| Literature DB >> 32763750 |
Xin Xu1, Lei Zhang1, Yabin Feng1, Cunshan Zhou2, Abu ElGasim A Yagoub3, Hafida Wahia1, Haile Ma1, Jin Zhang1, Yanhui Sun4.
Abstract
Vacuum freeze-drying is a new and high technology on agricultural product dehydrating dry, but it faces the high cost problem caused by high energy consumption. This study investigated the effect of ultrasound (US), freeze-thawing (including the freeze-air thawing (AT), freeze-water thawing (WT), freeze-ultrasound thawing (UST), and freeze-air ultrasound thawing (AT + US)) pretreatments on the vacuum freeze-drying efficiency and the quality of dried okra. The results indicated that the application of ultrasound and different freeze-thawing pretreatments reduced the drying time by 25.0%-62.50% and the total energy consumption was 24.28%-62.35% less. The AT pretreatment reduced the time by of okra slices by 62.50% and the total energy consumption was 62.35% less. The significant decrease in drying time was due to a change in the microstructure caused by pretreatment. Besides, the okra pretreated with the US retained most of the quality characteristics (flavor, color, hardness, and frangibility) among all methods, while, AT + US had the most changeable characteristics in quality, which is deprecated in our study. The okra pretreated with the US and AT, separately, had the best dry matter content loss (9.008%, 5.602%), lower chlorophyll degradation (5.05%, 5.44% less), and higher contents of total phenolics, total flavonoids, and pectin, with strong antioxidant capacity, compared to other methods. The pretreatments did not have a large effect on the functional groups and the structure of pectin, but slightly affected the viscosity. It can be concluded that AT and US pretreatment methods are better than others.Entities:
Keywords: Freeze-thawing; Okra; Quality characteristics; Ultrasound; Vacuum-freeze drying efficiency
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32763750 PMCID: PMC7786574 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105300
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultrason Sonochem ISSN: 1350-4177 Impact factor: 7.491
Fig. 1Scanning electron microscopy images of cell viability and structure of okra after pretreatment and vacuum freeze-drying. Ⅰ & Ⅱ: Cell morphology change and water transfer caused by the alteration of osmotic pressure during freezing; A: Cell viability of fresh samples; B, C & D: Cell viability of the sample after ultrasound, freeze-thawing and freeze-thawing/ultrasound pretreatment; a1-a2: The SEM images of control sample after vacuum freeze drying; b1-b2: The SEM images of sample after ultrasound pretreatment and vacuum freeze drying; c1-e2: The SEM images of sample after freeze-thawing pretreatment and vacuum freeze drying; f1-f2: The SEM images of sample after freeze-thawing/ultrasound pretreatment and vacuum freeze drying.
Fig. 2Effect of pretreatment methods on drying kinetics during vacuum freeze-drying of okra. Control: un-pretreatment; US: ultrasound pretreatment; WT: water thawing pretreatment; UST: ultrasound thawing pretreatment; AT: air thawing pretreatment; AT + US: air thawing + ultrasound pretreatment. (A): Effect of pretreatment on the change of moisture ratio with time during the vacuum freeze drying process of okra; (B): Effect of pretreatments on the drying rate of okra during the vacuum freeze drying; (C): Effect of pretreatments on the thawing time of okra; (D): Effect of pretreatments on the total vacuum freeze-drying time of okra.
Effect of pretreatment on chlorophyll content, TFC, TPC, pectin content, dry matter loss of okra after vacuum freeze-drying and total energy consumption during the process.
| Chlorophyll content (g/L) | TFC (%) | TPC (%) | Pectin content (%) | Solid loss (%) | Total energy consumption (kWh/kg) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 1.305 ± 0.003a | 1.012 ± 0.015b | 49.472 ± 0.359a | 15.827 ± 0.093a | – | 300.70 ± 0.25a |
| US | 1.239 ± 0.002b | 0.994 ± 0.002d | 47.908 ± 0.281b | 13.099 ± 0.154c | 9.008 ± 5.455a | 227.70 ± 0.20b |
| WT | 1.138 ± 0.004c | 0.889 ± 0.007f | 34.090 ± 0.194c | 12.531 ± 0.150e | 18.846 ± 10.280ab | 131.95 ± 0.22d |
| UST | 1.143 ± 0.002c | 0.923 ± 0.019e | 33.883 ± 0.082c | 12.802 ± 0.130d | 22.874 ± 8.654ab | 131.95 ± 0.35d |
| AT | 1.234 ± 0.005b | 1.138 ± 0.004a | 33.867 ± 0.112c | 13.556 ± 0.134b | 5.602 ± 9.960a | 113.20 ± 0.30e |
| AT + US | 1.077 ± 0.003d | 8.310 ± 0.068g | 33.867 ± 0.112c | 11.605 ± 0.021f | 34.145 ± 12.999b | 152.70 ± 0.33c |
| Hot | 0.742 ± 0.007e | 9.870 ± 0.060c | 20.67 ± 0.09d | – | – | – |
Fig. 3Effect of pretreatments on the quality of okra subjected to the vacuum freeze-drying. Control: un-pretreatment; US: ultrasound pretreatment; WT: water thawing pretreatment; UST: ultrasound thawing pretreatment; AT: air thawing pretreatment; AT + US: air thawing + ultrasound pretreatment. (A): Radar chart of the effect of pretreatments on flavor substances of okra after vacuum freeze drying; (B): Effect of pretreatments on main components of flavor substances of okra after the vacuum freeze-drying; (C): Effect of pretreatments on the color of okra after the vacuum freeze-drying; (D): Effect of pretreatments on hardness (bar graph) and frangibility (line graph) of okra after the vacuum freeze-drying.
Fig. 4Effect of pretreatments on antioxidant properties, pectin structure and rheological properties of okra. Control: un-pretreatment; US: ultrasound pretreatment; WT: water thawing pretreatment; UST: ultrasound thawing pretreatment; AT: air thawing pretreatment; AT + US: air thawing + ultrasound pretreatment. (A): Effect of pretreatments on the DPPH free radical scavenging ability of the freeze-dried okra extract; (B): Effect of pretreatments on the ABTS free radical scavenging ability of the freeze-dried okra extract; (C): Effect of pretreatments on the structure of pectin obtained from the freeze-dried okra extract; (D): Effect of pretreatment on rheological properties of pectin from the freeze-dried okra extract.