You are on page 1of 10

Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Study of mass transfer kinetics and eective diusivity


during osmotic dehydration of carrot cubes
Bahadur Singh
a

a,*

, Ashok Kumar b, A.K. Gupta

Department of Food Technology, Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal 148 106 (Sangrur), India
b
Department of Processing and Food Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India
Received 9 February 2005; received in revised form 14 September 2005; accepted 17 January 2006
Available online 11 May 2006

Abstract
The mass transfer kinetics during osmotic dehydration of carrot cubes in ternary solution of sucrose, NaCl salt and water were studied. The osmotic solution concentrations used were 50 B + 5% salt (w/v), 50 B + 10% salt (w/v) and 50 B + 15% salt (w/v), osmotic
solution temperature used were 35, 45 and 55C, fruit to solution ratios 1:4, 1:5 and 1:6 and the process duration varied from 0 to
240 min. Among the models applied, Azuara model well represented the experimental data for water loss; whereas solute gain was well
represented by the Magee model. Eective diusivity of water as well as solute was estimated using the analytical solution of Ficks law of
diusion and iterative technique, which was conducted by a simple computer program, was used to solve the equation with rst six terms.
For above conditions of osmotic dehydration, the eective diusivity of water was found to be in the ranged between 1.594 109 and
2.078 109 m2/s and that of solute between 1.175 109 and 1.645 109 m2/s.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Osmotic dehydration; Eective diusivity; Mass transfer kinetics; Carrots

1. Introduction
Carrot (Daucus carota L.) is known for its nutrient contents viz. carotene and carotenoids besides appreciable
amounts of vitamins B1, B2, B6 and B12 vitamins and minerals. The various methods of extending shelf life are fermenting, pickling, canning or cold storage freeze drying
etc. (Mudahar, Toledo, Floros, & Jen, 1989). Out of these
methods, freeze-drying produces the highest quality food
products but it is the expensive method of preservation.
So there is a need for simple and inexpensive alternate process, which are not only energy intensive and low capital
investment but oer a way to make available this low cost,
highly perishable and valuable crop available for the
regions away from production zones and also during o
season. The osmotic dehydration is one of these new methods (Shi & Maguer, 2002).
*

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bshathan@yahoo.com (B. Singh).

0260-8774/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.01.074

Osmotic dehydration is the process by which water is


partially removed from the cellular materials when these
are placed in a concentrated solution of soluble solute.
Osmotic dehydration, which is eective even at ambient
temperature and saves the color, avor and texture of food
from heat, is used as a pre-treatment to improve the nutritional, sensorial and functional properties of food. The
inuence of the main process variables, such as concentration and composition of osmotic solution, temperature,
immersion time, pre-treatments, agitation, nature of food
and its geometry, solution to sample ratio, on the mass
transfer mechanism and product quality have been studied
extensively (Kaymak-Ertekin & Sultanoglu, 2000; Rastogi
& Raghavarao, 1994).
Numerous studies have been carried out to better understand the internal mass transfer occurring during osmotic
dehydration of foods and modeled the mechanism of the
process (Azuara, Cortes, Garcia, & Beristain, 1992;
Kaymak-Ertekin & Sultanoglu, 2000; Magee, Murphy, &
Hassaballah, 1983). A number of investigators used Ficks

472

B. Singh et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

Nomenclature
M
M0
Me
qn
De
L
t
C
C0
Ce
m

total amount of moisture content at time t


initial moisture content % dry basis (db) in the
carrot cubes
moisture content at equilibrium of osmotic
dehydration process
non-zero positive roots of the equation tan
qn = aqn
eective diusivity (m2/s)
half of the slab thickness (m)
time (min)
total amount of solute in the fruit at time t (g of
solute/100 g of fresh fruit)
initial solute concentration in the fruit (g of solute/100 g of fresh fruit),
amount of solute in the fruit at equilibrium (g of
solute/100 g of fresh fruit)
partition coecient

unsteady state law of diusion to estimate the water or solute diusivity, simulating the experiments with boundary
conditions to overcome the assumptions involved in Ficks
law (Rastogi & Raghavarao, 1994). However, the comparison of water and solute diusivities during dehydration is
dicult because of variation in food composition and
physical structure and also due to the dierent methods
and models employed to estimate diusivity.
The unsteady state Fickian diusion model can be
applied to describe the osmosis mechanism:
oC
o2 C
D 2
ot
oZ

MR moisture ratio

Similarly, for solute gain

C S1
W0
Wt
S0
St
n
A
K

C  Ce
C0  Ce


1
X
2a1 a
De q2n t

exp
1 a a2 q2n
L2
n1

SGR solute gain ratio

where
qn are the non-zero positive roots of the equation
tan qn aqn

and

Dierent methods have been employed for the determination of diusivities by solving the Fickian diusion model.
For example, Karathanos, Villalobos, and Saravacos
(1990) and Spiazzi and Mascheroni (1997) used Newton
Raphson method, whereas Kaymak-Ertekin and Sultanoglu (2000) used CrankNicholson method to solve the Fickian diusion model. The dierent analytical solutions of
Eq. (1) have been given by Crank (1975) for several geometries and boundary conditions. With uniform initial water
and solute concentration and the boundary conditions for
negligible external resistance and varying bulk solution
concentration with time, analytical solution of Ficks equation for innite slab geometry being placed in a stirred
solution of limited volume is given below:
M  Me
M0  Me


1
X
2a1 a
De q2n t

exp
1 a a2 q2n
L2
n1

volume of liquid, i.e., solution (ml)


volume of carrot cubes (solid) (cm3)
volumetric solute concentration (g of solute/
cm3) in solution at innite time
volumetric solute concentration (g of solute/
cm3) in fruit at innite time
initial weight of fruit (g)
weight of fruit after osmotic dehydration for any
time t (g)
initial weight of solids (dry matter) in the fruit
(g)
weight of solids (dry matter) of fruit after osmotic dehydration for time t (g)
number of data points
model parameter or shape factor
rate constant

VL
VS
C L1

am

VL
VS

Partition coecient (m) is being dened as


C L1 mC S1

Some researchers calculated eective diusivity by using


only rst term of the analytical solution (Eq. (2) or (3))
of Fickian model assuming that the eect of terms other
than rst one on value of diusivity was non-signicant
(Nieto, Salvatori, Castro, & Alzamora, 1998; Rastogi &
Niranjan, 1998; Rastogi, Eshtiaghi, & Knorr, 1999;
Sharma, Prasad, & Datta, 2003), whereas Medina-Vivanco, Sobral, and Hubinger (2002), Park, Bin, and Brod
(2002), Simal, Bauza de Mirabo, Deya, and Rossello
(1997), Telis, Romanelli, Gabas, and Romero (2003) Telis,
Murari, and Yamashita (2004) calculated diusion coecients by tting the experimental data to rst three to six
terms of the Fourier series equations by using non-linear
regression analysis. This regression analysis gave only a
single value of diusivity for the entire process, which
could not predict the kinetics of entire osmotic dehydration

B. Singh et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

process, because the value of diusivity changes with time


and moisture of the commodity.
Ade-Omowaye, Rastogi, Angersbach, and Knorr (2002)
and Shi and Maguer (2002) calculated eective diusivities
by slope method, in which it has been reported that logarithm on both sides of Eq. (2) or (3) will result in equation
of a straight line between log(MR) and time. But this
method of applying logarithm disobeys the basic principle
of mathematics, because logarithm could be operated on
the equations having multiplication and P
division only,
and not on the operator like summation ( ).1 However,
the equation between log(MR) and time will be a straight
line if only the rst term of the series have been considered.
The Fourier series having the terms n P 2 will not be
straight line between log(MR) and time. Toledo (2000)
has also mentioned
a method in which logarithm has been
P
operated on ( ).
The objectives of present study were to investigate the
osmotic dehydration kinetics of carrot cubes in the solution
of sucrosesalt mixture having dierent process conditions,
and to develop a computer program to solve Eqs. (2) and
(3) for determination of diusivities.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental procedure
Fresh well graded, carrots were washed and peeled manually. A manually operated vegetable dicer was used to prepare carrot cubes of dimensions 1 cm 1 cm 1 cm. The
cubes were washed with fresh water to remove the carrot
nes adhered to the surface of the fruit. The initial moisture
content of the fresh carrot cubes varied from 91% to 92%
(wet basis).
Osmotic dehydration was done in solution of sucrose
salt mixture having dierent concentrations, solution temperatures, process durations and solution to fruit ratios.
To study the eect of osmotic solution concentration
[50 B + 5% NaCl salt, 50 B + 10% NaCl salt and
50 B + 15% NaCl salt (w/v)] and process duration (0
240 min) on water loss and solute gain during osmotic
dehydration, solution temperature was maintained at
45 C and fruit to solution ratio at 1:5. Similarly, to study
eect of process temperature (35, 45 and 55 C), solution to
fruit ratio was kept as 5 and solution concentration
50 B + 10% NaCl salt (w/v). To study the eect of fruit
to solution ratio (1:4, 1:5 and 1:6), the solution temperature
was maintained at 45C and solution concentration as
50 B + 10% NaCl salt (w/v). To study the eect of each

2
P

An eDqn t A1 eDq1 t A2 eDq2 t

n1

If we take logarithm on both sides of this, then the resulting equation


would be logMP
logA1 eDq1 t A2 eDq2 t and it would never be equal
2
to logM log
n1 An  Dqn t.

473

variable, the experiments were conducted in triplicates at


each condition.
No blanching was done prior to osmosis as it has been
reported to be detrimental to osmotic dehydration process
due to the loss of semi-permeability of cell membrane
(Ponting, 1973) and reduction of b-carotene of carrots
(Bao & Chang, 1994; Kalra, 1990). Stain less steel containers containing osmotic solution were kept in hot water bath
agitating at the rate of 52 oscillations per minute. Agitation
was given during osmosis for reducing the mass transfer
resistance at the surface of the fruit and for good mixing
and close temperature control in osmotic medium (Bongirwar & Sreenivasan, 1977).
The volume of the known weights of carrot cubes was
measured by water displacement method and was related
to its weight by equation by regression analysis.
Volume of carrot cubes
0:993  weight of carrot cubes  0:5211

After attainment of desired temperature of the solution, the


carrot cubes of known weight were put in to the container.
The cubes from each container were removed after a regular interval of between 0 and 240 min and were immediately rinsed with water to remove the solute adhered to
the fruit surface. The cubes were put in to the measuring
cylinder containing known quantity of water for the measurement of fruit volume. The carrot cubes were spread
on absorbent paper to remove the free water from the outer
surface of the fruit and were put in to the pre-weighed petridish for determination of dry matter by oven method.
Similarly, 10 ml of osmotic solution was put in pre-weighed
petridish for the determination of total solids by oven
method. The salt contents of fruit were determined by
Mohr method.
2.2. Osmotic dehydration parameters
The water loss and solute gain during osmotic dehydration were calculated by the equations given by Ozen, Dock,
Ozdemir, and Floros (2002):
% WL water loss/100 g fresh fruit
W 0  W t S t  S 0
 100
W0
% SG solute gain/100 g fresh fruit
St  S0

 100
W0

2.3. Empirical models for osmotic dehydration


Mass transfer kinetics during osmotic dehydration of
carrot cubes were modeled according to Penetration model
(Kaleemulah, Kailappan, Varadharaju, & Devdas, 2002),
Magee model (Magee et al., 1983; Rahman & Lamb,
1990) and Azuara equations (Azuara, Beristain, & Garcia,
1992; Kaymak-Ertekin & Sultanoglu, 2000):

474

B. Singh et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

Penetration model

p
WL % or SG % K  t
Magee model
WL % or SG % A K 

10
p
t

11

The model proposed by Azuara et al. (1992) was of the


following form:
WLt

b1 tWL1
1 b1 t

12

where WLt is the water loss at time t, WL1 is the corresponding quantity at innite time (i.e., at equilibrium)
and b1 is the constant related to the rate of water diusion
out of the carrots (min1):
t
1
1

t
WLt WL1
b1 WL1

13

The equilibrium water loss (WL1) and model constant b1


were estimated
from the slope and intercept of the plot


t
versus t of Eq. (13).
WLt
Similarly for solute gain, it can be written as
b tSG1
SGt 2
1 b2 t

14

t
1
1

t
SGt SG1
b2 SG1

15

where SGt is the water loss at time t, SG1 is the corresponding quantity at innite time (i.e., at equilibrium)
and b2 is the constant related to the rate of solute diusion
in to the carrots (min1).
The equilibrium solute gain (SG1) and model constant
b
2 were
 estimated from the slope and intercept of the plot
t
versus t of Eq. (15).
SGt
2.4. Calculation of eective diusivity of water and solute
The C S1 {Volumetric solute concentration (g of solute/
cm3) in fruit at innite time} can be calculated by the following steps:
1. Azuara et al. (1992) equation was used to determine the
fraction of solute gained at innite time (SG1) from the
slope of Eq. (15).
2. From the graphs plotted between density and solute
gain in g/100 g fresh fruit the density of fruit at innite
time was determined:
q1 Density of fruit at infinite time
slope of line  solute gain at infinite time
intercept on density axis

It was observed that with increase of solute gain, there


was a linear increase of density of the product.
3. Volumetric solute concentration in fruit at infinite time
SG1
16
C S1
q1
4. Then


plotting a graph between time (t) and



t
, volumetric concentration
concentration of solution
of solution at innite time (C L1 is calculated from
1/slope of line.
5. Then the partition coecient (m) was calculated from
the equation as
m

C L1
C S1

17

and the value of a was found from Eq. (5).


To calculate rst six roots (qn) roots of Eq. (4) at values
of a other than the values given in Crank (1975), following
equations were developed by regression analysis:
q1 1:571410:8535=expa=0:3112
0:5484=expa=1:416
0:1656=expa=9:726; v2 0:00004

18

q2 4:684530:9929=expa=0:1612
0:4868=expa=0:7189
0:1187=expa=10:52; v2 6:076106

19

q3 7:866820:9542expa=0:1014
0:4707expa=0:3646
0:1331expa=2:005; v2 0:00004

20

q4 11:00351:094expa=0:08243
0:3908expa=0:3832
0:07801expa=2:746; v2 0:00001
q5 14:143861:137expa=0:06799

21

0:3579expa=0:3342
0:06891expa=2:212; v2 9:2789106
q6 17:28581:087expa=0:5424

22

0:3886expa=0:2308
0:08849expa=1:478; v2 7:2032106

23

The eective diusivity of solute and moisture was calculated by using rst six terms of the Fourier series by a computer program in C++ language. Eqs. (2) and (3) were
solved by an iteration technique, in which rstly the value
of diusivity (De) was calculated by using only rst term of
the Fourier series. Then the value of De was incremented in
such a manner that the predicted value of moisture ratio
(or Solute gain ratio) approached the experimental one.
The program was executed only for positive values of Fourier number (F0 = De*t/L2) as reported by Sharma et al.

B. Singh et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

475

2.6. Adequacy of t of empirical models

START

Data input like t (minutes),


L(cm),, n=6, MR or SGR

Calculate D for n=1 after calculation of q

D=D+(D/1000)
n=1 to 6 in steps of 1 and calculate q to q and calculate MR or SGR
1

If difference between experimental


& calculated MR or SGR is = 0.000001

No

Yes

In addition to R2, the various statistical parameters such


as reduced chi-square (v2) and root mean square error
(RMSE) were also used as primary criterion to select the
best equation. As these parameters are not a good criterion
for evaluating non-linear mathematical models, therefore
the percent mean relative deviation modulus (E%) was also
used to select the best equation to account for variation in
the drying curves of the dried samples as recommended by
several authors recently in their drying studies (Azoubel &
Murr, 2004) that indicate the deviation of the observed data
from the predicted line. Therefore, the best model was chosen as one with the highest coecient of correlation, R2; and
the least v2, RMSE and mean relative deviation modulus, E.
The average percent dierence between the experimental
and predicted values mean relative deviation modulus, E,
dened by following equation:
E%

The value of D in
D in m2/sec=D/60,0000

100
n

n
X
Experimental value  predicted value




Experimental value
i1

25
END
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of main computer program for determination of
eective diusivity using rst six terms of Fourier series.

(2003). The ow diagram of the computer program is as given in Fig. 1.


The average De for solute and water was calculated from
those obtained at each data point as
Pn
De
24
Davg 1
n

The values of E less than 5.0 indicate an excellent t, while


values greater than 10 are indicative of a poor t.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Mass transfer kinetics of carrot cubes during osmotic
dehydration
The eects of various process parameters on kinetics of
water loss and solute gain during osmotic dehydration of
carrot cubes is discussed below.
70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

50B+5% NaCl (Water loss)


50B+10% NaCl (Water loss)

30

50B+15% NaCl (Water loss)

30

50B+10% NaCl (Solute gain)

20

50B+15% NaCl (Solute gain)

20

50B+5% NaCl (Solute gain)

10

10

0
0

100

200

Solute gain g/100 g Fresh fruit

The regression analysis of the experimental data was


carried out to observe the signicance of the eect of various process parameters on water loss and solute gain during osmotic dehydration by the software Statistica (1995).
The relative eect of each process parameter was compared
from the b values corresponding to that parameter. The b
coecients were the regression coecients obtained by rst
standardizing the process variables to a mean of zero and
standard deviation to one. The advantage of using b coefcient (as compared to B coecients which are not standardized) was that the magnitudes of these values that
allowed us to compare the relative contribution of each
independent variable in the prediction of the dependent
variable (Statistica, 1995). Higher the positive value of b
of a parameter; higher would be the eect of that parameter and vice versa. For checking the validity of empirical
models for all the osmotic dehydration processes, regression analysis was performed.

Water loss g/100 g Fresh fruit

2.5. Statistical analysis

0
300

Time (minutes)
Fig. 2. Eect of osmotic solution concentration and time on water loss
and solute gain at 45 C and fruit to solution of 1:5.

B. Singh et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

3.1.1. Eect of composition and concentration of osmotic


solution
It is clear from Fig. 2 that, water loss and solute gain
was increased with an increase in concentration of salt
from 5% to 15% in 50 B sucrose solution at temperature
of 45 C with solution to fruit ratio of 5. The increase in
water loss and solute gain might be due to the synergistic
eect of both sucrose and salt to develop high osmotic
potential, which was in close agreement with the results
of Sacchetti, Gianotti, and Dalla Rosa (2001). The results
were consistent with the ndings of Ade-Omowaye et al.
(2002) and Ozen et al. (2002) for osmotic dehydration of
red paprika and green pepper in sucrosesalt mixture
solution.

70

60

60

50

50
35C (Water loss)

40

40

45C (Water loss)

30

55C (Water loss)

20

45C (Solute gain)


55C (Solute gain)

30
20

35C (Solute gain)

10

10

0
0

100

200

0
300

Time (minutes)
Fig. 3. Eect of osmotic solution temperature on water loss and solute
gain at 50 B + 10%NaCl concentration and fruit to solution of 1:5.

3.1.3. Eect of osmotic solution temperature on water loss


and solute gain
It is clear from Fig. 3 that there was an increase in rate
of water loss and relatively stable rate of solute gain with
the increase in solution temperature for osmotic dehydration with sucrosesalt mixture solution. Such results have
also been reported by several researchers working on potatoes (Islam & Flink, 1982; Lenart & Flink, 1984), fruits
(Hawkes & Flink, 1978; Lazarides, Katsanidis, & Nickolaidis, 1995). The eect of increasing solution temperature of
highly concentrated solution might be due to decrease in
viscosity of the osmotic solution resulting in high diusion
rates of both water and solute. Kaymak-Ertekin and
Sultanoglu (2000) and Telis et al. (2003) also reported similar results regarding eect of temperature on osmotic
dehydration kinetics.
3.1.4. Eect of solution to fruit ratio on water loss and
solute gain
There was an increase in water loss and solute gain with
increase of fruit to solution ratio (Fig. 4). This behavior
could be explained on the basis that water loss and solute
gain took longer time to acquire equilibrium during osmotic dehydration in solution of sucrosesalt mixture. Islam
and Flink (1982), Pokharkar and Prasad (1998), Rastogi
and Raghavarao (1995) also reported the increased rate
of water loss and solute gain with increase of solution to
fruit ratio.
70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40
FTSR=1:4 (Water loss)
FTSR=1:5 (Water loss)

30

FTSR=1:6 (Water loss)

30

FTSR=1:5 (Solute gain)


FTSR=1:6 (Solute gain)

20

FTSR=1: 4 (Solute gain)

10

20

Solute gain g/100 g Fresh fruit

70

Solute gain g/100 g Fresh fruit

Water loss g/100 g Fresh fruit

3.1.2. Eect of immersion time on water loss and solute


gain in carrot cubes
Increased water loss and solute gain in carrot cubes were
observed with increase in immersion time for all the process
conditions. Figs. 2 and 3 indicate that both water loss and
solute gain were higher in the initial phase of osmosis than
the later period. This might be due to the reason that with
progression of time, as the moisture moved from the sample to solution and solute from solution to sample, the
osmotic driving potentials for moisture and solute transfer
decreased. Also the rapid loss of water and uptake of solids
near the surface in the beginning might have been resulted
in structural changes leading to compaction of these surface layers and increased mass transfer resistance for water
and solids. Similar results were also reported by Lenart and
Flink (1984) for osmotic dehydration of potatoes. Further,
progressive solid uptake might have been resulted in the
formation of high solids subsurface layer, which interfered
with the concentration gradient across the product

solution interface and acted as a barrier against removal


of water and uptake of solids, which was in close agreement
with the results of Hawkes and Flink (1978).

Water loss g/100 g Fresh fruit

476

10

0
0

100

200

0
300

Time (minutes)
Fig. 4. Eect of solution to fruit to solution ratio (STFR) on water loss
and solute gain at 50 B + 10% NaCl concentration and solution
temperature 45 C.

B. Singh et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

477

Table 1
Regression summary for water loss and solute gain for osmotic dehydration in solution of sucrosesalt mixture
Water loss

Solute gain

R2 = 0.923; F(4, 65) = 195.35

R = 0.87; F(4, 65) = 108.04


B

b
Intercept
Time
Concentration
Temperature
Ratio
**

0.8899
0.1842
0.1697
0.1201

p-Level

p-Level

0.9316
0.1089
0.1535
0.1410

4.7764
0.03627
0.1213
0.0855
0.7853

0.0007**
3.88E37**
0.0023**
3.23E05**
0.0001**

**

18.9584
0.1613
0.9556
0.4404
3.1169

0.0246
2.77E29**
0.0001**
0.0003**
0.0093**

Signicant at 5% level.

3.2. Statistical analysis of various process parameters


Table 1 indicates that that during osmotic dehydration
of carrot cubes in solution of sucrosesalt mixture; the
eects of all the process parameters were signicant at
5% level of signicance on both water loss and solute gain.

It is clear from Table 1 (b-values) that the osmotic solution


concentration, temperature, time and fruit to solution ratio
has positive eect on water loss during osmotic dehydration. The solution concentration and solution temperature
had more contribution towards water loss as compared to
fruit to solution ratio.

Table 2
Various regression coecients and statistical parameters of Penetration model
Exp. No.

I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII

Concentration
(50 B + NaCl%)

Temperature (C)

10
10
10
10
10
15
5

45
45
35
55
45
45
45

Ratio

4
5
5
5
6
5
5

Water loss

Solute gain

R2

v2

E%

RMSE

R2

v2

E%

RMSE

4.372
4.494
4.096
5.113
4.834
5.143
3.122

0.81
0.81
0.86
0.66
0.83
0.70
0.82

36.32
35.98
24.23
69.64
37.97
64.72
28.86

9.42
11.41
10.83
14.09
10.79
13.55
11.68

5.71
5.69
4.67
7.96
5.84
7.63
5.09

0.764
0.853
0.759
0.902
0.913
0.894
0.781

0.97
0.98
0.86
0.90
0.96
0.97
0.97

0.23
0.18
0.93
0.85
0.34
0.33
0.25

6.02
4.87
10.49
9.68
6.97
5.65
5.31

0.45
0.41
0.91
0.87
0.55
0.54
0.47

Table 3
Various regression coecients and statistical parameters of Magee model
Exp. No.

I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII

Concentration
(50 B + NaCl%)

Temperature (C)

10
10
10
10
10
15
5

45
45
35
55
45
45
45

Ratio

4
5
5
5
6
5
5

Water loss

Solute gain

R2

RMSE

E%

R2

RMSE

E%

3.578
3.217
3.071
3.325
3.572
3.449
2.999

5.226
11.615
9.869
16.184
11.952
15.277
10.143

0.95
0.96
0.96
0.94
0.96
0.94
0.96

3.24
2.38
2.26
3.17
2.87
3.30
2.28

6.62
6.23
6.67
6.52
6.89
6.61
6.37

0.701
0.770
0.600
0.714
0.789
0.798
0.690

0.589
0.861
1.477
2.064
1.335
1.000
0.849

0.99
0.99
0.93
0.98
0.99
0.98
0.98

0.27
0.23
0.65
0.40
0.19
0.39
0.30

3.38
2.64
9.08
5.19
2.17
4.57
3.78

Table 4
Various regression coecients and statistical parameters of Azuara model
Exp. No.

I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII

Concentration
(50 B + NaCl%)

Temperature
(C)

Ratio

10
10
10
10
10
15
5

45
45
35
55
45
45
45

4
5
5
5
6
5
5

Water loss

Solute gain

WL/

b1

R2 of
line

E%

RMSE

R2 of
model

SG/

b2

R2 of
line

E%

RMSE

R2 of
model

63.10
66.22
62.50
70.92
72.99
72.46
61.35

0.024
0.026
0.025
0.032
0.025
0.031
0.025

0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99

3.47
4.31
3.71
3.82
4.07
3.25
4.37

1.18
1.67
1.38
1.86
1.68
1.54
1.62

0.99
0.98
0.99
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.98

13.21
15.13
11.76
14.58
15.85
15.62
13.51

0.017
0.016
0.023
0.022
0.017
0.017
0.017

0.98
0.98
0.99
0.88
0.97
0.98
0.98

8.2
7.80
6.55
6.25
7.85
7.10
6.72

0.54
0.54
0.42
0.51
0.69
0.54
0.44

0.96
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.96
0.97
0.98

478

B. Singh et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

Table 5
Eective diusivity of water and solute for osmotic dehydration of carrot cubes in solution of sucrosesalt mixture
No.

Concentration

Temperature

Ratio

MC/

SG/

(Dw)avg (m2/S)

(Ds)avg (m2/S)

I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII

10
10
10
10
10
15
5

45
45
35
55
45
45
45

4
5
5
5
6
5
5

5.7678
5.5464
9.0431
8.1116
3.3114
7.9929
7.4831

23.0713
33.2786
45.2153
40.5579
37.8682
39.9646
37.4153

26.6678
24.3318
30.000
20.5804
19.2023
19.3462
29.5913

13.2101
15.1282
11.7641
14.5772
15.8473
15.6252
13.5133

1.5941E09
1.7685E09
1.6798E09
2.0782E09
1.6689E09
1.9772E09
1.7215E09

1.2160E09
1.1747E09
1.6450E09
1.5762E09
1.3077E09
1.2610E09
1.2172E09

2.5
Solute diffusity (x10-9m2/S)

Water diffusivity (x10-9 m2/S)


Wa

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5

35C
45C
55C

1
0.5

35C
45C
55C

2
1.5
1
0.5
0

0
20

40

60

80

100

Moisture content % (wb)


Solute diffusivity (x10-9 m2/s)

Water diffusivity (x10-9)

3
2.5
2
1.5
50B+5% NaCl

50B+10% NaCl
0.5

50B+15% NaCl

0
20

40

60

10

15

Solute gain (g)/100g fresh fruit


2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

50B+5% NaCl
50B+10% NaCl
50B+15% NaCl
0

80

5
10
15
Solute gain (g)/100g fresh fruit

Moisture content % (wb)


2.5
Solute diffusivity (x10-9 m2/s)

Water diffusivity (x10-9 m2/s)


Wa

2.5
2
1.5
FTSR=1:4
1

FTSR=1:5
FTSR=1:6

0.5

FTSR=1:4
2

FTSR=1:5
FTSR=1:6

1.5
1
0.5
0

0
20

40
60
Moisture content % (wb)

80

10

15

Solute gain (g)/100g fresh fruit

Fig. 5. Eect of various process parameters on eective diusivity of water and solute during osmotic dehydration of carrot cubes.

B. Singh et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

3.3. Validation of empirical models for osmotic dehydration


In all the experiments of osmotic dehydration, the values
of R2 were low in case of Penetration model. Tables 24
indicate that, the Magee and Azuara model represented
the experimental data of osmotic dehydration with more
accuracy. Further, for water loss, Azuara model had an
excellent t as compared to Magee model due to lower values of E (%). The solute gain is more well represented by
the Magee model as compared to the Azuara model.
Similar results were reported by Kar and Gupta (2001),
Rahman and Lamb (1990). However, Lazarides and
Mavroudis (1996), Pokharkar and Prasad (1998) reported
that Penetration model was a universal model for osmotic
dehydration, but this model did not t to the experimental
data in the present study.
3.4. Eective diusivity of water and solute
Table 5 indicates that the average eective diusivity of
water loss and solute gain varied from 1.594 109 to
1.977 109 m2/s and 1.216 109 to 1.645 109 m2/s,
respectively, during osmotic dehydration in sucrosesalt
mixture solution over the temperature range of 3555C,
concentration from 45 to 55 B and fruit to solution ratio
from 1:4 to 1:6. The calculated eective diusion coecients for solute were analogous to those reported by various researchers. Azoubel and Murr (2004) reported the
eective diusion coecients ranged from 4.3 1010 to
1.77 109 m2/s for water loss and from 4 1011 to
5.4 1010 m2/s for solute gain during osmotic dehydration of Cherry tomato in solution sucrosesalt mixture at
25 C. Telis et al. (2004) reported apparent diusion coecients for water loss and solute gain between 3.35 1010
and 8.58 1010 m2/s during osmotic dehydration of tomatoes in solution of sucrosesalt mixture.
It is clear from Fig. 5 that the eective diusivity for
water as well as solute decreased with decrease of moisture
and increase of solute gain. The eective diusivity
increased for water loss with the increase in temperature,
concentration and fruit to fruit ratio. Highest diusivity
of water during osmotic dehydration of carrot cubes was
observed for solution of 50 B sucrose + 15% salt as compared to 50 B sucrose + 5% salt and 50 B sucrose + 10%
salt concentration. The values were high for fruit to solution
ratio of 1:5 as compared to ratio of 1:4 and 1:6. The values
of eective diusivity were high at 55 C as compared to 35
and 45 C. Similar, to the water diusivity, the solute diusivity was highest at high temperature, concentration and
solution to fruit ratio, i.e., for 55 C, 50 B sucrose + 15%
salt concentrations and solution to fruit ratio of 6.
4. Conclusions
Osmotic dehydration rate increases with the concentration of osmosis solution, process temperature and fruit to
solution ratio. When the predicted values were compared

479

with experimental ones it was found that the Azuara model


adequately describes the experimental values of process
time for specic for water loss, and Magee model for solute
gain. The obtained water and solute diusion coecients
calculated from Crank (1975) equation were 1.594
1092.078 109 m2/s and 1.175 1091.645 109 m2/s,
respectively.

References
Ade-Omowaye, B. I. O., Rastogi, N. K., Angersbach, A., & Knorr, D.
(2002). Osmotic dehydration behavior of red paprika (Capsicum
annuum L.). Journal of Food Science, 67, 17901796.
Azoubel, P. M., & Murr, F. E. X. (2004). Mass transfer kinetics of osmotic
dehydration of cherry tomato. Journal of Food Engineering, 61,
291295.
Azuara, E., Beristain, C. I., & Garcia, H. S. (1992). Development of a
mathematical model to predict kinetics of osmotic dehydration.
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 29, 239242.
Azuara, E., Cortes, R., Garcia, H. S., & Beristain, C. I. (1992). Kinetic
model for osmotic dehydration and its relationship with Ficks second
law. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 27,
239242.
Bao, B., & Chang, K. C. (1994). Carrot pulp chemical composition, color
and water-holding capacity as aected by blanching. Journal of Food
Science, 59, 11591167.
Bongirwar, D. R., & Sreenivasan, A. (1977). Studies on osmotic
dehydration of banana. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 14,
104113.
Crank, J. (1975). Mathematics of diusion (2nd ed., Vol. 329, pp. 5253).
London: Oxford University Press.
Hawkes, J., & Flink, J. M. (1978). Osmotic concentration of fruit slices
prior to freeze dehydration. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation(2), 265284.
Islam, M. N., & Flink, J. M. (1982). Dehydration of potato. II. Osmotic
concentration and its eect on air drying behaviour. Journal of Food
Technology, 17, 387403.
Kaleemulah, S., Kailappan, R., Varadharaju, N., & Devdas, C. T. (2002).
Mathematical modeling of osmotic dehydration kinetics of papaya.
Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 33,
3034.
Kalra, C. L. (1990). Role of blanching in vegetable processing. Indian Food
Packer(SeptemberOctober), 315.
Kar, A., & Gupta, D. K. (2001). Osmotic dehydration characteristics of
button mushrooms. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 38,
352357.
Karathanos, V. T., Villalobos, G., & Saravacos, G. D. (1990). Comparison of two methods of estimation of eective moisture diusivity from
drying data. Journal of Food Science, 55, 218223, 231.
Kaymak-Ertekin, F., & Sultanoglu, M. (2000). Modeling of mass transfer
during osmotic dehydration of apples. Journal of Food Engineering, 46,
243250.
Lazarides, H. N., & Mavroudis, N. E. (1996). Kinetics of osmotic
dehydration of a highly shrinking vegetable tissue in a salt-free
medium. Journal of Food Engineering, 30, 6174.
Lazarides, H. N., Katsanidis, E., & Nickolaidis, A. (1995). Mass transfer
kinetics during osmotic preconcentration aiming at minimal solid
uptake. Journal of Food Engineering, 25, 151166.
Lenart, A., & Flink, J. M. (1984). Osmotic concentration of potato. I.
Criteria for the end point of the osmosis process. Journal of Food
Technology(19), 4563, II. Criteria for the end point of the osmosis
process. Journal of Food Technology, 19, 6589.
Magee, T. R. A., Murphy, W. R., & Hassaballah, A. A. (1983). Internal
mass transfer during osmotic dehydration of apple slices in sugar
solution. Irish Journal of Food Science and Technology, 7, 147155.

480

B. Singh et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 79 (2007) 471480

Medina-Vivanco, M., Sobral, P. J. do. A., & Hubinger, M. D. (2002).


Osmotic dehydration of tilapia llets in limited volume of ternary
solutions. Chemical Engineering Journal, 3966, 17.
Mudahar, G. S., Toledo, R. T., Floros, J. D., & Jen, J. J. (1989).
Optimization of carrot dehydration process using response surface
methodology. Journal of Food Science, 54, 714719.
Nieto, A., Salvatori, D., Castro, M. A., & Alzamora, S. M. (1998). Air
drying behaviour of apples as aected by blanching and glucose
impregnation. Journal of Food Engineering, 36, 6379.
Ozen, B. F., Dock, L. L., Ozdemir, M., & Floros, J. D. (2002). Processing
factors aecting the osmotic dehydration of diced green peppers.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 37, 497502.
Park, K. J., Bin, A., & Brod, F. P. R. (2002). Drying of pear dAnjou with
and without osmotic dehydration. Journal of Food Engineering, 56,
97103.
Pokharkar, S. M., & Prasad, S. (1998). Mass transfer during osmotic
dehydration of banana slices. Journal of Food Science and Technology,
35, 336338.
Ponting, J. D. (1973). Osmotic dehydration of fruits: Recent modications
and applications. Process Biochemistry, 8, 1822.
Rahman, M. S., & Lamb, J. (1990). Osmotic dehydration of pineapple.
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 27, 150152.
Rastogi, N. K., & Raghavarao, K. S. M. S. (1994). Eect of temperature
and concentration on osmotic dehydration of coconut. Lebensmittel
Wissenschaft und Technologie, 27, 564567.
Rastogi, N. K., & Raghavarao, K. S. M. S. (1995). Kinetics of osmotic
dehydration of coconut. Journal of Food Processing and Engineering,
18, 187197.
Rastogi, N. K., & Niranjan, K. (1998). Enhanced mass transfer during
osmotic dehydration of high pressure treated pineapple. Journal of
Food Science, 63, 508511.

Rastogi, N. K., Eshtiaghi, M. N., & Knorr, D. (1999). Accelerated


mass transfer during osmotic dehydration of high intensity electrical eld pulse pretreated carrots. Journal of Food Science, 64,
10201023.
Sacchetti, G., Gianotti, A., & Dalla Rosa, M. (2001). Sucrosesalt
combined eect on mass transfer kinetics and product acceptability.
Study on apple osmotic treatment. Journal of Food Engineering, 49,
163173.
Sharma, G. P., Prasad, S., & Datta, A. K. (2003). Drying kinetics of garlic
cloves under convective drying conditions. Journal of Food Science
Technology, 40, 4551.
Shi, J., & Maguer, M. L. (2002). Osmotic dehydration of foods: Mass
transfer and modeling aspects. Food Reviews International, 18,
305335.
Simal, S., Bauza de Mirabo, F., Deya, E., & Rossello, C. (1997). A simple
model to predict mass transfers in dehydration by osmosis. Zeitschrift
fur Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und-Forschung AFood Research and
Technology, 204, 210214.
Spiazzi, E., & Mascheroni, R. (1997). Mass transfer model for osmotic
dehydration of fruits and vegetablesI. Development of simulation
model. Journal of Food Engineering, 34, 387410.
Statistica for Windows 5.0 (1995). Computer program manual. Tulsa:
StatSoft, Inc.
Telis, V. R. N., Murari, R. C. B. D. L., & Yamashita, F. (2004). Diusion
coecients during osmotic dehydration of tomatoes in ternary
solutions. Journal of Food Engineering, 61, 253259.
Telis, V. R. N., Romanelli, P. F., Gabas, A. L., & Romero, J. T. (2003).
Salting kinetics and salt diusivities in farmed Pantanal caiman
muscle. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, Brasillia, 38, 529535.
Toledo, R. T. (2000). Fundamental of food engineering (2nd ed., pp. 471
472). New Delhi: CBS Publishers and Distributors.