t-stat 5.28 3.20 0.06 1. the maximum solids gain in apple was 9.

and mango (c) slices. the behavior of SG due to the action of high VP and very concentrated OS would be similar to that described for melon. However.4 350.4% to 8. / Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 311 566.2 458. and mango (c) slices. Effect of vacuum and the solution concentration on the WL of apple (a). M ujica-Paz et al. These differences may be attributed to the molecular weight of . 1.6 Fig.H. yielding low SG values.8 566. melon (b).5% with an OS in the range of 50–60°Brix.4% for apple Monzo cylinders.4 350.4 350.6 458. 2. This interpretation of the SG behavior in melon and mango should be verified with detailed microscopy studies. tissue together with native liquid during the relaxation period at atmospheric pressure. Effect of vacuum pressure and solution concentration on the SG of apple (a). melon (b).2 458.6 242. (1998) varied from 6. Fig. while in the present work varied from 6% to 4. SG values calculated from the data of Mart ınez  et al.

1996). The Daw values observed in apple can be attributed to the incorporation of solutes in the matrix of the fruit. The VP applied had a quadratic effect (p < 0:05) on the . In the case of apple. At lower syrup concentrations. the low porosity of mango jica-Paz et al. it appears that solutes in grape must (glucose and fructose) penetrate apple tissue more easily than sucrose. the aw depression of apple (1. melon (0.7% at 43°Brix and 539 mbar. Alzamora. Weight reduction. M ujica-Paz et al. the aw depression in the vacuum treatment was only greater in some cases.61%) obtained under vacuum conditions seems to achieve the aw values required in the minimally processed fruits (Tapia de Daza. on the contrary. it can be noticed that vacuum conditions produced slightly greater aw depression by using 50°Brix syrups. Fito.4. mango and melon obtained under atmospheric and sub-atmospheric conditions. In effect. These results agree with the behavior of the WL and SG parameters during the VOD of apple under different vacuum and syrup concentrations. 3. Effect of the osmotic dehydration and impregnation phenomena on aw depression Even when the statistical analysis shows a slight correlation between the studied variables and the final aw level in fruits. The beneficial effect on Daw is probably due to the tissue deformation of melon that produces a general increase in WL and SG as shown in Fig. a more in-depth investigation is required. The application of vacuum pressures allows the structure of the tissue to open during the deformation. So. Chiralt. it is important to discuss the values of such aw . only the WR in apple and mango were affected by the OS concentration (p < 0:01)..88%). vacuum pressure had a slight benefit.. Thus. which reached a maximum value of 15. These results can be explained taking into account the effective porosity values reported in literature. According to the results presented in Tables 4–6 and Fig. & WeltiChanes. Fig. and this behavior cannot be explained in terms of WL and SG. Thus. 4. melon (b). Fig. 1994. 3 that only apple had a weight gain (reflected by the negative sign of WR). In the case of mango. while at higher concentrations. Table 7 summarizes the water activity depression (Daw ) of apple. 3. Mu impregnation of hypertonic solutions what caused a weight gain.5% SG can be achieved. and mango (c) slices. 1996). Fito & Pastor. solutes. 1996. (ee ¼ 0:01) and melon (ee ¼ 0:07) (Mu 2002) favored a greater dehydration. 1995. 4 shows that under vacuum conditions apple slabs can reach a SG around 10%. / Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 WR of apple and a linear effect on melon (p < 0:05) and mango (p < 0:05). Andr es. It can be observed in Fig.91%) and mango (0. 1a and 2a. the high porosity of apple (ee ¼ 0:33) jica-Paz et al. 2002) facilitated the (Guerrero. restraining more syrup than that foreseen according to the original porosity of the fruit (Andr es. 3.312 H. as illustrated in Figs. & Pardo. The Daw of melon was more noticeable at vacuum pressure than at atmospheric conditions (Table 7). this benefit was practically non-existent. Effect of vacuum pressure and solution concentration on the WR of apple (a). As can be seen in Table 7. while under atmospheric pressure only a 5.

.20 0. On some non-diffusional mechanism occurring during vacuum osmotic dehydration. & Fito. P.10 0. Fito.H. International symposium on the properties of water. Pedro Fito M. ProceedA. In P. at different OS concentrations Concentration (°Brix) 40 43 43 50 50 50 57 57 60 Atmospheric ðDaw Þapple (%) 0. P. A.. 836–840.51 0. of the European Union (Project TS3*-CT-94-0333) and the n Ignacio Zaragoza of CONASistema de Investigacio CYT M exico (Project no.10 0. M ujica-Paz et al. & P. 4.40 0. Coupling of hydrodynamic mechanism and deformation–relaxation phenomena during vacuum treatments in solid porous food liquid systems.61 0. Inc. Journal of Food Science.61 0.10 0. P. E. 27.30 0. such as apple.00 0. J. A. To formulate minimally processed fruits with high aw . Prado. A. Barbosa-C anovas & J.30 0.91 0.11 ðDaw Þmelon (%) 0. Practicum II. SG and WR values. Serra. / Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 313 Table 7 Depression of water activity (Daw ) in apple.. (1996). food preservation by moisture control. (1994). Aplicaci on al salado de quesos. as well as the commentaries and recommendations of Dr.20 0. Corte (Eds. (1990). Milwaukee.). Mexico: UDLA-Puebla. J.D. Modelo emp ırico para n osmo tica a vac la transferencia de masa en la deshidratacio ıo de Manguifera indica.61 0.20 0.79 1. Official methods of analysis (14th ed.61 0. and mango at atmospheric (a) and sub-atmospheric (b) conditions.60 0. 63(5). Spain. 229–240. Vidal (Eds.60 0. J. ISOPOW Practicum II. Palou. Lancaster. Chiralt. & D. 21. Minneapolis. Anales de investigaci on del master en ciencia e ingenier ıa de alimentos (vol. structural and microscopic studies are required to have a clearer explanation of what happens inside the fruit.10 0. L. Conclusions The effect of the vacuum pressure and OS concentration of the sugar syrup could be explained by the response surface experimental design and by WL. Equilibrium in cellular food osmotic solution systems as related to structure. Fito. An update on vacuum osmotic dehydration.. & Pastor..50 0. PA: Technomic Pub.. 4. A.71 0. (1994). (1993).81 0. Design Expert (1996).61 0.89 0.20 0.10 0.61 0. Fito. 96010202-2). P. Co.20 ðDaw Þmango (%) 0. melon.. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the economical support of the Universidad de las Am ericas-Puebla.20 0. 18–21. DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Barat. III.20 0. How to apply response surface methodology (pp. Andr es..79 0. P. E. Welti-Chanes (Eds. P.. P. Stat-Ease Corporation. Journal of Food Engineering. Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Polit ecnica de Valencia.61 0.20 Daw ¼ ((aw of fresh fruit À aw of osmodehydrated fruit)/aw of fresh fruit) Â 100. pp. Universidad Polit ecnica de Valencia. 319–513.79 0.10 0. & Pardo. A.61 0. & Chiralt. Structural changes in porous foods during vacuum impregnation process. References AOAC (1984). Lo ings of the poster session. Impregnaci on a vac ıo en alimentos porosos.30 0. for this work. and mango obtained throughout OD at atmospheric and sub-atmospheric conditions. (1998). WI: American Society for Quality Control. M. Cornell.00 0. In  pez-Malo. M.). R. & Pensaben.61 0. Journal of Food Science. A. A.). particularly in the case of fruits with high porosity levels. Correlation between WL and sugar gain of apple. Fito. & Chiralt. Fito.20 0.91 1. the application of VI-VOD seemed to be advantageous compared to AOD process. (1994).60 0. In G. 51–56).30 0. (1995).91 0. D avila. Washington. A. Fig.00 0. Andr es. Argaiz. P.19 1.88 0.70 ðDaw Þmango (%) 0. Ph. Andr es.10 0. Fito.. . 525–543). pp. E.99 ðDaw Þmelon (%) 0. A. Chiralt. A. Hern andez. However..). Thesis.30 404 350 593 135 404 674 350 593 404 Vacuum (mbar) Sub-atmospheric ðDaw Þapple (%) 0.30 0. melon..

Impregnation properties of some fruits at vacuum pressure. M. Serra. .). J. Applicazione dellÕ osmosi direta nella desidratazione della frutta. 621– 630. (2002). Palou. & Fito. y el c alculo de su porosidad efectiva. J. & Flink. Mass Fito. P.. 265–284. Argaiz. & Serra. 513–529). J.). Part I. Ph. Salvatori. D. Proceedings of the poster Lo session. H... A. Amsterdam. Journal of Food Science. Universidad Polit ecnica de Valencia. IV. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. M. J. Estudio del mecanismo hidrodin amico en algunas frutas. J.. & Biswal. Deshidrataci on osm otica de frutas: cambios composicionales y estructurales a temperaturas moderadas. (1997). L. 63(3)... 183–195. / Journal of Food Engineering 57 (2003) 305–314 . A. Sousa. & jica-Paz. Tapia de Daza. Mechanical and structural change in apple (var. G. Alzamora. Estudio de la n osmo tica a vac porosidad y cin etica de la deshidratacio ıo (VOD) de la Actinidia chinensis. Journal of Food Engineering. Salvatori. Ph. & Mastrocola. Andr es. Mexico: UDLA-Pue. Barbosa-C anovas. Hern andez. P. Combination of preservation factors applied to minimal processing of foods. The response of some properties of fruits to vacuum impregnation. 2. A. Welti-Chanes. Mart Mart ınez Monzo ınez Navarrete.. Pulsed vacuum osmotic dehydration of banana (Musa acuminata). A. Aguilera (Eds. M. A. & Abbo. & P. Mata. A. 629–659... Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. E. Fito.. (1998). (1993). 235–252).. & D Lo avila. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. pp. M. A. N. & Mart ınez-Monzo transfer and deformation relaxation phenomena in plant tissues. (1992). Universidad de las Am ericas-Puebla. International symposium on the properties of water. A. R.. In J. J. In P. N. Palou. 11. 59–73. E. 184–190. Lo Mu Welti Chanes.S. V. Boca Raton. . Chiralt. J. M. Mass transfer in osmotic processes. Industrie Alimentarie. The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publication. D. (1988). M ujica-Paz et al.  pez.. Engineering and food for the 21st century (pp. 499–503. Corte (Eds. Fito. Granny Smith) due to vacuum impregnation with cryoprotectants. Valdez-Fragoso. & D.. D. pez-Malo. 56(4). J. 21. Guerrero. 307–314. Bruin (Ed. J. J.. Palou. M. pp. Giangiacomo. Vidal (Eds. R. 33(6). 36. (1983). Thesis. Thesis.  pez-Malo.. Chiralt. (1996). C. Chiralt. Osmotic dehydration of food. 195–198.. (1998). Dalla Rosa.D. 3. D. Pinnavaia. Revista Espa~ nola de Ciencia y Tecnolog ıa Alimentaria. M.314 H. E. Lerici. Practicum II. In S. (1987). M. Aportaci on al desarrollo de un proceso de deshidrataci on osm otica al vac ıo para alimentos. In A. Effect of syrup concentration. (2002).. Spain: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Polit ecnica de Valencia. FL: CRC Press.). Hawkes. A.  pez-Malo. P.. A. & Welti-Chanes... R..D. Sugar exchange between fruit and extracting syrup. Mexico. M. Spain.. Spain. Le Maguer. L. E. M... (1994). E...). Fito. & Fito. & J. Chiralt. (1996). S. Anales de investigaci on del master en ciencia e ingenier ıa de alimentos (vol.. Lo Osmotic dehydration of papaya.. Osmotic concentration of fruit slices prior to freeze dehydration. (1994). S. N. Universidad Polit ecnica de Valencia. P. J. G. Preconservation and drying of food materials. Thesis. E.. (1978). Z. Argaiz. A. Pulido. P. Barat.. R. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. & Welti Chanes. Torreggiani.