Journal of Food Engineering 96 (2010) 498–504

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Food Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Mass transfer kinetics of pulsed vacuum osmotic dehydration of guavas

Jefferson L.G. Corrêa a,*, Leila M. Pereira b, Gláucia S. Vieira b, Míriam D. Hubinger b
a
Department of Food Science, Federal University of Lavras, Lavras – MG, Brazil
b
Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Food Engineering, State University of Campinas, Campinas – SP, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The effects of vacuum pulse and solution concentration on mass transfer of osmotically dehydrated guava
Received 3 April 2009 slices were studied. Kinetics of weight reduction (WR), water loss (WL), solid gain (SG) and water activity
Received in revised form 21 August 2009 (aw) were obtained using sucrose solutions at 40, 50 and 60 °Brix and vacuum pulse of 100 mbar for 0, 10
Accepted 29 August 2009
and 15 min at the process beginning. Higher solution concentrations and the vacuum pulse application
Available online 3 September 2009
caused an increase on WL of osmotically dehydrated guavas and reduced the samples water activity.
The SG was reduced by the increase on osmotic solution concentration and favored by vacuum applica-
Keywords:
tion. Two different models of kinetics diffusion were tested to obtain diffusivity and to compare the accu-
Psidium guajava L., PVOD
Hydrodynamic model
racy of these models. The effective diffusivity estimated by the hydrodynamic model well reproduced the
Sucrose concentration effects of process variables on mass transfer kinetics and showed a better agreement to the experimental
Dehydrated fruit data than the diffusional model.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2002). Temperature, osmotic solution concentration, vacuum time

The osmotic dehydration process has often been used for
the development of new products of fruit and vegetable due to
the small changes in the sensorial and nutritional properties of
the fresh product. It can be used as a pre-treatment to drying
(Al-Harahsheh et al., 2009; Antonio et al., 2008; Jalali et al.,
2008) and freezing (Dermesonlouoglou et al., 2008; Mitrakas
et al., 2008; Phoon et al., 2008). Furthermore, it can be used to pro-
duce minimally processed products (Panadés et al., 2003; Pereira
et al., 2004; Rodrigues et al., 2006; Torres et al., 2008).
The osmotic process can be performed at atmospheric pressure
(OD) or with vacuum pulse application (PVOD) for a small period at
the beginning of the process. The water loss and solid gain are
higher in the beginning of the PVOD process, when the hydrody-
namics mechanism (HDM) takes place, than in the OD process
(Chafer et al., 2003; Giraldo et al., 2003). The HDM is a conse-
quence of the pressure gradients, resulting from the combined ac-
tion of capillary flow and pressure changes imposed on the porous
structures of vegetable tissue. It is controlled by the presence of gas
or liquid occluded in the intercellular spaces. By applying vacuum
pressure, an outflow of internal gas or liquid from the tissue and
the entrance of external solution are established that promotes
water loss and the uptake of external solutes (Chiralt et al., 2001;
Chiralt and Talens, 2005; Fito and Chiralt, 1997; Rastogi et al.,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 35 3829 1658; fax: +55 35 3829 1401.
E-mail address: jefferson@dca.ufla.br (J.L.G. Corrêa).
and total processing time are the most important variables in the
osmotic process. Increasing the osmotic solution concentration in-
duces an increase in the mass transfer (Barat et al., 2001; Giraldo
et al., 2003; Ito et al., 2007; Madamba and Lopez, 2002; Panadés
et al., 2006). The vacuum pulse results in a higher mass transfer,
but the influence of the vacuum application time could be function
of the product’s biological characteristics (Escriche et al., 2000;
Panadés et al., 2006).
The mathematical models employed to describe the OD process
are usually based on Fick’s diffusion law (Corrêa et al., 2008; Falade
and Igbeka, 2007; Rastogi et al., 2002; Rastogi and Raghavarao,
2004). However, according to Fito (1994), the increased mass
transfer rate due to the vacuum application cannot be satisfactorily
explained using the classical, diffusional and osmotic mechanisms.
Thus, the consideration of the hydrodynamics mechanism coupled
with Fick’s diffusion law can promote a better representation of the
mass transfer phenomenon in the pulsed vacuum osmotically
dehydration process.
The main goal of this work was to study the effects of the vac-
uum pulse and solution concentration on the mass transfer of
osmotically dehydrated guava slices. This was performed by: (1)
studying the kinetics of weight reduction (WR), water loss (WL),
solid gain (SG) and water activity (aw) for different concentrations
of sucrose solutions and with different periods of vacuum pulse
application at the beginning of the process; (2) calculating the
effective diffusivity by the use of two different models, a diffu-
sional model and a hydrodynamics model in order to compare
the accuracy of the models.

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.08.032
 J.L.G. Corrêa et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 96 (2010) 498–504 499

2. Material and methods obtained at these two temperatures. The equipment used was a pi-
lot scale device with a minimum solution volume of 22 L. The ratio
2.1. Raw material of the weight of the product to the weight of the solution was
about 1:45.
Red guava (Psidium guava L.) fruits were purchased at a local For the treatments of the product under vacuum, a pressure of
market (CEASA-Campinas, Brazil). The guavas were selected based 100 mbar was applied to the system for the first 10 or 15 min of
on having a similar ripening grade (around 8 °Brix and 80% skin the osmotic process, resulting in two experimental conditions
yellowness) to minimize differences in the raw material. The com- based on the application of the vacuum pulse. Following applica-
position of the guavas used in the trials, as determined according tion of the vacuum pulse the atmospheric pressure was restored.
to the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC, 2002), At predetermined times (15, 30, 60, 120, 180 and 300 min) the
is shown in Table 1. samples were removed, rinsed with water and placed on absorbent
paper to remove excess solution. The overall time used was chosen
2.2. Equipment in accordance to other osmotic dehydration studies (Fermin and
Corzo, 2005; Ito et al., 2007; Moraga et al., 2009; Park et al.,
The equipment used in the osmotic dehydration experiments 2002). Sampling was done in triplicate. The samples were then
consisted of a jacketed stainless steel chamber designed to work weighed and analyzed in terms of the water loss, the solids gain
at atmospheric pressure and/or under vacuum (Ito et al., 2007; and the weight reduction. These parameters were calculated
Vivanco-Pezantes et al., 2004). The chamber presented internal according to the following equations:
diameter of 426  103 m and height of 430  103 m with a xw o w o
0 M 0  xf M f
useful volume of around 60 L. WL ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð1Þ
Mo0
The osmotic solution temperature was controlled using a
thermostatic bath connected to the equipment. The solution was o ST o
xST
f M f  x0 M 0
stirred by a controlled flow recirculation system using a sanitary SG ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð2Þ
pump. Vacuum was obtained by using a vacuum pump. The vac- Mo0
uum pressure, flow and the temperature operational conditions
were controlled through control equipments that are connected Mo0  Mof
WR ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð3Þ
to the equipment and monitored by a data acquisition system. M o0
where Mo0 = initial sample weight (kg), M of = final sample weight
2.3. Sample preparation and osmotic process (kg), xw w
0 = initial moisture content (%), xf = final moisture content
(%), xST
0 = initial solids content (%), and xST
f = final solids content
The guavas were washed with tap water and manually peeled; (%).The samples moisture content was determined according to
then were cut into halves and the seeds were removed. From each the AOAC (2002). The water activity of the samples was determined
half, two slices of 0.050 m  0.025 m were obtained, preserving the using the Aqualab Series 3 TE (Decagon Devices Inc., Pullman, WA).
original guava thickness of about 0.005 m. The geometry (form and
size) was chosen to make the samples suitable to be treated as a
2.4. Kinetic models — diffusion coefficients
semi-infinite plate in the unidirectional diffusion mathematical
model, like the one used here.
The experimental data were fit to two mathematical models to
For the OD and the PVOD treatments, the guava slices were ini-
estimate the water and the solids diffusion coefficients. The models
tially weighed and placed in a single layer on perforated stainless
are the unidirectional diffusion model, or Method 1, (Eqs. )((4)–(8))
steel trays, to allow the solution flow through the samples, and im-
and the hydrodynamics model, or Method 2 (Eqs. (9)–(16)). Even
mersed in the sucrose solutions at 40, 50 and 60 °Brix. Twelve trays
though it is verified a concentration profile in osmotic dehydration
with three guavas slices each were used in the trials. Each tray and
processes (Kaminska et al., 2008; Torres et al., 2007), the models
the position of the samples on the trays were codified to allow the
used consider a unidirectional diffusion, with average values of
identification of the samples. The temperature of the osmotic solu-
concentration and diffusivity in the thickness direction. This con-
tion used in the trials was 40 °C and the recirculation level was
sideration was assumed due to the fact that the other dimensions
2.5 m3 h1, condition established in a previous study in order to
of the slices were much larger than thickness.
neglect external resistance to mass transfer in this equipment (Vi-
vanco-Pezantes, 2006). The temperature used was based on the
work of Panadés et al. (2008), where it was verified that the larger 2.4.1. Method 1
diffusivity for PVOD in guavas was obtained at 40 and 50 °C and The model is based on the unidirectional diffusion equation of
that there was not a significant difference between the diffusivity Fick (Crank, 1975):
 
@MCðtÞ @ @MCðtÞ
¼ Deff ð4Þ
@t @z @z
Table 1
Guava composition.
where MCðtÞ is the amount of water or solids at the instant t, Deff is
Analysis Mean value (%)a the effective diffusivity and z is a generic directional coordinate.
Moisture content (w.b.) (kg kg1) 84.53 ± 1.17 The solid sample was considered as a plate of thickness 2L.
Ashb 0.32 ± 0.01 The initial condition is an uniform initial amount of moisture
Protein 0.54 ± 0.05 and/or solids, MCðz;0Þ ¼ MC0 .
Lipids 0.24 ± 0.05
The
 boundary conditions are the symmetry of concentration,
Total sugars 3.02 ± 0.25
@MCðtÞ
Fibers 10.65b @t 
¼ 0, and the equilibrium content at the material surface,
z¼0
Acidity 0.70 ± 0.03 MCðL;tÞ ¼ MCeq .
a
All data were obtained by triplicate analyses and expressed as mean ± standard With consideration to the initial and the boundary conditions,
deviation. Fick’s unidirectional diffusion equation (Crank, 1975) becomes:
b
Calculated by difference.
500 J.L.G. Corrêa et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 96 (2010) 498–504

 !
8 X
1
1 t The Deff and k parameters were obtained for each experiment
Ww ¼ exp ð2i þ 1Þ2 p2 Deff;w from a linear fitting of the experimental 1  Y w  0.5
t PD;t>0 versus t .
or s or s
p2 i¼1 ð2i þ 1Þ 2
4L 2
The criterion used to evaluate the best fit to the model was the
ð5Þ estimative standard error (SE):
where Deff, w or s is the effective diffusivity of the water loss or the sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn 2
solids’ gain, i is the number of series terms, L is the characteristic i¼1 ðOBS  PREDÞ
SE ¼ ð16Þ
length (sample half-thickness), t is the time and Ww or s is the n
dimensionless water or solid content. This is valid for a transient
where OBS is correspondent to the observed value of water or solid
operation. The dimensionless water or solid content is given by
mass and PRED is the predicted value of water or solid mass. The
the following equation
term n corresponds to the number of observations. The evaluations
MCðtÞ  MCeq were done by the nonlinear estimation procedure using the soft-
Ww or s ¼ ð6Þ
MC0  MCeq ware Statistica 5.0Ò (Statsoft, Tulsa, USA).
where according to Peleg’s equation (Peleg, 1988)
3. Results and discussion
t
MCt ¼ MC0  ð7Þ
k1 þ k2 t 3.1. Water loss (WL)
which approaches the equilibrium asymptotically (Palou et al.,
1993): The kinetics of water loss from guava slices subjected to differ-
  ent osmotic treatments are shown in Fig. 1–3. The use of osmotic
t 1
MCeq ¼ lim MC0  ¼ MC0  ð8Þ solutions at higher sucrose concentrations caused an increase in
t!1 k1 þ k2 t k2
the WL of guavas osmotically dehydrated at atmospheric condi-
The Peleg’s equation parameters (k1 and k2) and the effective tions (OD) and with vacuum pulse application (PVOD). The vacuum
diffusivities were obtained using the nonlinear estimation from pulse applied at the beginning of the osmotic process also caused
software Statistica 5.0Ò (Statsoft, Tulsa, USA). an increase in the WL of guavas, and this result was intensified
by the vacuum time. However, for guavas treated at 50 °Brix, a rel-
2.4.2. Method 2 evant effect of the pressure conditions was verified only with the
The diffusion coefficients were estimated using the Fito and application of 15 min of the vacuum pulse. Similar behavior of
Chiralt hydrodynamics model (Fito and Chiralt, 1997). This mathe- the WL was observed for the weight reduction (WR) (data not
matical model considers an equilibrium approach: shown).
The water loss was favored by higher solution concentrations,
zSS SS
1 ¼ y1 ð9Þ due to the increase of the osmotic gradient between the food mate-
rial and the osmotic solution. The presence of a large amount of
where zSS
1 is the mass fraction of the soluble solids in the food and
solute causes a higher osmotic pressure that makes the WL easier.
ySS
1 is the mass fraction of the soluble solids in the osmotic solution,
These results corroborate those obtained by Fermin and Corzo
both at the equilibrium state. As a result, the effective diffusivity (or
(2005) and Ito et al. (2007) in the PVOD of cantaloupe cylinders
pseudo diffusivity) is the same for both water and solids:
and mango slices, as well as the results from Madamba and Lopez
Deff w or s ¼
Deff w ¼ Deff s ð10Þ (2002) and Mastrantonio et al. (2005) in the OD of mango slices
and guava halves.
The changes in composition are functions of the reduced drive
The increase of the WL of guavas with the application of a vac-
force, Y, given by:
uum pulse can be explained by the hydrodynamics mechanism
zw w
t  zeq that is verified at the beginning of the osmotic process. With the
Y ¼ Yw s
t ¼ Yt ¼ w
ð11Þ
z0  zw
eq application of the vacuum conditions, the gas occluded in the inter-
cellular spaces of the vegetable tissues is removed and when the
The variation on the Food Liquid Phase (FLP) composition re-
lated to the hydrodynamic mechanism (HDM) occurs at the very
beginning of the process (t = 0 to t = tHDM), where this mechanism
is predominant and is dependent on the pressure gradients: 60.0
t¼tHDM
1  Yw  ffik ð12Þ 50.0
t t¼0
Water loss [%]

After this period, the phenomena are modeled with Fick’s equa- 40.0
tion for semi-infinite slab and short time (Crank, 1975), with the
30.0
approach suggested by Fito and Chiralt (1997):
  !
t¼t X
1 20.0
 Deff t iL
1  Yw
t t¼t ¼2 2
p0;5 þ 2 ierfc pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð13Þ
HDM
L i1
Deff t 10.0

Eq. (13) can be simplified at the first term, resulting in Eq. (14): 0.0
 0;5 0 100 200 300
t¼t Deff t
1  Y w t ¼2 ð14Þ Time [min]
t¼t HDM
pL2 OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
These two effects were coupled to consider the effect of the OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
hydrodynamics and the pseudo-Fickian mechanisms:
Fig. 1. Kinetics of water loss of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in sucrose
 0;5 solution at 40 °Brix. OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and
 Deff t
1 Yw t¼t ¼kþ2 ð15Þ PVOD 15: osmotic process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min,
t t¼0
pL2 respectively.
 J.L.G. Corrêa et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 96 (2010) 498–504 501

25.0
60.0

50.0
20.0
Water loss [%]

40.0

Solid gain [%]

30.0 15.0

20.0
10.0
10.0

0.0 5.0
0 100 200 300
Time [min]
0.0
OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15 OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15 0 100 200 300
Time [min]
Fig. 2. Kinetics of water loss of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in sucrose OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
solution at 50 °Brix. OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
PVOD 15: osmotic 504 process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and
15 min, respectively. Fig. 4. Kinetics of the solid gain of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in sucrose
solution at 40 °Brix. OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and
PVOD 15: osmotic process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min,
respectively.
60.0

50.0 25.0
Water loss [%]

40.0
20.0
30.0
Solid gain [%]

20.0 15.0

10.0
0.0
0 100 200
Time [min]
OD PVOD 10
OD PVOD 10
Fig. 3. Kinetics of water loss of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in sucrose
solution at 60 °Brix. OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and
PVOD 15: osmotic process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min,
respectively.
atmospheric pressure condition is restored, the pores of the food
material are filled by osmotic solution. This increases the available
mass transfer surface area. Similar trends were also observed in
other studies (Deng and Zhao, 2008; Fermin and Corzo, 2005; Fito,
1994; Panadés et al., 2006).
The influence of the vacuum pulse was more effective on fruits
treated with higher osmotic solution concentrations. This suggests
an interactive effect of these two variables on the WL of guavas.
3.2. Solid gain (SG)
The use of osmotic solutions at higher sucrose concentrations
caused a decrease in the solids gain of guavas osmotically dehy-
drated at atmospheric conditions (OD) and with the vacuum pulse
application (PVOD), as shown in Figs. 4–6. The concentrated solu-
tions may have promoted the formation of a dense layer of solutes
at the surface of the osmodehydrated guavas. This layer acts as a
barrier against penetration of the solutes into the food and makes
solutes mass transfer more difficult, which results in a lower solids
uptake in fruits tissue. According to Mújica-Paz et al. (2003), di-
luted solutions penetrate better into the fruit tissue than concen-
trated solution. With increased sugar concentration, the osmotic
solution becomes more viscous, that makes the solutes penetration
more difficult. Similar behavior was also observed by Barat et al.
10.0
300
5.0
PVOD 15
PVOD 15 0.0
0 100 200 300
Time [min]
OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
Fig. 5. Kinetics of solid gain of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in sucrose
solution at 50 °Brix. OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and
PVOD 15: osmotic process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min,
respectively.
(2001), Ito et al. (2007), Madamba and Lopez (2002) and Mastran-
tonio et al. (2005).
The application of the vacuum pulse influenced the kinetics of
solid gain of guava slices in a similar way as the changes observed
in kinetics of water loss. The use of the vacuum pulse at the
beginning of the osmotic process caused an increase in the SG of
guavas, and this behavior was intensified with increased vacuum
time. However, for guavas treated at 50 °Brix, the effect of the pres-
sure conditions was only noted with 15 min of the vacuum pulse
application. Similar to the effect seen in the water loss, with the
use of the vacuum pulse the gas that was occluded in the fruit
pores was removed and the intercellular spaces of the food
material were filled with the osmotic solution causing a greater so-
lid uptake in the fruit tissue. A similar effect of the vacuum pulse
on solid incorporation of osmotically dehydrated fruits was also
observed by Deng and Zhao (2008), Ito et al. (2007) and Panadés
et al. (2006).
Despite the results presented here, Shi et al. (1995) reported
that the vacuum treatments are effective in increasing water loss
but with no influence on the sugar gain of fruits in the osmotic
dehydration process. It can be inferred that as the sugar gain is
502 J.L.G. Corrêa et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 96 (2010) 498–504

25.0 0.995

20.0 0.985
Solid gain [%]

0.975
15.0

aw
0.965
10.0
0.955
5.0
0.945

0.0 0.935
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Time [min] Time [min]
OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
Fig. 6. Kinetics of solid gain of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in sucrose
Fig. 7. Kinetics of water activity of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in sucrose
solution at 60 °Brix. OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and
solution at 40 °Brix. OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and
PVOD 15: osmotic process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min,
PVOD 15: osmotic process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min,
respectively.
respectively.

closely related to the porosity of fruits, the different behaviors

0.995
among osmotically dehydrated fruits can be attributed to the bio-
logical characteristic of vegetable tissues.
0.985
Ito et al. (2007), working with mangos, reported that the main
influences of the vacuum pulse and the osmotic solution concen- 0.975
tration are observed only after 300 min of treatment for the water
loss and the solid gain, and after the first 120 min for the water
aw

0.965
activity of the fruits. In the present study, the same influences were
observed from the beginning of the osmotic process. The different 0.955
results observed in these studies can also be explained by the dif-
ferences in biological structural characteristics of the fruits studied, 0.945
since the vacuum effect depends on the porosity of the specific
fruit. 0.935
In a general way, it could be observed that the application of a 0 100 200 300
10 min vacuum pulse at the beginning of the osmotic process had a Time [min]
minor influence on the WL behavior and the SG of osmotically OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
dehydrated guavas with respect to atmospheric pressure condi- OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
tions. However, the effect of a 15 min vacuum pulse application
at the beginning of the process was clearly observed on the mass Fig. 8. Kinetics of water activity of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in sucrose
solution at 50 °Brix. OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and
transfer of osmotically dehydrated guavas. For the studied process PVOD 15: osmotic process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min,
conditions, it was also observed that the osmotic solution concen- respectively.
tration had a greater influence than the vacuum pulse on the kinet-
ics of osmotically dehydrated guavas.
0.995

3.3. Water activity (aw)

0.985

A reduction in the guavas water activity was observed with the 0.975
use of osmotic solutions at higher sucrose concentrations and with
the application of the vacuum pulse at the beginning of the osmo-
aw

0.965
tic process (Figs. 7–9), caused by the mass transfer enhancement
verified in these process conditions, as it was also observed in 0.955
water loss of fruits. Moreover, the decrease in the aw was intensi-
fied with the vacuum time for treatments at higher solution con- 0.945
centrations (50 and 60 °Brix), showing again the interactive
effects of these two variables on the mass transfer phenomena. 0.935
The optimum condition in an osmotic dehydration process is 0 100 200 300
the one that results on the higher water loss and the lowest solid Time [min]
gain and water activity. Based on this fact, it can be inferred that OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
among the conditions studied in this work, the best one is the OD PVOD 10 PVOD 15
use of 15 min of vacuum pulse with sucrose solution at 60 °Brix.
Fig. 9. Kinetics of water activity of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in sucrose
Although the use of 15 min of vacuum pulse lead to a higher solid solution at 60 °Brix. OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and
gain in a 60 °Brix sucrose solution, the values of water loss were PVOD 15: osmotic process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min,
higher and the values of water activities were lower than the ones respectively.
 J.L.G. Corrêa et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 96 (2010) 498–504 503

obtained at atmospheric pressure or with 10 min of vacuum pulse mechanism in PVOD of porous fruits. Those authors also
application. reported that there are also other mechanisms, but less relevant,
It is important to notice that the local maximum point observed including intercellular transport in liquid phase through plasmo-
in some curves (Fig. 1–9) does not have physical meaning. It is just desma, transmembrane flow and Fickean diffusion within
related to the exponential agreement obtained with the tendency non-compartmentalized zones. Amami et al. (2006) concluded that
curve. the use of a model that considers convective and diffusivity mech-
anisms is more appropriate for an osmotic dehydration process
3.4. Effective diffusion preceded by pulsed electric field than the traditional Fickean
model.
The diffusion coefficients obtained for the osmotic processing For the diffusivity data calculated using Method 1, an increase
of guavas, calculated by Method 1 and Method 2 are shown in in the osmotic solution concentration from 40 to 60 °Brix also
Tables 2 and 3. The effective diffusivities for the water (Deff w ) and caused a decrease on the diffusion coefficients for water and solids.
solids (Deff s ) was calculated using Method 1, and ranged from However, there was not a conclusive trend at 50 °Brix. For osmotic
0.32  1010 to 4.59  1010 m2 s1 and from 0.60  1010 to treatment at lower sucrose solution concentration (40 °Brix), an in-
9.24  1010 m2 s1, respectively (Table 2). Using Method 2, the crease in the vacuum time resulted in higher effective diffusivity
effective diffusivity was found to be the same for both the water values for the water and solid. At higher sucrose solution concen-
and solids, and ranged from 0.64  1010 to 2.20  1010 m2 s1 tration (60 °Brix), increased vacuum time resulted in an opposite
(Table 3). The values obtained with both methods are similar to behavior, making difficult the evaluation of this process variable
those obtained in osmotic treatment of papayas (Rodrigues et al., effects.
2003), apples (Barrera et al., 2004) and mangos (Ito et al., 2007). It was also verified that Method 2 demonstrated a better agree-
According to Barat et al. (2001), Chafer et al. (2003), Fito et al. ment to the experimental data, presenting correlation coefficients
(2001) and Giraldo et al. (2003), higher effective diffusivity values (R2) values between 0.94 and 0.99 and estimated standard error
are obtained with the application of the vacuum pulse and with a values lower than 0.05. This is compared to the results obtained
decrease in osmotic solution concentration. Similar effects were with Method 1 that demonstrated R2 values from 0.87 to 0.97
observed for osmotically dehydrated guavas when the effective dif- and estimated standard error values until 0.23. The greatest corre-
fusion coefficients were estimated using Method 2. This result re- lation between the behavior of mass transfer and the effective dif-
veals the influence of the process variables on mass transfer fusivity values can be attributed to the hydrodynamics mechanism
kinetics. coupled with Fick’s diffusion law considered in Method 2, that pro-
Panadés et al. (2008) in a vacuum-pulsed osmotic dehydration motes a better fitness of the mass transfer phenomena in the
(PVOD) showed the suitability of the hydrodynamic model to cases pulsed vacuum osmotically dehydration process. Although Fick’s
where vacuum pulse is used. Aguilera et al. (2003) warned that approach, treated in Method 1, only considers the diffusional
hydrodynamic transport of water and solutes due to pressure mechanism, it has already been used in some works of pulsed vac-
gradients in open pores is the predominant mass transfer uum dehydration to determine diffusional coefficients (Ito et al.,
2007; Matusek et al., 2008). Matusek et al. (2008) reported that
PVOD is not a simple diffusion controlled process and vacuum
Table 2
Effective diffusivities for the water and solids obtained using Method 1. treatment causes modification on the diffusion mechanism that re-
sults in significantly difference between predicted and measured
Treatment Deff W R2 SE Deff S R2 SE
values. In the present work, this approach was used only to be
(m2 s1) (m2s1)
compared to the hydrodynamic approach and to evaluate the
40 °Brix, OD 2.11  1010 0.93 0.23 2.40  1010 0.93 0.08
goodness of fit for both ones.
40 °Brix, PVOD 10 3.27  1010 0.97 0.05 6.19  1010 0.95 0.09
40 °Brix, PVOD 15 4.59  1010 0.94 0.08 9.24  1010 0.87 0.15
50 °Brix, OD 0.73  1010 0.91 0.05 0.61  1010 0.91 0.17
50 °Brix, PVOD 10 0.95  1010 0.97 0.04 0.60  1010 0.97 0.03 4. Conclusions
50 °Brix, PVOD 15 0.32  1010 0.89 0.14 0.88  1010 0.95 0.04
60 °Brix, OD 2.13  1010 0.96 0.06 2.00  1010 0.95 0.06
60 °Brix, PVOD 10 1.60 x1010 0.95 0.06 1.55 x1010 0.94 0.06
Mass transfer kinetics of guava slices osmotically dehydrated in
60 °Brix, PVOD 15 1.26  1010 0.97 0.04 1.09  1010 0.96 0.04 sucrose solutions were greatly affected by sucrose concentration
and by vacuum pulse application at the beginning of the process.
OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and PVOD 15: osmotic
process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min, respectively. The
Higher sucrose solution concentrations and the vacuum pulse
effective diffusivities were calculated based on Fick’s second law (Crank, 1975). application caused an increase on WL of osmotically dehydrated
guavas. However, the SG was reduced by the increase on osmotic
solution concentration, although solid uptake was favored by vac-
Table 3 uum application. The behavior of weight reduction and water
Effective diffusivities for the water and solids obtained using Method 2. activity kinetics was similar to the water loss.
Treatment Deff (m2 s1) R2 SE In a general way, the effects of pressure conditions on the
10 mass transfer kinetics were clearly observed only with the applica-
40 °Brix, OD 1.18  10 0.94 0.02
40 °Brix, PVOD 10 2.20  1010 0.95 0.02 tion of the vacuum pulse during 15 min at the beginning of the
40 °Brix, PVOD 15 2.20  1010 0.94 0.02 process. Furthermore, for the process conditions studied, the
50 °Brix, OD 1.23  1010 0.95 0.02 osmotic solution concentration seems to have a greater influence
50 °Brix, PVOD 10 1.08  1010 0.99 0.02
on the kinetics of osmotically dehydrated guavas than the vacuum
50 °Brix, PVOD 15 1.54  1010 0.97 0.05
60 °Brix, OD 0.64  1010 0.96 0.03
pulse.
60 °Brix, PVOD 10 0.71  1010 0.95 0.04 The hydrodynamic model (Method 2) demonstrated a better
60 °Brix, PVOD 15 1.38  1010 0.99 0.02 agreement to the experimental data than the diffusional model
OD: osmotic process at atmospheric pressure. PVOD 10 and PVOD 15: osmotic
(Method 1), presenting correlation coefficients (R2) values between
process with vacuum pulse application during 10 and 15 min, respectively. The 0.94 and 0.99 and an estimated standard error lower than 0.05, and
effective diffusivities were calculated based on Fito and Chiralt (1997) hydrody- the effective diffusion coefficients behavior reflected the influence
namics model. of process variables on mass transfer kinetics.
504 J.L.G. Corrêa et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 96 (2010) 498–504
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to FAPEMIG (Process CAG 548/08), FA-
PESP (Process 2001/13809-5 and Process 06/59890-1) and CNPq
for the financial support.
References
Aguilera, J.M., Chiralt, A., Fito, P., 2003. Food dehydration and product structure.
Trends in Food Science and Technology 14 (10), 432–437.
Al-Harahsheh, M., Al-Muhtaseb, A.H., Magee, T.R.A., 2009. Microwave drying
kinetics of tomato pomace: effect of osmotic dehydration. Chemical
Engineering and Processing 48 (1), 524–531.
Amami, E., Vorobiev, E., Kechaou, N., 2006. Modelling of mass transfer during
osmotic dehydration of apple tissue pre-treated by pulsed electric field. LWT –
Food Science and Technology 39 (9), 1014–1021.
Antonio, G.C., Alves, D.G., Azoubel, P.M., Murr, F.E.X., Park, K.J., 2008. Influence of
osmotic dehydration and high temperature short time processes on dried sweet
potato (Ipomoea batatas Lam.). Journal of Food Engineering 84, 375–382.
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists), 2002. Official Methods of
Analysis, 18th ed. AOAC International.
Barat, J.M., Chiralt, A., Fito, P., 2001. Effect of osmotic solution concentration,
temperature and vacuum impregnation pretreatment on osmotic dehydration
kinetics of apple slices. Food Science and Technology International 7, 451–456.
Barrera, C., Betoret, N., Fito, P., 2004. Ca+2 and Fe+2 influence on the osmotic
dehydration kinetics of apple slices (var. Granny Smith). Journal of Food
Engineering 65, 9–14.
Chafer, M., Gonzalez-Martinez, C., Fernandez, B., Perez, L., Chiralt, A., 2003. Effect of
blanching and vacuum pulse application on osmotic dehydration of pear. Food
Science and Technology International 9, 321–328.
Chiralt, A., Fito, P., Barat, J.M., Andrés, A., González-Martinez, C., Escriche, I.,
Camacho, M.M., 2001. Use of vacuum impregnation in food salting process.
Journal of Food Engineering 49, 141–151.
Chiralt, A., Talens, P., 2005. Physical and chemical changes induced by osmotic
dehydration in plant tissues. Journal of Food Engineering 67, 167–177.
Corrêa, J.L.G., Cacciatore, F.A., da Silva, Z.E., Arakaki, T., 2008. Osmotic dehydration of
West Indian cherry (Malpighia emarginata D.C.) – mass transfer kinetics. Revista
Ciência Agronômica 39 (3), 403–409 (in Portuguese).
Crank, J., 1975. The Mathematics of Diffusion, second ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Deng, Y., Zhao, Y., 2008. Effects of pulsed-vacuum and ultrasound on the
osmodehydration kinetics and microstructure of apples (Fuji). Journal of Food
Engineering 85 (1), 84–93.
Dermesonlouoglou, E.K., Pourgouri, S., Taoukis, P.S., 2008. Kinetic study of the effect
of the osmotic dehydration pre-treatment to the shelf life of frozen cucumber.
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 9 (4), 542–549.
Escriche, I., Garcia-Pinchi, R., Fito, P., 2000. Osmotic dehydration of kiwifruit
(Actznidza chinensis): fluxes and mass transfer kinetics. Journal of Food Process
Engineering 23, 191–205.
Falade, K.O., Igbeka, J.C., 2007. Osmotic dehydration of tropical fruits and
vegetables. Food Reviews International 23, 373–405.
Fermin, W.J., Corzo, O., 2005. Optimization of vacuum pulse osmotic dehydration of
cantaloupe using response surface methodology. Journal of Food Processing and
Preservation 29 (1), 20–32.
Fito, P., 1994. Modelling of vacuum osmotic dehydration of food. Journal of Food
Engineering 22, 313–328.
Fito, P., Chiralt, A., 1997. An approach to the modeling of solid food-liquid
operations: application to osmotic dehydration. In: Fito, P., Ortega-Rodriguez,
E., Barbosa-Canovas, G. (Eds.), Food Engineering 2000. Chapman and Hall, New
York, pp. 231–252.
Fito, P., Chiralt, A., Barat, J.M., Andrés, A., Martínez-Monzo, J., Martinéz-Navarrete,
N., 2001. Vacuum impregnation for development of new dehydrated products.
Journal of Food Engineering 49, 297–302.
Giraldo, G., Talens, P., Fito, P., Chiralt, A., 2003. Influence of sucrose solution
concentration on kinetics and yield during osmotic dehydration of mango.
Journal of Food Engineering 58, 33–43.
Ito, A.P., Tonon, R.V., Park, K.J., Hubinger, M.D., 2007. Influence of process conditions
on the mass transfer kinetics of pulsed vacuum osmotically dehydrated mango
slices. Drying Technology 25 (11), 1769–1777.
Jalali, V.R.R., Narain, N., da Silva, G.F., 2008. Effect of osmotic predehydration on
drying characteristics of banana fruits. Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos 28 (2),
269–273 (in Portuguese).
Kaminska, A., Lewicki, P.P., Malczyk, P., 2008. Mass transfer in osmotically
dehydrated apple stored at temperatures above zero. Journal of Food
Engineering 86 (1), 140–149.
Madamba, P., Lopez, R.I., 2002. Optimization of the osmotic dehydration of mango
(Mangifera indica L.) slices. Drying Technology 20, 1227–1242.
Mastrantonio, S.D.S., Pereira, L.M., Hubinger, M.D., 2005. Osmotic dehydration
kinetics of guavas in maltose solutions with calcium salt. Alimentos e Nutrição
16, 309–314.
Matusek, A., Czukor, B., Merész, P., Örsi, F., 2008. Comparison of diffusion of fructo-
oligosaccharide components during vacuum impregnation and osmotic
dehydration. European Food Research Technology 227, 417–423.
Mitrakas, G.E., Koutsoumanis, K.P., Lazarides, H.N., 2008. Impact of edible coating
with or without anti-microbial agent on microbial growth during osmotic
dehydration and refrigerated storage of a model plant material Innovative. Food
Science and Emerging Technologies 9 (4), 550–555.
Moraga, M.J., Moraga, G., Fito, P.J., Martínez-Navarrete, N., 2009. Effect of vacuum
impregnation with calcium lactate on the osmotic dehydration kinetics and
quality of osmodehydrated grapefruit. Journal of Food Engineering 90, 372–379.
Mújica-Paz, H., Valdez-Fragoso, A., López-Malo, A., Palou, E., Welti-Chanes, J., 2003.
Impregnation and osmotic dehydration of some fruits: effect of the vacuum
pressure and syrup concentration. Journal of Food Engineering 57, 305–314.
Palou, E., López-Malo, A., Argaíz, A., Welti, J., 1993. Osmotic dehydration of papaya.
Effect of syrup concentration. Revista Espanola de Ciencia y Tecnologia de
Alimentos 33 (6), 621–630.
Panadés, G., Chiralt, A., Fito, P., Rodrıguez, I., Nuñes, M., Albors, A., Jiménez, R., 2003.
Influence of operating conditions on sensory quality of minimally processed
osmotically dehydrated guava. Journal of Food Quality 26, 91–103.
Panadés, G., Fito, P., Aguiar, Y., Villavicencio, M.N., Acosta, V., 2006. Osmotic
dehydration of guava: Influence of operating parameters on process kinetics.
Journal of Food Engineering 72 (4), 383–389.
Panadés, G., Castro, D., Chiralt, A., Fito, P., Nunez, M., Jimenez, R., 2008. Mass transfer
mechanisms occurring in osmotic dehydration of guava. Journal of Food
Engineering 87 (3), 386–390.
Park, K.J., Bin, A., Brod, F.P.R., Park, H.K.B.P., 2002. Osmotic dehydration kinetics of
pear D’anjou (Pyrus communis L.). Journal of Food Engineering 52, 293–298.
Peleg, M., 1988. An empirical-model for the description of moisture sorption curves.
Journal of Food Science 53, 1216–1219.
Pereira, L.M., Rodrigues, A.C.C., Sarantópoulos, C.I.G.L., Junqueira, V.C.A., Cunha, R.L.,
Hubinger, M.D., 2004. Influence of modified atmosphere packaging and osmotic
dehydration on the quality maintenance of minimally processed guavas. Journal
of Food Science 69 (4), 172–177.
Phoon, P.Y., Galindo, F.G., Vicente, A., Deimek, P., 2008. Pulsed electric field in
combination with vacuum impregnation with trehalose improves the freezing
tolerance of spinach leaves. Journal of Food Engineering 88 (1), 144–148.
Rastogi, N.K., Raghavarao, K.S.M.S., Niranjan, K., Knorr, D., 2002. Recent
developments in osmotic dehydration: methods to enhance mass transfer.
Trends in Food Science and Technology 13, 48–59.
Rastogi, N.K., Raghavarao, K.S.M.S., 2004. Mass transfer during osmotic dehydration.
Determination of moisture and solute diffusion coefficients from concentration
profiles. Food and Bioproducts Processing 82 (C1), 44–48.
Rodrigues, A.C.C., Cunha, R.L., Hubinger, M.D., 2003. Reological properties and color
evaluation of papaya during osmotic dehydration processing. Journal of Food
Engineering 59, 129–135.
Rodrigues, A.C.C., Pereira, L.M., Sarantópoulos, C.I.G.L., Bolini, H.M.A., Cunha, R.L.,
Junqueira, V.C.A., Hubinger, M.D., 2006. Impact of modified atmosphere
packaging on the osmodehydrated papaya stability. Journal of Food
Processing and Preservation 30 (5), 563–581.
Shi, X.Q., Fito, P., Chiralt, A., 1995. Influence of vacuum treatment on mass transfer
during osmotic dehydration of fruits. Food Research International 28, 445–454.
Torres, J.D., Talens, P., Carot, J.M., Chiralt, A., Escriche, I., 2007. Volatile profile of
mango (Mangifera indica L.), as affected by osmotic dehydration. Food
Chemistry 101 (1), 219–228.
Torres, J.D., Castello, M.L., Escriche, I., Chiralt, A., 2008. Quality characteristics,
respiration rates, and microbial stability of osmotically treated mango tissue
(Mangifera indica L.) with or without calcium lactate. Food Science and
Technology International 14 (4), 355–365.
Vivanco-Pezantes, D., 2006. Study of the combined operations of the vacuum
osmotic dehydration, liquid smoking and drying in filets of Atlantic bonito
(Sarda sarda). PhD Thesis, State University of Campinas, Campinas – Brazil (in
Portuguese).
Vivanco-Pezantes, D., Hubinger, M.D., Sobral, P.J.A., 2004. Mass transfer in osmotic
dehydration of Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) fillets under vacuum and
atmospheric pressure. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Drying
Symposium, São Paulo, Brazil.