Solar Energy 136 (2016) 606–613

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Solar Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Comparison of solar dryer and solar-assisted heat pump dryer

for cassava
M. Yahya a,⇑, Ahmad Fudholi b,⇑, Hadyan Hafizh c, Kamaruzzaman Sopian b
a
Fakultas Teknologi Industri, Institut Teknologi Padang, Indonesia
b
Solar Energy Research Institute, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, City University College of Science and Technology, 46100 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia

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

Article history: The performance of a solar dryer (SD) and a solar-assisted heat pump dryer (SAHPD) for drying of cassava
Received 26 October 2015 chips have been investigated. The SD and SAHPD decreased the mass of cassava from 30.8 kg to 17.4 kg
Received in revised form 18 July 2016 within 13 and 9 h at average temperatures of 40 °C and 45 °C, respectively. The moisture content of cas-
Accepted 25 July 2016
sava decreased from 61% (wet basis) to 10.5%, with a mass flow rate of 0.124 kg/s. The average thermal
Available online 29 July 2016
efficiencies were 25.6% and 30.9% for SD and SAHPD respectively. The average drying rate (DR) and speci-
fic moisture extraction rate (SMER) were 1.33 kg/h and 0.38 kg/kW h, respectively, for SD as well as
Keywords:
1.93 kg/h and 0.47 kg/kW h, respectively, for SAHPD. The pick-up efficiencies varied from 3.9% to 65.8%
Drying kinetic
Solar fraction
and 15.9% to 70.4% for SD and SAHPD, with average values of 39.3% and 43.6%, respectively. The average
Pick-up efficiency solar fractions were 66.7% for SD and 44.6% for SAHPD. The coefficient of performance of the heat pump
Thermal efficiency ranged from 3.23 to 3.47, with an average of 3.38.
Coefficient of performance Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In Indonesia, cassava is the fourth important staple food after
rice, maize, and soybean (Setyopratomo et al., 2009). This root crop
is grown in all provinces in Indonesia, with Java and Sumatera as
the main production areas (Saediman et al., 2015). Annual cassava
production reaches approximately 26.7 million ton (AFSIS, 2015).
Cassava contains high moisture (61%, wet basis) after harvesting
and is therefore dried for long-term storage (Rahmi et al., 2008).
Drying, an energy-intensive process, is traditionally used to pre-
serve food or biologically active products. Drying is primarily per-
formed to decrease the moisture content of food to levels at which
spoilage caused by various reactions is minimized (Szentmarjay
et al., 1996). This process can also improve stability, decrease ship-
ping mass and costs, and minimize packing requirements of food
(Ruiz-Lopez et al., 2008).
Sun drying and artificial drying (using electric or fuel dryer) are
commonly used in developing countries to dry food or biologically
active products. Sun drying is a simple and inexpensive method
but requires long drying times and generates products of low qual-
ity. Artificial drying using electricity or fuel consumes much energy
and causes pollution.
⇑ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: yahya_err@yahoo.com (M. Yahya), a.fudholi@gmail.com
(A. Fudholi).
Several studies used either a solar dryer (SD) or a heat pump
dryer to overcome the limitations of sun and artificial drying. A
SD is used as an alternative to sun drying because it generates
good-quality products, requires short drying time, does not cause
pollution, and consumes low energy. Various solar drying systems
with air- and water-based solar collectors have been developed.
The performances of solar dryer with air-based solar collectors
are shown in Table 1 (Fudholi et al., 2015a,b). Many studies also
reported the use of SD to dry agricultural and marine products;
these products include palm oil fronds (Fudholi et al., 2015c), red
chili (Fudholi et al., 2014a, 2013; Banout et al., 2011; Kaewkiew
et al., 2012; Mohanraj and Chandrasekar, 2009; Hossain and Bala,
2007; Hossain et al., 2005), seaweed (Fudholi et al., 2014b), fish
(Bala and Janjai, 2012, 2005; Bala and Mondal, 2001), banana
(Janjai et al., 2009), cassava (Ghaba et al., 2007), green peas
(Shanmugam and Natarajan, 2006), onion (Sarsavadia, 2007), cash
crops (Purohit et al., 2006), herbs and spices (Yahya et al., 2009;
Janjai et al., 2008; Janjai and Tung, 2005), and fruits and vegetable
(Al-Juamily et al., 2007). However, drying cannot be continued or
conducted during cloudy or rainy days and at night time because
of the absence or low amount of sunlight.
A heat pump dryer is used as alternative to dry foods or biolog-
ically active products because it consumes less energy and does not
cause pollution; this method also involves low relative humidity,
low temperature, and good quality of product. A solar-assisted heat
pump dryer (SAHPD) can also be used to dry foods or biologically

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.07.049
0038-092X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Yahya et al. / Solar Energy 136 (2016) 606–613 607

Nomenclature

AC area of the collector (m2) T3 evaporator dry bulk outlet air temperature of heat
C Pair specific heat of air (J kg1 °C1) pump (°C)
COP coefficient of performance T4 evaporator wet bulk outlet air temperature of heat
Eb electrical energy consumed by the blower (kW) pump (°C)
EComp electrical energy consumed by the compressor (kW) T5 condenser dry bulk inlet air temperature of heat pump
Eevap energy used for moisture evaporation (kW) (°C)
Einput energy input to the drying system (kW) T6 condenser wet bulk inlet air temperature of heat pump
ER;Cond thermal energy released by the condenser (kW) (°C)
Es energy incident in the plane of the solar collector (kW) T7 condenser dry bulk outlet air temperature of heat pump
EUcoll useful heat gain by the solar collector (kW) (°C)
Hfg latent heat of vaporization of water (kJ/kg) T8 condenser wet bulk outlet air temperature of heat pump
G solar radiation incident on the collector (W/m2) (°C)
I current (A) T9 solar collector inlet air temperature (dry bulk) (°C)
MC moisture content T10 solar collector outlet air temperature (dry bulk) (°C)
Mf final moisture content on wet basis (%) T11 drying chamber dry bulk inlet air temperature (°C)
Mi initial moisture content on wet basis (%) T12 drying chamber wet bulk inlet air temperature (°C)
md mass of the bone dry (kg) T13 drying chamber dry bulk outlet air temperature (°C)
mp initial mass of the product (kg) T14 drying chamber wet bulk outlet air temperature (°C)
mW mass of water (kg) t drying time (s)
mwater mass of water evaporated (kg) SF solar fractions
m_ air air mass flow rate (kg/s) SMER specific moisture extraction rate
m_ da mass flow rate of dry air (kgdry air/s) V voltage (V)
m_ water drying rate (kg/s) Y as adiabatic saturation humidity of air that enters the dry-
Ti, coll air temperatures at the inlet (°C) ing chamber (kgwater/kgdryair)
To, coll outlet of the solar collector (°C) Yi absolute humidity of air that enters the drying chamber
T i;cond air temperatures at the inlet of the condenser (°C) (kgwater/kgdryair)
T o;cond temperatures at the outlet of the condenser (°C) cos u power factor
T1 dry bulk ambient temperature or evaporator dry bulk gPickup pick-up efficiency
inlet air temperature of heat pump (°C) gth thermal efficiency
T2 wet bulk ambient temperature or evaporator wet bulk
inlet air temperature of heat pump (°C)

active products to solve the limitations of existing drying methods.
This dryer comprises a heat pump and a solar drying system.
SAHPD consumes low energy and does not cause pollution. This
dryer can also perform continuous drying operation, produces
high-quality products, and increases the drying air temperature.
Several studies used SAHPD to dry agricultural and marine (Goh
et al., 2011; Daghigh et al., 2010). However, to our best knowledge,
the performance of SAHPD for drying of cassava chips has not been
reported yet, and the use of SD for drying of this root crop has been
rarely investigated. Moreover, limited studies have compared solar
drying with SAHPD. The objective of this study was performed to
compare the experimental performance of SAHPD with SD for dry-
ing of cassava chips.
Table 1 Performances of a solar dryer (SD) with air-based solar
collector (Fudholi et al., 2015a,b).
2. Materials and methods
The SAHPD consists of a solar collector array, heat pump, drying
chamber, and blowers (Fig. 1). The solar collector consists of sev-
eral main parts: a transparent cover glass material; absorbent
finned plate made from aluminum and black-painted opaque;
angular iron frame; inside and outside collector coated with
1 mm-thick aluminum; and insulation using fiber glass materials.
Two solar collectors are connected in series with an area of
1.8 m2 each. The heat pump consists of evaporator, condenser,
compressor, and expansion valve. The compressor has an electrical
capacity of 0.746 kW. The cabinet-type drying chamber has a
dimension of 1.0 m (width)
1.0 m (length)
1.35 m (height).
The chamber contains drying trays with adjustable racks to place
the cassava sample. The triple-layer walls of the chamber consist
of an aluminum sheet as outside layer, insulated glass fiber mate-
rial as middle layer, and aluminum sheet as inner layer (Fig. 2).
Drying air was circulated using a blower with an electrical capacity
of 0.75 kW.
Experiments were performed at the Institut Teknologi Padang,
West Sumatra, Indonesia. Freshly harvested cassava was obtained
from Padang. The cassava roots were washed, peeled, and cut into
2–3 mm chips. The chips (approximately 30.8 kg) were placed into
the drying chamber. The air temperatures at the inlet and outlet of
the solar collector, heat pump, and drying chamber were measured
using a thermocouple. Solar radiation was measured using a pyra-
nometer, and air flow rate was determined using a flowmeter.
Changes in the mass of cassava chips were measured using scales.
Cassava chips were weighed every 1 h, and temperature was mea-
sured every 0.5 h.
The drying experiments were performed to evaluate the dryer
performance under two different operating modes: SD and SAHPD.
Heat pumps were not used for solar mode of operation (Fig. 3a).
Solar collectors and heat pumps were employed for SAHPD
(Fig. 3b).
T-type thermocouples with an accuracy of ±0.1 °C were used in
the drying experiment to measure air temperature. Solar radiation
during drying was measured with an LJ-200 pyranometer with
±0.1 W/m2 accuracy. Air velocity was measured within 0–30 m/s
by using an HT-383 anemometer, with an accuracy of ±0.2 m/s.
Air temperature and solar radiation were recorded by an AH4000
data logger, with a reading accuracy of ±0.1 °C. The mass of the
product was measured within 0–15 kg range by using a TKB-0.15
weighing scale, with an accuracy ±0.05 kg. An experimental uncer-
608 M. Yahya et al. / Solar Energy 136 (2016) 606–613

Table 1
Performances of solar dryer with air based solar collector (Fudholi et al., 2015a,b).

Produce M (%wb) t (h) St SEC PP Efficiency (%)

Load Mi Mt OS SDT (%) (kW (y) gt gd gp gEx
(kg) h/kg)
Bamboo
40 96 17 – 33 – – 1.6 56 23 61 –
Banana
300 69 30 54 36 44 – 3 – – – –
Cassava
49 66 17 – – – – – – 34 – –
66 67 17 – – – – – – 34 – –
162 66 17 – – – – – – 36 – –
Chili
40 80 10 65 33 49 5.26 – 28 13 45 57 Fig. 2. Photograph of the drying chamber.
Copra
60 52 9 168 66 61 1.19 – – – 29 – tainty analysis was also performed. The uncertainty was estimated
Fish sardines using the following equation (Sevik, 2014; Fudholi et al., 2014a;
52 67 16 70 30 57 – – – 30 – – Akpinar, 2010):
Grapes "
2
2
2 #1=2
320 85 16 – 70 – – – – 30 – – @R @R @R
WR ¼ w1 þ w2 þ ... þ wn ð1Þ
Green peas @x1 @x2 @xn
20 80 5 – 14 – 1.22 – – – 42 –
The performance of the drying system was calculated using the
Jackfruit leather
50 76 12 – 14 – – – 33 48 – 41
following equation. The moisture content of cassava on wet basis
was calculated as follows:
Longan
100 81 12 – 27 – – 2.3 – – – – mW
MC ¼ ð2Þ
Mackerel mW þ_ md
25 72 16 48 27 44 – 1.5 – 20 – –
where mW is the mass of water (kg), and md is the mass of the bone
Mushroom
dry (kg).
160 89 6 – 8 – – 0.7 34 52 – –
The thermal efficiency of the solar collector is the ratio of heat
Rosella flowers
gained by the solar collector to the solar radiation incident on
200 90 18 27 – – 5 – – – –
the plane of the collector. This parameter is calculated as follows:
Seaweed
40 90 10 – 15 – 2.62 – 35 27 95 30 EUcoll
gcoll ¼
100% ð3Þ
Silver jewfish ES
51 64 10 – 8 – 2.92 – 40 23 – –
where EUcoll is the useful heat gain by the solar collector (kW), and Es
OS – open sun; SDT – solar drying technology; t – drying time; St – saving in time; is the energy incident in the plane of the solar collector (kW).
SEC – specific energy consumption; PP – payback period; gt – thermal efficiency; gd The useful heat gain of the solar collector (EUcoll ) and energy
– drying efficiency; gp – pick-up efficiency.
incident in the plane of the solar collector (Es ) are calculated using
the following equations.
_ air C Pair ðT o;coll  T i;coll Þ
EUcoll ¼ m ð4Þ
and
Es ¼ GAC ð5Þ
where m _ air is the air mass flow rate (kg/s), and C Pair is the specific
heat of air (J/kg °C). Ti,coll and To,coll are air temperatures at the inlet
and outlet of the solar collector (°C), respectively. AC is the area of
the collector (m2), and G is the solar radiation incident on the col-
lector (W/m2).
The drying rate (DR) is the mass of water evaporated from the
product per unit time and calculated as follows:
mwater
_ water ¼
m ð6Þ
t_
where mwater is the mass of water evaporated (kg), and t is the dry-
ing time (s).
The mass of water evaporated (mwater) from the wet product can
be calculated as follows:
mp ðM i  M f Þ
mwater ¼ ð7Þ
ð100  M f Þ
where mp is the initial mass of the product (kg), Mi is the initial
moisture content on wet basis (%), and Mf is the final moisture con-
Fig. 1. Photograph of the solar-assisted heat pump dryer (SAHPD). tent on wet basis (%).
 M. Yahya et al. / Solar Energy 136 (2016) 606–613 609

Fig. 3a. Schematic diagram of SD.

Fig. 3b. Schematic diagram of SAHPD.

The coefficient of performance of the heat pump is the ratio of Specific moisture extraction rate (SMER) is the ratio of the mois-
thermal energy released by the condenser to the electrical energy ture evaporated from the wet product to the energy input to the
consumed by the compressor. This coefficient is calculated as drying system. SMER is calculated as follows:
follows: _ water
m
SMER ¼ ð10Þ
ER;Cond Einput
COP ¼ ð8Þ
EComp where Einput is the energy input to the drying system (kW).
The energy input to the drying system can be calculated as
where ER;Cond is the thermal energy released by the condenser (kW), follows:
and EComp is the electrical energy consumed by the compressor
Einput ¼ Es þ Ecomp þ Eb ð11Þ
(kW).
The thermal energy released by the condenser can be calculated where Es is the energy incident in the plane of the solar collector
as follows: (kW). Ecomp and Eb are the electrical energies consumed by the com-
pressor and blower (kW), respectively.
_ air C Pair ðT o;cond  T i;cond Þ
ER;Cond ¼ m ð9Þ The electrical energy consumed by the compressor and blower
is calculated using the following equation:
where T i;cond and T o;cond are the air temperatures at the inlet and out-
Ecomp and Eb ¼ VI cos u ð12Þ
let of the condenser (°C), respectively.
610 M. Yahya et al. / Solar Energy 136 (2016) 606–613

where V is the line voltage (V), I is line current (A), and cos u is the
power factor.
The thermal efficiency of the drying system is the ratio of the
energy used for moisture evaporation to the energy input to the
drying system and calculated as follows:
Eevap
gth ¼ ð13Þ
Einput
The energy used for moisture evaporation can be calculated as
follows:
_ water Hfg
Eevap ¼ m ð14Þ

where Hfg is the latent heat of vaporization of water (kJ/kg).

Pick-up efficiency is the ratio of moisture evaporated from the
Fig. 5. Comparison of the efficiency of the solar collector versus drying time.
wet product or the moisture picked-up by air in the drying cham-
ber to the theoretical capacity of the air to absorb moisture. This
parameter is calculated as follows: 33.7 °C to 37.9 °C, with an average of 36.6 °C. The temperature at
mwater the outlet of the collector ranged from 38.1 °C to 55.1 °C, with an
gPickup ¼
_ da tðY as  Y i Þ
ð15Þ average of 49.3 °C. For the second experiment (using SAHPD), the
m
average solar radiation as well as inlet and outlet temperatures
where m _ da is the mass flow rate of dry air (kgdry air/s), Y i is the abso- of the collector were 643 W/m2, 44 °C, and 56 °C, respectively.
lute humidity of air that enters the drying chamber (kgwater/kgdryair), Fig. 5 shows the efficiency of the collector versus drying time.
and Y as is the adiabatic saturation humidity of air that enters the The efficiencies of the collector varied from approximately 35% to
drying chamber (kgwater/kgdryair).
Solar fractions (SFs) of the assisted heat pump drying system
and solar drying system are calculated using the following equa-
Table 2
tions; SFs are the ratio of the useful heat gain or the energy extrac-
Uncertainties of parameters during drying of cassava.
tion of heat from the solar collector to the energy available for
drying. Parameters Unit Uncertainty
comment
EUcoll
SFSAHPD ¼ ð16Þ SAHPD SD
EUcoll þ Ecomp þ Eb
Measured
Ambient air temperature °C ±0.17 ±0.17
and
Inlet air temperature of evaporator °C ±0.17 –
EUcoll Outlet air temperature of evaporator °C ±0.17 –
SFSD ¼ ð17Þ Inlet air temperature of condenser °C ±0.17 –
EUcoll þ Eb Outlet air temperature of condenser °C ±0.17 –
Inlet air temperature of solar collector °C ±0.17 ±0.17
where SFSAHPD is the SF of the assisted heat pump drying system, and
Outlet air temperature of solar collector °C ±0.17 ±0.17
SFSD is the SF of the solar drying system (Nour-Eddine et al., 2013; Inlet air temperature of drying chamber °C ±0.17 ±0.17
Duffie and Beckman, 1991). Outlet air temperature of drying °C ±0.17 ±0.17
chamber
Ambient air relative humidity % ±0.22 ±0.22
3. Results and discussion Inlet air relative humidity of drying % ±0.22 ±0.22
chamber
Fig. 4 shows the solar radiation and air temperature at the inlet Outlet air relative humidity of drying % ±0.22 ±0.22
and outlet of the solar collectors according to time. The weather for chamber
Inlet air absolute humidity of drying kg water/kg dry ±0.26 ±0.26
the first experiment using the SD was bright with solar radiation chamber air
ranging from 461 W/m2 to 915 W/m2, with an average of 736 W/ Inlet air adiabatic saturation humidity kg water/kg dry ±0.26 ±0.26
m2. The temperature at the inlet of the collector ranged from of drying chamber air
Solar radiation W/m2 ±0.14 ±0.14
Air velocity m/s ±0.24 ±0.24
Mass loss of samples g ±0.014 ±0.014
Mass loss of products kg ±0.11 ±0.11
Reading values of table (q, Cp, and Hfg) – ±0.1– ±0.1–
0.2 0.2
Time measurement min ±0.1 ±0.1
Calculated
Air mass flow rate kg/s ±0.26 ±0.26
Power consumption of compressor kW ±0.056 –
Power consumption of blower kW ±0.037 ±0.037
Thermal efficiency of solar collector % ±0.39 ±0.39
Coefficient of performance of heat – ±0.37 –
pump
Moisture content g water/g wet ±0.024 ±0.024
material
Drying rate kg/h ±0.18 ±0.18
Specific moisture extraction rate kg/kW h ±0.242 ±0.235
Thermal efficiency of dryer % ±0.262 ±0.255
Pick-up efficiency % ±0.487 ±0.487
Solar fraction % ±0.512 ±0.50
Fig. 4. Variation in solar radiation and temperature versus drying time.
 M. Yahya et al. / Solar Energy 136 (2016) 606–613 611

Fig. 6. Variation in the COP versus drying time for SAHPD at January 14, 2015.
Fig. 8. Variation in the temperature and relative humidity versus drying time for
SAHPD at January 14, 2015.

71% and 39% to 64% for SD and SAHPD, respectively, with corre-
sponding average values of 60% and 55%. The evaluation of uncer-
tainty of the dryer performance is presented in Table 2.
Fig. 6 shows the COP of the heat pump as well as the inlet and
outlet temperatures of the condenser; these temperatures were
26.7 °C and 46.3 °C, respectively. The COP of the heat pump ranged
from 3.23 to 3.47, with an average of 3.38.
Fig. 7 shows the air temperature, relative ambient humidity,
and drying time at the inlet and outlet of the drying chamber of
the solar dryer. The relative ambient humidity is highly dependent
on ambient temperature, such that, high ambient temperatures
result in low relative ambient humidity. The average ambient tem-
perature was 34.4 °C, and the average relative ambient humidity
was 59.1%. The average temperature and relative humidity were
45.4 °C and 32%, respectively, at the inlet of the drying chamber Fig. 9. Variation in mass versus drying time.
as well as 35.4 °C and 66.8%, respectively, at the outlet of the dry-
ing chamber.
Fig. 8 shows the air temperature and relative ambient humidity
at the inlet and outlet of the drying chamber versus drying time for
SAHPD. The daily mean values of the inlet temperature, outlet tem-
perature, relative humidity at the inlet, and relative humidity at
the outlet of the drying chamber were as follows: 43.7–59.5 °C,
30.9–41.0 °C, 17.5–29.5%, and 38.8–90.6%, respectively, with corre-
sponding average values of 53.8 °C, 36.1 °C, 22.6%, and 64.5%. The
daily mean values of the ambient temperature and relative ambi-
ent humidity ranged from 31.9 °C to 35.2 °C and from 59.5% to
69.9%, respectively, with corresponding average values of 33.9 °C
and 61.3%.
Fig. 9 shows the relationship of changes in mass of cassava to
the drying time for the SD and SAHPD. The drying of cassava by
using the SD at an average drying air temperature of 40 °C reduced
Fig. 10. Variation in moisture content versus drying time.

the mass from 30.80 kg to 17.40 kg within 13 h under a mass flow

Fig. 7. Variation in the temperature and relative humidity versus drying time for
the SD from January 15, 2015 to January 16, 2015.
rate of 0.124 kg/s. The average air drying temperature for the
SAHPD was 45 °C, and the mass of cassava decreased from
30.80 kg to 17.40 kg within 9 h under a mass flow rate of
0.124 kg/s. Fig. 10 shows the relationship of moisture content of
cassava to the drying time for different drying systems. The mois-
ture content of cassava was reduced by 10.5% (wet basis) from 61%
(wet basis) within 13 and 9 h for SD and SAHPD, respectively.
Fig. 11 shows the DR to dry cassava after drying with the SD and
SAHPD. The minimum, maximum, and average DRs were 0.15, 2.3,
and 1.33 kg/h, respectively, for SD, as well as 0.55, 2.8, and 1.93 kg/
h, respectively, for SAHPD. SMER varied from 0.04 kg/kW h to
0.61 kg/kW h for SD and from 0.21 kg/kW h to 0.76 kg/kW h for
SAHPD, with an average of 0.38 kg/kW h and 0.47 kg/kW h,
respectively.
612 M. Yahya et al. / Solar Energy 136 (2016) 606–613

Table 3
Summary and comparison of experimental results obtained by different authors.

Parameters Unit This study Forson et al. (2007) Ghaba

et al.
SD SAHD Test Test Test
(2007)
I II III
Initial mass kg 30.8 30.8 49.1 65.9 162 –
Final mass kg 17.4 17.4 – – – –
Initial moisture % 61 61 66 67 66 64
content
Final moisture % 10.5 10.5 17.3 17.0 17.3 13
content
Mass flow rate kg/s 0.124 0.124 – – – –
Average solar W/ 736 643 360 356 340 –
radiation m2
Average ambient °C 34.4 33.9 27.0 27.5 28.2 –
Fig. 11. Variation in drying rate versus drying time.
temperature
Average drying °C 40 45 –
chamber
temperature
Average ambient % 59.1 61.3 67.1 66.2 72.1 –
relative
humidity
Drying time H 13 9 34 34 35.5 19
Drying rate kg/h 1.33 1.93 – – – –
SMER kg/ 0.38 0.47 – – – –
kW h
COP – – 3.38 – – – –
Thermal % 26 31 – – – –
(collector)
efficiency
Drying efficiency % 4 6 12 –
Pick-up efficiency % 39 44 – – – –

Fig. 12. Variation in efficiencies versus drying time.

Fig. 12 shows the thermal efficiencies of SD and SAHPD under a
mass flow rate of 0.124 kg/s. The thermal efficiencies varied from
2.4% to 40.6% for SD and from 13.7% to 49.9% for SAHPD, with aver-
age values of 25.6% and 30.9%, respectively. Fig. 12 also shows the
pick-up efficiencies of SD and SAHPD under a mass flow rate of
0.124 kg/s. The pick-up efficiencies varied from 3.9% to 65.8% for
SD and from 15.9% to 70.4% for SAHPD, respectively, with average
values of 39.3% and 43.6%, respectively. Fig. 13 shows the graph of
SF versus drying time. SF varied from 43.2% to 75.4% for SD and
from 22.4% to 58.4% for SAHPD, with an average of 66.7% and
44.6%, respectively.
Forson et al. (2007) designed a mixed-mode natural convection
SD and tested it experimentally for drying cassava. The experimen-
tal results revealed that 49.1, 65.9, and 162 kg of cassava could be
dehydrated within 30–36 h by using average solar irradiance of
400 W/m2 and ambient conditions of 25 °C and 77.8% relative
humidity. A batch of cassava weighing 160 kg by mass exhibited
an initial moisture content of 67% (wet basis); of this amount,
100 kg of water was removed to dry the cassava to the desired
moisture content of 17% (wet basis). The product temperature
was approximately 35 °C, and drying efficiencies of 3.5% (load
49.1 kg), 5.5% (load 65.9 kg), and 12.3% (load 162 kg) were
obtained, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 also shows a summary of
the experimental results and observations for daytime drying of
cassava chips by using forced convection SD and SAHPD.
4. Conclusion
The SD and SAHPD decreased the mass of cassava from 30.8 kg
to 17.4 kg, with a mass flow rate of 0.124 kg/s. The moisture con-
tent of cassava decreased from 61% (wet basis) to 10.5% within
13 and 9 h at average temperatures of 40 °C and 45 °C by using
SD and SAHPD, respectively. The DR for SD ranged from 0.15 kg/h
to 2.3 kg/h, with an average of 1.33 kg/h. The DR for SAHPD ranged
from 0.55 kg/h to 0.28 kg/h, with an average of 1.93 kg/h. The
SMER ranged from 0.04 kg/kW h to 0.61 kg/kW h for SD and from
0.21 kg/kW h to 0.76 kg/kW h for SAHPD, with average values of
0.38 and 0.47 kg/kW h, respectively. The thermal efficiencies ran-
ged from 2.4% to 40.6% for SD and from 13.7% to 49.9% for SAHPD,
with average values of 25.6% and 30.9%, respectively. The pick-up
efficiencies ranged from 3.9% to 65.8% and from 15.9% to 70.4%
for SD and SAHPD, respectively, with corresponding average values
of 39.3% and 43.6%. The SF ranged from 43.2% to 75.4% and from
22.4% to 58.4% for SD and SAHPD, respectively, with corresponding
average values of 66.7% and 44.6%.

References

AFSIS (Asean Food Security Information System), 2015. Cassava production in Asean
counties, 2013–2015. Asean Agricultural Comodity Outlook 2015, No. 12.
Al-Juamily, K.E.J., Khalifa, A.J.N., Yassen, T.A., 2007. Testing of the performance of a
fruit and vegetable solar drying system in Iraq. Desalination 209, 163–170.
Akpinar, E.K., 2010. Drying of mint leaves in solar dryer and under open sun:
modeling, performance analyses. Energy Convers. Manage. 51, 2407–2418.
Bala, B.K., Janjai, S., 2012. Solar drying technology: potentials and developments.
Energy Environ. Sustain. Develop., 69–98
Bala, B.K., Janjai, S., 2005. Solar drying of fish (Bombay Duck) using tunnel dryer. Int.
Fig. 13. Variation in solar radiation and solar fraction versus drying time. Energy J. 6, 91–102.
 M. Yahya et al. / Solar Energy 136 (2016) 606–613
Bala, B.K., Mondal, M.R.A., 2001. Experimental investigation of solar drying of fish
using solar tunnel drier. Drying Technol. 19 (2), 1–10.
Banout, J., Ehl, P., Havlik, J., Lojka, B., Polesny, Z., Verner, V., 2011. Design and
performance evaluation of a double-pass solar drier for drying of red chilli
(Capsicum annuum L.). Sol. Energy 85, 506–525.
Daghigh, R., Ruslan, M.H., Sulaiman, M.Y., Sopian, K., 2010. Review of solar assisted
heat pump drying systems for agricultural and marine products. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev 14, 2564–2579.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 1991. Solar Engineering of Thermal Process. John Willey
& Sons, New York.
Forson, F.K., Nazha, M.A.A., Rajakaruna, A.F.O., 2007. Design of mixed-mode natural
convection solar crop dryers: application of principles and rules of thumb.
Renew. Energy 32, 2306–2319.
Fudholi, A., Sopian, K., Gabbasa, M., Bakhtyar, B., Yahya, M., Ruslan, M.H., Mat, S.,
2015a. Techno-economic of solar drying systems with water based solar
collectors in Malaysia: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 809–820.
Fudholi, A., Sopian, K., Bakhtyar, B., Gabbasa, M., Othman, M.Y., Ruslan, M.H., 2015b.
Review of solar drying systems with air-based solar collectors in Malaysia.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51, 1191–1204.
Fudholi, A., Sopian, K., Alghoul, M.A., Ruslan, M.H., Othman, M.Y., 2015c.
Performances and improvement potential of solar drying system for palm oil
fronds. Renew. Energy 78, 561–565.
Fudholi, A., Sopian, K., Yazdi, M.H., Ruslan, M.H., Gabbasa, M., Kazem, H.A., 2014a.
Performance analysis of solar drying system for red chili. Sol. Energy 99, 47–54.
Fudholi, A., Sopian, K., Othman, M.Y., Ruslan, M.H., 2014b. Energy and exergy
analyses of solar drying system for red seaweed. Energy Build. 68, 121–129.
Fudholi, A., Othman, M.Y., Ruslan, M.H., Sopian, K., 2013. Drying of Malaysian
Capsicum annuum L. (red chili) dried by open and solar drying. Int. J.
Photoenergy, 1–9.
Ghaba, P., Andoh, H.Y., Saraka, J.K., Koua, B.K., Toure, S., 2007. Experimental
investigation of a solar dryer with natural convective heat flow. Renew. Energy
32, 1817–1829.
Goh, L.J., Othman, M.Y., Mat, S., Ruslan, M.H., Sopian, K., 2011. Review of heat pump
systems for drying application. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15, 4788–4796.
Hossain, M.A., Bala, B.K., 2007. Design of hot chilli using solar tunnel drier. Sol.
Energy 81, 85–92.
Hossain, M.A., Woods, J.L., Bala, B.K., 2005. Optimization of solar tunnel drier for
drying of chilli without color loss. Renew. Energy 30, 729–742.
Janjai, S., Lamlert, N., Intawee, P., Mahayothee, B., Bala, B.K., Nagle, M., Muller, J.E.,
2009. Experimental and simulated performance of a PV-ventolated solar
greenhouse dryer for drying of peeled longan and banana. Sol. Energy 83,
1550–1565.
Janjai, S., Srisitipokakun, N., Bala, B.K., 2008. Experimental and modelling
performances of aroof-integrated solar drying system for drying herbs and
spices. Energy 33, 91–103.
613
Janjai, S., Tung, P., 2005. Performance of a solar dryer using hot air from roof-
integrated solar collector for drying herbs and spices. Renew. Energy 30, 2085–
2095.
Kaewkiew, J., Nabneaan, S., Janjai, S., 2012. Experimental investigation of the
performance of a large-scale greenhouse type solar dryer for drying chilli in
Thailand. Procedia Eng. 32, 433–439.
Mohanraj, M., Chandrasekar, P., 2009. Performance of a forced convection solar
drier integrated with gravel as heat storage material for chili drying. J. Eng. Sci.
Technol. 4 (3), 305–314.
Nour-Eddine, B., Belkacem, Z., Abdellah, K., 2013. Experimental study and
simulation of a solar dryer for spearmint leaves (Mentha spicata). Int. J.
Ambient Energy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0430750.2013.820149.
Purohit, P., Kumar, A., Kandpal, T.C., 2006. Solar drying vs. Open sun drying: a
framework for financial evaluation. Sol. Energy 80, 1568–1579.
Rahmi, B., Yanti, Y., Mizumachi, S., Achmadi, J., Kawamoto, Y., Purnomoadi, A., 2008.
Effects of drying and ensiling methods on cyanides contents and chemical
component of cassava roots and stems. J. Indon. Trop. Anim. Agric. 33 (4), 247–
254.
Ruiz-Lopez, C.E., Martinez-Sanches, R., Cobos-Vivaldo, E., Herman-Lara, 2008.
Mathematical modeling and simulation of batch drying of foods in fixed beds
with airflow reversal. J. Food Eng. 89, 310–318.
Saediman, H., Amini, A., Basiru, R., Nafiu, L.O., 2015. Profitability and value addition
in cassava processing in Buton district of Southeast Sulawesi Province,
Indonesia. J. Sustain. Develop. 8 (1), 226–234.
Sarsavadia, P.N., 2007. Development of a solar assisted dryer and evaluation of
energy requirement for drying of onion. Renew. Energy 32, 2529–2547.
Setyopratomo, P., Fatmawati, A., Allaf, K., 2009. Texturing by instant controlled
pressure drop DIC in the production of cassava flour: impact on dehydration
kinetics, product physical properties and microbial decontamination. In:
Proceeding of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science
(WCECS), vol. 1, San Francisco, USA, October 20–22, 2009.
Sevik, S., 2014. Experimental investigation of a new design solar-heat pump dryer
under the different climatic conditions and drying behavior of selected
products. Sol. Energy 105, 190–205.
Shanmugam, V., Natarajan, E., 2006. Experimental investigation of forced
convection and desiccant integrated solar dryer. Renew. Energy 31, 1239–1251.
Szentmarjay, T., Pallai, E., 1996. Szekrenyessy. Product quality and operational
parameter of drying. IDS 96, Volume B, pp. 839–846.
Yahya, M., Ruslan, M.H., Othman, M.Y., Yatim, B., Sulaiman, M.Y., Mat, S., Haw, L.C.,
Zaharim, A., Sopian, K., 2009. Evaluation of energy requirement for drying of
green tea using a solar assisted drying system (V-groove solar collector). In:
Proc. of the 3rd WSEAS Int. Conf. on Renewable Energy Sources, 2009, pp. 298–
303.