| Literature DB >> 24936289 |
Mohammad Jafar Dalvand1, Seyed Saeid Mohtasebi1, Shahin Rafiee1.
Abstract
Energy consumption index is one of the most important criteria for judging about new, and emerging drying technologies. One of such novel and promising alternative of drying process is called electrohydrodynamic (EHD) drying. In this work, a solar energy was used to maintain required energy of EHD drying process. Moreover, response surface methodology (RSM) was used to build a predictive model in order to investigate the combined effects of independent variables such as applied voltage, field strength, number of discharge electrode (needle), and air velocity on moisture ratio, energy efficiency, and energy consumption as responses of EHD drying process. Three-levels and four-factor Box-Behnken design was employed to evaluate the effects of independent variables on system responses. A stepwise approach was followed to build up a model that can map the entire response surface. The interior relationships between parameters were well defined by RSM.Entities:
Keywords: Box–Behnken; EHD drying; energy consumption; response surface methodology; solar energy
Year: 2014 PMID: 24936289 PMCID: PMC4048605 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.96
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Figure 1The mechanism of a corona wind.
Figure 2Components of a solar EHD dryer.
Levels of the independent variables
| Range and levels | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent variable | Type | Symbol | −1 | 0 | 1 |
| Air velocity (msec−1) | Numerical | 0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | |
| Applied voltage (kV) | Numerical | 6 | 10.5 | 15 | |
| Field strength (kV cm−1) | Numerical | 3 | 4.5 | 6 | |
| Number of needles | Categorical | 1 | 9 | 17 | |
Design matrix processed by Design Expert 8
| Applied voltage | Field strength | Air velocity | Number of needles | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run order | Coded | Real | Coded | Real | Coded | Real | Coded | Real |
| 1 | −1 | 6 | −1 | 3 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
| 2 | −1 | 6 | 0 | 4.5 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 3 | −1 | 6 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | −1 | 1 |
| 4 | −1 | 6 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 1 | 17 |
| 5 | −1 | 6 | 0 | 4.5 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 9 |
| 6 | −1 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
| 7 | 0 | 10.5 | −1 | 3 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 9 |
| 8 | 0 | 10.5 | −1 | 3 | 0 | 0.2 | 1 | 17 |
| 9 | 0 | 10.5 | −1 | 3 | 0 | 0.2 | −1 | 1 |
| 10 | 0 | 10.5 | −1 | 3 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 9 |
| 11 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 17 |
| 12 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 1 |
| 13 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
| 14 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
| 15 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
| 16 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
| 17 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
| 18 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
| 19 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | 1 | 0.4 | −1 | 1 |
| 20 | 0 | 10.5 | 0 | 4.5 | 1 | 0.4 | 1 | 17 |
| 21 | 0 | 10.5 | 1 | 6 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 22 | 0 | 10.5 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0.2 | −1 | 1 |
| 23 | 0 | 10.5 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0.2 | 1 | 17 |
| 24 | 0 | 10.5 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 9 |
| 25 | 1 | 15 | −1 | 3 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
| 26 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 4.5 | −1 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 27 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | −1 | 1 |
| 28 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 4.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 1 | 17 |
| 29 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 4.5 | 1 | 0.4 | 0 | 9 |
| 30 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | 9 |
Adequacy of models for moisture ratio
| Statistical index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | RMSE | PRESS | |||
| Linear | 0.718 | 0.637 | 0.560 | 0.038 | 0.056 |
| 2FI | 0.735 | 0.595 | 0.128 | 0.042 | 0.110 |
| Quadratic | 0.903 | 0.813 | 0.453 | 0.029 | 0.070 |
| Red. quadratic | |||||
| Cubic | 0.974 | 0.893 | 0.012 | 0.022 | 0.430 |
Figure 3Response surface for the moisture ratio (MR) as a function of (A) applied voltage and field strength and (B) applied voltage and number of discharge needle and (C) contour plot for the MR as a function of air velocity and field strength.
Adequacy of the model for efficiency
| Statistical index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | RMSE | PRESS | |||
| Linear | 0.958 | 0.951 | 0.935 | 0.21 | 1.65 |
| 2FI | 0.981 | 0.972 | 0.940 | 0.16 | 1.51 |
| Quadratic | 0.988 | 0.977 | 0.932 | 0.14 | 1.72 |
| Red. quadratic | |||||
| Cubic | 0.999 | 0.995 | 0.835 | 0.061 | 3.39 |
The best-fitting model values are shown in bold.
Figure 4Response surface for the efficiency as a function of (A) applied voltage and field strength and (B) applied voltage and number of discharge needle and (C) contour plot for the efficiency as a function of air velocity and field strength.
Adequacy of the model for energy consumption
| Statistical index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | RMSE | PRESS | |||
| Linear | 0.734 | 0.691 | 0.595 | 0.16 | 0.93 |
| 2FI | 0.740 | 0.604 | 0.192 | 0.18 | 1.86 |
| Quadratic | 0.981 | 0.964 | 0.894 | 0.053 | 0.24 |
| Red. quadratic | |||||
| Cubic | 0.998 | 0.994 | 0.751 | 0.021 | 0.37 |
The best-fitting model values are shown in bold.
Figure 5Response surface for the energy consumption as a function of (A) applied voltage and field strength and (B) applied voltage and number of discharge needle and (C) contour plot for the energy consumption as a function of air velocity and field strength.