Drying Technology

An International Journal

ISSN: 0737-3937 (Print) 1532-2300 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldrt20

The impact of the osmotic dehydration process

and its parameters on the mass transfer and
quality of dried apples

Klaudia Masztalerz, Krzysztof Lech, Aneta Wojdyło, Paulina Nowicka, Anna

Michalska-Ciechanowska & Adam Figiel

To cite this article: Klaudia Masztalerz, Krzysztof Lech, Aneta Wojdyło, Paulina Nowicka, Anna
Michalska-Ciechanowska & Adam Figiel (2020): The impact of the osmotic dehydration process
and its parameters on the mass transfer and quality of dried apples, Drying Technology, DOI:
10.1080/07373937.2020.1741607

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2020.1741607

Published online: 19 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ldrt20
DRYING TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2020.1741607

The impact of the osmotic dehydration process and its parameters

on the mass transfer and quality of dried apples
Klaudia Masztalerza, Krzysztof Lecha, Aneta Wojdyłob, Paulina Nowickab, Anna Michalska-Ciechanowskab,
and Adam Figiela
a
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland; bDepartment of Fruit,
Vegetable and Nutraceutical Plant Technology, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of different assisting conditions (i.e., ultra- Received 19 December 2019
sounds, vacuum, microwaves) during osmotic dehydration (OD) on the mass transfer kinetics Revised 6 March 2020
and quality of dehydrated apple slices. The results of the study showed that the applied Accepted 6 March 2020
process conditions had a significant influence on the mass transfer with highest water loss
KEYWORDS
obtained for ultrasound-assisted OD and highest solid gain for standard OD. Also, consider- Ultrasounds; microwaves;
ably higher total phenolic compounds content and antioxidant capacity measured by ABTS vacuum; concentrated
and FRAP methods were observed for all applied variants after osmotic dehydration process. chokeberry juice
It was concluded that joint use of ultrasounds and vacuum (OD-U-V) had the highest impact
on quality improvement of dehydrated apple slices.

Introduction grape[15] juices and resulted in several times higher total

Osmotic dehydration (OD) is a process in which the
material is immersed in hypertonic solution. During
this process, the water from the material flows into the
solution and the substances from the solution are trans-
ported into the material. The main mechanism that
drives the osmotic dehydration is a difference between
osmotic pressure of plant cell (namely turgor pressure)
and surroundings that enforces mass transfer between
the material and osmotic solution.[1] OD lowers water
content in the sample and thus considerably reduces
total drying time.[2] Due to the relatively high moisture
content after the process this method is considered as a
pretreatment and is usually followed by other drying
techniques such as microwave-vacuum drying, convect-
ive drying and others.[3,4] Extensive studies have been
carried out in osmotic solutions based on salt,[5]
sucrose,[6–8] and mixed salt and sucrose solutions,[9–11]
which are considered to have a negative impact on
human health when consumed in large quantities. On
the other hand, osmotic dehydration performed in con-
centrated juices not only dehydrates the material but
can also improve material quality in terms of polyphe-
nols content and antioxidant activity. For example, OD
has been conducted in chokeberry,[12,13] apple,[14] and
polyphenolics content when compared to the fresh sam-
ple. Therefore, more and more research concern
osmotic dehydration in concentrated juices i.e., OD of
yellow melons in concentrated red grape juice[16] and
OD of apples in pomegranate juice.[17] There was also
research on the OD of apples in osmotic solutions
made from sucrose and chokeberry or bilberry jui-
ces.[18] Also, Bchir et al.[19] studied the OD of pom-
egranate seeds in osmotic solutions based on date juice
and sucrose solution.
A number of properties and process parameters
determine the final quality of dehydrated raw mater-
ial. A lot of interest has been given to osmotic dehy-
dration with the assistance of ultrasounds, microwaves
and reduced pressure conditions.
Ultrasounds have been used in osmotic dehydration
of pumpkin,[20] apples,[21] strawberry,[22,23] cranber-
ries,[9,24] mirabelle plum,[25,26] mangoes,[27] and garlic
slices.[28] Ultrasounds are short length acoustic waves
at frequencies from 18 kHz to 100 MHz that are
impossible to hear by human ears. Sonication can
alter osmotic dehydration by improving the water loss
and solid gain rates during the process.[29]
Ultrasounds are believed to positively affect the effi-
ciency of osmotic dehydration.[11] This phenomenon

CONTACT Krzysztof Lech krzysztof.lech@upwr.edu.pl Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences,

skiego Str. 37a, Wroclaw 51-630, Poland.
Chełmon
ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 K. MASZTALERZ ET AL.
occurs due to the properties of ultrasounds that cause
the sponge effect when applied on plants. As a result,
rapid compressions and expansions of the plant cells
occur that induce bubbles formation in the material.
When these bubbles collapse the temperature and
pressure changes lead to the alterations of viscosity,
surface tension as well as formation of the micro-
scopic channels inside the sample.[30]
The comparison of ultrasound osmotic dehydration
and osmotic dehydration have been carried out by Pei
Fei et al.[31] It has been stated that ultrasound assisted
OD (UOD) of mushrooms results in 62.5% shorter
time of drying comparing to OD process. UOD also
ensured higher quality of dehydrated products in
terms of texture, flavor, and amount of nutrients.
Osmotic dehydration rate can be enhanced by
using reduced pressure during the process. Vacuum,
when applied on plant material, causes gas expansion
inside the sample, the resulting pressure difference
between the surroundings and the material stimulates
the air removal from the sample increasing the surface
area.[32,33] Consequently, the osmotic solution can
enter the tunnels and microstructures of the material
and improve the mass exchange rate. Research on
osmotic dehydration under reduced pressure have
been included in the studies of apples,[34] lettuce,[35]
plums,[36] melons[37] as well as beetroots, carrots, and
eggplant.[38] OD carried out in brine solution proved
that the use of vacuum can protect oxidative and
enzymatic strain eliminating the need of SO2 applica-
tion.[39] Moreover, the study on garlic cloves under
pulsed vacuum proved that reduced pressure signifi-
cantly decreases time of the osmotic dehydration
when compared with atmospheric conditions.[40]
Microwaves can be successfully applied in food
industry, especially in drying of plant materials. Due to
the volumetric heating that occurs when microwaves are
applied the sample is being heated in the whole volume
and as a result the process is less time consuming.
Consequently, the samples treated by microwaves exhibit
better aroma and quality when compared to hot air dry-
ing.[41] Microwaves can successfully assist osmotic dehy-
dration by reducing the time of the process and altering
the course of OD. Microwave-assisted OD have been
used in numerous studies e.g., on apples[42–44] and cran-
berries[41] where was presented different approach to
OD i.e., the research was conducted under continuous-
flow spray mode processing conditions. Besides,
Azarpazhooh and Ramaswamy[42] found that application
of microwaves during osmotic dehydration intensifies
diffusion rate when compared to standard osmotic dehy-
dration. Osmotic dehydration is often followed by
microwave drying. For example, Heredia[45] described
OD of cherry tomatoes in salt, sugar and calcium lactate
proceeded by microwave drying. Additionally, there are
numerous studies on OD followed by combination of
microwave-vacuum finishing drying (MVD). Namely,
Nowicka et al.[46] studied OD of cherry fruits in several
fruit concentrates followed by microwave-vacuum finish-
ing drying whereas Lech et al.[47] conducted research on
pumpkin osmotically dehydrated in different concen-
trated juices and dried with MVD. On the other hand,
work by Dehghannya et al.[48] presented dehydration of
apples using OD in sucrose solution, microwave drying
and hot air finishing drying.
As there are no previous reports on the effect of
ultrasounds, microwaves and vacuum on osmotic
dehydration in concentrated chokeberry juices the aim
of the study was to determine the impact of vacuum,
sonication and microwaves on the mass transfer kinet-
ics and the quality of apples osmotically dehydrated in
concentrated chokeberry juice.
Materials and methods
Materials
Commercial concentrated chokeberry juice was used
as an osmotic solution in the study (Rauch Polska,
Pło

nsk, Poland). Apples cv. Champion were purchased
at a local market (Wroclaw, Poland). Fruits were
washed and cut into the cylinders of 18 ± 0.1 mm in
diameter and 3.35 ± 0.2 mm thickness. The initial
moisture content of apple samples was 86.3 ± 0.23%,
porosity amounted to 26.7 ± 3.47% and water activity
was 0.986 ± 0.002.
Osmotic dehydration
The fruits were immersed in the osmotic solution
made of commercial concentrated chokeberry juice
(40 ± 0.5
Bx, water activity 0.9449 ± 0.002 and viscosity
3.98 ± 0.05 mPas in 40 ± 1
C). The beakers with apple
samples (30 g) and osmotic solution (90 g) were placed
into water baths with the option of ultrasonic treatment
(PS-40A, CE FCC RoHS, China), tank size L300  W
240  H 150 mm. Osmotic dehydration was carried out
under six different conditions: standard osmotic dehy-
dration (OD), ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration
(OD-U), osmotic dehydration under vacuum (OD-V),
microwave-assisted osmotic dehydration (OD-M), ultra-
sound-assisted osmotic dehydration under vacuum
(OD-U-V), microwave-assisted osmotic dehydration
under vacuum (OD-M-V) (Table 1) at the temperature
of 40 ± 2
C. The temperature of solution was measured

Table 1. Osmotic dehydration conditions of apples in concentrated chokeberry juice.
Procedure
Standard osmotic dehydration OD
Ultrasounds-assisted osmotic dehydration OD-U
Osmotic dehydration under vacuum OD-V
Microwave-assisted osmotic dehydration OD-M
Ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration under vacuum OD-U-V
Microwave-assisted osmotic dehydration under vacuum OD-M-V
using Digital Thermometer (PeakTech 5115, PeakTech
Pruf und Masstechnik GmbH, Ahrensburg, Germany).
Microwave and vacuum-microwave treatments were per-
formed using SM200 dryer (Plazmatronica, Wrocław,
Poland). Vacuum osmotic dehydration was carried out
in a vacuum chamber (vacuum-dryer SPT-200; ZEAMiL
Horyzont, Krakow, Poland) where the beakers with
osmotic solution and immersed sample were subjected
to the reduced pressure conditions. The process lasted
for 2 hours with measurements after 15, 30, 60, 90, and
120 minutes. Before each measurement the apple sam-
ples were drained with tissue paper in order to remove
external moisture and required the calculation of the
weight reduction (WR), solid gain (SG), and water loss
(WL) by equations[14]:
Wi  w f
WR ¼ (1)
Wi
Sf  Si
SG ¼ (2)
wi
WL ¼ WR þ SG (3)
where wi and wf were initial and final sample mass (g)
while si and sf were initial and final solid content in
the sample (g). The mass of samples was measured
using a laboratory balance (PS300.R2, Radwag,
Poland). The moisture content of samples was deter-
mined after 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes.
Mathematical models
Following mathematical models were used to fit
experimental data: Penetration model, Peleg’s model,
modified Page’s model and modified Penetration
model. The models were adjusted to the experimental
points using Table Curve 2D Windows v2.03 (Jandel
Scientific Software, San Rafael, CA, USA). The best fit
was determined on the basis of the values of R2 and
RMSE parameters which indicate better model when
R2 is closer to 1 and RMSE is closer to 0.
Penetration model
Penetration model was previously considered in OD
of carrot cubes in salt solution[49] and is derived from
unsteady state Fickian diffusion:
DRYING TECHNOLOGY 3
Conditions
101.3 kPa
101.3 kPa, ultrasounds 0.1 W/g (15 min on/15 min off) 40 kHz
50–60 kPa
101.3 kPa, microwaves 0.1 W/g (15 min on/15 min off)
50–60 kPa, ultrasounds 0.1 W/g (15 min on/15 min off) 40 kHz
50–60 kPa microwaves 0.1 W/g (15 min on/15 min off)
WL or SG ¼ k  t 0, 5 (4)
Modified penetration model
As Penetration model was previously found to poorly
describe processes occurring during osmotic dehydra-
tion the modification has been proposed:
WL or SG ¼ k  t B (5)
Where k is a diffusion coefficient and B is the parameter
that describes the shape of the model. This way, the
model can exhibit better fit comparing to the classic
Penetration model where the elevated model curve does
not always correspond with empirical data obtained
when carrying out the OD in concentrated juices.
Modified Page’s model
The Page’s model uses exponential equation to
describe empiric data:
WL or SG ¼ expðk  t n Þ (6)
Where k and n are Page’s constants. The modification
of classic Page’s equation was performed to obtain
data corresponding with WL or SG instead of WL/
WL1 or SG/SG1 ratio.
Peleg’s model
Peleg’s model can be used to describe WL and SG dur-
ing OD by characterizing the kinetics of moisture sorp-
tion reaching equilibrium asymptotically (Equation 7).
t
WL or SG ¼ (7)
k1 þ k2  t
Parameters k1 and k2 are the Peleg’s constants for
WL and SG. The parameter k1 is the initial rate of
WL or SG while k2 is dependent on equilibrium mois-
ture constant and equilibrium solid gain which means
that with lower values of k2 comes higher equilibrium
moisture content and mass transfer rate.
Moisture content (Mc)
To determine the moisture content, the samples were
placed into the vacuum-dryer (SPT-200; ZEAMiL
ow, Poland) and treated at the 70
C
Horyzont, Krak

4 K. MASZTALERZ ET AL.
Figure 1. Water loss during the osmotic dehydration of apples under different conditions.
and under pressure of 100 Pa for 24 h. The measure-
ments were performed in triplicate.
Water activity (aw)
Water activity meter AquaLab Dew Point 4TE
(Decagon Devices Inc., United States) was used to
determine the water activity of the samples. The meas-
urements were performed at 25 ± 0.5
C in triplicate.
Viscosity
Vibro Viscometer SV-10 (A&D Company, Limited,
Tokyo, Japan) was used in order to determine viscos-
ity of the solution. The viscosity of the osmotic solu-
tion was measured before and after OD at 45
C. The
measurements were performed in triplicate.
Porosity
The initial porosity (e0) of the material was established
according to equation described in previous work by
Lech et al.[50] The measurements were performed
in triplicate.
Concentration of chokeberry juice
An Atago Digital Brix Refractometer, PAL-3 (Atago
Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) was used to determine the
concentration of osmotic solution applied in the
study. The measurements were performed in triplicate
and presented as Brix.
Determination of total polyphenolic content and
antioxidant activity
Total polyphenolic content (TPC) was determined
using Folin-Ciocalteu method with gallic acid used as a
standard according to the procedure described by Gao
et al.[51] Antioxidant activity was determined using
Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity tests (TEAC
ABTS) described by Re et al.[52] and FRAP assay
according to Benzie and Strain.[53] All measurements
were performed in triplicate using UV-2401 PC spec-
trophotometer (Shimazu, Kyoto, Japan). The results
were expressed as millimoles of Trolox per 100 g db.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was carried out using STATISTICA
Software (v.12.0, StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, CA, USA).
ANOVA one-way analysis of variance and Tuckey’s test
were performed to analyze the data. Table Curve 2D
v5.01 (Systat Software, San Jose, California, USA)
enabled prediction of WL and SG by fitting the math-
ematical model to experimental points with the highest
possible values of the determination coefficient R2 and
the lowest values of root mean square error (RMSE).
Results and discussion
Figure 1 shows water loss (WL) during the osmotic
dehydration of apples in concentrated chokeberry
juice under different conditions. At the beginning of
the process, the water loss is very intensive and then
slows down asymptotically over time for all of var-
iants. The same behavior was obtained for OD of zuc-
chini and carrots in concentrated chokeberry juice.[54]
During the first 15 minutes there is no apparent influ-
ence of applied conditions on WL. Then, small differ-
ences between variants can be seen, with one of the
highest values of WL obtained for OD-U-V. It is con-
sistent with data obtained from ANOVA analysis
which showed that even though the time of the pro-
cess has the biggest influence on the WL, the process
conditions presented substantially lower, yet still sig-
nificant impact on WL with significance level
p < 0.0001 (Table 2). After 90 minutes, the advantage
of OD-U-V diminishes in favor of OD-U. Obtained
results suggest that the use of ultrasounds is dominant
 DRYING TECHNOLOGY 5

Table 2. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of SG, WL, From the beginning of the process the solid gain
TPC, ABTS, FRAP, and WL/SG parameters. for OD-U was moderate and then further decrease of
Intercept Time Conditions Time  Conditions the process rate was observed. This is inconsistent
SG F 68658.05 3489.15 200.92 42.19
p 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
with previous studies on cranberries where samples
WL F 66831.44 3632.66 31.84 13.55 treated by OD-U demonstrated higher SG than those
p 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 treated by standard OD.[55] Also, Pakchoi stems pre-
TPC F 169147.51 3412.7 25.3 36.4
p 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 treated using OD-U exhibited higher SG comparing to
ABTS F 72905.21 1546.28 26.93 15.79 the samples osmotically dehydrated without sonic-
p 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
FRAP F 124879.31 3934.11 42.1 27.61 ation.[56] The use of ultrasounds can modify or even
p 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 destroy cell structure leading to improved solid
WL/SG F 15237769 34654.01 50950 18529
p 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 intake.[57,58] The discrepancy in the obtained results may
SG – solid gain; WL – water loss; TPC – total phenolic content; ABTS, be caused by different material properties that are more
FRAP – antioxidant activity prone to the influence of ultrasounds than apples. Also,
it can be a result of relatively high WL when OD-U was
in facilitating the water loss from apple samples. applied that could hinder the countercurrent flow of
While at the beginning the effect of ultrasounds is solid particles from osmotic solution.
enhanced by the use of reduced pressure conditions In case of OD-M during the first 30 minutes the
(consistent with previous studies by Yuan et al.[35]), at solid gain was very high and intensive but after
the end of the process the sole use of ultrasounds prove 60 minutes stopped and stayed almost the same until
to be equally effective reaching WL of 0.43 ± 0.03 g  g1 the end of the process. It can be explained by the
fresh material for OD-U (comparing to OD-U-V; favorable effect of microwaves at the beginning when
WL ¼ 0.41 ± 0.03 g  g1 fresh material). the temperature of the sample increases not only due
After 120 min the lowest water loss was observed for to the classical heat transfer but also due to the volu-
standard OD (WL ¼ 0.34 ± 0.02 g  g1 fresh material), metric heating. The positive effect of temperature dur-
while the highest WL was reported for OD-U ing the OD was described i.e., by Nsonzi and
(WL ¼ 0.43 ± 0.03 g  g1 fresh material). The study on Ramaswamy[59] in the studies on the OD of blueber-
different pretreatments and OD of cranberries in sucrose ries in sucrose solution. After 60 minutes the favorable
solution carried out by Zielinska and Markowski[55] also influence of microwaves diminishes as all other sam-
showed that the cranberries treated by OD-U demon- ples should by that time reach equilibrium tempera-
strated higher WL comparing to standard OD. ture of 40
C. Other studies on OD of apple cylinders
The comparison between standard OD and other in sucrose solution demonstrated that the use of
variants showed that the use of assisting conditions microwaves during osmotic dehydration increases water
such as microwaves, ultrasounds and reduced pressure loss at the same time reducing the flow of substances
resulted in higher water loss than standard OD. The from the osmotic solution into the material.[42–44] In
WL of OD-U was almost 26% higher than WL of this study, even though the WL when OD-M was
standard OD. applied was not significantly higher than with the other
In case of solids gain (SG) the impact of applied variants, the SG was still lower and only higher than
process parameters can be seen from the beginning of standard OD at the end of the process.
the process (Figure 2). During the first 15 minutes the The use of reduced pressure (OD-V) showed
SG of ultrasounds assisted OD (OD-U) and micro- medium impact on solid gain with an intensive grow
wave assisted OD under vacuum (OD-M-V) was sig- during the first 15 minutes, followed by steady rise in
nificantly lower comparing to other variants. Over solid intake until the end of the process where it
time the magnitude of mass exchange decline for all reached SG ¼ 0.088 ± 0.006 g  g1 fresh material. It is
variants, then after 60 minutes increases again differ- consistent with the study on OD of lettuce in sucrose
entiating the results. At the end of the process, the solution under reduced pressure.[35] It was concluded
highest solid gain was observed for standard OD that OD-V has the strongest impact at the beginning
(0.108 ± 0.008 g  g1 fresh material) and lowest solid of the process and is followed by the stable SG until
gain was obtained for OD-U (0.061 ± 0.004 g  g1 the end of the process. The relatively high values of
fresh material). The ANOVA analysis showed that the SG at the end of the process might be due to the ele-
biggest influence on the SG had time, but process vated sample degasifying which resulted in higher
conditions also exhibited considerable impact on SG available surface area and consequently higher
with significance level p < 0.05 (Table 2). solid intake.
6 K. MASZTALERZ ET AL.
Figure 2. Solid gain during the osmotic dehydration of apples under different conditions.
The sudden halt of the solid gain at 60 minutes for
almost all variants can be explained by selective pene-
tration of different size particles which is typical for
concentrated juices as they are not homogenous in
their composition. From the beginning of the process
mostly small particles (with small molecular weight)
take part in mass exchange as the diameter of plasmo-
desmata varies between 20 and 70 nm.[60] It goes up
to the point where plasmolysis occurs limiting the
semi-permeable properties of plant cells. Hence, the
higher flow of different size substances take place that
results in higher values of solid gain.
Several models were used to describe the water loss
and solid gain during OD (Table 3). The best fit for
modeling SG was modified Penetration model deter-
mined according to the highest value of R2 (R2 for all
variants was higher than R2 ¼ 0.951). Penetration
model turned out to be too simple to describe com-
plex processes occurring during OD under different
conditions. Singh et al.[49] considered Penetration
model in OD of carrots and concluded that this
model was not a good fit. Penetration model also
turned out to be too simple in the study on elephant
foot yam where the curve was too steep to describe
decreasing experimental points.[61] Moreover, the use
of concentrated juices as an osmotic solution can alter
the process and result in poor fit of basic models
which is confirmed by relatively low values of R2 and
RMSE (Table 3). Therefore, the applied modification
aimed at adapting Penetration model to better fit
experimental points during OD of plant materials in
concentrated juices and proved to be suitable to
describe SG kinetics in this study. The best model to
describe WL was Peleg’s model with R2 above 0.996
and RMSE lower than 0.0301 for all applied variants.
Peleg’s model was previously successfully used to
describe the experimental data during OD of cherry
tomatoes[11] and during research on OD of cranber-
ries.[55] At the end, Modified Penetration model was
chosen to fit experimental data of SG and Peleg’s
model to fit WL experimental points in this study.
Figure 3 shows the WL/SG ratio (for mean values
of WL and SG) during the OD of apples in concen-
trated chokeberry juice under different conditions.
The WL values were 4 to 6.5 times higher than those
obtained for the SG depending on the applied condi-
tions. The results obtained for the samples treated by
OD-V and OD-U-V were not significantly different
(p < 0.05). In this study the highest WL/SG ratio was
obtained for OD-U which means that the WL when
the process was carried out with the use of ultra-
sounds was 6.5 times higher than SG. While standard
OD resulted in only 4 times higher values of WL in
comparison to SG (obtaining significantly different
results than standard OD; p < 0.05). This might be
connected with the properties of ultrasounds that
when applied during OD can alter the viscosity and
surface tension of the sample easing the WL.[30] On
the other hand, as the mass transfer occurs in the
same channels for WL and SG, higher values of WL
can hinder the countercurrent flow of substances from
the osmotic solution to the material and consequently,
decrease the influx of particles into plant cells. The
ANOVA analysis showed that process conditions had
the biggest influence on WL/SG ratio (p < 0.001), fol-
lowed by high values obtained for time as well as
combined effect of time and conditions (Table 2).
Based on the obtained results (high SG), it could
be assumed that the standard OD method would be
the best when carrying out the process with the use of
osmotic solutions consisting of concentrated juices. It
is due to the favorable nutritional effect of juice on
the dehydrated material which was proved in several
studies on OD of pomegranates, beetroots, sour
cherry, and kiwifruits in various concentrated jui-
ces.[12–15] On the other hand, OD-U results presented
in this study demonstrated high water loss and low
solid gain which is inconsistent with previously pub-
lished papers.[21,62,63] This discrepancy suggests that
 DRYING TECHNOLOGY 7

Table 3. Mathematical models applied to fit experimental data obtained during osmotic dehydration of apples in concentrated
chokeberry juice.
SG WL
Constants Statistics Constants Statistics
Variant
Model Name k R 2
RMSE k R2
RMSE
Penetration model OD 0.00931 0.9398 0.00879 0.0365 0.9084 0.0401
OD-U 0.00622 0.9278 0.00604 0.04166 0.9838 0.02026
OD-V 0.00806 0.9557 0.00638 0.04012 0.8743 0.0525
OD-M 0.00769 0.7747 0.01268 0.03801 0.9523 0.03151
OD-U-V 0.00765 0.6724 0.01503 0.0412 0.9168 0.44955
OD-M-V 0.00699 0.9803 0.003765 0.0412 0.9176 0.04347
Modified Penetration model k B R2 RMSE k B R2 RMSE
OD 0.0141 0.4047 0.9512 0.00885 0.08965 0.2918 0.9878 0.01637
OD-U 0.0147 0.3008 0.998 0.00112 0.06172 0.4092 0.9955 0.01196
OD-V 0.0136 0.3795 0.9759 0.00526 0.09945 0.2894 0.9537 0.03563
OD-M 0.0299 0.1933 0.9875 0.00334 0.06476 0.3767 0.9751 0.02547
OD-U-V 0.0383 0.1233 0.9796 0.00419 0.0911 0.3205 0.9727 0.02882
OD-M-V 0.0105 0.4071 0.993 0.00251 0.0928 0.3118 0.979 0.02455
Modified Page’s model k n R2 RMSE k n R2 RMSE
OD 4.6885 0.01446 0.9414 0.0097 3.1097 0.2324 0.9928 0.0126
OD-U 4.4641 0.09853 0.9985 0.00096 4.3381 0.3399 0.9908 0.0171
OD-V 4.6744 0.13094 0.9696 0.00591 3.091 0.2511 0.9603 0.033
OD-M 3.6023 0.06547 0.9879 0.00329 3.931 0.2961 0.974 0.026
OD-U-V 3.2944 0.0435 0.979 0.00425 3.447 0.2877 0.9817 0.0236
OD-M-V 5.0697 0.1381 0.9958 0.00195 3.2736 0.2706 0.9823 0.0225
Peleg’s model k1 k2 R2 RMSE k1 k2 R2 RMSE
OD 266.403 8.495 0.9074 0.00122 45.604 2.467 0.997 0.0079
OD-U 273.501 14.432 0.9949 0.0018 62.4934 1.8431 0.9853 0.02157
OD-V 283.367 10.138 0.9415 0.00821 41.5544 2.24399 0.96699 0.03009
OD-M 118.713 13.312 0.9893 0.00308 61.7244 2.1138 0.9697 0.02806
OD-U-V 64.602 14.434 0.9668 0.00535 44.453 2.073 0.9891 0.01823
OD-M-V 364.811 11.053 0.998 0.00125 44.2148 2.1325 0.9823 0.02254
OD – standard osmotic dehydration; OD-U – ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration; OD-V – osmotic dehydration under vacuum; OD-M – microwave-
assisted osmotic dehydration; OD-U-V – ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration under vacuum; OD-M-V – microwave-assisted osmotic dehydration
under vacuum.

Figure 3. The mean ratio of water loss to solids gain (WL/SG) during the osmotic dehydration of apples under different conditions.
Mean values followed by the same letter were not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the HSD Tukey’s least significance
difference test.

the course of the process is highly dependent on the
specific properties of the material and osmotic solu-
tion used in the study. Therefore, this method (OD-
U) should be carefully considered in accordance with
the applied materials.
Table 4 show antioxidant activity (ABTS and FRAP)
and total polyphenolic content (TPC) of apples osmot-
ically dehydrated under different conditions (OD, OD-
U, OD-M, OD-V, OD-U-V, OD-M-V). Total phenolic
content of osmotically dehydrated samples is presented
in Table 4. At the beginning of the process there is an
increase in the concentration of TPC, then the increase
of TPC diminishes, at the end of the process reaching
the highest value for OD-U-V accounting for
217.2 ± 12.48 mmol Trolox/100 g dm. On the other
hand, ABTS and FRAP antioxidant activity increase
almost three times during the first 15 minutes regard-
less of applied variants. After 15 minutes the values of
8 K. MASZTALERZ ET AL.

Table 4. Effect of OD conditions on antioxidant activity (ABTS, FRAP) and total phenolic content (TPC).
Time Method TPC, mg GA100 g1 dm ABTS, mmol Trx100 g1 dm FRAP, mmol Trx100 g1 dm
0 OD 53.82 ± 1.19a a
4.69 ± 0.61 1.96 ± 0.12a
15 142.23 ± 2.85c,d 12.89 ± 1.2b–f 8.25 ± 0.25c,d
30 146.9 ± 2.23c–f 12.25 ± 1.09b–d 8.85 ± 0.3c–f
60 174.42 ± 7.6g–j 15.24 ± 1.57c–j 11.16 ± 1.03g–j
90 190.36 ± 8.96i–l 17.3 ± 1.14h–l 12.51 ± 0.13j–n
120 175.16 ± 8.14g–k 15.03 ± 1.16c–i 11.44 ± 0.2g–k
0 OD-U 53.82 ± 1.19a 4.69 ± 0.61a 1.96 ± 0.12a
15 102.11 ± 2.98b 11.96 ± 0.85b,c 5.78 ± 0.22b
30 143.1 ± 2.72c–e 12.01 ± 0.19b,c 8.41 ± 0.16c,d
60 180.98 ± 21.62i–l 15.15 ± 1.83c–j 10.5 ± 1f–h
90 196.22 ± 10.2j–m 17.24 ± 0.99h–l 11.53 ± 0.14g–l
120 216.99 ± 10.19m 19.54 ± 0.99l,m 13.74 ± 0.21m,n
0 OD-V 53.82 ± 1.19a 4.69 ± 0.61a 1.96 ± 0.12a
15 147.98 ± 1.8c–f 13.43 ± 0.57b–g 8.42 ± 0.17c,d
30 155.94 ± 7.54d–h 14.24 ± 0.66b–h 8.84 ± 0.39c–f
60 177.72 ± 6.14h–k 15.96 ± 0.67f–k 10.92 ± 1.1g–j
90 178.97 ± 4.36h–k 15.93 ± 0.42e–k 11.71 ± 0.42h–l
120 196.41 ± 7.12j–m 18.52 ± 0.91j–m 13.24 ± 0.16l–n
0 OD-M 53.82 ± 1.19a 4.69 ± 0.61a 1.96 ± 0.12a
15 144.78 ± 3.95c–e 11.89 ± 0.96b,c 7.84 ± 0.09c
30 150.59 ± 8.19c–g 12.52 ± 0.18b–e 8.58 ± 0.4c–e
60 166.25 ± 3.68d,e–i 14.35 ± 0.5b–h 10.17 ± 0.68e–h
90 169.77 ± 2.9f–i 15.64 ± 1.05d–k 10.76 ± 0.48g–i
120 204.52 ± 6.36l,m 18.85 ± 0.65k–m 12.42 ± 0.19i–m
0 OD-U-V 53.82 ± 1.19a 4.69 ± 0.61a 1.96 ± 0.12a
15 170.51 ± 14.23f–i 14.3 ± 1.22b–h 9.87 ± 0.29d–g
30 167.42 ± 4.4e–i 16.05 ± 1.78f–k 10.4 ± 0.5f–h
60 177.34 ± 3.91h–k 16.49 ± 1.28g–l 11.05 ± 0.26g–j
90 171.71 ± 7.29f–j 15.57 ± 0.57d–k 10.9 ± 0.22g–j
120 217.2 ± 12.48m 20.77 ± 0.78m 14.23 ± 0.45n
0 OD-M-V 53.82 ± 1.19a 4.69 ± 0.61a 1.96 ± 0.12a
15 126.54 ± 8.51b,c 11.22 ± 0.56b 7.17 ± 0.21b,c
30 154.63 ± 1.77d–h 14.03 ± 0.93b–h 8.76 ± 0.31c–f
60 175.47 ± 18.19g–k 15.89 ± 3.1e–k 10.61 ± 2.01g,h
90 195.57 ± 3.11j–m 18.82 ± 0.43k–m 12.96 ± 0.16k–n
120 199.49 ± 2.78k–m 17.93 ± 0.36i–m 12.99 ± 0.58k–n
OD – standard osmotic dehydration; OD-U – ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration; OD-V – osmotic dehydration under vacuum; OD-M – microwave-
assisted osmotic dehydration; OD-U-V – ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration under vacuum; OD-M-V – microwave-assisted osmotic dehydration
under vacuum
Mean values followed by the same letter within the same column were not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the HSD Tukey’s least signifi-
cance difference test.

ABTS increase is less intensive but steadily grows, at the
end of the process (120 min) reaching 20.77 ± 0.78 mmol
Trolox/100g dm in case of OD-U-V (four times more
than the fresh apples) and 15.03 ± 1.16 mmol Trolox/
100 g dm in case of standard OD (three times more
than the fresh apples). The increase of antioxidant activ-
ity when measured by FRAP method is also very inten-
sive at the beginning of the process, with the highest
increase in case of OD-U-V and the slowest for OD-U.
The ABTS and FRAP progress is similar to the results
obtained for TPC. It is consistent with previous work
by Piluzza and Bullitta[64] that showed there is a high
correlation between antioxidant activity and total poly-
phenolics content. The ANOVA analysis indicated that
ABTS, TPC and FRAP values depended mostly on
time of the process (p < 0.0001 for TPC and ABTS,
p < 0.001 in case of FRAP). While ABTS and FRAP
values were also determined by process conditions, cor-
relation of time and conditions had the superior sec-
ondary effect on TPC values, followed by process
conditions (Table 2).
In case of this study, correlation between TPC and
ABTS or FRAP and the correlation coefficient
between FRAP and ABTS was above 0.949 for every
variant. While in most of the cases R was above 0.990,
the lowest value was observed for TPC ¼ f(ABTS)
obtained during OD-V (R ¼ 0.9681). Also, the correl-
ation ABTS ¼ f(FRAP) for OD-V was lower than the
rest and reached only R ¼ 0.9774. Due to the high
correlation between TPC, ABTS, and FRAP the rela-
tionship between antioxidant activity and solid gain is
presented only for ABTS ¼ f(SG) for all variants.
Figure 4a shows the relation between SG and anti-
oxidant activity measured by ABTS for apples treated
by OD and OD-U. While performing standard OD
the increase of solid gain is proportional to the
increase of ABTS values from the beginning up to
90 minutes where even though there is a significant
growth in terms of solid gain, the antioxidant activity
ABTS diminishes. It is consistent with previous stud-
ies by Lech et al.[54] where carrots and zucchinis were
subjected to OD in concentrated juice using filtrated

Figure 4. The relationship between ABTS and SG values for samples treated by (a) OD and OD-U; (b) OD-V and OD-M; (c) OD-U-V
and OD-M-V.
osmotic solution. It was explained by complex com-
position of chokeberry juice which consists of differ-
ent size particles that exhibit different antioxidant
activity (ABTS). The OD process takes place through
the semi-permeable membrane of the plant cell which
limits influx of particles on the basis of their size and
might prevent big particles (with high polyphenol
content) from entering the material. Thus, in case of
OD with higher SG comes lower ABTS increase as big
particles with high nutritional load remain in the
osmotic solution. At the same time, intense increase
in ABTS values for samples treated by OD-U method
can be seen with almost two times smaller gain of
solid particles from the solution comparing to standard
OD method. It suggests that the use of ultrasounds dis-
rupt the plant cell relaxing the structure[57,58] allowing
the big particles to enter the material resulting in higher
antioxidant activity.
When considering the SG in the function of ABTS
for samples treated by OD-V and OD-M it can be
seen that both variants exhibit the proportional
growth of ABTS with the rise of SG, with higher val-
ues obtained for OD-V samples during the first
DRYING TECHNOLOGY 9
60 minutes (Figure 4b). After that with the increase of
solid gain there is no significant increase of ABTS,
then after 90 minutes with further growth of SG the
ABTS increases reaching 18.52 mmol Trolox/100 g sm.
with SG of 0.088 kg/kg fresh material at the end of the
process. As for the OD-M, the ABTS value reaches
18.85 mmol Trolox/100 g sm. with smaller solid gain
(0.073 kg/kg fresh material) at the end of the osmotic
dehydration. The higher ABTS growth when OD-V
was applied might be connected with the properties of
vacuum that have the strongest impact at the begin-
ning of the process.[35] After 60 minutes the SG for
OD-V diminishes and with SG recedes ABTS.
Figure 4c shows the relation between ABTS and SG
for samples treated by OD-U-V and OD-M-V. The
OD-M-V treatment results in proportional growth of
ABTS with the corresponding SG. On the other hand,
the samples treated by OD-U-V demonstrate a pro-
portional growth of ABTS with SG during the first
15 minutes, then a peak in ABTS value can be seen,
followed by slight decrease after 60 minutes and fur-
ther spike of ABTS during the last hour of OD with
almost no solid gain. Although, the SG during OD-U-
10 K. MASZTALERZ ET AL.
V was moderate, the antioxidant activity was over
four times higher comparing to the fresh sample. It is
due to the synergistic impact of ultrasounds and vac-
uum that causes rapid expansions and compressions
throughout the sample relaxing the structure of the
material (the effect of ultrasounds[30]) and intense
degasifying during the first stage of the process as a
result of reduced pressure.[33] Hence, the combined
effect of ultrasounds and vacuum is the most efficient
in terms of material quality resulting in the highest
ABTS, FRAP, and TPC values.
Conclusions
Assisting conditions during osmotic dehydration of
apple slices in concentrated chokeberry juice had a sig-
nificant influence on mass transfer kinetics (both water
loss (WL) and solid gain (SG)) and substantially
improved material quality in terms of antioxidant activ-
ity (ABTS, FRAP) and total polyphenolics content
(TPC). The use of ultrasound assisted OD (OD-U)
proved to be the most efficient method when consider-
ing WL while standard OD resulted in highest SG. It
means that when the objective of the study is to obtain
the material with the lowest water content it would be
best to apply ultrasounds during the process. On the
other hand, the use of standard OD might be the best
during OD in concentrated juices used as osmotic solu-
tion as with minimal WL comes increased SG.
The best method in terms of quality parameters
was OD-U-V as the joint use of ultrasounds and
reduced pressure conditions resulted in highest TPC
as well as ABTS and FRAP values.
To sum up, the use of various assisting processing
procedures during OD can lead to different outcomes
and could be used in modeling of osmotic dehydra-
tion process.
Funding
This work was funded by the Error! Hyperlink reference
not valid. based on the decision no UMO-2014/15/D/NZ9/
05242. The publication is the result of the research group
activity: “Plants4food.”
References
[1] Lewicki, P.; Lenart, A. Osmotic Dehydration of
Fruits and Vegetables. In Handbook of Industrial
Drying; Arun S Mujumdar; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, 2006 pp 665–681.
[2] Garcia-Noguera, J.; Oliveira, F. I. P.; Gall~ao, M. I.;
Weller, C. L.; Rodrigues, S.; Fernandes, F. A. N.
Ultrasound-Assisted Osmotic Dehydration of
Strawberries: Effect of Pretreatment Time and
Ultrasonic Frequency. Drying Technol. 2010, 28,
294–303. DOI: 10.1080/07373930903530402.
[3] Figiel, A.; Michalska, A. Overall Quality of Fruits
and Vegetables Products Affected by the Drying
Processes with the Assistance of Vacuum-
Microwaves. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 18, 71. DOI: 10.
3390/ijms18010071.
[4] Deepika, S.; Sutar, P. P. Combining Osmotic–Steam
Blanching with Infrared–Microwave–Hot Air Drying:
Production of Dried Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Slices
and Enzyme Inactivation. Drying Technol. 2018, 36,
1719–1737. DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2017.1422744.
[5] Sareban, M.; Souraki, B. A. Anisotropic Diffusion
during Osmotic Dehydration of Celery Stalks in Salt
Solution. Food Bioprod. Process. 2016, 98, 161–172.
DOI: 10.1016/j.fbp.2016.01.005.
[6] Zenoozian, M. S.; Devahastin, S.; Razavi, M. A.;
Shahidi, F.; Poreza, H. R. Use of Artificial Neural
Network and Image Analysis to Predict Physical
Properties of Osmotically Dehydrated Pumpkin.
Drying Technol. 2007, 26, 132–144. DOI: 10.1080/
07373930701781793.
[7] Azoubel, P. M.; da Rocha Amorim, M.; Oliveira,
S. S. B.; Maciel, M. I. S.; Rodrigues, J. D.
Improvement of Water Transport and Carotenoid
Retention during Drying of Papaya by Applying
Ultrasonic Osmotic Pretreatment. Food Eng. Rev.
2015, 7, 185–192. DOI: 10.1007/s12393-015-9120-4.
[8] Bui, H.-T.; Makhlouf, J.; Ratti, C. Osmotic
Dehydration of Tomato in Sucrose Solutions: Fick’s
Law Classical Modeling. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74,
E250–E258. DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01177.x.
[9] Shamaei, S.; Emam-Djomeh, Z.; Moini, S.
Ultrasound-Assisted Osmotic Dehydration of
Cranberries: Effect of Finish Drying Methods and
Ultrasonic Frequency on Textural Properties. J.
Texture Stud. 2012, 43, 133–141. DOI: 10.1111/j.
1745-4603.2011.00323.x.
[10] Karizaki, V. M.; Sahin, S.; Sumnu, G.; Mosavian,
M. T. H.; Luca, A. Effect of Ultrasound-Assisted
Osmotic Dehydration as a Pretreatment on Deep Fat
Frying of Potatoes. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2013, 6,
3554–3563. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-012-1012-5.
[11] Li, H.; Zhao, C.; Guo, Y.; An, K.; Ding, S.; Wang, Z.
Mass Transfer Evaluation of Ultrasonic Osmotic
Dehydration of Cherry Tomatoes in Sucrose and Salt
Solutions: Ultrasonic Osmotic Dehydration of
Tomato. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47, 954–960.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02927.x.
[12] Cano-Lamadrid, M.; Lech, K.; Michalska, A.;
Wasilewska, M.; Figiel, A.; Wojdyło, A.; Carbonell-

A. Influence of Osmotic Dehydration
Barrachina, A.
Pre-Treatment and Combined Drying Method on
Physico-Chemical and Sensory Properties of
Pomegranate Arils, Cultivar Mollar de Elche. Food
Chem. 2017, 232, 306–315. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.
2017.04.033.
[13] Lech, K.; Figiel, A.; Wojdyło, A.; Korzeniowska, M.;
Serowik, M.; Szarycz, M. Drying Kinetics and
Bioactivity of Beetroot Slices Pretreated in

Concentrated Chokeberry Juice and Dried with
Vacuum Microwaves. Drying Technol. 2015, 33,
1644–1653. DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2015.1075209.
[14] Nowicka, P.; Wojdyło, A.; Lech, K.; Figiel, A.
Influence of Osmodehydration Pretreatment and
Combined Drying Method on the Bioactive Potential
of Sour Cherry Fruits. Food Bioprocess Technol.
2015, 8, 824–836. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-014-1447-y.
[15] Escriche, I.; Garcia-Pinchi, R.; Andr
es, A.; Fito, P.
Osmotic Dehydration of Kiwifruit (Actinidia
Chinensis): Fluxes and Mass Transfer Kinetics. J.
Food Process Eng. 2000, 23, 191–205. DOI: 10.1111/j.
1745-4530.2000.tb00511.x.
[16] Chambi, H. N. M.; Lima, W. C. V.; Schmidt, F. L.;
Chambi, H. N. M.; Lima, W. C. V.; Schmidt, F. L.
Osmotic Dehydration of Yellow Melon Using Red
Grape Juice Concentrate. Food Sci. Technol. 2016,
36, 468–475. DOI: 10.1590/1678-457X.01416.
[17] Moreno, J.; Z
~iga, P.; Guerra, M. E.; Mella, K.
un
Ohmic Heating/Vacuum Impregnation Treatments
on Osmodehydrated Apples Enriched in Polyphenols
from Concentrated Pomegranate Juice. In
Proceedings of 21th International Drying
Symposium; Universitat Politecnica de Valencia,
Valencia, Spain 2018. DOI: 10.4995/IDS2018.2018.
7872.
[18] Samborska, K.; Eliasson, L.; Marzec, A.; Kowalska, J.;
Piotrowski, D.; Lenart, A.; Kowalska, H. The Effect
of Adding Berry Fruit Juice Concentrates and by-
Product Extract to Sugar Solution on Osmotic
Dehydration and Sensory Properties of Apples. J.
Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 1927–1938. DOI: 10.
1007/s13197-019-03658-0.
[19] Bchir, B.; Besbes, S.; Karoui, R.; Paquot, M.; Attia,
H.; Blecker, C. Osmotic Dehydration Kinetics of
Pomegranate Seeds Using Date Juice as an
Immersion Solution Base. Food Bioprocess Technol.
2012, 5, 999–1009. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-010-0442-1.
[20] Çaglayan, D.; Barutçu Mazı, I. Effects of Ultrasound-
Assisted Osmotic Dehydration as a Pretreatment and
Finish Drying Methods on the Quality of Pumpkin
Slices. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2018, 42, e13679.
DOI: 10.1111/jfpp.13679.
[21] Mierzwa, D.; Kowalski, S. J. Ultrasound-Assisted
Osmotic Dehydration and Convective Drying of
Apples: Process Kinetics and Quality Issues. Chem.
Process Eng. 2016, 37, 383–391. DOI: 10.1515/cpe-
2016-0031.
[22] Amami, E.; Khezami, W.; Mezrigui, S.; Badwaik, L. S.;
Bejar, A. K.; Perez, C. T.; Kechaou, N. Effect of
Ultrasound-Assisted Osmotic Dehydration Pretreatment
on the Convective Drying of Strawberry. Ultrason.
Sonochem. 2017, 36, 286–300. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.
2016.12.007.
[23] Noshad, M.; Savari, M.; Roueita, G. A Hybrid AHP-
TOPSIS Method for Prospectively Modeling of
Ultrasound-Assisted Osmotic Dehydration of
Strawberry. J. Food Process Eng. 2018, 41, e12928.
DOI: 10.1111/jfpe.12928.
[24] Nowacka, M.; Fijalkowska, A.; Dadan, M.; Rybak, K.;
Wiktor, A.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D. Effect of
Ultrasound Treatment during Osmotic Dehydration
DRYING TECHNOLOGY 11
on Bioactive Compounds of Cranberries. Ultrasonics
2018, 83, 18–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultras.2017.06.022.
[25] Dehghannya, J.; Gorbani, R.; Ghanbarzadeh, B.
Effect of Ultrasound-Assisted Osmotic Dehydration
Pretreatment on Drying Kinetics and Effective
Moisture Diffusivity of Mirabelle Plum: Plum Drying
by Ultrasound and Osmotic Dehydration. J. Food
Process. Preserv. 2015, 39, 2710–2717. DOI: 10.1111/
jfpp.12521.
[26] Dehghannya, J.; Gorbani, R.; Ghanbarzadeh, B.
Shrinkage of Mirabelle Plum during Hot Air Drying
as Influenced by Ultrasound-Assisted Osmotic
Dehydration. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2016, 19,
1093–1103. DOI: 10.1080/10942912.2015.1055362.
[27] Fernandes, F. A. N.; Braga, T. R.; Silva, E. O.;
Rodrigues, S. Use of Ultrasound for Dehydration of
Mangoes (Mangifera indica L.): Kinetic Modeling of
Ultrasound-Assisted Osmotic Dehydration and
Convective Air-Drying. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019,
56, 1793–1800. DOI: 10.1007/s13197-019-03622-y.
[28] Feng, Y.; Yu, X.; Yagoub, A. E. A.; Xu, B.; Wu, B.;
Zhang, L.; Zhou, C. Vacuum Pretreatment Coupled
to Ultrasound Assisted Osmotic Dehydration as a
Novel Method for Garlic Slices Dehydration.
Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 50, 363–372. DOI: 10.
1016/j.ultsonch.2018.09.038.
[29] Chemat, F.; Zill-e-Huma; Khan, M. K. Applications of
Ultrasound in Food Technology: Processing,
Preservation and Extraction. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2011,
18, 813–835. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2010.11.023.
[30] Nowacka, M.; Wedzik, M. Effect of Ultrasound
Treatment on Microstructure, Colour and
Carotenoid Content in Fresh and Dried Carrot
Tissue. Appl. Acoust. 2016, 103, 163–171. DOI: 10.
1016/j.apacoust.2015.06.011.
[31] Fei, P.; Lifu, C.; Wenjian, Y.; Liyan, Z.; Yong, F.;
Ning, M.; Qiuhui, H. Comparison of Osmotic
Dehydration and Ultrasound-Assisted Osmotic
Dehydration on the State of Water, Texture, and
Nutrition of Agaricus bisporus. CyTA J. Food 2018,
16, 181–189. DOI: 10.1080/19476337.2017.1365774.
[32] de Jesus Junqueira, J. R.; Corr^ea, J. L. G.; de
Mendonça, K. S.; Resende, N. S. de Barros Vilas
Boas, E. V. Influence of Sodium Replacement and
Vacuum Pulse on the Osmotic Dehydration of
Eggplant Slices. Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol.
2017, 41, 10–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ifset.2017.01.006.
[33] Corr^ea, J. L. G.; Pereira, L. M.; Vieira, G. S.;
Hubinger, M. D. Mass Transfer Kinetics of Pulsed
Vacuum Osmotic Dehydration of Guavas. J. Food
Eng. 2010, 96, 498–504. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.
2009.08.032.
[34] Muszy
nski, S.; Kornarzy
nski, K.; Gładyszewska, B.
Osmotic Dehydration of Apples under Reduced
Pressure Conditions. Agric. Eng. 2016, 20, 135–143.
DOI: 10.1515/agriceng-2016-0051.
[35] Yuan, Y.; Tan, L.; Xu, Y.; Dong, J.; Zhao, Y.; Yuan,
Y. Optimization of Processing Parameters for
Lettuce Vacuum Osmotic Dehydration Using
Response Surface Methodology. Pol. J. Food Nutr.
Sci. 2018, 68, 15–23. DOI: 10.1515/pjfns-2017-0013.
12 K. MASZTALERZ ET AL.
[36] Fante, C.; Corr^ea, J.; Natividade, M.; Lima, J.; Lima,
L. Drying of Plums (Prunus Sp, c.v Gulfblaze)
Treated with KCl in the Field and Subjected to
Pulsed Vacuum Osmotic Dehydration: PVOD of
Plums. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 46,
1080–1085. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02619.x.
[37] Ferrari, C. C.; Arballo, J. R.; Mascheroni, R. H.;
Hubinger, M. D. Modelling of Mass Transfer and
Texture Evaluation during Osmotic Dehydration of
Melon under Vacuum: Osmotic Dehydration of
Melon under Vacuum. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.
2011, 46, 436–443. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.
02510.x.
[38] de Jesus Junqueira, J. R.; Corr^ea, J. L. G.; de
Mendonça, K. S.; de Mello J
unior, R. E.; de Souza,
A. U. Pulsed Vacuum Osmotic Dehydration of
Beetroot, Carrot and Eggplant Slices: Effect of
Vacuum Pressure on the Quality Parameters. Food
Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 11, 1863–1875. DOI: 10.
1007/s11947-018-2147-9.
[39] Chiralt, A.; Fito, P.; Barat, J. M.; Andr
es, A.;
Gonz
alez-Martı
nez, C.; Escriche, I.; Camacho, M. M.
Use of Vacuum Impregnation in Food Salting
Process. J. Food Eng. 2001, 49, 141–151. DOI: 10.
1016/S0260-8774(00)00219-3.
[40] Zhang, Y.; Zielinska, M.; Li, G.-F.; Deng, L.-Z.; Sun, B.-
H.; Zheng, Z.-A.; Gao, Z.-J.; Xiao, H.-W. Pulsed
Vacuum Pickling (PVP) of Garlic Cloves: Mass
Transfer Kinetics and Quality Attributes. Drying
Technol. 2019, 1–12. 10.1080/07373937.2019.1700380.
[41] Wray, D.; Ramaswamy, H. S. Microwave-Osmotic
Dehydration of Cranberries under Continuous Flow
Medium Spray Conditions. Int. J. Microwave Sci.
Technol. 2013, 2013, 1–11. DOI: 10.1155/2013/
207308.
[42] Azarpazhooh, E.; Ramaswamy, H. S. Evaluation of
Diffusion and Azuara Models for Mass Transfer
Kinetics during Microwave-Osmotic Dehydration of
Apples under Continuous Flow Medium-Spray
Conditions. Drying Technol. 2009, 28, 57–67. DOI:
10.1080/07373930903430694.
[43] Azarpazhooh, E.; Ramaswamy, H. S. Modeling and
Optimization of Microwave Osmotic Dehydration of
Apple Cylinders under Continuous-Flow Spray
Mode Processing Conditions. Food Bioprocess
Technol. 2012, 5, 1486–1501. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-
010-0471-9.
[44] Azarpazhooh, E.; Ramaswamy, H. S. Evaluation of
Factors Influencing Microwave Osmotic Dehydration
of Apples under Continuous Flow Medium Spray
(MWODS) Conditions. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2012,
5, 1265–1277. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-010-0446-x.
[45] Heredia, A.; Barrera, C.; Andr
es, A. Drying of
Cherry Tomato by a Combination of Different
Dehydration Techniques. Comparison of Kinetics
and Other Related Properties. J. Food Eng. 2007, 80,
111–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.04.056.
[46] Nowicka, P.; Wojdyło, A.; Lech, K.; Figiel, A.
Chemical Composition, Antioxidant Capacity, and
Sensory Quality of Dried Sour Cherry Fruits Pre-
Dehydrated in Fruit Concentrates. Food Bioprocess
Technol. 2015, 8, 2076–2095. DOI: 10.1007/s11947-
015-1561-5.
[47] Lech, K.; Figiel, A.; Michalska, A.; Wojdyło, A.;
Nowicka, P. The Effect of Selected Fruit Juice
Concentrates Used as Osmotic Agents on the Drying
Kinetics and Chemical Properties of Vacuum-
Microwave Drying of Pumpkin. J. Food Qual. 2018,
2018, 1–11. DOI: 10.1155/2018/7293932.
[48] Dehghannya, J.; Farshad, P.; Khakbaz Heshmati, M.
Three-Stage Hybrid Osmotic–Intermittent
Microwave–Convective Drying of Apple at Low
Temperature and Short Time. Drying Technol.
2018, 36, 1982–2005. DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2018.
1432642.
[49] Singh, B.; Panesar, P. S.; Nanda, V. Osmotic
Dehydration Kinetics of Carrot Cubes in Sodium
Chloride Solution. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 43,
1361–1370. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2007.01623.x.
[50] Lech, K.; Michalska, A.; Wojdyło, A.; Nowicka, P.;
Figiel, A. The Influence of Physical Properties of
Selected Plant Materials on the Process of Osmotic
Dehydration. LWT 2018, 91, 588–594. DOI: 10.1016/
j.lwt.2018.02.012.
[51] Gao, X.; Ohlander, M.; Jeppsson, N.; Bj€ ork, L.;
Trajkovski, V. Changes in Antioxidant Effects and
Their Relationship to Phytonutrients in Fruits of Sea
Buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) during
Maturation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48,
1485–1490. DOI: 10.1021/jf991072g.
[52] Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.;
Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant Activity
Applying an Improved ABTS Radical Cation
Decolorization Assay. Free Radical Biol. Med. 1999, 26,
1231–1237. DOI: 10.1016/S0891-5849(98)00315-3.
[53] Benzie, I. F. F.; Strain, J. J. The Ferric Reducing Ability
of Plasma (FRAP) as a Measure of “Antioxidant
Power”: The FRAP Assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 239,
70–76. DOI: 10.1006/abio.1996.0292.
[54] Lech, K.; Michalska, A.; Wojdyło, A.; Nowicka, P.;
Figiel, A. The Influence of the Osmotic Dehydration
Process on Physicochemical Properties of Osmotic
Solution. Molecules 2017, 22, 2246. DOI: 10.3390/
molecules22122246.
[55] Zielinska, M.; Markowski, M. Effect of Microwave-
Vacuum, Ultrasonication, and Freezing on Mass
Transfer Kinetics and Diffusivity during Osmotic
Dehydration of Cranberries. Drying Technol. 2018, 36,
1158–1169. DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2017.1390476.
[56] Wu, X.-F.; Zhang, M.; Mujumdar, A. S.; Yang, C.-H.
Effect of Ultrasound-Assisted Osmotic Dehydration
Pretreatment on the Infrared Drying of Pakchoi
Stems. Drying Technol. 2019, 1–12. DOI: 10.1080/
07373937.2019.1608232.
[57] Fernandes, F. A. N.; Gall~ao, M. I.; Rodrigues, S. Effect
of Osmosis and Ultrasound on Pineapple Cell Tissue
Structure during Dehydration. J. Food Eng. 2009, 90,
186–190. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.021.
[58] Fernandes, F. A. N.; Gall~ao, M. I.; Rodrigues, S.
Effect of Osmotic Dehydration and Ultrasound Pre-
Treatment on Cell Structure: Melon Dehydration.
LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 41, 604–610. DOI: 10.
1016/j.lwt.2007.05.007.

[59] Nsonzi, F.; Ramaswamy, H. S. Osmotic Dehydration
Kinetics of Blueberries. Drying Technol. 1998, 16,
725–741. DOI: 10.1080/07373939808917432.
[60] Transport in Plants II; U. L€ uttge, M. G. Pitman;
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 1976.
[61] Bahadur, S.; Hathan, S. Elephant Foot Yam
(Amorphophallus paeoniifolius): Osmotic Dehydration
and Modelling. J. Food Process. Technol. 2015, 6, 1–5.
DOI: 10.4172/2157-7110.1000499.
[62] Bozkir, H.; Rayman Erg€ un, A.; Serdar, E.; Metin, G.;
Baysal, T. Influence of Ultrasound and Osmotic
Dehydration Pretreatments on Drying and Quality
DRYING TECHNOLOGY 13
Properties of Persimmon Fruit. Ultrason. Sonochem.
2019, 54, 135–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2019.02.
006.
[63] Goula, A. M.; Kokolaki, M.; Daftsiou, E. Use of
Ultrasound for Osmotic Dehydration. The Case of
Potatoes. Food Bioprod. Process. 2017, 105, 157–170.
DOI: 10.1016/j.fbp.2017.07.008.
[64] Piluzza, G.; Bullitta, S. Correlations between Phenolic
Content and Antioxidant Properties in Twenty-Four
Plant Species of Traditional Ethnoveterinary Use in the
Mediterranean Area. Pharm. Biol. 2011, 49, 240–247.
DOI: 10.3109/13880209.2010.501083.