Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Trends in Food Science & Technology

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

A systematic review on the recent advances of the energy efficiency T

improvements in non-conventional food drying technologies
Abhay Menona, Valentina Stojceskaa,b,∗, Savvas A. Tassoua,b
a
Brunel University London, Institute for Energy Future, Centre for Sustainable Energy in Food Supply Chain, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, UK
b
Brunel University London, College of Engineering, Design and Physical Sciences, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, UK

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: The conventional drying technologies presently used in the food industry are hot-air based systems
Drying food materials that are normally considered as an energy intensive processes with higher green-house gas emissions accounting
Hybrid drying systems approximately 15% of the overall manufacturing expenses. The most common drying processes used for the
Heat pump assisted drying preservation of the food materials are conventional thermal drying, which proved to be a high energy consuming
Super-heated steam
process. With the world progressing towards the application of green technology and sustainable methods, the
Vacuum drying
Microwave drying
use of alternative energy efficient drying systems are of paramount importance.
Refractance window Scope and approach: This paper extensively reviewed the energy efficiency and techno-economic performances
Ohmic heating of a number of non-conventional drying technologies that are currently used in the food industry for drying of
Electro osmosis the food materials. The reviewed drying technologies include: hybrid systems, heat pumps, super – heated steam,
vacuum, microwave, refractance window®, electrotechnologies, ohmic, adsorption mediated and impingement.
Key findings and conclusions: It was found that the hybrid drying systems with the solar drying input and re-
fractance window® drying were among the most promising energy efficient drying methods that could be po-
tentially used for drying of the food materials in industrial processes.

1. Introduction
Drying technologies are very important unit operations for reducing
moisture content with a great application to the food manufacturing
sector. The final products are typically in the form of powder, flakes,
granules, sheets or particles in various shapes depending on the man-
ufacturer's requirement and type of the drying technologies used
through the process. Those processes normally facilitate long-term
storage, prevent microbial contamination and other detrimental che-
mical reactions in the food materials such as enzymatic and non-en-
zymatic browning, and nutrient retention such as macronutrients
(proteins, sugars, fibres vitamins and minerals) or bioactive compounds
(phenolic compounds, carotenoids, isoflavones). In terms of energy
efficency, over 85% of all industrial thermal dryers used in the food
industry are conventional using 12–20-% from the overall energy
consumption, which corresponds to 30% of energy efficency and 90%
of the overall processing costs (Raghavan et al., 2005; Gremmen, van
Haperen, & Lamerichs, 2009). Around 35–45% of the energy input is
wasted as the hot exhaust gases, incurs high energy losses and emits
high GHG emissions (Tippayawong, Tantakitti, & Thavornun, 2008;
Atuonwu, Jin, Straten, Antonious, & Boxtel, 2011). The other draw-
backs are longer drying times, non-uniform exposure on the tempera-
ture and hardening of the food materials. In order to avoid those issues,
the food industry is motivated to work on the improvement of the ex-
isting drying technologies and development of drying alternative
technologies.
In the recent years, the governmental bodies across the world have
implemented a number of environmental laws and regulations for the
industries in order to reduce energy consumptions and GHG emissions.
It is expected that the new generation of dryers and drying technologies
promote more sustainable development with higher thermal and energy
efficiency, lower operation costs and improve product quality.
In terms of the amount of the scientific research performed on the
innovative food drying systems, there was a clear tendency of in-
creasing a number of publications arising from various countries in
every aspect and discipline. A total of 539 593 articles were revealed for
the syntax string < drying > via the search tool of Web of Science
during 1970–2019. There were a total of 357 193 articles for the syntax
string < food drying > . Unfortunately, the research for the
syntax < Energy efficiency of food drying > resulted with 864 articles

∗
Corresponding author. Brunel University London, Institute for Energy Future, Centre for Sustainable Energy in Food Supply Chain, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8
3PH, UK.
E-mail address: valentina.stojceska@brunel.ac.uk (V. Stojceska).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.03.014
Received 9 June 2019; Received in revised form 9 October 2019; Accepted 13 March 2020
Available online 16 March 2020
0924-2244/ © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
A. Menon, et al.
Fig. 1. Publication trends in food drying from the year 2000–2019.
from 1976 to 2019. For example, from 2014 to 2019 the percentage of
total number of the articles on energy evaluation of food drying to the
total number of articles in food drying is just 2.77% (Fig. 1).
The main purpose of this article was to critically analyse the re-
ported energy efficiency values of various non-conventional drying
technologies that are used in the food processing. The data from this
work puts together a representative number of related studies on non-
conventional drying technologies that have the potential to reduce the
energy consumption and GHG emissions.
2. Calculation of energy efficiency
There is a great debate among the scientific community with regard
to use an appropriate method to calculate energy efficiencies of drying
systems. The basic approach to evaluate energy efficiency [η], is to
calculate the ratio between the energy required for drying of food
materials [Er], and the energy supplied [Es]. Equation (1) shows the
basic calculation of η:
Er
η=
Es
About 85% of dryers used for industrial food manufacturing pur-
poses are convective type with low energy efficiency rating (Mujumdar
& Beke, 2003). The energy efficiency for convective dryers, ηcov, is
calculated based on the temperature of the drying medium at the inlet,
Tin, outlet Tout, and the ambient air temperature, Tamb. Equation (2)
shows the calculation of energy efficiency (ηcov) in convectional drying
system:
Tin − Tout
ηcov =
Tin − Tamb
Equation (2) is applicable only if all the temperatures in the drying
system remains constant and is based on the assumption that the
maximum energy input to the sample was equivalent to the energy
consumed for the removal of moisture, which could be only used for
comparison purposes. So the instantaneous energy efficiency of the
system can be calculated using Equation (3) (Grabowski, Marcotte,
Poirier, & Kudra, 2002; Kudra & Mujumdar, 2003):
energy used for evaporation at time t
ηins =
input energy at time t
There are also drying efficiency equations that have been developed
for specific drying applications such as continuous microwave-vacuum
drying that can be calculated using Equation (4) (Yongsawatdigul &
Gunasekaran, 1996):
Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76
ton P (1 − mf )10−6
DE =
Mi (mi − mf ) 4
Where, ton (s) is the exposure time of microwave drying at applied
power input, P (W), Mi is the initial mass of the sample (kg). The initial
and final moisture contents are mi (kg) and mf (kg), respectively.
An alternative method of calculating the energy efficiency of dryers
is specific moisture extraction ratio (SMER) (kg/kWh). The equation to
calculate SMER is shown in Equation (5).
amount of water evaporated
SMER =
energy used 5
Similar to SMER, specific energy consumption (SER) of various
drying systems have been reported by various researchers to denote the
energy consumptions of various dryers. SER is determined to be the
ratio of energy consumption (Ec) to the mass of sample ms(g) in dry
basis or as the ratio of energy consumption to the mass of water mw (g)
removed from the sample during the drying process [Eqns (6) and (7)]
(Calín-Sanchez et al., 2014).
Ec
1 SER = (kWh /g)
ms 6
Ec
SER = (kWh /g)
mw 7
During the course of drying, the SMER value gradually decreases as
the removal of water considerably reduces due to the moisture deficit at
the surface of the drying product. In theory, the maximum SMER value
for conventional drying unit is 1.55 kg/kW.h, which is the latent heat of
water evaporation at 100 °C (Strumillo, Jones, & Zylla, 1995).
It is worth to mention that those equations (1)–(7) do not take into
2
account the influence of renewable energy on the final value of parti-
cular ratio.
3. An overview of the energy efficiencies of the various non-
conventional food drying systems
3.1. Hybrid drying systems
Hybrid drying technologies are processes that employ more than
one drying technologies or multiple modes of heat transfer to achieve
3
the desired functionalities of dryness without compromising with the
product quality (Chou and Chua, 2001). Several hybrid drying tech-
nologies that are coupled with different drying systems have been
analysed in various researches, these methods are usually cost-effective
alternatives to complete restoration of drying technologies in the large
68
A. Menon, et al.
Table 1
Summary of energy efficiency of different hybrid dryers as reported in the literature.
No Type of drying Drying sample
1 Convectional drying + Microwave Sour cherries
2 Gas fired + solar dryer Onion, ginger, cabbage
3 Hot-air + solar drying Tomato
4 Hot-air + rotary dryer Salted silver jewfish
5 Solar + thermal shelf Black turmeric
6 Biomass heater + solar Cashew nut
7 Tunnel + Photovoltaic-solar Mint leaves
8 Microwave-Infrared convective drying Green pepper
9 Heat pump + photovoltaic thermal dryer Saffron
10 Solar-Biomass dryer Okra, Groundnut, Yam chips
scale food industries. For example, Sajith and Muraleedharan (2014)
reported a cost saving of 51% using a hybrid system with photo-voltaic
assisted thermal drying of amla. Some of the energy efficient hybrid-
drying technologies has focussed on the combinations of non-conven-
tional technologies such as; vacuum drying + microwave drying, va-
cuum drying + spray drying, fluidized bed + heat pump etc.
(Mujumdar & Jangam, 2013). Hybrid drying systems give possibilities
to enhance energy efficiencies and overcome some of the drawbacks
associated with the hot-air conventional drying systems such as slower
drying rates, inferior product quality and low energy/thermal efficiency
(Baysal, Icier, Ersus, & Yildiz, 2003; Vishwanathan, Giwari, & Hebbar,
2013). Table 1 summarizes the energy efficiency of several hybrid
drying technologies with the higher energy efficiency given priority, It
can be seen that the energy efficency varied from 5% to 72%. The
energy efficiency of 43% could b acheived with combined hybrid gas-
fired thermal and solar drying, used for drying of onion, ginger and
cabbage (Anum, Ghafoor, & Munir, 2016) while 72% with combined
heat pump and hybrid photovoltaic-solar dryers used for drying of high
value crops such as saffron (Mortezapour, Ghobadian, Minaei, &
Khoshtaghaza, 2012). Another aspect taken into consideration is the
contribution of a specific drying technology to the hybrid system for
drying/dewatering of the food materilas. For instance, solar drying
could contribute to about 92% of the total moisture removal in a
solar + thermal drying system and 70% in a heat pump + hybrid
photovoltaic-solar dryer (Mortezapour et al., 2012; Anum et al., 2016).
The contribution of renewable energy into a hybrid system has been
regarded as a good approach because its continuously replenishing
form (eg. solar, wind, hydropower, biomass etc.) (Lamidi, Jiang,
Pathare, Wang, & Roskilly, 2019; Amer, Gottschalk, & Hossain, 2018).
A study on the solar-biomass for drying okra, groundnut and yam chips
achieved an energy efficiency from 0.23 to 16.04% (Okoroigwe, Ndu, &
Okoroigwe, 2015). If those values are compared with advanced heating
units that run on the fossil fuels, it can be seen that the energy effi-
ciencies achievements are much higher (ca. > 20%). In an industrial
point of view, solar hybrid dryers have a great potential to be applied to
small-scale food industries and food processing units that are topo-
graphically unable to be connected to the energy grid (Lamidi et al.,
2019). Recent advances in hybrid drying technology predominantly
focuses on the use of heat pump and microwave technology, which will
be discussed later in this article.
It can be summarised that the hybrid drying technology could be
used as an innovative and energy efficient alternative for drying of the
food materilas. With sustainability kept in view, the involvement of the
solar energy into the hybrid drying technologies could improve sig-
nificantly the cost effectiveness and energy efficiency of the whole
system. On the other hand, the hybrid drying systems that involve infra-
red, pulse electric field, microwave etc, require a significant R&D in-
volvement to evaluate the energy efficiency, scale up, optimize and
control the hybrid dryers.
69
Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76
Energy Efficiency η (%) Reference
8.77–10.03 Horuz, Bozkurt, Karatas, and Maskan (2017)
42.79 Anum et al. (2016)
17–29 Hossain, Amer, and Gottachalk (2010)
17–44 Fudholi et al. (2016)
12 Lakshmi, Muthukumar, Layek, and Nayak (2018)
5.08 Saravanan, Wilson, and Kumarasamy (2014)
16.32 Eltawil, Azam, and Alghannam (2018)
13 Łechtańska, Szadzińska, and Kowalski (2015)
10.8–72 Mortezapour et al. (2012)
0.23–16.04 Okoroigwe et al. (2015)
3.2. Heat pump drying
Heat pump (HP) drying is a technology where evaporator and
compressor work together to generate humid air that could be used for
drying of the food materials. HP drying utilizes an application of the
low temperature dehumidified air as the convective drying medium
(Perera & Rahman, 1997). The high-energy efficiency in this technology
could be achieved as a result of the recovery of the sensible and latent
heat of vaporization. As this moist air passes through the evaporator, it
is rapidly cooled to a temperature below its condensation point. Since
the system is entirely re-circulatory, a thermal efficiency of 100% could
be achieved (Perera & Rahman, 1997), however it depends on the
coefficient of performance of HP based on the heat recovery. Recent
researches in this area has used multiple heat pumps, cascade heat
pumps or chemical heat pump technology. The drying system in-
corporates a dehumidification cycle where condensation of water al-
lows the removal of moisture from the closed system of drying air
circulation. HP drying technology dries food products in en-
vironmentally friendly conditions since gases and fumes are not emitted
into the atmosphere and operates independently outside ambient
weather conditions. In addition, energy consumption is drastically re-
duced with the energy cost savings between 60% and 80% while the
quality of the food material is safely maintained (Sosle, 2006). Table 2
summarizes the energy efficiencies of various heat pump dryers used for
food applications. A review paper by Mujumdar and Jangam (2013)
covered a comparison of the SMER of heat pump drying with hot air
drying (T), vacuum drying and freeze drying, respectively. It was shown
that SMER for HP were between 1.0 and- 4.0 kg/kWh, in a range of
0.1–1.3 kg/kWh for thermal drying, 0.7–1.2 kg/kWh for vacuum drying
and 0.4 kg/kWh for freeze drying. Those values substantiates the low
energy consumption of HP over other drying technologies. From
Table 2, it can be seen that the energy efficiency varied from 5.3% to
91.95% depending on the temperature, operating parameters and food
material (Erbay & Hepbasli, 2013; Aktas, Khanlari, Aktekeli, & Amini,
2017; Aktas, Khanlari, Amini, & Sevik, 2017). The generated energy
efficiency of the HP for drying of the shredded white radish was higher
than 90% in comparison to the conventional hot air drying technology
that varied from 37 to- 40% (Lee & Kim, 2009) resulting with
58.9–69.5% energy saving. The potencial application of HP in phar-
maceutical industries was reported by Gan, Ong, Chin, and Law (2017)
due to the use of lower temperature of 28.6°40.6 °C and dehumidified
drying conditions for testing of the edible bird's nest, which maintains
the quality of the bioactive compounds and energy savings of 86%.
Therefore, the HP drying has a great possibility to be used as a low
energy drying technique in the food and pharmaceutical industries.
However, the use of HP involves high investment costs and electrical
energy consumption for its operation, which are relatively more ex-
pensive than the other energy sources.
A. Menon, et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76

Table 2
Summary of energy efficiency of various heat-pump dryers as reported in the literature.
No Type of drying Samples Energy efficiency References

1. HP + IR heating Grated carrots η = 5.3–50% Aktas, Khanlari, & Aktekeli et al. (2017); Aktas, Khanlari, & Amini et al.
(2017)
2. HP Mint leaves η = ~48% Aktas, Khanlari, & Aktekeli et al. (2017); Aktas, Khanlari, & Amini et al.
(2017)
3. HP Shredded white radish η= > 90% Lee and Kim (2009)
4. HP Plums η = 65.94–91.95% Erbay and Hepbasli (2013)
5. HP Bay laurel leaves η = 9.11–15.48% Kuzgunkaya and Hepbasli (2007)
6. HP Kodo Millet & Fenugreek η = ~30–50% Yogendrasasidhar and Setty (2018)
seeds
7. HP Edible bird's nest Energy saving of ~130% using heat pump Gan et al. (2017)
8. HP Green sweet Pepper SMER value of 0.55–1.10 kg/kWh Pal, Khan, and Mohanty (2010)
9. HP Ginger SMER value of 0.26–0.47 kg water/kWh Chapchaimoh, Poomsa-ad, Wiset, and Morris (2016)
10. HP Mushroom SMER values from 0.26 to 0.92 kg/kW h Şevik, Aktaş, Doğan, and Koçak (2013)

3.3. Super-heated steam drying 3.4. Vacuum drying

Super-heated steam drying (SSD) is considered as one of the most
innovative techniques for drying of the food materials. It involves an
application of steam at a temperature higher than its boiling point and
absolute pressure and it was proved that is more efficient than hot-air
drying at similar drying conditions (Wang et al., 2018; Wenzel & White,
1951). SSD's are usually operated in low pressure conditions which
leads to boiling point of moisture within the food materials to reduce,
and is much lower than the temperature at boiling point for ambient
pressure. SSD's are extensively used for drying of the temperature-in-
sensitive materials and some of the advantages include lack of oxidative
reactions, ability to maintain colour and nutrients (Barbieri, Elustondo,
& Urbicain, 2004; Moreira, 2001). Table 3 summarizes some figures for
the energy efficiencies of SSD obtained from drying of the different food
materials where SER and SMER are shown as cummulative readings of
the steam generator and blower. It can be seen that the SSD are per-
forming much better in terms of the energy efficiency than hot air
drying. Robert (1985) and Fitzpatrick and Lynch (1995) found that
80%–85% of the energy savings could be achieved by substituting of air
drying with SSD. Subsequently, Courtois (2013) reported that the en-
ergy required by SSD to evaporate 1 kg of water was 0.044–0.055 kWh
vapour while for the convective dryer 0.91–1.80 kWh. Jia et al. (2018)
used SSD to dry sea-weed extracts and found that the SMER values
varied in a range from 2.46 to 2.50 kg/kWh water while Swasdisevi,
Devahastin, Thanasookprasert, and Soponronnarit (2013) used SSD for
paddy drying and found that SER values ranged from 1.02 to 1.86 kg/
kWh. The highest efficiency values were generated at 150 °C with 60%
of steam recycling. Choicharoen, Devahastin, and Soponronnarit (2010)
upgraded the SSD with impinging method to dry soy residues and
compared to the traditional non-hybrid SSD methods. It was found that
the higher values of SER were detected at 1.55–2.7 kWh/kg water.
It could be sumarised that SSD has a great potencial to be used for
the industrial application as an energy efficient and environmntaly
friendly technology. However, more research is needed to find out if the
SSD technologies could handle heat-senstitive food materials.
Vacuum drying (VD) is a technique where food materials are dried
at the low pressure while the boiling point of moisture within the food
materials reduces and evaporates at the low temperatures. The heat
source for drying of the food materials are usually provided through
conduction process. Vacuum drying are used for food materials that are
heat sensitive and susceptible to changes in colour, appearance, loss of
nutrients and vitamin contents. In the recent years, this technology has
been extensively used for drying of the food materials containing high
bioactive compounds due to its ability to prevent oxidation. The drying
occurs in a reduced pressure environment, which lowers the heat re-
quired for rapid drying (Parikh, 2015). The energy consumption in
vacuum dryers is counted as the total sum of energy consumed by the
vacuum pump and heater used for warming of the drying tray/shelf.
The important factor affecting energy consumption of vacuum dryers
are the temperature in the drying chambers. The energy efficiencies and
energy consumption of the VD methods used in combination with the
different type of drying technologies are shown in Table 4. It can be
seen that the highest energy efficiency were found to be in the range of
24.76–42.78% for heating pomegranate juice (Cokgezme et al., 2017).
Ambros, Foerst, and Kulozik (2018) used the vacuum assisted micro-
wave dryer for drying probiotic cultures of lactic acid bacteria and
reported energy efficiency of 27%. Jiang et al. (2017), used VD in a
combination with freeze drying and microwave for drying of functional
okra snacks and found that the specific energy consumption value is
21.3 kg/kWh, which was much lower comparing to the hot-air drying of
49.2 kg/kWh. Cokgezme et al. (2017) used VD in combination with the
ohmic heating for heating of the pomegranate juice and reported en-
ergy efficiency of 42.78%. Those results give a promising prospect of
application of hybrid drying systems in a different industries but it has
to be taken into account that VD could be also energy intensive as was
demonstated in the study of Motevali, Minaei, & Khoshtagaza, 2011;
Motevali, Minaei, Khoshtaghaza, & Amirnejat, 2011. The authors re-
ported that VD has much higher energy consumption comparing to
MW + VD, IR + hot air and IR drying, respectively.
In summary, application of vacuum drying technology for drying of
the food materials has immense prospects for application on high value

Table 3
Summary of the energy efficiency of super-heated steam drying as reported in the literature.
No Type of drying Drying sample Energy Efficiency Reference

1 SSD Sea-weed extracts SMER values of 2.46–2.50 kWh/kgwater Jia et al. (2018)
2 SSD Paddy SER values of 1.02–1.86 KWh/kgwater Swasdisevi et al. (2013)
3 Impinging SSD Okara (soy residue) A combined SER values of 1.55–2.7 MJ/kgwater Choicharoen et al. (2010)
4 SSD Alfalfa SER value of 0.2 kWh/kgwater Garin, Boy-Marcotte, Riche, and Danneville (1988)
5 SSD Beef pulp SER values of 0.13–0.189 kWh/kgwater Mujumdar (2015)

70
A. Menon, et al. Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76

Table 4
Summary of the energy efficiency of various dryers using vacuum as reported in the literature.
No Type of Vacuum drying Drying sample Energy Efficiency References

1 MW + VD Probiotic culture η = 27% Ambros et al. (2018)

2 VD Pomegranate juice η = 14.9% Cokgezme et al. (2017)
VD + Ohmic heating η = 24.76–42.78%
3 VD Chamomile flowers η = 1.42–6.53% Motevali et al. (2014)
4 MW + VD Tea Leaves SEC values of 1.90–9.75 kWh/kg Jindarat, Sungsoontorn, and Rattanadecho (2013)
5 MW + VD Strawberries SMER values of 1.30 × 10−3 - Bórquez, Melo, and Saavedra (2015)
2.30 × 10−3 kWh/g
6 VD Mushroom SMER values of 3.36–9.60 kWh/kg Motevali, Minaei, and Khoshtagaza (2011); Motevali, Minaei,
MW + VD SMER values of 41.97–124.34 kWh/kg Khoshtaghaza, and Amirnejat (2011)
7 FD + VD Okra SMER values of 21.3 kWh/kg Jiang et al. (2017)
MW + VD SMER values of 4.38 kWh/kg
8 MW + VD Mushroom SMER values of 10.75–21.3 kWh/kg Jiang et al. (2016)

and heat sensitive food materials. With energy efficiency kept in view,
the application of VD to the food materials seems not always a feasible
option, however the hybrid drying methods involving VD has more
potential to be used for a large scale in the food and nutraceutical in-
dustries especially for protecting of the bioactive compounds.
3.5. Microwave drying
Microwave drying is based on the unique volumetric heating mode
facilitated by electromagnetic radiation of 915 or 2459 MHz (Feng &
Tang, 2012). The energy efficiency for microwave drying is generally
related to the drying times. In the last couple of years, much work has
been done in developing inexpensive and reliable microwave equip-
ment (Zarein, Samadi, & Ghobadian, 2015). In the food industries,
microwaves are rarely used alone but rather in combination with the
hot air, steam, vacuum conditions or conventional methods because the
effects of their combinations are more efficient in terms of energy
consumption (Senapati, Rao, Bai, & Prasad, 2014). The same authors
reported that the specific energy consumption in microwave-convective
drying process could be 82% lower than the convective drying process.
Comparing to the hot air drying, microwave and microwave based
hybrid technologies can greatly reduce the drying time without quality
degradation, which is an important aspect for drying the food materials
(Soysal, Oztekin, & Eren, 2006).
The energy efficiencies of microwave technologies on food materials
from the literatures are shown in Table 5. It can be seen that the energy
efficiency of the microwave dryers could vary from 8.25 to 62.52%.
Wang, Jo, et al. (2018) and Wang, Li, et al. (2018) reported that drying
of chrysanthemum using MW has energy efficiency values in a range of
29.98–62.53% over 30–90 s, which translates to increased energy ef-
ficiency of about 5–15% compearing to the thermal drying (Wang et al.,
2018). Research by Motevali, Minaei, and Khoshtagaza (2011);
Motevali, Minaei, Khoshtaghaza, and Amirnejat (2011) used MW to dry
mushroom slices and found that the increase of energy consumption
was linear with the microwave power. The SER values ranged between
2.51 and 6.00 kWh/kg for the microwave power settings of 130–450 W,
respectively. An increasing trend in the SER values were noted as the
magnetron power ranged between 130 and 450 W because the drying
time for drying mushrooms drastically reduced at higher power set-
tings. It was found that the inefficient magnetrons could lead to the
higher energy consumptions, inconsistent heating and hotspots that
may affect the overall quality of the drying product. The magnetrons
that iniates the drying process during operations showed very low en-
ergy efficiency (ca. 50%), taking into account the energy consumed
from the power grid to actual microwave power that is required to
remove 1 kg moisture from the sample (Metaxes & Meretith, 1983).
Another limitation of using MW is the feasibility of using food products
with the high moisture contents to achieve savings in energy costs: (i)
magnetrons to work for longer durations and (ii) may require secondary
heating coil to mediate diffusion of moisture (Atuonwu & Tassou,
2018b).
It can be summarised that the application of microwave drying
technology on the food materials has lower energy consumptions in
comparison with the hot air drying and could be used to assist the other
drying technologies to improve energy efficiency as demonstrated in
the sections above. Several food processing industries have already
applied MW for drying of the food materials and as a result achieved
significant savings in energy costs and improved sensory and nutri-
tional attributes of the final products.
3.6. Refractance Window® dehydration method
Refractance Window® (RW) dehydration method was developed by
MCD Technologies, Inc. (Tacoma, Washington) as a result of several
years of research and development in novel water removing techniques.
The drying method involves, thermal energy from hot water that is
recycled through a converyor belt system, used for drying food mate-
rials. Essentially in this system, food materials are evemly applied over
a thin infrared transparent material (such as pyrex glass) or poly-
ethylene film (such as Mylar® film) resting over the surface of water get

Table 5
Summary of energy efficiencies of microwave dryers used in food as reported in the literature.
No Type of drying Drying sample Energy Efficiency Reference

1 MW Probiotic sample η = 27% Ambros et al. (2018)

2 MW Chamomile η = 8.25–13.07% Motevali et al. (2016)
3 MW Apple slices η = 17.42–54.32% Zarein et al. (2015)
4 MW Kiwi slices η = 15.15–32.27% Darvishi, Zarein, and Farhudi (2016)

5 MW Chrysanthemum η = 29.98–62.52% Wang, Jo, et al. (2018)

6 MW Durian chips SER values of 5.6–9.66 kWh/kg Paengkanya, Soponronnarit, and Nathakaranakule (2015)
7 MW Mushrooms SER values of 2.51–6.00 kW h/kg Motevali, Minaei, and Khoshtagaza (2011); Motevali, Minaei, Khoshtaghaza, and Amirnejat
(2011)
8 MW Sorbus fruit SER values of 0.69–37.07 kWh/kg Lüle and Koyuncu (2015)
9 MW Garlic cloves SER values of 7.27–17.27 kWh/kg Sharma and Prasad (2006)

71
A. Menon, et al.
Table 6
Summary of the energy efficiencies of refractance window drying on food products as reported in the literature.
No Drying method Drying sample
1 RW™ Carrot puree
2 RW™ Strawberry puree
3 RW™ Pomegranate juice
4 RW™ Pumpkin puree
heated. The film material can either be moving or stationary. In a
moving film configuration (conveyor system), the food is usually moved
concurrently with the hot water at belt velocities between 0.6 and 3 m/
min (Raghavi, Moses, & Anandharamakrishnan, 2018). Thermal energy
carried by the circulating water (maintained between 94 and 98 °C)
transmits sensible heat through the film to the food material spread as a
thin layer over the film by conduction and radiation. It is a suitable
drying method for drying liquid food materials into powders, flakes and
sheets that are operated in atmospheric pressure and comparatively low
temperatures (Nindo & Tang, 2007). Table 6 presents the energy effi-
ciencies of RW™ for various food products as published in the literature.
It can be seen that the energy efficiency varied from 28.7 to 37.9%.The
operation time for drying samples with RW are significantly lower. For
instance, if applied on pureed asparagus the moisture content could be
reduced from 90% to 4% over 4.5 min (Nindo, et al., 2003; Nindo,
Wang, Tang & Powers, 2003). RW™ dried powders have high bioactive
compound concentrations that are comparable to the freeze-drying and
are significantly more energy efficient and cheaper to run (Celli,
Khattab, Ghanem, & Brooks, 2016). Baeghbali and Niakousari (2015)
compared the energy efficiency of RW™ with the spray drying (SD) and
freeze drying (FD) technologies (benchmarks used in drying high value
food products) and found that efficiency of RW™ (31.56%) was much
higher in comparison to the SD (12.92%) and FD (1.12%). Similar re-
sults were reported by Bernaert, Droogenbroeck, Pamel, and De Ruyck
(2018) where energy efficiency of RW™ were 3-fold and 40-fold higher
than SD and FD, respectively.
It can be summarised that refractance window drying has huge
prospects for application in industrial food drying, specifically for
products requiring retention of sensory and nutritional attributes in
dried product.
3.7. Electrotechnologies
In the recent years, electrotechnologies based on the effect of elec-
tric field on food products for the purpose of dewatering gained much
attention from the research perspective. Those methods involve the
application of direct current (DC) electric through the food materials
with or without mechanical pressure to enhance dewatering; the elec-
tric double layer present in food interface is disrupted and ionic
movements of moisture occurs through the two electrodes. Ideally,
moisture is migrated and collected in cathode and negatively charged
particles moves towards the anode (Dobre, Parvulesca, Popescu, Stoica-
Guzun, & Cozea, 2018). High electric field (HEF) or electro hydro-
dynamic (EHD) drying, which involves using an alternating current
(AC) or direct current (DC) at high intensity and normal frequency (ca.
60 Hz) for moisture removal from drying sample. It is a convective
drying technique that can remove product moisture while retaining
heat-sensitive bioactive compounds in food materials (Bajgai &
Hashinaga, 2007). In HEF drying, parameters such as electrode size,
electric field strength and inter-electrode spacing are major deciders of
efficiency indices of the dryer. A number of studies have reported that
HEF demonstrated much higher energy efficiency rates than convective
microwave drying technology (Sunjka, Rennie, Beaudry, & Raghavan,
2004; Alemrajabi, Rezaee, Mirhosseini, & Esehaghbeygi, 2012). With
non-thermal food processing techniques garnering considerable atten-
tion lately, the application of HEF is an important drying method
72
Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76
Energy Efficiency η (%) Reference
37.9 Abonyi, Tang, and Edwards (1999)
27.9
31.56 Bernaert et al. (2018)
28.7–34.8 Nindo, et al. (2003); Nindo, Wang et al. (2003)
ensuring quality and food safety (Dalvi-Isfahan, Hamdami, Le-Bail, &
Xanthakis, 2016). Ostermeier et al. (2018), reported that pulsed electric
field drying on onion showed a specific energy consumption of
5.5*10−5 to 5.5*10−3 KWh/kg while the work performed by Koubaa
et al. (2016) showed similar SER values of 6.6*10−3 KWh/kg. Electro-
osmosis dewatering is a non thermal dewatering method involving
application of direct current on food materials. Orsat, Raghavan, &
Norris (1996) applied electro-osmotic dehydration in food materials
including brewer's spent grain (BSG), vegetable wastes and apple
wastes and found that the specific energy consumptions varied between
0.0013 and 0.19 KWh/kg at current/voltage differences of 0.15–0.35
A/10–30 V and applied mechanical pressures of 431 kPa. Ng et al.
(2011) used an electro-kinetic dewatering system (EKDS) to dry dif-
ferent food materials (BSG, cauliflower trimmings, orange peel, melon
peel and mango peels) and reported the EKDS was about 60 times more
energy efficeint than the thermal drying. Menon, Mashyamombe,
Kaygen, Nasiri, and Stojceska (2019) developed an electro-osmosis
dewatering system to dewater a number of the food materials such as
yogurt, orange pulp and egg whites and found that this technology is
energy, economically and envionmentaly significantly more efficient
than thermal drying method.The energy efficiency of electro-
hydrodynamic drying (a dewatering method involving electrical im-
pingement of wet surfaces of food with DC current) was reported by
Kudra and Martynenko (2015) where the specific energy consumption
range was from 0.025 to 0.2 KWh/kg. The broad variation in values is
due to the ionic differences in food materials and the electrical con-
ductivity of different food matrices (Pogorzelski, Zander, Zander, &
Wrotniak, 2013).
In summary, application of electrotechnologies in food drying are
shown to be a highly energy efficient alternative to hot-air drying
method. With sustainability kept in view, elecrotechnologies has huge
prospects for application in food industries in pre-treatment, pressing,
extraction and drying for the production of food products with superior
quality attributes.
3.8. Ohmic heating/drying
Ohmic heating is an alternative drying process where heat is di-
rectly dissipated into the food materials rather than conduction or
convection. This system can achieve high energy efficiency but requires
higher cost inputs when compared to the conventional drying system.
The initial costs incured for the setting of an ohmic-heating system is
high due to the nature of the material used in electrodes (platinum,
platinized-titanium, rhodium plated steel, graphite etc.) that could have
a significant impact if applied on the industrial scale with a large
amount of food materials (Chaminda & Sastry, 2005). The other chal-
lenge of this technology is the content of the food materials such as fats
and oils and their effect on the electrical conductivity (Kaur & Singh,
2016). Research perfomed by Cokgezme et al. (2017) reported that
combination of ohmic heating assisted with the vacuum drying could
achived high energy efficiency values of 42.78% (Table 4). The resent
study of Stojceska, Atuonwu, and Tassou (2019) used ohmic heating for
drying of the citrus products and found that it is more beneficial in
terms of energy, cost and GHG emmisions (3.5–5 times lower) than
thermal drying. The additional advantage reported was the retention of
Vitamin C level.
A. Menon, et al.
It can be summarised that ohmic heating promotes fast and even
heating of food products in a highly energy efficient manner. With
superior product quality exbited by food products treated through
ohmic heating, it has huge prospects for application in industries for
processes such as pre-treatment, dewatering and pasteurization.
3.9. Adsorption mediated drying systems
Adsorption mediated drying systems are hot-air based convective
drying systems that has a huge potential to be used in the food industry.
Atuonwu et al. (2011) reported that zeolite dessicant mediated ad-
sorption drying were able to achieve the same energy efficiencies as the
conventional drying systems at a lower temperature of 50 °C without
degrading vitamin C concentrations. In a study conducted by Djaeni
et al. (2007) it was found that adsorption drying systems have the
potential to attain energy efficiencies of 50–60% while retaining the
quality aspect of the food products. Studies based on zeolite adsorption
drying of corn showed energy efficiency values of 75% and 66%
(Djaeni, Utari, Sasongko, & Kumoro, 2017). However, the energy effi-
ciency for adsorption drying has been quoted to be as high as 65% for
systems that recycle the exhaust gases mainly used for regeneration of
adsorbents (eg. silica, zeolite etc.) (Iguaz, López, & Virseda, 2002).
Adsorption drying has immense industrial prospects especially for
high-value food products which requires de-humidified conditions for
drying process. This technology also benefits from the requirement of
low capital investments for setup and has potential of high energy
savings on comparison with hot air drying.
3.10. Impingement drying
Impingement drying is a method by which the drying material is
subject to the hot air streams at high velocity, which are circulated back
into the dryer. This enables the drying to be more efficient due to in the
increased heat transfer coefficient and reduced drying time (Bahar
et al., 2018). A number of studies conducted on the drying of the potato
chips and paddy proved that impingement drying is much efficient than
conventional hot-air based drying systems resulting with the energy
consumption of 127–274.4 kWh/kg water and 1.41–3.11 Kwh/kg, re-
pectively (Nimmol & Devahasthin, 2010; Choicharoen et al., 2010).
SSD + impinging heat dryers showed a SER values of 1.55–2.7 kWh/kg
water, which is a highly energy efficient drying method for parboling
paddy (Swasdisevi et al., 2013) (Table 3). This technology has huge
potential in processing of agricultural products for operations such as
blanching and parboiling pre-treament methods in an energy efficient
and time saving manner.
4. Techno-economic assessment of reviewed drying technologies
The financial viability of any drying/dewatering technology is of
great importance for any commercial food industry. Several economic
indicators such as net present worth (NPW), benefit cost ratios (B/C)
and payback periods are used as tools by the researchers to validate the
performances of drying prototypes (Badgujar, Karpe, & Kalbande,
2018). Table 7 summarizes the findings of techno-economic assess-
ments of the various drying technologies, studied in this review article.
In the hybrid drying technologies solar drying has gained research in-
terests mainly due to advantages related to sustainability; ie. low en-
ergy consumption and cost effectively accelerating the decarbonisation
in power sector (Fudholi et al., 2016). Jain and Tewari (2015) and
Okoroigwe et al. (2015) analysed the payback periods of hybrid solar
dryers used for drying of mint leaves and maize. They reported lucra-
tive payback periods of less than 2 years, however these figures are for
prototype dryers and are commericialy not viable. Heat pump based
drying technologies has been reported to have as much as 51% in en-
ergy savings (Taşeri et al., 2018). The commericial viability of HP is
dependent on several factors such as COP of HP, gas price/indicative
73
Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76
price of electricity, cost of installation and maintenance. In the large HP
food drying units, the payback periods are about. 10 years (T’Jollyn,
Lecompte, Vanslambrouck, & De Paepe, 2019) and those figures are
highly dependent on the gas prices, ie. The total cost for removing a
litre of water from food material using heat pump drying, was con-
siderably lower at long operational hours than at short drying periods
(Fayose & Huan, 2016). Hence, in a large scale industrial drying of food
materials, heat pump has a huge scope for commercialization. In
countries where, hydropower is the major source for energy grid gen-
eration, heat pump technology is a viable option because it is not
consuming fossil fuel reserves and has benefits of being en-
vironmentally friendly through low GHG emissions, and a cost saving
option (Fayose & Huan, 2016).
In Europe, domestic microwave ovens, consume 12.4 TWh energy
per year with the overall efficiency (electricity-heat) of 50% or less
(Hawlader, Rahman, & Jahangeer, 2008; Atuonwu and Tassou,
2018b).Those values are highly significant with regards to the large use
of MW dryers which are being used in domestic sectors. Several re-
search works have also been focussed on alternatives such as solid state
power amplifiers instead of traditional magnetrons which have higher
maintenance costs involved (Atuonwu and Tassou, 2018a). Super-he-
ated steam drying methods has penetrated into the food industries
owing to their thermo-economic efficacy. For example, the largest SSD
unit used in sugar processing industry has the potential to evaporate
approximately 71 ton/h of water everyday and reduce the CO2 emis-
sions by 600 ton/day (Romdhana et al., 2013). Although, this tech-
nology incurs huge initial investments, the pay back periods are ~18
years with 46.14% reduction in energy costs and approximately 60%
savings on drying times (Jia et al., 2018). In emerging drying tech-
nologies, ohmic drying is reported to have 3.5–5 times lesser energy
consumption for 30 min operation on food materials (Stojceska et al.,
2019). An 80% savings in energy and GHG emissions could be achieved
by employing electro osmotic dewatering over hot air drying systems
(Menon et al., 2019).
5. Conclusion
This paper investigated various non-conventional drying technolo-
gies that could be used for drying/dewatering of the food materials with
energy efficiency kept in view. Those technologies include: hybrid
drying, heat pump drying, superheated steam drying, vacuum drying
and microwave drying. The authors also looked at energy efficient
emerging drying technologies that are less represented in research ar-
chives such as: refractance window drying, elecrotechnology based
drying, ohmic heating, adsorption drying and impingement drying.
These information could be beneficial to the food industries to make
enlighten decisions on adopting relevant drying technologies for spe-
cific products.
It was observed that energy efficiency of each drying technology
varied based on energy consumed by the heating source used to dry or
dewater moisture from the food materilas. Technologies such as heat
pump, microwave and super-heated steam drying exhibit significant
energy savings on comparison with hot air drying however, those fig-
ures are dependent on the energy prices, duration of operation and
loading capacity of the dryers to project any significant savings on
comparison with conventional drying technology. Due to the sy-
nergistic effects, use of hybrid technologies for food drying were ob-
served to exhibit promising energy efficiency values, particularly solar
based hybrid technologies has shown to energy efficient and sustainable
due to the use of renewable sources of energy used in drying food
materials. Similarly, refractance window drying is a sustainable and
energy efficient food drying method which has a great potential to be
used in industrial food drying practices.
Majority of the technologies investigated in this paper are experi-
mental-scale dryers. Therefore, many investigations are required for
successful implementation of these methods on an industrial scale with
 A. Menon, et al.

Table 7
Assessment of techno-economic performances of reviewed drying technologies.
Drying type Method Food material Techno-economic findings Reference

Hybrid drying Solar + latent heat storage Mint leaves Payback period of less than 2 years. Jain and Tewari (2015)
Solar + biomass dryer Maize Payback period of less than 2 years. Okoroigwe et al. (2015)
Heat pump drying Heat pump + fluidized bed Cod Energy savings of 180 GWh/year. (Eikevik, Alves-Filho, & Strømmen,
2004)
HPD Fruits and vegetables Low running costs on comparison with hot air, vacuum and freeze drying. (Fayose & Huan, 2016)
HPD (open loop) Grape pomace 51% energy savings using open loop HPD on comparison with closed loop system. (Taşeri et al., 2018)
Super heated steam SSD + Vacuum cooling (pre-treatment) French fries 37% savings in energy costs when compared to conventional oil frying of potatoes. (van et al., 2005)
SSD + enhanced heat recovery unit Kelp 46.14% reduced energy inputs on comparison with hot air and ca. 60% reductions in Jia et al. (2018)
drying times.
The world's largest SSD unit Sugar manufacture 71 ton/h of water evaporation in one drying and it substitutes coal burning, reducing (Romdhana, Bonazzi, & Esteban-
CO2 emissions by 600 ton/day. Decloux, 2015)

74
Vacuum/Microwave VD Nectarine Energy consumption of 1.16 kWh for VD against 2.00 kWh for hot air drying and (Daghigh, Ruslan, Sulaiman, &
shorter drying times. Sopian, 2010)
MW Jujube Energy savings of 55% in comparison with hot air drying. (Fang, Wang, Hu, & Datta, 2009)
MW-convective Garlic cloves Overall energy savings of 70% over hot air drying Sharma and Prasad (2006)
Comparison between MW, VD, and hot air Nettle leaves 13.5 fold savings in energy consumption for MW over VD Alibas (2007)
MW-Comparison between Magnetron and Solid Review Techno-economic analysis findings prove, solid state amplifiers are more energy (Atuonwu & Tassou, 2018a)
state amplifiers efficient and cost effective than magnetron amplifiers
MW + VD automated dryer Strawberry 13.5 times higher energy efficiency values and projected economic incentives Bórquez et al. (2015)
MW, rotary drum (comparison) Wheat distillers grain MW uses less energy on comparison to rotary drum, but cost of drying is ~3 times (Mosqueda & Tabil, 2018)
higher
Emerging technologies Ohmic heating Citrus products Energy consumption of ohmic heating was 3.5–5 times lesser than thermal drying and Stojceska et al. (2019)
similar trends were observed for cost and GHG emissions
Electro-osmosis dewatering Egg whites, orange pulp and A minimum of 80% savings in costs and GHG emissions over thermal drying Menon et al. (2019)
yogurt
Refractive window Pomegranate Negligible cost for operation, energy consumption and CO2 emissions on comparison (Baeghbali, Niakousari, & Farahnaky,
with thermal, freeze and spray drying methods. 2016)
Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76
A. Menon, et al.
high-quality attributes and energy saving characteristics for food pro-
ducts. In large scale nutraceutical industries, less energy efficient drying
techniques such as freeze drying and spray dryers are used for proces-
sing. Alternative approaches such as refractance window and hybrid
drying technologies involving vacuum based microwave dryers could
be recommended for a more energy efficient and environmentally
sustainable option.
The techno-economic performances of various non-conventional
drying technologies were also analysed and it was found that solar
based hybrid drying technologies were reported to show low pay back
periods and are a lucrative option for implementation in food in-
dustries. Similarly, experimental scale prototypes of electro technolo-
gies have also shown to indicate high techno-economic benefits and has
immense prospects for large-scale implementation.
Future research should be targeted towards: development of energy
efficient drying technologies that are cost effective, environmentally
more sustainable and capable of retaining quality parameters such as
loss of colour, appearance, flavour, taste and chemical components in
dried food product. Such studies could also help to obtain a clearer
picture of the economic feasibility of the new non-conventional drying
technology.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by the RCUK National Centre for
Sustainable Energy use in Food chains (CSEF) of the Research Councils
UK Energy programme, Grant No: EP/K011820/1.
References
Abonyi, B. I., Tang, J., & Edwards, C. G. (1999). Evaluation of energy efficiency and quality
retention for the Refractance Window™ drying system. Pullman, WA: Washington State
University.
Aktas, M., Khanlari, A., Aktekeli, B., & Amini, A. (2017). Analysis of a new drying
chamber for heat pump mint leaves dryer. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
42(28), 18034–18044.
Aktas, M., Khanlari, A., Amini, A., & Sevik, S. (2017). Performance analysis of heat pump
and infrared-heat pump drying of grated carrot using energy-exergy methodology.
Energy Conversion and Management, 132, 327–338.
Alemrajabi, A. A., Rezaee, F., Mirhosseini, M., & Esehaghbeygi, A. (2012). Comparative
evaluation of the effects of electrohydrodynamic, oven and ambient air on carrot
cylinderical slices during drying process. Drying Technology, 30(1), 88–96.
Alibas, I. (2007). Energy consumption and colour characteristics of nettle leaves during
microwave, vacuum and convective drying. Biosystems Engineering, 96(4), 495–502.
Ambros, S., Foerst, P., & Kulozik, U. (2018). Temperature-controlled microwave-vacuum
drying of lactic acid bacteria: Impact of drying conditions on process and product
characteristics. Journal of Food Engineering, 224, 80–87.
Amer, B. M. A., Gottschalk, K., & Hossain, M. A. (2018). Integrated hybrid solar drying
system and its drying kinetics of chamomile. Renewable Energy, 121, 539–547.
Anum, R., Ghafoor, A., & Munir, A. (2016). Study of the drying behaviour and perfor-
mance evaluation of gas fired hybrid solar dryer. Journal of Food Process Engineering,
40, 1–11.
Atuonwu, J. C., Jin, X., Straten, G. V., Antonious, H. C. D., & Boxtel, J. B. (2011).
Reducing energy consumption in food drying: Opportunities in desiccant adsoprtion
and other dehumidification stratergies. Procedia Food Science, 1, 1799–1805.
Atuonwu, J. C., & Tassou, S. A. (2018a). Energy issues in microwave food processing: A
review of developments and the enabling potentials of solid-state power delivery.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–5.
Atuonwu, J. C., & Tassou, S. A. (2018b). Quality assurance in microwave food processing:
A review of developments and the enabling potentials of solid- state power delivery.
Journal of Food Engineering, 234, 1–15.
Badgujar, C. M., Karpe, O. S., & Kalbande, S. R. (2018). Techno-Economic Evaluation of
Solar Tunnel Dryer for Drying of Basil (Ocimum sanctum). International Journal of
Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7(7), 332–339.
Baeghbali, V., & Niakousari, M. (2015). Evaluation of a batch refractance window dryer
in drying of some heat sensitive food stuff. Iran Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 13(1), 185–192.
Baeghbali, V., Niakousari, M., & Farahnaky, A. (2016). Refractance window drying of
pomegranate juice: quality retention and energy efficiency. LWT Food Science and
Technology, 66, 34–40.
Bahar, T., Boy, V., Lemée, Y., Magueresse, A., Lendormi, T., Glouannec, P., et al. (2018).
Air impingement drying of foods: Modelling couples heat and mass transfer and ex-
perimental validation. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 70 (in press).
Bajgai, T. R., & Hashinaga, F. (2007). Drying of spinach with a high electric field. Drying
Technology, 19(9), 2331–2341.
Barbieri, S., Elustondo, M., & Urbicain, M. (2004). Rentention of Aroma compounds in
basil dried with low pressure superheated steam. Journal of Food Engineering, 65,
109–115.
Baysal, T., Icier, F., Ersus, S., & Yildiz, H. (2003). Effects of microwave and infrared
75
Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76
drying on the quality of carrot and garlic. European Food Research and Technology,
218(1), 68–73.
Bernaert, N., Droogenbroeck, B.v., Pamel, E. V., & De Ruyck, H. (2018). Innovative re-
fractance window drying technology to keep nutrient value during processing. Trends
in Food Science & Technology (in press).
Bórquez, R., Melo, D., & Saavedra, C. (2015). Microwave–vacuum drying of strawberries
with automatic temperature control. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 8(2), 266–276.
Calín-Sanchez, Á., Figiel, A., Marian, S., Lech, K., Nuncio-Jáuregui, N., & Carbonell-
Barrachina, A. A. (2014). Drying kinectics and energy consumption in the dehydra-
tion of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) arils and rind. Food and Bioprocess
Technology, 7(7), 2071–2083.
Celli, G. B., Khattab, R., Ghanem, A., & Brooks, M. S. L. (2016). Refractance Window™
drying of haskap berry–Preliminary results on anthocyanin retention and physico-
chemical properties. Food Chemistry, 194, 218–221.
Chaminda, P. S., & Sastry, K. S. (2005). Electrode and pH effects on electrochemical
reactions during ohmic heating. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 577, 125–135.
Chapchaimoh, K., Poomsa-ad, N., Wiset, L., & Morris, J. (2016). Thermal characteristics
of heat pump dryer for ginger drying. Applied Thermal Engineering, 95(25), 491–498.
Choicharoen, K., Devahastin, S., & Soponronnarit, S. (2010). Performance and energy
consumption of an impinging stream dryer for high-moisture particulate materials.
Drying Technology, 28, 20–29.
Chou, S. K., & Chua, K. J. (2001). New hybrid drying technologies for heat sensitive
foodstuffs. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 12, 359–369.
Cokgezme, O. F., et al. (2017). Performance analyses for evaporation of pomegranate
juice in ohmic heated assisted vacuum system. Journal of Food Engineering, (1), 1–9.
Courtois, F. (2013). Roller and drum drying for food powder production. In B. Bhandari,
N. Bansal, M. Zhang, & P. Schuck (Eds.). Handbook of food powders; Processes and
properties (pp. 88–89). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Daghigh, R., Ruslan, M. H., Sulaiman, M. Y., & Sopian, K. (2010). Review of solar assisted
heat pump drying systems for agricultural and marine products. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 2564–2579.
Dalvi-Isfahan, M., Hamdami, N., Le-Bail, A., & Xanthakis, E. (2016). The principles of
high voltage electric field and its application in food processing:A review. Food
Research Journal, 89(1), 48–62.
Darvishi, H., Zarein, M., & Farhudi, Z. (2016). Energetic and exergetic performance
analysis and modeling of drying kinetics of kiwi slices. Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 53(5), 2317–2333.
Djaeni, M., et al. (2007). Multistage zeolite drying for energy-efficient drying. Drying
Technology, 25(6), 1053–1067.
Djaeni, M., Utari, F. D., Sasongko, S. B., & Kumoro, A. C. (2017). Evaluation of food
drying with air dehumidification system: A short review. Semarang, IOP Conf. Series:
Earth and Environmental Science. International Symposium on Food and Agro-biodiversity
(ISFA) 2017 26–27 September 2017, Semarang, Indonesia: 102.
Dobre, T., Parvulesca, O. C., Popescu, M., Stoica-Guzun, A., & Cozea, A. (2018).
Processing of sea buckthorn fruits by electro-osmosis under pressure. Journal of Food
Engineering, 219, 38–51.
Eltawil, M. A., Azam, M. M., & Alghannam, A. O. (2018). Energy analysis of hybrid solar
tunnel dryer with PV system and solar collector for drying mint (MenthaViridis).
Journal of Cleaner Production, 181, 352–364.
Erbay, Z., & Hepbasli, A. (2013). Advanced exergy analysis of a heat pump drying system
used in food drying. Drying Technology, 31, 802–810.
Fang, S., Wang, Z. Z., Hu, X., & Datta, A. K. (2009). Hot-air drying of whole fruit Chinese
jujube (Zizyphus jujuba Miller): physicochemical properties of dried products. Int J
Food Sci Technol, 44, 1415–1421.
Fayose, F., & Huan, Z. (2016). Heat Pump Drying of Fruits and Vegetables: Principles and
Potentials for Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Food Science. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2016/9673029.
Feng, H., & Tang, j. (2012). Microwave drying of food and agricultural materials: Basics
and heat and mass transfer modeling. Food Engineering Reviews, 4(2), 89–106.
Fitzpatrick, J. J., & Lynch, D. (1995). Thermodynamic analysis of the energy saving po-
tential of superheated steam drying. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 73(1), 3–8.
Fudholi, A., et al. (2016). Energy and exergy analysis of hybrid solar drying system.
Contemporary Engineering Sciences, 9(5), 215–223.
Gan, S. H., Ong, S. P., Chin, N. L., & Law, C. L. (2017). A comparative quality study and
energy saving on intermittent heat pump drying of Malaysian edible bird's nest.
Drying Technology, 35(1), 4–14.
Garin, P., Boy-Marcotte, J. L., Riche, A., & Danneville, A. (1988). Superheated steam drying
with mechanical recompression. IDS’88, 6th international drying symposium. Versailes,
France September 5-8.
Grabowski, S., Marcotte, M., Poirier, M., & Kudra, T. (2002). Drying characteristics of
osmotically pretreated cranberries – energy and quality aspects. Drying Technology,
20(10), 1989–2004.
Gremmen, B., van Haperen, P., & Lamerichs, J. (2009). In K. W. Waldron, G. K. Moates, &
C. B. Fraulds (Eds.). A socio-economic perspective on co product exploitation. Total Food-
Sustainability of the Agri-Food Chain” (pp. 3–13). Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of
Chemistry.
Hawlader, M. N. A., Rahman, S. M. A., & Jahangeer, K. A. (2008). Performance of eva-
porator-collector and air collector in solar assisted heat pump dryer. Energy
Conversion and Management, 49, 1612–1619.
Horuz, E., Bozkurt, H., Karatas, H., & Maskan, M. (2017). Effects of hybrid (microwave-
convectional) and convectional drying on drying kinetics, total phenolics, antioxidant
capacity, vitamin C, color and rehydration capacity of sour cherries. Food Chemistry,
230(1), 295–305.
Hossain, M. A., Amer, B. M. A., & Gottachalk, K. (2010). Hybrid solar dryer for quality dried
tomato, Vol. 26, Drying Technology1591–1601.
Iguaz, A., López, A., & Virseda, P. (2002). Influence of air recycling on the performance of
a continuous rotary dryer for vegetable wholesale by-products. Journal of Food
Engineering, 54(4), 289–297.
Jain, D., & Tewari, P. (2015). Performance of indirect through pass natural convective
solar crop dryer with phase change thermal energy storage. Renewable Energy, 80,
A. Menon, et al.
244–250.
Jia, Z., et al. (2018). Newly designed superheated steam dryer bearing heat recovery unit:
Analysis of energy efficiency and kinetics of Kelp drying. Drying Technology (in press).
Jiang, N., et al. (2016). Effect of thermoscopic pretreatment on drying kinetics and energy
consumption of microwave vacuum dried agaricus bisporus slices. Journal of Food
Engineering, 177(1), 21–30.
Jiang, N., et al. (2017). Evaluation of freeze drying combined with microwave vacuum
drying for functional okra snacks: Antioxidant properties, sensory quality, and energy
consumption. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 82, 216–226.
Jindarat, W., Sungsoontorn, S., & Rattanadecho, P. (2013). Analysis of energy con-
sumption in drying process of biomaterials using a combined unsymmetrical double-
feed microwave and vacuum system (CUMV)-Case study: Tea leaves. Drying
Technology, 31, 1138–1147.
Kaur, N., & Singh, A. K. (2016). Ohmic heating: Concept and applications- A review.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 56(14), 2338–2351.
Koubaa, M., et al. (2016). Recovery of colorants from red prickly pear peels and pulps
enhanced by pulsed electric field and ultrasound. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies, 37(C), 336–344.
Kudra, T., & Martynenko, A. (2015). Energy aspects in electrohydrodynamic drying.
Drying Technology, 33, 1534–1540.
Kudra, T., & Mujumdar, A. S. (2003). Grain drying: Basic principles. Handbook of postharvest
technology: Cereals, fruits, vegetables, tea, and spices. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Kuzgunkaya, E. H., & Hepbasli, A. (2007). Exergetic evaluation of drying of laurel leaves
in a vertical ground-source heat pump drying cabinet. International Journal of Energy
Research, 31, 245–258.
Lakshmi, D. V., Muthukumar, P., Layek, A., & Nayak, P. K. (2018). Drying kinetics and
quality analysis of black turmeric (Curcuma caesia) drying in a mixed mode forced
convection solar dryer integrated withthermal energy storage. Renewable Energy,
120(1), 23–34.
Lamidi, R. O., Jiang, L., Pathare, P. B., Wang, Y. D., & Roskilly, A. P. (2019). Recent
advances in sustainable drying of agricultural produce: A review. Applied Energy,
233–234, 367–385.
Lee, K. H., & Kim, O. J. (2009). Investigation on drying performance and energy savings
of the batch-type heat pump dryer. Drying Technology, 27, 565–573.
Lüle, F., & Koyuncu, T. (2015). Convective and microwave drying characteristics of
Sorbus fruits (Sorbus domestica L.). Procedia-Social and Behavioral sciences, 195,
2634–2643.
Menon, A., Mashyamombe, T. R., Kaygen, E., Nasiri, M. S. M., & Stojceska, V. (2019).
Electro-osmosis dewatering as an energy efficient technique for drying food mate-
rials. Energy Procedia, 161, 123–132.
Metaxes, A. C., & Meretith, R. J. (1983). Industrial microwave heating. England: Peter
Peregrinus Ltd.
Moreira, R. G. (2001). Impingement drying of foods using hot air and superheated steam.
Journal of Food Engineering, 49, 291–295.
Mortezapour, H., Ghobadian, B., Minaei, S., & Khoshtaghaza, M. H. (2012). Saffron
drying with a heat pump-assisted hybrid photovoltaic-thermal solar dryer. Drying
Technology, 30(6), 560–566.
Mosqueda, M. R. P., & Tabil, L. (2018). Techno-economic evaluation of microwave drying
of wheat distiller’s grain with solubles in Saskatchewan. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 59, 23–37.
Motevali, A., et al. (2014). Comparison of energy parameters in various dryers. Energy
Conversion and Management, 87, 711–725.
Motevali, A., et al. (2016). Energy analyses and drying kinetics of chamomile leaves in
microwave-convective dryer. Journal of the Saudi society of Agricultural sciences, 15(2),
179–187.
Motevali, A., Minaei, S., & Khoshtagaza, H. M. (2011). Evaluation of energy consumption
in different drying methods. Energy Conversion and Management, 52(2), 1192–1199.
Motevali, A., Minaei, S., Khoshtaghaza, H. M., & Amirnejat, H. (2011). Comparison of
energy consumption and specific energy requirements of different methods for drying
mushroom slices. Energy, 36(11), 6433–6441.
Mujumdar, A. S. (2015). Superheated steam drying. Handbook of industrial drying (pp.
421–432). (4th ed.). Boca Raton, FL.
Mujumdar, A. S., & Beke, J. (2003). Grain drying: Basic principles. Handbook of post-
harvest technology: Cereals, fruits, vegetables, tea, and spices. New York: Marcel Dekker,
Inc.
Mujumdar, A. S., & Jangam, S. V. (2013). Some Innovative drying technologies for de-
hydration of foods. Advances in drying science and technology (pp. 47–59). Singapore:
CRC press.
Ng, S. K., Plunkett, A., Stojceska, V., Ainsworth, P., Lamont-Black, J., Hall, J., et al.
(2011). Electro-kinetic technology as a low-cost method for dewatering food by-
product. Drying Technology, 29(14), 1721–1728.
Nimmol, C., & Devahasthin, S. (2010). Evaluation of performance and energy consump-
tion fo an impinging steam dryer for paddy. Applied Thermal Engineering, 30(14–15),
2204–2212.
Nindo, C. I., et al. (2003). Energy utilization and microbial reduction in a new film drying
system. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 27, 117–136.
Nindo, C. I., & Tang, J. (2007). Refractance window dehydration technology; a novel
contact drying method. Drying Technology, 25(1), 37–48.
Nindo, C. I., Wang, S. W., Tang, J., & Powers, J. R. (2003). Evaluation of drying tech-
nologies for retention of physical and chemical quality of green asparagus (Asparagus
officinalis L.). Journal of Food Science and Technology, 36, 507–516.
Okoroigwe, E. C., Ndu, E. C., & Okoroigwe, F. C. (2015). Comparative evaluation of the
performance of an improved solar-biomass hybrid dryer. Journal of Energy in Southern
Africa, 26(4), 38–51.
Orsat, V., Raghavan, G. S. V., & Norris, E. R. (1996). Food processing waste dewatering by
electro-osmosis. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 38, 63–67.
Ostermeier, R., et al. (2018). Influence of pulsed electric field (PEF) pre-treatment on the
convective drying kinetics of onions. Journal of Food Engineering, 237, 110–117.
76
Trends in Food Science & Technology 100 (2020) 67–76
Paengkanya, S., Soponronnarit, S., & Nathakaranakule, A. (2015). Application of micro-
waves for drying of durian chips. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 96, 1–11.
Pal, U. S., Khan, M. K., & Mohanty, S. N. (2010). Heat pump drying of green sweet pepper.
Drying Technology, 26(12), 1584–1590.
Parikh, D. (2015). Vacuum drying: Basics and application. New York: Mcgraw Hill
Incorporated LLC.
Perera, C. O., & Rahman, M. S. (1997). Heat pump dehumidifier drying of food. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 8, 75–79.
Pogorzelski, M., Zander, Z., Zander, L., & Wrotniak, M. (2013). Drying kinetics of plant
material using the electrohydrodynamic (EHD) method. Chemical Engineering and
Equipment, 44(6), 552–553.
Raghavan, G. S. V., et al. (2005). Overview of new techniques for dying biological ma-
terials with emphasis on energy aspects. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering,
22(2), 195–201.
Raghavi, L. M., Moses, A., & Anandharamakrishnan, C. (2018). Refractance window
drying of foods: A review. Journal of Food Engineering, 222, 267–275.
Robert, O. (1985). Super steam drying. Drying Technology, 3(4), 501–515.
Romdhana, H., Bonazzi, C., & Esteban-Decloux, M. (2015). Superheated Steam Drying: An
Overview of Pilot and Industrial Dryers with a Focus on Energy Efficiency. Drying
technology, 33(10), 1255–1274.
Sajith, K. G., & Muraleedharan, C. (2014). Economic analysis of a hybrid photovoltaic/
thermal solar dryer for drying amla. International Journal of Engineering Research &
Technology, 3(8), 907–910.
Saravanan, D., Wilson, V. H., & Kumarasamy, S. (2014). Design and thermal performance
of the solar biomass hybrid dryer for cashew drying. Facta Universitatis: Mechanical
Engineering, 12(3), 277–288.
Senapati, A. K., Rao, P. S., Bai, L. M., & Prasad, S. (2014). Specific energy consumption in
convective-microwave drying of Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) roots. Journal of
Food Processing and Technology, 5(8), 1–5.
Şevik, S., Aktaş, M., Doğan, H., & Koçak, S. (2013). Mushroom drying with solar assisted
heat pump system. Energy Conversion and Management, 72, 171–178.
Sharma, G. P., & Prasad, S. (2006). Specific energy consumption in microwave drying of
garlic cloves. Energy, 31, 1921–1926.
Sosle, V. (2006). Heat pump drying. Stewart Postharvest Review, 8(3), 1–5.
Soysal, Y., Oztekin, S., & Eren, O. (2006). Microwave drying of parsley: Modelling, ki-
netics and energy aspects. Biosystems Engineering, 93(4), 403–413.
Stojceska, V., Atuonwu, J., & Tassou, S. A. (2019). Ohmic and conventional drying of
citrus products: Energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and nutritional prop-
erties. Energy Procedia, 161, 165–173.
Strumillo, C., Jones, P. L., & Zylla, R. (1995). Energy aspects in drying. Handbook of in-
dustrial drying. New York: Marcel Dekkar.
Sunjka, P. S., Rennie, T. J., Beaudry, C., & Raghavan, G. S. V. (2004). Microwave-con-
vective and microwave-vacuum drying of cranberries. Drying Technology, 22(5),
311–319.
Swasdisevi, T., Devahastin, S., Thanasookprasert, S., & Soponronnarit, S. (2013).
Comparative evaluation of Hot-air and Superheated-Steam impinging steam drying as
novel alternatives for paddy drying. Drying Technology, 31, 717–725.
Taşeri, L., Aktaş, M., Şevik, S., Gülcü, M., Uysal Seçkin, & Aktekeli, G.B. (2018).
Determination of Drying Kinetics and Quality Parameters of Grape Pomace Dried
with a Heat Pump Dryer. Food Chemistry, 260, 152–159.
Tippayawong, T., Tantakitti, C., & Thavornun, S. (2008). Energy efficiency of improve-
ments in longan drying practice. Energy, 33(7), 1137–1143.
T’Jollyn, I., Lecompte, S., Vanslambrouck, B., & De Paepe, M. (2019). Energetic and fi-
nancial assessment of the implementation of an absorption heat pump in an industrial
drying system. Drying Technology, 15((37),), 1939–1953.
Vishwanathan, K. H., Giwari, G. K., & Hebbar, H. U. (2013). Infrared assisted dry-
blanching and hybrid drying of carrot. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 91(2), 89–94.
Wang, L., Jo, M. J., Katagiri, R., Harata, K., Ohta, M., Ogawa, A., et al. (2018).
Antioxidant effects of citrus pomace extracts processed by super-heated steam. LWT,
90, 331–338.
Wang, Y., Li, X., Chen, X., Li, B., Mao, X., Miao, J., et al. (2018). Effects of hot air and
microwave-assisted drying on drying kinetics, physicochemical properties, and en-
ergy consumption of chrysanthemum. Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process
Intensification, 129, 84–94.
Wenzel, L., & White, R. R. (1951). Engineering and process development of drying
granular solids in superheated-steam. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 43,
1829–1837.
Yogendrasasidhar, D., & Setty, Y. P. (2018). Drying kinetics, exergy and energy analyses
of Kodo millet grains and Fenugreek seeds using wall heated fluidized bed dryer.
Energy, 151, 799–811.
Yongsawatdigul, J., & Gunasekaran, S. (1996). Microwave-vacuum drying of cranberries:
Part I. Energy use and efficiency. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 20,
121–143.
Zarein, M., Samadi, S. H., & Ghobadian, B. (2015). Investigation of microwave dryer
effect on energy efficiency during drying of apple slices. Journal of the Saudi society of
Agricultural sciences, 14(1), 41–47.
Łechtańska, J. M., Szadzińska, J., & Kowalski, S. J. (2015). Microwave- and infrared-
assisted convective drying of green pepper: Quality and energy considerations.
Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 98, 155–164.
Eikevik, T.V., Alves-Filho, O. & Strømmen, I. 2004. Heat pump drying – New technologies
and operational modes for production of a new generation of high quality dried
products. Paper presented at the International Workshop and Symposium on
Industrial Drying (IWSID), Mumbai, India.
van, Loon, Linssen, W. A. M., Legger, J. P. H., Heijmans, A., Van Deventer, R. M. H., &
Burgering, H. C. M. J. M. (2005). Study of a new energy efficient process for French
fries production. European Food Research and Technology, 221, 779–786.