Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfoodeng

Rehydration kinetics and soluble solids lixiviation of candied

mango fruit as affected by sucrose concentration
G. Giraldo a, R. Vázquez b, M.E. Martı́n-Esparza b, A. Chiralt b,*

a
Facultad de Ciencias Agroindustriales, Universidad del Quindı́o, clle 12N cra 15 Armenia, Quindı́o, Colombia
b
Instituto de Ingenierı́a de Alimentos para el Desarrollo, Departamento de Tecnologı́a de los Alimentos, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Camino
de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain

Received 23 March 2005; accepted 2 August 2005

Available online 28 September 2005

Abstract

Rehydration behaviour of candied mango samples was studied. The influence of candy process conditions and rehydrating medium on
the rehydration kinetics was studied. In this sense, water gain, solute loss and compositional changes in the fruit liquid phase were fitted
using PelegÕs model. Mango cubes were candied using two osmotic dehydration steps (applying vacuum impregnation in the first) plus air
drying at 35 °C till 80% or 90% soluble solids was obtained. Four combinations of sucrose solutions (°Bx) was used in the osmotic steps:
25–65, 45–45, 45–65 and 65–65. Rehydration process were carried out at 10 °C for 8 h on sucrose solutions (0, 10, 20 and 30°Bx). Candied
samples using 45°Bx sucrose in the two osmotic steps showed the highest solute retention at equilibrium. A higher drying level of candied
fruit also implied the greatest solute retention.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mango fruit; Osmotic dehydration; Rehydration; Sucrose concentration

1. Introduction non-fresh flavour with a loss of nutritive value, which

Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is considered as one of the
three or four finest tropical fruits. Its extraordinary taste,
flavour, colour and texture make it special not only for
its fresh consumption but also as an ingredient in fruit sal-
ads, ice creams, jams and cakes. In order to have mango
products available for the food industry, not only is the
market for fresh products interesting but also the processed
mango products which maintain the relevant sensory prop-
erties as unaltered as possible. In this sense a process that
implies good stability–quality of mango products could
be an option to increase their trade in non-producing coun-
tries. The drying of mango fruit can be an alternative to
make both their shelf-life longer and their commercializa-
tion easier. Nevertheless, conventionally dried mangos
have an undesirable tough texture, poor colour and
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 963879834; fax: +34 963877369.
E-mail address: eesparza@tal.upv.es (M.E. Martı́n-Esparza).
reduce its economic importance (Durance, Wang, &
Meyer, 1999). There has been an increasing interest in
osmotic dehydration (OD) of foods due to the low temper-
ature process (minimal heat damage) and minimum energy
requirements in addition to better retention of the initial
nutritional and sensory characteristics in the final product
(Monsalve-Gonzalez, Barbosa-Canovas, & Cavallieri,
1993; Panagiotou, Karathanos, & Maroulis, 1999). The
application of vacuum impregnation (VI) prior to osmotic
dehydration of fruits improves process kinetics, which al-
lows the use of lower drying temperatures, thus preserving
product quality attributes (Fito, 1994; Fito & Chiralt,
2000; Giraldo, Talens, Fito, & Chiralt, 2003). Long term
osmotic processes applying VI with the osmotic solution
at the first process step has been proposed to obtain
candied fruits at mild temperatures, thus maintaining the
characteristic attributes of the fresh fruits (Barat, Fito, &
Chiralt, 2001). These kinds of products have stability prop-
erties similar as the conventionally dried products and

0260-8774/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.08.009
826 G. Giraldo et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834
could have better properties when rehydrated because of
their high sugar content.
Vacuum candying process consists of a short VI step
with more or less diluted sugar solutions, followed by an
equilibration step between fruit samples and 65% sugar
solution. The influence of the osmotic solution concentra-
tion in the vacuum impregnation step on the quality and
yield of candied pineapple was studied (Barat, Talens,
Barrera, Chiralt, & Fito, 2002). Candied fruits obtained
in this kind of process show notable sugar gains and more
soft texture than air dried products, maintaining to quite
an extent the characteristic mango flavour (Giraldo, 2003).
In dried products, rehydration behaviour must be
known to assure the acceptable properties of the rehy-
drated samples. In the rehydration process, two main
crosscurrent mass fluxes are involved, a water flux from
the rehydrating solution to the product, and a flux of sol-
utes from the food product to the solution. The pre-drying
treatments, drying conditions and rehydration itself, induce
structural and compositional changes in the food tissue
which affect product quality. Rehydration behaviour has
be considered as a measure of the induced damage in the
material during drying (Lewicki, 1998), such as integrity
loss and reduction of hydrophilic properties, which de-
crease the rehydration efficiency (Krokida & Maroulis,
2001). Several factors affect the rehydration kinetics
(Kaymak-Ertekin, 2002), such as temperature (Abdel
Kaber, 1994; Sanjuán, 1998) and nature of the rehydrating
solution and food product (Hamad & Powers, 1965; Mach-
ado, Oliveira, & Cunha, 1999; Mastrocola, Barbanti, Dalla
Rosa, & Pittia, 1998; Prothon et al., 2001). So, it is interest-
ing to know the influence of drying and rehydration condi-
tions on the rehydration kinetics and final product quality.
In this study, the rehydration behaviour of candied
mango samples as a function of the candy process condi-
tions and sugar concentration of the rehydrating solution
was analysed, by considering kinetic analyses of water gain,
solute loss and dilution rate of the fruit liquid phase.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample preparation
Mango fruits (Kent variety) were obtained in a local
market and selected on the basis of a similar ripening de-
gree. They were peeled and sliced in two 1 cm thick slabs
along the seed. Then 1 cm side cubes were obtained from
the slices. These samples were identified, weighed and sub-
mitted to a candying process. This was carried out in three
steps: (a) vacuum impregnation (10 min at 50 mbar fol-
lowed by 20 min at atmospheric pressure) of cubes with
the corresponding sucrose solutions (25, 45 and 65°Bx),
(b) osmotic equilibration (for 48 h) by immersion in 65 or
45°Bx sucrose at 30 °C, fruit–solution ratio: 1:20 (w/w), sta-
tic conditions, batch system, (c) convective drying at 35 °C,
2 m/s air rate till two different moisture levels were reached.
The high solution–fruit ratio was used in the osmotic
equilibration step in order to avoid significant dilution of
the solution during the process, thus assuring the final con-
centration level of the product. At the concentration levels
used in this step, no microbial growth was observed during
the 48 h treatment. According to the °Bx of sucrose solu-
tions in the two first steps, four kinds of osmotic treatments
were used: 25–65, 45–65, 45–45 and 65–65. Samples ob-
tained in each osmotic treatment were dried till samples
reached about 90 (batch 1) and 80 (batch 2) °Bx in their
liquid phase, thus obtaining eight different kinds of samples
according to the candy process.
2.2. Rehydration experiments
Dehydrated samples were rehydrated at 10 °C for 8 h in
different sucrose solutions. For preparing solutions, aque-
ous media was a lactic acid/sodium lactate (0.8 g/100 mL)
buffer (pH = 4.06) containing 0%, 10%, 20% or 30% su-
crose. This rehydrating media was selected on the basis
of its similar pH to the fruit liquid phase. A 20% sucrose
solution in pure water was also considered. In the rehydra-
tion process, three sample cubes of each drying condition
were used and immersed in the corresponding rehydrating
solution. Sample–solution ratio was 1:10 (w/w) and was
established to obtain enough sensitivity in the measure-
ments of composition changes of the solution during pro-
cess. Different variables were controlled as a function of
rehydrating time (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180, 300 and
480 min): the sample mass (Mt), the solution–sample sys-
tem mass (mTo), the soluble solid content of the rehydrat-
ing solution ðy ts Þ and the solution–sample system mass
after each control (mTf). Rehydrated samples were stored
at 18 °C until analytical determinations were carried out.
2.3. Analytical determinations
Fresh, candied and rehydrated mango samples (homog-
enized) were characterized as to water and soluble solid
contents. Water content was analysed by vacuum drying
at 63 °C and 80 mm Hg until constant weight was achieved
(AOAC, 1980). Soluble solid content was measured in a
refractometer (ABBE ATAGO 89553 of Zeiss) at 20 °C.
To this end, samples were homogenised and centrifuged
to obtain liquid phase which was directly measured in the
refractometer. For candied samples, homogenisation was
carried out in a known amount of distilled water and the
dilution effect was taken into account to determine the sol-
uble solid content of the product.
2.4. Data analysis
Each rehydration experiment was carried out on three
sample cubes which mass was obtained as a function of
time and analysed as to moisture and soluble content at
the end of the experiment. Data in triplicate were consid-
ered to apply mass balances and to fit kinetic model which
was carried out by linear regression.
 G. Giraldo et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834 827

3. Results and discussion
3.1. Sugar gain and water loss during osmotic drying
Fresh samples showed 0.831 ± 0.006 (g water/g sample)
water content (xw) and 15.4 ± 0.1°Bx, similar to those
found for different mango varieties (Galán, 1999). During
the osmotic steps, samples obtained in treatments 25–65,
45–65 and 65–65 reached between 64 and 65°Bx in their li-
quid phase, in agreement with their practical equilibrium
with the solution used in the long osmotic step. In treat-
ment 45–45, equilibrium was also reached in practical
terms. Soluble solid gains (DMss), promoted only by osmo-
tic steps, were determined as g solutes/g initial sample mass
and are shown in Table 1. It can be observed that the treat-
ment which implied the greatest solute gain was 25–65,
where the vacuum impregnation step was carried out with
the more heavily diluted solution. This result agrees with
that reported for the candying process of pineapple; the
higher the solution concentration used on the vacuum
pulse, the lower the sugar gain, and with the highest pro-
cess yield for 25–65 process conditions (Barat et al.,
2002). Table 1 also shows the obtained final composition
in terms of water content (xw) and soluble solids content
in the fruit liquid phase (°Bx), as well as the water loss
(DMw, g water/g initial sample mass) and total mass losses
(DM, g/g initial sample mass) during the candy process.
The final concentration of candied mango samples was
near 90°Bx for batch 1 and near 80°Bx for batch 2, as
was established in the experimental design.
3.2. Analysis of rehydration process
Rehydration experiments were performed in order to
model water gains (DMw) and solute losses (DMs) in the
samples throughout rehydration time as well as the changes
in concentration of the fruit liquid phase (zs = °Bx/100). To
this end, the experimental procedure described above was
used, according to that previously reported (Ruı́z Dı́az,
Martı́nez-Monzó, Fito, & Chiralt, 2003). From the experi-
mental values, and by applying mass balances in the sys-
tem, the sample mass change (DM, Eq. (3)), the total
water gain (DMw) and solute loss (DMs) were deduced at
each time, as well as the moisture and solute contents
reached in the sample. For mass balances (Eqs. (1)–(7))
in addition to the water–solute exchanges between sample
and solution, the solution losses which occurred during
two successive controls were considered. All changes were
referred per mass unit of fresh sample (MF) to make the
samples more comparable, due to the fact that during the
candy process, samples gain different amounts of solutes,
depending on the treatment, and additionally, a different
change in dry matter occurs during rehydration in each
case. Mass balances were checked by comparing experi-
mental values of DM in the sample and those determined
from DMw + DMs obtained from balances. Likewise, the
experimental water and solid contents of the samples ana-
lysed at the end of the experiment were compared with
those determined from the balance equations. A close fit
was obtained in all cases between experimental and pre-
dicted values which validate the procedure used.
DM w;RS ¼ DM w.L þ DM w ð1Þ
DM s;RS ¼ DM s.L þ DM s ð2Þ
DM ¼ ðM t  M 0 Þ=M F ð3Þ
being,
DM w;RS ¼ ½mtRS ð1  y ts Þ  m0RS ð1  y 0s Þ=M F ð4Þ
X
DM w.L ¼ ½ Dmt ð1  y ts Þ=M F ð5Þ
DM s;RS ¼ ½mtRS y ts  m0RS y 0s =M F ð6Þ
X
DM s.L ¼ ½ Dmt y ts =M F ð7Þ
where, M is the sample mass (g), DM is the sample mass
change (g), mRS is the mass of the rehydrating solution
(g), ys is the soluble solid mass fraction in the rehydrating
solution (g solutes/g solution), Dmt is the difference between
the total mass (sample plus solution) at time t and the total
mass at the previous control time, which corresponds to the
liquid lost between two successive controls (g), DMw,RS is
the changes in the water mass in the rehydrating solution
(g), DMw.L is the water losses between two successive con-
trols (g), DMs,RS is the changes in soluble solid mass in
the rehydrating solution (g), DMs.L is the soluble solid losses
between two successive controls (g). Superscripts: t is at
time t, 0 is at initial time, F is the fresh sample.

Table 1
Characterization of dehydrated mango fruit alter osmotic dehydration (OD) and superficial air drying 35 °C (AD)
°
Treatment xw Bx DMss DMw DM
Batch 1 25–65 0.131 86.7 0.39 ± 0.17 0.73 ± 0.03 0.34 ± 0.2
45–45 0.132 86.7 0.33 ± 0.06 0.72 ± 0.06 0.39 ± 0.08
45–65 0.092 88.9 0.35 ± 0.14 0.75 ± 0.06 0.4 ± 0.16
65–65 0.131 85.8 0.37 ± 0.17 0.72 ± 0.07 0.35 ± 0.21
Batch 2 25–65 0.280 71.7 0.40 ± 0.14 0.65 ± 0.05 0.25 ± 0.18
45–45 0.179 82.0 0.26 ± 0.04 0.82 ± 0.05 0.56 ± 0.06
45–65 0.193 77.2 0.31 ± 0.12 0.72 ± 0.05 0.41 ± 0.17
65–65 0.169 81.8 0.21 ± 0.15 0.77 ± 0.06 0.56 ± 0.21
828 G. Giraldo et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834

Solid losses (DMs) and water gains (DMw) as a function
of rehydration time were modelled by applying PelegÕs
empirical equation linearly (Eq. (8)). In this model, constant
K1, dependent on temperature, is related to the mass trans-
fer rate at the very beginning of the process and K2 relates to
the maximum (or minimum) value attainable (equilibrium
value, Eq. (9)) (Abu-Ghannam & McKenna, 1997; Turhan,
Sayar, & Gunasekaran, 2002). This model has been used to
fit the rehydration data of different products such as non-fat
powder milk and rice (Peleg, 1988), soybean seeds and pea-
nuts (Sopade & Obekpa, 1990), chickpeas and peas (Hung,
Liu, Black, & Trewhella, 1993), corn, millet and sorghum
(Machado, Oliveira, Gekas, & Singh, 1998), wheat
(Maskan, 2001) and orange (Ruı́z Dı́az et al., 2003).
t=ðyðtÞ  y 0 Þ ¼ K 1 þ K 2 t ð8Þ
y e ¼ y 0 þ 1=K 2 ð9Þ
where y(t) is the property value at any process time t, y0 is
the initial value of the property, ye is the equilibrium value
of the property, K1 is the PelegÕs first constant, K2 is the
PelegÕs second constant, t is the time.
Tables 2 and 3 show the values obtained for these con-
stants when fitting Eq. (8) to water gains and solid losses,
respectively. The corresponding regression coefficients,

Table 2
Obtained values for parameters of PelegÕs model fitted to water uptake (DMw) of candied samples rehydrated in different solutions K1 (min g fresh sample/
g gained water); K2 (g fresh sample/g gained water)
Treatment DMw
Drying Rehydration K1 K2 R2 SE ye
25–65 (B1) 0°Bx 52 ± 2 1.066 ± 0.012 0.999 5 0.94
10°Bx 58 ± 7 1.25 ± 0.03 0.995 14 0.80
20°Bx 84 ± 5 1.61 ± 0.02 0.998 10 0.62
20°Bx non-buffer 72 ± 5 1.43 ± 0.02 0.998 10 0.70
30°Bx 124 ± 11 1.59 ± 0.05 0.992 23 0.63
25–65 (B2) 0°Bx 45 ± 4 1.25 ± 0.02 0.998 9 0.80
10°Bx 45 ± 5 1.34 ± 0.03 0.997 11 0.75
20°Bx 56 ± 9 1.59 ± 0.04 0.994 20 0.63
20°Bx non-buffer 73 ± 6 1.42 ± 0.03 0.997 12 0.70
30°Bx 103 ± 10 1.68 ± 0.05 0.994 20 0.59
45–45 (B1) 0°Bx 51 ± 3 0.967 ± 0.015 0.998 6 1.03
10°Bx 58 ± 3 1.122 ± 0.017 0.998 7 0.89
20°Bx 77 ± 3 1.289 ± 0.016 0.999 7 0.77
20°Bx non-buffer 72 ± 4 1.286 ± 0.019 0.998 8 0.78
30°Bx 105 ± 9 1.47 ± 0.05 0.993 20 0.68
45–45 (B2) 0°Bx 74 ± 4 1.156 ± 0.019 0.998 8 0.86
10°Bx 79 ± 5 1.34 ± 0.03 0.997 11 0.74
20°Bx 100 ± 5 1.53 ± 0.02 0.998 10 0.65
20°Bx non-buffer 71 ± 4 1.484 ± 0.019 0.999 8 0.67
30°Bx 151 ± 11 1.81 ± 0.05 0.994 23 0.55
45–65 (B1) 0°Bx 58 ± 4 1.074 ± 0.019 0.998 8 0.93
10°Bx 42 ± 4 1.26 ± 0.02 0.998 9 0.79
20°Bx 66 ± 10 1.45 ± 0.05 0.991 22 0.69
20°Bx non-buffer 59 ± 7 1.53 ± 0.03 0.997 15 0.65
30°Bx 77 ± 5 1.47 ± 0.02 0.998 10 0.68
45–65 (B2) 0°Bx 67 ± 3 1.208 ± 0.015 0.999 6 0.83
10°Bx 81 ± 3 1.569 ± 0.015 0.999 7 0.64
20°Bx 79 ± 14 1.32 ± 0.07 0.981 30 0.76
20°Bx non-buffer 48 ± 10 1.46 ± 0.05 0.992 21 0.68
30°Bx 117 ± 17 1.98 ± 0.08 0.988 36 0.51
65–65 (B1) 0°Bx 43 ± 2 1.161 ± 0.012 0.999 5 0.86
10°Bx 57 ± 4 1.379 ± 0.019 0.998 9 0.73
20°Bx 63 ± 3 1.319 ± 0.017 0.999 7 0.76
20°Bx non-buffer 55 ± 5 1.25 ± 0.02 0.998 10 0.80
30°Bx 85 ± 6 1.77 ± 0.03 0.998 12 0.56
65–65 (B2) 0°Bx 49 ± 5 1.25 ± 0.02 0.997 11 0.80
10°Bx 71 ± 5 1.61 ± 0.02 0.998 11 0.62
20°Bx 96 ± 9 1.74 ± 0.05 0.995 20 0.57
20°Bx non-buffer 83 ± 8 1.73 ± 0.04 0.996 17 0.58
30°Bx 171 ± 28 1.69 ± 0.14 0.956 60 0.59
B1: batch 1; B2: batch 2.
 G. Giraldo et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834 829

Table 3
Obtained values for parameters of PelegÕs model fitted to solutes losses (DMs) of candied samples rehydrated in different solutions K1 (min g fresh sample/g
lost solutes); K2 (g fresh sample/g lost solutes)
Treatment DMs
Drying Rehydration K1 K2 R2 SE ye
°
25–65 (B1) 0 Bx 102 ± 9 2.87 ± 0.04 0.998 20 0.35
10°Bx 210 ± 66 1.9 ± 0.3 0.831 139 0.53
20°Bx 222 ± 99 7.7 ± 0.5 0.973 210 0.13
20°Bx non-buffer 213 ± 60 5.3 ± 0.3 0.979 127 0.19
30°Bx 291 ± 130 6.1 ± 0.6 0.894 273 0.16
25–65 (B2) 0°Bx 82 ± 14 2.20 ± 0.07 0.992 31 0.45
10°Bx 88 ± 16 2.04 ± 0.08 0.989 34 0.49
20°Bx 161 ± 30 2.58 ± 0.015 0.977 64 0.39
20°Bx non-buffer 181 ± 41 4.13 ± 0.19 0.984 85 0.24
30°Bx 134 ± 25 4.29 ± 0.12 0.994 53 0.23
45–45 (B1) 0°Bx 121.5 ± 11.3 3.09 ± 0.05 0.998 24 0.32
10°Bx 124 ± 22 4.0 ± 0.10 0.995 45 0.25
20°Bx 161 ± 64 5.3 ± 0.3 0.982 120 0.19
20°Bx non-buffer 164 ± 107 8.6 ± 0.5 0.975 225 0.12
30°Bx 160 ± 229 14.92 ± 1.11 0.962 483 0.07
45–45 (B2) 0°Bx 204 ± 25 3.69 ± 0.12 0.992 53 0.27
10°Bx 289 ± 60 5.1 ± 0.3 0.978 127 0.20
20°Bx 351 ± 108 10.1 ± 0.5 0.986 204 0.10
20°Bx non-buffer 250 ± 353 11.2 ± 1.7 0.859 744 0.09
30°Bx 564 ± 543 18 ± 3 0.869 1144 0.05
45–65 (B1) 0°Bx 167 ± 24 4.28 ± 0.12 0.995 50 0.23
10°Bx 178 ± 39 3.26 ± 0.19 0.977 82 0.31
20°Bx 218 ± 45 4.2 ± 0.2 0.981 95 0.24
20°Bx non-buffer 197 ± 50 3.5 ± 0.2 0.975 95 0.28
30°Bx 194 ± 29 3.93 ± 0.14 0.991 61 0.25
45–65 (B2) 0°Bx 271 ± 68 3.1 ± 0.3 0.925 143 0.32
10°Bx 668 ± 246 5.34 ± 1.19 0.740 519 0.19
20°Bx 302 ± 61 2.2 ± 0.3 0.890 128 0.45
20°Bx non-buffer 210 ± 69 3.0 ± 0.3 0.922 146 0.33
30°Bx 333 ± 158 5.9 ± 0.8 0.894 333 0.17
65–65 (B1) 0°Bx 79 ± 15 4.42 ± 0.07 0.998 31 0.23
10°Bx 253 ± 45 4.3 ± 0.2 0.982 95 0.23
20°Bx 252 ± 29 3.03 ± 0.13 0.988 55 0.33
20°Bx non-buffer 204 ± 30 3.36 ± 0.14 0.987 63 0.30
30°Bx 388 ± 109 4.8 ± 0.6 0.949 229 0.21
65–65 (B2) 0°Bx 120 ± 21.7 5.47 ± 0.11 0.997 46 0.18
10°Bx 273 ± 119 10.5 ± 0.6 0.979 251 0.09
20°Bx 646 ± 212 4.24 ± 1.03 0.707 447 0.23
20°Bx non-buffer 383 ± 88 8.3 ± 0.4 0.982 185 0.12
30°Bx 530 ± 136 4.7 ± 0.7 0.879 287 0.21
B1: batch 1; B2: batch 2.

standard errors (SE), and equilibrium values (ye) deduced
from Eq. (9) are also summarized. The effect of candy
process conditions, that is, osmotic steps and degree of
dehydration (batch), and rehydration solution on the Peleg
constants was analysed through a multifactor ANOVA.
The mean values and LSD intervals for constant values
as a function of the different factors are plotted in Figs.
1–3. The osmotic process conditions (Fig. 1) had no signif-
icant (p > 0.05) effect on the K1 values, or the rehydration
rate, either in water gains or solute losses, although mass
transfer rate for solute losses showed a tendency to
decrease (increasing K1 values) as the concentration of
the impregnating solution increased. This could indicate
that the different distribution of the sugar gained during
impregnation could affect the sugar diffusion during the
rehydration process. The equilibrium values for water gain
and sugar loss were not significantly affected by the osmotic
process conditions, except for the value obtained for solute
losses in treatment 45–45. In this treatment, a notably
smaller loss of solutes at equilibrium was observed, thus
indicating a better retention of soluble components in the
sample. Previous studies into the osmotic dehydration of
830 G. Giraldo et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834

99 0.82
0.79
89
0.76

ye (w)
K1 (w)
79 0.73
0.7
69
0.67
59 0.64
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Osmotic treatment Osmotic treatment

400 0.36
350 0.32
300 0.28

-ye (s)
-K1 (s)

250 0.24
200 0.2
150 0.16
100 0.12
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Osmotic treatment Osmotic treatment

Fig. 1. Obtained average values and LSD ranges for K1 and ye corresponding to water uptake (w) and solutes loss (s) as a function of drying treatment (1:
25–65; 2: 45–45; 3: 45–65; 4: 65–65).

92 0.82
87 0.79
0.76
K1 (w)

82
ye (w)

77 0.73

72 0.7
67 0.67

62 0.64
1 2 1 2
Batch Batch

350 0.3
310 0.28
-K1 (s)

270
-ye (s)

0.26
230 0.24
190 0.22
150 0.2
1 2 1 2
Batch Batch
Fig. 2. Obtained average values and LSD ranges for K1 and ye corresponding to water uptake (w) and solutes loss (s) as a function of degree of
dehydration (batch 1: 90°Bx; batch 2: 80°Bx).

mango with sucrose solutions also showed that sugar be-
haved in a special way at this concentration level with an
unexpected sugar gain and deep penetration inside the tis-
sue. The development of strong sugar–cell matrix interac-
tions was pointed out in this case (Giraldo et al., 2003).
This aspect is relevant for quality of rehydrated mango
products since the sugar retention could be associated to
a greater sensory quality of the samples.
The effect of the drying level during candying can be ob-
served in Fig. 2. Mass transfer rates for water and solutes
were significantly greater when samples are dried for longer
(90°Bx), as expected from the lowest values of the process
 G. Giraldo et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834
143
123
K1 (w)
ye (w)
103
83
63
43
0 10 20 30 201
Rehydrating solution
400
300
-K1 (s)
-ye (s)
200
100
0 0.12
0 10 20 30 201
Rehydrating solution
Fig. 3. Obtained average values and LSD ranges for K1 and ye corresponding to water uptake (w) and solutes loss (s) as a function of rehydrating solution
(0: tampon; 10: 10°Bx; 20: 20°Bx; 30: 30°Bx; 201: 20°Bx no tampon).
driving force when samples are less dehydrated. The equi-
librium values for water gain were higher in the more dehy-
drated samples, although no notable differences were
detected for equilibrium values of sugar losses. The greater
water absorption will be related to the greater water loss
during candying.
The rehydrating medium significantly affected (p < 0.05)
K1 values for water gain and solute loss (Fig. 3). The higher
the solute concentration in the solution, the lower the mass
transfer rate for water and solutes, thus agreeing with the
decrease of the process driving force. As expected, the equi-
librium values for water gain and solute loss decreased sig-
nificantly as the solute concentration in the rehydrating
solution increased. The experiment carried out in non-buffer
solution with 20°Bx, did not show significant differences in
rehydrating constants with respect to the homologous solu-
tion at pH = 4.06.
3.3. Compositional changes in the fruit liquid phase
Rehydration of mango was also analysed through the
changes in the fruit liquid phase (water plus soluble solids)
concentration throughout process time. The soluble solid
mass fraction of this phase (zs) was deduced from the water
and soluble solid contents (zs = xs/(xs + xw)). Changes in zs
as a function of rehydrating time were fitted by Eq. (8).
Table 4 shows the obtained Peleg constants (K1 and K2),
regression coefficients, standard errors and equilibrium
values (ye). Results of a multifactor ANOVA are shown
in Fig. 4, where mean values and LSD intervals for the con-
stant values as a function of the different factors are plotted.
831
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.55
0 10 20 30 201
Rehydrating solution
0.36
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.2
0.16
0 10 20 30 201
Rehydrating solution
The dilution rate of the fruit liquid phase (inverse of K1)
was significantly affected by the drying level reached by the
fruit and the concentration of the rehydrating solution. In
both cases the expected reduction of the dilution rate accord-
ing to the decrease in the process driving force was observed.
The use of a non-buffer rehydrating medium implied a slight
decrease in the dilution rate. The influence of osmotic step
conditions is not significant in this constant rate.
The equilibrium values for zs (ye in Table 4) are indica-
tors of the solute retention capacity of the cellular matrix in
the rehydration process. As expected, the higher the con-
centration of the rehydrating solution, the higher the
equilibrium value in the fruit (Fig. 4). Nevertheless, the
obtained values were higher than the corresponding solute
mass fraction of the rehydrating solution in all cases, and in
general, this difference was greater when the rehydrating
solution concentration decreased. The use of a non-buffer
rehydrating medium did not imply changes in the equilib-
rium solute concentration in the rehydrated fruit (Fig. 4).
Assuming that the free liquid phase of the plant tissue
reaches the compositional equilibrium with the external
solution, the higher overall values deduced for zs (ye in
Table 4) indicates that a part of the sugars could be bonded
in the cellular matrix or over-concentrated in compart-
mented volumes (cells) in the tissue. The sugar retention
capacity of the tissue will be greater as the amounts of sug-
ars bonded or compartmented increase. In this sense, the
use of a more diluted rehydrating medium, independently
of the pH, implied more specific retention of the solutes.
No differences were observed between the kinds of os-
motic treatment considered in the multifactor ANOVA
832 G. Giraldo et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834

Table 4
Obtained parameters from fitting the PelegÕs model to zs values for all the drying and rehydration treatments
Treatment zs
Drying Rehydration K1 K2 R2 SE ye
°
25–65 (B1) 0 Bx 25.9 ± 1.9 1.286 ± 0.009 0.999 4 0.087
10°Bx 56 ± 8 1.47 ± 0.04 0.994 17 0.189
20°Bx 38 ± 4 1.726 ± 0.019 0.999 8 0.306
20°Bx non-buffer 37 ± 3 1.654 ± 0.015 0.999 6 0.263
30°Bx 83 ± 8 1.99 ± 0.04 0.997 17 0.355
25–65 (B2) 0°Bx 36 ± 6 1.45 ± 0.03 0.997 12 0.020
10°Bx 48 ± 8 1.60 ± 0.04 0.996 17 0.085
20°Bx 64 ± 12 1.89 ± 0.06 0.993 25 0.197
20°Bx non-buffer 57 ± 7 2.01 ± 0.03 0.998 15 0.219
30°Bx 75 ± 8 2.25 ± 0.04 0.998 17 0.271
45–45 (B1) 0°Bx 25.3 ± 1.6 1.283 ± 0.008 0.999 3 0.090
10°Bx 30 ± 2 1.446 ± 0.010 0.999 4 0.185
20°Bx 53 ± 5 1.7 ± 0.3 0.998 11 0.261
20°Bx non-buffer 36 ± 3 1.738 ± 0.016 0.999 7 0.289
30°Bx 54 ± 3 1.921 ± 0.015 0.999 6 0.346
45–45 (B2) 0°Bx 36 ± 3 1.366 ± 0.013 0.999 6 0.089
10°Bx 43 ± 5 1.59 ± 0.02 0.998 10 0.208
20°Bx 51 ± 3 1.841 ± 0.017 0.999 7 0.269
20°Bx non-buffer 35 ± 7 1.86 ± 0.03 0.998 15 0.278
30°Bx 75 ± 7 2.11 ± 0.03 0.998 14 0.359
45–65 (B1) 0°Bx 18.4 ± 1.8 1.187 ± 0.009 0.999 4 0.060
10°Bx 30 ± 5 1.40 ± 0.03 0.997 12 0.176
20°Bx 38 ± 6 1.51 ± 0.03 0.997 13 0.238
20°Bx non-buffer 47 ± 7 1.68 ± 0.03 0.997 15 0.275
30°Bx 57 ± 5 1.80 ± 0.02 0.999 11 0.306
45–65 (B2) 0°Bx 34 ± 3 1.298 ± 0.016 0.998 7 0.030
10°Bx 38 ± 2 1.623 ± 0.011 0.999 5 0.167
20°Bx 77 ± 11 1.59 ± 0.05 0.992 23 0.138
20°Bx non-buffer 55 ± 14 1.82 ± 0.07 0.990 30 0.221
30°Bx 69 ± 14 2.14 ± 0.07 0.993 30 0.299
65–65 (B1) 0°Bx 11.79 ± 1.18 1.271 ± 0.006 0.999 2 0.070
10°Bx 29 ± 3 1.436 ± 0.014 0.999 6 0.158
20°Bx 57 ± 4 1.627 ± 0.019 0.999 8 0.235
20°Bx non-buffer 44 ± 4 1.64 ± 0.02 0.999 9 0.255
30°Bx 58 ± 5 1.94 ± 0.03 0.998 12 0.349
65–65 (B2) 0°Bx 11.7 ± 1.3 1.264 ± 0.006 0.999 3 0.060
10°Bx 21 ± 3 1.512 ± 0.015 0.999 6 0.178
20°Bx 60 ± 8 1.71 ± 0.04 0.996 18 0.228
20°Bx non-buffer 34 ± 4 1.679 ± 0.019 0.999 8 0.236
30°Bx 108 ± 20 1.79 ± 0.09 0.980 41 0.231
K1 (min g LF/g solutes); K2 (g LF/g solutes). LF: food liquid phase.
B1: batch 1; B2: batch 2.

(Fig. 4), except for 45–45 conditions, where a significantly 4. Conclusions

higher value was obtained. This indicates higher sugar
retention in the samples, thus agreeing with the special
interactions developed in this case, as deduced in previous
works (Giraldo et al., 2003) and commented on above. The
level of drying of samples (batch) significantly affected the
equilibrium solute concentration in rehydrated samples;
the higher the dehydration level, the greater the solute
retention. This could be related with the level of insolubili-
zation of components promoting strong interactions with
the solid matrix.
Rehydration of candied mango could be modelled
through PelegÕs equation in terms of water gain, solute loss
and dilution degree of the fruit liquid phase. Candied sam-
ples, where 45°Bx sucrose is used in the two osmotic steps,
showed the highest solute retention at equilibrium which
could be related with a better product quality. Differences
in drying level of candied fruit also affected the solute
retention, this being slightly higher in the product dried
for longer. The increase in concentration of the rehydrating
 G. Giraldo et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834 833

61 0.27
57 0.25

ye (zs)
53

-K1 (zs)
0.23
49
0.21
45
0.19
41
37 0.17
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Osmotic treatment Osmotic treatment

57 0.25

53 0.23

ye (zs)
-K1 (zs)

49
0.21
45
0.19
41

37 0.17
1 2 1 2
Batch Batch

80 0.27

0.25
60
ye (zs)
-K1 (zs)

0.23
40
0.21
20
0.19
0 0.17
0 10 20 30 201 0 10 20 30 201
Rehydrating solution Rehydrating solution
Fig. 4. Obtained average values and LSD ranges for K1 and ye corresponding to solutes mass fraction of the mango liquid phase (zs) as a function of
drying treatment (1: 25–65; 2: 45–45; 3: 45–65; 4: 65–65), rehydrating solution (0: tampon; 10: 10°Bx; 20: 20°Bx; 30: 30°Bx; 201: 20°Bx no tampon) and
degree of dehydration (batch).

solution implied the expected reduction in the fruit liquid
phase dilution rate, but can be useful to obtain more con-
centrated final products. The pH of the rehydration solu-
tion did not imply notable changes in the rehydrating
behaviour of candied mango.
Acknowledgement
The authors thank the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tec-
nologı́a (Spain) for the financial support through the pro-
ject AGL2004-01009.
References
Abdel Kaber, Z. M. (1994). Study of some factors affecting water
absorption by faba beans during soaking. Food Chemistry, 53,
235–238.
Abu-Ghannam, N., & McKenna, B. (1997). The application of PelegÕs
equation to model water absorption during the soaking of red kidney
beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Food Engineering, 32,
391–401.
AOAC (1980). Association of Official Analytical Chemist Official Meth-
ods of Analysis. Washington DC.
Barat, J. M., Fito, P., & Chiralt, A. (2001). Effect of osmotic solution
concentration temperature and vacuum impregnation pre-treatment
on osmotic dehydration kinetics of apple slices. Journal of Food
Science and Technology International, 5(7), 451–456.
Barat, J. M., Talens, P., Barrera, C., Chiralt, A., & Fito, P. (2002).
Pineapple candying at mild temperature by applying vacuum impreg-
nation. Food Engineering and Physical Properties, 67(8), 3046–3052.
Durance, T. D., Wang, J. H., & Meyer, R. S. (1999). Processing for drying
mango and pineapples. US Patent No. 5 962 057.
Fito, P. (1994). Modeling of vacuum osmotic dehydration of food. Journal
of Food Engineering, 22, 313–328.
Fito, P., & Chiralt, A. (2000). Vacuum impregnation of plant tissue. In S.
M. Almazora, M. S. Tapia, & A. y López-Malo (Eds.), Design of
minimal processing technologies for fruit and vegetables (pp. 189–205).
Maryland: Aspen Publishers, Inc.
Galán, V. (1999). El cultivo del mango. Editorial Mundi–Prensa. Madrid.
Giraldo, G. (2003). Deshidratación osmótica de mango (Mangifera
indica): Aplicación al escarchado. PhD Thesis, Food Technology
Department, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.
Giraldo, G., Talens, P., Fito, P., & Chiralt, A. (2003). Influence of sucrose
solution concentration on kinetics and yield during osmotic dehydra-
tion of mango. Journal of Food Engineering, 58, 33–43.
Hamad, N., & Powers, J. J. (1965). Imbibition and pectic content of
canned dry-lima beans. Food Technology, 19, 216–218.
Hung, T. V., Liu, L. H., Black, R. G., & Trewhella, M. A. (1993). Water
absorption in chickpea (C. arietinum) and field pea (P. sativum)
cultivers using the Peleg model. Journal of Food Science, 58(4), 848–852.
Kaymak-Ertekin, F. (2002). Drying and rehydration kinetics of green and
red peppers. Journal of Food Science, 67(1), 168–175.
834 G. Giraldo et al. / Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) 825–834
Krokida, M. K., & Maroulis, Z. B. (2001). Structural properties of
dehydrated products during rehydration. International Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 36, 529–538.
Lewicki, P. (1998). Some remarks on rehydration of dried foods. Journal
of Food Engineering, 36, 81–87.
Machado, M. de. F., Oliveira, F. A. R., & Cunha, L. M. (1999). Effect of
milk fat and total solids concentration on the kinetics of moisture
uptake by ready-to-eat breakfast cereal. International Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 34(1), 47–57.
Machado, M. de. F., Oliveira, F. A. R., Gekas, V., & Singh, R. P. (1998).
Kinetics of moisture uptake and soluble-solids loss by puffed breakfast
cereals immersed in water. International Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 33, 225–237.
Maskan, M. (2001). Drying, shrinkage and rehydration characteristics of
kiwifruits during hot air and microwave drying. Journal of Food
Engineering, 48, 177–182.
Mastrocola, D., Barbanti, D., Dalla Rosa, M., & Pittia, P. (1998).
Physicochemical characteristics of dehydrated apple cubes reconsti-
tuted in sugar solutions. Journal of Food Science, 63(3), 495–498.
Monsalve-Gonzalez, A., Barbosa-Canovas, G. V., & Cavallieri, P. R.
(1993). Mass transfer and textural changes during processing of apples
by combined methods. Journal of Food Science, 58(5), 1118–1124.
Panagiotou, N. M., Karathanos, V. T., & Maroulis, Z. B. (1999). Effect of
osmotic agent on osmotic dehydration of fruits. Drying Technology,
17(1–2), 175–189.
Peleg, M. (1988). An empirical model for the description of moisture
sorption curves. Journal of Food Science, 53, 1216–1219.
Prothon, F., Ahrné, L. M., Funebo, T., Kidman, S., Langton, M., &
Sjöholm, I. (2001). Effects of combined osmotic and microwave
dehydration of apple on texture, microstructure and rehydration
characteristics. Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technology, 34(2), 95–101.
Ruı́z Dı́az, G., Martı́nez-Monzó, J., Fito, P., & Chiralt, A. (2003).
Modelling of dehydration–rehydration of orange slices in combined
microwave/air drying. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technol-
ogies, 4, 203–209.
Sanjuán, N. (1998). Influencia de las condiciones de proceso y almace-
namiento en la calidad del bróculi deshidratado. PhD Thesis, Food
Technology Department, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.
Sopade, P. A., & Obekpa, J. A. (1990). Modelling water absorption in
soybean, cowpea and peanuts at three temperatures using PelegÕs
equation. Journal of Food Science, 55(4), 1084–1087.
Turhan, M., Sayar, S., & Gunasekaran, S. (2002). Application of Peleg
model to study water absorption in chickpea during soaking. Journal
of Food Engineering, 53, 153–159.