Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Agriculture and Food Research

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-agriculture-and-food-research

The use of desiccants for proper moisture preservation in green coffee

during storage and transportation
Laudia Anokye-Bempah a, Juliet Han b, Kurt Kornbluth a, William Ristenpart c,
Irwin R. Donis-González a, *
a
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA
b
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA
c
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Prolonged storage and long-distance transportation of green coffee beans exposes them to undesirable fluctua­
Green coffee beans tions in temperature (T) and relative humidity (r.h.), which can change the physical (wet-basis moisture content
Hermetic packaging (MCwb), water activity (Aw), and color) and sensory characteristics of the coffee. High humidity also supports
Desiccants
mold growth, decay, and microbial activities. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of
Drying beads
commercially available desiccants for preserving the moisture content of green coffee between 10 and 12%
Environmental chambers
MCwb, when stored in either hermetic packages and/or jute sacks, and to assess the corresponding impact on
sensory quality. A conventional coffee storage and transportation period from Brazil to Italy with a duration of 42
days was mimicked in environmental chambers. Treatments in a 3 × 3 factorial design consisting of three
packaging materials (GrainPro SuperGrain bag, GrainPro TranSafeliner, and/or jute sacks) and desiccants
(Drying Beads®, CaCl2, or no desiccants) were evaluated. Additionally, four different mass ratios of green coffee
to desiccant ranging from 50 to 300 – g coffee per g desiccant were also evaluated. The MCwb, Aw, and color of all
samples were measured approximately weekly over 42 days. In comparison to the control (no desiccant, and only
jute sacks), we observed a statistically significant impact for all tested desiccants and hermetic packages for
maintaining the proper MCwb, Aw, and color. No significant difference was observed for the different desiccant
masses tested when they were placed inside the hermetic packaging, but the desiccants were ineffective without
the hermetic packaging. Triangle test and descriptive sensory evaluation yielded no significant differences be­
tween the use of hermetic packages with or without desiccants.

1. Introduction
The price of coffee is directly related to its quality, hence producing
high-quality coffee and maintaining it through its postharvest and dis­
tribution phases is imperative. Green coffee storage and transportation
are considered important steps in the postharvest phase, as these
strongly affect the final product’s quality [1–3]. Variations in environ­
mental conditions during storage and transportation cause changes in
green coffee moisture content due to the hygroscopic nature of the
coffee. When significant, these changes will lead to deterioration in the
quality of the coffee [4]. Previous studies have reported that the storage
of green coffee at a temperature (T) range of 20–35 ◦ C and relative
humidity (r.h.) range of 52–75% led to a 4% increase in moisture
content and a corresponding loss of color in the coffee beans. The effect
of T and r.h. during green coffee transportation on moisture content was
also explored, and it was found that a 5 to 10% increase in r.h. leads to a
3% increase in the beans’ moisture content [5].
The recommended wet-basis moisture content (MCwb) and water
activity (Aw) of green coffee during storage range from 10 to 12% and
0.4 to 0.6, respectively (Harris and Miller, 2008). MCwb above 12% leads
to the formation of fungi and mycotoxins, as well as the development of
fermented flavors in the end product [3]. Various studies have reported
the negative effects of a high MCwb in green coffee beans [6]. Previous
studies found that a high MCwb (12.5%) favored the development of
Ochratoxin A mycotoxin. Furthermore, an increase in MCwb leads to the
loss of color in green coffee beans in a process known as whitening,

* Corresponding author. 3024 Bainer Hall, Davis, CA, 95616-5294, USA.

E-mail addresses: lanokyebempah@ucdavis.edu (L. Anokye-Bempah), jahan@ucdavis.edu (J. Han), kkorn@ucdavis.edu (K. Kornbluth), wdristenpart@ucdavis.
edu (W. Ristenpart), irdonisgon@ucdavis.edu (I.R. Donis-González).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100478
Received 4 November 2022; Received in revised form 8 December 2022; Accepted 11 December 2022
Available online 12 December 2022
2666-1543/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Anokye-Bempah et al.
which depreciates the beans’ appearance and leads to an inferior cup
quality [2,7]. MCwb below 10% leads to shrunken coffee beans that tend
to break during handling [4,7].
Conventionally, green coffee is stored and transported in jute sacks,
which do not prevent the exchange of gases and water vapor between
the coffee and the environment [8]. Prolonged green coffee storage in
jute sacks shows a decrease in quality and taste as well as the develop­
ment of straw-like or ‘baggy’ flavor [1]. Prolonged shipping through
different weather conditions, loading, and unloading of the shipping
containers, and warehouse storage all expose the coffee to significant
variations in T and r.h. which result in moisture transfer into or out of
the coffee, leading to a deterioration in the green coffee quality [9].
Hermetic packages are currently used to store and transport green
coffee in addition to jute sacks, due to their impermeability [10].
Experimental work with hermetic storage packages, such as GrainPro
SuperGrain and the Purdue Improved Crop Storage bags, indicates that
these are highly effective in preserving the quality degradation of green
coffee during storage [2,3,11]. Despite the effectiveness of hermetic
packages during storage, some amount of moisture penetrates these
packages due to small leaks, and the rapid and extreme environmental
changes that occur in the shipping container during transportation [11].
Studies have found an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in
green coffee stored in hermetic packaging, and attributed the CO2 in­
crease to small leaks in the package. Thus, green coffee is still susceptible
to significant moisture content variations during transportation. In view
of these moisture-related issues, some exporters use desiccants during
marine transportation to reduce moisture changes inside shipping con­
tainers, consequently reducing the risk of damage [9].
Desiccants are hygroscopic materials that absorb moisture from the
air in an enclosed environment by physical adsorption or chemical re­
action until reaching equilibrium with the environment [12,13].
Different types of desiccants in the form of powder, granules, or beads,
are commonly used to keep low levels of moisture in foods [14–17],
pharmaceutical products [18–20], and electronics [21,22] during stor­
age and transportation. The most commonly used desiccants for food
packaging applications include silica gel, calcium chloride (CaCl2),
calcium oxide (CaO), clay, and molecular sieves [23,24]. The desiccant
is typically enclosed in a semipermeable material (sachets) made of
polymer films or porous nonwoven fibers to form a desiccant pack [25,
26].
The quantity of desiccant used during storage and transportation is
important because an insufficient quantity will reach its absorption ca­
pacity quickly and will not provide the required protection against
moisture, while excessive use of desiccants may lead to over-drying and
an unnecessary increase in cost [13,27]. Work by Ref. [9]; who inves­
tigated modern techniques for reducing the risk of cargo damage by
moisture and condensation, concluded that moisture damage in ship­
ping containers can be effectively reduced with the proper amount of
desiccants. CaCl2 is well-known across the shipping industry as a
moisture control desiccant. With a high moisture absorption capacity of
twice its weight at ambient temperature (25 ◦ C) and atmospheric pres­
sure (101,325 Pa), non-toxic nature, and availability, the use of CaCl2
has been established as an effective method to protect dry produce from
moisture during transportation [28,29]. In addition to using the right
amount of desiccants, other factors including the desiccant type, ab­
sorption capacity, reaction to the food product, as well as their behavior
upon saturation must be considered. For example, CaCl2 upon saturation
liquifies into brine solution which may leak within the packaged food
product during storage and transportation [29]. Others, such as zeolite
beads or Drying Beads® can be regenerated, if heated to a T of
approximately 500 ◦ C to release its absorbed moisture, and then reused.
CaCl2 is the most used desiccant in green coffee transportation.
Currently, the amount of desiccant per shipping container is usually
based on approximations provided by desiccant retailers. According to
the GrainPro Division Manager for US, Canada, and Europe Diego Lara
Lavarreda, the industry standard for the amount of CaCl2 used in green
2
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478
coffee transportation is 1.2 kg CaCl2 per a 20 ft shipping container,
containing 320 bags (60 kg each) of green coffee (personal communi­
cation, January 7, 2021). Before shipment, desiccant packs are placed
within the hermetically packaged green coffee or hung on the shipping
container interior walls. By absorbing moisture from the ambient air, the
desiccants lower the dew point temperature, keeping the shipping
container dry [9].
To date, no information exists in the scientific literature regarding
the effectiveness and optimal concentrations of different types of des­
iccants for green coffee storage and transportation. Thus, the main goal
of this study is to assess the efficacy of different types of commercially
available hermetic packages and desiccants for preserving the quality of
green coffee. To achieve this goal, green coffee was packed in three
packaging materials (GrainPro SuperGrain bag, GrainPro TranSafeliner,
and/or jute sacks), with and without desiccants (Drying Beads®, and
CaCl2) and stored for 42 days in environmental chambers under con­
ditions of fluctuating T and r.h. that mimic typical storage and trans­
portation conditions for green coffee. Parameters including MCwb, Aw,
and color of the green coffee were measured dynamically over 42 days.
At the end of the experiment, we compared the impact of the desiccants
and packaging using two-way mixed design ANOVA. We further per­
formed descriptive sensory assessments with trained coffee cuppers as
well as discrimination testing using untrained panelists to determine the
effect of desiccants in sensory attributes in the final beverage.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Packaging materials and desiccant packs
Three packaging materials were used in this study: (a) jute sacks
measuring 0.3 m × 0.5 m (Model No. S-8423, Uline, Pleasant Prairie, WI,
USA), (b) GrainPro SuperGrain bag, and c) GrainPro TranSafeliner
(GrainPro, Concord, Massachusetts, USA). As recommended by the
manufacturer, the GrainPro SuperGrain bags (Bags) were used as inner
liners for individual jute sacks, while the GrainPro TranSafeliners
(Liners), which are typically used to line a standard 6.1 m (20 ft) or 12.2
m (40 ft) container, were used as an external packaging material for
multiple jute sacks. Reduced size hermetic packages were created by
cutting and heat-sealing the original Bags and Liners at three edges each,
using a tabletop impulse heat-sealer (Model No. H-163, Uline, Pleasant
Prairie, WI, USA). Forty-five Bags were resized into 180 individual units
each 0.3 m × 0.2 m in length and width. One Liner was resized into 15
segments of 0.6 m × 0.4 m.
In addition to the packaging materials, two commercially available
desiccants were used in this experiment: Drying Beads (Beads), a zeolite-
based desiccant (Rhino Research, Phichit, Thailand), and CaCl2 (Spec­
trum Chemical mfg. Corp, CMP, CA, USA). Individual Tyvek sheets
(1059B Tyvek, DuPont E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, Del.,
U.S.A.) were properly sized and sealed at three edges to form a desiccant
pack, and the corresponding amount of desiccant, based on each treat­
ment was placed inside each pack. The fourth edge in each desiccant
pack was then sealed and labeled.
2.2. Treatments and experimental design
The study consisted of two experiments (Fig. 1). In experiment 1, a 3
× 3 factorial design was applied, where the three types of packaging
materials (jute sacks, Bags, and Liners) and desiccants (Beads, CaCl2,
and no desiccants) were considered as factors. The factors were com­
bined to produce the following treatments: (a) hermetic packages with
desiccants (Beads-Bag, CaCl2-Bag, Beads-Liner, CaCl2-Liner); (b) her­
metic packages without desiccants (Bag, and Liner); and c) jute sacks
with and without desiccants (Beads, CaCl2, Jute-only). For this study, a
6.1 m (20 ft) industry-standard shipping container that typically trans­
ports 320 bags (60 kg each) of green coffee, was simulated by scaling
down by a factor of 54 to fit the sizes of the packaging materials used.
L. Anokye-Bempah et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478

Fig. 1. Overview of experimental de­

signs. (a) 3x3 factorial design used in
Experiment 1 with packages and desiccants
as factors. (b) 2x4 factorial design used in
Experiment 2 testing the impact of desiccant
quantity. Here X denotes the conventional
amount of desiccant used in industry. For
interpretation of the references to color in
this figure, the reader is referred to the web
version of the article. (For interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)

Thus, each treatment, representing a standard shipping container,
included 6 green coffee packages of 1.125 kg each. Similarly, the
amount of desiccant per container (1.2 kg) was scaled down to include a
ratio of 303 g of coffee per g of desiccant.
In experiment 2, we performed a complementary series of experi­
ments to probe the impact of desiccant quantity. Three different coffee
to desiccant ratios (g/g) equal to 151, 76, and 50 were tested for the
Beads-Bag and CaCl2-Bag treatments to evaluate the effect of increasing
the amount of desiccant used in the industry by a factor of 2, 4, and 6,
respectively. Increasing the amount of desiccants by three levels each for
the Beads-Bag and CaCl2-Bag treatments yielded six additional treat­
ments, bringing the total number of treatments to 15 (nine from the 3x3
factorial design in experiment 1 and six from increasing the levels of
desiccants in the Beads-Bag and CaCl2-Bag in experiment 2).

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of treatments and their preparation procedures. (a) Bag with a desiccant pack. (b) Bag without a desiccant pack. (c) Jute sack
with a desiccant pack. (d) Liner with desiccant packs. (e) Liner with no desiccant packs. (f) Jute sack with no desiccant pack. For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of the article. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the Web version of this article.)

3
L. Anokye-Bempah et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478

2.3. Treatment preparation triplicate at the beginning of the study and at 4, 12, 17, 27, 31, and 42
days. These tests were non-destructive, and thus the 100 g samples were
Fig. 2 shows a schematic representation of the treatments and their placed back in the bags after each measurement. Both T and r.h. were
preparation procedures, which mimics typical industry practices, as recorded every 5 min using the internal data logger for each environ­
stated here: mental chamber. Six wireless data loggers (El-USB-2, Lascar electronics
Bag treatments: (1) an individual Bag was filled with 1.125 kg of Co, Erie, Pennsylvania, USA) were also placed in the chambers to assess
green coffee beans; (2) a desiccant pack was then submerged in the for spatial gradients in the environmental conditions; one data logger
approximate centroid of the coffee beans, or no desiccant was added for was placed in the center of the top, middle, and bottom shelf respec­
the no-desiccant treatments; and (3) the Bag was fastened with a zip tie tively of each environmental chamber.
and placed inside a jute sack that was also zip tied.
Liner treatments: (1) A total mass of 1.125 kg of green coffee beans
2.5. Quality parameters determination
was placed inside a jute sack that was then closed with a zip tie; (2) six
individual filled jute sacks were prepared and placed into a Liner; (3) six
2.5.1. Wet basis moisture content (MCwb) and water activity (aw)
desiccant packs were then placed around the jute sacks within the Liner,
The initial (day 0) and final (day 42) MCwb of the green coffee
or no desiccant was added for the no-desiccant treatments; and (4) the
samples were determined using the laboratory oven method according
Liner was fastened with a zip tie.
to the standard ISO method 6673 (ISO, 2003). A sub-sample of each
Jute-only treatments: (1) A jute sack was filled with 1.125 kg of
treatment sample (100 g) was weighed and dried in an oven (Thermo
green coffee beans; (2) the corresponding desiccant pack was submerged
Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) at 105 ◦ C for 16 h. Intermediate
in the approximate centroid of the coffee beans, or no desiccant was
MCwb measurements (on days 4, 12, 17, 27, and 31) were non-
added for the no-desiccant treatments; and (3) the jute sack was fastened
destructively performed (using the whole bag of each treatment sam­
with a zip tie.
ple) with a laboratory-scale moisture analyzer (DICKEY-John GAC 2500-
INTL, Auburn, IL 62615, USA). Green coffee sub-samples weighing 100 g
were obtained from each sample within a treatment in triplicate to es­
2.4. Storage and transportation environmental conditions
timate their Aw using a water activity meter (Aqua Lab Model 4 TE,
Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman, WA, USA).
The experiment was conducted at the Coffee Center at the University
of California, Davis from March to April 2021 using organic fully washed
2.5.2. Color analysis
green coffee (Coffea Arabica ‘Bourbon’) from Sipi Falls, Uganda har­
The color of the green coffee samples was measured with a spec­
vested between September 2020 and February 2021. After treatment
trophotometer (Colorflex EZ, Hunter Associates Laboratory Inc, Reston,
preparation, the bagged coffees were randomly assigned to one of two
VA, USA) and expressed as L* (lightness), a*(red-green component), and
identical environmental chambers (Caron Inc., model 7000-25, Mar­
b* (yellow-blue component) on the CIEL*a*b* color scale. In this study,
ietta, OH, USA) where T and r.h. conditions were controlled and
we only considered the L* color-value to monitor coffee whitening.
recorded. Typical green coffee storage and transportation conditions
Measurements were performed in triplicate using a spectrophotometer
were based on a previous study that recorded the T, r.h., and MCwb of
Opti-glass cylinder containing a randomly selected sub-sample (20 g)
green coffee beans shipped from Brazil to Italy [5]. Thus, this experi­
from each sample within each treatment. The sample was placed back in
ment consisted of three transportation phases including storage (12 days
the bag, after performing the color measurement.
at an average T, and r.h. of 26 ◦ C and 75%, respectively), maritime (18
days, average T: 20 ◦ C, and r.h.: 80%), and road/railway (18 days,
average T: 10 ◦ C, and r.h.: 85%) as shown in Fig. 3. Approximately 100 g 2.6. Sensory analysis
of coffee from each of the six 1250 g bags in a treatment was randomly
selected and the MCwb, Aw, and color parameters were measured in Two separate sensory tests were conducted after the 42-day storage

Fig. 3. Environmental conditions applied dur­

ing the 42-day storage and transportation
experiment. (Storage: 12 days T: 26 ◦ C, r.h.: 75%;
Maritime Transportation: 18 days T: 20 ◦ C, r.h.:
80%; Road/Railway Transportation: 12 days T:
10 ◦ C, r.h.: 85%). For interpretation of the refer­
ences to color in this figure, the reader is referred to
the web version of the article. (For interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

4
L. Anokye-Bempah et al.
and transportation experiment: discrimination testing (also known as
triangle tests) with untrained panelists, and descriptive analysis tests
using trained cuppers. The descriptive analysis was performed two
weeks after the experiment while the triangle test was performed eight
weeks after the experiment. The green coffee samples were kept in the
environmental chambers at 25 ◦ C and 70% r.h. prior to the sensory tests.
The triangle test was approved by the UC Davis Institutional Review
Board (Protocol: 1797623-1) and was conducted following the meth­
odology in Ref. [30]. According to Ref. [31]; a triangle test is a
discrimination analysis used to establish if a perceivable difference be­
tween two products exists. In a triangle test, a panelist is presented with
three samples, two of which are identical and one of which is different
and asked to identify which of the three is the odd sample. In this study,
the Beads-Bag, CaCl2-Bag, Bag, and Jute-only treatments were compared
using four triangle tests (1: Jute-only vs Beads-Bag; 2: Jute-only vs
CaCl2-Bag; 3: Bag vs Beads-Bag; and 4: Bag vs CaCl2-Bag). These four
treatments were selected to determine if there were perceived differ­
ences between the use of hermetic packages with and without desic­
cants, and the use of jute sacks only. Data was collected over a 7-day
period, during 16 sessions, with a maximum of five panelists per session.
A total of seventy-eight untrained panelists were recruited from stu­
dents, faculty, and staff at UC Davis and each panelist was asked to
attend the four successive triangle tests, lasting approximately 30 min.
Prior to the triangle test, 2000 g sample of each treatment was
roasted on a Probat roaster (Probatino model, Probat Inc, IL, USA) to a
medium roast degree (Agtron score of 54). Representative roast profiles
and detailed roast metrics are provided in Appendix I. After roasting, the
beans were degassed for two days before being packed into vacuum-
sealed bags of 100 g each. The sealed bags were stored in a − 20 ◦ C
freezer and thawed for 24 h at room temperature (25 ◦ C) in advance to
brewing. On the day of evaluation, coffee beans were ground (at setting
4) on a Mahlkönig Guatemala Lab grinder to a fine drip brewing size
(1200 ± 44 μm) as per the manufacturer specifications. The coffee
beverage was then brewed using a commercial drip brewer (Breville
precision brewer Model: BDC450BSS1BUS1, Breville Group Ltd, Alex­
andria, Australia) at a flow rate and temperature equal to 4 mL-s-1, and
95 ◦ C, respectively with 80 g of ground coffee per 1.18 L of water (brew
ratio: 1:15). To maintain a hot serving temperature at 80 ◦ C, the brewed
coffee was kept in thermal carafes throughout the duration of the tri­
angle test.
Brewed coffee (50 mL) was served in 200 mL white ceramic mugs,
labeled with a three-digit randomly generated code. During each tri­
angle test, a panelist received a set of 3 samples, two identical and one
different, and was instructed to taste each from left to right and then
select the odd sample (Appendix B shows the answer sheet given to each
panelist during the triangle test). Panelists were provided with a cup of
water and crackers for palate cleansing between samples, and an empty
cup to expectorate. The tasting room, having five isolated tasting sta­
tions, was free from any foreign odor and noise and lit with red lamps to
mask visual differences between the coffee samples.
For the descriptive sensory analysis, a panel of eight Q-certified
judges (6 from Crown Royal Coffee Company and 2 from Blue Bottle
Coffee (The Crown Royal Coffee, Oakland, Ca, USA; Blue Bottle Coffee,
Oakland, Ca, USA), evaluated the sensory profile of the four treatments
according to the methodology described by Royal [32]; using spoons
and a traditional cupping format. According to this methodology, coffee
beans are scored from − 3 to 3 points in the evaluation of the primary
attributes that comprise the sensory profile of coffee including sweet­
ness, acidity, body, flavor, and aftertaste. The sum of the individual
scores for all the attributes constitutes the final score, which represents
the overall coffee quality. Coffees with a final score of 0–3 are consid­
ered to be of high quality.
2.7. Data analysis and visualization
Data analysis and visualization were conducted using R studio (R
5
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478
Development Core Team, 2020) and SAS Enterprise 7.1 (SAS Inst. Inc.,
Cary, NC, USA). Two types of statistical tests were performed: 1) two-
way mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA), with treatments as
the between-subjects factor and the measured response variable (MCwb,
Aw, and color) as the repeated measure, were conducted to ascertain if
there were significant interaction between treatments and time on
response variables and if there was a significant simple main effect of
treatments (P < 0.05) [33]. When a significant main effect was found, a
post hoc Tukey Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test was applied to
determine the treatments that were significantly different from each
other, at a 95% confidence level. The measured response variables were
reported as mean ± one standard deviation, with n = 3 measurement
replicates from one trial replicate; 2) triangle test data analysis was
performed in accordance with the ISO 4120 (ISO 4120:2021, 2021)
regulation [34]; where the number of correct answers per total number
of panelists was compared to a critical value (α = 0.05) to evaluate the
significance of each triangle [31,35].
3. Results
3.1. Green coffee wet-basis moisture content (MCwb) and water activity
(Aw) analysis
The MCwb versus storage time is shown in Fig. 4a. The mean initial
MCwb was 10.76 ± 0.2% (Aw = 0.57). The MCwb of green coffee packed
exclusively in jute sacks (Jute-only treatment) increased to a final, high,
and undesirable MCwb of 17.34 ± 0.6% as compared to the MCwb of
green coffee packed in hermetic packages. Although the hermetic
packages, in general, kept the MCwb much lower than in the Jute-only
treatment, notably the MCwb of coffee packed in hermetic packages
without desiccants (Bag and Liner treatments) still exceeded the critical
level of 12% during the maritime and road/railway transportation
phases. The MCwb of coffee packed in hermetic packages with desiccants
(Beads-Bag, Beads-Liner, CaCl2-Bag, and CaCl2-Liner treatments) on the
other hand, remained below 12% with an average MCwb of 10.68 ±
0.4% at the end of the experiment (Fig. 4a). The MCwb of green coffee
packed in jute sacks with desiccants (Beads and CaCl2 treatments) also
increased to a final undesirable MCwb of 16.24 ± 0.6% and 18.29 ±
0.4% respectively, similar to the jute-only treatment (Fig. 4a).
A two-way mixed-design ANOVA, with MCwb as the repeated mea­
sure and the treatments as the between-subjects factor, showed a sig­
nificant interaction between treatments and time on MCwb (F (48,
732.28) = 34.33, p < 0.0001), indicating that the MCwb was affected by
both the treatments and the time of measurements. Post hoc analyses
using Tukey’s HSD test showed that the average MCwb was significantly
different between hermetic packages with desiccants, and hermetic
packages without desiccants from day 12–42. There was also a signifi­
cant difference between hermetic packages with and without desiccants
treatments versus the Jute-only treatment from day 4–42 (Fig. 4a).
There was no significant difference between the Jute-only and jute sacks
with desiccants treatments (Beads and CaCl2 treatments).
Fig. 4b presents the variation in the Aw of the coffee samples with
time. Similar to the observed MCwb trends, the Aw of the coffee packed in
jute sacks without hermetic packages (Jute-only, Beads and CaCl2
treatments) increased to high, undesired levels of 0.76 ± 0.1, 0.78, and
0.76 ± 0.1 respectively. The Aw of coffee packed in hermetic packages
without desiccants (Bag and Liner treatments) increased to above the
critical levels of 0.6 while the Aw of coffee packed in hermetic packages
with desiccants remained below 0.6 with an average of 0.58 ± 0.1
during the transportation phase (Fig. 4b). The ANOVA showed a sig­
nificant interaction between treatments and time on Aw (F (48, 200.8) =
11.24, p < 0.0001), and the post hoc analyses using Tukey’s HSD test
showed significant differences between coffee packed in hermetic
packages with and without desiccants and coffee packed in jute sacks
only (Fig. 4b).
An important observation during the testing was that CaCl2 liquified
L. Anokye-Bempah et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478

Fig. 4. (a) Effect of treatments on MCwb

during green coffee storage and trans­
portation. Error bars represent the standard
deviation from the mean of three replicates.
(b) Effect of treatments on Aw during green
coffee storage and transportation. Bars with
different small letter(s), within the same
day, indicate significant differences in
treatments at P < 0.05; analyzed by Tukey
post-hoc test. The dotted black lines show
the commonly accepted maximum allowable
MCwb and Aw of green coffee. For interpre­
tation of the references to color in this
figure, the reader is referred to the web
version of the article. (For interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)

Fig. 5. Liquified CaCl2 in CaCl2 treatments. a) CaCl2 leakage from desiccant pack. b) CaCl2 leakage into a coffee sample in a Bag. c) CaCl2 leakage through the jute
sack of a jute sack with desiccant (CaCl2) treatment. For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.
(For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

6
L. Anokye-Bempah et al.
under some conditions. Specifically, desiccants in CaCl2-Bag, 2X-CaCl2-
Bag, 4X-CaCl2-Bag, 6X-CaCl2-Bag, CaCl2-Liner, and CaCl2 treatments
liquified into a brine solution by day 12 (Fig. 5). According to Ref. [29];
CaCl2 continues to absorb moisture even after liquifying, due to its high
affinity to water. Thus, the results of the CaCl2 treatments were still
considered in the statistical analysis.
3.2. Color analysis
Green coffee packed in hermetic packages, with and without desic­
cants, yielded lower L* values with less variability (between 46 and 48)
as compared to green coffee packed exclusively in jute sacks (L* values
between 48 and 52) (Fig. 6). In other words, the coffee packed only in
jute sacks, was considerably whitened compared to those packed in
hermetic packaging (Fig. 7). The lower variations in L* values observed
in coffee packed in hermetic packages with and without desiccants
indicate that these treatments better maintained the color of green
coffee throughout the experiment. Coffee packed in jute sacks with
desiccants (Beads and CaCl2 treatments) also whitened considerably
with increased L* values of 51 and 52 respectively, by the end of the
experiment (Fig. 7). The ANOVA showed significant differences among
treatments for coordinate L* (F (11.94, 201.5) = 2.803, p < 0.0001).
3.3. Varying amounts of desiccants for additional treatments
Increasing the amount of desiccant in the Beads-Bag and CaCl2-Bag
by multiples of 2, 4, and 6 had no significant effect on the response
variables measured (p > 0.05) (Fig. 8), except in MCwb where the 4x-
CaCl2-Bag treatment was significantly different from the other treat­
ments (p < 0.05). This can be attributed to the liquified CaCl2 in that
treatment as explained in section 3.1.
3.4. Sensory analysis
Table 1 shows the results obtained from the triangle sensory test.
According to the statistical tables (ISO 4120:2021, 2021), for 78 pan­
elists, a minimum number of 34 correct responses is required to detect a
significant difference between samples at α = 0.05 [31,35]. Among the
four triangles, a significant difference was observed between Bag vs
Beads-Bag treatments (38 correct responses) with a p-value of 0.003. No
significant differences were found between the Jute-only and Beads-Bag
7
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478
(28 correct responses), Jute-only vs CaCl2-Bag (32 correct responses),
and Bag vs CaCl2-Bag (32 correct responses) treatments. From the re­
sults, the panelists were able to differentiate between the Bag (coffee
stored in hermetic packages without desiccants) and the Beads-Bag
treatment (coffee stored in hermetic packages with Beads desiccants)
but were unable to differentiate the Bag and the CaCl2-Bag (coffee stored
in hermetic packages with CaCl2 desiccants).
The results of the quantitative descriptive analysis showed that the
Beads-Bag treatment had the highest final score of 0.8, followed by the
CaCl2-Bag (− 0.1), Bag (− 0.1), and Jute-only treatment with the lowest
final score of − 0.4 (not pictured). However, the differences in final
scores between these treatments were not statistically significant (p >
0.05). Overall, the samples were difficult to differentiate and there were
no obvious sensory differences.
4. Discussion
The maintenance of green coffee MCwb at or below 12% during
storage and transportation is essential to defeating microbial growth and
preserving the sensory quality of the coffee [36–38]. This study dem­
onstrates that a stable MCwb (<12%) can be maintained by using des­
iccants with hermetic packaging during green coffee storage and
transportation. Recent studies [3,39] concluded that hermetic packages
maintain the quality of green coffee for up to 12 months of storage.
However, these studies are limited to analyzing green coffee quality only
during the storage period in the country of origin, and therefore do not
cover the changes that may occur during transportation. Our study in­
dicates that in the extreme environmental conditions during maritime
and railway transportation, moisture can permeate through the her­
metic packages. The addition of desiccants to hermetic packaging re­
duces the water content within the hermetic packages by absorbing the
moisture that may permeate through the packages and hence, prevents
the coffee from absorbing excessive moisture.
The high levels of MCwb and Aw observed in coffee packed only in
jute sacks accords with previous studies that have reported an increase
in MCwb of green coffee stored in jute sacks [11,40].
In this study, the jute sack with desiccants treatments (Beads and
CaCl2 treatments) behaved similarly to the Jute-only treatment. In other
words, there was no significant differences between using jute sacks only
and using jute sacks with desiccants. Desiccants must be placed in an
enclosed space or container to maintain their effectiveness. When
Fig. 6. Effect of treatments on color coor­
dinate L* during green coffee storage and
transportation. Error bars represent the
standard deviation from the mean of three
replicates. Bars with different small letter(s),
within the same day, indicate significant
differences in treatments at P < 0.05;
analyzed by Tukey post-hoc test. For inter­
pretation of the references to color in this
figure, the reader is referred to the web
version of the article. (For interpretation of
the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)
L. Anokye-Bempah et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478

Fig. 7. Pictures showing the color of the

various treatments at the end of the
experiment. a) Beads-Bag, b) Beads-Liner,
c) Beads, d) CacL2-Bag, e) CacL2-Liner, f)
CaCl2 g) Bag, h) Liner, and i) Jute-only
treatments Whitening (loss of color) can be
observed in coffee packed in jute sacks and
control treatment, due to an increase in L*
values. For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure, the reader is referred to
the web version of the article. (For inter­
pretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the
Web version of this article.)

Fig. 8. Graphs showing the variation in the response variables measured for treatments with different desiccant ratios (Beads-Bag, 2X-Beads-Bag, 4X-Beads-Bag, 6X-
Beads-Bag, CaCl2-Bag, 2X-CaCl2-Bag, 4X-CaCl2-Bag, and 6X-CaCl2-Bag) on day 42 (end of the experiment). bBased on the ANOVA, 4X-CaCl2-Bag was the only
treatment that was significantly different (p < 0.05).

8
L. Anokye-Bempah et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478

Table 1 treatments with the largest difference in MCwb (Jute-only (17.34%), and
Results of the triangle test sensory evaluation (panel of 78 tasters). Beads-Bag (10.68%)) did not appreciably taste different to the panelists.
Treatment Correct Perceivable difference in P The lack of perceivable difference between treatments in the sensory test
Answers treatments value can potentially be attributed to the long storage at room temperature for
GP Bag vs Beads-GP 38/78 Significant difference 0.003 eight weeks after the experiment. During this period, the treatments
Bag equilibrated with the ambient r.h., lowering the MCwb of treatments
Control vs Beads-GP 28/78 No significant difference 0.355 such as the Jute-only, to the MCwb level of the other treatments (lowered
Bag from 18% to <12%). Thus, these treatments roasted similarly as
Control vs CaCl2-GP 32/78 No significant difference 0.095
Bag
observed in the roast profiles in Appendix A. Unfortunately, logistical
GP Bag vs CaCl2-GP 32/78 No significant difference 0.095 challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic prevented us from per­
Bag forming sensory evaluations immediately after the end of the experi­
ment. Future work would benefit from an accelerated testing schedule.

exposed to open air, desiccants constantly absorb moisture and rapidly

5. Conclusion
become saturated [13,41]. For example, activated clay, silica gel, and
molecular sieves can all absorb approximately 10% of moisture when
The results of this study indicate that hermetic packages, even
exposed to 25 ◦ C T and 75% r.h. for 1 h [42]. In the Beads and CaCl2
without desiccants, provide a stable MCwb for green coffee compared to
treatments (jute sacks with desiccants treatments), there were no her­
jute sacks only, but under some conditions such as green coffee trans­
metic packages to serve as enclosed containers, thus, the desiccants were
portation, desiccants should be added to prevent MCwb in excess of 12%.
directly exposed to variable temperatures and a moist environment
Given that green coffee with MCwb at or above 12% is prone to degra­
through the porous jute sacks. With the small amounts (3.75 g) and an
dation, the use of desiccants with hermetic packages can play an
absorption capacity of 20% of their initial weight for Beads [43] and up
important role in eliminating moisture damage and preserving the
to 150% for CaCl2 [44], the desiccants in these treatments were satu­
quality of green coffee, therefore preventing quantitative and economic
rated within the first few days of the experiment, indicating that the use
losses. Future work will evaluate the use of desiccants to further dry
of desiccants alone cannot replace hermetic packaging.
coffee samples that are not properly dried and validate the effect of
Maintenance of the green color of coffee beans during storage and
desiccant use during a large-scale commercial-scale application.
transportation is very important as visual characteristics often deter­
mine the commercial acceptance of the coffee. The variations observed
Authors’ contributions
in coordinate L* during the experiment indicate that the coffee packed in
hermetic packages with and without desiccants better maintained the
Laudia Anokye-Bempah: Acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of
green coffee color throughout the experiment. On the other hand, the
data, writing-original draft; Juliet Han: Acquisition, writing-review;
observed increase in the values of coordinate L* in Jute-only, Beads, and
Kurt Kornbluth: writing-review and editing; William Ristenpart: Exper­
CaCl2 treatments indicates whitening which is undesirable in terms of
imental design, writing-review and editing; Irwin R. Donis-González:
the quality of the coffee [45]. Similar results were observed by Ref. [39];
Conceptualization, supervision, funding acquisition, experimental
where small variations in L* were observed in coffee packed in hermetic
design, writing-review, and editing.
big bags (43–45) in comparison to coffee stored in jute sacks, during
12-month storage.
In this study, there were no significant differences between the two Declaration of competing interest
evaluated desiccants (p > 0.05). Furthermore, as observed in the study,
the dissolution of CaCl2 into brine solution poses a threat of contami­ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
nation to green coffee. To prevent leakage, the cargo-desiccants industry interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
adds other desiccants such as starch and clay to the CaCl2. Upon ab­ the work reported in this paper.
sorption, the absorbed moisture reacts with the starch or other material
to form a gel that will not leak. Additionally, increasing the conventional Data availability
industry amount of desiccants by factors 2, 4, and 6 had no significant
effect on the behavior of the desiccants. An alternative approach would Data will be made available on request.
be to explore alternative amounts to those included in this study.
After roasting and brewing, panelists in both sensory tests were un­ Acknowledgments
able to differentiate coffee beans that had been stored under different
conditions. The only significant difference observed was between Bag vs This work was financially supported by the Foundation for Food and
Beads-Bag treatments in the triangle test and the number of correct re­ Agriculture Research (FFAR). The experiments and laboratory Analysis
sponses (38/78) was barely over the threshold of minimum number of were conducted at the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engi­
correct responses (34) with a p-value of 0.003. Panelists were not able to neering, University of California, Davis, and at the UC Davis Coffee
differentiate even the most extreme storage conditions. In other words, Center.

Appendix A

Table showing roast profiles of treatments in triangle sensory test.

9
L. Anokye-Bempah et al. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478

Treatment Initial mass (kg) Final mass (kg) Initial temperature (◦ C) Final temperature (◦ C) First crack (s) Development (s) Overall (s)

Beads-Bag 1.043 1.043 349 401.9 09.49 01.42 11.31

CaCl2-Bag 1.043 1.043 352 403.3 09.28 01.42 11.10
Bag 1.043 1.043 355.5 400.5 09.16 01.41 10.57
Jute-only 1.043 1.043 351.5 401 08.29 01.42 10.11

Appendix B

Answer sheet used for triangle sensory test.

TRIANGLE TEST SENSORY EVALUATION

INSTRUCTIONS
You are presented with three coded coffee samples (for each triangle test). Two of these samples are the same and one is different.
Taste the samples in order from left to right and circle the code of the one sample that is DIFFERENT from the other two.
Rinse your mouth using water and plain crackers between samples.
If no difference is apparent, you must guess!
(There will be 4 triangle tests).

References [12] R.P. Singh, V.K. Mishra, R.K. Das, Desiccant materials for air conditioning
applications-A review, 1, in: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering vol. 404, IOP Publishing, 2018, August, 012005.
[1] D. Selmar, G. Bytof, S.E. Knopp, The storage of green coffee (Coffea arabica):
[13] A.P. Cohen, Desiccants, Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2000.
decrease of viability and changes of potential aroma precursors, Ann. Bot. 101 (1)
[14] K.L. Yam (Ed.), The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, John Wiley &
(2008) 31–38.
Sons, 2010.
[2] F.C. Ribeiro, F.M. Borém, G.S. Giomo, R.R. De Lima, M.R. Malta, L.P. Figueiredo,
[15] R.C. Anantheswaran, R.B. Beelman, S. Roy, Modified atmosphere and modified
Storage of green coffee in hermetic packaging injected with CO2, J. Stored Prod.
humidity packaging of fresh mushrooms, J. Food Sci. 61 (2) (1996) 391–397.
Res. 47 (4) (2011) 341–348.
[16] A. Mora, U. Sufi, J.I. Roach, J.F. Thompson, I.R. Donis-Gonzalez, Evaluation of a
[3] N.K. Donovan, K.A. Foster, C.A.P. Salinas, Analysis of green coffee quality using
small-scale desiccant-based drying system to control corn dryness during storage,
hermetic bag storage, J. Stored Prod. Res. 80 (2019) 1–9.
AIMS Agricult. Food 4 (1) (2019) 136–148.
[4] D.M. Vilela, G.V.D.M. Pereira, C.F. Silva, L.R. Batista, R.F. Schwan, Molecular
[17] R. Sultana, K. Kunusoth, L. Amineni, P. Dahal, K.J. Bradford, Desiccant drying prior
ecology and polyphasic characterization of the microbiota associated with semi-dry
to hermetic storage extends viability and reduces bruchid (Callosobruchus chinensis
processed coffee (Coffea arabica L.), Food Microbiol. 27 (8) (2010) 1128–1135.
L.) infestation of mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek) seeds, J. Stored Prod.
[5] H.A. Palacios-Cabrera, H.C. Menezes, B.T. Iamanaka, F. Canepa, A.A. Teixeira,
Res. 94 (2021), 101888.
N. Carvalhaes, M.H. Taniwaki, Effect of temperature and relative humidity during
[18] J.G. Allinson, R.J. Dansereau, A. Sakr, The effects of packaging on the stability of a
transportation on green coffee bean moisture content and ochratoxin A production,
moisture sensitive compound, Int. J. Pharm. 221 (1-2) (2001) 49–56.
J. Food Protect. 70 (1) (2007) 164–171.
[19] K. Naveršnik, S. Bohanec, Predicting drug hydrolysis based on moisture uptake in
[6] L.M. Broissin-Vargas, R. Snell-Castro, J.J. Godon, O. González-Ríos, M.L. Suárez-
various packaging designs, Eur. J. Pharmaceut. Sci. 35 (5) (2008) 447–456.
Quiroz, Impact of storage conditions on fungal community composition of green
[20] K.C. Waterman, B.C. MacDonald, Package selection for moisture protection for
coffee beans Coffea arabica L. stored in jute sacks during 1 year, J. Appl. Microbiol.
solid, oral drug products, J. Pharmaceut. Sci. 99 (11) (2010) 4437–4452.
124 (2) (2018) 547–558.
[21] J. Fenwick, S. Fenwick, J. Hajek, Rust preventatives: influence of novel engineered
[7] G.W. Nobre, F.M. Borém, S.M. Fernandes, R.G.F.A. Pereira, Alterações químicas do
desiccant on corrosion levels seen in transcontinental packaging systems, in:
café-cereja descascado durante o armazenamento, Coffee Science-ISSN 1984-3909
CORROSION 2012, 2012, March (OnePetro).
2 (1) (2007) 1–9.
[22] E.H. Wong, R. Rajoo, Moisture absorption and diffusion characterisation of
[8] G.F. Abreu, F.M. Borém, L.F.C. Oliveira, M.R. Almeida, A.P.C. Alves, Raman
packaging materials––advanced treatment, Microelectron. Reliab. 43 (12) (2003)
spectroscopy: a new strategy for monitoring the quality of green coffee beans
2087–2096.
during storage, Food Chem. 287 (2019) 241–248.
[23] S. Yildirim, B. Röcker, M.K. Pettersen, J. Nilsen-Nygaard, Z. Ayhan, R. Rutkaite,
[9] S. Gheorghe, Marine Transport by Container–Moisture and Condensation Damage,
V. Coma, Active packaging applications for food, Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.
vol. 108, Ovidius university annals economic sciences series, 2012.
17 (1) (2018) 165–199.
[10] N.K. Donovan, K.A. Foster, A.P. Salinas, Quality management and the economics of
[24] T. Janjarasskul, P. Suppakul, Active and intelligent packaging: the indication of
green coffee hermetic storage, Int. J. Food Agric. Econ. 8 (1128-2020-427) (2020)
quality and safety, Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58 (5) (2018) 808–831.
1–20.
[25] M. Ozdemir, J.D. Floros, Active food packaging technologies, Crit. Rev. Food Sci.
[11] F.M. Borém, F.C. Ribeiro, L.P. Figueiredo, G.S. Giomo, V.A. Fortunato, E.
Nutr. 44 (3) (2004) 185–193.
P. Isquierdo, Evaluation of the sensory and color quality of coffee beans stored in
hermetic packaging, J. Stored Prod. Res. 52 (2013) 1–6.

10
L. Anokye-Bempah et al.
[26] M. Schuettler, A. Schatz, J.S. Ordonez, T. Stieglitz, Ensuring minimal humidity
levels in hermetic implant housings, in: 2011 Annual International Conference of
the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, IEEE, 2011, August,
pp. 2296–2299.
[27] Y. Chen, Packaging selection for solid oral dosage forms, in: Developing Solid Oral
Dosage Forms, Academic Press, 2017, pp. 637–651.
[28] A.M. Hamed, A.A. Sultan, Mass transfer in vertical cloth layers impregnated with
calcium chloride for recovery of water from air, Renew. Energy 27 (1) (2002)
13–25.
[29] K.E. N’Tsoukpoe, H.U. Rammelberg, A.F. Lele, K. Korhammer, B.A. Watts,
T. Schmidt, W.K. Ruck, A review on the use of calcium chloride in applied thermal
engineering, Appl. Therm. Eng. 75 (2015) 513–531.
[30] S.C. Frost, W.D. Ristenpart, J.X. Guinard, Effect of basket geometry on the sensory
quality and consumer acceptance of drip brewed coffee, J. Food Sci. 84 (8) (2019)
2297–2312.
[31] C. Sinkinson, Triangle test, in: Discrimination Testing in Sensory Science,
Woodhead Publishing, 2017, pp. 153–170.
[32] Royal Coffee, Discrimination cupping and the new royal production cupping form,
Retrieved from, https://royalcoffee.com/discrimination-cupping-and-the-new-ro
yal-production-cupping-form/, 2020.
[33] L.S. Meyers, G. Gamst, A.J. Guarino, Data Analysis Using SAS Enterprise Guide,
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
[34] B. ISO, Sensory Analysis. Methodology. Triangle Test, 2004. ISO Norm 4120: 2004.
[35] S. Benedetti, C. Pompei, S. Mannino, Comparison of an electronic nose with the
sensory evaluation of food products by “triangle test”, Electroanalysis: An
International Journal Devoted to Fundamental and Practical Aspects of
Electroanalysis 16 (21) (2004) 1801–1805.
[36] S. Aronson, R. Raudales, R. Trubey, P. Villers, Breakthrough in storing high quality
coffee, Tea Coffee Trade J. 177 (11) (2005) 32.
11
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 11 (2023) 100478
[37] P. Bucheli, I. Meyer, A. Pittet, G. Vuataz, R. Viani, Industrial storage of green
Robusta coffee under tropical conditions and its impact on raw material quality
and ochratoxin A content, J. Agric. Food Chem. 46 (11) (1998) 4507–4511.
[38] G.F.D. Abreu, S.D. da Rosa, M.A. Cirillo, M.R. Malta, A. Clemente, F.M. Borém,
Simultaneous optimization of coffee quality variables during storage, Rev. Bras.
Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 21 (2017) 56–60.
[39] F.C. Ribeiro, F.M. Borém, G.S. Giomo, R.R. De Lima, M.R. Malta, L.P. Figueiredo,
Storage of green coffee in hermetic packaging injected with CO2, J. Stored Prod.
Res. 47 (4) (2011) 341–348.
[40] P. Tripetch, C. Borompichaichartkul, Effect of packaging materials and storage
time on changes of colour, phenolic content, chlorogenic acid and antioxidant
activity in arabica green coffee beans (Coffea arabica L. cv. Catimor), J. Stored
Prod. Res. 84 (2019), 101510.
[41] T.F.N. Thoruwa, C.M. Johnstone, A.D. Grant, J.E. Smith, Novel, low cost CaCl2
based desiccants for solar crop drying applications, Renew. Energy 19 (4) (2000)
513–520.
[42] R.L. Dobson, Protection of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products through
desiccant technology, J Pack Technol 1 (1987) 127–135.
[43] F.R. Hay, P. Thavong, P. Taridno, S. Timple, Evaluation of zeolite seed’Drying
Beads®’for drying rice seeds to low moisture content prior to long-term storage,
Seed Sci. Technol. 40 (3) (2012) 374–395.
[44] S. Melero Tur, S. García Morales, F.J. Neila González, Design and evaluation of a
dehumidifying plaster panel for passive architecture integration, Revista de la
Construcción 14 (2) (2015) 21–28.
[45] P.C. Afonso Júnior, P.C. Corrêa, Influência do tempo de armazenagem na cor dos
grãos de café pré-processados por" via seca" e" via úmida, Cienc. E Agrotecnol 27
(2003) 1268–1276.