| Literature DB >> 36010407 |
Dorota Nowak1, Ewa Jakubczyk1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of application of pulsed electric field (PEF) and different freezing methods (fast, slow and vacuum freezing) on the drying kinetics as well as selected physical properties of freeze-dried apple. The apples were subjected to PEF treatment with range of pulses from 0 to 160 and the intake energy from 0 to 1327 kJ·g-1. Apples with and without PEF treatment were frozen with different rates and the freeze-dried. The water content, water activity and colour attributes of freeze-dried apples were investigated. Regression analysis and fitting procedures showed that among six different models, the Midilli et al. model the best described the drying curves of all dried samples. The highest value of the parameter L* = 71.54 was obtained for freeze-dried sample prepared without PEF pre-treatment and fast frozen. Application of PEF pre-treatment resulted in increase in browning index of freeze-dried apples (BI). The studies confirmed the positive effect of PEF on the freeze drying rate only in the case of the slow or fast freezing of the material after the application of low-energy PEF treatment. However, the increase in drying rate was also observed after application of slow and vacuum freezing of the material without PEF pre-treatment. These technologies can be recommended for optimization of the freeze drying process of apples. The statement that the freeze drying process with application of appropriately selected PEF processing parameters causing only partial destruction of cell membranes can be considered as an innovative contribution to the development of science about the possibilities of PEF application.Entities:
Keywords: colour; drying curves; fast and slow freezing; freeze drying; pulsed electric field; vacuum freezing; water activity
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010407 PMCID: PMC9407350 DOI: 10.3390/foods11162407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Description of the freeze-dried samples.
| Samples | Number of Pulses (PEF Treatment) | Supplied Specify Energy (kJ/kg) | Method of Freezing |
|---|---|---|---|
| FF_0 | 0 | 0 | Fast freezing |
| SF_0 | 0 | 0 | Slow freezing |
| VF_0 | 0 | 0 | Vacuum freezing |
| FF_120 | 120 | 896.3 | Fast freezing |
| SF_120 | 120 | 941.4 | Slow freezing |
| VF_120 | 120 | 928.9 | Vacuum freezing |
| FF_160 | 160 | 1361.5 | Fast freezing |
| SF_160 | 160 | 1306.2 | Slow freezing |
| VF_160 | 160 | 1326.8 | Vacuum freezing |
Mathematical models applied to the drying process.
| Number of Model | Name of Model | Equation of Model | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Newton |
| [ |
| 2 | Logistic |
| [ |
| 3 | Midilli et al. |
| [ |
| 4 | Logarithmic |
| [ |
| 5 | Henderson and Pabis |
| [ |
| 6 | Two terms |
| [ |
Figure 1Relation between energy supplied during PEF treatment and the electrical conductivity disintegration index (various symbols and colours represent 3 different repetitions of the measurements).
The physical attributes of the freeze-dried apples obtained with different pre-treatment and freezing methods.
| Samples | Water Content, % | Water Activity |
|
|
| Δ |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF_0 | 3.55 ± 0.07 c * | 0.226 ± 0.004 a | 71.54 ± 0.21 a | −0.41 ± 0.20 d | 22.25 ± 0.36 d | (—) ** | 35.8 ± 1.0 b |
| SF_0 | 3.53 ± 0.11 c | 0.209 ± 0.001 c | 63.93 ± 0.24 b | 3.10 ± 0.68 c | 27.11 ± 0.32 a | 9.07 ± 0.31 c | 57.2 ± 0.3 a |
| VF_0 | 2.99 ± 0.16 d | 0.165 ± 0.001 f | 63.28 ± 0.47 bc | 3.22 ± 0.57 c | 24.34 ± 1.06 bc | 9.31 ± 0.46 c | 53.1 ± 3.0 a |
| FF_120 | 3.77 ± 0.01 b | 0.217 ± 0.002 b | 61.32 ± 1.06 bc | 7.20 ± 1.03 ab | 24.66 ± 0.11 bc | 12.97 ± 1.45 a | 59.0 ± 2.3 a |
| SF_120 | 2.81 ± 0.08 d | 0.192 ± 0.003 e | 62.87 ± 2.78 b | 5.83 ± 1.65 b | 24.02 ± 0.84 bc | 10.83 ± 3.31 abc | 54.4 ± 7.5 a |
| VF_120 | 3.61 ± 0.07 c | 0.202 ± 0.002 d | 63.59 ± 0.53 b | 6.65 ± 0.65 ab | 23.85 ± 0.62 bcd | 10.77 ± 0.78 b | 53.8 ± 2.6 a |
| FF_160 | 3.61 ± 0.08 c | 0.188 ± 0.002 e | 63.99 ± 1.96 b | 6.30 ± 0.94 ab | 25.01 ± 0.53 b | 10.51 ± 2.00 bc | 55.9 ± 4.0 a |
| SF_160 | 4.25 ± 0.06 a | 0.211 ± 0.008 bc | 59.09 ± 4.29 c | 7.82 ± 1.65 a | 23.63 ± 1.25 d | 15.03 ± 4.59 a | 60.8 ± 11.5 a |
| VF_160 | 3.59 ± 0.01 c | 0.226 ± 0.001 a | 68.37 ± 1.77 a | 4.24 ± 0.92 c | 18.09 ± 1.17 e | 7.31 ± 0.77 d | 36.0 ± 3.1 b |
* the different letters in the columns indicate the significant difference between the parameters, p ≤ 0.05; ** total colour change ΔE was calculated with the reference to control sample (FF_0).
Figure 2Experimental drying curves of apples with and without PEF treatment: (a) fast-frozen FF, (b) slow-frozen SF, (c) vacuum-frozen VF.
The statistical results (R2, RMSE) of fitting to drying models (1–6) for different freeze-dried apples.
| No. Model | Types of Freeze-Dried Apples | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF_0 | SF_0 | VF_0 | FF_120 | SF_120 | VF_120 | FF_160 | SF_160 | VF_160 | |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (0.984) ** | (0.984) | (0.985) | (0.976) | (0.981) | (0.984) | (0.981) | (0.987) | (0.985) | |
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (0.996) | (0.996) | (0.993) | (0.995) | (0.996) | (0.993) | (0.995) | (0.997) | (0.994) | |
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (0.999) | (0.999) | (0.999) | (0.998) | (0.999) | (0.998) | (0.998) | (0.999) | (0.999) | |
| 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (0.999) | (0.998) | (0.997) | (0.998) | (0.998) | (0.998) | (0.998) | (0.998) | (0.999) | |
| 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (0.990) | (0.989) | (0.991) | (0.985) | (0.988) | (0.984) | (0.987) | (0.989) | (0.986) | |
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| (0.985) | (0.871) | (0.935) | (0.956) | (0.952) | (0.977) | (0.982) | (0.989) | (0.978) | |
* Italicized values present RMSE; ** values in brackets present R2.
Drying time and a, b, k, n constants of the Midilli et al. model for freeze-dried apples.
| Samples |
| 10−5 × | 10−3 × |
| Drying Time, Min |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FF_0 | 1.020 (0.001) * | −13.0 (1.2) | 2.6 (0.3) | 1.031 (0.020) | 800 |
| SF_0 | 0.994 (0.004) | −7.9 (0.8) | 1.5 (0.2) | 1.180 (0.018) | 720 |
| VF_0 | 0.987 (0.005) | −3.6 (0.6) | 1.2 (0.2) | 1.232 (0.017) | 785 |
| FF_120 | 0.998 (0.059 | −10.0 (1.2) | 1.1 (0.2) | 1.195(0.024) | 720 |
| SF_120 | 1.000 (0.004) | −10.0 (0.9) | 1.8 (0.1) | 1.124 (0.014) | 705 |
| VF_120 | 0.958 (0.006) | −20.1 (1.6) | 2.0 (0.3) | 1.035 (0.028) | 840 |
| FF_160 | 1.001 (0.006) | −10.0 (1.1) | 1.6 (0.2) | 1.119 (0.023) | 795 |
| SF_160 | 0.995 (0.005) | −7.47 (0.8) | 1.3 (0.1) | 1.138 (0.019) | 920 |
| VF_160 | 0.969 (0.004) | −13.0 (0.9) | 1.6 (0.2) | 1.066 (0.020) | 935 |
* Standard error values are in brackets.
Figure 3Drying curves predicted based on the Mildilli et al. model.
Figure 4Drying rate curves of freeze-dried apples with different PEF treatment and freezing methods.