This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 31 May 2013, At: 09:07

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Drying Technology: An International Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ldrt20

MODELING WATER LOSS DURING FRYING OF POTATO

STRIPS: EFFECT OF SOLUTE IMPREGNATION
a a
Pedro C. Moyano & Amalia Z. Berna
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, P.O. Box 10233,
Santiago, Chile
Published online: 06 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Pedro C. Moyano & Amalia Z. Berna (2002): MODELING WATER LOSS DURING FRYING OF POTATO STRIPS:
EFFECT OF SOLUTE IMPREGNATION, Drying Technology: An International Journal, 20:7, 1303-1318

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/DRT-120005854

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 DRYING TECHNOLOGY, 20(7), 1303–1318 (2002)

MODELING WATER LOSS DURING

FRYING OF POTATO STRIPS: EFFECT OF
SOLUTE IMPREGNATION
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

Pedro C. Moyano* and Amalia Z. Berna

Department of Chemical Engineering,

Universidad de Santiago de Chile,
P.O. Box 10233, Santiago, Chile

ABSTRACT

The effect of solute impregnation on water loss and oil uptake

during potato strip frying was studied. Blanched potato strips
were impregnated at 25
C by soaking in a solution of sucrose–
NaCl–water, 20–5–75% by weight. After rinsing and air
drying, strips were deep fried in sunflower oil at 160, 170
and 180
C. A control treatment, consisting of potato strips
blanched but not soaked and later air dried was also
conducted. Solute impregnation provided a decrease of the
oil uptake. Two models, based on Fick’s law were used to
describe water loss during frying. The first one is the classic
model with an effective moisture diffusion coefficient assumed
a constant value. The second model considers that diffusion
coefficient varies during the frying process. For a given
frying temperature, constant diffusion coefficient for control
potatoes resulted in lower values than the impregnated
ones. The variable diffusivity model showed a two-stage

*Corresponding author. Fax: (562) 6817135; E-mail: pmoyano@lauca.usach.cl

1303

Copyright & 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. www.dekker.com

 1304 MOYANO AND BERNA

behavior: during the first stage of frying, diffusion coefficient

increased with frying temperatures, but from a given time on
an inverse behavior began. This last fact was found to be
related to an increase of the measured peak force needed to
penetrate the potato crust.

Key Words: Frying; Potato; Water loss; Oil uptake;

Diffusivity; Solute impregnation
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

INTRODUCTION

Actually deep-fat frying is a widely used food process, which consists

basically of immersion of food pieces in hot vegetable oil. The high tem-
perature causes partial evaporation of the water, which moves away from
the food and through the surrounding oil. Oil is absorbed by the food,
replacing some of the lost water.[1] The aim of deep-fat frying is to seal
the food by immersing it in the hot oil so that all the flavors and juices
are retained inside a crisp crust and this process involves simultaneous heat
and mass transfer.[2] Nowadays, french-fries are among the major items of
commercial fried foods and amount to 44% of potatoes processed in the
U.S.[3] This potato-based product is made from potato strips of approxi-
mately 1  1 cm2 in cross section and 6–7 cm in length.[4]
During the frying process, the physical, chemical, and sensory char-
acteristics of the food are modified and lately oil content has been a main
concern for food processors from an economic point of view and for con-
sumers from a healthy one. During the process of french fries manufacture,
processors have some ways to control the oil picked up by the potato pieces.
A preliminary blanching step reduces the oil absorption by gelatinization of
the surface starch[5] an air dehydration before the frying process leads to a
lower moisture content which also reduces the oil absorption. Another way
to achieve that is by controlling the frying oil temperature because usually
higher temperatures lead to lower absorbed oil.[6]
Nowadays, due to consumer health concerns, there is a strong incen-
tive to reduce the oil content of fried foods,[7,8] prompting many studies on
the mechanisms of fat absorption during frying.[9]
Several procedures have been proposed to reduce the oil absorbed. A
frying process has been considered in which the oil contained 0.5 to 2%
hydrophobic silica, so that this silica formed an impervious film on the
potato strips.[10] Fructose has been added to a restructured potato product,
which resulted in a change of the surface properties, with a reduction of
the absorbed oil.[11] Gellan gum has been used to coat samples so that the
 WATER LOSS DURING POTATO STRIP FRYING 1305

resulting film reduced the oil absorption.[12] Surface properties of potato

strips have been changed recently by soaking them into a suitable solution
prior to frying, obtaining a reduction of the order of 20% or more of the
absorbed oil.[13,17]
In this last case both the kind of solution and length of period will be
limited by the organoleptic properties of final french fries. In other words,
this means to carry out a short osmotic dehydration where the more impor-
tant fact is the solute impregnation onto the potato surface rather than the
water loss. But besides the oil content reduction it is important to know how
the solute impregnation affects the water loss during frying.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

The water loss mechanism is complex and the transport by molecular

diffusion, capillary and pressure driven flow should be accounted.[8] However
modeling at different levels of complexity has been reported. Fitting moisture
content of potato slices with frying time, and square root of frying time.[14] A
more complex approach tried two models: one controlled by heat transfer and
the other one by diffusivity of water in the tissue.[15] A first order kinetic
model has been considered, in which the rate of moisture loss was propor-
tional to the moisture content.[16,17] The crust and the core have been treated
as two regions separated by a moving boundary and included pressure driven
flow in the crust region.[17,19] Also, liquid water transport has been considered
resulting from convective flow and from capillary flow and vapor by convec-
tive flow and diffusion.[8] However, with different approaches, the Fick’s law
of diffusion has been extensively used to describe the water loss kinetics
during frying.[12,20–24] Fick’s law of diffusion provides a simplified picture
of the water loss during frying, however in order of not oversimplifying the
transport process it should be considered that using a variable effective diffu-
sion coefficient would account for the change of physical properties of the
material during frying.
The main objectives in this work were: (i) to compare the oil uptake
during frying between control potato strips and those impregnated with a
solution of sucrose and sodium chloride (NaCl); (ii) apply Fick’s law of
diffusion, with constant and with variable effective diffusion coefficient, in
order to model the water loss kinetics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Raw Materials

Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L., Desiree variety), cultivated in the

South of Chile were provided by a local food processor. They were stored
at 8
C, in a dark room, prior the experimental runs.
 1306 MOYANO AND BERNA

The soaked solution used was: sucrose–NaCl–water, 20–5–75% by

weight. Sucrose and NaCl used were food grade (Azúcar IansaTM and Sal
LobosTM, respectively). The water used was tap water.

Experimental Method

The tubers were washed, sorted, peeled and cut along the axis, by
means of a manual cutter into strips of 0.007 m  0.007 m  0.07 m. In
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

order to minimize enzymatic browning, the strips were dipped in a solution

of sodium acid pyrophosphate (0.75% w/w), blanched in the same solution
for 8 min at 75
C and cooled down to 25
C.
Blanched potato strips were placed in a stainless steel basket immersed
in the impregnating solution, kept at 25
C by means of a thermostatically
controlled water bath (Blue M). The basket was mechanically rotated at
30 rpm to ensure a good mass transfer. This impregnation process lasted
15 min. A ratio of sample to solution of 1/8 (w/w) was used. Both concen-
tration of solutions and soaking time were previously optimized by means of
a factorial design of 22 with 3 center points. The responses, i.e., the sensory
attributes of the fried samples, were obtained by a trained panel of 7 panel-
ists using a quality scoring test (color, flavor, texture, overall quality, and
odd flavors/odors) on a 9-point numerical scale,[25] and a quantitative
descriptive analysis on a 10-cm non-structured scale (results not shown).[26]
At the end of the impregnation period, the strips were rinsed quickly
(10 s) in three different beakers containing tap water and gently blotted with
tissue paper in order to remove the surface solution. The strips were then
placed on a tray, arranged in one single layer and dried in a convection oven
(Memmert, mod ULM 500) at a dry bulb temperature of 60  1
C and an
air velocity of 1  0.1 m/s. The weight loss was monitored continuously until
the strips reached a final moisture of 60  1% (wet basis).
The strips were deep fried in sunflower oil (ChefTM, Coprona, Chile),
in an electric filter fryer (Moulinex Clean Air T45). A batch size of 200 g of
fries in 2.5 liters of oil was chosen.[27] Frying temperatures of 160, 170, and
180
C were used, with two replicates at each temperature. The same mass of
both oil and french fries sample was withdrawn in order to keep constant
the mass relationship between potatoes and oil. The oil was used three times
and then discarded.
A control treatment, consisting of blanched potato strips but not
soaked, and later air dried was also conducted.
Samples were removed at one minute intervals from the fryer, drained
and allowed to cool to room temperature on a paper towel.
 WATER LOSS DURING POTATO STRIP FRYING 1307

Mean moisture content of french fries was measured by drying the

samples in a convection oven until constant weight at 105
C.
The oil content was determined by a simple and rapid method which
consists in an initial extraction with a mixture of 1 : 2 : 0.8 (v/v/v) in chloro-
form, methanol, and water. Then, this mixture is adjusted to 2 : 2 : 1.8 (v/v/v)
to continue the extraction. In this way, the chloroform layer contains the
purified oil.[28]
Texture measurements were made using a Texture Analyzer TA.XT2
(Stable Micro System, Surrey, UK). Ten potato strips were withdrawn from
the fryer, drained (15 s) and placed onto the Multiple Chip Ring (a special
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

device for measuring texture in french fries). When the strips reached 60
C,
force against distance curves were determined by using a 2 mm diameter
probe for each strip at a constant speed of 1.7 mm/s. The peak force was
obtained using the software Texture Expert (v 6.06) of the Texture Analyzer.

Modeling Water Loss

Two kinds of models were used to describe water loss during frying. In
the first one the Fick’s law of diffusion was used, which for one-dimensional
transport is given by:[29]
( " ! #)
mt  me 8 X1
1 ð2n þ 1Þ2 2 Deff
¼ exp  t ð1Þ
m0  me 2 n¼1 ð2n þ 1Þ2 4 l2

where l ¼ half thickness of the slab; mt ¼ moisture content, dry basis;

m0 ¼ initial moisture content, dry basis; me ¼ equilibrium moisture content,
dry basis; t ¼ frying time and Deff effective moisture diffusion coefficient,
assumed a constant value during the frying process.
For the geometric shape of french fries, Eq. (1) must be used as the
product of three infinite slabs, each of them having as a characteristic
dimension the length, the width and the height of the potato strip. It is
reasonably to assume that moisture content is negligible when equilibrium
is reached in the frying process, so me ¼ 0 in Eq. (1).[12,20–23]
The second model considers that physical properties of the material
vary with changing temperature and moisture content during the frying
process, making the effective moisture diffusion coefficient no longer a con-
stant value but a function of time. Simplified methods, as the method of
slopes, or numerical methods have been used in order to obtain values of
variable effective diffusivities from air drying curves.[30] In this work an
extension of the analytical model of variable diffusivities proposed for
 1308 MOYANO AND BERNA

spherical geometry to study air drying of grapes,[31] was used. In the case of
slab geometry this model results:
( " " # ! #)
mt  me 8 X1
1 ð2n þ 1Þ2 2 D0 t 1þb
¼ exp  1þ 2
m0  me 2 n¼1 ð2n þ 1Þ2 4ð1 þ bÞ l
ð2Þ
where Deff is postulated as a function of time as:
 b
D
Deff ¼ D0 1 þ 20 t
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

ð3Þ
l
in which D0 is the effective diffusivity at time ¼ 0, and b is a dimensionless
parameter.
Equation (2) was adequately utilized for strip geometry to model water
loss during frying.
The parameters of Eqs. (1) and (2) were obtained by non-linear regres-
sions, using as objective function the minimization of the relative deviations:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

1 X Vobs  Vpred 2
%RMS ¼ 100 ð4Þ
N Vobs

where Vobs is the observed or experimental value, Vpred is the predicted

values and N the number of data points.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As expected, solute impregnation affects oil transfer as seen in Figure 1,

at 180
C. The oil uptake (db) remained approximately constant from the
first minute of frying and; this fact was similar to what was observed during
deep fat frying of a restructured potato product[32] and potato slices.[6] The
effect of solute impregnation on both water and oil transfer was similar to
the effect of added fructose on water loss but during air drying of a restruc-
tured potato product[11] and also for frying of strips previously impregnated
with solutions: corn syrup–NaCl–water or NaCl–water.[13] Thus, a similar
explanation is expected: during frying, solutes are concentrated on the sur-
face, enhancing crust formation. The crust might be permeable to steam
leaving the tissue but it might act as a barrier to oil uptake as well. It can
be seen that at 180
C solute impregnation provided a decrease of around
15% of the oil uptake. Similar results were obtained for the frying tempera-
tures of 160 and 170
C.
 WATER LOSS DURING POTATO STRIP FRYING 1309
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

Figure 1. Oil uptake of impregnated and control potatoes during frying at 180
C.
Average values are shown for each case.

For the frying temperature of 180
C the fit of moisture content vs time

data to Eqs. 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 2 and 3 for control and impreg-
nated potatoes, respectively. The variable diffusivity model adjusted much
better the experimental data than the constant difussivity model did. Similar
results were obtained for the frying temperatures of 160 and 170
C. Tables 1
and 2 show the parameters obtained for both models and it can also be seen
that the RMS’s were lower for the variable diffusivity model in all cases. It
seems reasonably that the effect on water loss in a changing potato structure
will be better represented by a diffusivity coefficient whose value also
changes with time.
In the case of constant diffusivity the values obtained for Deff are
similar to those reported during frying of potato slices[20] and discs of
dough made from a biscuit mix.[12] In all cases, for a given frying tempera-
ture, Deff value for control potato resulted lower than the impregnated one.
A similar result was found for the effect of added fructose but during air
drying of a restructured potato product.[11] Maybe this fact could be
explained because control potato has around of 15% more of oil acting
as an additional surface resistance for water loss. The effect of oil content
on moisture diffusion coefficient during air drying has been studied for some
biomaterials: avocado and oil-based model systems,[33] pepperoni,[34] fish
muscle.[35] In all cases, it was found that the moisture diffusion decreases
as the oil increases. This fact was attributed to the hydrophobic character of
fat which imposes a resistance to the flow of water and can explain the
decrease in Deff for control potato as stated above.
 1310 MOYANO AND BERNA
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

Figure 2. Observed and predicted water loss of control potato during frying at
180
C.

Figure 3. Observed and predicted water loss of impregnated potato during frying
at 180
C.

For the variable diffusivity model the variation of Deff with frying time
is shown on Figures 4 and 5 for control and impregnated potatoes respect-
ively. The behavior is similar for both cases. During first stages of frying,
until around 240 s, an expected behavior is found: Deff increases with frying
 Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

Table 1. Effective Diffusivity Coefficient and RMS Values for Constant Diffusivity Model

Temperature

180
C 170
C 160
C

Control Deff (m2/s) (6.71  0.10)  109 (5.24  0.05)  109 (4.14  0.03)  109
potato RMS (%) 15.31 7.11 9.75
Impregnated Deff (m2/s) (9.40  0.03)  109 (6.82  0.03)  109 (5.19  0.05)  109
potato RMS (%) 10.33 8.82 6.87
WATER LOSS DURING POTATO STRIP FRYING
1311
 Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

1312

Table 2. Parameters and RMS Values for Variable Diffusivity Model

Temperature

180
C 170
C 160
C

Control D0 (m2/s) (11.75  1.36)  109 (6.69  0.01)  109 (2.62  0.01)  109
potato b ()  3.645  0.453  2.131  0.015 12.106  1.588
RMS (%) 10.41 6.33 5.08
Impregnated D0 (m2/s) (19.48  0.06)  109 (9.00  0.39)  109 (4.41  0.42)  109
potato b ()  3.390  0.029  1.897  0.275 3.385  1.560
RMS (%) 5.18 7.47 5.09
MOYANO AND BERNA
 WATER LOSS DURING POTATO STRIP FRYING 1313
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

Figure 4. Effective moisture diffusivity during frying of control potato.

Figure 5. Effective moisture diffusivity during frying of impregnated potato.

temperature. But at 300 s an inverse behavior begins and after this Deff at
180
C has the lowest values. A recent study, performed on textural changes
in potato strips in situ during frying it was found that frying shows an initial
stage (time<360 s) in which the whole potato tissue softens and crust for-
mation starts, and a later stage in which the crust develops and hardens
 1314 MOYANO AND BERNA
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

Figure 6. Peak force during frying of control potato.

Figure 7. Control and impregnated potatoes effective moisture diffusivity compar-

ison during frying at 180
C.

progressively (time>360 s).[36] It was also found that higher temperatures

produce harder crust. These facts explain the apparent anomalous behavior
of Deff with frying temperature after 300 s: hardening of crust promotes an
increased resistance to water loss which is more important than the tem-
perature effect.
 WATER LOSS DURING POTATO STRIP FRYING 1315

Hardening of crust was measured by peak force in the Texture

Analyzer and it represents the rupture force to penetrate the outer layer
or crust. In Figure 6, the peak force can be seen during frying of control
potato. From 300 s on, peak force increases and this effect is more pro-
nounced at 180
C. These texture measurements strongly suggest that
Deff for water loss decrease while peak force increases explaining the Deff
behavior after 300 s.
The increase of diffusivity during frying at 160
C (Figures 4 and 5)
may be caused by the development of a porous structure in the sample,
which facilitates vapor diffusion. At higher temperatures, a tougher crust
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

is formed, which reduces diffusion.

Figure 7 shows Deff for the variable diffusivity model during
frying of impregnated and control potatoes. As explained earlier,
control samples show lower values for Deff due to higher oil contents
which acts as additional surface resistance for water loss. However
during the last stages of frying this effect becomes negligible due to hard-
ening crust.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by FONDECYT, Chile, (project 197 0037)

and by DICYT-USACH (project 0198 11MG).

REFERENCES

1. Oliveira, J.C.; Pereira, P.M.; Oliveira, F.A. The Role of Transport

Phenomena. In Minimal Processing of Foods and Process Optimization,
Singh, R.P., Oliveira, F.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, U.S.A., 1994;
253–279.
2. Moreira, R.G.; Castell-Perez, M.E.; Barrufet, M.A. Deep-Fat Frying:
Fundamentals and Applications; Aspen Publishers, Inc.: Maryland,
U.S.A., 1999; 1–2.
3. Moreira, R.G.; Castell-Perez, M.E.; Barrufet, M.A. Deep-Fat Frying:
Fundamentals and Applications; Aspen Publishers, Inc.: Maryland,
U.S.A., 1999; 12–13.
4. Lesinska, G.; Leszczynski, W. Potato Science and Technology; Elsevier
Sc.: New York, 1989; 165–232.
5. Califano, A.N.; Calvelo, A. Adjustment of Surface Concentration of
Reducing Sugars Before Frying of Potato Strips. Journal of Food
Processing and Preservation 1987, 12, 1–9.
 1316 MOYANO AND BERNA

6. Bauman, B.; Escher, F. Mass and Heat Transfer During Deep-Fat

Frying of Potato Slices. I Rate of Drying and Oil Uptake.
Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft-und-Technologie 1995, 28, 395–403.
7. Moreira, R.G.; Barrufet, M.A. A New Approach to Describe Oil
Absorption in Fried Foods: A Simulation Study. Journal of Food
Engineering 1998, 35, 1–22.
8. Ni, H.; Datta, A.K. Moisture, Oil and Energy Transport During Deep-
Fat Frying of Food Materials. Transactions of IChem. Engr. Part C:
Food and Bioproducts Processing 1999, 77, 194–204.
9. Aguilera, J.M.; Gloria-Hernández, H. Oil Absorption During Frying
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

of Frozen Parfried Potatoes. Journal of Food Science 2000, 65,

476–479.
10. El-Nokali, E.; Hiler, G.D. Process of Using Silica to Decrease Fat
Adsorption. U.S. Patent 5100684, 1992.
11. Rubnov, M.; Saguy, I.S. Fractal Analysis and Crust Water Diffusivity
of a Restructured Potato Product During Deep-Fat Frying. Journal of
Food Science 1997, 62, 135–137, 154.
12. Williams, R.; Mittal, G.S. Low-Fat Fried Foods with Edible
Coatings: Modeling and Simulation. Journal of Food Science 1999,
64, 317–322.
13. Moyano, P.C.; Rioseco, V.K.; Gonzalez, P.A. Kinetics of Crust Color
Changes During Deep-Fat Frying of Impregnated French Fries.
Journal of Food Engineering in press.
14. Gamble, M.H.; Rice, P.; Selman, J.D. Relationship Between Oil
Uptake and Moisture Loss During Frying of Potato Slices from c.v.
Record U.K. Tubers. International Journal of Food Science and
Technology 1987, 22, 233–241.
15. Ashkenazi, N.; Mizrahi, S.; Berk, Z. Heat and Mass Transfer in
Frying. In Engineering and Food, Vol. I, Engineering Sciences in the
Food Industry, McKenna, B., Ed.; Elsevier Press: London, 1984;
109–116.
16. Gupta, P.; Shivhare, U.S.; Bawa, A.S. Studies on Frying Kinetics and
Quality of French Fries. Drying Technology 2000, 18, 311–321.
17. Krokida, M.K; Oreopoulou, V.; Maroulis, Z.B.; Marinos-Kouris, D.
Deep Fat Frying of Potato Strips: Quality Issues. Drying Technology
2001, 19, 879–935.
18. Farkas, B.E.; Singh, R.P.; Rumsey, T.R. Modelling Heat and Mass
Transfer in Inmersion Frying: Model Development. Journal of Food
Engineering 1996, 29, 211–226.
19. Farkas, B.E.; Singh, R.P.; Rumsey, T.R. Modelling Heat and Mass
Transfer in Inmersion Frying: Model Solution and Verification.
Journal of Food Engineering 1996, 29, 227–248.
 WATER LOSS DURING POTATO STRIP FRYING 1317

20. Rice, P.; Gamble, M.H. Technical Note: Modelling Moisture Loss
During Potato Slice Frying. Journal of Food Science and
Technology 1989, 24, 183–187.
21. Kozempel, M.F.; Tomasula, P.M.; Craig, J.C. Jr. Correlation of
Moisture and Oil Concentration in French Fries. Lebensmittel-
Wissenschaft-und-Technologie 1991, 24, 445–448.
22. Ateba, P.; Mittal, G.S. Dynamics of Crust Formation and Kinetics of
Quality Changes During Frying of Meatballs. Journal of Food Science
1994, 59, 1275–1278, 1290.
23. Chen, Y.; Moreira, R.G. Modelling of a Batch Deep-Fat Frying
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013

Process for Tortilla Chips. Transaction of IChem Engr. 1997, 75,

181–190.
24. Mittal, G.S.; Zhang, J. Use of Artificial Neural Network to Predict
Temperature, Moisture, and Fat in Slab-Shaped Foods with Edible
Coatings During Deep-Fat Frying. Journal of Food Science 2000,
65, 978–983.
25. ASTM E 466-72.1972. (re-approved 1978). Standard Recommended
Practice for Determining Effect of Packaging on Food and Beverage
Products During Storage. American Society for Testing and Materials:
Philadelphia, USA.
26. Berna, A.Z. Estudio del efecto de impregnación con sacarosa y cloruro
de sodio en la fritura de papas tipo french fries. M.Sc. Thesis in Food
Technology, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, 1999.
27. Du Pont, M.S.; Kirby, A.R.; Smith, A.C. Instrumental and Sensory
Tests of Texture of Cooked Frozen French Fries. International Journal
of Food Science and Technology 1992, 27, 285–295.
28. Bligh, E.G.; Dyer, W. A Rapid Method of Total Lipid Extraction and
Purification. Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology 1959,
37, 911–917.
29. Crank, J. The Mathematics of Diffusion; Clarendon Press: Oxford,
1975; 47–48.
30. Saravacos, G.D.; Maroulis, Z.B. Transport Properties of Foods; Marcel
Dekker: New York, 2001; 123–125.
31. Alvarez, I.; Legues, P. A Semi-Theoretical Model for the Drying of
Thompson Seedless Grapes. Drying Technology 1986, 4, 1–17.
32. Pinthus, E.J.; Saguy, I.S. Initial Interfacial Tension and Oil Uptake by
Deep-Fat Fried Foods. Journal of Food Science 1994, 59, 804–807, 823.
33. Alzamora, S.M.; Chirife, J. Some Factors Controlling the Kinetics of
Moisture Movement During Avocado Dehydration. Journal of Food
Science 1980, 45, 1649–1651, 1657.
34. Palumbo, S.A.; Komanowsky, M., Metzger, V.; Smith, J.L. Kinetics of
Pepperoni Drying. Journal of Food Science 1977, 42, 1029–1031.
 1318 MOYANO AND BERNA

35. Jason, A.C. Effects of Fat Content on Diffusion of Water in Fish

Muscle. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 1965, 16,
281–284.
36. Pedreschi, F.; Aguilera, J.M.; Pyle, L. Textural Characterization and
Kinetics of Potato Strips During Frying. Journal of Food Science 2001,
66, 314–318.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:07 31 May 2013