| Literature DB >> 29472787 |
Mahmoud Younis1, Diaeldin Abdelkarim1, Assem Zein El-Abdein1.
Abstract
Drying of garlic slices in thin-layer have been studied with Infrared (IR) at 0.075, 0.15, 0.225 and 0.3 W cm-2 radiation intensity and 0.75 and 1.25 m s-1 air flow velocity. The results showed increasing in drying rate and decreasing at the time of drying with decreasing air flow velocity and increasing IR radiation intensity. The effective moisture diffusivity (Deff) was obtained using Fick's diffusion equation and its mean values ranged between 5.83×10-11 and 7.66×10-10 m2 s-1 for all investigated conditions. In addition, a third-order polynomial equation linking the effective moisture diffusivity and moisture content was found. Average activation energy increased with the decrease of IR radiation and increase of air flow velocity. Thirteen different mathematical models were verified with non-linear regression analysis for describing the garlic drying process. Modified Henderson and Pabis model presented the best prediction of the drying of garlic slices.Entities:
Keywords: Activation energy; Garlic; Infrared drying; Moisture diffusivity; Radiation intensity
Year: 2017 PMID: 29472787 PMCID: PMC5815985 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.06.011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 1319-562X Impact factor: 4.219
Fig. 1Schematic diagram of infrared dryer used in drying garlic slices.
Mathematical models used to describe the thin-layer drying curve.
| No. | Model name | Analytical expression | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lewis | MR = exp(− | |
| 2 | Page | MR = exp(− | |
| 3 | Modified page | MR = exp(−( | |
| 4 | Henderson and Pabis | MR = | |
| 5 | Wang and Singh | MR = 1 + | |
| 6 | Logarithmic | MR = | |
| 7 | Tow term | MR = | |
| 8 | Tow term exponential | MR = | |
| 9 | Modified Henderson and Pabis | MR = | |
| 10 | Midilli | MR = | |
| 11 | Approximation of diffusion | MR = | |
| 12 | Verma et al. | MR = | |
| 13 | Simplified Fick’s diffusion | MR = |
Fig. 2Variation of the experimental and the predicted moisture ratio by the best fitting model with drying time at different radiation intensity and air flow velocity.
Fig. 3The effect of moisture content on the drying rate of garlic slices at different radiation intensity and air flow velocity.
Statistical results obtained for the thin layer drying models for garlic slices.
| Model name | R2 | Χ2 | RMSE | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lewis | 0.97945 | 0.0016656 | 0.03714 | 0.6225 |
| Page | 0.999948 | 0.0000138 | 0.00176 | 0.0282 |
| Modified page | 0.999949 | 0.0000043 | 0.00176 | 0.0282 |
| Henderson and Pabis | 0.992901 | 0.0006351 | 0.02249 | 0.2795 |
| Wang and Singh | 0.977575 | 0.0020418 | 0.04117 | 0.7325 |
| Logarithmic | 0.999116 | 0.0000828 | 0.00808 | 0.1482 |
| Tow term | 0.999930 | 0.0000059 | 0.00205 | 0.0297 |
| Tow term exponential | 0.999700 | 0.0000288 | 0.00486 | 0.0791 |
| Modified Henderson and Pabis | 0.999948 | 0.0000015 | 0.00101 | 0.0131 |
| Midilli | 0.994713 | 0.0005245 | 0.01951 | 0.1765 |
| Approximation of diffusion | 0.999926 | 0.0000061 | 0.00203 | 0.0597 |
| Verma et al. | 0.999925 | 0.0000080 | 0.00208 | 0.0597 |
| Simplified Fick’s diffusion | 0.996875 | 0.0008285 | 0.01528 | 0.2615 |
Values of the drying constant and coefficients of the best model (Modified Henderson and Pabis).
| Air flow velocity, m S−1 | Radiation intensities, W cm−2 | R2 | a | k | b | g | c | h |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | 0.075 | 0.999980 | −0.05464 | 0.078292 | 0.858571 | 0.017277 | 0.194526 | 0.078292 |
| 0.150 | 0.999990 | 0.032785 | 23.9443 | 0.46867 | 0.025948 | 0.498544 | 0.0572262 | |
| 0.225 | 0.999990 | 0.068664 | 13.97198 | 0.047448 | 0.0112722 | 0.883887 | 0.060954 | |
| 0.300 | 0.999999 | −0.89364 | 0.307836 | 0.79639 | 0.074489 | 1.097247 | 0.3037576 | |
| 1.25 | 0.075 | 0.999991 | 0.8151439 | 10.92615 | 0.8015159 | 0.0093420 | 0.18334003 | 0.024588 |
| 0.150 | 0.999935 | 0.027725 | 31.2562 | 0.0152427 | 0.0152427 | 0.517667 | 0.0319941 | |
| 0.225 | 0.999710 | 0.0297217 | 5.6398614 | 0.8597122 | 0.0385008 | 0.1105659 | 0.146296 | |
| 0.300 | 0.999992 | 0.05176108 | 37.35448 | 0.6796835 | 0.0526023 | 0.268555 | 0.1187397 | |
Fig. 4Values of ln(MR) versus the mean drying time (t) of garlic slices at the various experimental condition.
Regression coefficients and coefficient of determination (R2) of Ln (MR) for different IR drying conditions.
| Air flow velocity (m S−1) | IR radiation intensity (W cm−2) | A0 | A1 | A2 | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | 0.075 | −0.0348 | −0.0204 | 0.00002 | 0.9997 |
| 0.15 | −0.0231 | −0.0419 | 0.0001 | 0.9998 | |
| 0.225 | −0.0234 | −0.0636 | 0.0002 | 0.9997 | |
| 0.3 | −0.0234 | −0.095 | 0.0005 | 0.9994 | |
| 1.25 | 0.075 | −0.0246 | −0.0114 | 0.000006 | 0.9999 |
| 0.15 | −0.0211 | −0.0242 | 0.005 | 0.9999 | |
| 0.225 | −0.0352 | −0.0445 | 0.0000005 | 0.9996 | |
| 0.3 | −0.0269 | −0.0709 | 0.0003 | 0.9996 | |
Fig. 5Changes in effective moisture diffusivity (Deff) with moisture content for garlic slices at different IR radiation and air flow velocity.
Regression coefficients and coefficient of determination (R2) of Deff for different IR drying conditions.
| Air flow velocity (m S−1) | IR radiation intensity (W cm−2) | A | B | C | D | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | 0.075 | 11.73 | 0.8548 | −0.0283 | 0.0002 | 0.7682 |
| 0.15 | 27.73 | 1.0388 | −0.0363 | 0.0002 | 0.9669 | |
| 0.225 | 50.41 | 0.5051 | −0.0178 | 0.000006 | 0.9992 | |
| 0.3 | 77.926 | 0.2268 | −0.0035 | 0.0002 | 0.9999 | |
| 1.25 | 0.075 | 7.2374 | 0.3172 | −0.00071 | −0.00002 | 0.6291 |
| 0.15 | 13.969 | 0.9293 | −0.0317 | 0.0002 | 0.817 | |
| 0.225 | 35.742 | 0.6074 | −0.0234 | 0.0001 | 0.9808 | |
| 0.3 | 57.214 | 0.4253 | −0.0137 | 0.00005 | 0.9994 | |
Average effective moisture diffusivity ((Deff)avg) during infrared drying conditions.
| Air flow velocity, m s−1 | Infrared radiation intensity, W cm−2 | Average effective moisture diffusivity, m2 s−1 |
|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | 0.075 | 1.379 × 10−10 |
| 0.150 | 3.113 × 10−10 | |
| 0.225 | 4.996 × 10−10 | |
| 0.300 | 7.663 × 10−10 | |
| 1.25 | 0.075 | 0.5834 × 10−10 |
| 0.150 | 1.634 × 10−10 | |
| 0.225 | 3.559 × 10−10 | |
| 0.300 | 5.652 × 10−10 | |
Fig. 6Values of ln (Deff) versus the reciprocal of the absolute temperature (1/Tabs).
Average activation energy during infrared drying conditions.
| Air flow velocity, m s−1 | Infrared radiation intensity, W cm−2 | Average activation energy, kJ mol−1 |
|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | 0.075 | 25.38 |
| 0.150 | 12.29 | |
| 0.225 | 06.79 | |
| 0.300 | 03.05 | |
| 1.25 | 0.075 | 45.13 |
| 0.150 | 20.64 | |
| 0.225 | 16.62 | |
| 0.300 | 06.38 | |