You are on page 1of 20
Modeling the Thin-Layer Drying of Fruits and Vegetables: A Review Daniel I. Onwude, Norhashila Hashim,

Modeling the Thin-Layer 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 shelf-life 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 thin-layer drying of fruits and vegetables with particular focus on thin-layer theories, models, and applications since the year 2005. The thin-layer 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, thin-layer 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 shelf-life 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 energy-intensive. 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 (E-mail: norhashila@upm.edu.my ).

C

2016 Institute of Food Technologists ®

most long-standing, 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 (Araya-Farias 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. Thin-layer drying is a widely used method for determining the drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables (Alves-Filho 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

Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables

drying process. The most important aspects of thin-layer 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 (El-Beltagy and others 2007; Reyes and others 2007; Perez and the thin-layer 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 shelf-life. The drying process can others 2013) and higher velocity (above 2.5 m/s) could adversely be predicted using suitable thin-layer models. Several researchers affect the final quality of the material and increase the total energy have studied the drying of fruits and vegetables using thin-layer 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 thin-layer concept which means that there is no single thin-layer 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 thin-layer 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 thin-layer 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 thin-layer models. Thus, the selection of vegetables. the most suitable thin-layer 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 thin-layer 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 thin-layer 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 thin-layer material is uniform. This

of thin-layer drying models for fruits and vegetables since 2005.

drawback for future developmental efforts.

Thin-Layer Drying Theories and Modeling

Drying mechanism

is due to the thin-layer characteristics, thus making use of lumped parameter models suitable for thin-layer 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 (Meisami-asl 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 Meisami-asl 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 ®

Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables

Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables Figure 1–Schematic diagram of a drying chamber and product layers

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 (Araya-Farias 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 thin-layer 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 all-inclusive drying profile for fruits and veg-

C

2016 Institute of Food Technologists ®

Vol.15,2016 Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety 601

Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables

Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables Figure 2–A typical drying curve of agricultural products showing constant

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 thin-layer 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 thin-layer 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 12 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 thin-layer 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)

Thin-layer drying models

=

2 K 12

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 ®

Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables

Table 1–Thin-layer 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 ]

=

=

El-Beltagy and others (2007) Akoy (2014); Tzempelikos and others (2014) Vega and others (2007) Kumar and others (2006) Meisami-asl 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. Two-term

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. Two-term 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

thin-layer 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 thin-layer-drying 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) 2-term exponential model and modified form, and (iii) 3-term 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 thin-layer 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

Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables

(Continued )

others

Aghbashlo (2009)

Kaleta and Gornicki (2010)´ Diamante and others (2010) Pereira and others

Kadam and others

others

Zarein and others

others

Botelho others and (2011)

others (2010)

others and (2014)

others and (2015)

and

(2011) (2010)

and and (2006)

Akpinar (2006)

Singh

Reference

Shi and others

(2010) and

Silva and

Meisami-asl

Kaur (2013) (2011) (2014)

(2008)

(2013)

Da (2014)

Omolola

Doymaz

Akpinar

Mercali

Fadhel

Chen

= 3.944759A 0.006391 + 0.000065T + 0.009775V +

model constants and

= 1.576723A 1.187734 + 0.002467T – 0.128878V

= 202.536A 0.041667A 0.000082 – 0.000002 T – 0.000041V +

a = 1.004084 – 0.000013 T – 0.001960V +

+ T 0. 022639541

and Pabis: + 0. 002099298 T a

process condition

184143

37742 T T − − 0. 0. 062201

T abs .7 )

1 = − 4. 27 10 10 e ( 4766

Relationship between

1. 061883481

T abs .2 )

= 0 . 971449897

k 1 = 54. 18 e ( 2991

h h

0. 0. = 10565552 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

page (II)

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

Modied

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 thin-layer 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 OSD MD

method

Drying

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 leaves

(Musa )

Banana slices

Banana slices

sapientum,

acuminata

slices )

Apple (McIntosh

Carrot slices

Apple slices

Basil leaves

Material

Beetroot

Banana

Banana

Banana

Apricot

Carrot

Apple

Basil

604 Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety Vol.15,2016

C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists ®

Thin-layer 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 others (2005) (2010a)

Demir and others

Saxena (2015) and Dash

Menges Ertekin and (2006)

Pardeshi (2009)

and Sacilik

Doymaz (2005)

Reference

Darıcı (2015) and S¸en

Diamante and

and others

and Poh

yz and´

yz and´

Yald Ertekyn

Yald Ertekyn

Gan (2014)

(2013)

Unal (2007)

(2006)

(2011)

T abs 322 3429. ) T abs 964 )

+ 0. 374 P d 2 2. 3423 P d +

0. 69205 T + 0. 01039 T 2

model constants and

= − 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

516.

T

process condition

1. 065

+ 0. 001 T

× h exp(

0892 V ln( V )

4517 14037

0. 1 00 013 × T 10 6 T 2 + 0. 12

T 3 + 30170 0605

0172 7015 V V V

994251 × × 10 h 6 0. 164

T 3

4678 V 0. 1316 0. 0067 T

0. 04516

7832 − + 0. 0. 1407

Relationship between

6626 − − + 0. 0. 1489 1.

T 2 27 + + 0. 620.

3362.

n k = = 0. 0. 8094 0189 P d P 1. d 3 2282

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

8867

a k = = 1. 1. 0835

13908.

17. 162. = 78930

3588

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 cm; L = 5.5 cm; square: w = 4 cm; L =

40

738.54 °C;

752.10 °C;

mm; T ± = 2%

T T = = and 60 50 6 to to mm; 100 80 RH °C; °C; V = h = 5% = 0.5 5 to mm; to 20% 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

Drying

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)

(Phaseolus L )

Green bean

Green bean

Green peas

vulgaris

Garlic sativum

Hawthorn

Material

Kiwifruit

Kiwifruit

Kiwifruit

Jackfruit

Jackfruit

C

2016 Institute of Food Technologists ®

exp(
exp(

Vol.15,2016 Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety 605

Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables

(Continued )

Kumar (2006) and others

(2007)´

(2007)´

Guine and others´

Mohammadi others (2008) and

Corzo (2011) (2012) and others

Akpinar (2006) Darvishi others and (2014)

Jazini others and (2012)

others (2008)

Doymaz (2012)

Akpinar (2006)

Akpinar (2006)

Hatamipour

Reference

and

El-mesery and

Ponkham and

Akoy (2014)

Schmalko

Mwithiga

Manohar and

yz and´

yz and´

Zenoozian

Yald Ertekyn

Yald Ertekyn

Perez and

(2009)

(2011)

(2012)

(2010)

Murthy

2. 7 × T 10 + 4 0. 037 T + V 3. 3 × 10 4 V

T 2

5. 5 T × + 10 0. 034 4 T + V 2 × 10 4 V

model constants and

T 0. 0001634

0.007014V

0.064652V

0218

0.000184T + + 0.003791V

0019 P P + + 1. 0. 0474

0.009074T T 0.000024V

× × 10 10 05 T 06 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

0.572175 + 0.000001

× 10 exp(0 8 P 3 . 0031

h V + + 1. 3. 6704 +

Relationship between

8 3 × × P 10 10 8 7 0. 2157

24 0. + 0036

= = 1. 0. 23 022 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

others

of

others;

Modied page (II) Page

and

Page Midilli and others

Midilli and others

Midilli and others

Midilli and others

Midilli and and others

Midilli and others

Midilli Page; and Weibull

Best model

Approximation

(pretreated)

Two Henderson Modified treated)

diffusion

Two term

Two term

Pabis

Verma

Page

Page

11, 6 and 23

13 and 10

Eqn. No#

18

11 17

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 = 60 to 80 °C; V = 0.5 m/s; h = 3 mm 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

Drying

LHCD

LHCD

LHCD

LHCD

MD LHCD

PPCD

CTD

OSD

CTD

OSD

OSD

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

slices

slices L.)

(Curcuma

slices

Onion slices

Onion slices

Mint leaves

amanda

Material

Pumpkin

indica

Parsley

Pepper

Mango

Mango

Mango

Onion

Plum

606 Comprehensive Reviewsin Food Science and Food Safety Vol.15,2016

C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists ®

Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables

Rayaguru Routray and (2012)

(2007)´

Sacilik (2006) and others

Olurin and others

Akhondi and others (2011) Ayadi (2014) and others

others (2007)

Dash and others

Doymaz (2007)

Reference

El-Beltagy and

and Ogugo

Sacilik (2007)

yz and´

Yald Ertekyn

Hii (2014)

(2012)

(2013)

5 T + 3 0. 12232 T 0. 00309 T 2 +

T 3 1. 79971 T + 0. 04203 T 2

model constants and

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 . 7396 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

Relationship between

0224 + exp(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

Drying

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

15 Hii and others a b K 1 = = = 0. 0. 0. 297
15
Hii and others
a b K 1 = = = 0. 0. 0. 297 761 1528exp
0369
+ + 0. 0. 00454
0405 T h
Onwude
others and (2015b)
2. 6163 h T h − K − 0. 2 0. 00530 =
2 ) + (615 T E − − 008 T 3 )n =
(8. − 0. 84 00501
E − 006 + 0. T 000393
− 10. 581 + 0. 427 T − 0. 00344 T 2
6
Page
Tahmasebi
and