| Literature DB >> 34064476 |
Yousef Abbaspour-Gilandeh1, Mohammad Kaveh1, Hamideh Fatemi2, Muhammad Aziz3.
Abstract
The present study aimed to examine the effect of ultrasonic pretreatment and hot air, microwave-hot-air, infrared-hot air, and freeze-drying on the drying time, specific energy (SE), qualitative properties (i.e., color, shrinkage, and rehydration ratio), and bioactive compounds' properties (i.e., antioxidant activity, phenolic, and flavonoid contents) of hawthorn fruit. Drying of hawthorn was conducted from 45 min for the ultrasonic + microwave-hot-air drying to 1280 min for the freeze-drying method. The lowest amount of SE was obtained using the ultrasonic-microwave-hot-air drying method, which was 47.57 MJ/kg. The lowest values in color changes (12.25) and shrinkage (17.21%) were recorded for the freeze-drying method, while the highest amounts for these traits were 45.57% and 66.75% in the HA drying, respectively. In general, the use of different drying methods reduces the antioxidant capacity (AC), total phenolic content (TPC), and total flavonoid content (TFC) during processing compared to fresh samples. The highest values for AC, TPC, TFC, and the rehydration ratio were 30.69%, 73.07 mg-GAE/gdw, 65.93 mg-QE/gdw, and 2.02 for the freeze-drying method, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Crataegus aronia; antioxidants; color; drying; shrinkage; specific energy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34064476 PMCID: PMC8147953 DOI: 10.3390/foods10051006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Specific energy consumption equations for different dryers and ultrasonic pretreatment.
| Energy Consumption at Dryer | Reference |
|---|---|
| Et (hot air) = Equations (2) + Equations (3) | [ |
| Et (microwave–hot-air) = Equations (2) + Equations (3) + Equations (5) | [ |
| Et (infrared–hot air) = Equations (3) + Equations (4) | [ |
| Et (ultrasonic + hot air) = Equations (3) + Equations (4) + Equations (7) | [ |
| Et (ultrasonic + microwave–hot-air) = Equations (2) + Equations (3) + Equations (5) + Equations (7) | [ |
| Et (ultrasonic + infrared–hot air) = Equations (3) + Equations (4) + Equations (7) | [ |
| Et (freeze) = Equations (8) | [ |
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the drying methods on drying time, SE, color, shrinkage, and RR.
| SOV | df | Time | SE | Color | Shrinkage | RR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drying method | 6 | 562,525.00 ** | 44,198.96 ** | 461.47 ** | 844.35 ** | 0.348 ** |
| Error | 14 | 136.87 | 32.71 | 0.45 | 1.94 | 0.00 |
| CV | 3.24 | 3.47 | 0.70 | 3.34 | 1.75 |
** Significant at the 1% probability level.
Influence of different drying methods on drying time and specific energy of hawthorn.
| Drying Method | Time (min) | SE (MJ/kg) |
|---|---|---|
| Hot air | 450 | 245.70 |
| Microwave–hot-air | 70 | 64.95 |
| Infrared–hot air | 175 | 122.16 |
| Ultrasonic + hot air | 370 | 194.80 |
| Ultrasonic + Microwave–hot-air | 45 | 47.57 |
| Ultrasonic + Infrared–hot air | 130 | 89.95 |
| Freeze | 1280 | 388.03 |
Values expressed as mean ± standard error (n = 3), different letters in each column indicate a significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 levels.
Figure 1Color of dried hawthorns as affected by the drying method. Treatments included ultrasonic and hot air, microwave–hot air, infrared–hot air, and freeze-drying. Bars are means of three plants per replicates. Bars with different letters differ significantly from each other at p < 0.05 as determined by LSD test.
Figure 2Shrinkage of dried hawthorns affected by different drying methods. Bars with different letters differ significantly from each other at p < 0.05 as determined by LSD test.
Figure 3Rehydration ratio of dried hawthorns affected by different drying methods. Bars with different letters differ significantly from each other at p < 0.05 as determined by LSD test.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for drying methods on AC, TPC, TFC, and pH.
| SOV | df | AC | TPC | TFC | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drying method | 7 | 825.95 ** | 315.25 ** | 1009.75 ** | 0.058 ** |
| Error | 16 | 0.40 | 0.62 | 1.69 | 0.000 |
| CV | 1.37 | 4.07 | 2.38 | 2.12 |
** Significant at the 1% probability level.
Influence of different drying methods on AC, TPC, and TFC of hawthorn.
| Drying | AC (%) | TPC (mg GAE/gdw) | TFC (mg QE/gdw) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh (no drying) | 33.32 | 79.82 | 72.72 |
| Hot air | 5.98 | 29.56 | 27.26 |
| Microwave–hot air | 22.23 | 58.51 | 46.39 |
| Infrared–hot air | 11.83 | 40.51 | 36.49 |
| Ultrasonic + hot air | 9.45 | 36.28 | 28.56 |
| Ultrasonic + microwave–hot air | 26.38 | 68.22 | 51.17 |
| Ultrasonic + infrared–hot air | 14.79 | 52.56 | 39.43 |
| Freeze | 30.69 | 73.07 | 65.93 |
Values expressed as mean ± standard error (n = 3), different letters in each column indicate significant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 levels. GAE = gallic acid, QE = quercetin.
Figure 4pH of dried quinces affected by different drying method. Bars with different letters differ significantly from each other at p < 0.05 as determined by LSD test.