| Literature DB >> 35483166 |
E A Sánchez-Torres1, B Abril1, J Benedito1, J Bon1, M Toldrà2, D Parés2, J V García-Pérez3.
Abstract
Nowadays, there is increasing interest in developing strategies for the efficient and sustainable use of animal by-products, such as pork liver. In order to stabilize the product, a prior dehydration stage may be required due to its high perishability. The water removal process of pork liver is energy costly and time consuming, which justifies its intensification using novel technologies. In this sense, the aim of this study was to assess the effect of the airborne application of power ultrasound on the hot air-drying of pork liver. For that purpose, drying experiments were carried out at 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 °C on pork liver cylinders at 2 m·s-1 with (US) and without ultrasonic application (AIR). The drying process was modeled from the diffusion theory and, in the dried pork liver, the protein solubility was analyzed in order to determine the effect of drying on the protein quality. The ultrasound application increased the drying rate, shortening the drying time by up to 40% at 30 °C. The effect of power ultrasound at high temperatures (60 and 70 °C) was of lesser magnitude. Drying at 70 °C involved a noticeable reduction in the protein solubility for dried liver, while the impact of ultrasound application on the solubility was not significant (p > 0.05).Entities:
Keywords: Airborne ultrasound transmission; Dehydration; Meat by-products; Meat protein; Novel technologies
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35483166 PMCID: PMC9171244 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.106011
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultrason Sonochem ISSN: 1350-4177 Impact factor: 9.336
Fig. 1A. Experimental set-up for convective ultrasound-assisted drying: 1. Vibrating cylinder – Drying chamber, 2. Ultrasound transducer, 3. Impedance electronic controller, 4. Ultrasonic power generator. B. Detail of the sample holder inside the drying chamber and the arrangement of liver cylinders.
Fig. 2Experimental drying kinetics of pork liver without (AIR) and with ultrasound application (US) at 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 °C.
Effective moisture diffusivity (De) identified from the model that neglects the external resistance (NER) for AIR and US experiments and statistical parameters: average explained variance (VAR) and mean relative error (MRE).
| T (°C) | AIR | US | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De × 1011 (m2·s−1) | VAR (%) | MRE (%) | De × 1011 (m2·s−1) | VAR (%) | MRE (%) | |
| 30 | 9.86 ± 0.80a | 98.70 | 5.25 | 13.23 ± 1.63ab | 96.73 | 8.52 |
| 40 | 13.73 ± 0.55ab | 97.80 | 7.00 | 19.40 ± 1.60abc | 96.13 | 9.68 |
| 50 | 18.53 ± 1.45abc | 96.30 | 9.11 | 22.73 ± 2.56bcd | 98.67 | 5.18 |
| 60 | 27.30 ± 1.95 cd | 95.90 | 10.22 | 31.70 ± 10.31de | 96.83 | 8.11 |
| 70 | 31.13 ± 1.90de | 93.20 | 12.87 | 37.70 ± 13.83e | 95.43 | 9.57 |
Average of De ± standard deviation ( = 3). Superscripts a, b, c, d and e show homogeneous groups established from LSD (least significant difference) intervals (p < 0.05).
Fig. 3Influence of air temperature on the average effective moisture diffusivities (De) identified by means of the NER (A) and ER (B) models.
Effective moisture diffusivity (De) and moisture transfer coefficient (k) estimated using the model that considers the external resistance (ER) for AIR and US experiments and statistical parameters: average explained variance (VAR) and mean relative error (MRE).
| T (°C) | AIR | US | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De × 1011 (m2·s−1) | k × 105 (kg·m−2·s−1) | VAR (%) | MRE (%) | De × 1011 (m2·s−1) | k × 105 (kg·m−2·s−1) | VAR | MRE (%) | |
| 30 | 12.50 ± 1.25a | 8.36 ± 0.83u | 98.19 | 6.08 | 19.12 ± 1.19ab | 10.83 ± 3.42uv | 97.77 | 6.45 |
| 40 | 19.01 ± 1.54ab | 9.31 ± 0.82uv | 97.98 | 6.05 | 31.88 ± 5.10abc | 12.14 ± 0.78vw | 98.39 | 4.89 |
| 50 | 29.05 ± 0.75abc | 10.85 ± 1.17uv | 98.64 | 4.91 | 32.43 ± 2.97abc | 16.35 ± 0.56xy | 97.86 | 6.65 |
| 60 | 44.59 ± 1.45bcd | 14.75 ± 1.96wx | 98.24 | 5.66 | 50.81 ± 23.05 cd | 18.59 ± 1.90y | 98.51 | 5.56 |
| 70 | 62.31 ± 1.07d | 16.50 ± 2.63xy | 99.01 | 3.64 | 67.22 ± 40.74d | 23.05 ± 2.39z | 98.33 | 5.21 |
Average of De and k ± standard deviation ( = 3). Superscripts a, b, c, d, and u, v, w, x, y, z, show homogeneous groups established from LSD (least significant difference) intervals (p < 0.05) for effective diffusivity and moisture transfer coefficient, respectively.
Fig. 4Experimental drying kinetics and kinetics calculated using the NER and ER diffusion models for an AIR experiment at 70 °C.
Fig. 5Influence of air temperature on the average moisture transfer coefficients (k) identified by means of the ER model.
Fig. 6Influence of air temperature on the average mass transfer Biot number computed from the ER model parameters (De and k) and explained variance (VAR) of the NER model in the AIR set.
Protein solubility (PS) and total protein (TP) for pork liver dried without (AIR) and with (US) ultrasound application at 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 °C.
| T (°C) | AIR | US | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS (%) | TP (%, d.b.) | PS (%) | TP (%, d.b.) | |
| 30 | 35.98 ± 4.43bc | 69.71 ± 3.54xy | 37.53 ± 2.54abc | 67.39 ± 1.80xyz |
| 40 | 46.93 ± 7.51a | 65.66 ± 5.35xyz | 40.45 ± 4.02ab | 67.03 ± 3.40xyz |
| 50 | 40.41 ± 4.94ab | 70.54 ± 3.11x | 37.38 ± 0.69abc | 63.51 ± 6.18yz |
| 60 | 41.88 ± 9.82ab | 64.73 ± 2.12yz | 29.66 ± 2.10 cd | 63.30 ± 3.36yz |
| 70 | 25.86 ± 1.97d | 69.81 ± 3.22xy | 25.20 ± 9.01d | 67.85 ± 3.63xyz |
Average percentage of protein solubility (PS) and total protein (TP) for dried liver ± standard deviation ( = 3). Superscripts a, b, c, d, and x, y, z, show homogeneous groups established from LSD (least significant difference) intervals (p < 0.05) for the percentage of protein solubility (PS) and total protein (TP), respectively.