Accepted Manuscript

Title: Use of ultrasound for osmotic dehydration. The case of

potatoes

Authors: Athanasia M. Goula, Maria Kokolaki, Eleni Daftsiou

PII: S0960-3085(17)30093-7
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.fbp.2017.07.008
Reference: FBP 887

To appear in: Food and Bioproducts Processing

Received date: 28-11-2016

Revised date: 28-6-2017
Accepted date: 18-7-2017

Please cite this article as: Goula, Athanasia M., Kokolaki, Maria, Daftsiou, Eleni,
Use of ultrasound for osmotic dehydration.The case of potatoes.Food and Bioproducts
Processing http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2017.07.008

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 Use of ultrasound for osmotic dehydration. The case of potatoes

Athanasia M. Goula*, Maria Kokolaki, Eleni Daftsiou

Department of Food Science and Technology, School of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural
Environment, Aristotle University, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

* Correspondence: Athanasia M. Goula, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of

Agriculture, Natural Environment and Forestry, Department of Food Science and
Technology, Laboratory of Food Processing and Engineering, 541 24, University Campus of
Thessaloniki, Greece; E-mail: athgou@agro.auth.gr

1
 Use of ultrasound for osmotic dehydration of potatoes
Highlights
 Ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration of potatoes has been studied.
 Microscopic analysis was carried out to evaluate changes to potato structure.
 Diffusivity was determined by the analytical solution of the Fick’s law.
 Diffusivity was calculated for the situations with and without shrinkage.
 Ultrasound treatment resulted in higher moisture and solid mass transfer.

ABSTRACT
In this work, ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration has been implemented as a
method to reduce the dehydration time of potatoes. Potato cubes were dehydrated with four
types of treatments: static osmotic dehydration, osmotic dehydration with agitation, osmotic
dehydration with ultrasound application, and osmotic dehydration with ultrasound
pretreatment. Sodium chloride and maltodextrin (12 DE) were used as osmotic agents. For
each treatment, various variables were examined for their effect on water loss and solid gain.
A microscopic analysis was carried out to evaluate the formation of microchannels and other
changes to the potato tissue structure. The effective diffusivity was determined using the
analytical solution of the Fick’s second law taking into account the potato shrinkage.
Ultrasound treatment resulted in higher moisture and solid mass transfer due to the breaking
of cell structure as revealed by microstructure examination. At solute concentration of 30%,
ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration enhanced the effective diffusivity of water by about
5.5–260%, whereas the ultrasound pretreatment in water increased the diffusivity during
osmotic dehydration at solute concentration of 70% up to 130%.

List of abbreviations
OD osmotic dehydration
ST static osmotic dehydration
AG osmotic dehydration with agitation
USP osmotic dehydration with ultrasound pretreatment
US osmotic dehydration with ultrasound application

2
Keywords: Effective diffusivity; osmotic dehydration; potato; solid gain; tissue changes
ultrasound; water loss

1. Introduction
The development of new and improved processed products from potato appears to
represent an excellent means of increasing the utilization of this high yielding and nutritious
species (Eren and Kaymak-Ertekin, 2007). Osmotically dehydrated potato can be used as a
quick-cooking product or as an ingredient in salads and soup mixes. In general, osmotic
dehydration (OD) is particularly useful to increase the shelf-life of fresh-cut high-moisture
content products and it can be used as a pretreatment before air-drying, freezing, and/or freeze
drying.
Osmotic dehydration is a widely used method for partial dewatering of plant tissue by
immersion in hypertonic aqueous solution. There is a critical concentration of osmotic
solution, below which the sample takes up water and beyond which osmotic dewatering
occurs. At that critical moisture concentration, osmotic pressure of the surrounding solution
becomes equal to the osmotic pressure inside the cells (Bellary and Rastogi, 2012). Besides
the water removal from the plant tissue, there is a contemporaneous counter-diffusion of
solutes from the concentrated solution into the cellular tissue (Ferrando and Spiess, 2001).
Several mechanisms such as osmosis, diffusion, and hydrodynamic mechanisms take part in
the mass transfer phenomena (Rastogi et al., 2000; Rastogi et al., 2002).
Recently new methods suitable for application during or before OD process have been
proposed to further enhance mass transfer, for instance application of pulsed-vacuum, high
and low pressure, and power ultrasound (Nowacka et al., 2014). Ultrasound is a form of
energy generated by sound waves of frequencies that are too high to be detected by human
ear, i.e. above 16 kHz. In dependence of the frequency used and the sound wave amplitude
applied, a number of physical, chemical, and biochemical effects can be observed which
enables a variety of applications (Dolatowski et al., 2007). When low-frequency power
ultrasound is applied, ultrasonic waves travel through the solid medium, causing a rapid series
of alternative compressions and expansions, in a similar way to a sponge when it is squeezed
and released repeatedly. The forces involved by the sponge effect create microscopic channels
that can be used by water molecules as a preferential pathway to diffuse toward the surface of
the sample, increasing the effective water diffusivity (Fernandes and Rodrigues, 2008).
According to Bellary and Rastogi (2012), the higher surface tension force caused by the

3
sponge effect maintains the moisture inside the capillaries of the material creating
microscopic channels, which may make the moisture removal easier. In addition, expansion
and escape of the gas trapped in the pores are eased, so that the empty pores are filled by the
osmotic solution (Simal et al., 1998). Ultrasounds also cause cavitation, a phenomena where
small bubbles are formed, grow, and collapse due to pressure fluctuation (Islam et al., 2014a).
The cavitation bubbles that collapse will generate a microjet that hits the solid surface
producing an injection of fluid inside the solid. Whilst bubbles that do not collapse may be
stable but continue to increase or decrease in size producing micro-agitation that enhances the
mass transfer rate by the reduction of the diffusion boundary layer (Kek et al., 2013). In
addition, the cavitation is beneficial for the removal of moisture strongly attached (Fernandes
and Rodrigues, 2008). Also, the oscillatory motion of a sound wave causes acoustic streaming
leading to the enhancement of mass transfer (Bellary and Rastogi, 2012).
The use of ultrasounds has been considered to improve mass transfer in osmotic
dehydration of tomatoes (Corrêa et al., 2015), cherry tomatoes (Li et al., 2012), broccolis (Xin
et al., 2013), carrots (Liu et al., 2013), apples (Carcel et al., 2007; Deng and Zhao, 2008;
Simal et al., 1998), bananas (Farhaninejad et al., 2015), kiwifruits (Nowacka et al., 2014),
strawberries (Cheng et al., 2014; Garcia-Noguera et al., 2010), blueberries (Kucner et al.,
2013; Stojanovic and Silva, 2007), cranberries (Shamaei et al., 2012), quinces (Noshad et al.,
2012), black cherries (Karami et al., 2013), and guavas (Kek et al., 2013).
However, according to Fernandes et al. (2009), studies on ultrasound-assisted osmotic
dehydration have shown that different fruits and vegetables respond differently to the
application of this treatment. Ultrasound induced elongation of the cells in melons, which
resulted in an easier path for water diffusion, whereas ultrasound produced microscopic
channels in papayas; however, because of the short length of these microscopic channels, the
effective diffusivity of water did not improve much. In pineapple, ultrasonic pretreatment
induced the formation of long microscopic channels, while application of ultrasound-assisted
osmotic dehydration provoked the breakdown of cells (Rodrigues et al., 2009). According to
Fernandes et al. (2008), the effect of ultrasound on water effective diffusivity during the
drying process was positive for melons and bananas but was negative for papaya and sapotas.
As far as osmotic dehydration of potatoes, Genina-Soto et al. (2001), Khin et al.
(2006), Mauro and Menegalli (2003), Rahman et al. (2001), and Tortoe et al. (2007) studied
the osmotic dehydration kinetics of potatoes. Eren and Kaymak-Ertekin (2007) investigated
the effects of temperature, processing time, sucrose and salt concentration on the mass
transfer phenomena during osmotic dehydration of potato in sucrose/salt binary solutions.

4
Krokida et al. (2001) reported osmotic dehydration as an effective pretreatment to decrease oil
uptake during frying of potatoes. However, concerning ultrasound-assisted osmotic
dehydration, to the only Karizaki et al. (2013) appear to have investigated potatoes. They used
it as a pretreatment prior to the frying of potatoes and were principally concerned with the
quality of the fried product. They did not investigate the effect of ultrasound on the kinetics of
the process.
The main objective of this study is to investigate the use of ultrasounds before or
during osmotic dehydration of potato in comparison with the osmotic process carried out
under static conditions or dynamic conditions of agitation. The influences of ultrasounds and
osmosis parameters on water loss and soluble solids gain are studied and a microscopic
analysis was carried out to investigate the formation of microchannels. In addition, a
diffusional model assuming product shrinkage was proposed to simulate mass transfer during
the osmotic process.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Raw material

White Spunta variety potatoes, purchased from a supermarket in Thessaloniki, were
washed and peeled. Then the potatoes were cut into 13-mm cubes using a vegetable dicer.
Sodium chloride and maltodextrin (12 DE) were used as active osmotic agents. The
osmotic solutions were prepared by dissolving the required amount of solute in water. The
solutions were made and kept overnight at room temperature (20 °C) before use to ensure
complete dissolution of sodium chloride and maltodextrin.

2.2. Osmotic dehydration

Fresh potato cubes were dehydrated with four types of treatments: static osmotic
dehydration (ST), osmotic dehydration with agitation (AG), osmotic dehydration with
ultrasound application (US), and osmotic dehydration with ultrasounds pretreatment (USP).

2.2.1. Static osmotic dehydration (ST)

Previously weighed potato cubes using a digital balance (Denver Instrument, Göttingen,
Germany) were dipped into osmotic solutions of different concentrations under different
temperatures (Table 1) for different times (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 min). Sodium
chloride and maltodextrin were dissolved into distilled water to get osmotic solution with

5
different concentrations (Table 1). The sample to osmotic solution ratio of 1:40 (w/w) was
selected in order to avoid excessive dilution of the osmotic solution during the process. The
experimental set-up consisted of two parts: a basket to allocate the samples and a vessel to be
filled with osmotic solution. The basket consisted of shelves on which the potato samples
were placed without being in contact with each other (Fig. 1). Contact with the osmotic
solution was guaranteed by the height of the shelves and the cavities in all the walls of the
basket and the shelves. The sample cubes were placed in the basket and then immersed into a
1000-mL osmotic solution vessel, which was placed inside a temperature controlled water
bath. The temperature was recorded using two T-type thermocouples placed in the sample
location. The vessel was covered with a plastic wrap for preventing evaporation from the
osmotic solution during the experiment.
A central composite design was used with total (sodium chloride + maltodextrin)
osmotic solution concentration (Ct) (30–70%, w/w), sodium chloride concentration (CNaCl)
(0–12%, w/w), and temperature (T) (20–45 oC) being the independent process variables
(Table 1). This generated 20 experiments with five replications at the center point. The range
of values of these variables was determined based on previous works and preliminary
experiments.

2.2.2. Osmotic dehydration with agitation (AG)

Agitation was necessary for improving mass transfer and preventing dilute solution film
formation around the potato cube. Besides, it constitutes a homogeneous concentration and
temperature profile inside the solution (Eren and Kaymak-Ertekin, 2007). The osmotic
solution agitation was carried out by a Heildolph mixer (mod. RZR1, Heildolph Instruments
GMBH & Co., Schwabach, Germany) provided with a standard three blade propeller. A 150
rpm level of stirring was applied. To characterize the turbulence of the solution, some of the
parameters proposed by Carcel et al. (2007) for mixing systems were estimated, Reynolds
number, volumetric flow rate, and Froude number and were found equal to 3975, 0.00053,
and 35. Samples were placed in the highest turbulence zone, avoiding the walls of the
container and the mixer axis.
Agitation treatments were carried out with the same conditions applied for static
treatments (Table 1). The sample cubes were placed in the basket consisted of shelves and
then immersed into a 1000-mL osmotic solution vessel, where the mixer propeller was
immersed until a depth of around 4 cm from the base of the container. The container, covered

6
with a plastic wrap, was placed inside a temperature controlled water bath and the temperature
was recorded using two T-type thermocouples.

2.2.3. Osmotic dehydration with ultrasound application (US)

Experiments with ultrasound application were carried out without stirring the solution.
Ultrasounds were applied using a probe system (VCX-130 Sonics and Materials (Danbury,
CT, USA) equipped with a Ti–Al–V sonoprobe (13 mm) in pulsed mode. The pulse duration
and pulse interval refer to “on” time and “off” time of the sonicator. The nominal electrical
power of the equipment was 130 W and the energy applied to the transducer could be varied
from 0 to 100%. The nominal frequency was 20 kHz. A calorimetric method was used to
determine the acoustic intensity applied to the solution. This method involves the
determination of the temperature increase in the first 90 s of ultrasound application. The rise
in temperature was recorded using two T-type thermocouples placed in the sample location
and connected to a data logger. Three replicates were carried out for each power level tested.
The increase of temperature recorded in the first 90 s of ultrasound application was linear.
The slope of this line was used to estimate the power of ultrasound transmitted to syrup in the
different US treatments carried out.
Potato cube samples were placed in a basket consisted of shelves and immersed in the
osmotic solution in a 1000-mL beaker where the ultrasonic probe horn was immersed until a
depth of 5 mm from the base of the container. Fig. 1 illustrates the whole set-up. The cubes
were treated with different osmotic solution concentrations under different temperatures
(Table 1) for different times (15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 min). During the OD
process, the beaker was held in a thermostat-controlled water bath and two T-type
thermocouples were immersed into the osmotic solution. The temperature was kept constant
by adding ice to the water in the bath throughout the experiment.
A central composite design was used with amplitude level (A) (20–60%), pulse
duration/pulse interval ratio (PUL) (0.33–2.00), temperature (T) (20-45 oC), total (sodium
chloride + maltodextrin) osmotic solution concentration (Ct) (15–30%, w/w), and sodium
chloride concentration (CNaCl) (0–12%, w/w) being the independent process variables (Table
1). This generated 32 experiments with five replications at the center point. The range of
values of these variables was selected after preliminary experiments.

2.2.4. Osmotic dehydration with ultrasound pretreatment (USP)

7
 Potato cube samples were placed in a basket consisted of shelves, immersed in distilled
water, and subjected to ultrasonic waves with a nominal frequency of 20 kHz for different
time periods (Table 1). During the ultrasound treatment, the beaker containing the basket was
held in a thermostat-controlled water bath and two T-type thermocouples were immersed into
the water. The temperature was kept constant by adding ice to the water in the bath
throughout the experiment. A central composite design was used with amplitude level (A)
(20–60%), pulse duration/pulse interval ratio (PUL) (0.33–2.00), temperature (T) (20–45 oC),
and time (t) (5–29 min) being the independent process variables (Table 1), with ranges
determined on the basis of previous works and preliminary experiments. This generated 30
experiments with five replications at the center point.
After removal from the water, the samples were drained, blotted with absorbent paper,
transferred into 1000-mL beakers, and kept completely submerged in osmotic solution under
the optimum conditions of osmotic dehydration with agitation (T = 45 oC, Ct = 70% w/w,
CNaCl = 0% w/w), which led to maximum water loss and minimum solids gain.
After removal from the osmotic solution, the samples from each treatment were
drained and blotted with absorbent paper to remove the excess water. Mass and moisture
content were measured individually. Moisture content was determined by bringing the sample
to constant weight in a drying oven at 103 ± 2 °C according to the AOAC method. Each assay
was made in triplicate.
Mass and moisture content data were used to calculate water loss (WL) and solid gain
(SG) of the samples, according to Eqs. (1) and (2).
w i X i  wX
WL  (1)
wi

w i S i  wS
SG  (2)
wi

where Xi and Si are the initial moisture and solids content (on wet basis), respectively, X and S
are the moisture and soluble solids content, respectively, at time t, and wi and w are the initial
and final potato cube mass, respectively.

2.3. Mathematical modeling

Fick’s second law of diffusion has been widely used to describe the dynamics of the
osmotic drying process for biological materials and food. For a cube being subjected to
osmotic treatment from all the faces with assumptions (a) uniform initial moisture distribution

8
and (b) negligible external resistance to mass transfer, the solution of Fick's unsteady state
diffusion equation is given in Eqs. (3) and (4) (Simal et al., 1997):
 3  3  D Weff t 
2
X  Xe 8 1
 exp   2 ν  1 
2
MR     (3)
Xi  Xe  v  0 2 ν  1  
6 6 2
4L
 

3   3  D Seff t 
2
S  Se 8 1
 exp    2 ν  1 
2
SR    (4)
Si  Se  v  0 2 ν  1  
6 6 2
4L
 

where MR is the moisture ratio, SR is the solid ratio, Xe and Se are the moisture and solids
content, respectively, at equilibrium, DWeff and DSeff are the effective diffusivities of water and
solute, respectively, and L is the cube half thickness.
For sufficiently long drying times, the first terms (v = 0) in the series expansion of Eqs.
(3) and (4) give a good estimation of the solution and can be applied to determine the water
and solid diffusion coefficients for each working temperature. Thus, simplified Eqs. (3) and
(4) are written in a logarithmic form as follows:
2
8
3 3π D Weff
ln MR  ln  t (5)
6 2
π 4L

2
8
3 3π D Seff
ln SR  ln  t (6)
6 2
π 4L

From Eqs. (5) and (6), the plots of lnMR and lnSR versus time give straight lines with
2 2
3π D Weff 3π D Seff
slopes of  and  , respectively.
2 2
4L 4L

To avoid the great truncation errors, the effective diffusivities were calculated by
letting v = 8 in Eqs. (3) and (4).
By assuming shrinkage was isotropic, the point-by-point data of potato cube bulk
volume, as determined using the liquid displacement method (Ko et al., 2008), were used to
compute L. Thus, for every value of t, there were corresponding values of both MR (or SR)
and L.
Typically, water loss rate from a food material by an osmotic solution decreases after
a relatively short period of time; this fact has suggested the use of simplified versions of non-
steady state form of Fick’s second law, considering short processing time, constant solution
concentration, and negligible external resistance to mass transfer. Sereno, et al. (2001)

9
proposed a linear dependence of water loss and solid gain on the square root of residence
time:
0 .5
NMC  1  kwt (7)
0 .5
NSC  1  k s t (8)
where kw and ks represent overall mass transfer coefficients for water and solute, respectively,
t is the dehydration time, and normalized moisture content (NMC) and normalized solids
content (NSC) are defined as:
X
NMC  (9)
Xi

S
NSC  (10)
Si

2.4. Microstructure analysis

A Quanta-200 environmental scanning electron microscope system (FEI Company,
USA) was used. Potatoes without any treatment and potatoes subjected to ST, AG, US, and
USP treatments for 15 min under the optimum conditions presented in Table 2 were freeze-
dried and mounted on aluminium stubs with conductive adhesive followed by coating with
gold, employing a sputter coater. The samples were viewed at ×150 magnification to study the
structure modification.

2.5. Statistical analysis

A central composite design was applied to determine the optimum levels of the
examined parameters for each osmotic dehydration treatment. To identify the significance of
the effects and interactions between them, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for
each parameter. A p value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
MinitabTM v 13.32 software (Minitab Inc., Pennsylvania, USA) was used for analysis of the
obtained experimental data.
The parameters of the models were estimated by non-linear regression. To evaluate the
goodness of each approach fit, three criteria were used: the coefficient of determination, R2,
the root mean square error (RMSE), and the reduced chi-square (χ2).

3. Results and discussion

10
3.1. Mass transfer
The variation of moisture and solid content with immersion time during some osmotic
dehydration experiments with and without ultrasounds application for different osmotic
solutions is presented in Fig. 2. As it can be seen, in all experiments there is a steep water loss
and solid gain at the beginning of osmotic treatment. At initial times, osmotic driving force
between the potatoes and the surrounding osmotic solution was higher. This is in agreement
with previous studies in literature (Karizaki et al., 2013). According to Xin et al. (2013), it is
easy for water to diffuse out and for the solid to diffuse in at the early stage of the process due
to lower osmotic pressure inside the potato cells compared to the surrounding medium. After
this initial stage with a high diffusion rate, the rate of change of water loss decreases. This is
because the rapid solid gain in the initial fast diffusion stage usually leads to high
concentration of osmotic agents in the surface of the product and fills the capillaries resulting
in an extra resistance for the outward water transfer from potato to the osmotic solution.
According to Rodrigues and Fernandes (2007), during osmotic dehydration of strawberries,
the formation of a solid dense layer on the strawberry surface could create an extra resistance
for the outward water transfer from the fruit to the osmotic solution. Similar results were
reported in the osmotic dehydration of cherry tomatoes (Azoubel and Murr, 2004), apple
(Deng and Zhao, 2008), guava (Ganjloo et al., 2011), kiwifruits (Santagapita et al., 2013), and
pomegranate seeds (Bchir et al., 2009).
The magnitudes of SG are lower than those of WL because of the molecular size
difference between water and solid and the membrane selectivity. In some experiments, there
were negative solid gain values, indicating that the sample lost soluble solids to the liquid
medium. This result was expected because of the concentration gradient of soluble solids
between the potato and the liquid medium that favors the mass transfer of soluble solids from
the product to the liquid medium. The increase in solid gain blocks the surface layers of the
potato cube, which reduces the concentration gradient, posing an additional resistance to mass
exchange and lowering the rates of water loss and consequently weight reduction at further
processing times. In addition, the obtained values of SG in this study are in the acceptable
range that is reported by other researchers (Garcia-Noguera et al., 2010; Karizaki et al., 2013).
The increase in water loss because of increasing soluble solids concentration in the
osmotic solution (Fig. 3) is consistent with the greater osmotic pressure of the system.
Addition of maltodextrin into osmotic solution increased water loss since driving force for
dehydration increased because of its water activity lowering capacity (Karizaki et al., 2013).
At all processing temperatures, the effect of salt concentration on water loss, solid gain, and

11
weight reduction can be explained by the ionization characteristics and low molecular weight
of salt, which makes it easily diffuse into the product, and the water activity reducing effect of
salt, which increases the driving force for dehydration (Eren and Kaymak-Ertekin, 2007).
According to Saurel et al. (1994), immediately after the onset of osmotic dehydration (< 30
min), dehydration is greatest with low molecular weight solutes. This can be explained by the
fact that low molecular weight solutions have higher corresponding osmotic pressures, which
could favour plant cell plasmolysis. This phenomenon is reversed at longer processing times
and water loss increased as solute molecular weight increased.
As it can be seen in Fig. 3, in most cases, water loss increased with temperature.
However, in some cases, an opposite effect was found. A similar observation was reported by
Karizaki et al. (2013) and Sereno et al. (2001), who reported that the temperature has two
different effects during osmotic dehydration. Increasing of molecular agitation, consequently
enhancing diffusion rates with increasing temperature is the first effect. The second effect is
related to the cellular material that is quite sensitive to the temperature. Overheating causes a
cell lysis, leading to a decrease of the membrane mass transfer limitation and selectivity. It is
also supposed that high concentration of solute combined with high temperature may change
permeability properties of cell membranes, leading to changes in diffusional characteristics.
The water losses were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in experiments with agitation
than in static experiments (Figs. 2 & 3). The stirring of the solution produces a decrease of
external resistance to water transport linked to a reduction of the boundary layer of diffusion.
The degree of reduction of the diffusion boundary layer should depend on the turbulence of
the agitation. The water loss in the samples subjected to ultrasound treatment was remarkably
higher than in the samples subjected to normal mechanical agitation (Fig. 2). This is because
the asymmetric explosion of cavitation bubbles close to the solid surface produces microjets
in the direction of the surface, which enhances the mass transfer (Simal et al., 1998). In
addition, the formation of microscopic channels or pores in the potato tissue can also increase
the water diffusion efficiency and facilitate the incorporation of solute by the potato.
Agitation could accelerate the movement of solute near the material and prevent the form of
solute layer. The use of ultrasound could not only accelerate the movement of solution by its
mechanical action, but also damage the cell membrane by its cavitation effect (Deng and
Zhao, 2008; Stojanovic and Silva, 2007). That is, the effect of ultrasound is greater than of
agitation as the mass-transfer rate is concerned. These findings show that ultrasound-assisted
osmotic dehydration with short time (~60 min) could get the same or better osmotic effect as
normal osmotic dehydration with long time (~180 min).

12
 A number of researchers have reported that the application of ultrasound enhances the
mass transfer. Simal et al. (1998) compared experiments of osmotic dehydration of apple
cubes in a 70 oBrix sucrose solution at temperatures ranging from 40 to 70 oC and reported an
increase of 14–27% in water loss when ultrasound was applied for 3 h compared with water
loss with agitation. According to Taiwo et al. (2003), ultrasound treatment for 2 h led to 10–
43% increase in water loss of osmotically dehydrated strawberries compared with osmotic
treatment at atmosphere pressure. Bellary et al. (2011) investigated the rates of moisture, solid
and curcuminoids transfer with or without application of ultrasound over a range of
concentration of osmotic solutions (0–50%). They reported that application of ultrasound
resulted into increase in the rates of moisture, solid as well as curcuminoids mass transfer due
to the breaking of cell structure. Oliveira et al. (2011) observed the cells of Malay apples after
application of ultrasound for 30 min in osmotic solutions of 25 and 50 oBrix. They further
noted that the formation of the microscopic channels contributed to the increase in both the
water loss and solid gain. Nowacka et al. (2012) reported that ultrasound treatment of apples
at a frequency of 35 kHz for 10, 20 and 30 min led to 9–14% increase in porosity of apple
compared to that of the untreated samples. Li et al. (2012) studied the ultrasonic osmotic
dehydration of cherry tomatoes in sucrose and salt solutions and found that ultrasound
treatment at 150 W for 60 min resulted in 25.72% increase in water loss as compared with the
treatment without ultrasound.
The difference of WL between the US and non-US treatments was more intense during
the first 60 min. A similar trend was observed by Nowacka et al. (2014), who found that
application of US is useful for water removal only for short OD processes. Li et al. (2012)
reported that there was a time accumulative effect of ultrasound on osmotic dehydration and
the accumulative effect reached a plateau as the immersing time increased. Fernandes et al.
(2008) attributed this phenomenon to the fact that one of the main effects of ultrasounds is to
produce micro-channels inside the product structure and the number of micro-channels
produced by ultrasound may increase with time, but this increase may be limited to a certain
number.
The loss of water from potato cubes submitted to ultrasound pretreatment is higher
than that of other treatments (Fig. 2). The application of ultrasounds as a pretreatment resulted
in up to 40.4% and 23.9% greater solute uptake of potato compared to that in static and with
agitation treatment, respectively. As far as the water loss of osmotically dehydrated potatoes
is concerned, the corresponding percentages were 8.5–42.9% and 1.2–27.7%, respectively.
This result is in accordance with Fernandes and Rodrigues (2007) and Fuente-Blanco,

13
Sarabia, Acosta-Aparicio, Blanco-Blanco, and Gallego-Juarez (2006), who reported that the
ultrasonic pretreatment affects the product tissue making easier for water to diffuse, most
probably due to the formation of microscopic channels. Potato cubes subjected to ultrasonic
pretreatment in water lost soluble solids to the liquid medium. The amount of soluble solids
transferred to the water during the pretreatment ranged from 3.8 to 12.4% for pretreatment
times of 5 and 29 min, respectively. This soluble solids loss was lower than the losses
observed for fruits such as banana, pineapples, and apples, which have lost respectively 21.3,
23.2, and 17% after 30 min of ultrasonic pretreatment in water (Fernandes and Rodrigues,
2007; Fernandes et al., 2008). Thus, as it can be seen in Fig. 2, osmotic dehydration with
ultrasound pretreatment in water led to a lower solids gain than the ultrasound-assisted
osmotic dehydration process.
The variation of water loss in ultrasound experiments depended on the ultrasonic
intensity applied (Fig. 3). Bermúdez-Aguirre et al. (2011) stated that increase of ultrasound
power or amplitude will produce high pressures in the medium, which lead to an increase in
the cavitation and sponge effect of ultrasound waves, thus increase the mass transfer of
medium from the product. At the lower levels of intensity tested (3 W/cm2 or amplitude level
of 20%) the water losses were similar to experiments with agitation. A further increase of the
applied ultrasonic intensity resulted in increased water losses. As a consequence, for
ultrasonic intensities above 5 W/cm2 the water losses were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than
for AG experiments. This could indicate the existence of a threshold of ultrasonic intensity
above which the influence of ultrasound in water transfer was significant. In addition, there
was no significant difference among water loss values when the ultrasonic power level was
more than 12.5 W/cm2 (amplitude level of 50%) (p > 0.05). This observation is similar to that
reported by Li et al. (2012), who found that when a maximum value of WL was reached, the
increase in moisture loss would stop although the ultrasonic power level continued to
increase. It might be ascribed to the fact that when the ultrasonic power level reached a level
the violent ultrasonic cavitations were strong enough to produce an extreme turbulence at the
interface between solid products and solution, and then made the mass transfer go on without
surface resistance.
An analysis of variance was conducted to determine the significant effects of process
variables on each response (Table 2). The optimal conditions for maximum water loss and
minimum solid gain are presented in Table 2.

3.2. Modelling

14
 The rate of moisture and solid contents change (X/Xi, S/Si) was plotted against t1/2 in
order to infer mass transfer coefficients (kW, kS) (Table 2). Typical plots for selected
treatments are presented in Fig. 4. The linear relationship between normalized solid content
and square root of time implied the existence of a large rate of solute uptake for a long
process period. It has been suggested that solute uptake mainly occurs within the first 30 min,
although it may continue at slower rates for 2–3 h (Lazarides and Mavroudis, 1996). The
observed deviation was probably due to damage of the potato tissue taking place on a material
with large specific surface. This membrane damage seems to result in loss of selective
permeability allowing for the observed extensive diffusion of osmotic solutes. According to
Karel (1975), it has been found that disruption of structural barriers improves water and solute
diffusivities within the product, resulting in faster equilibration in favor of higher solute
uptake.
To confirm that slow diffusion was limiting the drying rate, the dimensionless Biot
mass transfer number, Bi, which is the ratio of external to internal mass transfer, was
calculated (Vazquez et al., 1999). If Bi value exceeds 100, it can be inferred that practically
all the resistance to mass transfer occurs within the internal phase of the solid. The obtained
value of k afforded a Bi > 100, confirming that diffusion within the potato cube is the factor
limiting the rate of drying.
The shrinkage generally followed the pattern of typical drying curves, with high
shrinkage initially and gradual leveling off towards the end of drying (Fig. 5). It is interesting
to notice that volume decrease was strongly correlated to moisture decrease with a
logarithmic relationship. A similar observation was reported by Lazarides and Mavroudis
(1996) and Toğrul and İspir (2007), who studied the kinetics of water removal and solute
uptake during osmotic dehydration of potato in corn syrup solution and apricot in sucrose,
glucose, fructose, maltodextrin, and sorbitol solution, respectively. In addition, as it is shown
in Fig. 5, the shrinkage in the osmotic dehydration was lower than the values given for
traditional drying in the literature (Hatamipour and Mowla, 2003; Talla et al., 2004). This
observed situation is one of the advantages of osmotic dehydration.
Effective water and solid diffusivities were calculated for the situations with and
without shrinkage by Eqs. (3) and (4) or (5) and (6) using the moisture content values
recorded over the drying time. Incorporating sample shrinkage decreased the values of
diffusivity (Fig. 6). This observation is similar to that reported by Mayora et al. (2006), who
studied the kinetics of pumkin osmotic dehydration with sodium chloride solutions and found
that values of effective diffusion coefficients were systematically lower when shrinkage was

15
considered in their calculation. Balaban (1989) also reported that the no shrinkage assumption
causes significant differences in predicted moisture and temperature gradients, as compared to
actual average moisture and temperature values. According to Milczarek et al. (2011), if one’s
goal is only to predict drying time, then determining Deff without taking into account
shrinkage is adequate. An estimate of Deff determined in this manner will have shrinkage
‘‘built in’’ to its value. However, if one’s goal is to predict the drying behavior under different
geometric configurations and/or varying temperatures, one must use a more accurate value of
Deff, determined with shrinkage effect taken into account (Goula et al., 2015).
A great truncation error occurs when the effective diffusivities are derived by letting ν
= 0 (simplified solution) as compared with ν = 8 (analytical solution) in Crank equation (Fig.
7). This observation is similar to that reported by Li et al. (2012), who found that for moisture
effective diffusivity, the truncation error could be 65%, therefore, a trial and error method
(Wang et al., 2009) should be used in order to reduce the error when effective diffusivity is
calculated with Crank’s solution to Fick’s diffusion law.
In general, the diffusivity values (Fig. 8) are similar to the apparent diffusivities
proposed by different authors for similar systems. Nahimana et al. (2011) presented
coefficients of diffusion varying from 0.14 × 10−9 m2/s to 4.22 × 10−9 m2/s for water and from
0.04 × 10−9 m2/s to 3.6 × 10−9 m2/s for osmotic solute. From these results it can be seen that,
during osmotic dehydration of fruits and vegetables, the coefficients of diffusion for both
water and solute vary quite widely due to the differences in raw material and processing
conditions used. Fruits and vegetables are largely heterogeneous and their cell membranes
and/or cell walls composition have different resistances to mass transfer. Compact structures
or those with selective diffusion properties resist mass transfer more than loosened structures.
Another reason for finding scattered values of diffusivity in the literature lies in the
calculation procedures, where either average concentration values or concentrations at each
position for each value of time may be used.
Comparing ultrasounds with mechanical agitation indicated that the samples treated by
ultrasound energy had higher mass diffusion coefficients (Fig. 8). At solute concentration of
30%, ultrasounds during OD enhanced the effective diffusivity of water and solid by about
5.5–258.8% and 0.8–96.8%, respectively, whereas the ultrasound pretreatment in water
increased the diffusivities during OD at solute concentration of 70% up to 132.6% and 28.2%,
for water and solid, respectively. At a total osmotic solute concentration of 30%, a NaCl
concentration of 6%, and a temperature of 32.5oC, ultrasounds during OD for 100 min at an
amplitude level of 40% and a pulse duration/pulse interval ratio of 7/6 gave a WL of about

16
26.1%, whereas this percentage after ultrasounds pretreatment for 5 min at an amplitude level
of 40% and a pulse duration/pulse interval ratio of 7/6 was about 23.8%. Thus, one is better
off applying ultrasound during dehydration than as a pretreatment for the same ultrasound
treatment. This result confirmed the observations of Fuente-Blanco et al. (2006) and Garcia-
Noguera et al. (2010) that the ultrasonic treatment affects the product tissue, making it easier
for the water to diffuse through the tissue of the product. However, the increase in the
diffusivity was lower than the values found for banana slices, where an increase of about
1,342.06 and 1,184.45%, for direct sonication and 229.053% and 294.686% for indirect
sonication was observed (Farhaninejad et al., 2015). The lower increase in diffusivity may be
related to the size of the cell interspaces formed in potato tissue, which were smaller in length,
and to the starch content of potatoes, since a high amount of starch favors water uptake,
behavior that has been reported previously for fruits with high starch content such as sapotas
(Fernandes and Rodrigues, 2008).
In addition, neither higher osmotic concentrations and temperatures nor extended
pretreatment periods always resulted in higher effective water diffusivity. Fernandes et al.
(2008) also demonstrated in experiments with pineapples that ultrasound-assisted osmotic
dehydration at high osmotic concentrations (> 35 oBrix) and long periods of treatment (> 20
min) may actually result in a drop of effective water diffusivity values compared to less
severe ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration pretreatments at lower osmotic concentration
and frequency and attributed this decrease to greater transfer of soluble into the cellular tissue
of the fruit from the osmotic solution, thus creating extra resistance or less potential for water
to diffuse out of the tissue. The use of high solute concentration in the osmotic solution
showed to increase the processing time, which may be caused by the high incorporation of
solute by the product that may have acted as a barrier to water diffusion. High mass of dry
solids reduces the moisture content of the product and the moisture content gradient and, thus,
the drying process has to remove moisture strongly attached to the solute incorporated into the
product increasing the time required for drying.
Mathematical models were developed to describe the relationship between operating
variables and the response variables – effective diffusivities – for each osmotic dehydration
treatment. The regression coefficients were calculated and the data was fitted to a second-
order polynomial equations (Table 3).

3.3. Microstructural analysis

17
 Increased effective water diffusivity has been associated with formation of
microscopic channels in the intercellular tissue of fruits and vegetables (Carcel et al., 2007;
Farhaninejad et al., 2015). The formation of microscopic channels by means of ultrasound-
assisted osmotic dehydration may occur in one of two ways: elongation and separation of
cells due to cavitation (ultrasound-assisted pretreatment in water) or disruption and
breakdown of cells due to the combined effects of cavitation and osmotic pressure
(ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration) (Garcia-Noguera et al., 2010).
Fig. 9 shows an image from scanning electron microscope of the freeze dried potatoes
without any treatment and the potatoes which were subjected to ST, AG, US, and USP
treatments for 15 min under the optimum conditions presented in Table 2. Freeze-drying
process preserves the structure of the tissue, allowing further exploration of the
microstructure. Potato without any treatment (FR) had uniform cell structure and normal
morphology with intact round-shaped granules of starch ranged in size from 5 to 60 μm, in
accordance with results reported by Karizaki et al. (2013). Ultrasound-assisted osmotic
dehydration (US) ruptured and mechanically damaged the cells. This effect may be due to the
collapse of cavitation bubbles that induces high pressure gradients and high local velocities of
liquid layers in the vicinity of granules (Zhu et al., 2012). After 15 min immersion in the
osmotic solution of 30%, the cells become distorted and the formation of microscopic
channels is accompanied by rupture of cell walls. The breakdown of cells creates large
regions where no cell membrane is observed, forming some very large spaces where water
and solute could flow more easily.
These results confirmed previous observations that samples after sonication showed
decreased water content and cell volume attributed to ultrasound-induced cell membrane
permeabilization and water release (Deng and Zhao, 2008). Islam et al. (2015a), who studied
the effect of ultrasound pretreatment on the glass transition temperature of freeze dried pears,
reported that with the application of power ultrasound, dried samples showed more porous
structures and the free volume between the cells increased. SEM analysis also indicated that
the application of ultrasound during freezing of mushrooms, strawberries, and red radish was
able to generate smaller ice crystals and then smaller and denser pores after freeze-drying
(Islam et al., 2014b; Islam et al., 2014c; Islam et al., 2015b; Xu et al., 2015). The formation of
microscopic channels in potatoes was similar to that observed in pineapples, where mostly
formed because of loss of cellular adhesion (disruption of contiguous cells), which produced
large cell interspaces (Fernandes et al., 2009). This mechanism differed from that observed in

18
melons (Fernandes et al., 2008), where microscopic channels were formed by flattening and
elongation of cells.
The dense cells breakdown is more intense than when the USP treatment is applied,
possibly due to the higher osmotic pressure gradient during the ultrasounds treatment. After
15 min immersion in the osmotic solution of 70%, ultrasound-pretreated samples presented
slightly distorted cells and larger pores in the tissue. Osmotic dehydration with agitation (AG)
also caused the breakdown and damaging of cell structure. Less amount of damage can be
seen in samples subjected to static osmotic dehydration (ST).

4. Conclusions
Ultrasonic processes are still under development and more studies are required to fully
comprehend the effects of ultrasound on product tissue during drying. Studies on osmotic
dehydration, ultrasound, and ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration have shown that
different fruits and vegetables respond differently to the application of these treatments.
Concerning potatoes, a staple food in many parts of the world, only one study currently exists
dealing with ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration. In this work, potato cubes were
dehydrated with four types of treatments: static osmotic dehydration, osmotic dehydration
with agitation, osmotic dehydration with ultrasound application, and osmotic dehydration
with ultrasound pretreatment, to investigate the use of ultrasounds before or during osmotic
dehydration.
The application of ultrasounds increased water loss and solids gain. This effect was
associated with the formation of microscopic channels due to the loss of cellular adhesion
which produced large cell interspaces. Ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration with short
time (~60 min) got the same osmotic effect as normal osmotic dehydration with long time
(~180 min) and the difference of water loss between the ultrasound and non-ultrasound
treatments was more intense during the first 60 min.
The dense cells breakdown was more intense when ultrasounds are applied during
than before the osmotic dehydration process, possibly due to the higher osmotic pressure
gradient during the ultrasounds treatment. At solute concentration of 30%, ultrasounds during
osmotic dehydration enhanced the effective diffusivity of water by about 5.5–260%, whereas
the ultrasound pretreatment in water increased the diffusivity during dehydration at solute
concentration of 70% up to 130%. However, solids gain of potato cubes submitted to
ultrasound pretreatment was lower than that of ultrasound-assisted dehydration, since potatoes
subjected to pretreatment in water lost soluble solids. Thus, osmotic dehydration with

19
ultrasound pretreatment can be applied to produce dried products with low sugar/salt content,
which might be used in the production of foodstuffs with reduced calories.
The effective diffusivity of water during osmotic dehydration is usually determined
using the simplified solution of the Fick’s second law without taking into account the volume
decrease of product. In this work, the diffusivity was estimated with the analytical solution of
the Fick’s law taking into account the potato shrinkage. It was found that a truncation error
occurs when the effective diffusivities is derived by letting ν = 1 as compared with v = 8 in
Crank’s solution to Fick’s law. In addition, the values of effective diffusion coefficients are
lower when shrinkage is considered in their calculation.

References
Azoubel, P.M., Murr, F.E.X., 2004. Mass transfer kinetics of osmotic dehydration of cherry
tomato. Journal of Food Engineering 61, 291–295.
Balaban, M., 1989. Effect of volume change in foods on the temperature and moisture content
predictions of simultaneous heat and moisture transfer models. Journal of Food Process
Engineering 12, 67–88.
Bchir, B., Besbes, S., Attia, H., Blecker, C., 2009. Osmotic dehydration of pomegranate
seeds: mass transfer kinetics and DSC characterization. International Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 44, 2208–2217.
Bellary, A.N., Rastogi, N.K., 2012. Effect of hypotonic and hypertonic solutions on
impregnation of curcuminoids in coconut slices. Innovative Food Science and Emerging
Technologies 16, 33–40.
Bellary, A.N., Sowbhagya, H.B., Rastogi, N.K., 2011. Osmotic dehydration assisted
impregnation of curcuminoids in coconut slices. Journal of Food Engineering 105, 453–
459.
Bermúdez-Aguirre, D., Mobbs, T., Barbosa-Canovas, G.V., 2011. Ultrasounds application in
food processing. In H. Feng, G.V. Barbosa-Canovas, J. Weiss (Eds.), Ultrasound
Technologies for Food and Bioprocessing. New York: Springer, 65–105.
Carcel, J.A., Benedito, J., Rossello, C., Mulet, A., 2007. Influence of ultrasound intensity on
mass transfer in apple immersed in a sucrose solution. Journal of Food Engineering 78,
472–479.
Cheng, X., Zhang, M., Adhikari, B., Islam, M.N., 2014. Effect of power ultrasound and
pulsed vacuum treatments on the dehydration kinetics, distribution, and status of water in

20
 osmotically dehydrated strawberry: a combined NMR and DSC study. Food and
Bioprocess Technology 7(10), 2782–2792.
Corrêa, J.L.G., · Justus, A.; · De Oliveira, L.F., · Alves, G.E., 2015. Osmotic dehydration of
tomato assisted by ultrasound: Evaluation of the liquid media on mass transfer and
product quality. International Journal of Food Engineering 11(4), 505–516.
Deng, Y., Zhao, Y., 2008. Effect of pulsed vacuum and ultrasound osmo pretreatments on
glass transition temperature, texture, microstructure and calcium penetration of dried
apples (Fuji). Lebensmittel-Wissenchaft-und-Technologie 41, 1575–1585.
Dolatowski, Z.J., Stadnik, J., Stasiak, D., 2007. Applications of ultrasound in food
technology. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Technologia Alimentaria 6(3), 89–99.
Eren, I., Kaymak-Ertekin, F., 2007. Optimization of osmotic dehydration of potato using
response surface methodology. Journal of Food Engineering 79(1), 344–352.
Farhaninejad, Z., Fathi, M., Shahedi, M., Sadeghi, M., 2015. Osmotic dehydration of banana
slices using direct and indirect sonication: optimization and microstructure analysis.
Journal of Food Process Engineering doi: 10.1111/jfpe.12336.
Fernandes, F.A.N., Rodrigues, S., 2007. Use of ultrasound as pretreatment for drying of fruits:
Dehydration of banana. Journal of Food Engineering 82, 261–267.
Fernandes, F.A.N., Rodrigues, S., 2008. Dehydration of sapotas (Achras sapota L.) using
ultrasound as pretreatment. Drying Technology 26, 1232–1237.
Fernandes, F.A.N., Gallão, M.I., Rodrigues, S., 2009. Effect of osmosis and ultrasound on
pineapple cell tissue structure during dehydration. Journal of Food Engineering 90, 186–
190.
Fernandes, F.A.N., Linhares, F.E., Jr., Rodrigues, S., 2008. Ultrasound as pre-treatment for
rying of pineapples. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 15, 1049–1054.
Ferrando, M., & Spiess, W.E.L., 2001. Cellular response of plant tissue during the osmotic
treatment with sucrose, maltose, and trehalose solutions. Journal of Food Engineering 49,
115–127.
Fuente-Blanco, S., Sarabia, E.R.F., Acosta-Aparicio, V.M., Blanco-Blanco, A., Gallego-
Juarez, J.A., 2006. Food drying process by power ultrasound. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry
44, e523–e527.
Ganjloo, A., Rahman, R.A., Bakar, J., Osman, A., Bimakr, M., 2011. Kinetics modeling of
mass transfer using Peleg’s equation during osmotic dehydration of seedless guava
(Psidium guajava L.): Effect of process parameters. Food and Bioprocess Technology 5,
2151–2159.

21
Garcia-Noguera, J., Oliveira, F.I.P., Gallão, M.I., Weller, C.L., Rodrigues, S., Fernandes,
F.A.N., 2010. Ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration of strawberries: Effect of
pretreatment time and ultrasonic frequency. Drying Technology 28, 294–303.
Genina-Soto, P., Barrera Cortés, J., Gutierrez Lopez, G., Azuara Nieto, E., 2001. Temperature
and concentration effects of osmotic media on OD profiles of sweet potato cubes. Drying
Technology 19, 547–558.
Goula, A.M., Chasekioglou, A., Lazarides, H.N., 2015. Drying and shrinkage kinetics of solid
waste of olive oil processing. Drying Technology 33(14), 1728–1738.
Hatamipour, M.S., Mowla, D., 2003. Experimental and theoretical investigation of drying of
carrots in a fluidized bed with energy carrier. Drying Technology 21(1), 83–101.
Islam, M.N., Zhang, M., Adhikari, B., 2014a. The inactivation of enzymes by ultrasound-A
review of potential mechanisms. Food Reviews International 30, 1–21.
Islam, M.N., Zhang, M, Adhikari, B., Xinfeng, C., Xu, B., 2014b. The effect of ultrasound-
assisted immersion freezing on selected physicochemical properties of mushrooms.
International Journal of Refrigeration 42, 121–133.
Islam, M.N., Zhang, M., Adhikari, B., Islam, M.N., Xu, B., 2014c. Effect of ultrasound
irradiation on some freezing parameters of ultrasound-assisted immersion freezing of
strawberries. International Journal of Refrigeration 44, 49–55.
Islam, M.N., Zhang, M. Liu, H., Xinfeng, C., 2015a. Effects of ultrasound on glass transition
temperature of freeze-dried pear (Pyrus pyrifolia) using DMA thermal analysis. Food and
Bioproducts Processing 94, 229–238.
Islam, M.N., Zhang, M., Fang, Z., Sun, J., 2015b. Direct contact ultrasound assisted freezing
of mushroom (Agaricus bisporus): Growth and size distribution of ice crystals.
International Journal of Refrigeration 57, 46–53.
Karami, Z., Yousefi, G., Emam-Djomeh, Z., 2013. Modeling and optimization of ultrasound-
assisted osmotic dehydration with finished freeze drying on black cherries – The effect on
antioxidant activities. Journal of Food Biosciences and Technology 3, 11–22.
Karel, M., 1975. Dehydration of foods. In: O.R. Fennema (ed.) Principles of Food Science,
Part 2, Physical principles of food preservation. New York: Marcel Dekker, 359–395.
Karizaki, V.M., Sahin, S., Sumnu, G., Mosavian, M.T.H., Luca, A., 2013. Effect of
ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration as a pretreatment on deep fat frying of potatoes.
Food and Bioprocess Technology 6(12), 3554–3563.

22
Kek, S.P., Chin, N.L., Yusof, Y.A., 2013. Direct and indirect power ultrasound assisted pre-
osmotic treatments in convective drying of guava slices. Food and Bioproducts Processing
91(4), 495–506.
Khin, M.M., Zhou, W., Perera, C., 2006. A study of mass transfer in osmotic dehydration of
coated potato cubes. Journal of Food Engineering 77, 84–95.
Ko, B., Eren, I., Kaymak Ertekin, F., 2008. Modelling bulk density, porosity and shrinkage of
quince during drying: The effect of drying method. Journal of Food Engineering 85(3),
340–349.
Krokida, M.K., Oreopoulou, V., Maroulis, Z.B., Marinos-Kouris, D., 2001. Effect of osmotic
dehydration pretreatment on quality of french fries. Journal of Food Engineering 49(4),
339–345.
Kucner, A., Klewicki, R., Sójka, M., 2013. The influence of selected osmotic dehydration and
pretreatment parameters on dry matter and polyphenol content in high bush blueberry
(Vaccinium corymbosum L.) fruits. Food and Bioprocess Technology 6, 2031–2047.
Lazarides, H.N., Mavroudis, N., 1996. Kinetics of osmotic dehydration of a highly shrinking
vegetable tissue in a salt-free medium. Journal of Food Engineering 30, 61–74.
Li, H., Zhao, C., Guo, Y., An, K., Ding, S., Wang, Z., 2012. Mass transfer evaluation of
ultrasonic osmotic dehydration of cherry tomatoes in sucrose and salt solutions.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 47, 954–960.
Liu, Y., Chong, C., Wu, J., Miao, S., Luo, L., Li, X., 2013. Ultrasound assisted osmotic
dehydration pretreatment on carrot followed by hot-air drying. International Conference
on Advanced Mechatronic Systems (ICAMechS 2013), Luoyang, China, 25-27 September
2013.
Mauro, M.A., Menegalli, F.C., 2003. Evaluation of water and sucrose diffusion coefficients in
potato tissue during osmotic concentration. Journal of Food Engineering 57, 367–374.
Mayor, L., Moreira, R., Chenlo, F., Sereno, A.M., 2006. Kinetics of osmotic dehydration of
pumpkin with sodium chloride solutions. Journal of Food Engineering 74, 253–262.
Milczarek, R., Dai, A., Otonic, C., McHugh, T., 2011. Effect of shrinkage on isothermal
drying behavior of 2-phase olive mill waste. Journal of Food Engineering 103, 434–441.
Nahimana, H., Zhang, M., Mujumdar, A.S., Ding, Z., 2011. Mass transfer modeling and
shrinkage consideration during osmotic dehydration of fruits and vegetables. Food
Reviews International 27(4), 331–356.

23
Noshad, M., Mohebbi, M., Shahidi, F., Mortazavi, S.A., 2012. Multi-objective optimization
of osmotic–ultrasonic pretreatments and hot-air drying of quince using response surface
methodology. Food and Bioprocess Technology 5(6), 2098–2110.
Nowacka, M., Tylewicz, U., Laghi. L., Dalla Rosa M., Witrowa-Rajchert D., 2014. Effect of
ultrasound treatment on the water state in kiwifruit during osmotic dehydration. Food
Chemistry 144, 18–25.
Nowacka, M., Wiktor, A., Śledź, M., Jurek, N., Witrowa-Rajchert, D., 2012. Drying of
ultrasound pretreated apple and its selected physical properties. Journal of Food
Engineering 113(3), 427–433.
Oliveira, E.F., Godoy, R.L.O., Borges, S.V., 2011. Quality of jackfruit (Artocarpus
heterophyllus, Lam.) dehydrated under different processing conditions. Brazilian Journal
of Food Technology 14(3), 241–248.
Rahman, M.S., Sablani, S.S., Al-Ibrahim, M.A., 2001. Osmotic dehydration of potato:
equilibrium kinetics. Drying Technology 19(6), 1163–1176.
Rastogi, N.K., Angersbach, A., Knorr, D., 2000. Evaluation of mass transfer mechanisms
during osmotic treatment of plant materials. Journal of Food Science 65, 1016–1021.
Rastogi, N.K., Raghavarao, K.S.M.S., Niranjan, K., Knorr, D., 2002. Recent developments in
osmotic dehydration: Methods to enhance mass transfer. Trends in Food Science and
Technology 13, 48–59.
Rodrigues, S., Fernandes, F.A.N., 2007. Use of ultrasound as pretreatment for dehydration of
melons. Drying Technology 25, 1791–1796.
Rodrigues, S., Gomes, M.C.F., Gallão, M.I., Fernandes, F.A.N., 2009. Effect of ultrasound-
assisted osmotic dehydration on cell structure of sapotas. Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture 89(4), 665–670.
Santagapita, P., Laghi, L., Panarese, V., Tylewicz, U., Rocculi, P., Dalla Rosa, M., 2013.
Modification of transverse NMR relaxation times and water diffusion coefficients of
kiwifruit pericarp tissue subjected to osmotic dehydration. Food and Bioprocess
Technology 6(6), 1434–1443.
Saurel, R., Raoult-Wack, A., Rios, G., Guilbert, S., 1994. Mass transfer phenomena during
osmotic dehydration of apple I. Fresh plant tissue. International Journal of Food Science
and Technology 29, 531–542.
Sereno, A., Hubinger, M.D., Comesaña, J.F., Correa, A., 2001. Prediction of water activity of
osmotic solutions. Journal of Food Engineering 49(2–3), 103–114.

24
Shamaei, S., Emam-djomeh, Z., Moini, S., 2012. Ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration of
cranberries: effect of finish drying methods and ultrasonic frequency on textural
properties. Journal of Texture Studies 43, 133–141.
Simal, S., Bauza´ de Mirabo´, F., Deya´, E., Rossello, C., 1997. A simple model to predict the
mass transfers in osmotic dehydration. Lebensmittel Untersuchung und Forschung 204,
210–214.
Simal, S., Benedito, J., Sanchez, E.S., Rosello, C., 1998. Use of ultrasound to increase mass
transport rate during osmotic dehydration. Journal of Food Engineering 36, 323–336.
Stojanovic, J., Silva, J.L., 2007. Influence of osmotic concentration, continuous high
frequency ultrasound and dehydration on antioxidants, color and chemical properties of
rabbit eye blueberries. Food Chemistry 101, 898–906.
Taiwo, K.A., Eshtiaghi, M.N., Ade-Omowaye, B.I.O., Knorr, D., 2003. Osmotic dehydration
of strawberry halves: Influence of osmotic agents and pretreatment methods on mass
transfer and product characteristics. International Journal of Food Science and
Technology 38, 693–707.
Talla, A., Puiggali, J.R., Jomaa, W., Jannot, Y., 2004. Shrinkage and density evolution during
drying of tropical fruits: application to banana. Journal of Food Engineering 64, 103–109.
Telis, V.R.N., Murari, R.C.B.D.L., Yamashita, F. (2004). Diffusion coefficients during
osmotic dehydration of tomatoes in ternary solutions. Journal of Food Engineering 61,
253–259.
Togrul, I., Ispir, A., 2007. Effect on effective diffusion coefficients and investigation of
shrinkage during osmotic dehydration of apricot. Energy Conversion and Management 48,
2611–2621.
Tortoe, C., Orchard, J., Beezer, A., 2007. Osmotic dehydration kinetics of apple, banana and
potato. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 42(3), 313–318.
Vazquez, G., Chenlo, F., Moreira, R., Carballo, L., 1999. Desorption isotherms of muscatel
and aledo grapes, and the influence of pretreatments on muscatel isotherms. Journal of
Food Engineering 39, 409–414.
Wang, H.G., Senior, P.R., Mann, R., Yang, W.Q., 2009. Online measurement and control of
solids moisture in fluidized bed dryers. Chemical Engineering Science 64, 2893–2902.
Xin, Y., Zhang, M., Adhikari, B., 2013. Effect of trehalose and ultrasound-assisted osmotic
dehydration on the state of water and glass transition temperature of broccoli (Brassica
oleracea L. var. botrytis L.). Journal of Food Engineering 119(3), 640–647.

25
Xu, B., Zhang, M., Bhandari, B., Cheng, X., Islam, M.N., 2015. Effect of ultrasound-assisted
freezing on the physico-chemical properties and volatile compounds of red radish.
Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 27, 316–324.
Zhu, J., Li, L., Chen, L., Li, X., 2012. Study on supramolecular structural changes of
ultrasonic treated potato starch granules. Food Hydrocolloids 29(1), 116–122.

Figure 1. Experimental set-up.

26
 70 30

60 25

water loss, WL (%)

water loss, WL (%)
50
20
40
15
30
ST
ST 10
20 AG
AG
10 5 US
USP
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
A B
time, t (min) time, t (min)
9 9

7 7

solids gain, SG (%)

solids gain, SG (%)

5 5

3 3

1 ST 1 ST
AG AG
-1 USP -1 US

-3 -3
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
time, t (min) time, t (min)
Figure 2. Variation of water loss (WL) and solids gain (SG) with immersion time (t).
27
 A) for static osmotic dehydration (ST) and with agitation (AG): total osmotic solution concentration = 70%, NaCl concentration = 0%,
temperature = 45 oC, for osmotic dehydration with ultrasound pretreatment (USP): time = 5 min, temperature = 32.5 oC, amplitude level = 40%,
pulse duration/pulse interval ratio = 7/6.
B) for static osmotic dehydration (ST) and with agitation (AG): total osmotic solution concentration = 30%, NaCl concentration = 6%,
temperature = 32.5 oC, for ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration (US): amplitude level = 40%, pulse duration/pulse interval ratio = 7/6.

28
29
 Figure 3. Main effects of process variables on water loss (WL in %) for static osmotic dehydration (ST), osmotic dehydration with agitation
(AG), osmotic dehydration with ultrasound application (US), and osmotic dehydration with ultrasounds pretreatment (USP).
T: temperature (oC), Ct: total osmotic solution concentration (%, w/w), CNaCl: sodium chloride concentration (%, w/w), time: pretreatment time
(min), A: amplitude level (%), PUL: pulse duration/pulse interval ratio (-).

30
 3.0

moisture or solid conetn change,

2.5 ST y = 0.0158x + 1
US R² = 0.895
2.0
X/Xi or S/Si

y = 0.01x + 1
1.5 R² = 0.933

1.0 y = -0.0068x + 1
R² = 0.959
0.5
y = -0.0055x + 1
R² = 0.922
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
t1/2 (s1/2)

Figure 4. Rate of moisture and solid contents change (X/Xi, S/Si) (closed symbols for
moisture content and open symbols for solid content) (for static osmotic dehydration
(ST): temperature = 25 oC, total osmotic solution concentration = 38.1%, sodium
NaCl concentration = 2.4%, for osmotic dehydration with ultrasound application
(US): temperature = 32.5 oC, total osmotic solution concentration = 22.5%, NaCl
concentration = 6%, amplitude level = 40%, pulse duration/pulse interval ratio = 7/6).

31
 1.00
(a) USP
0.95 ST
US
0.90 AG

volume decrease, V/V0 (-)

0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0 50 100 150 200
time, t (min)
(b) 1.00 R² = 0.936
R² = 0.920
0.90
volume decrease, V/V0 (-)

R² = 0.960
0.80

0.70 ST
R² = 0.935
USP
0.60 US
AG
0.50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
moisture content decrease, X/X0 (-)

Figure 5. Shrinkage (a) and relationship of volume decrease (V/V0) with moisture
content decrease (X/X0) (b) (for static osmotic dehydration (ST): temperature = 45 oC,
total osmotic solution concentration = 70%, NaCl concentration = 0%, for osmotic
dehydration with agitation (AG): temperature = 45 oC, total osmotic solution
concentration = 30%, NaCl concentration = 12%, for osmotic dehydration with
ultrasound application (US): temperature = 45 oC, total osmotic solution concentration
= 30%, NaCl concentration = 4%, amplitude level = 60%, pulse duration/pulse
interval ratio = 5/15, for osmotic dehydration with ultrasound pretreatment (USP):

32
temperature = 45 oC, total osmotic solution concentration = 70%, NaCl concentration
= 0%, amplitude level = 60%, pulse duration/pulse interval ratio = 5/15 pretreatment
temperature: 20 oC, pretreatment time = 29 min).

33
 4.0

effective diffusivity, Deff (× 10-9 m2/s) - Vvariable

Dw: USP US AG ST
3.5
DS: USP US AG ST
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

effective diffusivity, Deff (× 10-9 m2/s) - Vcontant

Figure 6. Effective diffusivity (Deff) calculation with and without taking into account
shrinkage (closed symbols for water, DW, and open symbols for solids, Ds) (operating
conditions are the same with these in Figure 5).

34
 1.2E-08

water diffusivity, DWeff (m2/s) -

1E-08
US USP ST AG
8E-09
analytical
6E-09

4E-09

2E-09

0
0 2E-09 4E-09 6E-09 8E-09 1E-08 1.2E-08

water diffusivity, DWeff - simplified

8E-09
solids diffusivity, Dseff (m2/s) -

US USP
7E-09
6E-09 ST AG
analytical

5E-09
4E-09
3E-09
2E-09
1E-09
0
0 2E-09 4E-09 6E-09 8E-09
solids diffusivity, Dseff - simplified

Figure 7. Effective diffusivities (Deff) calculation with the simplified and the
analytical solution of the Crank’s equation (ST: static osmotic dehydration, AG:
osmotic dehydration with agitation, US: osmotic dehydration with ultrasound
application, USP: osmotic dehydration with ultrasounds pretreatment).

35
 D w e ff ( d a t a m e a n s ) - S T D w e ff ( d a t a m e a n s ) - A G

Ct CN aCl
T Ct
1.2
2.00
1.0 1.75

0.8 1.50

0.6 1.25

0.4

D w e ff
1.00
D w e ff

20.0 25.0 32.5 40 .0 45 .0 30 .0 3 8.1 5 0.0 61.9 7 0.0 30 .0 38 .1 50.0 61.9 70.0 0 .0 2 .4 6 .0 9.6 12.0

CN aCl T
1.2
2.00
1.0
1.75
0.8
1.50
0.6
1.25
0.4
1.00
0.0 2.4 6.0 9.6 12 .0
20 .0 25 .0 32.5 40.0 45.0

D w e ff ( d a t a m e a n s ) - U S
D w e ff ( d a t a m e a n s ) - U S P
T Ct CNaCl
tim e T

6
3.0
5
2.5
4
2.0
3
1.5
2
D w e ff
D w e ff

1.0
5 11 17 23 29 20 .0 2 6.3 3 2.5 38.8 4 5.0 2 0 .0 2 6 .3 3 2 .5 3 8 .8 4 5 .0 1 5 .0 0 1 8 .7 5 2 2 .5 0 2 6 .2 5 3 0 .0 0 0 3 6 9 12

A PUL A PUL

3.0 6

2.5 5

2.0 4

1.5 3

1.0 2
20 30 40 50 60 0.33 0 .75 1 .17 1 .5 8 2 .00 20 30 40 50 60 0 .3 3 0 .7 5 1 .1 7 1 .5 8 2 .0 0
36
 Figure 8. Main effects of process variables on effective diffusivity of water (Dweff, × 10-9 m2/s) for static osmotic dehydration (ST), osmotic
dehydration with agitation (AG), osmotic dehydration with ultrasound application (US), and osmotic dehydration with ultrasounds pretreatment
(USP). T: temperature (oC), Ct: total osmotic solution concentration (%, w/w), CNaCl: sodium chloride concentration (%, w/w), time: pretreatment
time (min), A: amplitude level (%), PUL: pulse duration/pulse interval ratio (-).

37
 Figure 9. SEM images (×150) of potatoes without any treatment (FR) and of potatoes
subjected for 15 min to static osmotic dehydration (ST), osmotic dehydration with agitation
(AG), osmotic dehydration with ultrasound application (US), and osmotic dehydration with
ultrasounds pretreatment (USP) under the optimum conditions presented in Table 2.

38
 Table 1. Experimental designs for osmotic dehydration of potato.

Static osmotic dehydration (ST) Osmotic dehydration with ultrasound Osmotic dehydration with ultrasound application
/ Osmotic dehydration with pretreatment (USP) (US)
agitation (AG)
A/A T Ct CNaCl A/A t T A PUL A/A T Ct CNaCl A PUL
o o o
( C) (%) (%) (min) ( C) (%) (-) ( C) (%) (%) (%) (-)
1 25.0 38.1 9.6 1 17 32.5 40 1.17 1 26.3 18.75 9 50 1.58
2 32.5 50.0 6.0 2 11 38.8 50 0.75 2 26.3 26.25 9 30 1.58
3 40.0 61.9 2.4 3 23 38.8 50 0.75 3 32.5 22.50 6 40 1.17
4 40.0 38.1 2.4 4 11 38.8 50 1.58 4 38.8 18.75 9 50 0.75
5 25.0 61.9 9.6 5 17 32.5 40 1.17 5 20.0 22.50 6 40 1.17
6 32.5 70.0 6.0 6 11 26.3 30 0.75 6 38.8 26.25 9 50 1.58
7 25.0 38.1 2.4 7 23 26.3 50 0.75 7 26.3 18.75 3 30 1.58
8 32.5 50.0 6.0 8 23 26.3 50 1.58 8 26.3 26.25 3 50 1.58
9 32.5 50.0 6.0 9 23 26.3 30 0.75 9 38.8 18.75 3 50 1.58
10 32.5 50.0 0.0 10 17 32.5 40 1.17 10 32.5 22.50 12 40 1.17
11 45.0 50.0 6.0 11 17 32.5 40 1.17 11 38.8 26.25 9 30 0.75
12 32.5 50.0 6.0 12 11 26.3 50 0.75 12 38.8 18.75 3 30 0.75
13 32.5 50.0 6.0 13 11 38.8 30 0.75 13 26.3 26.25 3 30 0.75
14 32.5 50.0 12.0 14 23 26.3 30 1.58 14 26.3 26.25 9 50 0.75
15 32.5 50.0 6.0 15 23 38.8 50 1.58 15 32.5 22.50 6 20 1.17
16 20.0 50.0 6.0 16 11 38.8 30 1.58 16 32.5 22.50 6 60 1.17
17 40.0 61.9 9.6 17 23 38.8 30 1.58 17 38.8 18.75 9 30 1.58
18 40.0 38.1 9.6 18 11 26.3 30 1.58 18 32.5 15.00 6 40 1.17
19 32.5 30.0 6.0 19 11 26.3 50 1.58 19 32.5 22.50 0 40 1.17
20 25.0 61.9 2.4 20 23 38.8 30 0.75 20 45.0 22.50 6 40 1.17
21 17 32.5 60 1.17 21 32.5 22.50 6 40 2.00
22 17 32.5 40 0.33 22 38.8 26.25 3 30 1.58

39
 23 17 20.0 40 1.17 23 32.5 22.50 6 40 1.17
24 29 32.5 40 1.17 24 32.5 22.50 6 40 1.17
25 5 32.5 40 1.17 25 32.5 22.50 6 40 1.17
26 17 32.5 40 1.17 26 26.3 18.75 3 50 0.75
27 17 32.5 40 2.00 27 32.5 30.00 6 40 1.17
28 17 45.0 40 1.17 28 32.5 22.50 6 40 0.33
29 17 32.5 20 1.17 29 38.8 26.25 3 50 0.75
30 17 32.5 40 1.17 30 26.3 18.75 9 30 0.75
31 32.5 22.50 6 40 1.17
32 32.5 22.50 6 40 1.17
T osmotic solution temperature (oC)
Ct total osmotic solution concentration (%, w/w)
CNaCl sodium chloride concentration (%, w/w)
t pretreatment time (min)
A amplitude level (%)
PUL pulse duration/pulse interval ratio (-)

40
Table 2. Optimum conditions, significant factors for water loss (WL) and solids gain (SG), and mass transfer coefficients (kw, ks) for the osmotic
dehydration treatments.

Static osmotic Osmotic dehydration Osmotic dehydration Osmotic dehydration

dehydration (ST) with agitation (AG) with ultrasound with ultrasound
application (US) pretreatment (USP)
Optimum Ct : 70% Ct : 70% Ct : 30% A : 60%
conditions CNaCl : 12% CNaCl : 0% CNaCl : 12% PUL : 0.88
o o
T : 45 C T : 45 C T : 45 oC T : 25 oC
A : 60% t : 29 min
PUL : 0.88
Significant for WL Ct for WL Ct*T for WL CNaCl for WL PUL
factors for SG T for SG t C *T for SG PUL*PUL for SG T*T
(p < 0.05) CNaCl*T CNaCl*T
kw (×10-3 s–0.5) 1.71–7.69 3.01–5.99 4.61–11.79 4.83–10.41
-3 –0.5
kS (×10 s ) 3.27–24.08 13.40–49.48 23.09–49.54 16.78–50.24
o
T osmotic solution temperature ( C)
Ct total osmotic solution concentration (%, w/w)
CNaCl sodium chloride concentration (%, w/w)
t pretreatment time (min)
A amplitude level (%)
PUL pulse duration/pulse interval ratio (-)

41
Table 3. Polynomial equations and statistical parameters describing the effect of the independent variables on effective diffusivities (DWeff /DSeff
×10-9 m2/s).
Static osmotic dehydration Osmotic dehydration with Osmotic dehydration with Osmotic dehydration with
(ST) agitation (AG) ultrasound application (US) ultrasound pretreatment (USP)
DWeff DSeff DWeff DSeff DWeff DSeff DWeff DSeff
constant 1.270 0.912 constant 2.958 3.484 constant -54.025 -13.600 constant -12.998 0.219
Ct -0.020 0.019 Ct -0.106 -0.086 Ct 2.240 0.829 A 0.423 -0.005
CNaCl -0.072 -0.048 CNaCl 0.167 0.069 CNaCl 1.357 0.640 PUL 1.797 0.508
T 0.002 -0.067 T 0.048 -0.048 T 1.545 0.228 T 0.321 0.009
Ct*Ct 0.001 0.000 Ct*Ct 0.001 0.001 A 0.351 0.066 t 0.218 -0.049
CNaCl*CNaCl 0.006 0.001 CNaCl*CNaCl 0.007 0.002 PUL -13.405 -4.119 A*A -0.002 0.000
T*T 0.001 0.001 T*T -0.001 0.001 Ct*Ct -0.030 -0.013 PUL*PUL -0.854 0.001
Ct*CNaCl -0.002 -0.001 Ct*CNaCl 0.004 -0.000 CNaCl*CNaCl 0.011 -0.007 T*T -0.005 0.000
Ct*T -0.002 -0.001 Ct*T 0.001 0.001 T*T -0.014 -0.003 t*t -0.001 -0.003
T*CNaCl 0.003 0.002 T*CNaCl -0.012 -0.003 A*A -0.002 0.000 A*PUL -0.045 -0.002
PUL*PUL 3.082 1.047 A*T -0.004 -0.002
Ct*CNaCl -0.011 -0.005 A*t -0.003 0.001
Ct*T -0.027 -0.002 PUL*T 0.103 -0.010
Ct*A 0.010 -0.003 PUL*t -0.061 -0.004
Ct*PUL -0.238 -0.059 T*t -0.001 0.001

42
 CNaCl*T -0.019 -0.007
CNaCl*A -0.010 -0.002
CNaCl*PUL 0.006 -0.049
T*A -0.009 -0.001
T*PUL 0.427 0.065
A*PUL -0.006 0.034
Lack of fit 0.059 0.086 Lack of fit 0.531 0.548 Lack of fit 0.668 0.436 Lack of fit 0.538 0.896
R2 0.829 0.811 R2 0.896 0.829 R2 0.876 0.906 R2 0.796 0.833
adj-R2 0.806 0.800 adj-R2 0.853 0.808 adj-R2 0.852 0.885 adj-R2 0.775 0.802

S 0.10 0.13 S 0.08 0.09 S 1.03 0.30 S 0.99 0.09

T osmotic solution temperature (oC)
Ct total osmotic solution concentration (%, w/w)
CNaCl sodium chloride concentration (%, w/w)
t pretreatment time (min)
A amplitude level (%)
PUL pulse duration/pulse interval ratio (-)

43