3.

Experimental protocols

3.1. Material selection and sample preparation

It has been identified from Tables 2.1-2.4, that various foodstuffs have been dried
using CDM. The foodstuffs employed in experimental and mathematical works on
CDM are categorized into four groups viz., vegetables, fruits, root vegetables and
others and their percentages are indicated in Fig. 3.1. It is identified that most of the
works (44%) employed vegetables as drying material. Subsequent majority of works
(40%) dried fruits in CDM. Only less percentage of works (14%) are considered root
vegetables as drying material. Two percent of works used other food materials such as
fermented milk products [108, 115] , tobacco [125], wheat [133].

50%

44%
40%
40%

30%

20%

14%

10%

2%
0%
Vegatables Fruits Root vegetables Miscellaneous

Fig: 3.1 Percentage of various foodstuffs used in CDM

Among the root vegetables as shown in Fig. 3.2, majority of works employed potato
(29%) and carrot (23%). The reason for more percentage of potato and carrot in CDM
can be attributed to its easy availability in local markets. Later proportion of root
vegetables employed in CDM are radish (18%) [134-137], garlic (15%) and ginger
(14%). Only one percent of works considered beetroot as drying material in CDM. But
the red beetroot (Beta vulgaris L.) is a popular root vegetable as it possesses many
essential nutrients viz., fibre, manganese, potassium, iron, vitamin C and folate that are
required for humans [138]. Studies also reported that consuming red beetroot improves
cardiovascular health, lowers daily systolic blood pressure [139]. Also, recently
beetroot is recommended as a health-promoting functional food product [140].
Therefore, it is important to dry the beetroot for preservation (because of its
perishability nature) and storage.

14%
15%

18%

23%

1%
Beetroot (1%)

29%

Fig: 3.2 Root vegetables employed in CDM in percentage

On the other hand, red beetroot powder which is a derivative of dried beetroot has
various commercial applications such as food colorant in jams, sauces, desserts and ice
creams. Further, it is used in food supplements, bakery powder, chips etc., [141]. In
spite of these many health benefits and commercial applications of red beetroot, there
is a very scarce research conducted on drying kinetics of red beetroot. Hence, in the
present thesis red beetroot is chosen as the drying material.

Fresh and good quality red beetroot are obtained from local market Vijayawada
(Southern region of India). The pre-treatment processes such as soaking, blanching,
dehydration and salting are avoided to safeguard the water soluble betalain pigments.
First the red beetroot samples are washed, peeled and diced into square shape of
60𝑚𝑚 × 60 𝑚𝑚, using a sharp stainless-steel sterilized knife. Later, these diced
beetroots samples are carefully sliced into required (3, 5, 7 and 9 𝑚𝑚) thicknesses.
Then, the obtained beetroot slices are uniformly distributed over the trays. After drying
the samples in an oven at 105 °𝐶 for one day the initial MC of the beetroot samples is
found to be 7.05 ± 0.02 𝑘𝑔𝑤 ⁄𝑘𝑔𝑑𝑠 by using Eq. 1 [142,143].

mi − md
MCdb = (1)
md
3.2. Drying equipment description and instrumentation

A lab-scale hot air induced draught convective tray dryer (IDCTD) is used to dry
the red beetroot. The schematic and pictorial view of the IDCTD is shown in Figs. 3.3
and 3.4. The schematic view of IDCTD is drawn using SolidWorks.

4 5

2 3
6

Fig: 3.3 Schematic 3D view of IDCTD

1
2 6
3

Fig: 3.4 Pictorial view of IDCTD

1- Variable speed ID speed; 2- Rectangular duct; 3- Drying chamber; 4- Digital
weighing balance; 5 - Control unit; 6- Heating coils
The major components of the IDCTD system are drying chamber, heating coils,
rectangular air duct, variable speed induced draft (ID) fan and control unit. The drying
chamber consists of three drying trays made-up of stainless steel for placing the product
sample. Each tray has a dimension of 340 mm length and 260 𝑚𝑚 breadth. Further, a
transparent door is provided across the drying chamber to observe the drying process.
To avoid the leakage from drying chamber, a 25 mm thick layer of glass wool insulation
is employed to transparent door. Three heating coils of each 1 kW capacity are used for
heating the ambient air to a required temperature. The variable speed ID air fan of 2.77
m3/s capacity is mounted at the end of the rectangular duct (1.4 m ×0.45 m × 0.45 m)
to maintain uniform air flow along the drying chamber. The Control unit is used for
monitoring and regulating the air flow, temperature and RH across the drying chamber.
Table 3.1 lists the component characteristics and measuring range and accuracy of
various instruments.

Table 3.1. Specifications of measuring instruments used in IDCTD

Component Technical specifications Range Accuracy

Type T
Thermocouples 0 to 200 °𝐶 ±1 °𝐶
(Copper/Constantan)
Thermo
hygrometer VelVeeta (HTC-2) 0 to 100% ±3 %

Digital turbine
type Beetech (AM-4208) 0 to 45 𝑚⁄𝑠 ±2 %
anemometer
Weighing Accurate electronics
balance (ATC-10W-Rear) 0 to 10 𝑘𝑔 ±0.01 𝑔

Digital
stopwatch Sasy laboratory timer 0 to 20 ℎ ±0.01 𝑠

T-type thermocouples are used to measure air and product temperature across the
drying chamber. A thermo hygrometer is employed to estimate the RH at various
locations of the drying chamber. A digital turbine type anemometer is used for
estimating the air velocity across the drying chamber. Using Log Tchebycheff Method
[144] the average air velocity across the drying chamber is estimated. A digital
weighing balance is kept outside the IDCTD system for estimating the changes in the
weight of the product.
3.3. Experimental test procedure and formulae

Initially, air is heated to a required temperature and drawn across the drying chamber
using variable speed ID fan under no load condition (without the product sample) to
measure the heat losses. For each experiment (after IDCTD should reaches steady state)
500 𝑔 of beetroot slices are uniformly distributed over the trays (each tray consists of
164–167 𝑔 of beetroot samples). When the dryer reaches a steady state condition, these
trays are kept inside the drying space. After every 10 minutes, the weight of the beetroot
slices is recorded for analysing the drying characteristics of the same. This experimental
study is continued till no weight change in the product sample (beetroot) is observed
for three successive readings. For the assurance of reliability of the measured data, all
the experiments are repeated at least twice.

3.3.1. Moisture ratio

The moisture ratio (𝑀𝑅) of the beetroot slices during the thin layer drying
experiments can be estimated based on external conditions of air and is evaluated from
Eq. (2) [25].

M − M e
MR = (2)
Mi − Me

3.3.2. Drying rate

The drying rate (𝐷𝑅) is expressed as the amount of moisture evaporated from the
beetroot placed in the drying chamber over time and it is obtained from Eq. (3), [44].

M  + d − M 
DR = (3)
d

3.3.3. Moisture effective diffusivity

It gives internal mass transfer in the red beetroot. Diffusion of moisture within the
beetroot during drying may occur as a combination of capillary flow, Knudsen flow,
molecular diffusion, hydrodynamic flow and surface diffusion. Hence it is significant
to find effective moisture diffusivity (𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 ), which is estimated by using Fick’s II law
of diffusion (Eq. 4) [145].
 dM d 2M
= Deff (4)
d dz 2

𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 varies significantly with moisture and can be determined by analysing the
drying data, with following boundary conditions (BCs):

 = 0 & 0  z    M = Mi (5)

dM
  0& z = 0  =0 (6)
dz
  0 & z =   M = Me (7)

For slab shape beetroot slice, Eq. (5) represents first BC which states that initially
moisture in beetroot is uniformly distributed. The second BC is represented τ by Eq.
(6), which implies that the mass transfer is symmetric with respect to centre of the slab.
Eq. (7) denotes third BC, which states that the surface moisture content (MC) of the
samples rapidly reaches equilibrium with drying conditions of ambient air.

By neglecting shrinkage and assuming constant temperature and uniform initial

moisture distribution, the analytical solution of Eq. (4) for infinite slab can be obtained
as [146].

8 
1  ( 2n + 1)2  2 Deff  
MR = 2  exp  −  (8)
 n =0 ( 2n + 1)2  4 2 
 
For long drying periods, the Eq. (8) can be simplified to only first term of the series
as shown in Eq. (9) [147].

8   2 Deff  
MR = 2 exp  −  (9)
  4 2
 
Eq. (9) can be further simplified and expressed in a logarithmic form as indicated in
Eq. (10) [148].

 8    Deff  
2

ln ( MR ) = ln  2  −   (10)
    4
2

Hence, 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 of red beetroot slices is estimated from the slope of the straight line

  2 Deff 
 −  which fits the experimental data of ln ( MR ) versus drying time ( ) .
 4
2

3.3.4. Activation energy

The activation energy (𝐸𝑎 ) is also a key performance parameter, which signifies the
energy level of water molecules for moisture diffusion and evaporation. The
relationship between 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 and temperature is assumed to be an Arrhenius equation and
it is expressed as [149].
 − Ea 
Deff = D0 exp 
 R (T + 273.15) 
(11)
 a 
Thus, the 𝐸𝑎 of red beetroot slices is predicted from the slope obtained by plotting

ln ( Deff ) as a function of 1 (Ta + 273.15) .

3.3.5. Heat and mass transfer coefficients

The interface heat and mass transfer coefficients (HTC & MTC) gives the heat and
mass transfer through the stationary layer of hot drying air which is in adherence to the
solid surface.
The HTC on the surface of beetroot during drying is calculated from Eq. (12) [150].
.
m h fg
h = (12)
(
A Ta − Tpm )
The average convective MTC on the surface of beetroot slices is determined from Eq.
(13) [151].
.
m
 m = − ln ( MR ) (13)
A

3.4. Experimental uncertainty

Generally, errors in the experiments arises from instrument selection, state,

calibration, ambient conditions and human errors [152]. The maximum possible errors
in various measuring parameters such as air temperature, air velocity, RH, product
weight loss and drying time are estimated from the minimum value of the measurement
range and the accuracy of the instrument. Whereas, the errors/uncertainties in estimated
parameters of drying kinetics such as MC, DR, average HTC and MTC, MR and τ are
calculated using Eq. (14) [153]. Accordingly, uncertainties involved in the
aforementioned parameters are obtained as ±4%, ±6%, ±2%, ±3% and ±1%,
respectively (Appendix-I).

12
 N 2  N 2  N  
2

 N =  1  +  2  + ..... +  n   (14)
 x1   x2   xn  
Where, 𝑁 = 𝑓(𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … 𝑥𝑛 )
𝜉𝑁 = Uncertainty in estimated parameter (𝑁) of drying kinetics
𝜉1 , 𝜉2 , … , 𝜉𝑛 = Uncertainties in the measured parameters (𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , … 𝑥𝑛 )

3.5. Results and discussion

To study the drying kinetics of beetroot, air temperature, RH, product thickness and
air velocity are chosen as governing/inlet parameters. Influence of each governing
parameter on drying characteristics (MC, DR and MR) and transport properties (𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 ,
𝐸𝑎 , HTC and MTC) of beetroot slices are investigated by varying one particular
parameter and keeping rest of the inlet parameters constant. Table 3.2, shows the
operating range and standard inlet condition chosen for studying the hot-air drying
kinetics of beetroot.

Table 3.2. Operating and standard inlet conditions considered to study the influence
of various drying conditions

Standard
Governing parameter Operating range
condition
Temperature (°𝐶) 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80 65
Velocity (𝑚⁄𝑠) 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 2
RH (%) 25, 30, 35 30
Product thickness (𝑚𝑚) 3, 5, 7, 9 5

3.5.1. Drying characteristics of red beetroot slices

At the specified inlet conditions listed in Table 3.2, the variation of product MC and
DR with τ for different inlet parameters such as air temperature, air velocity, RH and
product sample thickness are plotted in Figs. 3.5 and 3.6.

Figs. 3.5 (a) - 3.5 (d) shows the influence of each parameter on MC variation and
drying time. In Fig. 3.5 (a), it is observed that with increase in temperature from 50°C
to 80°C drying time decreases from 460 𝑚𝑖𝑛 to 210 𝑚𝑖𝑛. This is due to the fact that
as the air temperature increases, vapour pressure difference at the product-air interface
increases It is also found the moisture content of the product exponentially decreases
with time under the influence of drying air temperature. In Fig. 3.5 (a), as temperature
increases, moisture content decreases more steeply with time. This is due to the fact
that warm air requires more moisture to reach saturated condition. Hence, the moisture
content on the surface of product is absorbed rapidly by drying air and it also
simultaneously increases the rate of water transfer from the interior of the particle to its
surface. As seen from Fig. 3.5 (a), increasing the value of temperature from 50°𝐶 to
80°𝐶, decreased the total drying time from about, to reach final moisture content i.e.,
60% increase in temperature decreases the drying time by 54.35%. Similar trends for
the variation of MC with time for different temperatures was shown in Tzempelikos et
al. [154] where rise in temperature from 40°C to 50°C, the drying time is diminished
about 25% and further rise in 60°C cut the drying time about 36%. While the total
drying time is diminished about 54% which is in the same range of present work.

Fig. 3.5 (b), shows the influence of air velocity on the moisture variation in the
beetroot with time. It is analysed by varying the velocity of air in the range of 1 to
3 𝑚⁄𝑠 and all other governing parameters are maintained at constant values. It is seen
that an increase in velocity of drying air, drying time decreases. It is also observed that
moisture content of the product exponentially varies with time under the influence of
air velocity. In Fig. 3.5 (b), as velocity of drying air increases, moisture content
decreases sharply with time. The reason for this can be attributed to the fact that high
velocities of air offers less surface resistances of moisture transfer when compared to
low velocities. As seen from Fig. 3.5 (b), increasing the value of velocity from 1 to
3 𝑚⁄𝑠, decreased the total drying time from about 450 𝑚𝑖𝑛 to 260 𝑚𝑖𝑛, to reach the
final moisture content i.e., 200% increase in velocity, decreases drying time by 42.2%
which are alike to the results of Krokida et al. [155] regarding variation of MC with
time for various velocities indicated that influence of air velocity on the acceleration of
drying process is less as compared to that of air temperature.
 8
At V= 2 m/s; RH = 30%; mm
7

Moisture content (kgw/kgsolid) 6 50 C

55 C
60 C
5 65 C
70 C
4 75 C
80 C Uncertainty
Error bar
3
Time
Moisture content %
2

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig. 3.5 (a) Effect of temperature on MC and drying time of red beetroot

7
T= ; RH = 30%; mm 1 m/s
1.5 m/s
Moisture content (kgw/kgsolid)

6 2 m/s
2.5 m/s
5 3 m/s

4 Uncertainty
Error bar
3 Time
Moisture content %
2

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig. 3.5 (b) Effect of air velocity on MC and drying time of red beetroot
 8

7
T=65 C; V= 2 m/s
Moisture content (kgw/kgsolid) 6

5 35 %
30 %
25 %
4

3 Uncertainty
Error bar
Time
2
Moisture content %

0
0 100 200 300 400
Time (min)

Fig. 3.5 (c) Effect of RH on MC and drying time of red beetroot

7
T=65 C; V= 2 m/s; RH= 30%
Moisture content (kgw/kgsolid)

5 Uncertainty 9 mm
Error bar 7 mm
Time 5 mm
4 3 mm
Moisture content %

0
0 100 200 300 400
Time (min)

Fig. 3.5 (d) Effect of product thickness on MC and drying time of red beetroot

Fig: 3.5 Effect of various external drying conditions on MC of drying material

 Fig. 3.5 (c), shows the impact of air humidity on the moisture variation in the product
with time. It is studied by varying the relative humidity of air in the range of 25 to 35%
and all other governing parameters are maintained at aforementioned constant values.
It is seen that with increase in relative humidity of drying air, drying time increases. It
is found that moisture content of the product exponentially varies with time under the
influence of relative humidity of air. In Fig. 3.5 (c), it is further found that drying air
with higher humidity takes longer times to dry the product samples. The reason for this
can be stated that air is already saturated with water, and moisture on the surface of the
product evaporates more slowly. As seen from Fig. 3.5 (c), increasing the value of
relative humidity of drying air from 25 to 35% , increased the total drying time from
about 310𝑚𝑖𝑛 to 400 𝑚𝑖𝑛, to reach the final moisture content i.e., 36.36% increment
in relative humidity, increases the drying time by 29.04%. Kaya et al. [156] reported
40% increment of drying time with 27.7 % increase in relative humidity of air which
are in the same range of present work.

Fig. 3.5(d), shows the moisture variation with time for different product sample
thickness. It is investigated by varying the product thickness in the range of 3 to 9 𝑚𝑚
and all properties of drying air are kept constant as indicated in Table 5. It is seen that
with increase in product sample thickness, drying time increases. It is also found that
moisture content of the product exponentially varies with time under the influence of
product thickness. In Fig. 3.5(d), it is also found that product sample with larger
thickness requires a longer duration of drying when compared to product sample of
smaller thickness. The reason for this can be attributed to the increased distance
travelled by moisture to the surface. As seen from Fig. 3.5(d), increasing the thickness
of beetroot sample from 3 to 9 𝑚𝑚, increased the total drying time from about 420 𝑚𝑖𝑛
to 300 𝑚𝑖𝑛, i.e., an increment of beetroot thickness by 200% leads to an increase of
40% drying time to reach the final moisture content. Mwithiga and Joseph [157]
reported increment in drying time with increase in product (kale) thickness which is in
the similar lines of present work.
 Initial transient period Falling rate period
0.05
0.045
50 C
0.04 55 C
60 C
65 C
Drying rate (kgwv/kgsolid.min)

0.035 70 C
75 C
0.03 80 C

0.025 Uncertainity
Error bar
0.02
Time ± %
Uncertainty
0.015 Drying rate Error bar±3%
Time
0.01
Drying rate %
0.005
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig. 3.6 (a) Effect of air temperature on drying rate of red beetroot

0.05
Uncertainty 1 m/s
0.045 1.5 m/s
Error bar 2 m/s
0.04 2.5 m/s
Drying rate (kgw/kgsolid.min)

Time
3 m/s
0.035 Drying rate %
0.03
Uncertainity
0.025 Error bar
Time ± %
0.02 Drying rate ±3%

0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig. 3.6 (b) Effect of air velocity on drying rate of red beetroot
 0.045
Uncertainty 35 %
0.04 30 %
Error bar
25 %
Drying rate (kgw/kgsolid.min) 0.035 Time
Drying rate %
0.03

0.025 Uncertainity
Error bar
0.02 Time ± %
Drying rate ±3%
0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 100 200 300 400
Time (min)

Fig. 3.6 (c) Effect of air relative humidity on drying rate of red beetroot
0.045
Uncertainty 9 mm
0.04 7 mm
Error bar
5 mm
0.035 Time 3 mm
Drying rate (kgw/kgsolid.min)

Drying rate %
0.03
Uncertainity
0.025 Error bar
Time ± %
0.02
Drying rate ±3%

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig. 3.6 (d) Effect of product thickness on drying rate of red beetroot

Fig: 3.6 Effect of various external drying conditions on drying rate of red beetroot
 Figs. 3.6(a) – 3.6(d), shows the variations in the drying rate of the beetroot with the
time for different values of the drying air conditions and sample size of the product. In
Fig. 3.6(a), the influence of temperature is investigated, hence drying air temperature is
varied in the range of 50 − 80°𝐶 and all other parameters are kept constant. The drying
rate versus time for all temperatures are shown in Fig. 3.6(a) and from these curves, it
can be seen that with increasing air temperature, drying rate decreases and drying time
decreases. It is also seen that, the rate of removal of moisture was higher in the initial
stage, which decreases thereafter as drying progresses under all experiments. Hence,
drying of beetroot samples can be observed in only two drying stages as shown in Fig.
3.6(a). First stage is initial phase of drying rate where the rate of evaporation was higher
due to the high concentration of free moisture on the surface of product. Second stage
is falling rate period, where that drying rate declines until the end of the drying process.
This happens due to hardened surface of product at the end of initial phase of drying,
which could increase the resistance to moisture severity at the surface. From Figs. 3.6,
it is seen that beetroot didn’t exhibit a constant rate drying stage and entire drying took
place in the falling rate period. The non-existence of a constant rate period in product
drying may be explained by the fact that the surface of product slices was not covered
by free water region at any time. These results are in agreement with Kongdej [158],
Darvishi et al. [25], Kaya et al. [156].

Fig. 3.6 (b), shows the effect of air velocity on the rate of drying in the product with
time. It is analysed by varying the velocity of air in the range of 1 to 3 𝑚⁄𝑠 and all
other governing parameters are maintained at constant values. From, Fig. 3.6 (b), it is
seen that higher drying rates are obtained at higher drying air velocities. It is due to the
fact that, higher velocity of air accelerates both heat and mass transfer at the interface
of the air and product and therefore increases the drying rate. Also, high velocities of
air offer less surface resistances to evaporation of moisture at the product sample
surface.

Fig. 3.6 (c), shows the impact of air humidity on drying rate in the product with time.
It is studied by varying the relative humidity of air in the range of 25 to 35% and all
other governing parameters are maintained at aforementioned constant values. In Fig.
3.6 (c), it is seen that higher drying rates are attained at minimum drying air humidity.
It is due to the fact that for a specific drying air temperature, any increase in relative
humidity decreases its capacity for absorbing additional moisture from the product
surface. Also, higher relative humidity of drying air impedes the rate of evaporation.

Fig. 3.6 (d), shows the influence of product thickness on drying rate in the product
with time. It is studied by varying the thickness of the product in the range of 3 to 9 𝑚𝑚
and all other governing parameters are maintained at aforementioned constant values.
In Fig. 3.6 (d), it is seen that higher drying rates are attained at minimum product
thickness. It is due to the fact that for a specific drying air conditions, any increase in
thickness of product, moisture in the capillary pores of the product requires a longer
drying duration to reach the surface of the product.

0.07
50 C
55 C
0.06 Uncertainity 60 C
Error bar 65 C
70 C
Drying rate (kgw/kgsolid.min)

Drying rate ± % 75 C
0.05 80 C
Moisture ratio ±2%

0.04

0.03

0.02 Uncertainty
Error bar
0.01 Drying rate %
Moisture ratio 3%

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Moisture ratio (dimensionless)

Fig. 3.7 (a) DR vs MR for red beetroot at different air temperatures

 0.07
Uncertainity 1 m/s
0.06 Error bar 1.5 m/s

Drying rate (kgw/kgsolid.min)

2 m/s
Drying rate ± %
2.5 m/s
Moisture ratio ±2% 3 m/s
0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02 Uncertainty
Error bar
Drying rate %
0.01
Moisture ratio 3%

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Moisture ratio (dimensionless)

Fig. 3.7 (b) DR vs MR for red beetroot at different air velocities

0.07
Uncertainity
Uncertainty
0.06 Error bar 35 %
Drying rate (kgw/kgsolid.min)

Error
Drying rate bar ± % 30 %
Drying
Moisture ratio rate ±2% % 25 %
0.05
Moisture ratio 3%

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Moisture ratio (dimensionless)

Fig. 3.7 (c) DR vs MR for red beetroot at different RH of air

 0.07
Uncertainity 9 mm
0.06 Error bar 7 mm
± %
Drying rate (kgw/kgsolid.min)
Drying rate 5 mm
Moisture ratio ±2% 3 mm
0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02 Uncertainty
Error bar
0.01 Drying rate %
Moisture ratio 3%

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Moisture ratio (dimensionless)

Fig. 3.7 (d) DR vs MR for different product thickness of red beetroot

Fig: 3.7 DR vs MR of red beetroot for various drying parameters

The drying rate versus moisture ratio for different governing parameters are depicted
through Figs. 3.7 (a) – 3.7 (d). All the drying rate curves in Figs. 3.7 (a) – 3.7 (d) follow
the similar trend and it is obvious that, drying of the beetroot involves only two stages,
warm-up or initial accelerating stage and falling rate stage, without a constant drying
rate phase. At the start of drying process, with decrease in moisture ratio of the product,
drying rate increases rapidly and reaches to a maximum. Thereafter, drying rate
declines gradually with decrease in moisture ratio.

From Figs. 3.7 (a) and 3.7 (b), it is seen that influence of temperature is more on the
drying rate when compared to velocity. Since, 60% temperature variation i.e., from
(50 − 80°𝐶) effects the drying rate by 66.66%, whereas 200% change in velocity of
air have only 37.14% impact on the drying rate of the product. It is due to the fact that,
relative humidity of drying air at high temperatures are less when compared to low
drying air temperatures and velocity of air does not much influences the relative
humidity of air.
 From Figs. 3.7 (c) and 3.7 (d), it is seen that there is a direct predominant effect of
relative humidity on drying rate when compared to product thickness. Since, 36.36%
change in relative humidity influences the drying rate by 26.32%, whereas 200%
change in thickness of product effects the drying rate by only 15%. It is due to the fact
that, surface moisture on the product is being influenced more by relative humidity of
air, whereas, on the other hand increase in product thickness diminishes the rate of
moisture reaching from capillary pores to surface of the product. The changes in drying
rates with moisture ratio graphs reported by Xia-Kang et al. [159] indicates that drying
process involved only two periods viz., accelerating and falling period without a
constant-rate drying period which are in same terms of present work. Manuel Cuevas
et al. [160] also reported similar trend for variation of drying rate with moisture ratio,
but for some temperature and sample thickness constant drying period was identified.
However, constant drying stage was not observed under most of the drying conditions.

3.5.2. Moisture effective diffusivity

In falling rate drying period, lower DRs are observed (Figs. 3.6 and 3.7). This
happens due to longer duration for transport of moisture from the product. Hence, in
this stage, drying process is regulated by internal moisture concentration gradient of the
product which in turns depends on effective diffusivity of the product (𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 ). But 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓
is not a property of a material and varies with drying conditions, geometrical shape and
needs to be determined experimentally. Hence, here 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 is determined for different
drying conditions from the analytical solution of Fick’s II law of diffusion model
established for one-dimensional mass transport in infinite slab by Crank [146].

The effects of different governing parameters on the 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 of the beetroot slices are
illustrated in Figs. 3.8 (a) – 3.8 (d). This 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 value is obtained from the slope of MR
(i.e., ln(𝑀𝑅)) versus τ. Using Eq. 10, the 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 values for different drying inlet
parameters are listed in Table 2.3. It can be observed from this table that, 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 of
beetroot slices varies from 9.97 × 10−10 to 6.3 × 10−9 𝑚2 ⁄𝑠. These obtained 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓
values are in accordance with the reported 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 values for drying of food by Zogzas et
al. [161].
 Time (min)
0 100 200 300 400 500

-0.5
50 C
50
55 C
C
55
60 C
C
-1.5 60
65 C
C
65
70 C
C
70
75 C
C
75 C
ln(MR)

80 C
-2.5 80 C

-3.5

-4.5

-5.5

Fig: 3.8 (a) ln(𝑀𝑅) 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different temperatures

Time (min)
0 100 200 300 400

-0.5
1 m/s
1.5 m/s
2 m/s
-1.5 2.5 m/s
3 m/s
ln(MR)

-2.5

-3.5

-4.5

-5.5

Fig: 3.8 (b) ln(𝑀𝑅) 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different air velocities

 Time (min)
0 100 200 300 400

-0.5

-1.5
ln(MR)

-2.5

-3.5

35 %
-4.5 30 %
25 %

-5.5

Fig: 3.8 (c) ln(𝑀𝑅) 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different RH

Time (min)
0 100 200 300 400

-0.5

-1.5
ln(MR)

-2.5

-3.5
9 mm
7 mm
-4.5 5 mm
3 mm

-5.5

Fig: 3.8 (d) ln(𝑀𝑅) 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different sample thickness (𝜆)

Fig: 3.8 Plots of ln(𝑀𝑅) vs τ at different drying conditions

 Table 3.3. 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 values of red beetroot samples for different governing parameters

(a) 𝑫𝒆𝒇𝒇 , values at various temperatures for 𝐕 = 𝟐 𝐦⁄𝐬 ; 𝐑𝐇 = 𝟔𝟓%; 𝛌 = 𝟓 𝐦𝐦

Temperature, (°C) Slope 𝑫𝒆𝒇𝒇 , (𝒎𝟐 ⁄𝒔) 𝑹𝟐
50 −0.0111 1.874 × 10−9 0.98
55 −0.0119 2.009 × 10−9 0.98
60 −0.0128 2.162 × 10−9 0.97
65 −0.0146 2.465 × 10−9 0.97
70 −0.0164 2.769 × 10−9 0.96
75 −0.0204 3.445 × 10−9 0.97
80 −0.0234 3.952 × 10−9 0.97

(b) 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐟 , values at different velocities for 𝐓 = 𝟔𝟓 °𝐂; 𝐑𝐇 = 𝟔𝟓%; 𝛌 = 𝟓 𝐦𝐦

Velocity (𝐦⁄𝐬) Slope 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐟 (𝐦𝟐 ⁄𝐬) 𝐑𝟐
1 −0.0105 1.773 × 10−9 0.96
1.5 −0.012 2.026 × 10−9 0.96
2 −0.0132 2.231 × 10−9 0.95
2.5 −0.0154 2.601 × 10−9 0.95
3 −0.0175 2.952 × 10−9 0.96

(c) 𝑫𝒆𝒇𝒇 , values at different RH for 𝐓 = 𝟔𝟓 °𝐂; 𝐕 = 𝟐 𝐦⁄𝐬 ; 𝛌 = 𝟓 𝐦𝐦

RH (%) Slope 𝑫𝒆𝒇𝒇 (𝒎𝟐 ⁄𝒔) 𝑹𝟐
25 −0.0153 2.584 × 10−9 0.97
30 −0.0142 2.364 × 10−9 0.97
35 −0.0121 2.043 × 10−9 0.98

(d) 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐟 , values at various 𝛌 for 𝐓 = 𝟔𝟓 °𝐂; 𝐕 = 𝟐 𝐦⁄𝐬 ; 𝐑𝐇 = 𝟔𝟓%

Thickness (𝒎𝒎) Slope 𝑫𝒆𝒇𝒇 (𝒎𝟐 ⁄𝒔) 𝑹𝟐
3 −0.0164 9.97 × 10−10 0.97
5 −0.0142 2.398 × 10−9 0.98
7 −0.0124 4.101 × 10−9 0.97
9 −0.0116 6.291 × 10−9 0.97

From Table 2.3, it is found that the drying air temperature and product thickness
have more impact on moisture diffusivity when compared to other parameters. It is also
seen that 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 values are increased with the increase in air velocity, air temperature and
product thickness. It is due to the fact that increasing these parameters increases the
activity of water particles in the beetroot slices. As a result, moisture gradient inside the
product increases and thus, 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 increases. The effective moisture diffusivity was
affected by external drying conditions in the previous studies [162-165] and the present
work results are in accordance with them.

3.5.3. Activation energy

During drying of beetroot slices, activation energy (𝐸𝑎 ) depends on the effective
diffusivity (𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) and air temperature (Arrhenius relation–Eq. 11). Hence, the 𝐸𝑎
values can be determined for drying process at different velocities and product
thicknesses using the plot ln(𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) versus (1⁄𝑇𝑎𝑏𝑠 ) as illustrated in Figs. 3.9 (a) and
3.9 (b). The slope of the curve ln(𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) versus (1⁄𝑇𝑎𝑏𝑠 ) gives the value of (−𝐸𝑎 ⁄𝑅 )
and thus, activation energy (𝐸𝑎 ), is obtained.

𝐸𝑎 values for different air velocities and product thicknesses are calculated at
different temperatures and they are tabulated in Table 3.4. From this table, it is found
that, 𝐸𝑎 value increases with increase in air velocity. It happens because, higher air
velocities create more turbulence in the moisture diffusion of the product which
requires more energy to activate the water to diffuse from the product when compared
to low air velocities which makes better contact with the product surface. Similar trends
for the variation of ln(𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 ) versus (1⁄𝑇𝑎𝑏𝑠 ) for different velocities and sample
thickness were reported in the literature Tzempelikos et al., [154], Kaya et al., [156],
Kaya & Aydın [166] and the values of 𝐸𝑎 for all drying conditions are in the same range
that obtained in present work.
 1/T (1/K)
0.0028 0.0029 0.003 0.0031
-19.6

-19.8
1 m/s
1.5 m/s
-20 2 m/s
2.5 m/s
-20.2 3 m/s
ln(Deff)

-20.4

-20.6

-20.8

-21

-21.2

-21.4

Fig: 3.9 (a) Influence of velocity on 𝐸𝑎 of red beetroot slices

1/T (1/K)
0.0028 0.0029 0.003 0.0031
-18.5

-19 3 mm
5 mm
7 mm
-19.5 9 mm
ln(Deff)

-20

-20.5

-21

-21.5

-22

-22.5

Fig: 3.9 (b) Effect of sample thickness of red beetroot slices on the 𝐸𝑎

Fig: 3.9 Arrhenius relation between 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑓 and drying air temperature
 From Table 2.4, it is also seen that with increase in product thickness, the value of
𝐸𝑎 increases. It is due to the fact that higher amount of energy is required to trigger a
moisture diffusion within the product of large thickness. Since, larger thickness product
has more water activity when compared to product of smaller thickness. These results
are in accordance with those stated in the literature [167-169]. The 𝐸𝑎 values obtained
for the beetroot are in the range of 19.5 𝑘𝐽⁄𝑚𝑜𝑙 − 25 𝑘𝐽⁄𝑚𝑜𝑙 which are in consistent
with 𝐸𝑎 values for various fruits and vegetables in the literature [150,170].

Table 3.4. 𝐸𝑎 values of red beetroot at different air velocities and product thickness

(a) 𝑬𝒂 , values at different velocities

Velocity, (𝒎⁄𝒔) Slope 𝑬𝒂 , (𝒌𝑱⁄𝒎𝒐𝒍) 𝑹𝟐
1 −2361.2 19.63 0.99
1.5 −2613.6 21.73 0.98
2 −2720.6 22.62 0.97
2.5 −2842.3 23.63 0.97
3 −2991.8 24.87 0.98

(b) 𝑬𝒂 , values at different product thickness

Thickness, (𝒎𝒎) Slope 𝑬𝒂 , (𝒌𝑱⁄𝒎𝒐𝒍) 𝑹𝟐
3 −2676.1 22.25 0.98
5 −2720.6 22.62 0.99
7 −2756.4 22.92 0.98
9 −2792.6 23.22 0.98

3.5.4. Heat and mass transfer coefficients at product-air interface

Heat and mass transfer phenomenon at the product-air boundary layer during drying
of red beetroot is investigated for different governing parameters with τ as shown in
Figs. 3.10 and 3.11. Here, the HTC and MTC are calculated by considering total drying
period (i.e., both initial and falling rate period). From Figs. 3.10 and 3.11, it is seen that
initially HTC and MTC increases slightly and reaches maximum. Then declines with τ.
As observed from Eqs. (12) and (13), HTC and MTC are directly proportional to water
vapour evaporation rate and HTC is inversely proportional to the difference between
sample and drying air temperatures. Hence, both moisture removal rate and sample
temperature decrease with time. Thus, HTC and MTC also decrease gradually with
time. Table 2.5 lists the HTC and MTC for red beetroot samples at different governing
parameters (air temperature, air velocity, RH and product thickness).

From Figs. 3.10 (a), 3.11 (a) and Table. 2.5, it is observed that with an increase in
temperature from 50 °C to 80 °C, average HTC and MTC increase by 17% and 13%.
This happens because with increase in air temperature, product temperature increases.
Subsequently, product vapour pressure increases and water vapour tends to transfer
rapidly from product to the ambient air. As a result, HTC and MTC increases.

From Figs. 3.10 (b), 3.11 (b) and Table. 2.5, it is found that as the air velocity
increases from 1 m/s to 3m/s, average HTC and MTC increases by 83%. This is
attributed due to the fact that as the velocity increases, bulk amount of dry air interacts
with product surface rapidly. Therefore, dry air absorbs more water vapour from the
product surface. Consequently, HTC and MTC at the product-air interface increases.

As the RH increases from 25 % to 35 %, average HTC and MTC decreases by 34%

and 39%, respectively, as illustrated in Figs. 3.10 (c), 3.11 (c) and Table 2.5. It indicates
that as the RH increases, ambient air water vapour increases. Hence, retardation of
moisture removal rate from product surface to ambient air takes place.

It is observed from Figs. 3.10 (d), 3.11 (d) and Table 2.5 that with increase in product
sample thickness from 3 mm to 9 mm, average HTC and MTC decreases by 38%. This
is due to decrease in product sample average temperature and increase in moisture
diffusion rate (delay in travel time from bottom of the product to its surface) with
increase in product thickness.
 25
50 C
60 C
20 70 C
80 C
(W/m2 K)

15
Uncertainity
Error bar
Time ± %
10 Uncertainty
±3%
Error bar
HTC %
5 Time %

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig: 3.10 (a) 𝛼ℎ 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different air temperatures

25
Uncertainty 1 m/s
1.5 m/s
Error bar 2 m/s
20 2.5 m/s
HTC %
3 m/s
Time %
(W/m2 K)

15 Uncertainity
Error bar
Time ± %
10 ±3%

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig: 3.10 (b) 𝛼ℎ 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different air velocities

 25
35 %
30 %
20 25 %
(W/m2 K)

15 Uncertainity
Error bar
Time ± %
±3%
10
Uncertainty
Error bar
5 HTC %
Time %

0
0 100 200 300 400
Time (min)
Fig: 3.10 (c) 𝛼ℎ 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different air RH
25
9 mm
Uncertainty
7 mm
Error bar 5 mm
20 3 mm
HTC %
Time %
(W/m2 K)

15 Uncertainity
Error bar
Time ± %
10 ±3%

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig: 3.10 (d) 𝛼ℎ 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different sample thickness of red beetroot

Fig: 3.10 HTC versus τ for different governing parameters

 25
Uncertainty 50 C
60 C
Error bar
20 70 C
MTC %
80 C
Time %
(kg/m2 s)

15
Uncertainity
Error bar
Time ± %
𝒎

10 𝒎 ±3%

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig: 3.11 (a) 𝛼𝑚 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different air temperatures

25
Uncertainty 1 m/s
1.5 m/s
Error bar 2 m/s
20 2.5 m/s
MTC %
3 m/s
Time %
(kg/m2s)

15 Uncertainity
Error bar
Time ± %
𝒎

10 𝒎 ±3%

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig: 3.11 (b) 𝛼𝑚 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different air velocities

 25
35 %
30 %
20 25 %
(kg/m2 s)

15 Uncertainity
Error bar
Time ± %
𝒎

Uncertainty
𝒎
±3%
10 Error bar
MTC %
Time %
5

0
0 100 200 300 400
Time (min)

Fig: 3.11 (c) 𝛼𝑚 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different air RH

25
Uncertainty 9 mm
7 mm
Error bar
5 mm
20 MTC % 3 mm
Time %
(kg/m2 s)

15 Uncertainity
Error bar
Time ± %
±3%
𝒎

10 𝒎

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (min)

Fig: 3.11 (d) 𝛼𝑚 𝑣𝑠 𝜏 for different sample thickness of red beetroot

Fig: 3.11 MTC versus τ for different governing parameters

From Figs. 3.10 and 3.11, it is further observed that air velocity has a significantly more
effect on HTC and MTC when compared with other governing parameters such as air
temperature, RH and product thickness.

Table 3.5. HTC and MTC at product-air interface during drying of beetroot samples

(a) 𝛂𝐡 & 𝛂𝐦 values at various 𝐓(°𝐂), for 𝐕 = 𝟐 𝐦⁄𝐬 ; 𝐑𝐇 = 𝟔𝟓%; 𝛌 = 𝟓 𝐦𝐦

Temperature (°𝑪) (𝑾⁄𝒎𝟐 𝑲) 𝒎 (𝒌𝒈⁄𝒎𝟐 𝒔)
50 7.3709 6.5128
60 8.4506 7.4652
70 10.6571 9.4144
80 14.6619 12.9523

(b) 𝛂𝐡 & 𝛂𝐦 values at various velocities for 𝐓 = 𝟔𝟓 °𝐂; 𝐑𝐇 = 𝟔𝟓%; 𝛌 = 𝟓 𝐦𝐦

Velocity (𝒎⁄𝒔) (𝑾⁄𝒎𝟐 𝑲) 𝒎 (𝒌𝒈⁄𝒎𝟐 𝒔)
1 7.3982 6.5355
1.5 8.7206 7.7037
2 10.1313 8.9498
2.5 11.9378 10.5457
3 14.5021 12.8111

(c) 𝛂𝐡 & 𝛂𝐦 values at various 𝐑𝐇 (%) for 𝐓 = 𝟔𝟓 °𝐂; 𝐕 = 𝟐 𝐦⁄𝐬 ; 𝛌 = 𝟓 𝐦𝐦

RH (%) (𝑾⁄𝒎𝟐 𝑲) 𝒎 (𝒌𝒈⁄𝒎𝟐 𝒔)
25 11.7855 10.4112
30 11.0498 9.8165
35 8.7396 7.7205

(d) 𝛂𝐡 & 𝛂𝐦 values at different for 𝛌(𝐦𝐦) 𝐓 = 𝟔𝟓 °𝐂; 𝐕 = 𝟐 𝐦⁄𝐬 ; 𝐑𝐇 = 𝟔𝟓%

Thickness (𝒎𝒎) (𝑾⁄𝒎𝟐 𝑲) 𝒎 (𝒌𝒈⁄𝒎𝟐 𝒔)
3 12.5793 11.1125
5 10.7398 9.4875
7 9.4065 8.3096
9 8.3428 7.3700
3.5.5. Image analysis of fresh and dried red beetroots

The pictorial view of fresh and dried beetroots along with the contours obtained from
the image processing analysis using Origin Lab 8.5 is shown in Fig.3.12. This figure
indicates the distribution of moisture intensity levels along the surface of the fresh and
dried beetroots. From this Fig., it is found that the moisture of dried beetroot is low
(moisture intensity nearer to 0.1) compared to the fresh beetroot slice (moisture
intensity nearer to 1). This happens because of interaction of processed dry air with the
surface of the beetroot in the closed environment.

Fresh red beetroot Dried beetroot

Fig: 3.12 Image analysis of the fresh and dried beetroot