Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-022-09323-1

Designs, Performance and Economic Feasibility of Domestic Solar

Dryers
Shimpy1 · Mahesh Kumar1   · Anil Kumar2,3

Received: 10 March 2022 / Accepted: 29 September 2022 / Published online: 20 October 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Present article is an overview of available solar drying technologies developed for small rural agricultural farms emphasiz-
ing domestic applications. A huge amount (about 61%) of perishable items gets wasted annually at the household level due
to lack of awareness, negligence, improper handling, and inadequate storage facilities. Domestic solar dryers are reviewed
and presented under the categories of natural and forced convection modes. The maximum attainable temperature inside the
drying chamber under natural and forced convection mode is observed 98.6 and 78.1 °C, respectively. Thermal efficiency of
solar dryers varies from 5.16 to 64.36% for the drying of various commodities. Natural convection solar dryers are appro-
priate for rural and undeveloped areas due to simple design and lower capital and electrical requirements. In comparison,
forced convection solar dryers are more attractive due to better performance, higher drying rate, and lower drying time for
high moisture content products. The designs of indirect and mixed-mode solar dryers seem very rare in the area of domestic
solar drying. Solar dryers have potential to reduce the conventional drying cost by 50% and improve the return by 30%.

Keywords  Solar drying · Domestic solar dryers · Natural convection · Forced convection · Economics

Introduction
Electricity is still a dream in many places globally and is
also very expensive for most developing nations. Developed
countries with good electric supply are also concerned about
the limited fossil fuel reserves and the pollution caused by
them in electricity generation. Hence, using solar energy
for various applications is an effort of global importance. It
eliminates the requirements of conventional fuels without
causing any kind of environmental pollution [1].
Sun is the ultimate source of energy on the earth. There
are different technologies to harness the available solar
* Mahesh Kumar
mkshandilya1@gmail.com
Shimpy
shimpymehra@gmail.com
Anil Kumar
anilkumar76@dtu.ac.in
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Guru Jambheshwar
University of Science & Technology, Hisar, India
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Delhi Technological
University, Delhi, India
3
Centre for Energy and Environment, Delhi Technological
University, Delhi, India
energy. Open sun drying (OSD) is one of the techniques used
traditionally for food preservation. It has some severe limita-
tions, such as uncontrolled operating conditions, insect and
animal interference, etc., which reduces the product qual-
ity and affects the quantity of the dried product. Despite
all the drawbacks, OSD is still practiced by many farmers
and households around the globe for drying different com-
modities such as fruits, vegetables, spices, grains, medicinal
herbs, aromatic plants, wood, etc. [2]. The moisture content
present in a food product is highly responsible for its spoil-
age or shorter shelf-life. Higher the amount of moisture con-
tent, higher the chances of deterioration of the food product.
In solar drying, products are placed in a warm environment
to remove moisture until it reaches a safe moisture content
of about 8–10% (wet basis), which is required for its “safe
storage time period” during which the quality of the products
remains unaffected from any microbial growth [1, 2].
A total food loss and waste of about 20% of oilseeds, meat
and dairy products, 35% of fish, 30% of cereals, and 40–50%
of horticultural crops annually have been reported [3].
Household sector contributes 61% to the total global food
waste, followed by the service and retail sectors with 26%
and 13%, respectively [4]. Food loss in India is estimated to
be 10.6 billion USD [5]. Stanley and Colo developed a solar
dryer in 1976 to reduce food losses and improve the quality

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 157
of the product [6]. Since then, considerable research has
been done on solar energy utilization in various solar dryers.
Solar dryers available in the literature can be classified based
on modes of heat transfer to the drying commodity and air
circulation through the system (Fig. 1).
Solar drying is a two-step process; the first step is ‘heat
transfer’ from the Sun to the drying commodity in the form
of solar radiation and the second step is ‘mass transfer’ from
the drying commodity to the surrounding in the form of
evaporated moisture. In this way, a solar dryer can be clas-
sified firstly based on the mode of heat transfer as a direct,
indirect and mixed-mode type solar dryer [8] and secondly
based on the mode of mass transfer as a natural and forced
convection solar dryer [9].
The drying commodity is placed over the drying tray
inside a drying chamber with transparent walls/roofs in a
direct solar dryer. After passing through the transparent
walls/roof, solar radiations directly strike the product and
get absorbed, causing temperature rise and moisture evapo-
ration. Some drawbacks are also associated with this process
due to direct contact between solar radiation and product to
be dried. Direct exposure to sunlight may lead to discolora-
tion [10] and loss of some vitamins in the food items [11],
which affects their quality. A direct solar dryer can be a
cabinet or tunnel type [12]. In an indirect type solar dryer,
the drying commodity is placed in a well-insulated drying
chamber to avoid direct exposure to solar radiation. Dry-
ing air is heated separately using solar air heaters and then
supplied to the drying chamber. The involvement of solar
air heaters makes the system more complicated than direct
solar dryers. However, the product quality obtained from
indirect solar dryers is much better. The mixed-mode solar
Fig. 1  Classification of solar
dryers [7]
dryer combines both solar air heating actions, i.e., direct and
indirect solar air heating. Drying chamber comprises trans-
parent walls/roof, and a solar collector arrangement is used
to obtain higher temperatures with better air circulation [13].
Solar-heated air circulates through the drying chamber in a
natural convection solar dryer due to buoyancy forces. These
dryers are called “passive type” or “free convection” solar
dryers. This type of dryer needs no electric supply or other
power to work except solar radiation, making them more
attractive to rural or remote areas where electricity is una-
vailable or costs too high. The lower drying rate is one of the
major limitations of this type of dryer [1]. A forced convec-
tion solar dryer, on the other hand, uses an additional device
such as a fan, pump, blower, etc., to circulate the solar-heated
air through the drying chamber. These dryers are also known
as “active solar dryers”. Drying rates are higher for these
dryers than the natural convection solar dryers. Still, there
is a need for electrical energy to drive the pump or blower,
which makes them more complex, dependent on conventional
energy, and increases the system's total cost [14].
Developing simple, compact-sized, easily operated, low-
cost solar drying systems is very attractive to households and
small agricultural farm users [15]. These systems generally
depend upon solar energy and are independent of electric
supply. In this way, no capital investment is required for its
operation, and there is no harmful emission in using them.
The abundance of solar energy around the globe makes these
systems equally important to the entire world. Solar dry-
ers are preferred over other dryers for domestic applications
[16]. Most solar drying systems' efficiency is reported in the
range 30–50% [17]. Many researchers have reviewed solar
dryers with various considerations [7, 18, 19].
13

158
This communication presents a brief overview of the
progress in low-cost, compact-sized solar dryers devel-
oped for domestic and small agricultural farm applications.
A systematic review method was adopted for the present
study. Firstly, the keywords such as solar dryer, domestic
solar dryer, household solar drying, small-scale solar dryers,
low-cost solar dryers and solar food drying, etc. were used
to search papers from the literature available on different
search engines such as Google Scholar, Springer Link, Sci-
ence Direct, Wiley Online Library, etc. Around one hundred
articles were collected from 1986 to 2021. Out of which 76
papers are discussed based on dryer design, significance of
results, and reputation of journal/publisher. The comprehen-
sive studies on domestic solar dryers have been categorized
as domestic type natural convection solar dryers (NCSD)
and forced convection solar dryers (FCSD). Construction
and working details of various domestic solar dryers tested
for different commodities have been presented. Economic
perspective has also been given to understand the feasibility
of various designs.
Natural Convection Solar Dryers (NCSD)
Natural convection solar dryers (NCSD) are simple in
design, need lower capital investment, and are independent
of electricity requirements. The given factors make NCSD
more suitable for domestic, small agricultural farms, rural
and undeveloped areas. NCSD can be used for different dry-
ing commodities but is generally tested for various house-
hold items such as fruits and vegetables with higher spoilage
chances.
Fig. 2  Shell-type solar dryer
[20]
13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
Investigations on Domestic NCSD for Fruits
Drying
Fournier and Guinebault [20] tested a shell-type solar dryer
(Fig. 2) to dry mango slices. Thickness of the fruit slice was
suggested to be a critical parameter that significantly affected
drying time. Hallak et al. [21] developed a staircase-shaped
direct NCSD (Fig. 3) for drying apricots, figs, grapes, prune,
okra and tomatoes, having efficiency in 26 to 65% under vari-
able weather and ambient conditions.
Wakjira et al. [22] developed and tested an enclosed-
cabinet solar dryer for optimum slice thickness of banana
samples. Dryer took 4 days to attain safe moisture content
for slices of 3–4 mm thickness with the best quality. Rawat
et al. [23] fabricated an NCSD having a quadrilateral-shaped
cabinet covered with a 2 mm thick transparent glass, 120 × 78
­cm2 cabinet floor area. The amount of fuel saved for drying
5 kg of amla (Phyllanthus emblica L.) from a moisture con-
tent of 74.4 to 2% wet basis (w.b.) in 3 days by using NCSD
was calculated to be 550.46 kg, 176.71 L, 366.97 kg, and
141.14 kg in terms of fuel-wood, light diesel oil, coal and
natural gas, respectively. Energy payback time ranges from
3.1–5.0 years for various conventional fuels. Terres et al. [24]
developed a direct NCSD (Fig. 4) having two separate trans-
parent glass covers for drying lemon slices. The maximum
temperature in the middle of the drying chamber was 47.2 °C.
ANSYS software was used to simulate the drying chamber
for temperature, density and air currents.
Daud and Simate [25] used a solar conduction dryer (SCD)
having polyethylene plastic glazing and four drying trays (sur-
face area: 0.1131 ­m2 each) for the drying of sliced pineapples.
The maximum inside temperature (46 °C) was 9 °C higher
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 159
Fig. 3  Schematic of a staircase-shaped direct NCSD [21]
than the ambient temperature. Moisture content was reduced
from 85.42 to 12.23% (w.b.) by using SCD in 8 h, whereas it
was just up to 51.51% (w.b.) under OSD. Poonia et al. [26]
developed and tested a simple, low-cost NCSD for drying
Ziziphus (ber). Maximum temperatures of 63 °C and 49 °C
were observed inside the drying chamber under no-load and
loaded conditions, respectively. The moisture content of the
ber sample was reduced from 85 to 15% (w.b.) with an overall
efficiency of 16% and a total cost of $10.31. Islam et al. [27]
constructed a direct NCSD (Fig. 5) with three separate drying
chambers having different arrangements for ventilation (a thin
tube chimney type, attic type and simple type) and tested for
the drying of apple, banana and guava. Simple type drying
chamber was the most efficient with a maximum moisture
removal rate of 58.9% compared to 44.5% for the chimney type
and 33.3% for the attic type ventilated drying chamber. Sum-
mary of various investigations carried out on domestic NCSD
for fruit drying has been presented in Table 1.
Investigations on Domestic NCSD
for Vegetable Drying
Sharma et al. [28] developed and tested a cabinet type direct
NCSD (Fig. 6) to dry peas, grapes and potatoes. The maxi-
mum tray temperature went up to around 80 °C, about 50 °C
13

160
Fig. 4  Solar dryer for lemon slice drying [24]
higher than the ambient temperature. Thanvi and Pande [29]
designed and tested a low-cost NCSD (Fig. 7) to dry chilies.
Average inside temperature was 63.1 °C which is 36.4 °C
higher than the ambient. Solar energy utilization efficiency
was increased by 6.7% as compared to OSD. Sharma et al.
[30] compared the performance of the cabinet type direct
NCSD and OSD for the drying of turnip, cauliflower and
Fig. 5  Direct solar dryer with
three ventilation arrangements
[27]
13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
green peas. The maximum temperature inside the drying
chamber was found to be 85 °C and 50 °C under no-load
and loaded conditions, respectively. Ezekoye and Enebe
[31] designed an NCSD, as shown in Fig. 8 and tested it for
drying agricultural products (pepper and groundnuts). The
temperature at the drying trays varied from 33 to 67 °C for a
variation of 25 to 31 °C in the ambient temperature.
 Table 1  Summary of domestic NCSD for fruits drying
Sr. No. Researcher/s
1 Fournier and Guinebault [20] 1995
2 Hallak et al. [21]
3 Wakjira et al. [22]
4 Rawat et al. [23]
5 Terres et al. [24]
6 Daud and Simate [25]
7 Poonia et al. [26]
8 Islam et al. [27]
13
Year Country Drying commodity Description Remarks
France Mango slices A theoretical model was developed for a Slice thickness and wind velocity were the
shell-type solar dryer most affecting parameters
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
1996 Israel Apricots, figs, grapes, prune, okra and A novel staircase-type solar dryer was A maximum airflow rate of about 1.5 m ­ 3/
tomatoes developed and tested min was reported inside the dryer
2011 Ethiopia Banana slices Enclosed-cabinet solar dryer was tested Slice thickness of 3–4 mm was
for optimum slice thickness and recommended for better quality products
shelf-life estimation with longer shelf-life
2014 India Amla (Phyllanthus emblica L.) Energetics and ­CO2 mitigation Annual ­CO2 mitigation was 8,812.40 to
potential of a laboratory-scale NCSD 34,368.37 kg in terms of fuel-wood, light
were reported diesel oil, coal and natural gas
2015 Mexico City Lemon slices Direct NCSD having two separate glass Vorticity has been observed in some parts
covers and multiple trays was tested of the drying chamber
2017 Zambia Sliced Pineapples Drying kinetics, the effect of slice Middilli model was the most suitable for
thickness and the used drying tray area describing the drying behavior. The
were investigated for SCD highest drying rates were observed with
3 mm slice thickness. Maximum thermal
efficiency (44%) was observed with
100% drying tray area utilization
2018 India Ber (Ziziphus) Simple low-cost NCSD was fabricated The dryer could generate a temperature
and tested of 36 °C and 22 °C higher under no-load
and loaded conditions, respectively,
compared to ambient temperatures
2019 Bangladesh Apple, banana, guava and pineapple NCSD with three ventilation Maximum moisture removal in the simple
arrangements was constructed and ventilation drying chamber was 58.9%
tested which is 14.4% and 25.6% higher than
chimney and attic types, respectively
161

162
Fig. 6  Schematic view of solar cabinet dryer [28]
Singh et al. [32] designed, developed and tested a domes-
tic NCSD (Fig. 9) under no-load and loaded conditions. Ther-
mal efficiency of the NCSD ranged from 5.16 to 28.05% and
19.3 to 25.6% for batch mode and semi-continuous modes,
respectively. Rawat et al. [33] fabricated an NCSD (Fig. 10)
with a quadrilateral-shaped cabinet. Moisture content of the
chili sample was reduced from 74.4 to 4.4% (w.b.) in 8 h.
Fig. 7  Direct type low-cost
solar dryer [29]
13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
Alonge and Omoniwa [34] modified a direct NCSD for easier
operations with different tilt angles. Dryer was tested under
no-load conditions and also for the drying of 1 kg of cassava
chips. Maximum difference of 20 °C was observed between
the drying chamber and ambient temperature under no-load
conditions. Dryer took 32 h in comparison to 38 h under
OSD. Alonge and Adeboye [35] evaluated the drying rate of
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 163
Fig. 8  Domestic solar grain dryer [31]
pepper (Capsicum annum L.), okra (Abelmoschus esculentus
L.) and vegetables (Amaranthus hybridus L.) for the respec-
tive moisture content of 78.9–24%, 92–20% and 90–20%
(w.b.) in a direct and indirect NCSD and also compared
with OSD. Drying rates for all three products were observed
to be higher in direct type NCSD (3.94 g/h, 17.65 g/h and
13.33 g/h) as compared to the indirect NCSD (2.55 g/h,
15.79 g/h and 11.11 g/h) and OSD (2.17 g/h, 14.29 g/h and
8.33 g/h). Tefera et al. [36] compared the performances of
box and pyramid-type solar dryers (Fig. 11) to dry potato
slices. A little reduction of about 2–3 h in the drying time
with uneven drying in different trays was reported compared
to OSD.
Eke [37] developed and tested a direct NCSD for drying
tomatoes, carrots and okra in rural Nigerian climates. Dry-
ing efficiency was reported to be 21.18–24.95% for NCSD
and 10.59–15.19% under OSD. Raju et al. [38] designed and
tested an efficient NCSD with an exhaust heat utilization
facility to dry 3 kg of potato, bitter gourd and green chili,
as shown in Fig. 12. Highest moisture evaporation under
NCSD was observed to be 84.33% (w.b.) for bitter gourd
followed by 81.66% (w.b.) for potato and 41.5% (w.b.) for
chili. A water heating system was installed at the exhaust
vent of the drying chamber so that heat going waste from the
drying chamber could be used. Eke [39] also compared the
performance of the direct NCSD with solar collectors hav-
ing different absorbing materials (metal, wood, cement and
mud) for the drying of sliced tomatoes. The drying chamber
and solar collector sizes were 1.53 × 0.61 ­m2 and 0.92 × 0.61
­m2, respectively. For OSD, wood, cement, mud, and metal
type solar collector, the drying efficiencies were 7.38, 19.56,
20.25, 20.91, and 27.24%, respectively. Navale et al. [12]
13

164
Fig. 9  Multi-shelf domestic
solar dryer [32]
designed and developed a cabinet-type NCSD (Fig. 13) and
tested it for fenugreek leaves drying. The NCSD maintained
a maximum temperature difference of about 20–22 °C as
compared to the ambient. Average drying efficiency for the
NCSD was 34.50%, 13.98% higher than OSD. Borah et al.
[40] experimented with whole and sliced turmeric samples
to evaluate drying kinetics using an SCD shown in Fig. 14.
SCD reduced the drying time from 25.5 h in OSD to 12 h.
SCD was also tested by Subedi and Bhattarai [41] to dry
ginger. Overall efficiency was observed to be reduced with
an increase in slice thickness and it was maximum (64.36%)
with the least slice thickness (3-5  mm). Chaudhari and
Bhavsar [42] developed a box-type solar dryer cum cooker
(SD-C) as shown in Fig. 15 and tested it under the no-load
and loaded condition for chili drying. The moisture content
Fig. 10  Natural convection type
solar crop dryer [33]
13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
of 3 kg of green chili was reduced from 80.58 to 6.89%
(w.b.) in 23 h and 18 h using only solar energy and solar
plus electrical energy for the drying operation. The drying
efficiency of the SD-C was found to be 19.12 and 19.50%
without and with an electrical heating system, respectively.
Chaudhari et al. [43] tested a hybrid NCSD for the drying
of ginger that took 9 h to reduce the moisture content from
79.31 to 6.73% (w.b.), whereas the reduction was just up to
66.38% (w.b.) under OSD.
Haque et  al. [44] developed a portable and durable
domestic NCSD (Fig. 16) on a ‘do it yourself’ model spe-
cifically for remote areas and tested for the drying of bitter
gourd, okra, hirda and raw mango. Collector and exergy effi-
ciencies were 21–38% and 17–44%, respectively. Ugwuoke
et al. [45] developed a mixed-mode solar dryer (Fig. 17)
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 165

Fig. 11  a Box type solar dryer, b Pyramid type solar dryer [36]

13

166
Fig. 12  Schematic of efficient
solar dryer [38]
for domestic applications. Temperature inside the drying
chamber was 16 °C higher than the ambient temperature.
The total moisture loss from pepper, okra and yam slices was
4 g, 10 g and 37 g higher, respectively, compared to OSD.
Chavan et al. [46] carried out a computer simulation for SCD
and validated the results with experimental observations for
drying potato slices. Good agreement was reported in the
outcomes of the two analyses. Progress on domestic NCSD
for vegetable drying has been summarised in Table 2.
Investigations on Domestic NCSD
for Miscellaneous Commodities Drying
Ampratwum and Dorvlo [47] designed and tested a cabinet
NCSD (Fig. 18) under no-load conditions at Sultan Qaboos
University, Sultanate of Oman. Maximum average tempera-
ture for the drying chamber was 84 °C.
Bolaji [48] developed an indirect NCSD with a solar air
collector having box-type absorber (Fig. 19). Maximum
efficiency was 60.5%, which was 39.5% and 24.5% higher
than flat and finned solar collectors. Mwithiga and Kigo
[49] designed and tested a box-type NCSD (Fig. 20) for
the drying of parchment coffee by using four sun-tracking
methods. NCSD reduced the moisture content from 54.8
to 13% (w.b.). However, no significant difference was
observed in drying time using various sun-tracking meth-
ods. Kumar et al. [50] designed and tested a solar cooker
13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
cum dryer (SCCD) for domestic applications, as shown in
Fig. 21. Maximum temperatures at the absorbing plate under
no-load and water-loaded conditions were 140 °C and 98.6
°C, respectively. It was reported that tracking the sun had
reduced the performance of SCCD.
Saleh and Badran [51] developed and tested a domes-
tic NCSD (size: 70 cm × 60 cm × 29 cm) under no-load and
loaded conditions for drying Jew’s mallow in fixed and
tracking mode. NCSD had a provision to accommodate
three drying trays and get tilted for higher energy collec-
tions. Stagnation temperature and average heat loss coef-
ficient were 80 °C and 9.6 W/m2K, respectively. Abdullahi
et al. [52] designed and tested an adjustable and collapsible
solar dryer (Fig. 22) to dry groundnuts.
Ozuomba et al. [53] developed a direct absorption solar
dryer having a surface area of 0.39 m ­ 2. A 2.5 cm thick
softwood was used to fabricate a rectangular drying cham-
ber. Drying bed was created by covering the base with a
foam layer, aluminum sheet, and black leather sheet. A
sliding door opening (size: 10 cm × 6 cm) was created as
an inlet for fresh air and a 5 cm diameter opening was
used for the outlet. Mustapha et al. [54] constructed five
solar dryers with different materials (plastic, mosquito net,
glass, aluminum and glass with black pebbles) and tested
them for fish drying. Floor and drying tray sizes were kept
as 2 ft × 2 ft and 1.7 ft × 1.7 ft, respectively. Akpojaro and
Oyeyemi [55] developed a box-type NCSD for maize cobs.
Dryer took 2 days instead of 6 days taken in OSD for 5 kg
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 167
Fig. 13  Cabinet solar dryer [12]
of maize cobs. Chavan et al. [56] analyzed SCD using
CFD analysis with two tray modifications to predict the
temperature at the top and bottom plates. An increase in
temperature and velocity was reported due to suggested
modifications. Sandali et al. [57] investigated the effect of
the porous medium (gravel, steel wool and stone bed) as
sensible heat storage in a direct NCSD (Fig. 23). Drying
temperature was increased by 4 °C and the working time
was extended by 2 h after sunset with the proposed modifi-
cation. Mehata et al. [58] tested a mixed-mode solar dryer
under no-load conditions for small-scale applications. Jain
et al. [59] carried out a CFD simulation for a domestic
NCSD. Convective heat transfer coefficient was 2.81 W/
m 2 °C, with a significant temperature of about 55  °C
around the tray. Reliability of the results was observed
in terms of the coefficient of determination, which was
reported as 0.98. Sandali et al. [60] analyzed the effect
of various heat supply techniques (heat exchange, porous
medium and PCM) on a direct NCSD. Investigations on
domestic NCSD for the drying of miscellaneous commodi-
ties are also summarised in Table 3.
Forced Convection Solar Dryers (FCSD)
The flow rate of heated air through the drying chamber sig-
nificantly influences the drying rate, drying time, and overall
performance of the drying system. Forced convection solar
dryers (FCSD) have shown an edge over NCSD in many
studies. In this section, various investigations on the use of
FCSD for domestic and small-scale farm applications, espe-
cially for the drying of fruits, vegetables and some other
miscellaneous commodities, have been presented.
Investigations on Domestic FCSD for Fruit
Drying
Poonia et al. [61] developed a direct hybrid photovoltaic/
thermal (PV/T) FCSD (Fig. 24) for the drying of ber (Zizy-
phus mauritiana) fruit from an initial moisture content of
80 to 20% (w.b.).
13

168 Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186

Fig. 14  Schematic of a solar conduction dryer [40]

Poonia et al. [62] compared the performance of a hybrid efficiency of the dryer was found to be 15.6 and 16.7% for
PV/T solar dryer under natural and forced convection modes natural and forced convection modes, respectively. Nabnean
to dry Indian jujube (Zizyphus mauritiana). Average thermal and Nimnuan [63] used a parabolic-shaped direct FCSD

Fig. 15  Hybrid solar dryer cum

cooker [42]

13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 169
Fig. 16  Schematic of a domestic
solar dryer [44]
(Fig. 25) to dry banana slices and compared the results with
OSD. Temperature of the drying air varied from 35 to 60
°C. Moisture content was reduced from 72 to 28% (w.b.) in
4 days by using FCSD, whereas it was just reduced up to
40% under OSD in the same drying time. Table 4 summa-
rizes the studies on domestic FCSD for fruit drying.
Investigations on Domestic FCSD
for Vegetable Drying
Tiris et  al. [64] developed a small-scale indirect FCSD
(Fig. 26) with an electrical heater and solar air collector to
pre-heat the drying air.. Compared to OSD, a significant
Fig. 17  Mixed-mode domestic
solar dryer [45]
reduction in the drying time was reported for drying sultana
grapes, green beans, sweet peppers, and chili peppers.
Sreekumar et al. [65] developed and tested a cabinet-type
indirect FCSD (Fig. 27). To avoid the direct exposure of
drying commodities to solar radiation, the whole system was
divided into two chambers called the collection chamber
and the drying chamber. Gaikwad et al. [66] developed a
briefcase-type portable solar dryer (Fig. 28) to work under
both natural and forced convection modes. An arrangement
of an electric heater powered through a battery charged by
a solar photovoltaic module was made for off-shine opera-
tions. Modi et al. [67] fabricated a cabinet-type direct FCSD
to dry tomato slices. Moisture content was reduced from
90.48 to 7.73% (w.b.). Mohsen et al. [68] fabricated a simple
13


Table 2  Summary of progress on domestic NCSD for vegetable drying

170

Sr. No. Researcher/s Year Country Drying commodity Description Remarks

13
1 Sharma et al. [28] 1986 India Peas, grapes and potatoes Performance of the cabinet-type NCSD was NCSD took 3 days for drying with an
evaluated efficiency of 40%
2 Thanvi and Pande [29] 1987 India Chilies Low-cost NCSD was developed and tested Drying time was reduced by 50% compared to
OSD with a maximum efficiency of 37.9%
3 Sharma et al. [30] 1990 India Turnip, cauliflower and green peas A cabinet type NCSD was compared with Drying time was reduced by 4, 12 and 6 h
OSD compared to OSD for drying turnip,
cauliflower, and green peas, respectively
4 Ezekoye and Enebe [31] 2006 Nigeria Pepper and groundnuts NCSD was fabricated for domestic Average collector and drying efficiencies were
applications 10% and 22%, respectively
5 Singh et al. [32] 2006 India Fenugreek leaves and chilies NCSD with the variable inclination and Thermal efficiency was reduced with time
covering plate was developed and tested under batch mode. The drying cost for
fenugreek leaves was only 60% of an electric
dryer
6 Rawat et al. [33] 2009 India Chili Evaluated energetics of a direct NCSD Total energy spent on the NCSD for the entire
lifetime was 2744.64 MJ, with 1–2 years of
energy payback period
7 Alonge and Omoniwa [34] 2012 Nigeria Cassava chips Constructed NCSD for different tilt-angle Drying time was reduced by 15.7%
settings for higher energy collection
8 Alonge and Adeboye [35] 2012 Nigeria Pepper, okra and vegetables Drying performances of direct and indirect Direct NCSD took 33, 51 and 30 h for pepper,
(Amaranthus hybridus L.) NCSD were evaluated okra and vegetables drying, which were 35,
10 and 16% lower than indirect NCSD
9 Tefera et al. [36] 2013 Ethiopia Potato slices Performances of the box and pyramid-type The cost and weight of the pyramid-type dryer
solar dryers were compared were 72.59% and 73.33% less than the
box-type dryer, respectively
10 Eke [37] 2013 Nigeria Tomato, carrot and okra Fabricated and tested a small-scale NCSD The drying efficiencies of NCSD were found
to vary from 21.18 to 24.95%
11 Raju et al. [38] 2013 India Potato, bitter gourd and green chili NCSD with a provision for exhaust heat NCSD reduced the moisture by 81.66, 84.33
utilization was tested and compared with and 41.5% (w.b.) as compared to 69.33,
OSD 73.66 and 19% (w.b.) under OSD for potato,
bitter gourd and chili, respectively
12 Eke [39] 2014 Nigeria Sliced tomatoes Direct NCSD with wood, cement, mud, and Drying time was reduced by 56.75–65.76%
a metal solar collector was compared with
OSD
13 Navale et al. [12] 2015 India Fenugreek leaves Compared the performance of NCSD having Using NCSD, drying time was reduced by
variable width chimney with OSD 42.8% and the energy utilization rate was
improved by 75%
14 Borah et al. [40] 2015 India Turmeric rhizomes Drying kinetics was evaluated for whole and Drying time was reduced by 52.9%, with an
sliced turmeric samples under SCD overall efficiency of 55%. Sliced samples
gave better drying results and the page model
was found the most suitable
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
 Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 171

direct FCSD and tested the same for tomatoes drying. The

The maximum temperature difference between

SCD was tested for different slice thicknesses Maximum efficiency was 64.36% for 3–5 mm

around 15 °C and the drying efficiency was

performance of the FCSD was compared with OSD for dif-

conduction, convection, and radiation was

observed inside the drying chamber when
Drying time was reduced by 21.7%, with a

the drying chamber and the ambient was

slight improvement in drying efficiency
ferent slice thicknesses (1, 1.5 and 2 cm) and slice layers

34.96, 0.45, and 9.99 W, respectively

A maximum temperature of 55 °C was
The performance of a hybrid NCSD having a Drying efficiency was 19.71% and the
(single, double and triple). A maximum decrease of 56% in

the ambient temperature was 39 °C

Energy transferred to the sample by
estimated daily benefit was $0.89
the drying time was observed in single-layer drying with a
slice thickness of 1 cm of the product. Moghimi et al. [69]
designed and developed an indirect FCSD (Fig. 29) and
tested the same for the drying of tomato slices (thickness
of 7 mm) for small and household applications. The sum-
slice thickness

mary of domestic FCSD for vegetable drying is presented

in Table 5.
Remarks

10.73%

Investigations on Domestic FCSD

Experimental and simulation analyses were
for Miscellaneous Commodities Drying
A mixed-mode NCSD was fabricated and
Bitter gourd, okra, hirda and raw mango A low cost durable domestic NCSD was

Fagunwa et al. [70] developed and tested a mixed-mode

tested for domestic applications
SD-C with an electric heater as a

solar dryer (Fig. 30) with a thermal energy storage unit for

heating element was evaluated

cocoa beans under the Nigerian climate. Society for Energy,

tested for rural applications

Environment and Development (SEED) developed a direct

modification was tested

solar cabinet dryer (Fig. 31) in 1996 to dry Gum Karaya.

conducted for SCD

Dryer reduced the drying time from 10–15 days in OSD to

2–3 days [71].
Description

Seveda and Jhajharia [72] developed and tested a cab-

inet-type direct FCSD (Fig. 32) to dry large cardamom
(Amomum subulatum). Moisture content was reduced
from 75.6 to 10.1% (w.b.) in 24 h, whereas it took 48 h
for the same in the case of OSD. Jangsawang [73] devel-
oped a cabinet FCSD (Fig. 33) with a greenhouse cham-
ber attached at the top separated by a black absorbing
Pepper, okra and yam slices

aluminum sheet having the arrangement to force the

heated air from the head to the drying chamber. Tempera-
Year Country Drying commodity

ture variation of 1–3 °C was observed among the 5 dry-

ing trays with a maximum average temperature of 48.63
°C at the top two trays. A higher percentage of weight
Potato slice
Green chili

loss was reported with the FCSD than OSD. Alonge and
Ginger

Ginger

Obayopo [74] designed a direct type of FCSD to dry fish

(Fig. 34) and tested numerically using ANSYS FLUENT
and experimentally for optimum dimensions at various
2019 Nigeria
Subedi and Bhattaraiai [41] 2017 Nepal

Chaudhari and Bhavsar [42] 2017 India

2018 India

2018 India

2020 India

airflow rates under no-load and loaded conditions. Maxi-

mum temperature and collection efficiency were observed
in natural convection mode. Nimnuan and Nabnean [75]
tested a parabolic shaped direct FCSD for the drying of
Galangal (Alpinia galangal (Linn.) Swartz.). Temperature
inside the drying chamber was in the range of 30–55 °C
Chaudhari et al. [43]

during the operation. Moisture content was reduced from

Ugwuoke et al. [45]

Chavan et al. [46]

Haque et al. [44]

89 to 12% (w.b.), saving 43% of drying time compared to

Sr. No. Researcher/s

OSD. Safri et al. [76] reported the temperature variations

Table 2  (continued)

in a portable greenhouse dryer with four air collectors (flat

plate with insulator, V-groove with insulator, flat plate
and V-groove with insulator, and flat plate and V-groove
without insulator). Collector with flat plate and V-groove
15

16

17

18

19

20

13

172 Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186

Fig. 18  Solar cabinet dryer [47]

without insulator showed the highest efficiency (66.34%)
and was recommended for drying purposes due to higher
temperatures inside the drying chamber. Investigations on
domestic FCSD for miscellaneous commodities drying are
summarised in Table 6.
Economic Analysis of Various Domestic Solar
Dryers
Traditional OSD technique has several drawbacks in terms
of product quality and drying performance, but there is a

Fig. 19  Solar crop dryer with

box type absorber collector [48]

13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 173

Fig. 20  Photograph of NCSD
with partial tracking [49]

major factor responsible for its popularity, i.e., the cost the overall feasibility in terms of development and utiliza-
involved in the process is zero. This is more than enough tion. The comparison among profits that can be achieved
to understand the role of economic analysis for various by utilizing different solar drying technologies and tradi-
solar drying technologies. Comprehensive analysis gives tional sun drying can directly influence people more than

Fig. 21  Truncated pyramid type

SCCD [50]

13

174 Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186

Fig. 22  Adjustable and collapsible NCSD [52]

anything else. Various economical parameters such as total researchers. Economic investigations carried out by differ-
cost of the system, benefit to cost ratio, net present worth ent researchers for domestic solar dryers are summarised
and payback time period were being evaluated by different in Table 7.

Fig. 23  Schematic of direct
solar dryer with porous medium
[57]

13
 Table 3  Summary of domestic NCSD for miscellaneous commodities drying
Sr. No. Researcher/s
1 Ampratwum and Dorvlo [47] 1998 Sultanate of Oman No-load
2 Bolaji [48]
3 Mwithiga and Kigo [49]
4 Kumar et al. [50]
5 Saleh and Badran [51]
6 Abdullahi et al. [52]
7 Ozuomba et al. [53]
8 Mustapha et al. [54]
9 Akpojaro and Oyeyemi [55]
10 Chavan et al. [56]
11 Sandali et al. [57]
12 Mehata et al. [58]
13 Jain et al. [59]
14 Sandali et al. [60]
13
Year Country Drying commodity Description Remarks
Tested a cabinet NCSD for temperature range and Maximum heat collection was 0.93 kW/m2
energy collection
2005 Nigeria No-load Indirect NCSD with a solar collector having box Maximum temperature inside the drying chamber
type absorber was tested was 41.22% higher than the ambient temperature
(33.5 °C)
2006 Kenya Parchment coffee Box type NCSD with varying tilt angles for better Dryer took 2–3 days compared to 5–7 days in
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
energy collection was tested OSD. The tracking system was not recommended
2008 India No-load, with water SCCD was tested for domestic and farm With and without sun tracking, the maximum
applications stagnation temperature was 119 and 112 °C,
respectively
2009 Jordan Jew’s mallow Tested a multi-shelf domestic NCSD under fixed Thermal efficiency was improved by 3.34% and
and sun tracking mode specific energy consumption was reduced by
47.23% under tracking mode
2013 Nigeria Groundnuts A new extendable design of box-type solar dryer The minimum and maximum extendable drying
was presented and tested areas were 0.8475 and 3.39 m ­ 2 with respective
capacities of 4.06 and 16.52 kg
2013 Nigeria No-load Temperature range of a direct NCSD was A maximum difference of 26 °C was observed
observed between the dryer and ambient temperature
2014 Nigeria Fish Economics of the five solar dryers made up of Net income varied from $10.91 to 18.18 for various
five different materials were compared solar dryers
2015 Nigeria Maize cobs A box-type NCSD was developed and tested Drying time was reduced by 66.6%
2018 India – Conducted CFD simulation of SCD with Positioning of an array of plates and grooved
modified drying plate and absorber absorber plate resulted in improved outlet air
velocity and temperature
2018 Algeria – A porous medium as sensible heat storage in a Maximum dryer temperature was 51 °C with the
direct NCSD was simulated numerically steel wool and gravel bed
2018 India No-load A mathematical model was developed for the Average collector outlet temperature was 50 °C
estimation of the absorber plate outlet with lower relative humidity throughout the day
temperatures
2019 India – CFD simulation was carried out for a domestic The highest values of coefficient of performance
NCSD using ANSYS Fluent 14.0 software and heat utilization factor were 0.46 and 0.69,
respectively
2020 Algeria – Different heat supply techniques to a direct Maximum temperature of 58 °C was observed by
NCSD were analyzed using the geothermal water supply heat exchanger
175

176 Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186

Fig. 24  Schematics of PVT hybrid solar dryer [61]

Fig. 25  Parabolic-shaped direct FCSD [63]

13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 177
Table 4  Summary of domestic FCSD for fruits drying
Sr. No. Researcher/s Year
1 Poonia et al. [61] 2018
2 Poonia et al. [62] 2018
3 Nabnean and 2020
Nimnuan [63]
Fig. 26  Schematic of a small
scale solar dryer [64]
Fig. 27  Indirect solar cabinet-
dryer [65]
Country Drying commodity
India Ber (Zizyphus mauritiana)
India Indian jujube (Zizyphus
mauritiana)
Thailand Banana slices
Description Remarks
Thin layer drying characteristics The logarithmic model was
and economics of hybrid FCSD the most suitable and the
were presented efficiency of the FCSD was
16.7% for the drying period
of 240 h
A hybrid PV/T solar dryer was Forced mode reduced the
tested under natural and forced drying time by 20%,
convection modes incrementing average
thermal efficiency slightly
Parabolic shaped polycarbonate Drying time was reduced by
sheet cover solar collector was 48%
used as FCSD
13

178
Fig. 28  Briefcase-type portable solar dryer [66]
Summary, Future Scope
and Recommendations
The abundance and non-polluting characteristics of solar
energy have attracted many researchers for its applications
in food drying technologies. Food being a basic necessity,
is related to everyone in the world. Domestic solar dryers
can give the access to an individual to process food for
safe storage and play a significant role in achieving the
sustainable development goals suggested by the United
Nations, i.e., assuring access to food, eliminating malnu-
trition, sustainable food production, and affordable clean
energy. A summary with some recommendations is given
as:
• The simplicity of the design, cost, drying time and drying
rates were major factors considered in the development
of solar dryers for household applications. It was also
observed that many of the studies were confined to very
13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
basic designs to maintain simplicity. There were very few
investigations on the applicability of indirect and mixed-
mode type solar dryers in domestic solar drying.
• Mixed-mode solar dryers must be studied more for
domestic uses. Some researchers have shown photovol-
taic modules to make an electricity-independent forced
convection solar dryer as forced convection solar drying
is faster than natural convection solar drying. The thermal
efficiency of solar dryers was found to be 50–65%, which
can be increased by using various modifications for per-
formance improvement and thermal loss reduction.
• A lack of research was observed on phase change mate-
rials as energy storage in domestic solar dryers. Many
researchers have recommended using energy storage
techniques in large-scale solar dryers. Hence it must be
investigated for its suitability in domestic solar dryers.
• Computer simulation tools have shown their signifi-
cance in design and process optimization. Computer
simulation for design optimization is recommended for
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 179

Fig. 29  Small-scale indirect FCSD [69]

Table 5  Summary of domestic FCSD for vegetable drying

Sr. No. Researcher/s Year Country Drying commodity Description Remarks

1 Tiris et al. [64]
2 Sreekumar et al. [65]
3 Gaikwad et al. [66]
4 Modi et al. [67]
5 Mohsen et al. [68]
6 Moghimi et al. [69]
1996 Canada Sultana grapes, green Indirect FCSD with an electrical Drying time varied from 2 to 5 days
beans, sweet peppers heater was tested for various products
and chili peppers
2008 India Bitter gourd Investigated a cabinet-type Drying time was reduced by 45.45%,
indirect FCSD with a maximum drying air tem-
perature of 78.1 °C under no-load
compared to OSD
2016 India Potato and tulasi Briefcase-type portable hybrid Dryer was reported to work under
(Ocimum solar dryer was designed and off-shine periods
tenuiflorum) constructed
2017 India Tomato slices Drying performance of a direct Drying time was reduced by 82.5%,
FCSD was evaluated and with an average
compared with OSD efficiency of 34.87%
2019 Egypt Tomato The effect of slice thickness and A single layer of 1 cm thick slices
multiple layers on the showed the least drying time
performance of simple direct (50 h), which was 35.8% lower
FCSD was observed than OSD
2021 Iran Tomato Indirect FCSD was developed Overall efficiency was 16.4% with a
and tested experimentally and maximum temperature of 65 °C
numerically

13

180 Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186

Fig. 30  Schematics of intermittent solar dryer [70]

Fig. 31  Solar cabinet dryer [71]

Fig. 32  Cabinet-type direct
FCSD [72]

13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 181
Fig. 33  Compact solar cabinet dryer [73]
further developments as there is a lack of such investi-
gations on domestic solar dryers.
• Most of the research was confined to temperature vari-
ations and statistical presentations, but the dried prod-
uct's quality, which is the most important factor in the
whole process, has not even been discussed in maxi-
mum investigations.
• Environmental impact analysis is getting global recog-
nition as one of the most important tools for presenting
the sustainability potential of green technologies. There
are only a few investigations where researchers have
tried to analyze the environmental impact of a small-
scale or domestic solar dryer.
• The quality of the dried product and the sustainability
of the drying process with a simultaneous economic
analysis should be presented in solar drying technolo-
gies.
13

182
Fig. 34  Direct type solar fish dryer [74]
Table 6  Summary of domestic FCSD for miscellaneous commodities drying
Sr. No. Researcher/s
1 Fagunwa et al. [70]
2 Eswara and
Ramakrishnarao
[71]
3 Seveda and Jhajharia
[72]
4 Jangsawang [73]
5 Alonge and Obayopo
[74]
6 Nimnuan and
Nabnean [75]
7 Safri et al. [76]
13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
Year Country Drying commodity Description Remarks
2009 Nigeria Cocoa beans Mixed-mode solar dryer with The highest moisture reduction of 53.4
an energy storage unit for to 3.56% (w.b.) in 72 h was found
the off-shine period was under free convection
fabricated and tested
2012 India – The application of solar Solar technologies must be
technologies in food investigated in combinations rather
processing was presented than single unit testing
2012 India Large cardamom Direct FCSD was fabricated Collector efficiency varied from 17.23
(Amomum and tested to 51.71%, with a reduction of 50%
subulatum) in the drying time
2017 Thailand Raw pork Cabinet type FCSD was A temperature of 45.75–48.63 °C was
fabricated and tested observed on different drying trays
2019 Nigeria Fish Direct FCSD was simulated Maximum collector efficiency and
using ANSYS FLUENT temperature elevations were 77.2%
software and validated and 26.7 °C, respectively
2020 Thailand Galangal (Alpinia Parabolic-shaped direct Drying time was reduced by 43% with
galangal (Linn.) FCSD was tested an efficiency of 32%
Swartz.)
2020 Malaysia No-load A potable greenhouse dryer The efficiency of flat plate and
was tested with four V-groove without insulator was
different solar air collector 66.34%
arrangements
 Table 7  Economics of various domestic solar dryers
S. No. Researcher/s
1 Thanvi and Pande [29]
2 Singh et al. [32]
3 Sreekumar et al. [65]
4 Alonge and Omoniwa [34]
5 Tefera et al. [36]
6 Eke [39]
7 Mustapha et al. [54]
8 Modi et al. [67]
9 Poonia et al. [26]
10 Chaudhari et al. [43]
11 Haque et al. [44]
12 Poonia et al. [61]
13 Nabnean and Nimnuan [63] 2020 FCSD
13
Year Dryer Commodity Economic parameters Remarks
1987 NCSD Chilies The total fabrication cost of the dryer was Costs 50% less than a simple cabinet solar dryer
estimated to be $22
2006 NCSD Chilies and fenugreek leaves Capital and annualized cost of the NCSD was The estimated life was 20 years with 150 drying
$35.55 and $2.12, respectively. Payback days per year. Drying cost of fenugreek leaves
time was 0.57 and 1.36 years for chilies and was 40% less than an electric dryer
fenugreek leaves
2008 FCSD Bitter gourd Total capital and annualized cost was $144.44 Drying cost was 42% less than an electric dryer.
and $20.44, respectively. Payback time of the The estimated lifetime was 20 years with 250
FCSD was 3.26 years working days per year
2012 NCSD Cassava chips Production cost of the NCSD was $500 Total cost involved in the fabrication was
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
presented
2013 NCSD Potato slices Fabrication cost of the box and pyramid type A pyramid dryer was recommended due to its
NCSD was $39.92 and $10.94, respectively higher drying area, lesser weight and cost with
the same drying time
2014 NCSD Tomato slices The production costs for metal, cement, wood Production cost was highest for metal collector
and mud dryer were $36.14, $25.22, $21.34 followed by cement, wood and mud collec-
and $12.05, respectively tors. However, metal dryer showed the highest
efficiency
2014 NCSD Fish Fixed cost for different NCSD arrangements The lifetime for different solar dryers was in the
was varying from $11.25 to $21.25. Net range of 8–10 years
income and cost benefit ratio were in the
range of $28.12–$46.87 and 2.5:1–4.5:1.
Payback period was estimated as 3 months
2017 FCSD Tomato slices Capital cost of the FCSD was $125.08 and the Net profit was 6.4% higher as compared to OSD
net profit was $4.7/ kg
2018 NCSD Ber (Ziziphus) Total fabrication cost of the NCSD was $10.32 Low cost is more attractive for domestic and
rural areas
2018 NCSD Ginger Capital cost, net present worth, benefit cost The daily benefit from drying was $0.89 and the
ratio and payback time were $116.05, lifetime of the dryer was 10 years with 300
$266.92, 2.3 and 6 months, respectively operating days per year
2018 NCSD Bitter gourd, okra, hirda and raw mango Total fabrication and annualized cost were Lifetime was considered as 10 years with 140
$77.36 and $12.12, respectively. Cumulative working days per year
present worth was $1216.55 and the payback
time was 0.56 years
2018 FCSD Ber (Zizyphus mauritiana) Initial investment and net present worth of the A high internal rate of return and low payback
FCSD was $180.53 and $477.33, respectively. time showed the economic suitability of the
Benefit–cost ratio, internal rate of return FCSD
and payback period were 1.86, 54.5% and
2.26 years, respectively
Banana slices Total installation cost and payback time of the The price of the solar-dried banana was 20%
FCSD were $390 and 1.1 years, respectively higher than OSD
183

184 Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186

Acknowledgements  The authors are highly grateful to Guru Jamb-

The return on solar-dried products is 30% higher

The total development cost was very high which

heshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar, India and the

Working life was 15 years with 365 operating

Centre for Energy and Environment, Delhi Technological University,

seems out of the reach of household users

Delhi, India, for providing the necessary facilities to compile this work.

Funding  No funding was received for conducting this study.

Declarations 
Competing Interests  The authors have no relevant financial or non-
financial interests to disclose.
than OSD
Remarks

References
days

1. Ekechukwu OV, Norton B (1999) Review of solar-energy drying

systems II: an overview of solar drying technology. Energy Convers
Life cycle cost and benefit of the NCSD were

The total cost of the FCSD was estimated as

Installation cost of the FCSD was $375 and

$28,843.37 and $37,017.44, respectively.

Payback time was estimated as 0.9 years,

Manag 40:615–655. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0140-​6701(99)​97881-5

2. Lutz K, Mühlbauer W, Müller J, Reisinger G (1987) Development
of a multi-purpose solar crop dryer for arid zones. Sol Wind Tech-
nol 4:417–424. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0741-​983X(87)​90016-6
3. FAO (2019) The state of food and agriculture 2019. Moving for-
payback time was 0.9 years

ward on food loss and waste reduction. Rome

4. United Nations Environment Programme (2021) Food Waste
Economic parameters

Index Report 2021. Nairobi

which is quite low

5. NAAS (2019) Saving the harvest: reducing the food loss and waste.
Policy Brief No. 5, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
New Delhi
6. Stanley KE, Colo FC (1980) Solar food dryer. United States Pat-
$309.52

ent. US4221059A
7. Kumar M, Sansaniwal SK, Khatak P (2016) Progress in solar dry-
ers for drying various commodities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
55:346–360. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2015.​10.​158
8. Shimpy, HM, Kumar M, Gupta M (2019) Recent developments and
comprehensive review on greenhouse dryers. Trends and Advances
in Mechanical Engineering (TAME 2019), Faridabad 23–31
9. El Hage H, Herez A, Ramadan M et al (2018) An investigation on
solar drying: a review with economic and environmental assess-
ment. Energy 157:815–829. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.e​ nergy.2​ 018.​
05.​197
10. Seerangurayar T, Al-Ismaili AM, Jeewantha LHJ, Al-Habsi NA
(2019) Effect of solar drying methods on color kinetics and texture
Year Dryer Commodity

of dates. Food Bioprod Process 116:227–239. https://​doi.​org/​10.​

Nimnuan and Nabnean [75] 2020 FCSD Galangal

1016/j.​fbp.​2019.​03.​012
2021 FCSD Tomato

11. Mulokozi G, Svanberg U (2003) Effect of traditional open sun-

drying and solar cabinet drying on carotene content and vitamin A
2020 NCSD –

activity of green leafy vegetables. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 58:1–15.

https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/b:​qual.​00000​41153.​288
12. Navale SR, Harpale VM, Mohite KC (2015) Comparative study
of open sun and cabinet solar drying for fenugreek leaves. Int J
Renew Energy Technol Res 4:2325–3924
13. Belessiotis V, Delyannis E (2011) Solar drying. Sol Energy
85:1665–1691. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​solen​er.​2009.​10.​001
14. Sukhatme SP, Nayak JK (2017) Solar Energy, 4th ed. McGraw-
Hill Education, New Delhi
Moghimi et al. [69]

15. Chavan A, Vitankar V, Mujumdar A, Thorat B (2020) Natural

Sandali et al. [60]

convection and direct type (NCDT) solar dryers: a review. Dry

S. No. Researcher/s

Technol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07373​937.​2020.​17530​65
Table 7  (continued)

16. Prakash O, Kumar A, Sharaf-Eldeen YI (2016) Review on Indian

solar drying status. Curr Sustain Energy Reports 3:113–120.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40518-​016-​0058-9
17. Yaciuk G (1981) Solar crop drying. Solar Energy Conversion II.
Pergamon, Ontario, pp 377–339
16
15
14

13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186 185
18. Singh P, Gaur MK (2020) Review on development, recent advance-
ment and applications of various types of solar dryers. Energy
Sources A Recover Util Environ Eff 1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
15567​036.​2020.​18069​51
19. Mohana Y, Mohanapriya R, Anukiruthika T et al (2020) Solar dry-
ers for food applications: Concepts, designs, and recent advances.
Sol Energy 208:321–344. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​solen​er.​2020.​
07.​098
20. Fournier M, Guinebault A (1995) The “shell” dryer-modelling
and experimentation. Renew Energy 6:459–463
21. Hallak H, Hilal J, Hilal F, Rahhal R (1996) The staircase solar
dryer: Design and characteristics. Renew Energy 7:177–183.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0960-​1481(95)​00127-1
22. Wakjira M, Adugna D, Berecha G (2011) Determining slice
thickness of banana (Musa spp.) for enclosed solar drying using
solar cabinet dryer under ethiopian condition. Am J Food Technol
6:568–580. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3923/​ajft.​2011.​568.​580
23. Rawat BS, Rawat PN, Pant PC, Joshi GC (2014) Evaluation of
energetics and CO2 emission mitigation potential of natural con-
vection solar dryer for amla. AU J Technol 18:75–81
24. Terres H, Chavez S, Lopez R, et al (2015) Study of the lemon dry-
ing process using a solar dryer. In: ASME 2015 9th International
Conference on Energy Sustainability. San Diego, California, pp
1–6
25. Daud LEI, Simate IN (2017) Drying kinetics of sliced pineapples
in a solar conduction dryer. Energy Environ Res 7:14. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​5539/​eer.​v7n2p​14
26. Poonia S, Singh AK, Santra P, Mishra D (2018) Design, devel-
opment and performance evolution of a low-cost solar dryer. In:
Chandra L, Dixit A (eds) Concentrated Solar Thermal Energy
Technologies, Springer Proceedings in Energy. Singapore,
Springer Nature, pp 219–223
27. Islam MMI, Islam MMI, Tusar M, Limon AH (2019) Effect of
cover design on moisture removal rate of a cabinet type solar
dryer for food drying application. Energy Procedia 160:769–776.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​egypro.​2019.​02.​181
28. Sharma VK, Sharma S, Ray RA, Garg HP (1986) Design and
performance studies of a solar dryer suitable for rural applica-
tions. Energy Convers Manag 26:111–119. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/​0196-​8904(86)​90040-3
29. Thanvi KP, Pande PC (1987) Development of a low-cost solar
agricultural dryer for arid regions of India. Energy Agric 6:35–40.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0167-​5826(87)​90020-9
30. Sharma S, Sharma VK, Jha R, Ray RA (1990) Evaluation of the
performance of a cabinet type solar dryer. Energy Convers Manag
30:75–80. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0196-​8904(90)​90016-R
31. Ezekoye BA, Enebe OM (2006) Development and performance
evaluation of modified integrated passive solar grain dryer.
Pacific J Sci Technol 7:185–190
32. Singh PP, Singh S, Dhaliwal SS (2006) Multi-shelf domestic
solar dryer. Energy Convers Manag 47:1799–1815. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2005.​10.​002
33. Rawat BS, Pant PC, Joshi GC (2009) Energetics study of a natu-
ral convection solar crop dryer. Int J Ambient Energy 30:193–
198. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01430​750.​2009.​96750​96
34. Alonge AF, Omoniwa AO (2012) Development and modifica-
tion of a direct passive solar dryer. In: NABEC-CSBE/SCGAB
2012 Joint Meeting and Technical Conference Northeast Agri-
cultural & Biological Engineering Conference Canadian Society
for Bioengineering. Orillia, Ontario, pp 1–10
35. Alonge AF, Adeboye OA (2012) Drying rates of some fruits
and vegetables with passive solar dryers. Int J Agric Biol Eng
5. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3965/j.​ijabe.​20120​504.​00
36. Tefera A, Endalew W, Fikiru B (2013) Evaluation and demon-
stration of direct solar potato dryer. Livest Res Rural Dev 25:1–7
37. Eke AB (2013) Development of small scale direct mode natural
convection solar dryer for tomato, okra and carrot. Int J Eng Adv
Technol 3:199–204
38. Raju RVS, Reddy RM, Reddy ES (2013) Design and fabrication
of efficient solar dryer. J Eng Res Appl 3:1445–1458
39. Eke AB (2014) Investigation of low cost solar collector for dry-
ing vegetables in rural areas. Agric Eng Int CIGR J 16:118–125
40. Borah A, Hazarika K, Khayer SM (2015) Drying kinetics of
whole and sliced turmeric rhizomes (Curcuma longa L.) in a solar
conduction dryer. Inf Process Agric 2:85–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​inpa.​2015.​06.​002
41. Subedi TR, Bhattarai RN (2017) Experimental performance analy-
sis of solar conduction dryer ( SCD ) for ginger drying. In: IOE
Graduate Conference. pp 597–601
42. Chaudhari RH, Bhavsar S (2017) Hybrid solar box type dryer cum
cooker of chilly drying for domestic usage. Int J Sci Res 6:1614–1618
43. Chaudhari RH, Gora A, Modi VM, Chaudhari H (2018) Eco-
nomic analysis of hybrid solar dryer for ginger drying. Int J Curr
Microbiol Appl Sci 7:2725–2731. https://​doi.​org/​10.​20546/​ijc-
mas.​2018.​711.​312
44. Haque T, Tiwari M, Bose M, Kedare SB (2018) Drying kinet-
ics, quality and economic analysis of a domestic solar dryer for
agricultural products. Ina Lett 4:147–160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s41403-​018-​0052-1
45. Ugwuoke IC, Ikechukwu IB, Ifianyi OE (2019) Design and
development of a mixed-mode domestic solar dryer. Int J Eng
Manuf 9:55–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5815/​ijem.​2019.​03.​05
46. Chavan A, Vitankar V, Thorat B (2020) CFD modeling and
experimental study of solar conduction dryer. Dry Technol
39:1087–1100. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07373​937.​2020.​18460​51
47. Ampratwum DB, Dorvlo ASSS (1998) Evaluation of a solar
cabinet dryer as an air-heating system. Appl Energy 59:63–71.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0306-​2619(97)​00043-3
48. Bolaji B (2005) Development and performance evaluation of a
box-type absorber solar air collector for crop drying. J Food Tech-
nol 3:595–600
49. Mwithiga G, Kigo SN (2006) Performance of a solar dryer with
limited sun tracking capability. J Food Eng 74:247–252. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jfood​eng.​2005.​03.​018
50. Kumar N, Agravat S, Chavda T, Mistry HN (2008) Design and
development of efficient multipurpose domestic solar cookers/
dryers. Renew Energy 33:2207–2211. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
renene.​2008.​01.​010
51. Saleh A, Badran I (2009) Modeling and experimental studies on
a domestic solar dryer. Renew Energy 34:2239–2245. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​renene.​2009.​03.​001
52. Abdullahi Y, Momoh M, Garba MM, Musa M (2013) Design and
construction of an adjustable and collapsible natural convection
solar food dryer. Int J Comput Eng Res 3:1–8
53. Ozuomba JO, Okonkwo NA, Uzor BC, Uba JI (2013) Fabrication
and characterization of a direct absorption solar dryer. Adv Appl
Sci Res 4:186–194
54. Mustapha MK, Salako AF, Ademola SK, Adefila IA (2014) Quali-
tative performance and economic analysis of low cost solar fish
driers in Sub-Saharan Africa. J Fish 2:64
55. Akpojaro J, Oyeyemi M (2015) Performance evaluation of a pro-
totype solar dryer against the conventional sun-drying system in
Nigeria. Br J Appl Sci Technol 9:411–418. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
9734/​bjast/​2015/​16308
56. Chavan A, Sikarwar A, Tidke V, Thorat B (2018) Augment-
ing natural convection and conduction based solar dryer.
21st International Drying Symposium. València, Spain, pp
1357–1364
57. Sandali M, Boubekri A, Mennouche D (2018) Thermal behavior
modeling of a cabinet direct solar dryer as influenced by sensible
13

186
heat storage in a fractured porous medium. AIP Conf Proc 1968.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/1.​50391​73
58. Mehata P, Jhala R, Harichandan A (2018) Design and mathemati-
cal modelling of mixed mode solar dryer applicable for small scale
application. Int J Eng Res Mech Civ Eng 3:173–177
59. Jain A, Sharma M, Kumar A et al (2019) Computational fluid
dynamics simulation and energy analysis of domestic direct-type
multi-shelf solar dryer. J Therm Anal Calorim 136:173–184.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10973-​018-​7973-5
60. Sandali M, Boubekri A, Mennouche D (2020) Thermal and eco-
nomical study of a direct solar dryer with integration of differ-
ent techniques of heat supply. In: Belasri A, Beldjilali S (eds)
ICREEC 2019. Springer Proceedings in Energy. Springer, Singa-
pore. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​15-​5444-5_​73
61. Poonia S, Singh AK, Jain D (2018) Design development and
performance evaluation of photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) hybrid
solar dryer for drying of ber (Zizyphus mauritiana) fruit. Cogent
Eng 5:1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23311​916.​2018.​15070​84
62. Poonia S, Singh AK, Jain D (2018) Mathematical modelling
and techno-economic evaluation of hybrid photovoltaic-thermal
forced convection solar drying of Indian jujube (Zizyphus mau-
ritiana). J Agric Eng 55:74–88
63. Nabnean S, Nimnuan P (2020) Experimental performance of
direct forced convection household solar dryer for drying banana.
Case Stud Therm Eng 22:100787. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​csite.​
2020.​100787
64. Tiris C, Tiris M, Dincer I (1996) Experiments on a new small-
scale solar dryer. Appl Therm Eng 16:183–187
65. Sreekumar A, Manikantan PE, Vijayakumar KP (2008) Perfor-
mance of indirect solar cabinet dryer. Energy Convers Manag
49:1388–1395. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2008.​01.​005
66. Gaikwad SS, Shinde AB, Mote AA, Kachare PS (2016) Design
and construction of briefcase type portable solar dryer. In:
Pawar PM et al (eds) Techno-Societal 2016. Springer, Cham,
pp 771–778
67. Modi VM, Desai NN, Gora A (2017) Design and development
of low cost solar dryer. AGRES - An Int e J 6:329–336
68. Mohsen HA, Abd El-Rahmam AA, Hassan HE (2019) Dry-
ing of tomato fruits using solar energy. Agric Eng Int CIGR J
21:204–215
13
Food Engineering Reviews (2023) 15:156–186
69. Moghimi P, Rahimzadeh H, Ahmadpour A (2021) Experimental
and numerical optimal design of a household solar fruit and veg-
etable dryer. Sol Energy 214:575–587. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
solen​er.​2020.​12.​023
70. Fagunwa AO, Koya OA, Faborode MO (2009) Development of
an intermittent solar dryer for cocoa beans. Agric Eng Int CIGR
J 11:1–14
71. Eswara AR, Ramakrishnarao M (2013) Solar energy in food pro-
cessing - a critical appraisal. J Food Sci Technol 50:209–227.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13197-​012-​0739-3
72. Seveda MS, Jhajharia D (2012) Design and performance evalu-
ation of solar dryer for drying of large cardamom (Amomum
subulatum). J Renew Sustain Energy 4. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1063/1.​
47691​99
73. Jangsawang W (2017) Meat products drying with a compact solar
cabinet dryer. Energy Procedia 138:1048–1054. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​
1016/j.​egypro.​2017.​10.​103
74. Alonge OI, Obayopo SO (2019) Computational fluid dynamics
and experimental analysis of direct solar dryer for fish. Agric Eng
Int CIGR J 21:108–117
75. Nimnuan P, Nabnean S (2020) Solar drying of galangal slices
(alpinia galangal (linn.) swartz.) using household solar dryer.
Suranaree J Sci Technol 27:1–8
76. Safri NAM, Zainuddin Z, Mohd Azmi MS et al (2020) Tempera-
ture performance of a portable solar greenhouse dryer with vari-
ous collector design. Sains Malaysiana 49:2539–2545. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​17576/​jsm-​2020-​4910-​19
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.