Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food and Bioproducts Processing

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

Modeling of food drying processes in industrial

spray dryers

Hugo M. Lisboa ∗ , Maria Elita Duarte, Mário Eduardo Cavalcanti-Mata

Unidade Academica de Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Av. Aprigio Veloso 882,
58429-200 Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil

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

Article history: The shift from a trial-and-error approach on food product development to a quality-by-
Received 15 June 2017 design paradigm requires tools that support the scientist in making decisions for the design
Received in revised form 23 August of research and development activities. Presently, many of these tools require high invest-
2017 ments in software or time for implementation. Consequently, the present work had the
Accepted 18 September 2017 objective to develop a simplified model of the spray drying process in an industrial spray
Available online 3 November 2017 dryer to support activities of food product development and that can be easily implemented
in any software. The model was verified and validated using an industrial spray dryer in
Keywords: food drying processes covering a wide range of operating conditions and food products.
Food products The model was further extended so that the scientist could estimate not only key operating
Heat-Mass balances parameters such as feed flow rate or drying gas outlet temperature but also final particle size
Drying kinetics and drying kinetics for a better understanding of the drying phenomenon by spray drying.
Droplet size From the comparison of the experimental and the estimated results it is concluded that
Modeling the model successfully describes all spray drying operations independently of the product
Scale-up nature. Raw material and laboratory time can be reduced by replacing the traditional trial
and error methodologies by using the developed tool. Estimates of wet bulb temperature,
dew point and glass transition temperature increase process knowledge preventing process
errors. Scale-up is also facilitated by the use of non-dimensional estimated parameters such
as outlet relative humidity.
© 2017 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction processes due to the high number of experiments required (Musina

et al., 2017). Consequently several researchers turn to approaches that
The development of new processes is often a time-consuming and use more fundamental tools requiring greater knowledge on dynam-
costly process, since most of the times they are conducted through trial ics of the processes as well as the equipment itself (Baldinger et al.,
and error methodologies, making them complex and extremely long 2012; Ivey and Vehring, 2010). A fundamental or mechanistic approach

Abbreviations: DOE, design of experiments; CFD, Computational Fluid Dynamics; Qin , heat entering spray drying; Qfeed , heat required to
dry the feed; Qout , heat coming out of the equipment; Qloss , heat lost to the exterior; Fdrying , drying gas flow rate; Cp,x , specific heat; Tin , inlet
temperature drying gas; Tout , outlet temperature drying gas; Tfeed , feed initial temperature; Cfeed , feed initial concentration; Ffeed , feed flow
rate; Hvap , vaporization enthalpy; Twb , wet bulb temperature; U, overall heat transfer coefficient value; Asup , equipment superficial area;
Tw , logarithmic mean of temperatures; mi,j , mass of water; Hin , drying gas moisture content inlet; Hout , drying gas moisture content
outlet; Pvout , vapor pressure at outlet; Pvsat , vapor pressure saturation; % RHout , relative humidity at outlet; Tdp , dew point temperature;
Tg, glass transition temperature; N, number of blades; D, disk diameter; ω, blade speed; feed , feed viscosity;  feed , feed superficial tension;
Pfeed , feed differential pressure; feed , kinematic viscosity of feed; gas , kinematic viscosity of drying gas; Fatom , Atomization gas flow rate;
vatom , Atomization gas velocity; D50, mean droplet size; Ddroplet , mean droplet size; Dparticle , mean particle size;  SD , standard deviation;
Nu, Nusselt number.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hugolisboa.certbio@ufcg.edu.br (H.M. Lisboa).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2017.09.006
0960-3085/© 2017 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
50 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60
to a process will need to involve models that can be generally appli-
cable to any product and help defining operative conditions to obtain
a product within certain quality attributes (Nath and Satpathy, 1998).
Additionally, the fundamental approach to a process will allow a bet-
ter understanding about the most critical factors to obtain specific
properties in a product. Considering the numerous inputs and out-
puts, one of the processes that can be significantly benefited from such
approach is the spray drying operation since it is a complex product
preparation process. Even though the basic principles of spray drying
may seem simple, it can become very complex due to the choice of
operational parameters, atmospheric conditions, food product prepa-
ration and formulation. In common practice, the development of the
spray drying process is often empirical and is conducted experimen-
tally. Traditional methods use a design of experiments (DOE) (Maltesen
et al., 2008) or statistical treatment of process parameters and product
properties (Prinn et al., 2002). This is often a time consuming exercise,
requiring large amounts of raw material, and the resulting process is
often not well understood or sufficiently robust. Recent efforts have
focused on the application of a spectrum of fundamental models for the
understanding of the spray drying process, ranging from steady state
and equilibrium approaches to Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
(Oakley, 2004). However, many published papers on spray drying mod-
els are more focused on complex fluid dynamics computation methods
or dedicated to the development of pharmaceuticals rather than food
products (Grasmeijer et al., 2013; Woo and Bhandari, 2013). Other mod-
els are merely applicable to laboratory scale equipment and operating
modes other than the operation of an industrial spray dryer in the food
area. Other models are especially dedicated to the drying of a certain
product as in the case of milk (Silva et al., 2017). Recent advances in
the modeling of spray drying by CFD have been discussed, including
its use in demanding industries such as the pharmaceutical industry
(Fletcher et al., 2006). The complexity of the spray drying process, where
phenomena occur on vastly different time and spatial scales, suggests
that the computational power still needs to evolve substantially before
the particle formation process can be adequately predicted within a
plant-scale CFD simulation. More importantly, many created models
lack validation. Considering food engineering works using spray dry-
ing, the information provided by the existing papers on models is barely
used, and the reason is because such models are difficult to use and
the scientist is not really involved in the creation and consequently it
is hard to grasp the outcomes of such models. Hence, there is a gap
in the creation of a simple, precise and robust model that allows to
estimate drying conditions on industrial spray dryers, and that can be
easily implemented using spreadsheets or other code free software.
The industrial application of this type of model would serve to bet-
ter understand the process, reduce the number of experiments during
development of a new product and also in the energy optimization of
drying stages. Additionally, a model that extends information beyond
the inline/online data is also industrially very appealing because of
time-consuming activities of off-line determinations.
Many theoretical frameworks and reviews have been establish for
the use of spray drying (Bhandari et al., 1997; Gharsallaoui et al., 2007;
Kemp et al., 2016) but the next step is to create software’s using all
theoretical information to help troubleshooting and anticipate process
scenarios within an industrial environment. Therefore, the objective
of the present work was to develop a spray drying model that could be
used by any scientist in any project in the food industry and validate
its use. Additionally, the model was further extended to help anticipate
possible challenges during the process itself. After model development
and implementation, the simulations were verified and validated for
different food products by drying processes with different conditions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Spray drying equipment
The equipment to be characterized is a Labmaq, model SD10
with drying capacity of 10 L of water per hour. The blower has
a capacity to pump atmospheric air up to 8 m3 /min (580 kg/h
of atmospheric air at 25 ◦ C), the electric heating resistance has
the capacity to heat the drying gas up to 250 ◦ C. Additionally,
the surface area of the equipment is estimated to be 11.1 m2 .
The equipment has a cyclone coupled for dust separation and
operates on open cycle, i.e. the drying gas is not reused. The
equipment control system allows the set-point to be set at the
drying gas inlet temperature or at the outlet temperature.
2.2. Spray drying basic model
Spray drying is a well-known and mature operation capable
of transforming solutions, suspensions or emulsions into a
solid product. The spray drying process can be defined as an
operation, wherein a liquid stream pumped into an atomizer
is constantly divided into very fine droplets within the dry-
ing chamber. Here the fine droplets contact a hot gas, which
by convection provides energy to heat and vaporize most of
the solvent present in the droplets thereby forming powder
particles, which are separated from the drying gas using a
cyclone or a bag filter. In the development of the spray dry-
ing model it was considered that the geometry of the drying
chamber was constituted by a cylinder and cone not consid-
ering the flow patterns of the drying gas and simply assuming
that it is continuous inside that geometry and ideally mixed.
Thus the parameters that differentiate the operation between
one equipment and another are concentrated on the heat loss
along the walls of the equipment.
2.2.1. Heat balance
In a first stage we will focus on the development of the heat
balance to make estimates of the drying gas flow rate, the feed
flow rate, the drying gas inlet temperature and the drying gas
outlet temperature. Fig. 1 summarizes the position where each
equation is considered. Thus, the generic energy balance of
the spray dryer is given by:
Qin = Qfeed + Qout + Qloss (1)
where Qin is the heat entering the equipment by means of
the drying gas, Qfeed is the heat spent in heating the product
droplets to the wet bulb temperature, and then spent vaporiz-
ing the solvent, Qout is the heat coming out of the equipment
by means of gas drying, and finally Qloss is the heat lost to the
exterior. The mentioned heats have the following equations:
Qin = Fdrying × Cpgas × Tin (2)
   
Qfeed = Ffeed 1 − Cfeed × Hvap + Ffeed 1 − Cfeed
 
×Cpfeed × Twb − Tfeed (3)
Qout = Fdrying × Cpgas × Tout (4)
Qloss = U × Asup × Tw (5)
where, Fdrying is the drying gas flow rate, Cp is the specific
heat, Tin is the drying gas inlet temperature and Tout is the
drying gas outlet temperature, Ffeed is the feed flow rate, Cfeed
the solids concentration of the feed, Hvap is the vaporization
enthalpy of the solvent in the feed, Twb is the wet bulb tem-
perature and Tfeed the feed temperature. U is the heat transfer
coefficient value across the walls of the equipment, Asup is
 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60 51

Fig. 1 – Schematic representation of spray drying apparatus along with model equations.

the surface area of the equipment and Tw is the logarith- the water intake by the drying gas typically atmospheric air,
mic mean of the temperatures along the spray dryer and the which can either be dehumidified or not, and by means of the
external environment. Substituting the Eqs. (2)–(5) on Eq. (1) feed which is atomized within the dryer. At the outlet we will
and rearranging in relation to the desired output we have the have part as residual solvent in the solid product and another
following equations: part transported as water vapor by the drying gas. Since it is
To determine Tin or Tout : possible to determine or impose a certain outlet temperature
     
Ffeed 1 − Cfeed × Hvap × Ffeed 1 − Cfeed × Cpfeed × Twb − Tfeed + U × Asup × Tw
Tin − Tout = (6)
Fdrying × Cpgas

To determine Fdrying :

     
Ffeed 1 − Cfeed × Hvap × Ffeed 1 − Cfeed × Cpfeed × Twb − Tfeed + U × Asup × Tw
Fdrying = (7)
Cpgas (Tin − Tout )

To determine Ffeed :
value in the energy balance, it is also possible to obtain an
Fdrying × Cpgas × (Tin − Tout ) − U × Asup × Tw
Ffeed =       (8) estimate of the relative humidity at the outlet of the dryer. A
1 − Cfeed × Hvap + Cpfeed × Twb − Tfeed mass balance to the component water will assume Eq. (11).

Specific heats of the drying gas and product to be fed to the

min,gas + min,feed = mout,solid + mout,gas (11)
dryer are a function of the temperature whereby Eqs. (9) and
(10) were used to estimate their values. In the case of the feed
where, m in,gas is the mass of water carried by the drying gas
product an approximation was made by only considering the
at the inlet, min,feed is the mass of water present in the feed,
specific heat of the water since this is the solvent present in
mout,solid is the mass of residual water in the dried solid and
food products.
mout,gas is the mass of water carried by the drying gas at the
  outlet. For simulation purposes, it will be considered that the
Cpgas = 4 × 10−7 × Tin
2
+ 1 × 10−5 × Tin + 1.0049 kJ kg−1 K−1
solid does not have residual water so the expanded version of
(9) Eq. (11) is as follows:

 
−5 −2
 −1 −1
 Fdrying × Hin + Ffeed × 1 − Cfeed = Fdrying × Hout (12)
Cpfeed = 2 × 10 × Tin − 0.0019 × Tin + 4.2258 kJ kg K

(10)
2.2.2. Mass balance
For the spray drying process, the mass balance can take two
forms: the mass balance for the dried product and the mass
balance for the solvent water. It is considered more impor-
tant to determine the conditions under which the product will
be dried hence the focus is given on determining the relative
humidity of the drying gas as this is an indicator of the driving
force of the drying. Consequently, it is important to reconcile
where Hin and Hout are the moisture contents of the drying
gas at the inlet and outlet respectively. By determining the
moisture content at the outlet and knowing the value of the
drying gas temperature at the outlet determined by Eq. (6), it is
possible to determine the saturation pressure of water vapor
(Pvsat ), the vapor pressure of the drying gas (Pvout ) and finally
the relative humidity of the drying gas at the outlet of the
equipment (% RHout ), using the following equations:
Hout × Pchamber
Pvout = (13)
Hout − 0.62198
52 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60
 
77.345+0.0057×Tout − 7235
T
e out
Pvsat = 8.2
Tout
PVout
%RHout =
PVsat
2.3. Model extension
Using the equations proposed in Section 2.2 it is possible to
estimate important parameters for the establishment of a
thermodynamic operating space such as the inlet tempera-
ture, the outlet temperature and the feed rate. The relative
humidity data allows to avoid the production of solid parti-
cles with excessive humidity as these have the tendency to
stick to the walls in the dryer.
2.3.1. Wet bulb temperature and dew-point temperature
The determination of these temperatures is important from
the operational point of view since these can directly affect the
quality of the product or the process performance. While dry-
ing, the product droplet is heated from its initial temperature,
typically ambient temperature, to equilibrium evaporation
temperature. During this period, removal of moisture from the
surface of the droplet follows a constant rate thereby main-
taining the drop at a constant temperature due to the latent
heat of vaporization. Since the surface of the droplet is sat-
urated with moisture, the maximum temperature reached is
the wet bulb temperature (Twb ), and when the constant rate
period is over, the powdered solid product will reach the outlet
temperature of the drying gas. Since the outlet temperature
is typically only about 12% above the wet bulb temperature,
the product never reaches the high values of the inlet tem-
peratures. Therefore, the determination of this temperature
is important for the scientist in order to avoid degradation
or alteration of the organoleptic characteristics by the action
of temperature (Anandharamakrishnan et al., 2007). The wet
bulb temperature can be estimated by Eq. (16):
(Hout − Hin ) × Hvap
Twb = Tin −
Cpgas
On the other hand, the dew point temperature (Tdp )
is of extreme importance when considering the industrial
operation since many problems can come from clogging or
excessive moisture at the collection point of the dry prod-
uct (Gianfrancesco et al., 2008). Thus, if the collection point
is exposed to external temperatures low enough to lower the
drying gas outlet temperature to the dew-point, then what
happens is that the water carried by the gas will condensate
and wet the product, causing batch loss or clogging of the
cyclone, or the bag filter. The dew point temperature can be
determined using the Magnus equation (Eq. (17)), where con-
stants b and c have values of 17.62 and 243.12 ◦ C respectively.
 %RHout  b×Tout
c. ln + use. For rotative nozzles (Masters, 1979):
Tdp =  %RH
100
 c+Tout
b − ln out
100 + b×T out
c+Tout
2.3.2. Estimation of the glass transition temperature
The glass transition temperature is a second order thermal
phenomenon where the matrix of a material transits from a
soft and rubbery state at higher temperatures to a rigid and
vitreous state at lower temperatures and can be associated
with material stickiness, wall deposition and consequently
low yield (Adhikari et al., 2005). This “stickiness” is one of the
major challenges of spray drying processes since it provides
(14) agglomeration and accumulation of product inside the dry-
ing chamber, significantly reducing process throughput, but
also results in products with high hygroscopicity and poor
(15) flowing (Fazaeli et al., 2012). Another important feature of
the glass transition temperature is related to the stability of
the dried powder during storage since rubbery state materials
have higher molecular mobility resulting in phase separa-
tion of food contents (Ferrari et al., 2013). Since food products
presents high content of low molecular weight molecules,
such as sugars and organic acids, their glass transition tem-
peratures tends to be low and the presence of water tends to
lower even further as it acts as a plasticizer. Typically a car-
rier agent such as maltodextrin, gum arabic, starches, with
higher glass transition temperature is used to overcome this
sort of challenges. Additionally, an outlet temperature below
the glass transition temperature of the product can also be
used. Glass transition temperature can be determined exper-
imentally by differential calorimetry, can be estimated using
the Gordon–Taylor equation (Gordon and Taylor, 1952).
x1 Cp1 Tg1 + x2 Cp2 Tg2
Tgfeed = (18)
x1 Cp1 + x2 Cp2
where x1 and x2 are the solute and water mass fractions
present in the feed, Tg1 and Tg2 are the glass transition tem-
peratures of pure product and water, and Cp is the specific
heat change during the glass transition (Loerting et al., 2015). It
is possible to find some Tg values for food materials in another
work (Tontul and Topuz, 2017) whereas the values of the spe-
cific heat variation can be estimated according to the molar
mass of the sugars (Avaltroni et al., 2004). It has been demon-
strated elsewhere that to avoid “stickiness” problems within
the drying chamber, the temperature of the drying gas at the
outlet should be about 10–20 ◦ C below the estimated value of
Tg (Woo et al., 2008).
2.3.3. Estimation of droplet diameter and final particle size
Atomization is fundamental on spray-drying drying process
(16) since it’s the step where the product is divided into droplets
small enough to dry during the residence time inside the dryer.
Therefore, in addition to defining the final size of the powder, it
also has a determinant role in drying kinetics, since the expo-
sure area for mass and heat transfer will be determinant for
effective drying. There are three main types of atomizers that
can be found in spray-dryers: rotary, pressure nozzles and two-
fluid nozzles. A comparison of these types of atomizers can be
found in other works (Walzel, 2011). The drop formation is a
combination of factors such as the energy applied, the noz-
zle geometry and the feed flow rate. Thus, separation of the
liquid into drops involves a balance between disruptive forces
and cohesive forces of viscosity and surface tension. For each
of these types of atomizers there are numerous equations to
estimate the droplet size, being here some of the simplest to
(17)
0.15
D50 = 0.008 × Ffeed × D−0.18 × N−0.05 × ω−0.75 × 0.07
feed
(19)
and, for pressure nozzles (Lefebvre, 1988):
 −0.25
0.25
D50 = 4.0 × Ffeed × P−0.5
feed
× feed × feed 0.07
× feed (20)
where D is the disk diameter, N is the number of blade s, ω the
blade speed, feed ,  feed , Pfeed and feed are the viscosity, sur-
 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60
face tension, pressure and density of the liquid product being
fed. The type of nozzle available during the validation experi-
ments of the present is the two fluid nozzle. Using these type of
nozzles, the formation of the droplet is governed by the feed
flow rate, the atomizing gas flow rate and the nozzle geom-
etry, which in combination establish a relationship between
the relative velocities of the feed product and the atomizing
gas. Once again there are numerous equations to carry out the
proposed estimation, but some caution is required in because
there are different nozzle geometries, and some adjustments
in the empirical parameters are usually is required. Thus the
equation proposed for the pneumatic nozzle in the present
work is (Lubanska, 1970):
  0.5
feed Ffeed
D50 = Kd Dn 1+
gas × We Fatom
v2gas × feed × Dn
We =
feed
where Kd is a constant, Dn is the orifice diameter in the atom-
izer, feed and gas are the kinematic viscosities of the product
and gas (m2 /s), Ffeed and Fgas are the feed and drying gas flow
rates (kg/s). We is the Weber number relating fluid’s inertia
with its surface tension, where vatom is the velocity of the
atomizing gas at the exit of the atomizing nozzle and  is the
surface tension of the feed product. These equations estimate
the value of D50, which is the diameter that divides half of the
droplet population, i.e., half has a diameter lower then D50 and
the other half a diameter above the estimated value. Addition-
ally, the final particle size (Dp) can be given by the following
expression (Vehring, 2008):
 ments with no drying were performed, i.e. no feed product
Cfeed feed
Dparticle ∼
3
= Ddroplet
Csolid solid
This expression relates the estimated droplet size with the
final solid size, which is smaller since the product is being
dried.
2.3.4. Droplet size distribution
The heterogeneous nature of the atomization process caused
by the different mechanisms of separation and union of the
atomized liquid results in droplets that vary in size. Therefore
spray nozzles do not produce uniform sprays, with droplets of
identical size in any condition of use. Instead, a spray should
be viewed as a spectrum of arbitrarily distributed droplet sizes
around an average value determined in the previous section
(Lefebvre, 1989). There is still no theory that allows determin-
ing exactly the size distribution of droplets, using probabilistic
functions that allow the mathematical representation of the
distribution. Although there are several distributions, one of
the most used is Rosin-Rammler (Eq. (24)) (Grant et al., 1993):
 −x n
Y =1−e x0
where Y is the cumulative fraction of material by weight
smaller than size x, n is the uniformity constant and x0 is
the characteristic particle size defined as the size 63,2% of
particles are smaller.
53
2.3.5. Drying kinetics
To establish the equation for the water evaporation rate from
the product droplet some considerations are needed. Firstly,
it is necessary to consider that the relative velocity between
the droplet and the drying gas can be neglected and conse-
quently the evaporation mechanism occurs in stagnant gas
so the Nusselt number (Nu) is equal to 2. Secondly, only the
period of constant evaporation rate is considered. During this
period the rate of the droplet shrinkage can be equalized to
the mass flow out of the droplet (Schiffter and Lee, 2007):
dVdroplet h × (Tout − Twb )
droplet = −Adroplet (25)
dt Hvap
considering a spherical droplet and Nu = 2, then
(21)
dDdroplet 2 × kgas × (Tout − Twb )
Ddroplet = (26)
dt droplet Hvap
(22) integrating Eq. (25) it is possible to determine the time required
to reduce the initial droplet size to the final particle size.
droplet × Hvap  
t= D2droplet − D2particle (27)
2 × kgas × (Tout − Twb )
2.4. Model implementation
The model was implemented using a spreadsheet software.
The selection of this type of software is related to the sim-
plicity of use, not requiring training in code development, and
widespread use in industry.
2.5. Spray drying characterization
To determine the overall coefficient of heat transfer, experi-
was dried throughout these experiments. Therefore the dif-
(23)
ference between inlet temperature and outlet temperature of
the drying gas will only be caused by energy loss (Qloss ). The
set-points imposed on the equipment were the drying gas flow
rate which varied between 2, 3, 5 and 8 m3 /min while the inlet
temperature of the drying gas was another set point varying
between 50, 100 and 150 ◦ C. With the results, an empirical
model was established allowing the determination of the over-
all coefficient of heat transfer accordingly to the conditions
used.
2.6. Model validation
In order to validate the proposed model, experiments were
conducted where different food products were dried using an
industrial spray dryer together with a cyclone in open cycle
mode since atmospheric air was used as drying gas. The food
products dried were bovine milk, goat milk, coffee and acerola
fruit juice, with initial concentrations of solids ranging from 4
to 15% (w/w). Feed flow rates ranged from 1 kg/h to 5 kg/h and
drying gas flow rates ranged from 144 kg/h to 580 kg/h. The
inlet temperatures used ranged from 50 ◦ C to 150 ◦ C and the
outlet from 30 to 90 ◦ C. For the atomization, a two fluid nozzle
(24)
with an internal diameter of 2 mm was used, with atomization
gas flow rates ranging from 2 to 4 kg/h. Table 1 summarizes
the information of the experiments performed for validation.
While spray drying, the equipment was initially stabilized only
with the passage of drying gas until it reached the set point
of inlet temperature or the set point of outlet temperature.
54 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60

Table 1 – Comparison between the estimated and experimental values for Tin , Tout and RHout.
Trial Fdrying (kg/h) Ffeed (kg/h) Est. Tin (◦ C) Exp. Tin (◦ C) Est. Tout (◦ C) Exp. Tout (◦ C) Est. RHout (◦ C) Exp. RHout (◦ C)

1 580 ± 6 1.0 109 111 ± 0.37 90 90 ± 0.33 4 3 ± 0.2

2 580 ± 6 3.0 119 120 ± 0.39 90 90 ± 0.33 5 5 ± 0.14
3 580 ± 6 5.0 127 128 ± 0.41 90 90 ± 0.33 5 6 ± 0.26
4 580 ± 6 1.0 145 146 ± 0.43 120 120 ± 0.39 1 1 ± 0.08
5 580 ± 6 3.0 154 155 ± 0.45 120 120 ± 0.39 2 3 ± 0.15
6 580 ± 6 5.0 163 163 ± 0.47 120 120 ± 0.39 2 3 ± 0.23
7 580 ± 6 2.0 120 120 ± 0.39 84 83 ± 0.31 4 5 ± 0.08
8 580 ± 6 2.0 170 170 ± 0.49 105 103 ± 0.35 2 2 ± 0.133
9 580 ± 6 2.0 120 120 ± 0.39 83 83 ± 0.31 4 4 ± 0.08
10 580 ± 6 2.0 170 170 ± 0.49 105 103 ± 0.35 2 3 ± 0.14
11 580 ± 6 2.0 145 145 ± 0.44 94 92 ± 0.34 4 4 ± 0.12
12 144 ± 2 1.2 102 100 ± 0.35 50 50 ± 0.25 27 27 ± 0.15
13 288 ± 3 1.2 73 70 ± 0.29 50 50 ± 0.25 26 26 ± 0.23
14 144 ± 2 1.2 102 100 ± 0.35 50 50 ± 0.25 31 27 ± 0.48
15 288 ± 3 1.2 73 70 ± 0.29 50 50 ± 0.25 26 26 ± 0.26
16 288 ± 3 1.2 120 120 ± 0.39 84 83 ± 0.31 7 9 ± 0.37
17 288 ± 3 1.2 110 110 ± 0.37 76 76 ± 0.3 9 10 ± 0.13
18 288 ± 3 1.2 72 72 ± 0.29 48 50 ± 0.25 28 26 ± 0.33
19 288 ± 3 1.2 80 80 ± 0.31 54 55 ± 0.26 20 21 ± 0.38
20 288 ± 3 1,2 100 100 ± 0.35 74 74 ± 0.3 10 11 ± 0.21

The equipment was considered to be stabilized or at steady- 3. Results and discussion

state when the temperature did not varied by more than 1 ◦ C
for 10 min. After this stabilization, the addition of pure water
to the equipment was started, at a given flow rate and when
a new steady state was reached the pure water supply was
switched to product. The experimental values were recorded
5 times throughout the experiments.
2.7. Drying gas flow rate and temperature
measurements
The spray drying equipment has a volumetric flow rate gas
meter, with and accuracy of 1%, prior to the resistance
whereby the measured values are the volume of gas passing
through at room temperature. The conversion of the volume to
mass is done using the atmospheric air density at room tem-
perature. The measurement of the inlet temperature is made
shortly after the exit of the electrical resistance of the equip-
ment and immediately before the drying gas distributor, while
the outlet temperature of the drying gas is made just before the
cyclone. Both temperature sensors are resistive type, PT100
class A.
3.1. Global heat transfer coefficient determination
The overall heat transfer coefficient of the equipment, U is a
measure that expresses the conductive and convective bar-
riers for the transfer of heat through the dryer walls. The
determination of this coefficient is decisive for the accuracy of
the model and assumes different values for different equip-
ments. To determine U, the spray dryer was used only with
the passage of the drying gas and the difference between the
inlet and outlet temperature of the equipment was measured
when the operation reached a steady state, avoiding tempera-
ture variations in the wall of the equipment. The difference
between the inlet and outlet temperature, in these experi-
ments is only caused by the loss of heat to the exterior, being
relatively easy to determine U knowing the surface area of the
equipment. From Eq. (1), Qfeed equals zero, then:
Qloss = Qin − Qout (26)
expanding Eq. (26), U can be determined by Eq. (27):

2.8. Relative humidity measurements Fdrying × Cpgas × (Tin − Tout )

To measure the relative humidity, a portable digital hygrome-
ter, model MTH-1362, Brand Ininipa, with a 2.5% accuracy was
used. Measurements were taken at the exit of the drying gas
at the top of the cyclone. The sensor has a relative humid-
ity range ranging from 0 to 100% and a K-type thermocouple
with a measuring range of −50 ◦ C to 1000 ◦ C was used to avoid
limitations on the outlet temperature of the drying gas.
2.9. Particle size determination
Dry powder samples from experiments were characterized
using scanning electronic microscopy, Tescan Vega 3, at 15 kV
without metal plating. The micrographs were analyzed using
imageJ software to determine the diameters of each visible
powder particle. Measurements were preformed in triplicate
for all samples.
U= (27)
Asup × Tw
U values for the industrial spray dryer studied varied
between 5.0 and 2.2 W/m2 K. These results are below to those
reported by Saravacos and Maroulis (2001) that reported val-
ues for drying with air between 20–100 W/m2 K not specifying
the type of equipment used (Saravacos and Maroulis, 2001).
U values increase with increasing flow rates of the drying gas
and when the outlet temperatures are high (above >120 ◦ C), but
remain relatively stable at lower temperatures. These results
suggest greater dependence on the temperature than on the
drying gas flow rate. Eq. (28) is a quadratic regression used to
estimate the U value used in all simulations henceforward.
U = 8.65 − 0.009Fdrying − 0.057Tin + 6.14 × 10−6 Fdrying
2
+4.2 × 10−5 Fdrying Tin − 0.0001Tin
2
(28)
 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60
Fig. 2 – Representation of the difference between the
experimental values and the estimated values for the inlet
(left) and outlet (right) temperatures.
3.2. Model validation: heat balance
A simple model was developed as described in Section 2 and
was completed with the determination of the global heat
transfer coefficient. Consequently the model needs to be ver-
ified and validated. First, the verification of a model involves
the critical analysis of the values obtained by the simulations,
that is, if the values obtained are in agreement with what
is expected. Such a check first allows to filter possible gross
errors of model development or calculations (Robinson, 2014).
Secondly, the validation of the model involves the execution
of experimental drying tests where the output of the model is
compared with experimental results. Fig. 2 shows the compar-
ison between experimental measurements, Tin and Tout , and
the output of the model simulations.
The experiments had inlet temperatures ranging from
70 ◦ C to 160 ◦ C, while the outlet temperatures ranged from
50 ◦ C to 105 ◦ C. This temperature range is in accordance
with the typical operating’s spaces used in food processing
(Gharsallaoui et al., 2007; Shishir and Chen, 2017). Inlet and
outlet temperatures estimated by the model correspond to
55
the experimental values for different temperature ranges,
between 170 ◦ C and 45 ◦ C. The linear equations fitted to the
data revealed slopes close to 1, (Experimental Inlet Tem-
perature = 1.0255 * Estimated Inlet Temperature − 2.66, Experi-
mental Outlet Temperature = 0.981 * Estimated Outlet Temper-
ature + 1.245) which indicates the proximity of the estimated
values with the experimental values. For both parameters,
all points are very close to the 95% confidence limit around
the compared values. The biggest difference between the esti-
mated and the experimental values for inlet temperature were
recorded at trial 13 and 15 with a difference of 3 ◦ C while for
outlet temperature, trial 10 and 11 recorded a difference of 2 ◦ C
and −2 ◦ C for trial 18. The mean absolute differences between
the estimated values and the experimental values varied from
0.8 ◦ C for the inlet temperature to 0.55 ◦ C for the outlet temper-
ature. These small variations may be related to the estimates
of U but also to the approximation used for specific heat and
enthalpy of water despite the use of food products. Heat bal-
ance was only validated for one equipment, yet it should be
robust enough to be applied in other equipment since the
value of U for that equipment is used. The fact that different
values of drying gas flow rate and feed flow rate were used,
supports the robustness and the versatility of the model.
3.3. Model validation: mass balance
Spray drying mass balance was modeled with the following
approximation: the drying gas removed 99% of the water and
thus the dry product would only have 1% of water content. This
approximation allowed the estimation of the outlet relative
humidity value as this variable is of paramount importance
for the drying kinetics for two reasons. Firstly, drying gas car-
rying more water decreases the mass transfer driving force
out of the droplet and thus increases the time required to dry.
Secondly because it lowers the glass transition temperature
of amorphous sugars and since the moisture acts as a plasti-
cizer, stickiness and wall deposition can occur or the shelf life
of food products maybe reduced (Mensink et al., 2017). Low
outlet relative humidity (%RHout ) can be achieved by simply
increase the outlet temperature. Such a solution may be inef-
fective because it consumes more energy and can thermally
degrade products and/or change their sensory characteristics.
Therefore, in order to define the drying conditions of a given
product, the scientist should make a balance between the
temperatures at the outlet, the relative humidity and a satis-
factory throughput. Typically the spray drying equipment does
not have instrumentation to measure the relative humidity
so it is not integrated at any control system increasing the
importance of simulating these values through models. For
validation, relative humidity measurements were made at the
exit of the cyclone with a digital hygrometer using the drying
conditions described in Table 1 and the values were compared
with the simulations. Fig. 3 shows the comparison between
the estimated relative humidity values and those observed
experimentally.
Values of outlet relative humidity were obtained in the
range of 8%–27%, which covers a good part of the typical
operating space of food processing (Mahdavi et al., 2014). Com-
parison between the estimated RH out with the experimental
measurements by fitting a linear equation to the data, (Exper-
imental RH out = 0,932 * Estimated RH out + 0.89) returned a
slope of 0.932 which is close to 1 indicating the proximity of
both values. Most of the data points are inside the 95% confi-
dence interval. The biggest difference recorded was −4.0% for
56 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60
Fig. 3 – Comparison between the estimated relative
humidity with the experimental values.
Fig. 4 – Contour plot of the combined design space used in
all trials.
trial 14, but the mean of absolute differences is only 0.85%.
Such a difference may be related to the approach made by the
model that considers the solid product to be totally dry, which
in fact does not happen, being part of the water retained in
the solid rather than being carried by the drying gas. Tonon
et al. (2008) reported higher percentages of residual moisture
on spray dryed Açai while using a combination of parame-
ters (Trial 3, Tin = 150 ◦ C and Ffeed = 21 g/min) that yielded the
highest RHout estimated by our model, supporting the relation
between RHout and residual moisture.
3.4. Design space
The combination of mass and heat balance allows the map-
ping of a thermodynamic operating space for a given process,
which is important to support decisions on drying parameters
since they critically affect properties of the final solid prod-
uct (Lebrun et al., 2012). The inlet and outlet temperature, the
ratio between feed flow rate and drying gas flow rate and the
relative humidity of drying gas at the outlet can be used to
define the design spaces of all trials performed in the present
work (Fig. 4). Such representation can also help the scale-up
of a process using non-dimensional parameters such as RHout
and Ffeed /Fdrying ratio.
Fig. 5 – Simulation of the drying effect on the glass
transition temperature for different solutes used in food
industry.
The contour plot was generated using a polynomial
equation to fit data (Eq. (29)) presenting a coefficient of deter-
mination of 96.75. A geometric figure was drawn inside the
area to present the thermodynamic design space. The bound-
aries of the geometric figure are also boundaries for a spray
drying process or undesirable operational areas and are sum-
marized in Table 2:
 
Ffeed Ffeed
%RH = 81.5 + 1485.4 · − 13, 264 ·
Fdrying Fdrying
Ffeed
2
− 1.5 · Tout + 0.007 · (Tout )2 − 10.5 · Tout · (29)
Fdrying
3.5. Glass transition estimative
Glass transition temperature estimations are relevant while
planning experiments since it has been shown that this tem-
perature is related to the stickiness of particles to the dryer
wall affecting the process yield, which industrially can be crit-
ical. Fig. 4 shows the use of Eq. (18) used to estimate the value
of the glass transition temperature for a mixture of solutes
with water. For Fig. 4, the solutes, fructose, maltodextrin and
starch were isolated and dissolved in water and the mass frac-
tion of each solute was varied, simulating the effect that the
drying would have on the glass transition temperature (Fig. 5).
From the simulation, it is verified that the glass transition
temperature of the chosen solutes varies from values close to
−80 ◦ C to values close to 0 ◦ C for fructose, 150 ◦ C for maltodex-
trin DE10 and above 200 ◦ C for starch. The most relevant glass
transition temperature are those obtained for mass fractions
close to 1%wt since the final product has only a small mass
fraction of water. Results can be verified by the estimates of
the glass transition temperature. Since water acts as a plas-
ticizer, the expected result is an increase on the transition
temperature with the decrease of the water mass fraction as
demonstrated by Fig. 4. Additionally, the selected solutes have
significant variations of molar mass which generates increas-
ing results of glass transition temperature. Although no data
 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60 57

Table 2 – Description of spray drying process boundaries.

Boundary Description

A Low throughput area where Ffeed is too low and thus process provides low benefit and is inefficient
B Outlet temperature is too high which may cause product thermal degradation;
C Equipment limitations since inlet temperature required is too high;
D Dew point temperature is to high and condensation may occur;
E High relative humidity may cause insufficient drying and product losses

is presented to validate the equation proposed in the present

study, this is in accordance with data in the literature, which
allows us to verify that the estimates are correct (Adhikari
et al., 2004, 2005; Normand et al., 2013).

3.6. Droplet size estimation and particle size

distribution

The atomization nozzle available in the spray drying used for

the present work is a two fluid nozzle and therefore the equa-
tion described in the respective section of this nozzle was used
(Eq. (23)). This equation has a constant K that can be used as
correction factor to better fit the data. The equation allows to
estimate the droplet size but as the droplet is dried it’s size is
reduced becoming difficult to validate this estimate without
proper in-line characterization tools. Thus and maintaining
the simplified philosophy of the present work Eq. (21) was
used using the estimated droplet size, and the final particle
size was estimated. Fig. 6 shows the comparison between the
estimated values for the particle size and the values obtained
experimentally.
The experimentally obtained particle sizes varied between
11 ␮m and 45 ␮m and these values were within the range of
atomization nozzles (Vicente et al., 2013). The estimated val-
ues for the particle size are very close to the experimental
values of particle size. Fitting a linear equation (Experimen-
tal Particle Size = 0.87 * Estimated Particle Size + 3.84), a slope
of 0.87 was obtained, revealing the similarity between both
values. The biggest difference recorded was 5.4 ␮m, but the
mean of absolute differences was 2.2 ␮m which supports the
accuracy of the equation used. It is important to mention that
drying conditions play a part on the particle size, since it can
affect the final geometry of the particle. Shriveled or ballooned
particles, are dependent of the drying kinetics, and conse-
quently the volume and density of such particles is affected. To
elaborate, if high drying kinetics, as a result from high temper-
atures or low relative humidity, is used then droplets tend to
dry faster, creating a thick shell at the droplet boundary that is Fig. 6 – Representation of the comparison between the
sustained throughtout the process by the internal pressure of experimental particle size with the estimated particle size
the liquid being evaporated. As a result, a large ballooned with (a) and cumulative frequency of the estimated particle size
high volume and low density particle is created. In contrast, using Rosin-Rammler distribution (b).
if low drying kinetics is used as a result of low temperatures
or high relative humidity then a thin layer formed in the ini-
tial stages of drying will tend to follow the retracted surface
until its thickness is stable enough to sustain the structure different particle sizes where the only difference in the dry-
of the particles. As a result a shriveled particle with lower ing process is the outlet temperature. Alamilla-Beltran et al.
volume and higher density is created. The evidence of the (2005) also report similar results. A more detailed explanation
mentioned shell can be found in Elversson work (Elversson can be found elsewhere (Vehring, 2008; Vicente et al., 2013).
et al., 2003). Peclet number is a dimensionless number that This explains why the same atomization conditions results in
relates the advective transport rate with the diffusive trans- different particle sizes. Particle size distribution can be esti-
port rate and can be used to relate the drying conditions, mated using a log-normal equation (Eq. (24)) with mean values
since in high drying kinetics the advective transport rate is of particle size as demonstrated by Fig. 6b, representing trial 3.
higher then the diffusive transport rate whereas in low drying The estimated curves show a good fit with other particle size
kinetics the contrary occurs. Vicente et al. (2013) clearly report values such as D10 and D90.
58 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60

Table 3 – Model estimates for spray drying different food products.

Trial Food product Fdrying (kg/h) Ffeed (kg/h) Est. Tin (◦ C) Est. Tout (◦ C) Est. Twb (◦ C) Est. Tdp (◦ C) Est. RHout (%) Est. tdrying (ms)

1 Goat milk 580 1.0 111 90 86 25 4 65

2 Goat milk 580 3.0 120 90 79 27 5 100
3 Goat milk 580 5.0 128 90 73 29 5 130
4 Goat milk 580 1.0 146 120 116 26 1 40
5 Goat milk 580 3.0 155 120 109 28 2 70
6 Goat milk 580 5.0 163 120 103 30 2 100
7 Cow milk 580 4.0 106 83 76 26 4 120
8 Cow milk 580 4.0 132 103 96 26 2 100
9 Cow milk 580 4.0 106 83 76 26 4 850
10 Cow milk 580 4.0 132 103 96 26 2 690
11 Cow milk 580 4.0 119 92 85 26 4 250
12 Coffee 144 1.2 100 50 32 28 27 90
13 Coffee 288 1.2 70 50 41 25 26 110
14 Coffee 144 1.2 100 50 33 28 31 20
15 Coffee 288 1.2 70 50 41 25 26 20
16 Acerola juice 288 1.2 120 83 74 26 7 70
17 Acerola juice 288 1.2 110 76 67 25 9 70
18 Acerola juice 288 1.2 72 50 41 25 28 110
19 Acerola juice 288 1.2 80 55 46 25 20 100
20 Acerola juice 288 1.2 100 74 59 25 10 80

ing outlet temperature decreases drying time due to higher

heat transfer to the droplet. Zbicinski et al. reported a series
of extensive experiments on spray drying kinetics and particle
residence time using in situ advanced testing equipment. They
also reported drying times shorter than 1 s and concluded that
drying gas temperature and atomization conditions have a
profound effect on drying kinetics just as the presented data
suggests (Zbicinski et al., 2002).

3.8. Further verification and validation

The proposed model, although simple, allows the estimation

Fig. 7 – Contour plot of the influence of outlet temperature
and droplet size on the minimum time to dry a droplet.
3.7. Drying kinetics
Under certain considerations it was possible to estimate the
drying time of different trials using Eq. (27). As mentioned
before, the considerations taken were two: drying occurred in
stagnant gas, with nusselt number equal to 2, and estimated
time corresponds to the constant rate period. The minimum
time required to completely dry a droplet under the different
drying and atomization conditions proposed on trials 1 to 20
was calculated and then a polynomial equation (Eq. (30)) was
used to fit the data and a contour plot was made (Fig. 7).
tdrying = −15.29 − 0.56 · Tout + 0.006 · (Tout )2
+2.80 · D50 + 0.02 · (D50)2 − 0.03 · Tout · D50
Eq. (30) has a coefficient of determination of 98.69 and all
parameters were significative for a p < 0.001. As expected dry-
ing time increases with increasing droplet size due to bigger
volume and less surface area for mass transfer while increas-
of many parameters that aid in the decision making process
of spray drying. Table 3 summarizes most values estimated
by the proposed equations in Section 2. Not all data pre-
sented can be validated, but only verified. Thus the values
obtained are in agreement with the results of several works
already published in the food area. Reddy et al., spray dried
goat milk using inlet/outlet air temperatures in the range
of 160-170–180 ◦ C/85 ◦ C in combination with increasing solids
concentration and evaluated the influence on the physical
properties of the dried milk. The authors report a constant
outlet temperature and a constant feed flow rate with increas-
ing inlet temperature which is thermodynamically impossible
unless the not mention drying gas flow rate is also decreasing
(Reddy et al., 2014). Fonseca et al., also dried goat milk using
similar conditions presented in trial 1 to 6, with atomization
parameters of 1 L/h of feed flow rate with 40–60 L/min of atom-
ization air flow rate. Using Eq. (21) and (22) it is possible to
determine a mean particle size of 13.3 ␮m, a value close to the
D50 value reported by the authors (Fonseca et al., 2011). Fras-
careli et al. spray dryed coffee emulsion with gum Arabic using
a central composite rotable design variying parameters such
as Cfeed (10–30%), Tin (150–190) and oil concentration which is
not used in our model. The authors report values for the out-
let temperature, that combined with the drying gas flow rate
(30) and the feed flow rate can validate our model for a U value
of 17 J/m2 K s (Superficial Area = 0.235 m2 ), which is a typical
value for a lab scale equipment and is much higher than our
double wall industrial equipment (Frascareli et al., 2012). Park
et al. reported spray drying bovine milk with a constant outlet
temperature of 90 ◦ C while inlet temperatures increased var-
 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60
ied from 160, 210 and 260 ◦ C. The outlet temperature was kept
constant due to increase on feed flow rate. The authors report,
even though consider it counterintuitive, that increasing inlet
temperature benefits flavor but mostly because of solids con-
centration and not higher wet-bulb temperature (Park et al.,
2016). Moreira et al. spray dried acerola pomace using a Mini
Spray Dryer Buchi B-290. The authors are not very accurate
with drying conditions used, reporting 5.51 × 104 kg/h for aspi-
rator flow rate, while the max air aspirator flow rate for this
equipment is approximately 40 kg/h if the drying gas is not
re-used, and since the feed rate is given, the peristaltic pump
rate it is an unknown parameter. The inlet temperatures are
much lower than the ones used in our work but this is proba-
bly because our drying gas flow rate is much higher then the
one used with the Buchi B-290 (Moreira et al., 2009).
4. Conclusions
The present work developed a simplified model of spray dry-
ing based on fundamental equations focusing application in
food industry. The development of this model allows the
estimation of key parameters for the design of processes
avoiding waste with successive laboratory tests throughout
the development of new products by spray drying. The main
features of the proposed model are its simplicity, that it can
be easily applied in spreadsheet software or other free code
software and that either a trained scientist or a junior scien-
tist can easily implement it. Model simulations were verified
and validated presenting precision while estimating process
parameters and drying conditions for a large range of food
products, temperatures and relative humidity. Therefore it is
concluded that the developed model is precise and robust for
industrial scale equipment in food industry.
References
Adhikari, B., Howes, T., Bhandari, B., Troung, V., 2004. Effect of
addition of maltodextrin on drying kinetics and stickiness of
sugar and acid-rich foods during convective drying:
experiments and modelling. J. Food Eng. 62 (1), 53–68.
Adhikari, B., Howes, T., Lecomte, D., Bhandari, B., 2005. A glass
transition temperature approach for the prediction of the
surface stickiness of a drying droplet during spray drying.
Powder Technol. 149 (2), 168–179.
Alamilla-Beltran, L., Chanona-Perez, J.J., Jimenez-Aparicio, A.R.,
Gutierrez-Lopez, G.F., 2005. Description of morphological
changes of particles along spray drying. J. Food Eng. 67 (1),
179–184.
Anandharamakrishnan, C., Rielly, C., Stapley, A., 2007. Effects of
process variables on the denaturation of whey proteins during
spray drying. Dry. Technol. 25 (5), 799–807.
Avaltroni, F., Bouquerand, P., Normand, V., 2004. Maltodextrin
molecular weight distribution influence on the glass
transition temperature and viscosity in aqueous solutions.
Carbohydr. Polym. 58 (3), 323–334.
Baldinger, A., Clerdent, L., Rantanen, J., Yang, M., Grohganz, H.,
2012. Quality by design approach in the optimization of the
spray-drying process. Pharm. Dev. Technol. 17 (4), 389–397.
Bhandari, B.R., Datta, N., Howes, T., 1997. Problems associated
with spray drying of sugar-rich foods. Dry. Technol. 15 (2),
671–684.
Elversson, J., Millqvist-Fureby, A., Alderborn, G., Elofsson, U., 2003.
Droplet and particle size relationship and shell thickness of
inhalable lactose particles during spray drying. J. Pharm. Sci.
92 (4), 900–910.
Fazaeli, M., Emam-Djomeh, Z., Ashtari, A.K., Omid, M., 2012.
Effect of spray drying conditions and feed composition on the
59
physical properties of black mulberry juice powder. Food
Bioprod. Process. 90 (4), 667–675.
Ferrari, C.C., Marconi Germer, S.P., Alvim, I.D., de Aguirre, J.M.,
2013. Storage stability of spray-dried blackberry powder
produced with maltodextrin or gum arabic. Dry. Technol. 31
(4), 470–478.
Fletcher, D.F., Guo, B., Harvie, D.J.E., Langrish, T.A.G., Nijdam, J.J.,
Williams, J., 2006. What is important in the simulation of
spray dryer performance and how do current CFD models
perform? Appl. Math. Modell. 30 (11), 1281–1292,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2006.03.006.
Fonseca, C.R., Bento, M.S.G., Quintero, E.S.M., Gabas, A.L.,
Oliveira, C.A.F., 2011. Physical properties of goat milk powder
with soy lecithin added before spray drying. Int. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 46 (3), 608–611.
Frascareli, E.C., Silva, V.M., Tonon, R.V., Hubinger, M.D., 2012.
Effect of process conditions on the microencapsulation of
coffee oil by spray drying. Food Bioprod. Process. 90 (3),
413–424.
Gharsallaoui, A., Roudaut, G., Chambin, O., Voilley, A., Saurel, R.,
2007. Applications of spray-drying in microencapsulation of
food ingredients: an overview. Food Res. Int. 40 (9), 1107–1121,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2007.07.004.
Gianfrancesco, A., Turchiuli, C., Dumoulin, E., 2008. Powder
agglomeration during the spray-drying process:
measurements of air properties. Dairy Sci. Technol. 88 (1),
53–64, http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/dst:2007008.
Gordon, M., Taylor, J.S., 1952. Ideal copolymers and the
second-order transitions of synthetic rubbers. I.
Non-crystalline copolymers. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2
(9), 493–500.
Grant, P., Cantor, B., Katgerman, L., 1993. Modelling of droplet
dynamic and thermal histories during spray forming—II.
Effect of process parameters. Acta Metall. Mater. 41 (11),
3109–3118.
Grasmeijer, N., de Waard, H., Hinrichs, W.L., Frijlink, H.W., 2013. A
user-friendly model for spray drying to aid pharmaceutical
product development. PLoS One 8 (9), e74403.
Ivey, J.W., Vehring, R., 2010. The use of modeling in spray drying
of emulsions and suspensions accelerates formulation and
process development. Comput. Chem. Eng. 34 (7), 1036–1040.
Kemp, I.C., Hartwig, T., Herdman, R., Hamilton, P., Bisten, A.,
Bermingham, S., 2016. Spray drying with a two-fluid nozzle to
produce fine particles: atomization, scale-up, and modeling.
Dry. Technol. 34 (10), 1243–1252.
Lebrun, P., Krier, F., Mantanus, J., Grohganz, H., Yang, M., Rozet, E.,
Boulanger, B., Evrard, B., Rantanen, J., Hubert, P., 2012. Design
space approach in the optimization of the spray-drying
process. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 80 (1), 226–234.
Lefebvre, A., 1988. Atomization and Sprays, vol. 1040. CRC press.
Lefebvre, A.H., 1989. Properties of sprays. Part. Part. Syst. Char. 6
(1–4), 176–186.
Loerting, T., Fuentes-Landete, V., Handle, P.H., Seidl, M.,
Amann-Winkel, K., Gainaru, C., Böhmer, R., 2015. The glass
transition in high-density amorphous ice. J. Non-Cryst. Solids
407, 423–430.
Lubanska, H., 1970. Correlation of spray ring data for gas
atomization of liquid metals. JOM 22 (2), 45–49.
Mahdavi, S.A., Jafari, S.M., Ghorbani, M., Assadpoor, E., 2014.
Spray-drying microencapsulation of anthocyanins by natural
biopolymers: a review. Dry. Technol. 32 (5), 509–518.
Maltesen, M.J., Bjerregaard, S., Hovgaard, L., Havelund, S., van de
Weert, M., 2008. Quality by design — spray drying of insulin
intended for inhalation. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 70 (3),
828–838, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2008.07.015.
Masters, K., 1979. Spray Drying Handbook. George Godwin
Limited, John Wiley and Sons, London, New York.
Mensink, Maarten A., Frijlink, Henderik W., van der Voort
Maarschalk, Kees, Hinrichs, Wouter L.J., 2017. How sugars
protect proteins in the solid state and during drying (review):
mechanisms of stabilization in relation to stress conditions.
Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 114, 288–295, ISSN 0939-6411
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpb.2017.01.024.
60 Food and Bioproducts Processing 1 0 7 ( 2 0 1 8 ) 49–60
Moreira, G.E.G., Costa, M.G.M., de Souza, A.C.R., de Brito, E.S., de
Medeiros, M.d.F.D., de Azeredo, H.M.C., 2009. Physical
properties of spray dried acerola pomace extract as affected
by temperature and drying aids. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 42
(2), 641–645.
Musina, Olga, Putnik, Predrag, Koubaa, Mohamed, Barba,
Francisco J., Greiner, Ralf, Granato, Daniel, Roohinejad,
Shahin, 2017. Application of modern computer algebra
systems in food formulations and development: a case study.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 64, 48–59, ISSN 0924-2244
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.03.011.
Nath, S., Satpathy, G.R., 1998. A systematic approach for
investigation of spray drying processes. Dry. Technol. 16 (6),
1173–1193.
Normand, V., Subramaniam, A., Donnelly, J., Bouquerand, P.-E.,
2013. Spray drying: thermodynamics and operating
conditions. Carbohydr. Polym. 97 (2), 489–495.
Oakley, D.E., 2004. Spray dryer modeling in theory and practice.
Dry. Technol. 22 (6), 1371–1402.
Park, C.W., Stout, M.A., Drake, M., 2016. The effect of spray-drying
parameters on the flavor of nonfat dry milk and milk protein
concentrate 70%. J. Dairy Sci. 99 (12), 9598–9610.
Prinn, K.B., Costantino, H.R., Tracy, M., 2002. Statistical modeling
of protein spray drying at the lab scale. AAPS PharmSciTech 3
(1), 32–39, http://dx.doi.org/10.1208/pt030104.
Reddy, R.S., Ramachandra, C.T., Hiregoudar, S., Nidoni, U., Ram, J.,
Kammar, M., 2014. Influence of processing conditions on
functional and reconstitution properties of milk powder made
from Osmanabadi goat milk by spray drying. Small Rumin.
Res. 119 (1), 130–137.
Robinson, S., 2014. Simulation: The Practice of Model
Development and Use. Palgrave Macmillan.
Saravacos, G.D., Maroulis, Z.B., 2001. Transport Properties of
Foods. CRC Press.
Schiffter, H., Lee, G., 2007. Single-droplet evaporation kinetics and
particle formation in an acoustic levitator. Part 1: evaporation
of water microdroplets assessed using boundary-layer and
acoustic levitation theories. J. Pharm. Sci. 96 (9), 2274–2283.
Shishir, Mohammad Rezaul Islam, Chen, Wei, 2017. Trends of
spray drying: a critical review on drying of fruit and vegetable
juices. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 65, 49–67, ISSN 0924-2244
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.05.006.
Silva, C.R.d., Martins, E., Silveira, A.C.P., Simeão, M., Mendes, A.L.,
Perrone, Í.T., Schuck, P., de Carvalho, A.F., 2017.
Thermodynamic characterization of single-stage
spray-dryers: mass and energy balances for milk drying. Dry
Technol. 35 (15), 1791–1798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2016.1275675.
Tonon, R.V., Brabet, C., Hubinger, M.D., 2008. Influence of process
conditions on the physicochemical properties of açai (Euterpe
oleraceae Mart.) powder produced by spray drying. J. Food Eng.
88 (3), 411–418.
Tontul, Ismail, Topuz, Ayhan, 2017. Spray-drying of fruit and
vegetable juices: effect of drying conditions on the product
yield and physical properties. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 63,
91–102, ISSN 0924-2244
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.03.009.
Vehring, R., 2008. Pharmaceutical particle engineering via spray
drying. Pharm. Res. 25 (5), 999–1022.
Vicente, J., Pinto, J., Menezes, J., Gaspar, F., 2013. Fundamental
analysis of particle formation in spray drying. Powder
Technol. 247, 1–7.
Walzel, P., 2011. Influence of the spray method on product quality
and morphology in spray drying. Chem. Eng. Technol. 34 (7),
1039–1048, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ceat.201100051.
Woo, M., Bhandari, B., 2013. Spray Drying for Food Powder
Production Handbook of Food Powders. Woodhead Publishing
Limited, Cambridge, UK, pp. 29–56.
Woo, M.W., Daud, W.R.W., Mujumdar, A.S., Wu, Z., Meor Talib,
M.Z., Tasirin, S.M., 2008. CFD evaluation of droplet drying
models in a spray dryer fitted with a rotary atomizer. Dry.
Technol. 26 (10), 1180–1198.
Zbicinski, I., Strumillo, C., Delag, A., 2002. Drying kinetics and
particle residence time in spray drying. Dry. Technol. 20 (9),
1751–1768.