Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Effectiveness of recyclable aluminum cans in fabricating an efficient

solar collector for drying agricultural products
Sameh S. Kishk, Ramadan A. ElGamal, Gamal M. ElMasry*
Agricultural Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Suez Canal University, 41522, Ismailia, Egypt

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

Article history: The shortages in conventional fuels along with the continuous rise in their prices have led to an
Received 6 May 2018 increased emphasis on using solar energy as an alternative source of energy. However, establishing
Received in revised form reliable and affordable solar collectors for different applications is a great challenge. Therefore, this study
10 August 2018
aimed to design and fabricate an efficient and cheap solar air collector from recyclable aluminum cans.
Accepted 5 October 2018
Two dryers of different configurations (closed and open modes) were then constructed and examined for
Available online 6 October 2018
drying tomatoes under different operating conditions. The results revealed that the thermal efficiency of
the designed solar collectors increased considerably from 25 to 63% when the air-flow rate increased
Keywords:
Solar air heaters
from 15 to 45 m3h-1. In comparison to the conventional method of open sun drying, the designed solar
Recyclable cans dryers enhanced both the drying rate and the overall quality of the final product. In the designed solar
Solar collector dryer, over three days of consecutive drying (30 h of drying), the moisture content of tomato wedges was
Tomato reduced from 19 to less than 1 kg [H2O] kg
1 [dry matter]. The closed-mode dryer configuration, which
Drying recirculates the drying air, showed a considerable increase in the drying rate and weigh loss over the
Solar dryer traditional sun dryers and open-mode dryer systems. Among all mathematical models, a non-linear
quadratic model (Wang and Singh model) has shown a better fit to the experimental drying data
compared to the other models.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Tomato is one of the most consumed vegetables in the world
with a total cultivated area of 4.8 million ha and overall yield of 177
million tons [58]. Tomato is a climacteric fruit with a short matu-
ration and color change period. Also, its firmness, aroma, and flavor
declined dramatically throughout its shelf-life [1,2]. Among all
processing methods used for tomato preservation, drying is one of
the most convenient ways to preserve tomatoes because it requires
less energy requirements, is much cheaper and is simple to
implement on both small and large scales compared to the other
techniques of preservation such as canning and pasting. As the
main objective of the dehydration and drying process is to reduce
moisture content and water activity in the product [3,4], this pro-
cess is considered very efficient in preventing microbial spoilage
and indigenous deteriorative reactions [5e7]. In addition, final
weight and volume of the product are considerably reduced after
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.kishk2011@yahoo.com (S.S. Kishk), ramadan_emara@agr.
suez.edu.eg (R.A. ElGamal), gamal.elmasry@agr.suez.edu.eg (G.M. ElMasry).
drying, which can account for great savings in transport and storage
costs [8]. The investigation of drying behavior of tomato has been a
subject of interest for many researchers [9e15] resulting in
numerous drying scenarios with a wide range of efficiency. Because
the drying process of fruits and vegetables is a very energy inten-
sive process in the food processing industry, improvement in the
efficiency of this process is therefore essential for different appli-
cations [16,17].
Solar drying as a mean of food preservation has been considered
one of the most promising venues for utilization of solar energy
[18]. Using solar energy in drying processes reduces the use of fossil
fuels (coal, gas and oil) leading to a reduction in pollutant emissions
[19]. Solar food drying can be used in most areas but how quickly
the food dries is affected by many variables, especially the amount
of sunlight and relative humidity. Typical drying times in solar
dryers range from 1 to 3 days depending on sun, air movement,
humidity and the type of food to be dried [15]. In most developing
countries including Egypt, the conventional sun drying technique
for fruits and vegetables is traditionally performed by spreading the
produce on an open floor/field under the sun for a period of time
and until the desired level of moisture content is reached. In large-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.10.028
0960-1481/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
308 S.S. Kishk et al. / Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316

scale production, there are many known limitations to this process efficient and affordable solar collector using recyclable aluminum
including damage resulting from debris, rain, blowing wind, ro- cans and testing its efficiency in tomato drying. The thermal effi-
dents, insect infestation, human and animal interference [20,21]. ciency and performance of the solar collector were investigated
Besides being a labor- and time-intensive method, uncontrolled during the drying process at different air-flow rates and compared
sun drying is usually accompanied with nutritional degradation, with the traditional ambient sun drying method. Also, the experi-
flavor and color changes and reduction of functionality [22]. mental data of tomato drying was fitted into the relevant mathe-
Development in this area is the use of solar drying systems that matical models available in literature.
alleviate these issues with accompanied benefits in terms of
reducing crop losses and improving the overall quality of the dried 2. Materials and methods
products.
Among several solar drying methods of agricultural products, An indirect cabinet dryer with forced convection of heated
solar dryers with solar air heater (indirect solar drying systems) airflow for drying tomatoes was designed and constructed at the
provide better control of required drying air conditions [11,21]. In Agricultural Engineering Department, Suez Canal University,
the solar air heater, which is the most important part of indirect Ismailia, Egypt. The absorber surface of the solar collector was
solar drying systems, the solar radiation transmits through a made of recycled aluminum cans (RAC) through which ambient air
transparent cover and heats the absorber plate which in turn heats was heated and then forced into a drying cabinet with the aid of an
the air that flow over it. This heated air can be used in several ap- air blower.
plications including the process of drying agricultural products
[23e27]. Because the solar air heaters are noiseless, safe, eco-
2.1. Solar air collector
friendly with zero greenhouse gas emissions, have low operation
costs and do not produce any kind of waste throughout their life
An affordable solar air collector was constructed using empty
cycle [28]. They have been used in effective implementations
aluminum cans (i.e. soft drink cans) and an aluminum plate as the
within both the food and industrial sectors.
absorber surface. The cans were glued one another by a
The thermal efficiency of the solar collector depends on how
temperature-resistant silicon glue to form six air channels as
efficiently heat is transferred from the absorber to the flowing air
shown in (Fig. 1). The total length of each air channel was 90 cm
[29]. Therefore, many designs have been proposed to improve heat
with an internal diameter of 5.1 cm. These six channels were con-
transfer between the absorber plate and the air without increasing
nected together over an absorbing plate (made of an aluminum
the total cost of the collector. Although Mohamad [30] and Kolb
sheet with 1 mm in thickness) to form one continuous air passage
et al. [31] introduced absorber plates with ‘clean’ new materials
with a total length of 540 cm to convey air from the inlet point of
made from a metal matrix, however high production costs for their
the solar collector to the outlet point. The absorber (the channels
solar collector was expected. Taking into account the low income of
and the plate) was then fixed inside a tight wooden box (110 cm
farmers in developing countries, the total cost of the solar collector
Length  55 cm Width  15 cm Height) to prevent heat leakage
gained more attention from developers to provide more simple and
from the collector (Fig. 1). The aluminum material of the absorber
affordable collectors [32]. As an innovative idea from the environ-
plate and channel has thermal conductivity of 201 Wm
1k
1, spe-
mental point of view, the recyclable aluminum cans (RAC) as an
cific heat of 913 Jkg
1K
1 and density of 2910 kgm
3.
absorber plate was used by Alvarez et al. [33] in designing a low
All parts were then painted with opaque dark paint to increase
cost and high efficient solar air heater. The maximum efficiency
heat absorptivity of the collector (Absorptivity z 0.95e0.97). The
obtained from this collector was 74%. Ozgen et al. [34] enhanced the
collector was finally covered with a 3 mm transparent glass plate
heat transfer coefficient between the absorber plate and air using
(Transmittance of 89% and reflectance of 9%), in order to reduce
the recyclable aluminum cans.
convective loses to the atmosphere as shown in Fig. 1. Solar radia-
Aluminum beverage cans are a part of everyday life for the
tion passes through the transparent glass plate and hits the
majority of people around the world as about 200 billion aluminum
absorber surface (the channels and the plate) that heats up and
cans are consumed every year [35]. Collection rates of used cans
transfers the heat to the air inside the channels.
vary from country to country from 30% to close to 100% with the
global average of about 70% [36]. The economic benefits of
aluminum recycling are widespread and important to both the 2.2. Drying cabinet
aluminum industry and the economy in general [37]. There is a
considerable interest in studying the performance and efficiency of A drying cabinet (60 cm Length  50 cm Width  90 cm Height)
air solar collectors supplied with absorbers made of widely avail- was constructed from wood as shown in Fig. 2. The cabinet can hold
able aluminum cans. In this study, a solar dryer with solar air heater three drying trays fixed at 30 cm apart inside the drying plenum.
made from recyclable aluminum cans (RAC) was designed and used The cabinet has two circular holes (5.08 cm in diameter) at the
for tomato drying. Although, some studies available in the literature bottom (drying air inlet) and the top (drying air outlet) of the
on the design and the thermal performance of solar air heaters cabinet. Air distributer made from wooden plate and having many
made from RAC [33,34,38], there is no detailed study on its appli- circular holes was installed above the inlet hole to insure the equal
cations in solar drying of agricultural products.
Solar dryers must be properly designed in order to meet
particular drying requirements of agricultural products and give
satisfactory performance concerning energy requirements. Pre-
dicting drying parameters could help in designing more efficient
dryers as well as improving the performance of the existing sys-
tems [39]. Several thin layer equations available in the literature for
explaining drying behavior of tomato in solar tunnel dryer [12,11],
infrared dryer [1] and a rotating tray drier [6] could be utilized to
characterize the process.
Accordingly, the main objective of this study was to design an Fig. 1. Schematic assembly of the designed solar collector.
 S.S. Kishk et al. / Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316
Fig. 2. Drying cabinet with trays.
distribution of the air inside the drying cabinet (Fig. 2). Once heated
up in the collector, the air was then forced throughout the air
channels with the aid of an electric blower towards the drying
cabinet through the inlet hole at the bottom of the cabinet and then
exit from the air outlet at the top of the cabinet.
2.3. Drying modes
Two different modes of indirect cabinet solar dryers were
designed in this study as shown in Fig. 3. The first mode is the well-
known ‘open’ drying system that commonly used for all drying
scenarios of most agricultural products, in which the fresh dry air
entering the drying system through the air inlet was heated in the
collector, forced to the drying cabinet and finally leaves the system
completely through the air outlet. The other drying mode proposed
(1) Drying cabinet, (2) Solar collector, (3) Photovoltaic panel, (4) Air blowers, (5) Dehumidifier (6) Flexible insulated tubes
Fig. 3. A photograph of solar air collectors integrated with drying cabinets.
309
in this study was a ‘closed’ system in which the air expelled from
the drying chamber through the air outlet is recirculated to the
solar collector through the air inlet in a closed loop. The closed
system outlined in this study aimed to take advantage of the higher
temperature of the air exiting the system. While heat can be
trapped by the product inside the drying chamber, the moisture
content of the air moving over the surface of the product may in-
crease to near saturation levels. As the air leaving the drying
chamber becomes very moist after passing through and over the
moist product, a dehumidifier was placed in the path of the outlet
air to adsorb the moisture from the expelled air before it enters the
collector again. Each dryer was supported by an air blower to pump
the heated air from the solar collector to the drying chamber. The
air blowers were operated using a photovoltaic panel. Polyethylene
flexible tubes (with 5.08 cm in diameter) insulated by thermal wool
(2 cm in thickness) were used to convey the air from solar collectors
to the drying cabinets (Fig. 3). The performance of both the open
and closed modes of solar dryers for drying tomatoes was
compared with that of the traditional ambient sun drying.
2.4. Drying experiments and data acquisition
Drying experiments of tomato were conducted during the
period from 17 to 26 October, 2017 under clear sky conditions.
Three experiments were conducted under different air-flow rates of
15, 30 and 45 m3h-1. For each experiment, tomato samples were
kept in each dryer for three contiguous days from 7 a.m. up till 5
p.m.
About 10 kg of fresh tomatoes needed for each experiment were
harvested at the commercial maturity stage and transported
immediately from the farm to the laboratory. Tomatoes were gently
washed, dried, cut into approximately equal quarters (wedges) and
then carefully placed on each of the three trays inside the dryer
cabinet. About 4.5 kg of tomato wedges was placed inside each
cabinet (1.5 kg for each tray). Additional one tray filled with tomato
wedges was kept in the ambient air outside the dryer to be used for
traditional sun drying (control). The initial moisture content of the
samples determined using the standard oven method at 70  C for
24 h [40] was 95% (w.b.) or 19 kg [H2O] kg
1 [dry matter]. The
310 S.S. Kishk et al. / Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316

drying progress was comprehensively monitored and the perfor- and Turgut [25]:
mance of solar collector under each drying mode (open and closed
systems) with the different airflow rates (15, 30 and 45 m3h-1) was _ p ðT0
Ti Þ
m$C
h¼ (6)
then evaluated and compared with the sun drying method. I$Ac
Tomato wedges on the trays were weighed before drying and at
the end of each day during drying experiments to monitor weight
loss. Temperature and relative humidity of the drying air circulating
2.6. Mathematical modeling
in the dryer were recorded by means of a data logger. Before
starting each experiment, the average air velocity was measured by
Mathematical modeling is essential to predict and simulate the
an anemometer (Tri-Sense 37000-62, Col-Parmer, USA) placed at
drying behavior. It is also an important tool in dryer's design,
the entrance of the drying chamber. The air-flow rates (15, 30 and
contributing to a better understanding of the drying mechanism.
45 m3h-1) were adjusted by controlling the blower speed from its
The experimental drying data for tomato were fitted to the thin
control panel. Moreover, a meteorological station (Vantage Pro 2,
layer drying models listed in Table 1 by using nonlinear least
Davis, USA) was used to record different macroclimate variables
squares regression solved by a Quasi-Newton numerical method.
such as solar radiation, air velocity, dry-bulb, wet-bulb, and dew-
The moisture ratio (MR) in these models is defined as:
point air temperatures.
M
Me
MR ¼ (7)
2.5. Thermal performance analysis of solar collectors M0
Me

where, M is moisture content at any time of drying (kg water/kg dry

In order to evaluate the performance of the designed solar col-
matter), Me is the equilibrium moisture content (kg water/kg dry
lectors, thermal efficiency was determined during the drying ex-
matter), and M0 initial moisture content (kg water/kg dry matter).
periments under different air-flow rates. The theoretical model
However, a simplified form of equation 7 for calculation the
used to study solar air collector that works in non-stationary
moisture ratio (in the form of MR ¼ M/M0) was considered in this
regime is described by the balance equation as follow [38]:
study for mathematical modeling of the solar drying curves due to
Qu ¼ I0
Qp (1) the continuous fluctuation of the relative humidity of the drying air
during solar drying [11].
where I0 is the absorbed solar radiation (W), Qp is the heat loss from The coefficient of determination (R2), mean relative percent
the collector (W), and Qu is the useful energy gain by the air error (P), reduced chi-square (c2) and root mean square error
through the collector (W), which can be calculated from the (RMSE) obtained for these equations were then used to compare the
following relationship: relative goodness of fit of experimental data. These parameters can
be calculated as follows:
_ p ðTo
Ti Þ
Qu ¼ mC (2)  
N 
100 X MRexp;i
MRpre;i 
where: m
1
_ is the air mass flow rate (kg s ), Cp is the specific heat of P¼ (8)
N i¼1 MRexp;i
the air (J Kg
1 K
1), To is the outlet air temperature (K), Ti is the inlet
air temperature (K). PN  2
The solar radiation absorbed by the collector can be given by the i¼1 MRexp;i
MRpre;i
c2 ¼ (9)
following equation: N
n

I0 ¼ ho $I$AC (3) sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

where ho is the optical efficiency of solar collector, I is the total solar
radiation incident upon the plate of the solar collector (Wm
2), Ac is
the area of collector absorber (m2).
The heat loss from the collector is described by Eq. (4):
QP ¼ UC ðTC
Tamb ÞAC
where Uc is the collector overall-loss coefficient by convection
(Wm
2K
1), Tc is the average temperature of collector (K), and Tamb
is the ambient average temperature (K).
Equation (1) can be re-written using the equations (2 and 4) as:
m$cp ðTo
Ti Þ ¼ ho $I$AC
UC ðTC
Tamb ÞAC
Optical efficiency (ho) and heat loss coefficient (Uc) are param-
eters that characterize the behavior of the solar collector [34].
Optical efficiency is the fraction of solar radiation absorbed by the
collector which depends basically on the transmittance of trans-
parent cover and absorbance [41]. The heat loss coefficient includes
losses through the transparent cover and the lateral and bottom
sides of collector [42]. Finally, the thermal efficiency of solar heat-
ing systems (h) is defined as the ratio of useful energy gain by the
air to solar radiation incident on the absorber of solar collector and
can be calculated from the following equation according to Kurtbas
PN  2
i¼1 MRexp;i
MRpre;i
RMSE ¼ (10)
N
where MRexp,i is the ith experimentally observed moisture ratio,
MRpre,i is the ith predicted moisture ratio, N is the number of ob-
servations, and n is the number of model constants [11,12]. The best
(4) model describing the solar drying behavior of tomato was chosen
as the one with the highest value of R2 and the lowest values of P,
RMSE and c2.
2.7. Uncertainty analysis
Estimation of thermal efficiency and performance of the
(5)
examined solar collectors depends basically on the accurate mea-
surements of the main parameters used in calculation such as air
velocity, air flow rate, solar radiation and the temperatures at the
inlet and outlet of the collectors as well as the temperatures
recorded inside each configuration. As these parameters were
measured by using different instruments, the certainty of each
should be quantified to evaluate the acceptability of these param-
eters in all subsequent experimental calculations and to avoid error
propagation on repeated trials. Statically speaking, Kline and
McClintock [49]; Abernethy and Thompson [50] and Moffat [51] put
the framework to estimate uncertainty based on the fact that the
 S.S. Kishk et al. / Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316 311

Table 1
Thin-layer models for solar drying curves given by different authors.

Model no. Model name Model equation References

1 Page MR ¼ exp(-ktn) Gürlek et al. [12]

2 Henderson and Pabis MR ¼ a exp(-kt) Henderson and Pabis [43]
3 Newton MR ¼ exp(-kt) Erbay and Icier [44]
4 Logarithmic MR ¼ a exp(-kt) þ c Hacihafizog lu et al. [45]
5 Wang and Singh MR ¼ 1 þ at þ bt2 Wang and Singh [46]
6 Two-term MR ¼ a exp(-k0t) þ b exp(-k1t) [1]
7 Two-term exponential MR ¼ a exp(-kt) þ (1 - a) exp(-kat) Sharaf-Elden et al. [47]
8 Approximation of diffusion MR ¼ a exp(-kt) þ (1-a) exp(
kbt) Yaldız and Ertekin [48]

Where a, b, c and n are drying constants, k drying coefficient (h
1) and t is the time (h).

result R of an experiment is a function of a set of all input measured

parameters as:

R ¼ f ðX1 ; X2 ; X3 ……::Xn Þ (11)

By estimating the uncertainty of each individual input param-
eter dXi, the overall uncertainty in the computed result dR could be
estimated with good accuracy using a root-sum square combina-
tion of the effects of all involved individual inputs as explained in
equation (12). The uncertainty values of all possible parameters
measured by different instruments throughout all experimental
runs of this study are shown in Table 2.

" 2 # 1 2
n 
=
X dR
dR ¼ dXi (12)
i¼1
dXi

Fig. 4. Variations in ambient air temperature, relative humidity and solar radiation
3. Results and discussion during drying hours for a typical day in October 2017.

3.1. Weather and temperature data

During the whole period of the experiment, the weather station

data for: ambient air temperature, relative humidity and solar ra-
diation followed a typical daily pattern for a typical day in October
2017 in Ismailia, Egypt (latitude of 30.62 , longitude 32.27 and 5 m
above sea level), as illustrated in Fig. 4 During the experiment, the
daily mean values of ambient air temperature, relative humidity
and solar radiation ranged from 25 to 32  C; 46e70% and from 100
to 660 Wm-2, respectively. As expected, the ambient air tempera-
ture and solar radiation reached the highest values between 11:00
a.m. and 1:00 p.m., whereas the relative humidity reached the
lowest values during this period.
On the other hand, the difference between the temperature of
the ambient air and the temperature of the drying air inside the Fig. 5. The temperature difference between the drying air temperature and the
open and closed systems is shown in Fig. 5 for one run of operation ambient in the closed system (left side) and open system (right side) at different
(i.e. from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) under different airflow rates. airflow rates (15, 30 and 45 m3h-1).
Despite the values of airflow rate, it is obvious that the closed

Table 2
Uncertainties in the experimental parameters measured by different instruments used in calculations throughout all experimental runs.

Experimental Parameters Range Uncertainty (%)

3
1
 Air flow rate (G), m h 15.0e45.0 2.93
Air velocity by anemometer, m/s 2.2e6.0 1.21
Inlet/Outlet diameter (d), cm 5.08 0.86
 Parameters recorded by weather station
Ambient temperature (Tamb),  C 24e32 0.86
Relative humidity (RH), % 45e70 1.74
Solar radiation (I), Wm
2 40e660 0.60
Ambient air velocity, m/s 0.4e3.6 2.50
Temperature recorded by thermocouples (Ti,To, & T),  C 24.0e60.0 0.17
 Thermal efficiency (h), % 21.0e72.0 1.75
312 S.S. Kishk et al. / Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316

system increased the temperature of the drying air more than the
open system. For example, the maximum raise in air temperature
(recorded between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m.) ranged from 25 to
30  C in the closed system; meanwhile the corresponding value in
the open system was 19e22  C. In case of the closed system, the
outlet air leaving the drying chamber and re-entered the solar
collector has a higher temperature than the ambient air. This
recycled air was heated up further through the solar collector. On
the contrary, in case of the open system, the solar collector always
receives a fresh air with ambient temperature, which resulting in a
drying air with a less temperature than that in the closed system.
Consequently, as the air temperature inside the drying chamber is
much higher in the closed system, a higher drying rate of tomatoes
could be expectedly achieved in the closed system compared with
either the open system or the ambient sun drying provided that the
extra moisture trapped in the drying air of the closed system is
removed.
From Figs. 4 and 5, it can be also inferred that when the solar
radiation reached its maximum value of 660 Wm-2, the collector
heated up the flowing air up to 22  C and 30  C in the open and
closed system, respectively. Even at a very low value of solar radi- Fig. 7. Thermal efficiency of solar collector made of aluminum cans at different air flow
ation of 100 Wm-2 (i.e. between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.), the solar rates.

collector worked efficiently and heated up the flowing air by about

5  C in both the open and closed systems. These results are in
agreement with those reported by Lesny et al. [52].
Fig. 6 shows the thermodynamic properties of the drying air
calculated using psychometric charts. It can be seen that as the
drying air temperature increased with time and reached the peak
value of 54  C at 12:00 p.m., the drying air enthalpy also increased
to 90 kJ kg
1 at the same time. On the contrary the relative hu-
midity of the drying air decreased to 14% at 12:00 p.m. This in-
dicates that the drying air is able to remove the moisture from the
tomato inside the drying cabinet.
3.2. Thermal performance of the solar collector
The most important part of this study was evaluating the ther-
mal efficiency of the solar collector made from the recycled
aluminum cans. Fig. 7 shows the thermal efficiency curves of the
solar collector calculated using equation (6) during the period from
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at different rates of airflow. As declared in
Fig. 7, the increasing in the airflow rate led to a considerable
increase in the thermal efficiency of the collector. For instance,
when the airflow rate (G) increased from 15 to 45 m3h-1, the
thermal efficiency increased from about 25 to about 65% (Fig. 7).
Similar results were reported by Alvarez et al. [33] and Ozgen et al.
[34] during their evaluation of the thermal efficiency of a solar air
heater made also from aluminum cans. This significant increase in
thermal efficiency with increasing of the mass flow rate can be
attributed to changes in flow condition i.e. from laminar to turbu-
lent [34]. Further increase in airflow rate (higher than 45 m3h-1)
might increase the thermal efficiency of the collector to a certain
limit but this should be experimentally investigated until the
optimal level, under all circumstances, is reached. When airflow
rate deviated from the optimal level, the thermal efficiency would
be influenced because any change in the heat transfer coefficient
which could also affect the heat loss to the surroundings [53].
The average thermal efficiency calculated for air flow rate 45
m3h-1 was 63%. The same value was reported by Paraschiv et al. [38]
for a solar collector made from aluminum cans at operating air flow
rate of 0.045 kg s
1 (about 160 m3h-1). Also, Alvarez et al. [33] re-
ported an average thermal efficiency of 68% with an air flow rate of
0.033 kg s
1 (about 120 m3h-1) for the same type of solar collector.
It was clear that, the fabricated solar collector in this study provides
similar thermal efficiencies to other studies even with lower air
flow rates.

3.3. Drying curves of tomato

Tomato wedges of initial moisture content of 19 kg [H2O] kg
1

Fig. 6. Thermodynamic properties of drying air.
[dry matter] (i.e. 95% wet basis) were dried for three days (30 h of
drying in three cycles) in both the open and closed solar drying
systems, as well as under ambient sun drying conditions. In Fig. 8,
the drying curves of tomato in different drying systems at three
levels of airflow rates (15, 30 and 45 m3h-1) are presented. In
general, the moisture content of tomatoes decreased progressively
with time, at a relatively uniform rate during the first 5e7 h of
drying. This corresponds to the drying period of a constant rate
where the moisture starts to migrate to the surface of the produce
through the crevices and larger capillaries in the produce.
The hot air incoming from the collector heats up the tomato
wedges by transferring the sensible heat it gained from the col-
lector. Then, moisture migrates from the wedges, evaporates and
 S.S. Kishk et al. / Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316 313

resulted in higher average drying rates of tomato. They attributed

Fig. 8. Change in tomato moisture content (MC) with time in different drying systems
at different air flow rates.
then conveyed away by the moving air outside of the drying cabi-
nets. As the slope of the drying line did not change for the first
couple of hours, it could be concluded that most of the drying
process of tomatoes occurs in the falling-rate drying phase. During
this drying phase, the drying rate decreases continuously with
decreasing moisture content over time. Similar results have been
reported in the literature by Sacilik et al. [11]; Doymaz [8]; Gürlek
et al. [12] and Cernîşev [54]. After 30 h of drying at the airflow rate
of 45 m3h-1, the moisture content of the tomato wedges declined
from an initial value of 19 kg [H2O] kg
1 [dry matter] (i.e. 95% wet
basis) to 0.73, 2.00 and 3.22 kg [H2O] kg
1 [dry matter] for the
closed, open and ambient drying modes, respectively.
3.4. Drying rate of tomato
As the weight of the samples were recorded at the end of each
drying day (after 10 h of drying), the average drying rate of tomato
wedges during each drying day was calculated for each drying
system as well as under different air flow rates (Table 3). In order to
compare the overall drying performance of each drying system, the
average drying rate of tomato wedges in each drying system during
the whole drying process (3 days of drying) was also calculated and
presented in Table 3.
In general, it is clear to observe that the overall average drying
rate of tomatoes in the closed system was considerably higher
versus the open and the ambient sun drying modes for all tested
airflow rates (Table 3). At each tested air flow rate, the overall
average drying rate in the closed system was greater than 0.60 (kg
[H2O] kg
1 [dry matter] h
1). Meanwhile, the corresponding values
of the overall average drying rates in the open system and ambient
sun drying were less than 0.57 (kg [H2O] kg
1 [dry matter] h
1).
This higher drying rate of the closed system is due to the higher
temperature values retained inside the closed system compared to
the open system and the ambient sun drying as explained in Fig. 5.
Brooks et al. [55] observed that higher temperatures typically
this to the increased moisture diffusion due to the higher temper-
ature within the tomato. Other studies also have shown similar
effects of temperature on drying rate. For instance, Akanbi et al.
[56] and Doymaz [8] reported an increase in the drying rate of
tomato with an increase in temperature from 45 to 75  C.
During the first and second days of drying, the average drying
rate of tomato in the closed system was much higher than that in
the open or the ambient sun drying under all tested air flow rates.
However, by the third day of drying, the average drying rate in the
closed system was lower than the other drying systems (Table 3).
This may due to the reduced moisture content in the tomatoes in
this system. This resulted in decreased movement of water through
the tomato and thus a decreased drying rate.
Table 3 also shows that, at low airflow rate (15 m3h-1), the
overall average drying rate of the open system and the ambient sun
drying was almost identical (0.56 kg [H2O] kg
1 [dry matter] h
1).
Although the temperatures in the open system were higher than
the ambient at the low flow rates (Figs. 5 and 9), this temperature
difference was not enough to remove more moisture from the
product i.e. the airflow rate that was not big enough to make a
difference between these two systems. The reason for this may be
that the low rate of airflow was unable to remove more evaporated
moisture from the samples compared with the ambient sun drying.
With increasing airflow rate, the drying rate in the open system
becomes higher than the ambient sun drying as shown in Table 3.
Consequently, it can be concluded that, under the tested conditions,
the closed system can be used efficiently (to save energy) even at
low air flow rates while the open system is preferred over the
ambient sun drying.
The final weight loss of tomato (after 30 h of drying) was also
tabulated in Table 3 to statistically compare the performance of
each drying systems. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test showed a
significant difference (p ¼ 0.05) among the three drying modes.
Least significant difference (LSD) test was carried out to highlight
the orthogonal comparisons among drying systems as shown in
Table 3. It can be seen that the weight loss of tomato in the closed
system was significantly (p ¼ 0.05) higher than in both the open
system and ambient drying for all tested air flow rates. However, a
significant difference (p ¼ 0.05) in weight loss between the open
system and ambient drying was observed only at the higher air flow
rate of 45 m3h-1.
However, it is quite important here to mention that the quality
of tomatoes dried in the ambient condition deteriorated with time
and fungus growth was evident on tomato wedges in the second
and third days of drying. This is due to the high relative humidity of
the ambient air (60e70%) at this time of the year (October) in Egypt.
This justifies why the open drying system provided better quality of

Table 3
Drying rate and weight loss of tomato in different drying systems under different air flow rates.

Air flow rate (m3h
1) Drying system Average Water Removal Rate (kg H2O/kg dry solids/hour) Final Weight Loss Relative Weight Lossy

First day Second day Third day Average

15 Closed 1.05 0.49 0.26 0.60 90.0ab 1.07bc

Open 0.92 0.46 0.31 0.56 84.5c 1.00d
Ambient* 0.91 0.44 0.33 0.56 84.1c 1.00d

30 Closed 0.96 0.62 0.24 0.61 91.3a 1.12ab

Open 0.94 0.58 0.19 0.57 85.2bc 1.05cd
Ambient 0.81 0.48 0.34 0.54 81.1cd 1.00d

45 Closed 1.00 0.57 0.26 0.61 91.3a 1.16a

Open 0.95 0.48 0.27 0.57 85.0c 1.08bc
Ambient 0.74 0.55 0.29 0.53 79.0d 1.00d

y Means for each attribute followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% by LSD.
* The ambient drying was under the ambient air conditions of temperature and the air speed.
314 S.S. Kishk et al. / Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316
G1= 15 m3h-1
Fig. 9. Variation in air temperature for the different drying systems at different airflow rates.
the final dried tomatoes compared with the traditional ambient sun
drying having the same drying rate at low airflow rates.
3.5. Effect of airflow rate on dryer performance
The effect of the different drying airflow rates on the thermal
performance of the drying systems are illustrated in Fig. 9. As air
flow rate increases the drying air temperature decreased. For
instance, at the lower air flow rate of 15 m3h-1, the maximum air
temperature observed in the closed system was about 60  C. While
at the higher air flow rate of 45 m3h-1, the maximum air temper-
ature in the closed system decreased to be about 55  C. The same
trend can be also observed for the open system (Fig. 9). The same
behavior of solar air heater was also reported by Alta et al. [57];
who found that the air was warmer at lower air flow rates. This is
due to the fact that as the air flow rate decreased, the residence
time of the air inside the solar collector increased allowing the air
to absorb more energy and leaves the solar collector with higher
temperatures. It can be concluded that there was an inverse rela-
tionship between the rate of air flow and drying air temperature in
the solar air collector developed in this study. Consequently, the
drying rate was not affected much with changes in the air flow rate.
The effect of increasing the air flow rate from 15 to 45 (m3h
1)
on the drying behavior of tomato in the closed and open drying
systems can be explained based on the drying parameters pre-
sented in Table 3. The statistical analysis using the weight loss
parameter showed no significant (p ¼ 0.05) effect of the air flow
rate on the tomato drying in the closed and open modes. At the
same time, there was a significant difference (p ¼ 0.05) between
the ambient drying carried out during the experiment of the low
airflow rate (15 m3h-1) and the ambient drying carried out during
the experiment of the high airflow rate (45 m3h-1) as shown in
Table 3. This could be due to the slight changes in the weather
conditions during the period of experiments (9 days). In such a
case, it is not fair to use the weight losses parameter to statistically
examine the effect of air flow rate on the drying process in different
modes. To this end, the relative weight loss (RWL) was used in this
study. The RWL parameter was calculated by dividing the value of
tomato weight loss, in a solar drying system, by the value of tomato
weight loss in the ambient drying carried out at the same time in
order to exclude the effect of the weather variation during the
experiments.
From Table 3, it can be seen that as the air flow rate increased
from 15 to 30 m3h-1, the relative weight loss of the tomato
increased slightly (with no significant difference) from 1.07 to 1.12
and from 1.00 to 1.05 in the closed and open systems, respectively.
Further increase in the air flow rate to 45 m3h-1, showed a
G2= 30 m3h-1 G3= 45 m3h-1
significant (p ¼ 0.05) increase in the relative weight loss of tomato
in both the closed and open drying systems. Although, the air
temperatures reached by the drying system at the high air flow rate
of 45 m3h-1 were lower than that at the air flow rate of 15 m3h-1
(Fig. 9), the air moved at high flow rate removed the evaporated
moisture from the product faster, as a result the drying rate
increased.
3.6. Modeling of drying curves
The drying data such as moisture ratio (MR) versus drying time
were fitted to different thin layer drying models shown in Table 1.
The drying model coefficients and the comparison criteria used to
evaluate goodness of fit, namely the coefficient of determination
(R2), the mean relative percent error (P), the root mean square error
(RMSE) and the reduced chi-square (c2) for solar drying of tomato
are tabulated in Table 4. It is clear from the statistical parameters
shown in Table 4 that all tested models offered a good description
of the experimental data. However, the non-linear quadratic model
of Wang and Singh [46] gave the highest R2 and lowest P, RMSE and
c2 values than other models. Therefore, the Wang and Singh model
could adequately describe the solar drying behavior of tomato in
the designed solar dryer. There is no universal model reported in
literature as the best fit for tomato drying curves. For instance, the
two-term model reported as the best model for fitting the drying
data for tomato drying in solar tunnel dryer [12] and for inferred
drying of tomato [1]. Approximation of diffusion model was found
to be the suitable model for tomato drying in solar tunnel dryer
[11]. Moreover, Santos-Sa nchez et al. [6] concluded that the Page
model was the best model to describe the tomato drying in rotating
tray drier.
Wang and Singh model for the solar drying of tomato can be
written based on the estimated constants and coefficients as below:
MR ¼ M=M0 ¼ 1
0:0613t þ 0:001t2
Fig. 10 illustrates the relationship between the experimental
moisture ratio and the predicted values by Wang and Singh model
for tomato drying. Strictly speaking, Wang and Singh model pro-
vided a good conformity between experimental and predicted
moisture ratios of tomato during drying in cabinet solar dryer.
3.7. Cost estimation
Approximate estimation of the average cost for constructing a
low cost solar air heater having an area of 0.6 m2 with a cabinet
dryer having a volume of 0.27 m3 is given in Table 5. The overall cost
 S.S. Kishk et al. / Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316 315

Table 4
Estimated parameters and comparison criteria of moisture ratio for solar drying of tomato.

Model no. Model coefficients and constants R2 p c2 RMSE

1 k ¼ 0.0386; n ¼ 1.2814 0.9997 8.1 9.1E-05 0.007

2 a ¼ 1.010; k ¼ 0.0836 0.9944 32.7 1.8E-03 0.030
3 k ¼ 0.0829 0.9947 33.1 1.3E-03 0.031
4 a ¼ 1.1405; k ¼ 0.0629; c ¼
0.1390 0.9997 4.9 1.8E-04 0.007
5 a ¼ -0.0613; b ¼ 0.0010 0.9997 3.8 8.9E-05 0.007
6 a ¼
693.057; k0 ¼ 0.1476; b ¼ 694.057; k1 ¼ 0.1475 0.9996 9.3 2.3E-04 0.008
7 a ¼ 1.8666; k ¼ 0.1181 0.9995 10.6 1.5E-04 0.009
8 a ¼ 2117.26; k ¼ 0.1473; b ¼ 1.0003 0.9996 9.4 2.3E-04 0.008

Fig. 10. Relationship between the experimental moisture ratios and the predicted
values by Wang and Singh model for solar drying of tomato.
and choice of materials would promote mass production and hence,
it can be a substitute to the expensive conventional dryers thereby
making it accessible and affordable by local farmers.
efficiency reached was 65%, under the tested air flow rates. The
drying rate of the tomatoes in the closed system was significantly
(p ¼ 0.05) higher compared with both the open system and
ambient drying, at all tested air flow rates. The maximum increase
in the air temperature in the closed system and open system were
30  C and 22  C, respectively. Increasing the air flow rate from 15 to
45 m3h-1, increased the thermal efficiency of the collector from 25
to about 65%, and as a result, the relative weight loss of the tomato
changed significantly (p ¼ 0.05) from 1.07 to 1.16 and from 1.00 to
1.08 in the closed and open systems, respectively. The results
showed that use of recyclable aluminum cans in manufacturing air
solar collectors is technically and economically feasible, if an
adequate design is applied and optimum operating parameters are
implemented. As this technique needs low initial cost to construct,
less effort to exert and least labor to employ, it is more beneficial to
the small-scale farmers who cannot afford the fuel-operated drying
systems. Eight different non-linear regression models were tested
to model drying curves of tomato. Based on the values of coefficient
of determination, mean relative percent error, root mean square
error of these models, the Wang and Singh model has shown a
better fit to the experimental drying data compared to other non-
linear models.
Acknowledgment

4. Conclusions Authors are grateful to Prof. John Connolly (School of History &
Geography, University College Dublin, Ireland) for careful proof-
Considering the low-income level of rural population in the reading of the manuscript.
developing countries, the high initial costs of solar drying systems
represent a great challenge for their usages. However, References
manufacturing these systems from recyclable and affordable ma-
terials is very beneficial for farmers to adopt given the better [1] P.C. Corre^a, G.H.H. de Oliveira, F.M. Baptestini, M.D.M.S. Diniz, A.A. da Paixa
~o,
Tomato infrared drying: modeling and some coefficients of the dehydration
quality product and less product waste. This paper presents the
process, Chil. J. Agric. Res. 72 (2012) 262.
design procedure and thermal efficiency results of solar collectors [2] M. Krokida, D. Marinos-Kouris, Rehydration kinetics of dehydrated products,
made from recyclable aluminum cans. In addition, the performance J. Food Eng. 57 (2003) 1e7.
[3] G.H.H. De Oliveira, P.C. Corre ^a, E.F. Araújo, D.S.M. Valente, F.M. Botelho,
of fabricated solar collector in tomato drying was experimentally
Desorption isotherms and thermodynamic properties of sweet corn cultivars
investigated under different drying conditions. The maximum (Zea mays L.), Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 45 (2010) 546e554.
[4] W. Duangkhamchan, L. Wiset, N. Poomsa-ad, Evaluation of drying and mois-
ture sorption characteristics models for Shiitake mushroom (Lenti-
Table 5 nussquarrosulus Mont.) and Grey Oyster mushroom (Pleurotussajor-caju (fr.)
Approximate estimation of the solar dryer construction cost in Egyptian pound. Singer), Suranaree J. Sci. Technol. 20 (2013) 151e166.
[5] P.J. Fellows, Food Processing Technology: Principles and Practice, Elsevier,
S.N Material Required Quantity Amount (EGP) 2009.
[6] N.F. Santos-Sa nchez, R. Valadez-Blanco, M.S. Go mez-Gomez, A. Perez-Herrera,
1 Glass sheet 0.6 m2 70
R. Salas-Coronado, Effect of rotating tray drying on antioxidant components,
2 Wood 3 m2 240 color and rehydration ratio of tomato saladette slices, LWT-Food Sci. Technol.
3 Silicon glue 1 20 46 (2012) 298e304.
4 Black paint 1 kg 30 [7] D.V.N. Lakshmi, P. Muthukumar, A. Layek, P.K. Nayak, Drying kinetics and
5 Aluminum sheet 0.6 m2 100 quality analysis of black turmeric (Curcuma caesia) drying in a mixed mode
6 Drying trays 3 trays 36 forced convection solar dryer integrated with thermal energy storage, Renew.
7 Air blowers 2 100 Energy 120 (2018) 23e34.
8 Flexible insulated tubes 5m 50 [8] I. Doymaz, Air-drying characteristics of tomatoes, J. Food Eng. 78 (2007)
9 Frame 20 kg 260 1291e1297.
10 Labor cost 1 150 [9] G. Giovanelli, B. Zanoni, V. Lavelli, R. Nani, Water sorption, drying and anti-
Total cost 1056 EGP z US $ 60 oxidant properties of dried tomato products, J. Food Eng. 52 (2) (2002)
135e141.
US $1 z 17.75 EGP. [10] V.R.N. Telis, R.C.B.D.L. Murari, F. Yamashita, Diffusion coefficients during
316 S.S. Kishk et al. / Renewable Energy 133 (2019) 307e316
osmotic dehydration of tomatoes in ternary solutions, J. Food Eng. 61 (2)
(2004) 253e259.
[11] K. Sacilik, R. Keskin, A.K. Elicin, Mathematical modelling of solar tunnel drying
of thin layer organic tomato, J. Food Eng. 73 (2006) 231e238.
[12] €
G. Gürlek, N. Ozbalta, A. Güngo €r, Solar tunnel drying characteristics and
mathematical modelling of tomato, J. Therm. Sci. Technol. 29 (2009) 15e23.
[13] S. Arun, S. Ayyappan, V.V. Sreenarayanan, Experimental studies on drying
characteristics of tomato in a solar tunnel greenhouse dryer, Int. J. Recent
Technol. Eng. 03 (04) (2014) 32e37.
[14] A. Rayes, A. Mahn, P. Huenulaf, T. Gonzalez, Tomato dehydration in a hybrid-
solar dryer, Chem. Eng. Process Technol. 5 (4) (2014) 1e08.
[15] V. Kumar, B.R. Singh, S.C. Samsher, S. Singh, A review on tomato drying by
different methods with pretreatments, Int. J. Food Ferment. Technol. 5 (1)
(2015) 15e24.
[16] R. ElGamal, F. Ronsse, G. ElMasry, J.G. Pieters, Development of a multi-scale
model for deep-bed drying of rice, Trans. ASABE 58 (2015) 849e859.
[17] R. ElGamal, F. Ronsse, S.M. Radwan, J.G. Pieters, Coupling CFD and diffusion
models for analyzing the convective drying behavior of a single rice Kernel,
Dry. Technol. 32 (2014) 311e320, https://doi.org/10.1080/
07373937.2013.829088.
[18] C.K.K. Sekyere, F.K. Forson, F.W. Adam, Experimental investigation of the
drying characteristics of a mixed mode natural convection solar crop dryer
with back up heater, Renew. Energy 92 (2016) 532e542.
[19] B. Santos, M. Queiroz, T. Borges, A solar collector design procedure for crop
drying, Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 22 (2005) 277e284.
[20] P.C. Phadke, P.V. Walke, V.M. Kriplani, A review on indirect solar dryers, ARPN
J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 10 (2015) 3360e3371.
[21] A. Sreekumar, P. Manikantan, K. Vijayakumar, Performance of indirect solar
cabinet dryer, Energy Convers. Manag. 49 (2008) 1388e1395.
[22] D.K. Rabha, P. Muthukumar, C. Somayaji, Energy and exergy analyses of the
solar drying processes of ghost chilli pepper and ginger, Renew. Energy 105
(2017) 764e773 ().
[23] B. Amer, M. Hossain, K. Gottschalk, Design and performance evaluation of a
new hybrid solar dryer for banana, Energy Convers. Manag. 51 (2010)
813e820.
[24] F.K. Forson, M.A. Nazha, H. Rajakaruna, Experimental and simulation studies
on a single pass, double duct solar air heater, Energy Convers. Manag. 44
(2003) 1209e1227.
[25] I. Kurtbas, E. Turgut, Experimental investigation of solar air heater with free
and fixed fins: efficiency and exergy loss, Int. J. Sci. Technol. 1 (2006) 75e82.
[26] A. Omojaro, L. Aldabbagh, Experimental performance of single and double
pass solar air heater with fins and steel wire mesh as absorber, Appl. Energy
87 (2010) 3759e3765.
[27] A. Sreekumar, Techno-economic analysis of a roof-integrated solar air heating
system for drying fruit and vegetables, Energy Convers. Manag. 51 (2010)
2230e2238.
[28] A. Abdullah, M. Bassiouny, Performance of cylindrical plastic solar collectors
for air heating, Energy Convers. Manag. 88 (2014) 88e95.
[29] K. Pottler, C.M. Sippel, A. Beck, J. Fricke, Optimized finned absorber geometries
for solar air heating collectors, Sol. Energy 67 (1999) 35e52.
[30] A. Mohamad, High efficiency solar air heater, Sol. Energy 60 (1997) 71e76.
[31] A. Kolb, E. Winter, R. Viskanta, Experimental studies on a solar air collector
with metal matrix absorber, Sol. Energy 65 (1999) 91e98.
[32] L. Henden, J. Rekstad, M. Meir, Thermal performance of combined solar sys-
tems with different collector efficiencies, Sol. Energy 72 (2002) 299e305.
[33] G. Alvarez, J. Arce, L. Lira, M. Heras, Thermal performance of an air solar
collector with an absorber plate made of recyclable aluminum cans, Sol.
Energy 77 (2004) 107e113.
[34] F. Ozgen, M. Esen, H. Esen, Experimental investigation of thermal performance
of a double-flow solar air heater having aluminium cans, Renew. Energy 34
(2009) 2391e2398.
[35] The World Counts (2018) Available online: http://www.theworldcounts.com.
[36] International Aluminium Institute, Global Aluminum Recycling: a Cornerstone
of Sustainable Development, 2009) ).
[37] S.K. Das, M. Hughes, Improving aluminum can recycling rates: a Six Sigma
study in Kentucky, JOM 58 (2006) 27e31.
[38] L.S. Paraschiv, S. Paraschiv, I.V. Ion, Experimental and theoretical analyses on
thermal performance of a solar air collector, Environ. Eng. Manage. J. (EEMJ)
13 (2014).
[39] R.A. ElGamal, S.S. Kishk, G.M. ElMasry, Validation of CFD models for the deep-
bed drying of rice using thermal imaging, Biosyst. Eng. 161 (2017) 135e144.
[40] AOAC, Official Method of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists
(No. 934.06), 1990 (Washington, DC).
[41] P. Dhiman, N. Thakur, A. Kumar, S. Singh, An analytical model to predict the
thermal performance of a novel parallel flow packed bed solar air heater,
Appl. Energy 88 (2011) 2157e2167.
[42] R. Tchinda, A review of the mathematical models for predicting solar air
heaters systems, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13 (2009) 1734e1759.
[43] S.M. Henderson, S. Pabis, Grain drying theory. I. Temperature effect on drying
coefficient, J. Agr. Eng. Res. 6 (1961) 169e174.
[44] Z. Erbay, F. Icier, A review of thin layer drying of foods: theory, modeling, and
experimental results, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 50 (5) (2010) 441e464.
[45] O. Hacihafizog lu, A. Cihan, K. Kahveci, Mathematical modelling of drying of
thin layer rough rice, Food Bioprod. Process. 86 (C4) (2008) 268e275.
[46] C.Y. Wang, R.P. Singh, A Single Layer Drying Equation for Rough Rice. ASAE
Paper No: 78-3001, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, 1978.
[47] Y.I. Sharaf-Eldeen, J.L. Blaisdell, M.Y. Hamdy, A model for ear corn drying,
Trans. ASAE 23 (1980) 1261e1271.
[48] O. Yaldiz, C. Ertekin, Thin layer solar drying some different vegetables, Dry.
Technol. 19 (2001) 583e597.
[49] S.J. Kline, F.A. McClintock, Describing uncertainties in single sample experi-
ments, Mech. Eng. 75 (1953) 3e8.
[50] R.B. Abernethy, J.W. Thompson Jr., Handbook Uncertainty in Gas Turbine
Measurements, Arnold Air Force Station and Tennessee, 1973. AEDC-TR-73-5,
AD 755356.
[51] R.J. Moffat, Describing the uncertainties in experimental results, Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 1 (1) (1988) 3e17.
[52] J. Lesny, M. Panfil, M. Urbaniak, R. Schefke, Examining Technical Solutions for
a Prototype of a Solar-air Collector, Technical Sciences/University of Warmia
and Mazury in Olsztyn, 2015.
[53] D. Peng, X. Zhang, H. Dong, K. Lv, Performance study of a novel solar air
collector, Appl. Therm. Eng. 30 (2010) 2594e2601.
[54] S. Cernîşev, Effects of conventional and multistage drying processing on non-
enzymatic browning in tomato, J. Food Eng. 96 (2010) 114e118.
[55] M. Brooks, N.A. El-Hana, A. Ghaly, Effects of tomato geometries and air tem-
perature on the drying behavior of plum tomato, Am. J. Appl. Sci. 5 (2008)
1369e1375.
[56] C.T. Akanbi, R.S. Adeyemi, A. Ojo, Drying characteristics and sorption isotherm
of tomato slices, J. Food Eng. 73 (2006) 157e163.
[57] D. Alta, E. Bilgili, C. Ertekin, O. Yaldiz, Experimental investigation of three
different solar air heaters: energy and exergy analyses, Appl. Energy 87 (2010)
2953e2973.
[58] F. FAOSTAT, Statistical Data, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, 2016.