Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 15 (2008) 1049–1054

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ultrasonics Sonochemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ultsonch

Ultrasound as pre-treatment for drying of pineapple

Fabiano A.N. Fernandes a,*, Francisco E. Linhares Jr. a, Sueli Rodrigues b,1
a
Universidade Federal do Ceara, Departamento de Engenharia Quimica, Campus do Pici, Bloco 709, 60455-760 Fortaleza, CE, Brazil
b
Universidade Federal do Ceara, Departamento de Tecnologia dos Alimentos, Campus do Pici, Bloco 858, Caixa Postal 12168, 60421-970 Fortaleza, CE, Brazil

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

Article history: Dehydration of fruits is an alternative to reduce post-harvest loss of fruits and also a process to produce
Received 6 September 2007 dried fruits, which can be directly consumed or become part of foodstuffs like cakes, pastries and many
Received in revised form 31 January 2008 others. The effect of ultrasonic pre-treatment and ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration, before air-
Accepted 22 March 2008
drying, on dehydration of pineapple (Ananas comosus) was investigated. This study allowed estimating
Available online 29 March 2008
the water diffusivity in the air-drying process for pineapples submitted to ultrasound. Results showed
that the water diffusivity increased after application of ultrasound and that the overall drying time
Keywords:
was reduced by 8% (over 1 h of air-drying time). During the ultrasonic treatment in distilled water the
Ananas comosus
Pineapple
pineapples lost sugar (23.2% in 30 min), so in this condition the ultrasonic pre-treatment can be an inter-
Drying esting process to produce dried fruits with low sugar content. Results showed that the water loss
Ultrasound increased with increasing soluble solids content of the osmotic solution and that the ultrasound-assisted
Osmotic dehydration osmotic dehydration incorporated more sugar than conventional osmotic dehydration. The water effec-
Optimization tive diffusivity of the pineapples during the air-drying process was influenced by the pre-treatment,
increasing the water effective diffusivity when ultrasound was applied.
Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction volved by this mechanical mechanism can be higher than surface

Pineapples (Ananas comosus) are largely produced in several
countries with a production over 18.0 million tons in 2006 accord-
ing to FAOSTAT [1]. Some tropical countries such as Thailand, Bra-
zil, India, Philippines and China have large crops that aim
exportation of the fruit. Part of the production does not meet the
minimal standard for exportation and is lost after harvesting. Ex-
cess of production is frequent and the fruit in excess is also lost
after harvesting because pineapples are perishable and cannot be
stored for long periods nor can be stored frozen. An alternative
to preserve the fruit and to commercialize the excess of production
is to dry the pineapples that will not be readily consumed. Dried
pineapples can also be used as ingredients of cakes, pastries,
sauces, and other foodstuffs.
Conventional air-drying is energy intensive and consequently
cost intensive because it is a simultaneous heat and mass transfer
process accompanied by phase change [2]. A pre-treatment can be
used to reduce the initial water content or to modify the fruit tis-
sue structure in a way that the air-drying time becomes faster.
Ultrasonic waves can cause a rapid series of alternative compres-
sions and expansions, in a similar way to a sponge when it is
squeezed and released repeatedly (sponge effect). The forces in-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 85 33669611; fax: +55 85 34583407.
E-mail addresses: fabiano@ufc.br (F.A.N. Fernandes), sueli@ufc.br (S. Rodrigues).
1
Tel.: +55 85 33669656.
tension, which maintains the moisture inside the capillaries of
the fruit creating microscopic channels that may ease moisture re-
moval. In liquid medium the sonication causes cavitation, which
consists in the formation of bubbles in the liquid that can explo-
sively collapse and generate localized pressure that may help to re-
move strongly attached moisture [3,4]. The rate of cavitation or
alternate compressions and expansions depends on the ultrasound
frequency. Deformation of porous solid materials, such as fruits,
caused by ultrasonic waves is responsible for the creation of micro-
scopic channels that reduce the diffusion boundary layer and in-
crease the convective mass transfer in the fruit [5–7].
The use of ultrasound in the food industry is new and few stud-
ies have addressed the use of ultrasound [5,8–10]. Studies have
been conducted in food enzyme inactivation that has been ex-
plored and reported by Raviyan et al. [11] and by De Gennaro
et al. [12] as a tool for inactivation of pectinmethylestearase and
peroxidase, respectively. Other successful studies on enzyme inac-
tivation have also been carried out [13–16]. Many authors have re-
ported that cavitation caused by sonication is responsible for
dispersion of clumps of microorganisms, modification of the cellu-
lar activity, puncturing of the cell wall and increasing sensitivity to
heat [17,18]. Power ultrasound has proved to be useful in control-
ling crystallization process in freeze-drying of vegetables such as
potatoes [19].
Studies on drying of fruits and vegetables have employed ultra-
sound to assist osmotic dehydration [4,20–25] and few reports

1350-4177/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2008.03.009
1050 F.A.N. Fernandes et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 15 (2008) 1049–1054
Nomenclature
AFR superficial area of the fruit (m2)
C ji mass concentration of j in phase i (g/m3)
Cp heat capacity of the liquid (J/g K)
D effective diffusivity (m2/h)
H moisture content of the fruit (g water/g)
Km effective mass transfer coefficient (1/h m2)
m mass of liquid (g)
MS mass of solid (dry basis) (g)
P effective ultrasound power (J/h)
R drying rate at the constant-rate period (g/h m2)
t time (h)
tU time spent under ultrasound (min)
T temperature (K)
Vi volume of phase i (m3)
WR water reduction (%)
WL water loss (%)
SG solid gain (%)
Xi initial fruit moisture on wet basis (g water/g)
Xf final fruit moisture on wet basis (g water/g)
have been published regarding purely the effects of ultrasound on
drying [21–24]. Studies on drying carried out by these research
groups have shown that the application of ultrasound has different
effects on different fruits. Studies on ultrasound-assisted osmotic
dehydration of apples showed that little effect was obtained on
water loss but sugar gain increased considerably [4]. Studies with
ultrasound using distilled water as the liquid medium resulted in
high sugar loss in melons (up to 52% in 30 min) [22] and bananas
(up to 21% in 30 min) [21]; and low influence of ultrasound on
water loss and on sugar gain of sapotas (up to 4% in 30 min).
Although for melons, bananas and papayas ultrasound did not
show significant influence on water loss, on strawberries water
loss increased by 43% when ultrasound was applied [24]. The effect
of ultrasound on water effective diffusivity during the air-drying
process was positive (increased the effective diffusivity) for melons
and bananas but was negative for papaya and sapotas [23]. Due to
the very different results obtained for different fruit, more studies
on the effect of ultrasound on drying is still needed to evaluate for
which type of fruits and vegetables this technology is viable.
The ultrasonic pre-treatment involves the immersion of the
fruit in water or in a hypertonic aqueous solution to which ultra-
sound is applied. The advantage of using ultrasound is that the pro-
cess can be carried out at ambient temperature and no heating is
required, reducing the probability of food degradation [26]. The
ultrasonic treatment will not incorporate soluble solids into the
fruit if distilled water is used as the liquid medium [21].
This study has investigated the use of ultrasound as a pre-treat-
ment before air-drying. The influence of time spent in ultrasound
on water loss, sugar gain and on the water effective diffusivity
was examined. The combined process (ultrasound and air-drying)
was optimized searching for the operating conditions that mini-
mize total processing time.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Preparation of samples
Pineapples (A. comosus variety pérola) were bought from the lo-
cal market (Fortaleza, Brazil). Pineapples samples (0.094 m average
diameter) were cut into slices (0.01 m average thickness) and then
into four parts to obtain triangles of the same dimensions. The core
Xsi initial fruit soluble solid content (g solid/g)
Xsf final fruit soluble solid content (g solid/g)
wi initial fruit mass (g)
wf final fruit mass (g)
Greek letters
a shrinking factor of the fruit
d height of the fruit (m)
q density (g/m3)
Subscripts
FR fruit
OS osmotic solution
Superscripts
S sucrose
W water
of the pineapple was then removed. Only radial orientation was
used. The moisture content was determined by heating in a drying
oven (Marconi model MA-085) at 60 °C for 48 h according to AOAC
method [27]. The initial soluble solids content of the fruit (°Brix)
was determined by refractometry.
2.2. Ultrasound pre-treatment
An experimental set of four pineapple samples was immersed in
distilled water and submitted to ultrasonic waves for 10, 20 and
30 min. Experiments were also carried out immersing four pineap-
ple samples on osmotic solution and also submitted to ultrasonic
waves for the same time intervals. The osmotic solution was pre-
pared mixing food grade sucrose with distilled water to give con-
centrations of 35 and 70 °Brix. Each run was carried out in
triplicates and the tables express the mean values ± standard devi-
ation (SD).
The experiments with ultrasound treatment were carried out in
separate 250 mL Erlenmeyer flasks to avoid interference between
the samples and runs. The experiments were carried out under
ambient temperature (30 °C) in an ultrasonic bath (Marconi model
Unique USC; internal dimensions: 14  24  9 cm; volume: 2.7 L)
without mechanical agitation. The ultrasound frequency was
25 kHz and the intensity was 4870 W/m2. The ultrasound intensity
was determined by calorimetric method described by Löning et al.
[28]. In this method, the ultrasonic bath is filled with a known
amount of water (2 L) and the water is let resting in the bath until
it reaches equilibrium with room temperature. The ultrasound
equipment is turned on and the water temperature is measured
during some (6) time intervals (10 min). The mean increase in
water enthalpy per period is considered to be the ultrasound
power that effectively was available to the liquid medium (Eq. (1))
 
dT
P ¼ m  Cp  ð1Þ
dt
The temperature increase during the experiments was mea-
sured using a thermometer and was lower than 2 °C after 30 min
of ultrasonic treatment. The liquid medium to fruit ratio was 4:1
(weight basis). This ratio was used because previous works [29–
31] have shown that at this liquid medium to fruit ratio the dilu-
tion of the osmotic solution was negligible. To determine the effect
 F.A.N. Fernandes et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 15 (2008) 1049–1054 1051

of ultrasound, the same experimental procedure was carried out the fruit and the liquid medium (distilled water or osmotic
without applying ultrasound. These control experiments were car- solution).
ried out with distilled water and with osmotic solution (35 and The mass balance for the fruit included the mass transfer of
70 °Brix). water from the fruit to the osmotic solution and the mass transfer
At the end of the ultrasound pre-treatment a sample of the li- of sugar and salt from the osmotic solution to the fruit
quid medium was taken to determine its sugar content using the  
dM W W W
DNS method [32]. This procedure was carried out to quantify the FR
¼ K Wm  AFR  C FR  C OS  V FR ð5Þ
dt
amount of sugar that the fruit loses by mass transfer to the liquid  
dM SFR
medium. ¼ K Sm  AFR  C SFR  C SOS  V FR ð6Þ
After removal from the solution, the dehydrated samples from dt
each group were drained and blotted with absorbent paper to re- During the osmotic dehydration process, the fruit may shrink
move the excess solution. Weight and moisture content were mea- and this phenomenon has to be considered by the mathematical
sured individually. The concentration of the solution was monitored model to better represent the process and to increase the accuracy
during the runs determining the osmotic solution soluble solids of the mass transfer coefficients. In the model, the shrinkage effect
content (°Brix) using a refractometer. was set to be proportional to the water mass change in the fruit,
Weight and moisture content of the samples were used to cal- according to Eq. (6). The fruit superficial area was assumed to de-
culate the response variables of the experimental planning: weight crease at a proportional rate following the decrease in volume of
reduction (WR), water loss (WL) and solid gain (SG), according to the sample. This proportionality showed to be a good approxima-
the following equations: tion of the phenomena [29]

wi  wf dV FR a dM W
FR
WR ð%Þ ¼  100 ð2Þ ¼ W ð7Þ
wi dt q dt
ðwi  X i  wf  X f Þ
WL ð%Þ ¼  100 ð3Þ The mass balance for the liquid medium included the gain of
wi
water that is removed from the fruit and the loss of sugar to the
wf  X sf  wi  X si
SG ð%Þ ¼  100 ð4Þ fruit. As the material balances were based on mass balances, the
wi  X si
amount of water leaving the fruit is equal to the amount of water
entering the liquid medium. The opposite occurs with the mass
2.3. Air-drying balance of sugar, where the amount of solids entering the fruit is
equal to the amount of solids leaving the liquid medium
The samples were air-dried in a forced circulating air-drying
dM WOS dM WFR
oven (Marconi model MA-085) after the pre-treatment. The forced ¼ ð8Þ
dt dt
circulating air-drying oven was set at 60 °C with air moisture con-
dM SOS dM SFR
tent at 18% (determined by psychrometry). The fruit samples were ¼ ð9Þ
set in a single-layer in trays and were transferred to the forced cir- dt dt
culating air-drying. The fruit moisture (water content) during the dV OS 1 dM W FR
¼ W ð10Þ
air-drying period was measured weighting the fruit samples every dt q dt
20 min for the first 5 h of drying and then every hour until constant The air-drying process was modeled assuming diffusion-con-
weight. trolled mass transfer with the liquid flow within the fruit conform-
ing to Fick’s second law of diffusion. Only the falling-rate period
2.4. Mathematical modeling (diffusion-controlled mass transfer period) was considered be-
cause during the experiments the constant-rate period (heat trans-
Mathematical models for the ultrasound pre-treatment and for fer-controlled mass transfer period) was not observed. The
the air-drying process were developed. The model for the ultra- equation used to model the falling-rate period was a simplification
sound pre-treatment took into account the mass transfer between of Fick’s second law considering long drying times [33]

Table 1
Sugar gain and water loss for pineapples submitted to different pre-treatments and to different pre-treatment times, and effective water diffusivity of pineapples in air-drying
process after application of pre-treatment

Operating condition Treatment time (min) Sugar gain (%) Water loss (%) Water diffusivitya (m2/s)
No pre-treatment (air-drying only – – – 8.41  109 ± 0.87  109
Ultrasound (distilled water) 10 21.7 ± 1.5 3.2 ± 0.6 9.08  109 ± 0.49  109
Ultrasound (distilled water) 20 22.2 ± 0.7 2.1 ± 0.6 1.38  108 ± 0.12  108
Ultrasound (distilled water) 30 23.2 ± 0.8 3.1 ± 0.8 1.22  108 ± 0.04  108
Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 10 15.9 ± 1.6 6.8 ± 0.7 9.29  109 ± 0.30  109
Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 20 16.3 ± 2.6 5.1 ± 0.9 1  10  108 ± 0.06  108
Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 30 18.2 ± 5.2 8.3 ± 0.2 9.70  109 ± 0.08  109
Ultrasound (70 °Brix) 10 12.3 ± 1.8 9.8 ± 1.4 8.00  109 ± 0.23  109
Ultrasound (70 °Brix) 20 32.9 ± 3.8 12.7 ± 0.9 7.54  109 ± 0.44  109
Ultrasound (70 °Brix) 30 34.1 ± 4.7 14.1 ± 2.2 7  10  109 ± 0.06  109
Immersion in distilled water 10 13.9 ± 1.5 4.4 ± 0.4 7.39  109 ± 0.58  109
Immersion in distilled water 20 19.8 ± 1.1 3.3 ± 0.4 1.34  108 ± 0.05  108
Immersion in distilled water 30 21.3 ± 1.6 5.7 ± 1.7 1.31  108 ± 0.09  108
Osmotic dehydration (35 °Brix) 10 5.2 ± 1.1 8.6 ± 2.5 8.47  109 ± 0.25  109
Osmotic dehydration (35 °Brix) 20 14.2 ± 3.0 9.7 ± 1.0 7.79  109 ± 0.49  109
Osmotic dehydration (35 °Brix) 30 22.5 ± 2.1 13.0 ± 1.8 1.23  108 ± 0.07  108
a
All regressions R2 were above 0.990.
1052 F.A.N. Fernandes et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 15 (2008) 1049–1054

dH 2p Table 2
¼  2  D  ðH  Heq Þ ð11Þ Tukey test for sugar gain and water loss for pineapples submitted to different pre-
dt d
treatments and effective water diffusivity of pineapples in air-drying process after
Experimental data were used with a parameter estimation pro- application of pre-treatment
cedure based on the minimization of the error sum of squares to Operating condition Mean SD SE
estimate the mass transfer coefficients of the ultrasound-assisted
Sugar gain
osmotic dehydration and the effective diffusion coefficient of the
Among pre-treatments
air-drying process. The models were solved by numerical integra- Ultrasound (distilled water) 23.2 0.8 1.0 a
tion using the Runge–Kutta method. The F-test was used as a crite- Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 18.2 5.2 0.9 b
rion to validate the model. The level of significance of the model Ultrasound (70 °Brix) 34.1 4.7 5.6 c
was established comparing the listed F-values and the calculated Between control
F-values for each operating condition. After validation, the model Ultrasound (distilled water) 23.2 0.8 1.0 a
No ultrasound 21.3 1.6 1.5 a
was used to optimize the total processing time to dry the fruit by
ultrasound followed by air-drying. The optimization was done Between control
Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 18.2 5.2 0.9 b
using the method of Levenberg–Marquardt, setting as objective
No ultrasound 22.5 2.1 1.0 b
function the minimization of the total processing time. The com-
puter programs were written in FORTRAN language. Water loss
Among pre-treatments
Ultrasound (distilled water) 3.1 0.8 0.5 a
Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 8.3 0.2 0.1 b
3. Results and discussion
Ultrasound (70 °Brix) 14.1 2.2 1.3 c
Between control
The water loss and sugar gain observed during the pre-treatment
Ultrasound (distilled water) 3.1 0.8 0.5 a
and the water effective diffusivity observed during the air-drying No ultrasound 5.7 1.7 1.0 b
process are presented in Table 1. The initial moisture content of
Between control
the pineapples was 0.832 ± 0.002 g water/g of fruit and the initial Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 8.3 0.2 0.1 a
soluble solids content was 13.3 ± 0.2 °Brix. No ultrasound 13.0 1.8 1.1 b

3.1. Ultrasound pre-treatment Effective diffusivityA

Among pre-treatments
No-pretreatment 8.41  109 0.87  109 0.80  109 a
At the end of the ultrasonic pre-treatment, little change was ob- Ultrasound (distilled water) 1.22  108 0.04  108 0.02  108 b
served in the moisture content of the fruit when distilled water Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 9.70  109 0.08  109 0.05  109 c
was used as the liquid medium. Under this condition the pineap- Ultrasound (70 °Brix) 7.10  109 0.06  109 0.04  109 d
ples lost between 2.1% and 3.2% of its initial water (Table 1). The Between control
fruit submitted to ultrasonic pre-treatment lost soluble solids to Ultrasound (distilled water) 1.22  108 0.04  108 0.02  108 a
the liquid medium. The amount of sugars lost during the process No ultrasound 1.31  108 0.09  108 0.07  108 a

was 21.7% of the reducing sugars of the fruit after 10 min in ultra- Between control
Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 9.70  109 0.08  109 0.05  109 a
sonic bath, increasing to 23.2% after 30 min under ultrasound.
No ultrasound 1.23  108 0.07  108 0.04  108 b
Fig. 1 shows the sugar loss as a function of the time spent in the
A
ultrasonic bath. The loss of sugars occurred because of the different All regressions R2 were above 0.990.
sugar concentration (osmotic pressure) between the fruit and the
liquid medium, which favored a mass transfer of sugar from the confidence, that showed that the results with and without ultra-
fruit to the liquid medium and a mass transfer of water from the sound application were significantly different (for 10 and 20 min
liquid medium to the fruit. The experiments carried out without under ultrasound application). After 30 min under ultrasound,
application of ultrasound showed a lower loss of sugar, especially the effect of ultrasound decreases and the sugar gain result became
in the first 20 min. This result shows that ultrasonic waves do en- similar to the one obtained in the control experiment (without
hance the mass transfer of sugars from the fruit to the liquid med- ultrasound application) and no statistical difference was attained
ium, and was confirmed through Tukey test, at a 95% level of (Table 2).

Fig. 1. Normalized water and sugar content for pineapples submitted to ultrasound pre-treatment at 30 °C.
 F.A.N. Fernandes et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 15 (2008) 1049–1054 1053

Table 3 ied the osmotic dehydration of pineapples without application of

Mass transfer coefficients for the ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration of
pineapples
Liquid Mass transfer Mass transfer
medium coefficient for water coefficient for solids
(1/h m2) (1/h m2)
Distilled 12.8 87.0
water
Sucrose 435.6 84.6
solution
(35 °Brix)
Sucrose 824.4 210.6
solution
(70 °Brix)
a
Listed F-test: 18.5 for 95% level of confidence.
When a sucrose solution was used as the liquid medium (ultra-
sound-assisted osmotic dehydration), a higher water loss was ob-
served and the pineapples lost between 5.1% and 8.3% of its
initial water when an osmotic solution of 35 °Brix was used and
between 9.8% and 14.1% of its initial water when an osmotic solu-
tion of 70 °Brix was used (Table 1). The fruit gained soluble solids
and an increase by 18.2% in the fruit sugar content was observed
when an osmotic solution of 35 °Brix was used and an increase
by 34.1% was observed when an osmotic solution of 70 °Brix was
used. The gain of sugars occurred because of the different sugar
concentration (osmotic pressure) between the fruit and the osmo-
tic solution, which favored a mass transfer of sugar from the more
sugar concentrated osmotic solution to the fruit and a mass trans-
fer of water from the fruit to the osmotic solution.
Experiments carried out without application of ultrasound with
an osmotic solution of 35 °Brix showed a lower sugar gain in the
initial period (10 min) and a higher gain after 30 min. Water loss
for the osmotic dehydration without ultrasound application was
always higher than under ultrasound. The results showed that
when an osmotic solution was used the ultrasonic waves provoked
a rapid incorporation of sugar by fruit that may have prevented a
higher water loss due to a higher resistance for water diffusion
from the fruit to the osmotic solution. The sugar gain was slower,
during the osmotic dehydration without ultrasound application,
allowing water to diffuse more rapidly toward the osmotic solu-
tion. Rastogi and Raghavarao [34] and Parjoko et al. [35] have stud-
ultrasound. Their results showed that after 30 min the pineapples
lost 14% of water at 40 °Brix and 30 °C and the solid gain was at
R2 F- 10%. Using an osmotic solution at 70 °Brix, also at 30 °C, the water
testa loss was 32% and the solid gain was 35%.
The mass transfer coefficients observed in the ultrasound-as-
0.752 2.6 sisted osmotic dehydration of pineapples were estimated using
0.991 106.6
the experimental data and are presented in Table 3. Except for
the treatment carried out with distilled water as the liquid med-
ium, the model has represented well the data points as shown in
0.995 96.3 Fig. 1 and through the regression errors. The F-values for all exper-
iments were above the listed F-values confirming the validity of
the model within a 95% level of confidence. The mass transfer coef-
ficient of water presented a great increase going from 12 h1 m2
when distilled water was used to 800 h1 m2 when an osmotic
solution of 70 °Brix was employed, which was expected based on
the larger osmotic pressure gradient between the fruit and the os-
motic solution. The mass transfer coefficient of sucrose did not
show significant change when distilled water and an osmotic solu-
tion of 35 °Brix was employed, but increased 2.5-fold when an os-
motic solution of 70 °Brix was used.
3.2. Air-drying
The ultrasound pre-treatment affected the effective water diffu-
sivity of the fruit during the air-drying process for pineapples (Ta-
ble 1). An increase in water effective diffusivity of pineapples was
observed for fruit pre-treated with ultrasound. The water effective
diffusivity increased by 45.1% after 30 min under ultrasound appli-
cation using distilled water as the liquid medium. Applying ultra-
sound using an osmotic solution of 35 °Brix increased the water
effective diffusivity by 15.3% after 30 min, but decreased the when
an osmotic solution of 70 °Brix was used. The lower increase ob-
served using an osmotic solution can be related to the higher resis-
tance for water diffusion caused by the sugar that was
incorporated by the fruit during the pre-treatment. Although the
ultrasound pre-treatment has increased the water effective diffu-
sivity, the experiments carried out without application of ultra-
sound also showed an increase of the water effective diffusivity,
so this increase cannot be solely related to the application of ultra-
sound. Table 2 shows that there was statistical difference on water
effective diffusivity among the pre-treatments.

Table 4
Total processing time (pre-treatment + air-drying) to remove 90% and 95% of the initial water content of the fruit

Operating condition Pre-treatment time Time required to remove 90% of the initial water Time required to remove 95% of the initial water
(min) content (min) content (min)
No pre-treatment (air-drying – 193.0 249.4
only)
Ultrasound (distilled water) 10 188.9 241.0
Ultrasound (distilled water) 20 137.7 172.0
Ultrasound (distilled water) 30 163.3 201.9
Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 10 184.8 235.8
Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 20 167.6 210.7
Ultrasound (35 °Brix) 30 197.4 246.2
Ultrasound (70 °Brix) 10 213.0 272.1
Ultrasound (70 °Brix) 20 235.4 298.1
Ultrasound (70 °Brix) 30 258.7 325.4
Immersion in distilled water 10 229.7 235.8
Immersion in distilled water 20 141.2 176.5
Immersion in distilled water 30 154.0 190.1
Osmotic dehydration 10 201.7 257.6
(35 °Brix)
Osmotic dehydration 20 228.5 289.2
(35 °Brix)
Osmotic dehydration 30 162.0 200.5
(35 °Brix)
1054 F.A.N. Fernandes et al. / Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 15 (2008) 1049–1054
Previous studies with melons, bananas and papayas [21–23,36]
showed that the ultrasound pre-treatment had affected the effec-
tive water diffusivity that increased with increasing pre-treatment
time. Melons have increased the effective water diffusivity by
39.3% after 30 min under ultrasound application and bananas have
increased the effective water diffusivity by 14.5% after 20 min un-
der ultrasound application (compared to the effective water diffu-
sivity of the fresh fruit). These differences show that the effect of
ultrasound may be dependent on the structure of the fruit cell
tissue.
3.3. Process optimization
Table 4 shows the total processing time to remove the same
amount of water from the fresh fruit, reducing 90% and 95% of
the initial water content of the fruit. Drying was faster with the
application of ultrasonic pre-treatment (20 min). When the ultra-
sonic pre-treatment was applied during 10 min (using distilled
water as the liquid medium) the total processing time reduced
by only 8 min to reduce 95% of the initial water content of the fruit,
while a reduction of 77 min in total processing time was achieved
when the ultrasonic pre-treatment was applied during 20 min.
This latter condition was the best operating condition found to re-
duce the total drying time.
The use of ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration also re-
duced the total processing time when using an osmotic solution
with low concentration of sugar (35 °Brix); however the time
reduction achieved by this process was lower than the use of ultra-
sound in distilled water. The use of high concentration of sugar in
the osmotic solution showed to increase the total processing time,
which may be cause by the high incorporation of sugar by the fruit
that may have acted as a barrier to water diffusion. Although this
pre-treatment presented higher water loss, the incorporation of
sugars into the fruit increased the solid content of the fruit. High
mass of dry solids reduces the moisture content of the fruit and
the moisture content gradient (Fick’s law, Eq. (11)). So the drying
process has to remove moisture strongly attached to the sugar
incorporated into the fruit increasing the time required for drying.
The results for the ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration
showed that the total drying time increased with increasing sugar
gain by the fruit.
4. Conclusions
The use of ultrasound pre-treatment has affected the sugar gain
of pineapples during the pre-treatment and also has affected the
water effective diffusivity of pineapples during the air-drying pro-
cess. The use of ultrasound favored the removal of soluble solids
from the fruit leading to the production of pineapples with low su-
gar content. The water diffusivity increased by 45.1% after submit-
ting the fruit to 20 min of ultrasound. Although the ultrasonic pre-
treatment have presented better results for other fruits, like mel-
ons and bananas, the use of ultrasound in pineapple processing
showed satisfactory results with a decrease up to 31% on the dry-
ing time.
The results showed that the ultrasonic pre-treatment using dis-
tilled water is interesting when high amounts of water needs to be
removed from the fruit, condition where the total processing time
of the combined process is shorter than the time required for air-
drying.
References
[1] FAOSTAT, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2007.
[2] D. Barbanti, D. Mastrocola, C. Severine, Sciences des Aliments 14 (1994) 61–73.
[3] P.J. Wan, M.W. Muanda, J.E. Covey, Journal of American Organics Chemical
Society 69 (1992) 876–879.
[4] S. Simal, J. Benedito, E.S. Sánchez, C. Rosselló, Journal of Food Engineering 36
(1998) 323–336.
[5] S. Fuente-Blanco, E.R.F. Sarabia, V.M. Acosta-Aparicio, A. Blanco-Blanco, J.A.
Gallego-Juárez, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 44 (2006) e523–e527.
[6] E.S. Tarleton, Filtration Separation 3 (1992) 246–253.
[7] E.S. Tarleton, R.J. Wakeman, in: M.J.W. Povey, T.J. Mason (Eds.), Ultrasounds in
Food Processing, Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, 1998, pp. 193–
218.
[8] T.J. Mason, L. Paniwnyk, J.P. Lorimer, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 3 (1996)
S253–S256.
[9] J.A. Gallego-Juárez, G. Rodríguez-Corral, J.C. Gálvez-Moraleda, T.S. Yang, Drying
Technology 17 (1999) 597–608.
[10] L. Zheng, D.W. Sun, Food Science & Technology 17 (2006) 16–23.
[11] P. Ravivan, Z. Zhang, H. Feng, Journal of Food Engineering 70 (2005) 189–196.
[12] L. De Gennaro, S. Cavella, R. Romano, P. Masi, Journal of Food Engineering 39
(1999) 401–407.
[13] J. Kuldiloke, Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of Berlin, Germany, 2002.
[14] P. López, A. Vercet, A.C. Sánchez, J. Burgos, Zeitschrift fur Lebensmittel-
Untersuchung und-Forschung 207 (1998) 249–252.
[15] A. Vercet, P. López, J. Burgos, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 47
(1999) 432–437.
[16] A. Vercet, C. Sánchez, J. Burgos, L. Montanes, P. López-Buesa, Journal of Food
Engineering 53 (2002) 273–278.
[17] L. Ciccolini, P. Taillandier, A.M. Wilhem, H. Delmas, P. Strehaiano, Chemical
Engineering Journal 65 (1997) 145–149.
[18] J. Raso, S. Condon, J. Sala Trepat, Food Preservation by Combined Processes,
Final report, Flair Concerted Action No. 7, Subgroup B, EUR 15776 EN, 1994.
[19] B. Li, D.W. Sun, Journal of Food Engineering 55 (2002) 277–282.
[20] J.A. Cárcel, J. Benedito, C. Rosselló, A. Mulet, Journal of Food Engineering 78
(2007) 472–479.
[21] F.A.N. Fernandes, S. Rodrigues, Journal of Food Engineering 82 (2007) 261–267.
[22] S. Rodrigues, F.A.N. Fernandes, Drying Technology 25 (2007) 1791–1796.
[23] F.A.N. Fernandes, F.I.P. Oliveira, S. Rodrigues, Food and Bioprocess Technology
(2007), doi:10.1007/s11947-007-0019-9.
[24] K.A. Taiwo, M.N. Eshtiaghi, B.I.O. Ade-Omowaye, D. Knorr, International
Journal of Food Science and Technology 38 (2003) 693–707.
[25] J.A. Cárcel, J.V. Garcia-Peréz, E. Riera, A. Mulet, Drying Technology 25 (2007)
185–193.
[26] T.J. Mason, in: M.J.W. Povey, T.J. Mason (Eds.), Ultrasounds in Food Processing,
Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, 1998, pp. 104–124.
[27] AOAC, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, 1990.
[28] J.M. Löning, C. Horst, U. Hoffmann, Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 9 (2002) 169–
179.
[29] F.A.N. Fernandes, S. Rodrigues, O.C.P. Gaspareto, E.L. Oliveira, Journal of Food
Engineering 77 (2006) 188–193.
[30] I.M. Oliveira, F.A.N. Fernandes, S. Rodrigues, P.H.M. Sousa, G.A. Maia, R.W.
Figueiredo, Journal of Food Processing Engineering 29 (2006) 400–413.
[31] U.M. Teles, F.A.N. Fernandes, S. Rodrigues, A.S. Lima, G.A. Maia, R.W.
Figueiredo, International Journal of Food Science and Technology 41 (2006)
674–680.
[32] G.L. Miller, Analytical Chemistry 31 (1959) 426–428.
[33] R.H. Perry, D.W. Green, Perry’s Chemical Engineer’s Handbook, McGraw Hill,
New York, 1999.
[34] N.K. Rastogi, K.S.M.S. Raghavarao, Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft Technologie 37
(2004) 43–47.
[35] M. Parjoko, M.S. Rahman, K.A. Buckle, C.O. Perera, Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft
Technologie 29 (1996) 452–459.
[36] F.A.N. Fernandes, M.I. Gallão, S. Rodrigues, Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft
Technologie (2007) 604–610.