Modeling the ThinLayer Drying of Fruits and Vegetables: A Review
Daniel I. Onwude, Norhashila Hashim, Rimﬁel B. Janius, Nazmi Mat Nawi, and Khalina Abdan
Abstract: The drying of fruits and vegetables is a complex operation that demands much energy and time. In practice, the drying of fruits and vegetables increases product shelflife and reduces the bulk and weight of the product, thus simplifying transport. Occasionally, drying may lead to a great decrease in the volume of the product, leading to a decrease in storage space requirements. Studies have shown that dependence purely on experimental drying practices, without mathematical considerations of the drying kinetics, can signiﬁcantly affect the efﬁciency of dryers, increase the cost of production, and reduce the quality of the dried product. Thus, the use of mathematical models in estimating the drying kinetics, the behavior, and the energy needed in the drying of agricultural and food products becomes indispensable. This paper presents a comprehensive review of modeling thinlayer drying of fruits and vegetables with particular focus on thinlayer theories, models, and applications since the year 2005. The thinlayer drying behavior of fruits and vegetables is also highlighted. The most frequently used of the newly developed mathematical models for thin layer drying of fruits and vegetables in the last 10 years are shown. Subsequently, the equations and various conditions used in the estimation of the effective moisture diffusivity, shrinkage effects, and minimum energy requirement are displayed. The authors hope that this review will be of use for future research in terms of modeling, analysis, design, and the optimization of the drying process of fruits and vegetables.
Keywords: diffusion, drying kinetics, fruits and vegetables, mathematical modeling, thinlayer drying
Introduction
Drying is one of the oldest and a very important unit operation, it involves the application of heat to a material which results in the transfer of moisture within the material to its surface and then water removal from the material to the atmosphere (Ekechukwu 1999; Akpinar and Bicer 2005). It is the most frequent method of food preservation and thereby increases shelflife and improves product quality. The frequent application of drying in the food, agricultural, manufacturing, paper, polymer, chemical, and phar maceutical industries for different purposes cannot be overempha sized. In addition to preservation, the reduction in the bulk and weight of dried products reduces handling, packaging, and trans portation costs. According to Klemes and others (2008), there are over 200 dryer types which can be used for different purposes. Also, the drying features for pressure, air velocity, relative humid ity, and product retention time vary according to the material and method of drying. Furthermore, drying is estimated to consume 10% to 15% of the total energy requirements of all the food indus tries in developed countries (Keey 1972; Klemes and others 2008). Thus, it is energyintensive. In a nutshell, drying is arguably the
MS 20151951 Submitted 24/11/2015, Accepted 11/1/2016. Authors Onwude, Hashim, Janius, Nawi, and Abdan are with Dept. of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. Putra, Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. Author Onwude is with Dept. of Agricultural and Food Engi neering, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Uyo, 52021 Uyo, Nigeria. Direct inquiries to author Hashim (Email: norhashila@upm.edu.my ).
C
2016 Institute of Food Technologists ^{®}
most longstanding, diverse, and conventional operation. Conse quently, the engineering aspects of drying are an essential consid eration. According to Kudra and Mujumdar (2002), conventional technologies are still widely preferred industrially as compared to novel technologies. This is for multiple reasons, which include simplicity of dryer construction, ease of operation, as well as the status of familiarity (ArayaFarias and Ratti 2009). Over time, the models developed have been used in calculations involving the design and construction of new drying systems, op timization of the drying process, and the description of the entire drying behavior including the combined macroscopic and micro scopic medium of heat and mass transfer. Thus, it is important to understand the basic idea of modeling the drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables. The drying conditions, type of dryer, and the characteristics of the material to be dried all have an inﬂu ence on drying kinetics. The drying kinetics models are therefore signiﬁcant in deciding the ideal drying conditions, which are im portant parameters in terms of equipment design, optimization, and product quality improvement (Giri and Prasad 2007). So, to analyze the drying behavior of fruits and vegetables it is important to study the kinetics model of each particular product. Thinlayer drying is a widely used method for determining the drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables (AlvesFilho and others 1997; Chau and others 1997; Kiranoudis and others 1997; Kadam and others 2011). It involves simultaneous heat and mass transfer operations. During these operations, the material is fully exposed to drying conditions of temperature and hot air, thus improving the
doi: 10.1111/15414337.12196
Vol.15,2016 ^{} Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety 599
Thinlayer models of fruits and vegetables
drying process. The most important aspects of thinlayer drying external resistance. Greater internal resistance exists at a lower air technology are the mathematical modeling of the drying process velocity ( 1.5 m/s) than at a higher ﬂow rate. Generally, this pa and the equipment design which can enable the selection of the rameter can only have great inﬂuence at air velocity above 2.5 m/s most suitable operating conditions. Thus, there is a need to explore (ElBeltagy and others 2007; Reyes and others 2007; Perez and the thinlayer modeling approach as an essential tool in estimating Schmalko 2009; Guan and others 2013).
For industrial drying, higher drying rates can be achieved with
the drying kinetics from the experimental data, describing the
drying behavior, improving the drying process, and eventually a minimum drying time when drying at higher velocities and
temperatures (Erbay and Icer 2010). However, drying at a very
Fruits and vegetables are highly perishable commodities that high temperature (above 80 °C) (Shi and others 2008; Chen and need to be preserved to increase shelflife. The drying process can others 2013) and higher velocity (above 2.5 m/s) could adversely be predicted using suitable thinlayer models. Several researchers affect the ﬁnal quality of the material and increase the total energy have studied the drying of fruits and vegetables using thinlayer demand (Sturm and others 2012). The higher air velocity increases drying models to estimate the drying time of a product (Meisami heat transfer and total energy requirement during constant drying asl and Raﬁee 2009; Gupta and Alam 2014; Tzempelikos and rate period. Consequently, it is not advisable to dry at extremely
others 2015). Evidence suggests that these models can further be high temperature and air velocity.
used to estimate the drying curve and also predict the drying
The size and shape are also important parameters in the drying
minimizing the total energy requirement.
behavior, energy consumption, and heat and mass transfer of the of fruits and vegetables. It is safe to note that most fruits and drying process (Murthy and Manohar 2012). However, in practice, vegetables are dried using the thinlayer concept which means that there is no single thinlayer model that can be used to effectively the size of the material is reduced to dimensions that will enable generalize the drying kinetics of several fruits and vegetables. This uniform distribution of the drying air and temperature over the is due to a number of factors including the method of drying, material. The shape factor is integrated into the kinetics models of the drying conditions, and the product to be dried. The applica drying to reduce the effect of product shape on the drying process
tion of thinlayer drying models to predicting the drying behavior (Pandey and others 2010). Furthermore, during the drying of fruits of fruits and vegetables often involves the measurement of the and vegetables, the relative humidity of the drying chamber often moisture content of the material. This is done after it has been ﬂuctuates due to the conditions of the ambient temperature and subjected to different drying conditions (temperature, air veloc relative humidity of the environment, hence this has less inﬂuence ity, and relative humidity) and subsequent correlation with the on the entire drying process (Aghbashlo and others 2009; Sturm dominant drying condition to estimate the model parameters. In and others 2012; Misha and others 2013). In summary, during
correct collection of experimental data from the thinlayer drying the drying process, the air velocity and relative humidity are the experiments, will affect the drying process and, subsequently, the least signiﬁcant factors that affect the drying kinetics of fruits and selection of appropriate thinlayer models. Thus, the selection of vegetables. the most suitable thinlayer drying model is also a very important
tool in describing the drying behavior of fruits and vegetables. Much research has been carried out over the past few years concerning thinlayer modeling of fruits and vegetables. However,
According to the American Natl. Standards Inst. and the Amer
to the best of our knowledge, there has not been a review published ican Society of Assoc. Executives (ANSI/ASAE 2014) a thinlayer on the theories, applications, and comparisons of the existing is a layer of material fully exposed to an airstream during drying.
knowledge within the past 10 y. This gap in knowledge is a serious Figure 1 shows a schematic of a drying chamber and product layers
along the drying tray. The thickness of the layer should be uniform
Therefore, this article aims to provide a critical literature review and should not exceed 3 layers of particles. It is assumed that the
of the drying mechanisms, theories, applications, and comparisons temperature distribution of a thinlayer material is uniform. This
of thinlayer drying models for fruits and vegetables since 2005.
drawback for future developmental efforts.
ThinLayer Drying Theories and Modeling
Drying mechanism
is due to the thinlayer characteristics, thus making use of lumped parameter models suitable for thinlayer drying. It is imperative to note that the this concept can be applied to (1) a single material
The various conditions affecting the drying of fruits and veg freely exposed to the drying air or one layer of the material and etables include air velocity, drying temperature, size and shape of (2) a multilayer of different slice thicknesses, provided the drying the material, and the relative humidity. Amongst these conditions, temperature and the relative humidity of the drying air are in the
the most inﬂuential in terms of drying fruits and vegetables are same thermodynamic condition at any time of the drying process, drying temperature and material thickness (Meisamiasl and oth which thus can be applied to the mathematical estimations of the
ers 2010; Pandey and others 2010; Kumar and others 2012a). It drying kinetics. However, Kucuk and others (2014) reported that has been argued that the air velocity rate signiﬁcantly affects the the thickness of a thin layer can be increased provided there is drying process of food and agricultural products (Yaldiz and others an increase in the drying air velocity and also if the simultaneous 2001; Krokida and others 2003). However, this is mostly observed heat and mass transfers of the material are in equilibrium with the for crops such as rice, corn, potatoes, and so on. Studies on the thermodynamic state of the drying air.
drying of fruits and vegetables indicate that the air velocity has
Erbay and Icer (2010) reported that the mechanisms of drying
Factors affecting drying
little inﬂuence on the drying kinetics of most of them (Tzempe all kinds of foods include surface diffusion, liquid/vapor diffusion, likos and others 2014; Darıcı and S¸en, 2015). Similar results were and capillary action within the porous region of foods. However, it recorded by Yaldiz and others (2001); Akpinar and others (2003); has been widely reported that the dominant mechanism of mois
Krokida and others (2003); Menges and Ertekin (2006); Sacilik ture removal from fruits and vegetables is diffusion (Akpinar 2006a; (2007); and Meisamiasl and others (2010). These authors have Doymaz 2007; Raquel 2007; Duc and others 2011; Hashim and highlighted that the effect of air velocity could depend on the re others 2014). Further, the rate of diffusion depends on the mois spective heat and mass transfer, which could have either internal or ture content and the nature of the material. Diffusion determines
600 Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety ^{} Vol.15,2016
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists ^{®}
Thinlayer models of fruits and vegetables
Figure 1–Schematic diagram of a drying chamber and product layers along the drying tray.
the resistance to the moisture diffusion within kiwi is negligibly small as otherwise a reasonably long constant rate period would be expected. Darvishi and others (2014) reported that the entire dry ing process of lemon fruit occurs during the falling rate period,
and Mujumdar 2010). Thus, determining the dominant mecha stating that diffusion was the dominant physical mechanism for
nism can be very useful information in regards to modeling the drying process of fruits and vegetables. Figure 2 describes the drying rate and temperature as a function of time. This rate curve can also be used in identifying the domi nant mechanism of a product during drying. In the initial drying
period, the equilibrium air temperature ( T _{w} _{b} ) is usually greater occurs during the falling rate period which is enormously in
than the temperature of the product (Carrin and Crapiste 2008). Therefore, the drying rate between A and B increases with an in
crease in temperature of the product until the surface temperature the drying process of fruits and vegetables have been reported
attains equilibrium (Corresponding to line B to C). Under con stant conditions, the drying process of agricultural and biological products has been described as a number of steps consisting also
of an initial constant rate period (B to C) during which drying ( C.moschata ) (Hashim and others 2014), starfruit (Dash and oth
occurs as if pure water is being evaporated, and one or several ers 2013), carrot (Aghbashlo and others 2009), kastamonu garlic
(Sacilik and Unal 2005), and beetroot (Kaur and Singh 2014). However, Seremet (Ceclu) and others (2015) reported an initial slight constant time period (5 to 10 min) and subsequent falling rate period during the drying of pumpkin at drying temperature
rate periods because the drying process is controlled by a diffusion range of 50 to 70 °C. They stated that due to the high initial
mechanism. Drying usually stops when steady state equilibrium is reached (Erbay and Icer 2010). During the constant rate period the physical form of the product is affected, especially the surface of the product. This period is largely controlled by capillary and
gravity forces. The conditions of the drying process, like the tem during the drying of carrots. The presence of the constant rate
perature, drying air velocity, and relative humidity, also affect the product during this stage. The ﬁrst falling rate period (C to D) begins when the surface ﬁlm of the product appears to be dry, and the moisture content has decreased to its critical moisture content ( MR _{c} ). As drying continues, the material will then experience a
change from the ﬁrst falling rate period to a phenomenon known etables may consist of 3 drying stages: an initial slight constant
as the second falling rate period (D to E).
rate period (products with high moisture content), a ﬁrst falling
Tzempelikos and others (2015) reported that the drying curve rate period, and a second falling rate period. In practice, recent of quinces shows only the presence of the falling rate period. evidence suggests that the drying of fruits and vegetables occurs
only during the falling rate period with the initial slight constant
Darıcı and S¸en (2015) reported that the drying process of kiwi
takes in both the constant and falling rate period, stating that rate period said to be negligible.
falling rate periods where the moisture movement is controlled by combined external–internal resistances or by either external or internal resistance to heat and mass transfer (ArayaFarias and Ratti 2009). Mostly, many fruits and vegetables dry during the falling
extensively in the literature. This dominant mechanism, which results in the falling drying rate period, is further exempliﬁed in studies of the thinlayer drying of mango (Akoy 2014), pumpkin
the drying rate, which can be expressed as the moisture con tent changes (g of water/g of solid). However, during drying, the dominant mechanism can change due to a change in the physical structure of the drying solid after a long period of time (Jangam
moisture movement. In addition, for vegetables, Saeed and others (2008) reported that the diffusion mechanism also controlled the moisture movement of the drying process of Roselle ( Hibiscus sab dariffa L .) which totally took place during the falling rate period. Ayadi and others (2014) found that the drying of spearmint leaves
ﬂuenced by the drying temperature. Similar results regarding the diffusion mechanism as the dominant controlling mechanism of
moisture content (90.85% w.b.) of the product, in order to remove the unbound water from the surface, an initial constant rate period was observed. Reyes and others (2007) also reported the presence of both an initial constant rate period and a falling rate period
period can be attributed to the method and conditions of drying. Diamante and others (2010a) also attributed the presence of the constant rate period in the drying of green and gold kiwi fruits to the lower drying air velocity used. In summary, an allinclusive drying proﬁle for fruits and veg
C
2016 Institute of Food Technologists ^{®}
Vol.15,2016 ^{} Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety 601
Thinlayer models of fruits and vegetables
Figure 2–A typical drying curve of agricultural products showing constant rate and falling rate periods. (Adapted from Carrin and Crapiste 2008).
reliance on experimental data. Thus, these models have proved to be the most useful for dryer engineers and designers (Brooker and others 1992). However, they are only valid within the applied dry ing conditions. On the other hand, the theoretical models make too many assumptions leading to a considerable number of errors (Henderson 1974; Bruce 1985), thus limiting their utilization in the design of dryers. The semitheoretical models are usually obtained from solutions of Fick’s second law and variations of its simpliﬁed forms. The semitheoretical and some empirical models provide an under standing of the transport processes and demonstrate a better ﬁt to the experimental data (Janjai and others 2011). Both the empir ical and semitheoretical models have similar characteristics. The main challenges faced by the empirical models are that they de pend largely on experimental data and provide limited information about the heat and mass transfer during the drying process (Erbay and Icier 2010). Due to the characteristics of the semitheoretical and empirical models and the high moisture content property of many fruits and vegetables, these models are widely applied in estimating drying kinetics. Therefore, the pages that follow will attempt to discuss in de tail the semitheoretical and empirical models used in the differ ent literature sources as applied to thinlayer drying of fruits and vegetables.
Model classiﬁcation
Drying processes are usually modeled using 2 main models, the distributed element model and the lumped element model (Erbay and Icer 2010). These are now described individually. Distributed element model. This model or system is based on the interaction between time and one or more spatial variables for all of its dependent variables. The distributed element model considers the simultaneous mass and heat transfer for the drying processes. It is important to note that the pressure effect is negligi ble compared to the temperature and moisture effect as reported by Brooker and others (1974). Lumped element model. This model or system considers the effect of time alone on the dependent variables. The lumped el ement model does not consider the change in temperature of a product and assumes a uniform distribution of drying air temper ature within the product. The model includes assumptions from the Luikov equations, that is, the pressure variable is negligible and the temperature is constant (Luikov 1975). The model is presented in Eq. 1 and 2 below:
δ M
δ t
=
∇ ^{2} K _{1}
(1)
δ T
δ
t
(2)
Some selected thinlayer drying models of fruits and vegetables are shown in Table 1. These models are often employed to de where K _{1} is the effective diffusivity ( D) and K _{1}_{2} is known as the scribe drying fruits and vegetables and may be classiﬁed into 3 thermal diffusivity ( α ). For the constant values of α and D, Eq. 1 groups based on their comparative advantages and disadvantages and 2 can further be presented as and also their derivation. These are theoretical, semitheoretical,
and empirical models. The most widely applied categories of thinlayer models are the semitheoretical and empirical models (Ozdemir and Devres 2000; Panchariya and others 2002; Akpinar 2006a; Doymaz 2007; Raquel and others 2011). These categories of models take into account the external resistance to moisture transport process between the material and atmospheric air, pro vide a greater extent of accurate results, give a better prediction of
drying process behaviors, and make less assumptions due to their ter b _{1} are reported as b _{1} = 0 (plate geometries), b _{1} = 1 (cylindrical
In the view of Ekechukwu (1999), the assumptions for parame
(4)
(3)
Thinlayer drying models
=
∇ ^{2} K _{1}_{2}
δ M
δ
t
D ^{δ} ^{2} ^{M} + ^{b} ^{1}
x
δ
M
=
δ x ^{2}
δ x
δ α ^{δ} ^{2} ^{T} + ^{b} ^{1}
δ
T
t
^{=}
δ
T
δ x ^{2}
x
δ x
602 Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety ^{} Vol.15,2016
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists ^{®}
Thinlayer models of fruits and vegetables
Table 1–Thinlayer models for the drying of fruits and vegetables.
S. No 
Model name 
Model 
Reference 

1. 
Newton model 
MR 
= exp(− kt ) exp( − kt ^{n} ) exp[ − ( K t ) ^{n} ] = = 
ElBeltagy and others (2007) Akoy (2014); Tzempelikos and others (2014) Vega and others (2007) Kumar and others (2006) Meisamiasl and others (2010); Hashim and others (2014) 
2. 
Page model Modiﬁed page (II) 
MR 

3. 
MR 

4 
Modiﬁed page (III) 
MR 
= k exp ( − t /d ^{2} ) ^{n} = a exp(− kt ^{n} ) 

5. Henderson and Pabis model 
MR 
6. Modiﬁed Henderson and Pabis model MR = a exp( − kt ) + b exp(− gt ) + c exp(− ht ) Zenoozian and others (2008)
7. Midilli and others model 
MR 
= 
a exp( − kt ) + bt 
Darvishi and Hazbavi (2012); Ayadi and others (2014) 

8. Logarithmic model 9. Twoterm model 
MR MR 
= a exp(− kt ) + c exp( − K _{1} t ) + b exp(− K _{2} t ) = a 
Rayaguru and Routray (2012); Kaur and Singh (2014) Sacilik (2007) 

10. Twoterm exponential model 
MR = a exp( − k _{0} t ) + (1 − a ) exp(− k _{1} at ) 
Dash and others (2013) 

11. Hii and others model 
MR = a exp(− K _{1} t ^{n} ) 
+ b exp(− K _{2} t ^{n} ) 
Kumar and others (2012b) 

12. Demir and others model 
MR 
= 
a exp (− K t ) ^{n} + b 
Demir and others (2007) 

13. Verma and others model 
MR 
= 
a exp( − kt ) + (1 − a ) exp(− gt ) 
Akpinar (2006) 

14. Approximation of diffusion 
MR 
= 
a exp( − kt ) + (1 − a ) exp(− kbt ) 
Yald´yz and Ertek´yn (2007) 

15. Modiﬁed Midilli and others 
MR 
= 
a exp( − kt ) + b 
Gan and Poh (2014) 
16. Aghbashlo and others model
17.
18. Diamante and others model
19.
20. Thompson
Wang and Singh
Weibull model
MR = exp (
MR = 1 + at + bt ^{2}
ln (− ln M R ) = a + b (ln t ) + c (ln t ) ^{2}
MR =∝ − b exp( − k _{0} t ^{n} )
t = a ln( M R ) + b [ln(MR)] ^{2}
K
_{1} t
1+ K
_{2} _{t} ^{)}
21. Silva and others model 
MR 
= 
exp(−at 1 − t /(a 
− b ^{√} t ) + bt ) 
22. Peleg model 
MR 
= 
Aghbashlo and others (2009) Omolola and others (2014) Diamante and others (2010) Tzempelikos and others (2015) Pardeshi (2009) Pereira and others (2014) Da Silva and others (2015)
shapes), and b _{1} = 2 (spherical shapes). However, these assumptions statistical indicators that have often been used to successfully select result in error for the temperature reading at the beginning of the the most appropriate drying models as reported in the literature
(Akpinar 2006b; Babalis and others 2006; Menges and Ertekin 2006; Doymaz 2007; Vega and others 2007; Saeed and others 2008; Erbay and Icier 2010; Fadhel and others 2011; Kadam and
Theoretical models
drying process (Erbay and Icier 2010).
The theoretical models consider both the external and internal others 2011; Rasouli and others 2011; Akoy 2014; Gan and Poh resistance to moisture transfer. They involve the geometry of the 2014; Tzempelikos and others 2014; Darıcı and S¸en 2015; On
material, its mass diffusivity, and the conductivity of the material wude and others 2015a; Tzempelikos and others 2015) include (Cihan and Ece 2001). Thus the resistances can be estimated from R, R ^{2} (r ^{2} ), x ^{2} , SSE , RMSE , RRMS , E F , MPE , and MBE . Eq. 3 and 4 because these equations describe the mass transfer The higher the values of R and R ^{2} of a particular model (Erbay and Icer 2010). Subsequently, the solution of Fick’s second the better the model is in predicting the drying behavior law of diffusion is widely applied as a theoretical model in the of fruits and vegetables. Similarly, the lower the values of
thinlayer drying of food products (Kucuk and others 2014).
x ^{2} , SSE , RMSE , RRMS , EF , MPE , and MBE of a particular model the more suitable the model is in predicting the drying kinetics of the particular product (Kucuk and others 2014). The semitheoretical models made available in the literature over the past 10 y are discussed below. These models have been widely used in expressing the thinlayerdrying kinetics of fruits and vegetables as shown in Table 2.
Models derived from Newton’s law of cooling.
Newton model. This model is sometimes referred to in the lit erature as the Lewis model or the Exponential model, Single exponential model. It is said to be the simplest model because of the single model constant. In the past, this model has been widely applied in describing the drying behavior of several food and agri cultural products. Recently, it has occasionally been found suitable for describing the drying behavior of some fruits and vegetables:
M R = ^{(} ^{M} ^{−} ^{M} ^{e} ^{)} _{)} = exp( −k ^{t} ) ( M 0 − M e
(5)
Semitheoretical models
The semitheoretical models are derived from the theoretical model (Fick’s second law of diffusion) or its simpliﬁed variation (Newton’s law of cooling). The Lewis, Page, and Modiﬁed Page semitheoretical models are derived from Newton’s law of cool ing. The (i) exponential model and simpliﬁed form, (ii) 2term exponential model and modiﬁed form, and (iii) 3term exponen tial model and simpliﬁed form are all derived from Fick’s sec ond law of diffusion (Erbay and Icier 2010). Factors that could determine the application of these models include the drying temperature, drying air velocity, material thickness, initial mois ture content, and relative humidity (Panchariya and others 2002; Erbay and Icer 2010). Furthermore, under these conditions it can be noted that the complexity of the models can be attributed to the number of constants. In respect to the scientiﬁc literature, the number of constants varies between 1 (Newton model), 5
(Hii and others model), and 6 (Modiﬁed Henderson and Pabis model) (see Table 1). More so, Table 2 shows the relationship where k is the drying constant (s ^{−}^{1} ), MR is the moisture ratio, between some thinlayer model constants and drying conditions M is the dry basis moisture content at any time t, M _{0} is the for various fruits and vegetables. Taking the number of constants initial dry basis moisture content of the sample, and M _{e} is the
into consideration, both the Hii and others model and the Mod equilibrium moisture content. Furthermore, the Newton model iﬁed Henderson and Pabis model can be said to be complex, has been found to be suitable in describing the drying behavior of while the Newton model is the simplest. However, the selection strawberry and red chili as shown in Table 2.
of the most appropriate model for describing the drying behav
Page model. The Page model or the Modiﬁed Lewis model is an
ior of fruits and vegetables does not depend on the number of empirical modiﬁcation of the Newton model, whereby the errors constants. Rather, it depends on various statistical indicators. The associated with using the Newton model are greatly minimized
C
2016 Institute of Food Technologists ^{®}
Vol.15,2016 ^{} Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety 603
Thinlayer models of fruits and vegetables
(Continued )
others
Aghbashlo (2009)
Kaleta and ^{G}^{o}^{r}^{n}^{i}^{c}^{k}^{i} ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{0}^{)}^{´} Diamante and ^{o}^{t}^{h}^{e}^{r}^{s} ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{0}^{)} Pereira and others
Kadam and others
others
Zarein and others
others
Botelho others and (2011)
others (2010)
^{o}^{t}^{h}^{e}^{r}^{s} and ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{4}^{)}
^{o}^{t}^{h}^{e}^{r}^{s} and ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{5}^{)}
and
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{1}^{)} (2010)
and and ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{0}^{6}^{)}
Akpinar (2006)
Singh
Reference
Shi and others
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{0}^{)} and
Silva and
Meisamiasl
Kaur (2013) (2011) (2014)
(2008)
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{3}^{)}
Da ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{4}^{)}
Omolola
Doymaz
^{A}^{k}^{p}^{i}^{n}^{a}^{r}
Mercali
Fadhel
Chen
= ^{3}^{.}^{9}^{4}^{4}^{7}^{5}^{9}^{A} − 0.006391 + 0.000065T + 0.009775V +
^{m}^{o}^{d}^{e}^{l} ^{c}^{o}^{n}^{s}^{t}^{a}^{n}^{t}^{s} ^{a}^{n}^{d}
= ^{1}^{.}^{5}^{7}^{6}^{7}^{2}^{3}^{A} 1.187734 + 0.002467T – 0.128878V –
= ^{2}^{0}^{2}^{.}^{5}^{3}^{6}^{A} 0.041667A 0.000082 – 0.000002 T – 0.000041V +
a = 1.004084 – 0.000013 T – 0.001960V +
+ T ^{0}^{.} ^{0}^{2}^{2}^{6}^{3}^{9}^{5}^{4}^{1} −
and Pabis: + 0. 002099298 T −a
process condition
184143
37742 ^{T} _{T} − − 0. 0. 062201
^{T} abs .7 ^{)}
_{1} = − 4. 27 10 ^{−}^{1}^{0} e ^{(} − 4766
–
–
–
–
–
–
– –
^{–} – –
–
–
–
^{R}^{e}^{l}^{a}^{t}^{i}^{o}^{n}^{s}^{h}^{i}^{p} ^{b}^{e}^{t}^{w}^{e}^{e}^{n}
− 1. 061883481
_{T} _{a}_{b}_{s} ^{.}^{2} )
= 0 . 971449897
_{k} _{1} _{=} _{5}_{4}_{.} _{1}_{8} _{e} ( ^{2}^{9}^{9}^{1}
^{h} h
^{0}^{.} 0. = ^{1}^{0}^{5}^{6}^{5}^{5}^{5}^{2} 004633918
a k g = = = 0. 0. 0. 001653 005636
Henderson
k
k
n
b
k
Page; Logarithmic
Verma and others
Midilli Pabis Henderson and others; and
^{p}^{a}^{g}^{e} ^{(}^{I}^{I}^{)}
Midilli and others
Midilli and others
Wang and Singh
Wang and Singh
Best model
others and
Page; others Silva and
Logarithmic
others and
Logarithmic
Logarithmic
Aghbashlo
Thompson
term;
Diamante
^{M}^{o}^{d}^{i}^{ﬁ}^{e}^{d}
Peleg
Peleg
Page
Two
13 and 6 ^{7} 12
Eqn. No#
11 and 9
6 and 25
6 and 12
Table 2–Studies conducted on thinlayer drying modeling of fruits and vegetables in the past 10 years.
20
24
26
26
17
12
12 22
21
21
11 11
= 1080 50 L to = W 80 3 mm; °C; V T = = 55 to
T = 12 50 mm to 70 °C; V = 0.6 to 1.4 m/s; h = 4 to
L = 10 NaCl cm; = T 0% = 25 to to 10% 55 °C; C _{s} =
w = × 8 L; mm; T = h 60 = to 8 80 mm; °C; L = V = 18 1 mm; to 1.5 A = m/s w × h
V = 0.5 m/s; T = 40 to 80 °C; h = 2 to 6 mm
Infusion; W/m h 2 = 10 mm; T = 60 toBlueberries
70 °C; V = time 0.55 = m/s; 0.5, RH 1.0 = and 51% 2.0 to h; 56%
h = 3 to 7 mm; T = 50 to 95 °C; V = 1 m/s
T = 25% 50 to 80 °C; V = 2.4 m/s; RH = 4% to
T =
T = 42% 50 to 70 °C; V = 1 m/s; RH = 35% to
T = 60 to 100 °C; h = 5 mm; V = 0.2 m/s
T = 55 to 65 °C; h = 0.33 ± 0.08 mm
Process conditions
h = 1.5 mm; T = 50 to 100 °C
h = 5 mm; P = 100 to 300 W
h = 5 mm; V = 4.23 m/min
h ^{–} w = = 1.2 75 0.5 10 °C; m/s mm; to P 1.0 = h 540 = cm; 10 to T mm;
90 °C; I = = 4000
T = 40 to 70 °C
d = 30% 1.8 to cm; 60%;
Intermittent
Treatment
and ^{O}^{S}^{D} MD
method
^{D}^{r}^{y}^{i}^{n}^{g}
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
TD LHCD
LHCD
DMO
OMD
TTD
ISD
IFD
OD
TD
IR
(Musa shum )
Apple slices ( Golab )
Banana (Musa spp)
slices (Mabonde)
melon ) slices
Bitter charantia (Momordica ^{l}^{e}^{a}^{v}^{e}^{s}
(Musa )
Banana slices
Banana slices
sapientum,
acuminata
slices )
Apple (McIntosh
Carrot slices
Apple slices
Basil leaves
Material
Beetroot
Banana
Banana
Banana
Apricot
Carrot
Apple
^{B}^{a}^{s}^{i}^{l}
604 Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety ^{} Vol.15,2016
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists ^{®}
Thinlayer models of fruits and vegetables
(Continued )
Babalis and others
Rasouli (2011) and others
Mihindukulasuriya
Darvishi Hazbavi and (2012)
Kumar (2012b) and others
(2007)´
(2007)´
Simal ^{o}^{t}^{h}^{e}^{r}^{s} (2005) ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{0}^{a}^{)}
Demir and others
Saxena (2015) and Dash
Menges Ertekin and (2006)
Pardeshi (2009)
and Sacilik
Doymaz (2005)
Reference
Darıcı ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{5}^{)} and S¸en
Diamante and
and others
and Poh
yz and´
yz and´
Yald Ertekyn
Yald Ertekyn
Gan (2014)
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{3}^{)}
Unal ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{0}^{7}^{)}
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{0}^{6}^{)}
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{1}^{)}
_{T} _{a}_{b}_{s} ^{3}^{2}^{2} 3429. ) T abs 964 )
+ 0. 374 P d 2 − 2. 3423 P d +
− 0. 69205 T + 0. 01039 T ^{2} −
^{m}^{o}^{d}^{e}^{l} ^{c}^{o}^{n}^{s}^{t}^{a}^{n}^{t}^{s} ^{a}^{n}^{d}
= − 0. 21037 + 0. 01238 T − 0. 00022 T ^{2}
− 0. 058
= 0. 05894 + 0. 00082 T − 0. 00005 T ^{2}
− 619. T _{3} 95731 T +
– 796 × 10 _{−}_{5} T − 5. 54 × 10 _{−}_{4} k n = = 4. 0. 756
a = − 0. 013046 T ^{3} + 2. 54139 T ^{2} −
0. 29470 T ^{2} −
^{−}^{5}^{1}^{6}^{.}
T −
process condition
1. 065
+ 0. 001 T
× h exp(
0892 V ln( V )
4517 14037
0. ^{1} 00 013 ^{×} T ^{1}^{0} − 6 ^{T} 2 ^{+} ^{0}^{.} ^{1}^{2}
T ^{3} + 30170 ^{0}^{6}^{0}^{5}
0172 7015 V V V
994251 × × 10 h − ^{−} 6 ^{0}^{.} ^{1}^{6}^{4}
T _{3}
4678 V − _{0}_{.} _{1}_{3}_{1}_{6} 0. 0067 T
− 0. 04516
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
7832 − + 0. 0. 1407
^{R}^{e}^{l}^{a}^{t}^{i}^{o}^{n}^{s}^{h}^{i}^{p} ^{b}^{e}^{t}^{w}^{e}^{e}^{n}
6626 − − + 0. 0. 1489 1.
T _{2} 27 + + 0. 620.
^{3}^{3}^{6}^{2}^{.}
n k = = 0. − 0. 8094 0189 P _{d} P ^{−}^{1}^{.} d 3 ^{2}^{2}^{8}^{2}
T ^{T} + ^{+} 359.
− 1 × 10 ^{−} ^{5} T ^{2}
13905. T _{2} 60529
0. 001602
16. 45430
a b = = 6. 5. 02554
T _{3}
b ^{n} = ^{=} 0. ^{0}^{.} 0030
0. − 1. 3549 5868
n k = = 0. 0. 3560
^{8}^{8}^{6}^{7}
a k = = 1. 1. 0835
13908.
17. ^{1}^{6}^{2}^{.} = 78930 −
^{3}^{5}^{8}^{8}
a 9. = 18210
0. = 00005
9. = 18481
8142
1.
a b k = = = 0.
^{−}
=
=
a ^{b} n ^{=}
=
6.
c
g
k
k
b
n
of
Midilli and others
Midilli and others
Midilli and others
Midilli and others
others and and others
Demir and others
Modiﬁed and others Midilli
Best model
Approximation
Hi and others
diffusion
Thompson
Diamante
Two term
Weibull
Midilli
Page
Page
Page
Page
Eqn. No#
24
16 11
18
19 11 22
15
13
23
11
11
11
6
6
6
6
L = 25% 4 ± 0.1 cm; T = 50 to 70 °C; RH = 8% to
°C; triangle: w = w =
^{3}^{.}^{0} cm ^{c}^{m}^{;} ^{L} ^{=} ^{5}^{.}^{5} ^{c}^{m}^{;} ^{s}^{q}^{u}^{a}^{r}^{e}^{:} ^{w} ^{=} ^{4} ^{c}^{m}^{;} ^{L} ^{=}
40
738.54 °C;
752.10 °C;
mm; T ± = 2%
T T = = ^{a}^{n}^{d} 60 50 ^{6} to to ^{m}^{m}^{;} 100 80 ^{R}^{H} °C; °C; V ^{=} h = ^{5}^{%} = 0.5 5 ^{t}^{o} mm; to ^{2}^{0}^{%} 2.0 V = m/s; 0.2 h m/s = 4
T = 60 to 75 °C; V = 0.7 m/s; h = 10 mm
T = 45 to 65 °C; V = 2.4 m ^{3} /min (FBD)
T = 38.56 S R to = 42.52
T = 39.09 S R to = 43.81
6.5 to cm; 70 rectangle:
L = to 24 70 to °C; 26 V mm; = 1.0 d = m/s; 19 RH to 21 = 15%
h = 0.006 to 0.4 m; T = 30 to 90 °C
T = 55 to 85 °C; V = 0.5 to 3.0 m/s
T = 60 to 80 °C; V = 1 to 3 m/s
Process conditions
T = 50 to 70 °C; h = 2 to 4 mm
T = 55 to 75 °C; V = 1.67 m/s
V = 0.8 m/s; T = 50 to 70 °C
1.5 m/s; to 59.36%;
1.5 m/s; to 65.06%;
h = 3 mm; T = 50 to 80 °C
= 40
P _{d} = 4.0 to 9.5 w/g
mm; T =
cm; 1 height
V = RH W/m 0.5 = 2 to 42.20%
V = RH W/m 0.5 = 2 to 49.91%
h = 5.5 5 ±
4
OD and FBD
method
^{D}^{r}^{y}^{i}^{n}^{g}
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
OSD
OSD
TTD
MD
TD
Table 2–Continued.
Green table olives
Fig ( Ficus carica )
Carrot (pomace)
Date palm fruit
Golden apples
Green pepper
( Allium L)
Chili ( pickino)
^{(}^{P}^{h}^{a}^{s}^{e}^{o}^{l}^{u}^{s} L )
Green bean
Green bean
Green peas
vulgaris
Garlic sativum
Hawthorn
Material
Kiwifruit
Kiwifruit
Kiwifruit
Jackfruit
Jackfruit
C
2016 Institute of Food Technologists ^{®}
Vol.15,2016 ^{} Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety 605
Thinlayer models of fruits and vegetables
(Continued )
Kumar (2006) and others
(2007)´
(2007)´
Guine and others´
Mohammadi others (2008) and
Corzo (2011) ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{2}^{)} and others
^{A}^{k}^{p}^{i}^{n}^{a}^{r} ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{0}^{6}^{)} Darvishi others and (2014)
Jazini ^{o}^{t}^{h}^{e}^{r}^{s} and ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{2}^{)}
others (2008)
Doymaz (2012)
^{A}^{k}^{p}^{i}^{n}^{a}^{r} ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{0}^{6}^{)}
Akpinar (2006)
Hatamipour
Reference
and
Elmesery and
Ponkham and
^{A}^{k}^{o}^{y} ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{4}^{)}
^{S}^{c}^{h}^{m}^{a}^{l}^{k}^{o}
^{M}^{w}^{i}^{t}^{h}^{i}^{g}^{a}
Manohar and
yz and´
yz and´
Zenoozian
Yald Ertekyn
Yald Ertekyn
Perez and
(2009)
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{1}^{)}
(2012)
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{0}^{)}
Murthy
2. 7 × T 10 + ^{–} _{−}_{4} 0. 037 T + V 3. 3 × 10 _{−} _{4} V
T 2
^{5}^{.} ^{5} T ^{×} + ^{1}^{0} 0. − 034 4 ^{T} ^{+} V ^{2} ^{×} ^{1}^{0} − 4 ^{V}
^{m}^{o}^{d}^{e}^{l} ^{c}^{o}^{n}^{s}^{t}^{a}^{n}^{t}^{s} ^{a}^{n}^{d}
T − 0. 0001634
0.007014V
^{0}^{.}^{0}^{6}^{4}^{6}^{5}^{2}^{V}
^{0}^{2}^{1}^{8}
0.000184T + + 0.003791V
^{0}^{0}^{1}^{9} P ^{P} + ^{+} 1. ^{0}^{.} 0474
^{0}^{.}^{0}^{0}^{9}^{0}^{7}^{4}^{T} T – ^{–} 0.000024V
× × 10 10 −05 T _{−}_{0}_{6} − t T I +
+
− 3 ^{–} × P ) 10 − 5 P 2 +
T
_{2} 0. 00012228
process condition
a b K K 1 0 = = = = 0. 0. 0. 0. 5143 4866 1117 1557 − + − + 0. 0. 0. 0. 6424 6424 0992 1995 ln( ln( ln( ln( V V V V ) ) ) )
086 0. 00055
−0. 3032 0. 0794 V )
P ^{P} ^{2} 3 − ^{−} 0. ^{0}^{.} 0003
b = 0. 6857 exp(0 . 4860 V )
0.966567 – + 0.000095T
+ 0. T 0218756 −
^{0}^{.}^{5}^{7}^{2}^{1}^{7}^{5} – ^{+} 0.000001
× 10 exp(0 −8 P 3 . 0031
h V + + 1. 3. 6704 +
–
–
–
–
–
^{–}
–
–
^{R}^{e}^{l}^{a}^{t}^{i}^{o}^{n}^{s}^{h}^{i}^{p} ^{b}^{e}^{t}^{w}^{e}^{e}^{n}
^{8} 3 ^{×} × P ^{1}^{0} 10 − −8 ^{−}^{7} 0. 2157
24 − 0. + 0036
^{=} = ^{−} 1. ^{0}^{.} 23 ^{0}^{2}^{2} − 0. ^{+} 0045
8095 V exp(−
− 0. 04127
0042517
n K = 0. = 0000014281 0.
^{n} = ^{=} 0.000050
k a = = 0.005645
0. 60498
k n =− = 0. 1. 0099
n k = = 0. 3 0847
a k = = 0. 0. 2082
K 0. 0. = 00027 00158
^{k} Horizontal:
^{b} 0. ^{=} = 0136
Vertical:
b
a
n
Modiﬁed page (III)
term (sucrose
^{o}^{t}^{h}^{e}^{r}^{s}
of
others;
^{M}^{o}^{d}^{i}^{ﬁ}^{e}^{d} ^{p}^{a}^{g}^{e} ^{(}^{I}^{I}^{)} Page
and
^{P}^{a}^{g}^{e} Midilli and others
Midilli and others
Midilli and others
Midilli and others
Midilli and ^{a}^{n}^{d} others
Midilli and others
Midilli Page; and Weibull
Best model
Approximation
(pretreated)
Two Henderson Modiﬁed treated)
diffusion
Two term
Two term
^{P}^{a}^{b}^{i}^{s}
^{V}^{e}^{r}^{m}^{a}
Page
Page
11, 6 and 23
13 and 10
Eqn. No#
18
11 ^{1}^{7}
11 13
13
11
11
11
11
^{6}
6
6 ^{7}
6
8
T = 6 40 mm to 80 °C; V = 0.5 to 1.5 m/s; h = 2 to
^{–} T = 0.1 50 mm to 70 °C; V = 0.5 to 2.0 m/s; h = 5 ±
T = 40.52
d = 35 mm; T = 60 to 80 °C; V =
= 50 to 60 h = °C 2 cm; w = 2 cm; L =
^{–} d = 540 0.7 W ± 0.1 cm; L = 6 ± 1 cm; P = 180 to
T = = 50 2.5 to m/s 70 °C; h = 25 mm; d = 20 mm; V
h = 50 2 °C; to 6 V mm; = 0.8 T = to 60 2.0 to m/s 80 °C; T _{I} = 30 to
h = 60 15 °C; mm; V = I = 0.5 1 to to 1.5 5 kW/m m/s ^{2} ; T = 40 to Blanching = 20 s; T = 85 °C; v = 0.8 m/s
L = 1.76 0.45 to m; 1.91 w = m/s; 0.34 T m; = h 50 = to 0.03 80 °C m; V =
to 60.28%;
T = 0.1 50 m/s to 70 °C; h = 3 to 8 mm; V = 2 ±
^{T} ^{=} ^{6}^{0} ^{t}^{o} ^{8}^{0} ^{°}^{C}^{;} ^{V} ^{=} ^{0}^{.}^{5} ^{m}^{/}^{s}^{;} ^{h} ^{=} ^{3} ^{m}^{m} h = 1.77 ± 0.02 mm; P = 315 to 800 W
0.5 to T = 1.5 W/m 39.10 m/s; 2 to RH =
to 1.5 m/s;
Process conditions
mm; °C; V RH W/m = = 0.5 48.91% 2
= = 738.54
12.5 °C; mm; to S R 57.70%; V
2 cm; T treatment:
T = 30 to 70 °C
= 752.10
h = 1 5 to mm; 1.5 m/s
44.32
h = 43.63 45.00%
h = S to R 12.5
Osmotic
FIR + HCD
IR + LHCD
method
^{D}^{r}^{y}^{i}^{n}^{g}
^{L}^{H}^{C}^{D}
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
MD LHCD
PPCD
CTD
^{O}^{S}^{D}
CTD
OSD
^{O}^{S}^{D}
OSD
PSD
MD
TD
Pumpkin ( C. maxima )
Pumpkin slices ( C. maxima )
Table 2–Continued.
Kiwifruit (Hayward )
Persimmon (Diospyros slices kakil) Pineapple
ginger roxb )
Pumpkin slices
Pumpkin slices
(Mangifera
^{s}^{l}^{i}^{c}^{e}^{s}
slices L.)
(Curcuma
slices
Onion slices
Onion slices
^{M}^{i}^{n}^{t} ^{l}^{e}^{a}^{v}^{e}^{s}
amanda
Material
Pumpkin
indica
^{P}^{a}^{r}^{s}^{l}^{e}^{y}
Pepper
Mango
^{M}^{a}^{n}^{g}^{o}
Mango
Onion
Plum
606 Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety ^{} Vol.15,2016
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists ^{®}
Thinlayer models of fruits and vegetables
Rayaguru Routray and (2012)
(2007)´
Sacilik (2006) and others
Olurin and others
Akhondi and ^{o}^{t}^{h}^{e}^{r}^{s} ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{1}^{)} Ayadi (2014) and others
^{o}^{t}^{h}^{e}^{r}^{s} ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{0}^{7}^{)}
Dash and others
Doymaz (2007)
Reference
ElBeltagy and
and Ogugo
Sacilik (2007)
yz and´
Yald Ertekyn
Hii ^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{4}^{)}
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{2}^{)}
^{(}^{2}^{0}^{1}^{3}^{)}
_{−}_{5} T + _{3} 0. 12232 T − 0. 00309 T ^{2} +
T _{3} 1. 79971 T + 0. 04203 T ^{2} −
^{m}^{o}^{d}^{e}^{l} ^{c}^{o}^{n}^{s}^{t}^{a}^{n}^{t}^{s} ^{a}^{n}^{d}
T _{3} 0. 31813 T + 0. 00616 T ^{2} −
R R H H R H
+ 0. 005
0. 00075
+ 0. T 256
0206 T T + + T 0. 0. + 1402 1299
process condition
0. 0. 2962 0117 ^{.} ^{7}^{3}^{9}^{6} V ln( ^{V} V ^{)} )
0810 _{−}_{6} T T − _{3}
k = 0. 0042EA / M + 0. 0342 T
a k c = = = 8 1. 0. E 49 001 − E 05 T − + T 06 2 0. − T 945 _{2} 0. − 01 0. T 0001
_{−} _{4} T _{2} + + 0. 1. 00739
1285 + + + 0. 0. 0. 000014 0329
a = 0. 6315 − 0. 2957 V
–
–
–
–
– –
^{R}^{e}^{l}^{a}^{t}^{i}^{o}^{n}^{s}^{h}^{i}^{p} ^{b}^{e}^{t}^{w}^{e}^{e}^{n}
^{0}^{2}^{2}^{4} + ^{e}^{x}^{p}^{(}^{4} −
_{−}_{4} −
_{−}_{5} −
− 1. 49365
25. 89022
0. 001235 V ^{2}
− 0. 11604
0677
6. 40163
3. = 2032710
2. = 4973310
a b k = = = 0. 0. 0. 0373 1478
3679
a 3. = 921010
1. = 55610
K ^{K} 1 ^{0} = = ^{=} 0. 0. ^{0}^{.}
k
b
b
n
of
Midilli and others
Midilli and others
Best model
Approximation
Two Logarithmic
Page exponential term
Verma and
Logarithmic;
Logarithmic
Logarithmic
diffusion
term;
Two term
others
Newton
Two
12 and 17
13 and 12
Eqn. No#
14 6
13 18
12
12
11
11
5
T = 2 40 m/s to 60 °C; RH = 10%; h = 12 mm; V =
T = T 50 = 70 to °C 70 and °C; V V = = 0.5 1 m/s to 1 m/s; Optimum:
60%; V = 0.12 T = to 40 1.02 to 65 m/s °C; RH = 10% to
T = 40 to 60 °C; V = 1 to 3 m/s; RH = 10%
T = 25% 50 to 60 °C; V = 1.0 m/s; RH = 15% to
to 50.9%;
752.10 °C;
h = 80 3 °C to 7 mm; V = 1.16 m/s; T = 50 to
T = 39.57 S R to = 45.82
T = 1.5 60 m/s to 80 °C; h = 10 to 30 mm; V =
to 70 °C; h = 8 mm; V = 1.1 ±
= 14.5%
Process conditions
T = 60 to 110 °C; h = 0.7 mm
2
T = 40 to 60 °C; V = 0.8 m/s
Pretreatment: I = 600 W/m ^{2}
°C; RH W/m
1.5 m/s; to 63.40%;
h T = = 4 60 mm; to 80 T = °C; 50 h to = 5 80 mm °C
to 35.6 to 767.4
V = RH 0.5 = to 45.03%
T = 40 to 55 °C
Pretreatment:
T = S R 22.4 = 202.3
T = 0.2 40 m/s
W/m ^{2}
method
STD; OSD
^{D}^{r}^{y}^{i}^{n}^{g}
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LHCD
LTCD
IFSD
SDA
CTD
CTD
OSD
ATB
TD
ID
Table 2–Continued.
Pumpkin ( C. pepo L)
Tomato slices ( cv. Milen )
Pumpkin ( C. pepo)
Pumpkin pepo L.) slices ( C.
sativus (Crocus
Stuffed pepper
slices
Starfruit slices
Quince slices
Quince slices
Pumpkin moschata ( C. )
Stone apple
L)
Strawberry
Spearmint
Material
Red chili
Starfruit
Quercus
Saffron
C
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.