You are on page 1of 20

Modeling the Thin-Layer Drying of Fruits and

Vegetables: A Review
Daniel I. Onwude, Norhashila Hashim, Rimfiel B. Janius, Nazmi Mat Nawi, and Khalina Abdan

Abstract: The drying of fruits and vegetables is a complex operation that demands much energy and time. In practice,
the drying of fruits and vegetables increases product shelf-life and reduces the bulk and weight of the product, thus
simplifying transport. Occasionally, drying may lead to a great decrease in the volume of the product, leading to a
decrease in storage space requirements. Studies have shown that dependence purely on experimental drying practices,
without mathematical considerations of the drying kinetics, can significantly affect the efficiency of dryers, increase the
cost of production, and reduce the quality of the dried product. Thus, the use of mathematical models in estimating
the drying kinetics, the behavior, and the energy needed in the drying of agricultural and food products becomes
indispensable. This paper presents a comprehensive review of modeling thin-layer drying of fruits and vegetables with
particular focus on thin-layer theories, models, and applications since the year 2005. The thin-layer drying behavior of
fruits and vegetables is also highlighted. The most frequently used of the newly developed mathematical models for thin-
layer drying of fruits and vegetables in the last 10 years are shown. Subsequently, the equations and various conditions used
in the estimation of the effective moisture diffusivity, shrinkage effects, and minimum energy requirement are displayed.
The authors hope that this review will be of use for future research in terms of modeling, analysis, design, and the
optimization of the drying process of fruits and vegetables.
Keywords: diffusion, drying kinetics, fruits and vegetables, mathematical modeling, thin-layer drying

Introduction most long-standing, diverse, and conventional operation. Conse-


Drying is one of the oldest and a very important unit operation, quently, the engineering aspects of drying are an essential consid-
it involves the application of heat to a material which results in eration. According to Kudra and Mujumdar (2002), conventional
the transfer of moisture within the material to its surface and then technologies are still widely preferred industrially as compared to
water removal from the material to the atmosphere (Ekechukwu novel technologies. This is for multiple reasons, which include
1999; Akpinar and Bicer 2005). It is the most frequent method simplicity of dryer construction, ease of operation, as well as the
of food preservation and thereby increases shelf-life and improves status of familiarity (Araya-Farias and Ratti 2009).
product quality. The frequent application of drying in the food, Over time, the models developed have been used in calculations
agricultural, manufacturing, paper, polymer, chemical, and phar- involving the design and construction of new drying systems, op-
maceutical industries for different purposes cannot be overempha- timization of the drying process, and the description of the entire
sized. In addition to preservation, the reduction in the bulk and drying behavior including the combined macroscopic and micro-
weight of dried products reduces handling, packaging, and trans- scopic medium of heat and mass transfer. Thus, it is important
portation costs. According to Klemes and others (2008), there are to understand the basic idea of modeling the drying kinetics of
over 200 dryer types which can be used for different purposes. fruits and vegetables. The drying conditions, type of dryer, and
Also, the drying features for pressure, air velocity, relative humid- the characteristics of the material to be dried all have an influ-
ity, and product retention time vary according to the material and ence on drying kinetics. The drying kinetics models are therefore
method of drying. Furthermore, drying is estimated to consume significant in deciding the ideal drying conditions, which are im-
10% to 15% of the total energy requirements of all the food indus- portant parameters in terms of equipment design, optimization,
tries in developed countries (Keey 1972; Klemes and others 2008). and product quality improvement (Giri and Prasad 2007). So, to
Thus, it is energy-intensive. In a nutshell, drying is arguably the analyze the drying behavior of fruits and vegetables it is important
to study the kinetics model of each particular product.
Thin-layer drying is a widely used method for determining the
MS 20151951 Submitted 24/11/2015, Accepted 11/1/2016. Authors Onwude,
Hashim, Janius, Nawi, and Abdan are with Dept. of Biological and Agricultural drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables (Alves-Filho and others
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. Putra, Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, 1997; Chau and others 1997; Kiranoudis and others 1997; Kadam
Selangor, Malaysia. Author Onwude is with Dept. of Agricultural and Food Engi- and others 2011). It involves simultaneous heat and mass transfer
neering, Faculty of Engineering, Univ. of Uyo, 52021 Uyo, Nigeria. Direct inquiries operations. During these operations, the material is fully exposed
to author Hashim (E-mail: norhashila@upm.edu.my).
to drying conditions of temperature and hot air, thus improving the


C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists

doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12196 Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 599
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

drying process. The most important aspects of thin-layer drying external resistance. Greater internal resistance exists at a lower air
technology are the mathematical modeling of the drying process velocity (1.5 m/s) than at a higher flow rate. Generally, this pa-
and the equipment design which can enable the selection of the rameter can only have great influence at air velocity above 2.5 m/s
most suitable operating conditions. Thus, there is a need to explore (El-Beltagy and others 2007; Reyes and others 2007; Perez and
the thin-layer modeling approach as an essential tool in estimating Schmalko 2009; Guan and others 2013).
the drying kinetics from the experimental data, describing the For industrial drying, higher drying rates can be achieved with
drying behavior, improving the drying process, and eventually a minimum drying time when drying at higher velocities and
minimizing the total energy requirement. temperatures (Erbay and Icer 2010). However, drying at a very
Fruits and vegetables are highly perishable commodities that high temperature (above 80 C) (Shi and others 2008; Chen and
need to be preserved to increase shelf-life. The drying process can others 2013) and higher velocity (above 2.5 m/s) could adversely
be predicted using suitable thin-layer models. Several researchers affect the final quality of the material and increase the total energy
have studied the drying of fruits and vegetables using thin-layer demand (Sturm and others 2012). The higher air velocity increases
drying models to estimate the drying time of a product (Meisami- heat transfer and total energy requirement during constant drying
asl and Rafiee 2009; Gupta and Alam 2014; Tzempelikos and rate period. Consequently, it is not advisable to dry at extremely
others 2015). Evidence suggests that these models can further be high temperature and air velocity.
used to estimate the drying curve and also predict the drying The size and shape are also important parameters in the drying
behavior, energy consumption, and heat and mass transfer of the of fruits and vegetables. It is safe to note that most fruits and
drying process (Murthy and Manohar 2012). However, in practice, vegetables are dried using the thin-layer concept which means that
there is no single thin-layer model that can be used to effectively the size of the material is reduced to dimensions that will enable
generalize the drying kinetics of several fruits and vegetables. This uniform distribution of the drying air and temperature over the
is due to a number of factors including the method of drying, material. The shape factor is integrated into the kinetics models of
the drying conditions, and the product to be dried. The applica- drying to reduce the effect of product shape on the drying process
tion of thin-layer drying models to predicting the drying behavior (Pandey and others 2010). Furthermore, during the drying of fruits
of fruits and vegetables often involves the measurement of the and vegetables, the relative humidity of the drying chamber often
moisture content of the material. This is done after it has been fluctuates due to the conditions of the ambient temperature and
subjected to different drying conditions (temperature, air veloc- relative humidity of the environment, hence this has less influence
ity, and relative humidity) and subsequent correlation with the on the entire drying process (Aghbashlo and others 2009; Sturm
dominant drying condition to estimate the model parameters. In- and others 2012; Misha and others 2013). In summary, during
correct collection of experimental data from the thin-layer drying the drying process, the air velocity and relative humidity are the
experiments, will affect the drying process and, subsequently, the least significant factors that affect the drying kinetics of fruits and
selection of appropriate thin-layer models. Thus, the selection of vegetables.
the most suitable thin-layer drying model is also a very important
tool in describing the drying behavior of fruits and vegetables. Thin-Layer Drying Theories and Modeling
Much research has been carried out over the past few years Drying mechanism
concerning thin-layer modeling of fruits and vegetables. However, According to the American Natl. Standards Inst. and the Amer-
to the best of our knowledge, there has not been a review published ican Society of Assoc. Executives (ANSI/ASAE 2014) a thin-layer
on the theories, applications, and comparisons of the existing is a layer of material fully exposed to an airstream during drying.
knowledge within the past 10 y. This gap in knowledge is a serious Figure 1 shows a schematic of a drying chamber and product layers
drawback for future developmental efforts. along the drying tray. The thickness of the layer should be uniform
Therefore, this article aims to provide a critical literature review and should not exceed 3 layers of particles. It is assumed that the
of the drying mechanisms, theories, applications, and comparisons temperature distribution of a thin-layer material is uniform. This
of thin-layer drying models for fruits and vegetables since 2005. is due to the thin-layer characteristics, thus making use of lumped
parameter models suitable for thin-layer drying. It is imperative to
Factors affecting drying note that the this concept can be applied to (1) a single material
The various conditions affecting the drying of fruits and veg- freely exposed to the drying air or one layer of the material and
etables include air velocity, drying temperature, size and shape of (2) a multilayer of different slice thicknesses, provided the drying
the material, and the relative humidity. Amongst these conditions, temperature and the relative humidity of the drying air are in the
the most influential in terms of drying fruits and vegetables are same thermodynamic condition at any time of the drying process,
drying temperature and material thickness (Meisami-asl and oth- which thus can be applied to the mathematical estimations of the
ers 2010; Pandey and others 2010; Kumar and others 2012a). It drying kinetics. However, Kucuk and others (2014) reported that
has been argued that the air velocity rate significantly affects the the thickness of a thin layer can be increased provided there is
drying process of food and agricultural products (Yaldiz and others an increase in the drying air velocity and also if the simultaneous
2001; Krokida and others 2003). However, this is mostly observed heat and mass transfers of the material are in equilibrium with the
for crops such as rice, corn, potatoes, and so on. Studies on the thermodynamic state of the drying air.
drying of fruits and vegetables indicate that the air velocity has Erbay and Icer (2010) reported that the mechanisms of drying
little influence on the drying kinetics of most of them (Tzempe- all kinds of foods include surface diffusion, liquid/vapor diffusion,
likos and others 2014; Darc and Sen, 2015). Similar results were and capillary action within the porous region of foods. However, it
recorded by Yaldiz and others (2001); Akpinar and others (2003); has been widely reported that the dominant mechanism of mois-
Krokida and others (2003); Menges and Ertekin (2006); Sacilik ture removal from fruits and vegetables is diffusion (Akpinar 2006a;
(2007); and Meisami-asl and others (2010). These authors have Doymaz 2007; Raquel 2007; Duc and others 2011; Hashim and
highlighted that the effect of air velocity could depend on the re- others 2014). Further, the rate of diffusion depends on the mois-
spective heat and mass transfer, which could have either internal or ture content and the nature of the material. Diffusion determines

600 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016 
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

Figure 1Schematic diagram of a drying chamber and product layers along the drying tray.

the drying rate, which can be expressed as the moisture con- the resistance to the moisture diffusion within kiwi is negligibly
tent changes (g of water/g of solid). However, during drying, the small as otherwise a reasonably long constant rate period would be
dominant mechanism can change due to a change in the physical expected. Darvishi and others (2014) reported that the entire dry-
structure of the drying solid after a long period of time (Jangam ing process of lemon fruit occurs during the falling rate period,
and Mujumdar 2010). Thus, determining the dominant mecha- stating that diffusion was the dominant physical mechanism for
nism can be very useful information in regards to modeling the moisture movement. In addition, for vegetables, Saeed and others
drying process of fruits and vegetables. (2008) reported that the diffusion mechanism also controlled the
Figure 2 describes the drying rate and temperature as a function moisture movement of the drying process of Roselle (Hibiscus sab-
of time. This rate curve can also be used in identifying the domi- dariffa L.) which totally took place during the falling rate period.
nant mechanism of a product during drying. In the initial drying Ayadi and others (2014) found that the drying of spearmint leaves
period, the equilibrium air temperature (Twb ) is usually greater occurs during the falling rate period which is enormously in-
than the temperature of the product (Carrin and Crapiste 2008). fluenced by the drying temperature. Similar results regarding the
Therefore, the drying rate between A and B increases with an in- diffusion mechanism as the dominant controlling mechanism of
crease in temperature of the product until the surface temperature the drying process of fruits and vegetables have been reported
attains equilibrium (Corresponding to line B to C). Under con- extensively in the literature. This dominant mechanism, which
stant conditions, the drying process of agricultural and biological results in the falling drying rate period, is further exemplified in
products has been described as a number of steps consisting also studies of the thin-layer drying of mango (Akoy 2014), pumpkin
of an initial constant rate period (B to C) during which drying (C.moschata) (Hashim and others 2014), starfruit (Dash and oth-
occurs as if pure water is being evaporated, and one or several ers 2013), carrot (Aghbashlo and others 2009), kastamonu garlic
falling rate periods where the moisture movement is controlled (Sacilik and Unal 2005), and beetroot (Kaur and Singh 2014).
by combined externalinternal resistances or by either external or However, Seremet (Ceclu) and others (2015) reported an initial
internal resistance to heat and mass transfer (Araya-Farias and Ratti slight constant time period (5 to 10 min) and subsequent falling
2009). Mostly, many fruits and vegetables dry during the falling rate period during the drying of pumpkin at drying temperature
rate periods because the drying process is controlled by a diffusion range of 50 to 70 C. They stated that due to the high initial
mechanism. Drying usually stops when steady state equilibrium is moisture content (90.85% w.b.) of the product, in order to remove
reached (Erbay and Icer 2010). During the constant rate period the unbound water from the surface, an initial constant rate period
the physical form of the product is affected, especially the surface was observed. Reyes and others (2007) also reported the presence
of the product. This period is largely controlled by capillary and of both an initial constant rate period and a falling rate period
gravity forces. The conditions of the drying process, like the tem- during the drying of carrots. The presence of the constant rate
perature, drying air velocity, and relative humidity, also affect the period can be attributed to the method and conditions of drying.
product during this stage. The first falling rate period (C to D) Diamante and others (2010a) also attributed the presence of the
begins when the surface film of the product appears to be dry, and constant rate period in the drying of green and gold kiwi fruits to
the moisture content has decreased to its critical moisture content the lower drying air velocity used.
(MRc ). As drying continues, the material will then experience a In summary, an all-inclusive drying profile for fruits and veg-
change from the first falling rate period to a phenomenon known etables may consist of 3 drying stages: an initial slight constant
as the second falling rate period (D to E). rate period (products with high moisture content), a first falling
Tzempelikos and others (2015) reported that the drying curve rate period, and a second falling rate period. In practice, recent
of quinces shows only the presence of the falling rate period. evidence suggests that the drying of fruits and vegetables occurs
Darc and Sen (2015) reported that the drying process of kiwi only during the falling rate period with the initial slight constant
takes in both the constant and falling rate period, stating that rate period said to be negligible.


C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 601
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

reliance on experimental data. Thus, these models have proved to


be the most useful for dryer engineers and designers (Brooker and
others 1992). However, they are only valid within the applied dry-
ing conditions. On the other hand, the theoretical models make
too many assumptions leading to a considerable number of errors
(Henderson 1974; Bruce 1985), thus limiting their utilization in
the design of dryers.
The semitheoretical models are usually obtained from solutions
of Ficks second law and variations of its simplified forms. The
semitheoretical and some empirical models provide an under-
standing of the transport processes and demonstrate a better fit to
the experimental data (Janjai and others 2011). Both the empir-
ical and semitheoretical models have similar characteristics. The
main challenges faced by the empirical models are that they de-
pend largely on experimental data and provide limited information
about the heat and mass transfer during the drying process (Erbay
and Icier 2010). Due to the characteristics of the semitheoretical
and empirical models and the high moisture content property of
many fruits and vegetables, these models are widely applied in
estimating drying kinetics.
Therefore, the pages that follow will attempt to discuss in de-
tail the semitheoretical and empirical models used in the differ-
ent literature sources as applied to thin-layer drying of fruits and
vegetables.

Model classification
Drying processes are usually modeled using 2 main models, the
distributed element model and the lumped element model (Erbay
and Icer 2010). These are now described individually.
Distributed element model. This model or system is based on
the interaction between time and one or more spatial variables
for all of its dependent variables. The distributed element model
considers the simultaneous mass and heat transfer for the drying
processes. It is important to note that the pressure effect is negligi-
ble compared to the temperature and moisture effect as reported
by Brooker and others (1974).
Lumped element model. This model or system considers the
effect of time alone on the dependent variables. The lumped el-
ement model does not consider the change in temperature of a
product and assumes a uniform distribution of drying air temper-
ature within the product. The model includes assumptions from
the Luikov equations, that is, the pressure variable is negligible and
the temperature is constant (Luikov 1975). The model is presented
in Eq. 1 and 2 below:
Figure 2A typical drying curve of agricultural products showing constant M
rate and falling rate periods. (Adapted from Carrin and Crapiste 2008). = 2 K1 (1)
t

T
Thin-layer drying models = 2 K12 (2)
t
Some selected thin-layer drying models of fruits and vegetables
are shown in Table 1. These models are often employed to de- where K1 is the effective diffusivity (D) and K12 is known as the
scribe drying fruits and vegetables and may be classified into 3 thermal diffusivity (). For the constant values of and D, Eq. 1
groups based on their comparative advantages and disadvantages and 2 can further be presented as
and also their derivation. These are theoretical, semitheoretical,  2 
and empirical models. The most widely applied categories of M M b1 M
= D + (3)
thin-layer models are the semitheoretical and empirical models t x 2 x x
(Ozdemir and Devres 2000; Panchariya and others 2002; Akpinar
 
2006a; Doymaz 2007; Raquel and others 2011). These categories T 2 T b 1 T
of models take into account the external resistance to moisture = + (4)
t x 2 x x
transport process between the material and atmospheric air, pro-
vide a greater extent of accurate results, give a better prediction of In the view of Ekechukwu (1999), the assumptions for parame-
drying process behaviors, and make less assumptions due to their ter b 1 are reported as b 1 = 0 (plate geometries), b 1 = 1 (cylindrical

602 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016 
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

Table 1Thin-layer models for the drying of fruits and vegetables.

S. No Model name Model Reference


1. Newton model MR = exp(kt) El-Beltagy and others (2007)
2. Page model MR = exp(kt n ) Akoy (2014); Tzempelikos and others (2014)
3. Modified page (II) MR = exp[(K t)n ] Vega and others (2007)
4 Modified page (III) MR = k exp (t/d 2 )n Kumar and others (2006)
5. Henderson and Pabis model MR = a exp(kt n ) Meisami-asl and others (2010); Hashim and others (2014)
6. Modified Henderson and Pabis model MR = a exp(kt) + b exp(gt) + c exp(ht) Zenoozian and others (2008)
7. Midilli and others model MR = a exp(kt) + bt Darvishi and Hazbavi (2012); Ayadi and others (2014)
8. Logarithmic model MR = a exp(kt) + c Rayaguru and Routray (2012); Kaur and Singh (2014)
9. Two-term model MR = a exp(K 1 t) + b exp(K 2 t) Sacilik (2007)
10. Two-term exponential model MR = a exp(k0 t) + (1 a) exp(k1 at) Dash and others (2013)
11. Hii and others model MR = a exp(K 1 t n ) + b exp(K 2 t n ) Kumar and others (2012b)
12. Demir and others model MR = a exp (K t)n + b Demir and others (2007)
13. Verma and others model MR = a exp(kt) + (1 a) exp(gt) Akpinar (2006)
14. Approximation of diffusion MR = a exp(kt) + (1 a) exp(kbt) Yaldyz and Ertekyn (2007)
15. Modified Midilli and others MR = a exp(kt) + b Gan and Poh (2014)
K 1t
16. Aghbashlo and others model MR = ex p( 1+K ) Aghbashlo and others (2009)
2t
17. Wang and Singh MR = 1 + at + bt 2 Omolola and others (2014)
18. Diamante and others model ln ( ln M R ) = a + b (ln t) + c(ln t)2 Diamante and others (2010)
19. Weibull model MR = b exp(k0 t n ) Tzempelikos and others (2015)
20. Thompson t = a ln(M R ) + b [ln(MR)]

2 Pardeshi (2009)
21. Silva and others model MR = exp(at b t) Pereira and others (2014)
22. Peleg model MR = 1 t/(a + bt) Da Silva and others (2015)

shapes), and b 1 = 2 (spherical shapes). However, these assumptions statistical indicators that have often been used to successfully select
result in error for the temperature reading at the beginning of the the most appropriate drying models as reported in the literature
drying process (Erbay and Icier 2010). (Akpinar 2006b; Babalis and others 2006; Menges and Ertekin
2006; Doymaz 2007; Vega and others 2007; Saeed and others
Theoretical models 2008; Erbay and Icier 2010; Fadhel and others 2011; Kadam and
The theoretical models consider both the external and internal others 2011; Rasouli and others 2011; Akoy 2014; Gan and Poh
resistance to moisture transfer. They involve the geometry of the 2014; Tzempelikos and others 2014; Darc and Sen 2015; On-
material, its mass diffusivity, and the conductivity of the material wude and others 2015a; Tzempelikos and others 2015) include
(Cihan and Ece 2001). Thus the resistances can be estimated from R, R2 (r 2 ), x 2 , SSE, RM SE, RRM S, E F , M P E, and M B E.
Eq. 3 and 4 because these equations describe the mass transfer The higher the values of R and R2 of a particular model
(Erbay and Icer 2010). Subsequently, the solution of Ficks second the better the model is in predicting the drying behavior
law of diffusion is widely applied as a theoretical model in the of fruits and vegetables. Similarly, the lower the values of
thin-layer drying of food products (Kucuk and others 2014). x 2 , SSE, RMSE, RRMS, EF, MPE, and MBE of a particular
model the more suitable the model is in predicting the drying
Semitheoretical models kinetics of the particular product (Kucuk and others 2014). The
The semitheoretical models are derived from the theoretical semitheoretical models made available in the literature over the past
model (Ficks second law of diffusion) or its simplified variation 10 y are discussed below. These models have been widely used in
(Newtons law of cooling). The Lewis, Page, and Modified Page expressing the thin-layer-drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables as
semitheoretical models are derived from Newtons law of cool- shown in Table 2.
ing. The (i) exponential model and simplified form, (ii) 2-term Models derived from Newtons law of cooling.
exponential model and modified form, and (iii) 3-term exponen- Newton model. This model is sometimes referred to in the lit-
tial model and simplified form are all derived from Ficks sec- erature as the Lewis model or the Exponential model, Single
ond law of diffusion (Erbay and Icier 2010). Factors that could exponential model. It is said to be the simplest model because of
determine the application of these models include the drying the single model constant. In the past, this model has been widely
temperature, drying air velocity, material thickness, initial mois- applied in describing the drying behavior of several food and agri-
ture content, and relative humidity (Panchariya and others 2002; cultural products. Recently, it has occasionally been found suitable
Erbay and Icer 2010). Furthermore, under these conditions it can for describing the drying behavior of some fruits and vegetables:
be noted that the complexity of the models can be attributed to
the number of constants. In respect to the scientific literature, (M Me )
MR = = exp(k t ) (5)
the number of constants varies between 1 (Newton model), 5 (M0 Me )
(Hii and others model), and 6 (Modified Henderson and Pabis
model) (see Table 1). More so, Table 2 shows the relationship where k is the drying constant (s1 ), MR is the moisture ratio,
between some thin-layer model constants and drying conditions M is the dry basis moisture content at any time t, M0 is the
for various fruits and vegetables. Taking the number of constants initial dry basis moisture content of the sample, and Me is the
into consideration, both the Hii and others model and the Mod- equilibrium moisture content. Furthermore, the Newton model
ified Henderson and Pabis model can be said to be complex, has been found to be suitable in describing the drying behavior of
while the Newton model is the simplest. However, the selection strawberry and red chili as shown in Table 2.
of the most appropriate model for describing the drying behav- Page model. The Page model or the Modified Lewis model is an
ior of fruits and vegetables does not depend on the number of empirical modification of the Newton model, whereby the errors
constants. Rather, it depends on various statistical indicators. The associated with using the Newton model are greatly minimized


C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 603
Table 2Studies conducted on thin-layer drying modeling of fruits and vegetables in the past 10 years.

Drying Relationship between model constants and


Material method Process conditions Eqn. No# Best model process condition Reference
Apple TD w = 8 mm; h = 8 mm; L = 18 mm; A = w h 11 Midilli and others a = 1.004084 0.000013T 0.001960V + Akpinar (2006)
L; T = 60 to 80 C; V = 1 to 1.5 m/s 3.944759A
k = 0.006391 + 0.000065T + 0.009775V +
1.576723A
n = 1.187734 + 0.002467T 0.128878V
202.536A
b = 0.000082 0.000002T 0.000041V +
0.041667A
Apple slices LHCD h = 3 to 7 mm; T = 50 to 95 C; V = 1 m/s 11 Midilli and others Zarein and others
(2013)
Apple slices (Golab) OD V = 0.5 m/s; T = 40 to 80 C; h = 2 to 6 mm 11 and 9 Midilli and others; Henderson and Pabis: Meisami-asl and
Henderson and a = 0.971449897 + 0.002099298T others (2010)
Pabis 0.10565552h
k = 1.061883481 + T 0.022639541
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

0.004633918h
Apple slices LHCD T = 50 to 70 C; V = 0.6 to 1.4 m/s; h = 4 to 12 Logarithmic Kaleta and
(McIntosh) 12 mm Gornicki (2010)
Apricot LHCD T = 60 to 100 C; h = 5 mm; V = 0.2 m/s 22 Diamante and Diamante and
others others (2010)
Banana (Musa LHCD T = 40 to 70 C 6 and 25 Page; Silva and Pereira and others
acuminata) others (2014)
Banana (Musa spp) LHCD Intermittent time = 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 h; T = 26 Peleg Da Silva and
70 C; V = 0.55 m/s; RH = 51% to 56% others (2015)

604 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016
Banana (Musa OMD d = 1.8 cm; L = 10 cm; T = 25 to 55 C; Cs = 26 Peleg Mercali and others
sapientum, shum) 30% to 60%; NaCl = 0% to 10% (2010)
Banana (Mabonde) DMO h = 5 mm; P = 100 to 300 W 21 Wang and Singh Omolola and
slices others (2014)
Banana slices ISD h = 5 mm; V = 4.23 m/min 21 Wang and Singh Fadhel and others
(2011)
Banana slices LHCD T = 50 to 80 C; V = 2.4 m/s; RH = 4% to 6 and 12 Page; Logarithmic Doymaz (2010)
25%
Basil leaves TTD T = 55 to 65 C; h = 0.33 0.08 mm 12 Logarithmic Kadam and others
(2011)
Basil leaves OSD 7 Modified page (II) Akpinar (2006)
Beetroot TD and MD w = 10 mm; h = 10 mm; L = 3 mm; T = 55 to 13 and 12 Two term; Kaur and Singh
75 C; P = 540 to 1080 W Logarithmic (2014)
Bitter melon LHCD h = 0.5 to 1.0 cm; T = 50 to 80 C; V = 6 Page Chen and others
(Momordica 1.2 m/s (2013)


charantia) slices
Blueberries IR Treatment = Infusion; h = 10 mm; T = 60 to 24 Thompson Shi and others
90 C; I = 4000 W/m2 (2008)
Carrot LHCD T = 50 to 70 C; V = 1 m/s; RH = 35% to 20 Aghbashlo and ( 2991.2
Tabs ) Aghbashlo (2009)
k1 = 54.18 e
42% others ( 4766.7 )
k1 = 4.27 1010 e Tabs
Carrot slices IFD h = 1.5 mm; T = 50 to 100 C 17 Verma and others k = 0.001653T 0.062201 Botelho and
g = 0.005636T 0.184143 others (2011)
a = 0.37742
(Continued)

C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists



Table 2Continued.

Drying Relationship between model constants and


Material method Process conditions Eqn. No# Best model process condition Reference
Carrot (pomace) LHCD T = 60 to 75 C; V = 0.7 m/s; h = 10 mm 15 Hi and others a = 13905.60529 619.95731T + Kumar and others
9.18210 T 2 0.04516 T 3 (2012b)
k = 0.21037 + 0.01238T 0.00022T 2
n = 16.45430 0.69205T + 0.01039T 2
0.00005T 3
c = 13908.27 + 620.14037T
9.18481T 2 + 0.4517T 3
g = 0.05894 + 0.00082T 0.00005T 2
Chili (pickino) OD and FBD T = 45 to 65 C; V = 2.4 m3 /min (FBD) 11 Midilli and others Mihindukulasuriya
and others
(2013)

C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists


Date palm fruit MD Pd = 4.0 to 9.5 w/g 6 Page k = 0.8094 Pd1.2282 Darvishi and
n = 0.0189Pd3 + 0.374 Pd2 2.3423 Pd + Hazbavi (2012)
6.8142
Fig (Ficus carica) TTD T = 55 to 85 C; V = 0.5 to 3.0 m/s 13 Two term Babalis and others
(2006)
Garlic (Allium LHCD T = 50 to 70 C; h = 2 to 4 mm 23 Weibull a = 5.994251 h 0.164 exp( 516.322
Tabs ) Rasouli and others
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

sativum L) (2011)
b = 6.02554 106 h 1.065 exp( 3429.964
Tabs )
Golden apples LHCD T = 60 to 80 C; V = 1 to 3 m/s 11 Midilli and others a = 1.4678 0.0067T Menges and
k = 1.0835V 0.1316 Ertekin (2006)
n = 0.8867
b = 0.0030
Green bean OSD V = 0.5 to 1.5 m/s; T = 39.09 to 43.81 C; 6 Page k = 0.3560 0.1407V Yaldyz and
RH = 49.91% to 65.06%; SR = 752.10 n = 0.7832 + 0.0892 ln(V ) Ertekyn (2007)
W/m2
Green bean LHCD L = 4 0.1 cm; T = 50 to 70 C; RH = 8% to 6 Page Doymaz (2005)
(Phaseolus 25%
vulgaris L)
Green peas LHCD T = 55 to 75 C; V = 1.67 m/s 24 Thompson a = 0.013046T 3 + 2.54139T 2 Pardeshi (2009)
162.3588T + 3362.0605
b = 0.001602T 3 + 0.29470T 2
17.78930T + 359.30170
Green pepper OSD V = 0.5 to 1.5 m/s; T = 38.56 to 42.52 C; 18 Approximation of a = 1.6626 + 1.7015V Yaldyz and
RH = 42.20% to 59.36%; SR = 738.54 diffusion k = 0.3549 0.1489V Ertekyn (2007)
W/m2 b = 0.5868 0.0172V
Green table olives LHCD L = 24 to 26 mm; d = 19 to 21 mm; T = 40 16 Demir and others Demir and others
to 70 C; V = 1.0 m/s; RH = 15% 2% (2007)
Hawthorn LHCD V = 0.8 m/s; T = 50 to 70 C 11 Midilli and others Unal and Sacilik
(2011)
Jackfruit TD h = 3 mm; T = 50 to 80 C 11 Midilli and others k = 1 105 T 2 + 0.001T 0.058 Saxena and Dash
n = 0.013T (2015)
b = 1 106 T 2 + 0.12
a = 1.00
Jackfruit LHCD h = 5 1 mm; T = 40 to 70 C; triangle: w = 19 Modified Midilli Gan and Poh
5.5 cm; height = 6.5 cm; rectangle: w = and others (2014)
3.0 cm; L = 5.5 cm; square: w = 4 cm; L =
4 cm
Kiwifruit LHCD T = 50 to 80 C; V = 0.5 to 2.0 m/s; h = 4 11 Midilli and others Darc and Sen
and 6 mm; RH = 5% to 20% (2015)
Kiwifruit LHCD T = 60 to 100 C; h = 5 mm; V = 0.2 m/s 22 Diamante and Diamante and
others others (2010a)
Kiwifruit LHCD h = 0.006 to 0.4 m; T = 30 to 90 C 6 Page n = 0.796 Simal (2005)
k = 4.756 105 T 5.54 104
(Continued)

Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 605
Table 2Continued.

Drying Relationship between model constants and


Material method Process conditions Eqn. No# Best model process condition Reference
Kiwifruit (Hayward) CTD T = 40 to 80 C; V = 0.5 to 1.5 m/s; h = 2 to 6 Page K = 0.0042517 0.00012228T + Mohammadi and
6 mm 0.0000014281T 2 others (2008)
n = 0.60498 + 0.0218756T 0.0001634T 2
Mango slices LHCD T = 60 to 80 C; V = 0.5 m/s; h = 3 mm 6 Page Akoy (2014)
Mango ginger MD h = 1.77 0.02 mm; P = 315 to 800 W 11 Midilli and others Murthy and
(Curcuma Manohar
amanda roxb) (2012)
Mango slices LHCD L = 0.45 m; w = 0.34 m; h = 0.03 m; V = 11 Midilli and others Corzo and others
(Mangifera 1.76 to 1.91 m/s; T = 50 to 80 C (2011)
indica L.)
Mint leaves OSD 7 Modified page (II) Akpinar (2006)
Onion slices LHCD T = 50 to 70 C; V = 0.5 to 2.0 m/s; h = 5 6 Page Vertical: El-mesery and
0.1 mm k = 0.0099 + 2.7 104 T + 3.3 104 V Mwithiga
n = 1.24 0.0036T + 0.037V (2012)
Horizontal:
k = 0.022 + 5.5 104 T + 2 104 V
n = 1.23 0.0045T + 0.034V
Onion slices OSD h = 12.5 mm; V = 0.5 to 1.5 m/s; T = 40.52 13 Two term a = 0.4866 + 0.6424 ln(V ) Yaldyz and
Ertekyn (2007)
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

to 44.32 C; RH = 48.91% to 60.28%; K 0 = 0.1557 + 0.1995 ln(V )


SR = 752.10 W/m2 b = 0.5143 0.6424 ln(V )
K 1 = 0.1117 0.0992 ln(V )
Onion slices IR + LHCD h = 2 to 6 mm; T = 60 to 80 C; TI = 30 to 8 Modified page (III) K = 0.04127 + 0.00055T Kumar and others
50 C; V = 0.8 to 2.0 m/s 0.00027h + 1.6704 1006 TI + (2006)
0.00158V + 3.086 1005 t
Parsley OSD 17 Verma and others Akpinar (2006)
Pepper MD d = 0.7 0.1 cm; L = 6 1 cm; P = 180 to 11 Midilli and others k = 0.0847 exp(0.0031P ) Darvishi and
540 W n = 3 108 P 3 3 105 P 2 + others (2014)

606 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016
0.0136P 0.2157
b = 8 108 P 3 0.0019P + 0.0218
a = 3 107 P 2 0.0003P + 1.0474
Persimmon slices CTD T = 50 to 70 C; h = 3 to 8 mm; V = 2 11, 6 and 23 Midilli and others; Doymaz (2012)
(Diospyros kakil) 0.1 m/s Page; Weibull
Pineapple FIR + HCD h = 15 mm; I = 1 to 5 kW/m2 ; T = 40 to 11 Midilli and others Ponkham and
60 C; V = 0.5 to 1.5 m/s others (2012)
Plum PSD Blanching = 20 s; T = 85 C; v = 0.8 m/s 13 Two term Jazini and
Hatamipour
(2010)
Pumpkin LHCD Osmotic treatment: h = 2 cm; w = 2 cm; L = 13 and 10 Two term (sucrose Zenoozian and
2 cm; T = 50 to 60 C treated) others (2008)
Modified
Henderson and
Pabis


(pretreated)
Pumpkin slices OSD h = 12.5 mm; V = 0.5 to 1.5 m/s; RH = 18 Approximation of a = 0.8095 exp(0.0794 V ) Yaldyz and
45.00% to 57.70%; T = 39.10 to diffusion k = 0.2082V 0.3032 Ertekyn (2007)
43.63 C; SR = 738.54 W/m2 b = 0.6857 exp(0.4860 V )
Pumpkin slices TD h = 5 mm; d = 35 mm; T = 60 to 80 C; V = 11 Midilli and others a = 0.966567 + 0.000184T + 0.007014V Akpinar (2006)
1 to 1.5 m/s k = 0.005645 0.000095T + 0.003791V
n = 0.572175 + 0.009074T 0.064652V
b = 0.000050 0.000001T 0.000024V
Pumpkin (C. maxima) LHCD T = 30 to 70 C 6 Page Guine and others
(2011)
Pumpkin (C. maxima) PPCD T = 50 to 70 C; h = 25 mm; d = 20 mm; V 11 Midilli and others Perez and
slices = 2.5 m/s Schmalko
(2009)
(Continued)

C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists



Table 2Continued.

Drying Relationship between model constants and


Material method Process conditions Eqn. No# Best model process condition Reference
Pumpkin (C. pepo) CTD T = 60 to 80 C; h = 10 to 30 mm; V = 12 Logarithmic Olurin and others
1.5 m/s (2012)
Pumpkin slices (C. CTD T = 50 to 60 C; V = 1.0 m/s; RH = 15% to 12 and 17 Logarithmic; Doymaz (2007)
pepo L.) 25% Verma and
others
Pumpkin (C. pepo L) LHCD T = 40 to 60 C; V = 0.8 m/s 13 and 12 Two term; Sacilik (2007)
Logarithmic
Pumpkin (C. LHCD h = 3 to 7 mm; V = 1.16 m/s; T = 50 to 15 Hii and others a = 0.761 + 0.0369h 0.00530T Onwude and
moschata) 80 C b = 0.297 + 0.00454T 0.0405h others (2015b)

C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists


K 1 = 0.1528exp2.6163h K 2 =
0.00501 + 0.000393T
(8.84E 006T 2 ) + (615E 008T 3 )n =
10.581 + 0.427T 0.00344T 2
Quercus LHCD T = 50 to 70 C; V = 0.5 to 1 m/s; Optimum: 6 Page ( 1 ) Tahmasebi and
k = 0.7V 0.64 e Tabs
T = 70 C and V = 1 m/s ( 1 )
others (2011)
n = 0.067V 0.051 e Tabs
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

Quince slices LHCD T = 40 to 60 C; RH = 10%; h = 12 mm; V = 23 Weibull = 0.150540 + 0.004924T 0.000045T 2 Tzempelikos and
2 m/s b = 1.231270 + 0.011399T 0.000120T 2 others (2015)
k0 = 0.264050 0.009648T + 0.000150T 2
n = 1.504030 0.026073T + 0.000320T 2
Quince slices LTCD T = 40 to 60 C; V = 1 to 3 m/s; RH = 10% 6 Page Tzempelikos and
others (2014)
Red chili SDA Pretreatment: T = 40 to 65 C; RH = 10% to 5 Newton k = 0.003484 0.000222T + 3.66 Hossain and
60%; V = 0.12 to 1.02 m/s 106 T 2 0.007085R H + others (2007)
0.00572(R H )2 + 0.002738V
0.001235V 2
Saffron (Crocus ID T = 60 to 110 C; h = 0.7 mm 11 Midilli and others Akhondi and
sativus L) others (2011)
Spearmint ATB T = 40 to 55 C 11 Midilli and others a = 6.40163 0.31813T + 0.00616 T2 Ayadi and others
3.9210105 T 3 (2014)
2
k = 1.49365 + 0.12232T 0.00309T +
2.49733105 T 3
b = 0.11604 + 0.00739T
1.556104 T 2 + 1.08106 T 3
n = 25.89022 1.79971T + 0.04203T 2
3.20327104 T 3
Starfruit slices LHCD T = 60 to 80 C; h = 5 mm 6 Page Hii and Ogugo
(2014)
Starfruit slices TD h = 4 mm; T = 50 to 80 C 14 Two term Dash and others
exponential (2013)
Stone apple LHCD T = 40 to 70 C; h = 8 mm; V = 1.1 12 Logarithmic a = 0.001T + 0.945 Rayaguru and
0.2 m/s k = 1.49E 06T 2 0.0001T + 0.005 Routray (2012)
c = 8E 05T 2 0.01T + 0.256
Strawberry IFSD Pretreatment: I = 600 W/m2 5 Newton k = 0.0042EA/M + 0.0342T El-Beltagy and
others (2007)
Stuffed pepper OSD V = 0.5 to 1.5 m/s; T = 39.57 to 45.82 C; 13 Two term a = 0.6315 0.2957V Yaldyz and
RH = 45.03% to 63.40%; SR = 752.10 K 0 = 0.0224 exp(4.7396 V ) Ertekyn (2007)
W/m2 b = 0.3679 + 0.2962V
K 1 = 0.0677 0.0117 ln(V )
Tomato (cv. Milen) STD; OSD T = 22.4 to 35.6 C; RH = 14.5% to 50.9%; 18 Approximation of a = 0.1285 + 0.0206T + 0.1299R H Sacilik and others
slices SR = 202.3 to 767.4 W/m2 diffusion k = 0.0373 + 0.000014T + 0.00075R H (2006)
b = 0.1478 + 0.0329T + 0.1402R H

Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 607
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

by the addition of a dimensionless empirical constant (n): However, it should be emphasized also that with 6 parameters,
many more than 6 data points are required to compute the model.
(M Me )
MR = = exp (kt n ) (6) The model is not that complex with the advent of computers, but,
(M0 Me ) statistically, a good degree of freedom is required for confidence,
and this will require many data points.
where n is known as the model constant (dimensionless).
This model has 2 constants and is widely used as the basis for
most semitheoretical thin-layer models. Moreover, the Page (1949) (M Me )
MR = = a exp (kt ) + b exp (g t ) + c exp (ht )
model has been adopted as an American Standard in thin-layer (M0 Me )
modeling of agricultural and biological products (ANSI/ASAE (10)
2014). From Table 2, it can be seen that the Page model, along with where a, b, and c are dimensionless model constants, and g and h
the Midilli and others model are the most suitable in describing are the drying constants (s1 ).
the drying behavior of various fruits and vegetables. This model From Table 2 it can be said that this model does not effectively
was found to be the most appropriate in describing the drying describe the drying process of most fruits and vegetables. This
behavior of banana, date palm, green bean, kiwifruit, mango, model has been found to only successfully describe the drying
onion, bitter melon (Momordica charantia), persimmon, pumpkin, kinetics of pretreated pumpkin.
quercus, quince, and star fruit as shown in Table 2. Midilli and others model. Midilli and others (2002) proposed a
Modified Page model. As the name implies, this is a modification new model by a modification of the Henderson and Pabis model
of the Page model. Erbay and Icier (2010) reported 3 forms of by the addition of an extra t with a coefficient. The new model,
the Modified Page model (I, II, and III). For the purpose of this which is a combination of an exponential term and a linear term,
literature review, the following Modified Page models (Eq. 7 and has been validated by testing the model on mushroom, pollen, and
8) have been found to be the most suitable in describing the drying pistachio.
behavior of different fruits and vegetables. They include
M R = a exp (kt ) + b t (11)
(M Me )
MR = = exp ((kt )n ) (7)
(M0 Me )
where a and b are the model constants and k is the drying constant
Equation 7 is widely regarded as the Modified Page model (II). (s1 ) to be estimated from the experimental data.
This model has 2 constants and has been applied in predicting This model is sometimes called the Midilli Kucuk model or the
the drying kinetics of mint leaves and basil leaves as shown in Midilli model. It contains 3 constants and has been found to be
Table 2. the best in describing the drying behavior of different fruits and
(M Me ) vegetables. From Table 2 it can be seen that this model is noted as
MR = = k exp (t /d 2 )n (8) the most suitable in over 24% of the literature sources reviewed.
(M0 Me )
Thus, it has been found to be suitable in describing the drying
where d is an empirical constant (dimensionless) kinetics of fruits and vegetables such as apple, chili, golden apples,
Equation 8 can be called the Modified Page model (III). This hawthorn, jackfruit, kiwifruit, mango, ginger, pepper, persimmon,
model has 3 constants and can successfully describe the drying pineapple, pumpkin, saffron, and spearmint.
behavior of onion (see Table 2). Logarithmic model. This model is also known as an asymptotic
Models derived from Ficks second law of diffusion. model and is another modified form of the Henderson and Pabis
Henderson and Pabis or single-term model. This model is the first model. It is actually a logarithmic form of the Henderson and
term of the general solution of the Ficks second law of diffusion Pabis model with the addition of an empirical term. The model
(Eq. 27). This can also be regarded as a simple model with only contains 3 constants and can be expressed as
2 model constants. The Henderson and Pabis (1961) model has
been effectively applied in the drying of crops such as corn and (M Me )
millet. However, it has not been quite so successful in describing MR = = a exp (kt ) + c (12)
(M0 Me )
the drying behavior of fruits and vegetables, since the model has
been found applicable only to apple (See Table 2):
where c is a dimensionless empirical constant.
(M Me ) Table 2 shows that this model has been found to be the fourth
MR = = a exp (kt ) (9) best thin-layer model in describing the drying kinetics of various
(M0 Me )
fruits and vegetables. Consequently, the model has produced the
where a represents the shape of the materials used (dimensionless). best fit in predicting the drying kinetics of apple, basil leaves,
Modified Henderson and Pabis model. The modified Henderson beetroot, pumpkin, and stone apple.
and Pabis model is a third term general solution of the Ficks Two-term model. The 2-term model is a second term general
second law of diffusion (Eq. 27) for correction of the shortcomings solution of the Ficks second law of diffusion. The model contains
of the Henderson and Pabis model. It has been reported that the 2 dimensionless empirical constants and 2 model constants which
first term explains the last part of the drying process of food can be derived from experimental data. The first term describes
and agricultural products, which occurs largely in the falling late the last part of the drying process, while the second term describes
period, the second term describes the midway part, and the third the beginning of the drying process. For most fruits and vegetables
term explains the initial moisture loss of the drying process (Erbay with high moisture content, this model can well be suitable as it
and Icier 2010). The model contains 6 constants (Eq. 10), just like assumes a constant product temperature and diffusivity throughout
the Hii and others model (modified 2-term model), and based on the drying process. This model well describes the moisture transfer
this the model has been referred to as complex thin-layer model. of the drying process, with the constants representing the physical

608 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016 
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

properties of the drying process: sionless constant b in the second part of the model:

(M Me ) (M Me )
MR = = a exp (K1 t ) + b exp (K2 t ) (13) MR = = a exp(kt ) + (1 a ) exp(kb t ) (18)
(M0 Me ) (M0 Me )

where a and b are dimensionless empirical constants, and K1 and where b is also a dimensionless model constant.
K2 are the drying constants (s1 ). This model has been applied with great success in the deter-
From Table 2 it can be seen that this model is the best in describ- mining the drying kinetics of green pepper, pumpkin, and tomato
ing the drying behavior of beetroot, fig, onion, plum, pumpkin, (Table 2).
and stuffed pepper. Modified Midilli and others model. As the name implies, this model
Two-term exponential model. The 2-term exponential model is is a modification of the Midilli and others model. The model has
a modification of the 2-term model by reducing the number of been found to successfully predict only the drying kinetics of
constants and modifying the indication of shape constant (b) of jackfruit as can be seen in Table 2. The model is expressed as
the second exponential term. Erbay and Icier (2010) emphasized
that constant b of the 2-term model (Eq. 13) has to be (1 a) at M R = a exp(kt ) + b (19)
t = 0 in order to obtain a moisture ratio of MR = 1. The model
has 3 constants and can be expressed as Empirical models
Empirical models give a direct relationship between the average
(M Me ) moisture content and the drying time. The major limitation to the
MR = = a exp (kt ) + (1 a ) exp (ka t ) (14) application of empirical models in thin-layer drying is that they do
(M0 Me )
not follow the theoretical fundamentals of drying processes in the
form of a kinetic relationship between the rate constant and the
This model has been found successful in describing the drying
moisture concentration, thus giving inaccurate parameter values.
kinetics of only star fruit as presented in Table 2.
More so, these models do not have a physical interpretation and are
Hii and others (modified 2-term model). The Hii and others model
wholly derived from experimental data. The 3 most widely applied
can also be referred to as a Modified Page model or, more appro-
empirical models for the drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables as
priately, a Modified 2-term model. The model involves a com-
reported in the literature, and shown in Table 2, are (i) the Weibull
bination of the Page and the 2-term model. The first part of the
Model (Eq. 23), (ii) Wang and Singh (Eq. 21), (iii) the Diamante
model is exactly as the Page model. However, it more theoreti-
and others Model (Eq. 22), and (iv) the Thompson Model (Eq. 23).
cally describes the model as a modified 2-term model with the
The following are the most suitable models found to adequately
inclusion of a dimensionless empirical constant n. The model
describe the drying kinetics of some fruits and vegetables:
contains 5 constants and can be referred to as a complex model
Aghbashlo and others model. Aghbashlo and others (2009) pro-
in this regard. Hii and others (2009) proposed this model for the
posed a model that effectively described the thin-layer drying ki-
drying of cocoa beans. However, it has been found appropriate in
netics of biological materials. The model was tested on carrot and
describing the drying kinetics of some fruits:
compared with other available thin-layer drying models in the
(M Me ) literature. It was found that the model best described the drying
MR = = a exp(K1 t n ) + b exp(K2 t n ) (15) behavior of carrot. However, this model has not been successful in
(M0 Me )
describing several other fruits and vegetables. The model contains
2 dimensionless constants which are dependent on the absolute
The Hii and others model has been successfully applied to the
temperature of the drying system (Table 2). However, there is no
drying of carrot pomace and pumpkin as presented in Table 2.
theoretical basis for this model:
Demir and others model. A modification of the Henderson and
Pabis model and the Logarithmic model was proposed by Demir (M Me ) K1 t
and others (2007) for drying of green olives (Table 2). This model MR = = exp( ) (20)
(M0 Me ) 1 + K2 t
contains 4 constants with 3 dimensionless empirical constants. This
model can be expressed as where K1 and K2 are drying constants (min1 ).
Wang and Singh model. This model was developed for the inter-
(M Me ) mittent drying of rough rice (Wang and Singh 1978). The model
MR = = a exp((kt ) ) + b
n
(16)
(M0 Me ) gives a good fit to the experimental data. However, this model has
no physical or theoretical interpretation, hence its limitation.
Verma and others model. This model is another modification
of the 2-term model with 4 model constants. The Verma and (M Me )
MR = = 1 + a t + bt2 (21)
others (1985) model has been applied successfully in describ- (M0 Me )
ing the drying kinetics of parsley and pumpkin as shown in
Table 2. where a (s1 ) and b (s1 ) are dimensionless model constants gotten
from the experimental data.
(M Me ) This model has been found to successfully explain the drying
MR = = a exp(kt ) + (1 a ) exp(g t ) (17)
(M0 Me ) behavior of banana as shown in Table 2.
Diamante and others model. Diamante and others (2010b) pro-
where g is also a drying constant (s1 ). posed a new empirical model for the drying of fruits. The experi-
Approximate diffusion model. The Approximate Diffusion model mental data used in developing the model were obtained from the
is another modification of the 2-term exponential model with the hot air drying of kiwi fruit and apricot and used polynomial re-
separation of the drying constant k and t with a new dimen- gression analysis to determine the values for the model constants.


C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 609
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

Again, this model lacks theoretical background and physical inter- represents a mass and heat transfer equation for the drying of fruits
pretation. and vegetables as shown in the following equation:

ln ( ln M R) = a + b (ln t ) + c (ln t )2 (22) M


= D 2 M (27)
t
where a, b, and c are model constants.
This model has been found to be suitable in describing the Crank (1979) provided solutions for the diffusion Eq. 27 for
drying kinetics of apricot and kiwi fruit (Table 2). various geometries during the falling rate period (Yang and others
Weibull model. This model has been found to be one of the 2001; Guine and others 2011) with the application of several
most suitable empirical models widely used in the literature. The boundary conditions. Assuming cylindrical geometry, Eq. 27 can
model was actually derived from experimental data, with nei- be expressed as
ther physical meaning nor a theoretical background. The Weibull
model can best describe the drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables     
M 1 M M
such as garlic, quinces, and persimmon as presented in Table 2. = Dr + Dr (28)
t r r r z z
(M Me )
MR = = b exp(k0 t n ) (23)
(M0 Me ) where r is the radius of a cylinder, z is the direction of thickness
of the sample, and D is the effective moisture diffusivity (m2 /s).
where and b are dimensionless model constants and k0 is a drying As reported by several authors (Ekechukwu 1999; Ozdemir and
constant. Devres 2000; Erbay and Icer 2010), the boundary conditions for
Thompson model. The Thompson model is an empirical model thin-layer drying models are
obtained from experimental data by correlating the drying time
as a function of the logarithm of the moisture ratio. The model i. The product sizes are homogeneous and isotropic.
cannot successfully describe the drying behavior of most fruits ii. The product characteristics are constant and the shrinkage
and vegetables because it has no theoretical basis and lacks physical effect is negligible.
interpretation. However, the model has been found to be suitable iii. The variations in pressure during the drying process are
for describing the drying kinetics of green peas and blueberries as negligible.
presented in Table 2. The model can be expressed as iv. Evaporation occurs only at the surface of the product.
v. The mass transfer is symmetrical with uniform moisture
t = a ln(M R) + b [ln(M R)]2 (24) distribution during the process.
vi. The products surface moisture undergoes moisture equili-
where a and b are dimensionless empirical constants. bration.
Silva and others or (Da Silva and others) model. Da Silva and vii. During the drying process the temperature distribution is
others (2013) proposed an empirical model for the kinetic mod- equal to the ambient drying air temperature when the steady
eling of chickpea. This model shows a good fit for describing the state condition has been attained.
water transport within the grains of chickpea legumes by fitting viii. Heat transfer occurs by conduction within the product and
an experimental data set to find the model equation. by convection outside of the product.
ix. There is a uniform initial moisture distribution.
(M Me )
MR = = exp(a t b t ) (25) x. The apparent moisture diffusivity is constant with moisture
(M0 Me ) content during drying.
where a and b are fitting parameters. This model has been success-
However, the application of the boundary conditions depends
fully used in describing the drying kinetics of banana as shown in
on the drying method, process condition, product dimensions, and
Table 2.
the geometry used as shown in Table 3. The analytical solution
Peleg model. This model has no physical meaning or theoretical
of Ficks second law of diffusion has been expressed in various
interpretation. However, it has been applied successfully only in
forms and for various geometries. From the literature, the most
describing the drying behavior of banana.
widely used geometries for the drying of fruits and vegetables are
(M Me ) (i) slab, (ii) infinite slab, and (iii) sphere (Table 3). The following
MR = = 1 t / (a + b t ) (26) equations are the solutions of the effective diffusivity for various
(M0 Me )
product geometries as reported in the literature.
where a and b are dimensionless model parameters. Slab (Plate). From Table 3 it can be seen that this product ge-
It is worth mentioning that Eq. 21, 22, and 24 are quadratic ometry has been widely used in determining the effective moisture
equations or polynomial equations with n = 2. The implication is diffusivity of fruits and vegetables. The solution of Ficks second
that there will be a maximum MR, after which MR decreases with law of diffusion using slab geometry and the initial boundary con-
time, or there will be a minimum MR, after which MR increases ditions stated above for various fruits and vegetables is expressed
with time. These scenarios are not practical in drying. as

Estimation of effective moisture diffusivity during drying (M Me )


MR =
The effective moisture diffusivity, which is a function of tem- (M0 Me )
perature and the moisture content of a material, is an important  
8  1 (2n + 1)2 2 D t
transport property in the modeling of the drying process of fruits = exp (29)
and vegetables. The equation of Ficks second law of diffusion 2 n = 0 (2n + 1)2 4(h )2

610 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016 
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists

Table 3Estimation values of effective moisture diffusivity and activation values for fruits and vegetables.

Shrinkage
Product Geometry dimensions Drying process condition D (m2 /s) Ea (kJ/mol) Reference
Banana (Cavendish) Infinite slab T = 50 to 80 C; V = 2.4 m/s; RH = 7.374 1011 to 2.148 1010 32.65 Doymaz (2010)
slices 4% to 25%
Banana (Musa spp.) Infinite cylinder Intermittent time: 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 h; For continuous: Da Silva and others
T = 70 C; V = 0.55 m/s; RH = 5.25 1010 to 9.25 1010 (2015)
51% to 56% For intermittent:

C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists


11.1 1010 to 92.2 1010
Banana (Mabonde) Infinite slab h = 5 mm; P = 100 to 300 W 4.89 1010 to 1.69 109 Omolola and others
slices (2014)
Basil leaves Slab T = 55 to 65 C; h = 0.33 0.08 mm 2.65 1010 to 5.69 1010 33.21 to 39.03 Kadam and others
(2011)
Basil leaves Infinite slab 4.53 1012 Akpinar (2006)
Berberis fruit Sphere T = 50 to 70 C; V = 0.5 to 2 m/s; 3.320 1010 to 9 109 110.837 to 130.61 Aghbashlo and others
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

(Beberidaceae) RH = 40% to 50% (2008)


Blueberries Spherical Treatment = Infusion; h = 10 mm; 2.24 1010 to 16.4 1010 66.30 and 61.20 Shi and others (2008)
T = 60 to 90 C; I = 4000 W/m2 For infused samples:
0.61 1010 to 3.84 1010
Carrot (pomace) Slab T = 60 to 75 C; V = 0.7 m/s; h = 2.74 109 to 4.64 109 23.05 Kumar and others
10 mm (2012b)
Date palm fruit Spherical Pd = 4.0 to 9.5 w/g 2.72 106 to 4.73 106 Darvishi and Hazbavi
(2012)
Green peas Sphere diameter T = 55 to 75 C; V = 1.67 m/s 3.95 1010 to 6.23 1010 22.48 Pardeshi (2009)
Green bean Slab L = 4 0.1 cm; T = 50 to 70 C; RH 2.641 109 to 5.711 109 35.43 Doymaz (2005)
(Phaseolus = 8% to 25%
vulgaris L)
Hawthorn Sphere V = 0.8 m/s; T = 50 to 70 C 2.66 1010 to 5.70 1010 17.60 to 26. 95 Unal and Sacilik
(2011)
Jackfruit Slab h = 3 mm; T = 50 to 80 C 1.264 1010 to 4.56 1010 40.846 Saxena and Dash
(2015)
Jackfruit Slab h = 5 1 mm; T = 40 to 70 C; 2.66 1010 to 4.852 1010 16.079 to 20.073 Gan and Poh (2014)
triangle: w = 5.5 cm; height =
6.5 cm; rectangle: w = 3.0 cm; L =
5.5 cm; Square: w = 4 cm; L = 4 cm;
Kiwifruit Infinite slab h = 0.006 to 0.4 m; T = 30 to 90 C 3.0 1010 to 17.2 1010 27.0 Simal (2005)
Kiwifruit T = 50 to 80 C; V = 0.5 to 2.0 m/s; 1.844 1010 to 7.10 1010 34.34 to 38.073 Darc and Sen (2015)
h = 4 mm and 6 mm; RH = 5% to
20%
Mango slices Infinite slab T = 60 to 80 C; V = 0.5 m/s; h = 4.97 1010 to 10.83 1010 37.99 Akoy (2014)
3 mm
Mango ginger Slab h = 1.77 0.02 mm; P = 315 to 3.5 1010 to 9.2 1010 21.6 Murthy and Manohar
(Curcuma amanda 800 W (2012)
roxb)
(Continued)

Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 611
Table 3Continued.

Shrinkage
Product Geometry dimensions Drying process condition D (m2 /s) Ea (kJ/mol) Reference
Mint leaves Infinite slab 7.04 1012 Akpinar (2006)
Parsley Infinite slab 6.44 1012 Akpinar (2006)
Pepper Infinite slab d = 0.7 0.1 cm; L = 6 1 cm; P = 8.13 108 to 2.363 107 14.421 Darvishi and others
180 to 540 W (2014)
Persimmon slices Slab T = 50 to 70 C; h = 3 to 8 mm; V = 7.05 1011 to 2.34 1010 30.64 and 43.26 Doymaz (2012)
(Diospyros kakil) 2 0.1 m/s
Pineapple Finite hollow cylinder Volume h = 15 mm; I = 1 to 5 kW/m2 ; T = Without shrinkage: 4.6890 Ponkham and others
40 to 60 C; V = 0.5 to 1.5 m/s 1010 to 16.3003 1010 (2012)
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

With shrinkage: 1.4958


1010 to 4.9260 1010
Plum Sphere Blanching = 20 s; T = 85 C; v = 1.016 108 to 5.471 109 Jazini and Hatamipour
0.8 m/s (2010)
Pumpkin (C. pepo) Infinite slab T = 60 to 80 C; h = 10 to 30 mm; V 1.17 109 to 6.75 109 24.59 to 26.45 Olurin and others
= 1.5 m/s (2012)
Pumpkin slices (C. Slab T = 50 to 60 C; V = 1.0 m/s; RH = 3.88 1010 to 9.38 1010 78.93 Doymaz (2007)
pepo L.) 15% to 25%
Pumpkin (C. maxima) Cylinder T = 30 to 70 C 4.08 108 to 2.35 107 33.74 Guine and others

612 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016
(2011)
Pumpkin (C. maxima) Finite cylinder T = 50 to 70 C; h = 25 mm; d = 1.6 109 to 2.9 109 35.6 Perez and Schmalko
slices 20 mm; V = 2.5 m/s (2009)
Pumpkin (C. pepo L) Slab T = 40 to 60 C; V = 0.8 m/s LHCD: 17.52 1011 to 8.53 33.15 Sacilik (2007)
1011
STD: 1.94 1011
OSD: 1.66 1011
Quince slices Infinite slab T = 40 to 60 C; RH = 10%; h = 3.23 1010 to 7.82 1010 38.29 Tzempelikos and
12 mm; V = 2 m/s others (2015)
Quince slices T = 40 to 60 C; V = 1 to 3 m/s; RH 2.67 1010 to 8.17 1010 36.99 to 42.59 Tzempelikos and
= 10% others (2014)
Starfruit slices Slab T = 60 to 80 C; h = 5 mm 9.5 108 to 1.03 107 Hii and Ogugo (2014)
Stone apple Slab T = 40 to 70 C; h = 8 mm; V = 1.1 3.7317 1010 to 6.675 1010 16.10 Rayaguru and Routray
0.2 m/s (2012)


Tomato slices Infinite plate (Infinite Thickness T = 50 to 60 C; V = 0.1 to 0.5 m/s; 1.33 106 to 5.11 106 25.77 to 32.42 Dianda and others
slab) W = 1.9 mm; h = 1.8 mm; L = 0.7 (2015)
mm
Tomato (cv. Milen) Slab T = 22.4 to 35.6 C; RH = 14.5% to STD : 1.31 109 Sacilik and others
slices 50.9%; SR = 202.3 to 767.4 W/m2 OSD : 1.07 109 (2006)

C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists


Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

However, in practice (for a long drying period) only the first Equation 35 can further be expressed as
term of the series is often applied. Thus, Eq. 29 becomes
   
  8 2 D t
(M Me ) 8 2 D t ln (M R) = ln (36)
MR = = 2 exp (30) 2 4(h )2
(M0 Me ) 4(h )2
Equation 30 can further be simplified and expressed in a log- where D is the effective moisture diffusivity in m2 /s, h is the half
arithmic form (Doymaz 2005; Sacilik and others 2006; Doymaz thickness of slab (m), and n is the number of terms (as a positive
2007; Sacilik 2007; Kadam and others 2011; Kumar and others integer).
2012b; Rayaguru and Routray 2012; Doymaz 2012; Murthy and This geometry has been used in estimating the effective diffusiv-
Manohar 2012; Hii and Ogugo 2014; Saxena and Dash 2015). ity of banana, kiwifruit, tomato, pepper, mint leaves, basil leaves,
   2  parsley, quince, and mango (Table 3).
8 Dt Sphere. This product geometry is the third most widely used
ln (M R) = ln (31)
2 4(h )2 in calculating the effective moisture diffusivity of fruits and veg-
etables. The solution of Ficks law of diffusion for a spherical
where D is the effective moisture diffusivity in m2 /s, h is the geometry for a long drying period can be expressed as
half thickness of slab (m), and n is the number of terms (a positive
 2 2 
integer). Equation 29, 30, and 31 have been used in estimating the (M Me ) 6  1 n D t
effective moisture diffusivity of basil leaves, pumpkin, persimmon, MR = = 2 exp (37)
(M0 Me ) n = 0 n2 R2
tomato, stone apple, star fruit, carrot, jackfruit, green bean, and
mango ginger as presented in Table 3.
Infinite cylinder. This product geometry is rarely applied in Equation 37 can be expressed in a simple form as
estimating the effective diffusivity of fruits and vegetables. The    2 
equation used in estimating the effective diffusivity, assuming an 6 D
ln (M R) = ln t (38)
infinite cylindrical geometry, is expressed as 2 R2
(M Me )
MR = where R is the equivalent radius of the fruit or vegetable.
(M0 Me ) Equation 37 and 38 have been applied in estimating the effec-
 2   tive moisture diffusivity of date palm, green peas, berberis fruit,
4(h c R) D
=
exp 2n 2 t (32) hawthorn, and plum (Table 3).
n =0 n
2 (h c R) + D 2n
2
R Cylinder. This geometry is rarely used in estimating the effective
moisture diffusivity of fruits and vegetables. The solution of Ficks
However, this equation can be simplified and expressed as equation (Eq. 27) for estimating the effective moisture diffusivity
   of fruits and vegetables of cylindrical geometry is expressed by
D
MR = Bn exp 2n 2 t (33) Guine and others (2011) as
n=0
R
  
(M Me ) 4 D b n2 t
In Eq. 33 parameter MR = = exp (39)
(M0 Me ) n =1 n
b2 r2
2
4(Bi )
Bn = 2
(34)
n (Bi )2 + D 2n Considering only the first term of the series in Eq. 39, the
solution of Ficks Equation becomes
where Bi is the mass transfer Biot number ( h Dc R ), h c is the convec-
  2 
tive mass transfer coefficient, R is the radius of the infinite cylinder 4 b1
(m), D is the effective moisture diffusivity (m /s), and n are the
2 M R = 2
exp D t (40)
b1 r2
roots of the zero-order and first-order Bessel functions.
This equation has been applied successfully in estimating the Equation 40 can be expressed in a simple form as
effective moisture diffusivity of banana (Table 3).
Infinite slab. This product geometry together with the slab ge-    2 
4 b1 D
ometry is the most widely applied in estimating the moisture ln (M R) = ln 2 t (41)
diffusivity of fruits and vegetables. The solution to the Ficks sec- b1 r2
ond law of diffusion for long drying of an infinite slab geometry
material is often expressed as the same as that of the slab geometry where r is the cylinder radius.
in most studies (Simal and others 2005; Akpinar 2006a; Doymaz From Table 3, Eq. 39 to 41 have been used to estimate the
2010; Olurin and others 2012; Akoy 2014; Darvishi and others effective diffusivity of pumpkin.
2014; Omolola and others 2014; Dianda and others 2015; Tzem- Finite cylinder. The equation for a finite cylindrical geometry
pelikos and others 2015): without external resistance to mass transfer and negligible shrink-
age was obtained by integrating the second Ficks law equation.
(M Me ) Using the superimposition technique, Perez and Schmalko (2009)
MR =
(M0 Me ) stated the equation for a finite cylinder as a product of an infinite
  cylinder and an infinite slab:
8  1 (2n + 1)2 2 D t
= 2 exp (35)
n = 0 (2n + 1)2 4(h )2 MRfinite cylinder = MRinfinite cylinder MRinfinite slab (42)


C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 613
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

Considering only the first term of the series, the equation for a geometry as
finite cylinder can be expressed as  

2 8  1 (2n + 1)2 2 Defy t
+ 2.4048
2
Dt MR = 2 exp
MRfinite cylinder = 0.114 exp h 2 r2 (43) n = 1 (2n + 1)2 4L 2
(47)
where r is the cylinder radius and h is the thickness of the product.
This equation has been applied in estimating the effective mois- Y = M/V (48)
ture diffusivity of pumpkin (see Table 3).
Finite hollow cylinder. Using the separation of variables
method, Ponkham and others (2012) reported that the analytical Y0 = M0 /V0 (49)
solution of Ficks equation for a finite hollow cylinder is deter-
mined by the product of an infinite slab and the solution of an
infinite hollow cylinder:
Ye = Me /Ve (50)
MRfinite cylinder = MRinfinite cylinder MRinfinite slab (44)
Equation 47 can further be simplified and expressed as
Eq. 51.
32    
MR (t ) = 2  8 Defy 2 t
2 r 0 r i2 ln (Y/Y0 ) = ln (51)
2 4L 2


1 J 0 (r i n ) J 0 (r 0 n )
where De f y is the effective diffusivity considering shrinkage
n = 1m = 0
(2m + 1) n [J 0 (r i n ) + J 0 (r 0 n )]
2 2
(m2 /s), Vs is the sample volume (m3 ), V0 is the initial volume
    of the sample (m3 ), and Ve is the volume of the sample at equilib-
2
exp D 2n + (2m + 1)2 2 t (45) rium moisture content (m3 ).
h The researchers were able to accurately estimate the effective
moisture diffusivity of pumpkin considering the shrinkage effect.
where J 0 (r n ) is the Bessel function of the zero order (first
Therefore, Eq. 47 to 51 can be applied in estimating the effective
kind), h is the infinite slab thickness (m), r 0 is the outer radius
moisture diffusivity of fruits and vegetables of various shape ge-
of an infinite hollow cylinder (m), r i is the inner radius of an
ometries (by changing the shape factor), considering the shrinkage
infinite hollow cylinder (m), n and m are positive integers, D is
effect.
the effective moisture diffusivity, and n is the positive roots of
Estimation of the activation energy
J 0 (r i a n ) Y0 (r 0 a n ) J 0 (r 0 a n ) Y0 (r i a n ) = 0 (46) The relationship between effective diffusivity and temperature
is assumed to be an Arrhenius function (Akpinar 2006a; Sacilik
where Y0 (r n ) is the Bessel function of the zero order (second 2007; Vega and others 2007; Aghbashlo and others 2008; Pardeshi
kind). and others 2009; Perez and Schmalko 2009; Doymaz 2010; Guine
Equation 44 to 46 inclusive have been found applicable only for and others 2011; Unal and Sacilik 2011; Kumar and others 2012b;
estimating the effective diffusivity of pineapple (Table 3). Akoy 2014; Tzempelikos and others 2014; Da Silva and others
Generally, the solution of Ficks diffusion equation for various 2015; Dianda and others 2015; Saxena and Dash 2015), of the
geometries is almost the same with a variation of different shape type:
factor values such as 82 for slab and infinite slab, 42 for cylinder
 
and infinite cylinder, and 62 for spherical geometry (Erbay and Ea
Icier 2010; Akoy 2014). D = D0 exp (52)
R (T + 273.15)
Table 3 further shows the effective moisture diffusivity (D) of
various fruits and vegetables of various geometries over the past where D0 is the preexponential factor of the Arrhenius equation
10 y. From the table, it can be seen that D varies in the range in m2 /s, Ea is the activation energy in kJ/mol, R is the universal
1012 to 106 m 2 /s. In addition, over 80% of the D values of gas constant (R = 8.31451 J/mol/K), and T is the air temperature
fruits and vegetables are in the region 1011 to 108 m 2 /s and expressed in C.
1010 m 2 /s as the dominant value. However, these values could A plot of Ln(D) as a function of 1/ (T + 273.15) will produce
be overestimated, as over 95% of the literature studies investigated a straight line with a slope equal to (Ea /R), so Ea (103 ) can be
did not consider the shrinkage effect. easily estimated.
Most fruits and vegetables undergo shrinkage during drying, However, for microwave-drying (Table 3), Dadali and others
hence the shrinkage effect should always be considered in esti- (2007) developed another form to estimate the activation energy.
mating the value of D (Ruiz-Lopez and Garca-Alvarado 2007). They determined that D is a function of material mass and the
Similarly, Ponkham and others (2012) and Garcia and others (2007) microwave power level of an Arrhenius type equation:
demonstrated that an estimation of the moisture diffusivity with-  
out consideration of the shrinkage phenomenon overestimates the Ea m
transference of mass by diffusion. Therefore, much still needs to D = D0 exp (53)
Pm
be done in considering the shrinkage effect of fruits and vegeta-
bles during drying. Arevalo-Pinedo and Murr (2006) reported a where Ea is the activation energy (W/g), m is the mass of the
solution for estimating the effective moisture diffusivity of slab product (g) and Pm is the microwave output power (W).

614 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016 
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

This equation has been applied in calculating the activation affects the diffusivity of most fruits and vegetables, hence
energy during the drying of spinach, date palm, pepper, and mango it must be considered in describing the drying behavior of
ginger (see Table 3). fruits and vegetables.
Finally, the activation energy values in the literature, for various c. From the literature reviewed, over 90% of the activation
fruits and vegetables, for the specified period are tabulated in energy values are in the range 14.42 to 43.26 kJ/mol. Some
Table 3. In this table, over 90% of the activation energy values are 8% of the values are in the range 78.93 to 130.61 kJ/mol.
in the range 14.42 to 43.26 kJ/mol, while 8% of the values are The accumulation of the values is found in the range 21.6
in the range 78.93 to 130.61 kJ/mol. The large concentration of to 39.03 kJ/mol.
these values are found in the range 21.6 to 39.03 kJ/mol.
Thus, it can be further concluded that modeling the thin-layer
drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables will provide information
Conclusion concerning the storage conditions, ideal drying time, temperature,
Modeling the drying kinetics and determining the drying time air velocity, and relative humidity. With all this information, a more
of fruits and vegetables are 2 very important areas of drying. How- efficient dryer can be designed and its process optimized, thereby
ever, most production losses in the industry occur during drying. reducing postharvest losses.
In order to minimize these losses it is necessary to optimize the
drying conditions, machine design, and product quality. There
is a need to identify and evaluate the drying mechanisms, the- Nomenclature/Abbreviations
ories, applications, and comparison of thin-layer drying models M0 : Initial moisture content (g water/g dry solid)
of fruits and vegetables available in the literature. In this study, M e : Equilibrium moisture content (g water/g dry
an effort was made to describe a general overview of the thin- solid)
layer drying equations, theories, applications, effective moisture M: Moisture content at any time t (g water/g dry
diffusivity, activation energy, and results of modeling thin-layer solid)
drying of fruits and vegetables. During the drying process the air M R: Moisture ratio
velocity and relative humidity were found to be the least signifi- M R c : Critical moisture content
cant factors that affect the drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables, D: Effective moisture diffusivity (m2 /s)
while temperature and thickness were reported to be the factors Ea : Activation energy
that most affect thin-layer drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables. x: Direction of material dimension (m)
More so, evidence from the literature suggests that drying of fruits t : Time (s)
and vegetables occurs only during the falling rate period. k, g , h, k1 ,k2 , k0 : Drying constant (s1 )
Further, about 22 thin-layer models were found to be applicable d , n, a , b , c , : Model constant
in describing the drying behavior of fruits and vegetables. Based r : Radius of cylinder
on the literature reviewed, the semitheoretical models of the New z: Direction of thickness
law of cooling and Ficks second law of diffusion, such as Midilli h : Half thickness sample (m)
and others, Page, 2-term, logarithmic, Modified Page and the De f y : Effective diffusivity with shrinkage (m2 /s)
approximation of diffusion models were the most suitable models Dr : Drying rate (kg/kg min)
in describing the drying behavior of various fruits and vegetables Vs : Sample volume (m3 )
respectively. Generally, models from the solution of Ficks law of V 0 : Initial volume of sample (m3 )
diffusion were found to be the most suited in describing the drying Ve : Volume at equilibrium (m3 )
behavior of fruits and vegetables. Nonetheless, amongst the models x,y: Cartesian coordinates
derived from Newtons law of cooling only the Page model could Twb : Equilibrium temperature (C)
best describe the drying kinetics of fruits and vegetables. V a : Ambient air velocity (m/s)
2 2
In addition, some empirical models, such as Weibull, Wang R or r : Coefficient of determination
and Singh and Diamante and others offered good results for r or R: Correlation coefficient
the criteria and applications considered and products selected, SSE: Sum square error
respectively. However, the empirical models were derived from RM 2
SE: Root mean square error
experimental data and do not have any theoretical foundation x : Reduced chi-square
or physical meaning, hence are limited in effectively describing E F : Modeling efficiency
the drying behavior, and heat and mass transfer of the drying M B E: Mean bias error
process of fruits and vegetables. The statistical indicators that M P E: Mean percent error (%)
have often been used to successfully select the most appropriate RRM S: Mean relative error root square (%)
drying models as reported in the literature are R, R2 (r 2 ),x 2 , w: Width (mm)
SSE, RMSE, RRMS, EF, MPE, and MBE, respectively. h: Thickness (mm)
Furthermore, from the results of this study, the following points L: Length (mm)
2 2
can be drawn: A : Area (mm )
T: Temperature (C)
a. The slab, infinite slab, and sphere geometry are the most Ta : Ambient temperature (C)
widely used in estimating the effective diffusivity of fruits V: Air velocity (m/s)
and vegetables. RH Relative humidity (%)
b. The effective or apparent moisture diffusivity values of most E A: Exposed area (m2 )
fruits and vegetables are in the range 1012 to 106 m 2 /s. In Pd : Power density (W)
addition, over 80% of D values of fruits and vegetables are SR: Solar radiation (W/m2 )
11 8
in the region 10 to 10 m /s. Also, the shrinkage effect P :
2
Power intensity (W/m2 )


C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 615
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

I: Solar intensity (kW/m2 ) Arevalo-Pinedo A, Murr FEX. 2006. Kinetics of vacuum-drying of pumpkin
Cs : Sucrose concentration (Cucurbita maxima): modeling with shrinkage. J Food Engr 76(4):5627.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.06.003
Nacl: Sodium chloride
Ayadi M, Ben Mabrouk S, Zouari I, Bellagi A. 2014. Kinetic study of the
TI : Inlet temperature convective drying of spearmint. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 13(1):17.
CDr : Constant drying rate period doi:10.1016/j.jssas.2013.04.004
SDA: Single layer drying apparatus Babalis SJ, Papanicolaou E, Kyriakis N, Belessiotis VG. 2006. Evaluation of
TTD, TD: Tunnel and tray dryer thin-layer drying models for describing drying kinetics of figs (Ficus carica). J
Food Engr 75:20514. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.04.008
CTD: Cabinet tray dryer
Botelho FM, Correa PC, Goneli ALD, Martins MA, Magalhaes FEA,
OD: Oven dryer Campos SC. 2011. Periods of constant and falling-rate for infrared drying of
FIR: Far infrared radiation carrot slices. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrcola e Ambiental
TCD: Tunnel convection dryer 15(8):84552.
LHCD: Laboratory hot air convective dryer Brooker DB, Bakker-Arkema FW, Hall CW. 1992. Drying and storage of
HCD: Hot air convective dryer grains and oilseeds. Westport, Conn., U.S.A.: AVI Publishing Co.
LTCD: Laboratory thermal convective dryer Brooker DB, Bakker-Arkema FW, Hall CW. 1974. Drying cereal grains.
Westport, Conn., U.S.A.: AVI Publishing Co.
DMO: Domestic microwave oven
Bruce DM, 1985. Exposed layer barley drying, three models fitted to new
ID: Infrared dryer data up to 150 C. J Agric Engr Res 32:33747.
STD: Solar tunnel dryer Carrin ME, Crapiste GH. 2008. Convective drying of foods. In: Ratti C,
OSD: Open sun drying editor. Advances in food dehydration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. p
MD: Microwave dryer 123152.
ISD: Indirect solar dryer Chau KJ, Mujumdar AS, Hawlader MNA, Chou SK, Ho JC. 1997.
Convective drying of agricultural products: effect of continuous and
ATB: Aerothermic blower stepwise change in drying air temperature. Drying Technol 19(8):194960.
PPCD, PSD: Pilot plant convective dryer doi:10.1081/DRT-100107282
FBD: Fludized bed dryer Chen J, Zhou Y, Fang S, Meng Y, Kang X, Xu X, Zuo X. 2013.
IFSD: Indirect forced solar dryer Mathematical modeling of hot air drying kinetics of momordica charantia
slices and its color change. Adv J Food Sci Technol 5(9):12149.
IR: Infrared radiation drying
Cihan A, Ece MC. 2001. Liquid diffusion model for intermittent drying of
OMD: Osmotic dehydration rough rice. J Food Engr 49:32731.
Corzo O, Bracho N, Alvarez C. 2011. Determination of suitable thin-layer
Acknowledgment model for air drying of mango slices (Mangifera indica L.) at different air
The authors are grateful for the financial support received from temperatures and velocities. J Food Process Engr 34(2):33250.
the Univ. Putra Malaysia under Geran Putra research funding (GP- doi:10.1111/j.1745-4530.2009.00360.
IPM/9421900). Crank J. 1979. The mathematics of diffusion. Revised edition. Oxford, Great
Britain: Clarendon Press.
Dadali G, Demirhan E, Ozbek B. 2007. Color change kinetics of spinach
undergoing microwave drying. Drying Technol 25(10):171323.
References doi:10.1080/07373930701590988
Aghbashlo M, Kianmehr MH, Khani S, Ghasemi M. 2009. Mathematical Darc S, Sen S. 2015. Experimental investigation of convective drying
modeling of thin-layer drying of carrot. Intl Agrophys 23:3137. kinetics of kiwi under different conditions. Heat Mass Transfer
51(8):116776. doi:10.1007/s00231-014-1487-x
Aghbashlo M, Kianmehr MH, Samimi-Akhijahani H. 2008. Influence of
drying conditions on the effective moisture diffusivity, energy of activation Darvishi H, Asl AR, Asghari A, Azadbakht M, Najafi G, Khodaei J. 2014.
and energy consumption during the thin-layer drying of berberis fruit Study of the drying kinetics of pepper. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 13(2):1308.
(Berberidaceae). Ener Conver Manage 49(10):286571. doi:10.1016/j.jssas.2013.03.002
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2008.03.009 Darvishi H, Hazbavi E. 2012. Mathematical modeling of thin-layer drying
Akhondi E, Kazemi A, Maghsoodi V. 2011. Determination of a suitable behavior of date palm. Glob J Sci Front Res Math Dec Sci 12(10):917.
thin-layer drying curve model for saffron (Crocus sativus L) stigmas in an Darvishi H, Khoshtaghaza MH, Minaei S. 2014. Drying kinetics and colour
infrared dryer. Scientia Iranica 18(6):1397401. change of lemon slices. Intl Agrophys 28(1):16.
doi:10.1016/j.scient.2011.08.014 doi:10.2478/intag-2013-0021
Akoy EO. 2014. Experimental characterization and modeling of thin-layer Dash KK, Gope S, Sethi A, Doloi M. 2013. Star fruit slices. Intl J Agric Food
drying of mango slices. Intl Food Res J 21(5):19117. Sci Technol 4(7):67986.
Akpinar EK. 2006a. Determination of suitable thin-layer drying curve model Da Silva WP, Silva CMDPS, De Sousa JAR, Farias VSO. 2013. Empirical
for some vegetables and fruits. J Food Engr 73:7584. and diffusion models to describe water transport into chickpea (Cicer
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.01.007 arietinum L.). Intl J Food Sci Technol 48(2):26773.
Akpinar EK. 2006b. Mathematical modeling of thin-layer drying process doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.03183.x
under open sun of some aromatic plants. J Food Engr 77:86470. Da Silva WP, Rodrigues AF, Silva CMDPS, De Castro DS, Gomes JP. 2015.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.08.014 Comparison between continuous and intermittent drying of whole bananas
Akpinar EK, Bicer Y, Yildiz C. 2003. Thin-layer drying of red pepper. J using empirical and diffusion models to describe the processes. J Food Engr
Food Engr 59(1):99104. doi:10.1016/S0260-8774(02)00425-9. 166:2306. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.06.018
Akpinar EK, Bicer Y. 2005. Modeling of the drying of eggplants in Demir VA, Gunhan T, Yagcioglu AK. 2007. Mathematical modeling of
thin-layers. Intl J Food Sci Technol 40:27381. convection drying of green table olives. Biosyst Engr 98:4753.
doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2007.06.011
Alves-Filho O, Strommen I, Thorbergsen E. 1997. A simulation model
for heat pump dryer plants for fruits and roots. Drying Technol 15(5): Diamante L, Durand M, Savage G, Vanhanen L. 2010a. Effect of temperature
136998 on the drying characteristics, colour and ascorbic acid content of green and
gold kiwifruits. Intl Food Res J 451:44151.
ANSI/ASAE. 2014. Thin-layer drying of agricultural crops. In: revised
approved ASABE standards. American Society of Agricultural and Diamante LM, Ihns R, Savage GP, Vanhanen L. 2010b. Short
Biological Engineers (S448.2). Available from: https://elibrary.asabe.org/ communication: a new mathematical model for thin-layer drying of fruits.
azdez.asp?JID=2&AID=45096&CID=s2000&T=2&redir= Intl J Food Sci Technol 45(9):195662. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.
none&redirType=standards.asp. Accessed 2015 July 13. 02345.x
Araya-Farias M, Ratti C. 2009. Dehydration of foods: general concepts. In: Dianda B, Ousmane M, Kam S, Ky T, Bathiebo DJ. 2015. Experimental
Ratti C, editor. Advances in food dehydration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC study of the kinetics and shrinkage of tomato slices in convective drying. Afr
Press. p 136. doi:10.1201/9781420052534.ch1. J Food Sci 9(5):26271. doi:10.5897/AJFS2015.1298

616 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016 
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

Doymaz I. 2005. Drying behaviour of green beans. J Food Engr 69:1615. Kaleta A, Gornicki K. 2010. Evaluation of drying models of apple (var.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.08.009 McIntosh) dried in a convective dryer. Intl J Food Sci Technol 45(5):8918.
Doymaz I. 2007. The kinetics of forced convective air-drying of pumpkin doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.02230.x
slices. J Food Engr 79:2438. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.01.049 Kaur K, Singh AK. 2014. Drying kinetics and quality characteristics of
Doymaz I. 2012. Evaluation of some thin-layer drying models of persimmon beetroot slices under hot air followed by microwave finish drying. Afr J
slices (Diospyros kaki L .). Ener Conver Manage 56:199205. Agric Res 9(12):103644. doi:10.5897/AJAR2013.
doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2011.11.027 Keey R.B. 1972. Drying principles and practice. Oxford: Pergamon Press. p
Doymaz I. 2010. Evaluation of mathematical models for prediction of 118.
thin-layer drying of banana slices. Intl J Food Prop 13(3):48697. Kiranoudis CT, Tsami E, Maroulis ZB, Marinos-Kouris D. 1997. Drying
doi:10.1080/10942910802650424 kinetics of some fruits. Drying Technol 15(5):1399418.
Duc LA, Woong HJ, Hyuk KD. 2011. Thin-layer drying characteristics of Klemes J, Smith R, Kim JK. 2008. Handbook of water and energy
rapeseed. J Stored Products Res 47:328. management in food processing. Boca Raton: Woodhead Publishing and
Ekechukwu OV. 1999. Review of solar-energy drying systems I: an overview CRC Press. p 449629.
of drying principles and theory. Ener Conver Manage 40(6):593613. Krokida MK, Karathanos VT, Maroulis ZB, Marinos-Kouris D. 2003.
El-Beltagy A, Gamea GR, Essa AHA. 2007. Solar drying characteristics of Drying kinetics of some vegetables. J Food Engr 59(4):391403.
strawberry. J Food Engr 78:45664. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.10.015 doi:10.1016/S0260-8774(02)00498-3
El-mesery HS, Mwithiga G. 2012. The drying of onion slices in two types of Kucuk H, Midilli A, Kilic A, Dincer I. 2014. A review on thin-layer
hot-air convective dryers. Afr J Agric Res 7(30):428496. drying-curve equations. Drying Technol 32(7):75773.
doi:10.5897/AJAR11.2065 doi:10.1080/07373937.2013.873047
Erbay Z, Icier F. 2010. A review of thin-layer drying of foods: theory, Kudra T, Mujumdar AS. 2002. Part I. General discussion: conventional and
modeling, and experimental results. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 50(5):44164. novel drying concepts. In: Kudra T, Mujumdar AS, editors. Advanced
doi:10.1080/10408390802437063 drying technologies. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. p 126.
Fadhel MI, Abdo RA, Yousif BF, Zaharim A, Sopian K. 2011. Thin-layer Kumar PDG, Hebber UH, Ramesh MN. 2006. Suitability of thin layer
drying characteristics of banana slices in a force convection indirect solar models for infrared-hot-air drying of onion slices. LWT-Food Science and
drying. In: 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on Energy and Technology 39(6):7005.
Environment: Recent Researches in Energy and Environment, Cambridge, Kumar C, Karim A, Joardder MUH, Miller GJ. 2012a. Modeling heat and
United Kingdom, 23-25 Feb 2011, P 31015. mass transfer process during convection drying of fruit. The 4th
Gan PL, Poh PE. 2014. Investigation on the effect of shapes on the drying International Conference on Computational Methods (ICCM2012), Gold
kinetics and sensory evaluation study of dried jackfruit. Intl J Sci Engr Coast, Australia, p 2527, November 2012.
7:1938. Kumar N, Sarkar BC, Sharma HK. 2012b. Mathematical modeling of
Garcia CC, Mauro MA, Kimura M. 2007. Kinetics of osmotic dehydration thin-layer hot air drying of carrot pomace. J Food Sci Technol 49(1):3341.
and air-drying of pumpkins (Cucurbita moschata). J Food Engr 82(3):28491. doi:10.1007/s13197-011-0266-7
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.02.004 Luikov AV. 1975. Systems of differential equations of heat and mass transfer in
Giri SK, Prasad S. 2007. Drying kinetics and rehydration characteristics of capillary-porous bodies. Intl J Heat Mass Transfer 18:114.
microwave vacuum and convective-hot air-dried mushrooms. J Food Engr Mabrouk SB, Benali E, Oueslati H. 2012. Experimental study and numerical
78:51221. modelling of drying characteristics of apple slices. Food Bioprod Process
Guan Z, Wang X, Li M, Jiang X. 2013. Mathematical modeling on hot air 90(4):71928. doi:10.1016/j.fbp.2012.02.001
drying of thin-layer fresh tilapia fillets. Polish J Food Nutr Sci 63(1):2534. Meisami-asl E, Rafiee S. 2009. Mathematical modeling of kinetics of thin
doi:10.2478/v10222. layer drying of Apples (Golab). Agric Engr Intl: CIGR J 6:110.
Guine RPF, Pinho S, Barroca MJ. 2011. Study of the convective drying of Meisami-asl E, Rafiee S, Keyhani A, Tabatabaeefar A. 2010. Determination
pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima). Food Bioprod Process 89(4):4228. of suitable thin-layer drying curve model for apple slices (Golab). Plant
doi:10.1016/j.fbp.2010.09.001 OMICS 3(3):1038.
Gupta K, Alam S. 2014. Modeling of thin-layer drying kinetics of grape juice Menges HO, Ertekin C. 2006. Mathematical modeling of thin-layer drying
concentrate and quality assessment of developed grape leather. Agric Engr of golden apples. J Food Engr 77(1):11925.
Intl: CIGR J 16(2):196207. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.06.049
Hashim N, Onwude D, Rahaman E. 2014. A preliminary study: kinetic Mercali GD, Tessaro IC, Norena CPZ, Marczak LDF. 2010. Mass transfer
model of drying process of pumpkins (Cucurbita moschata) in a convective kinetics during osmotic dehydration of bananas (Musa sapientum, shum.).
hot air dryer. Agric Agric Sci Procedia 2(2):34552. Intl J Food Sci Technol 45(11):22819. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2010.
doi:10.1016/j.aaspro.2014.11.048 02418.x
Henderson SM. 1974. Progress in developing the thin-layer drying equation. Midilli A, Kucuk H, Yapar Z. 2002. A new model for single-layer drying.
Transact ASAE 17:116772. Drying Technol 20(7):150313. doi:10.1081/DRT-120005864
Henderson SM, Pabis S. 1961. Grain drying theory I: temperature effect on Mihindukulasuriya SDF, Jayasuriya HPW. 2013. Mathematical modeling of
drying coefficient. J Agric Engr Res 6:16974. drying characteristics of chilli in hot air oven and fluidized bed dryers. Agric
Hii CLIK, Ogugo JF. 2014. Effect of pre-treatment on the drying kinetics Engr Intl: CIGR J 15(1):15466.
and product quality of star fruit slices. J Engr Sci Technol 9(1):12335. Misha S, Mat AS, Ruslan MH, Sopian K, Salleh E. 2013. The effect of drying
Hii CL, Law CL, Cloke M. 2009. Modeling using a new thin-layer drying air temperature and humidity on the drying kinetic of kenaf core. Appl
model and product quality of cocoa. J Food Engr 90(2):1918. Mech Mater 315:7104. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.315.710
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2008.06.022 Mohammadi A, Rafiee S, Keyhani A. 2008. Estimation of thin-layer drying
Hossain MA, Woods JL, Bala BK. 2007. Single-layer drying characteristics characteristics of kiwifruit (Hayward) with use of Pages model. Am-Euras J
and colour kinetics of red chilli. Intl J Food Sci Technol 42(11):136775. Sustain Agric 3(5):8025.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.01414.x Murthy TPK, Manohar B. 2012. Microwave-drying of mango ginger
Jangam SV, Mujumdar AS. 2010. Basic concepts and definition. In: Jangam (Curcuma amada Roxb): prediction of drying kinetics by mathematical
SV, Law CL, Mujumdar AS, editors. Drying of foods, vegetables and fruits, modeling and artificial neural network. Intl J Food Sci Technol
Vol. 1. Singapore NUS. p 130. ISBN: 978-981-08-7985-3. 47(6):122936. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2012.02963.x
Janjai S, Lamlert N, Mahayothee B, Bala BK, Precoppe M, Muller J. 2011. Olurin TO, Adelekan AO, Olosunde WA. 2012. Mathematical modeling of
Thin-layer drying of peeled longan. Food Sci Technol 17(4):27988. drying characteristics of blanched field pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L) slices.
doi:10.3136/fstr.17.279 Agric Engr Intl: CIGR J 14(4):24654.
Jazini MH, Hatamipour MS. 2010. A new physical pretreatment of plum for Omolola AO, Jideani AIO, Kapila PF. 2014. Modeling microwave-drying
drying. Food Bioprod Process 88(23):1337. kinetics and moisture diffusivity of Mabonde banana variety. Intl J Agric
doi:10.1016/j.fbp.2009.06.002 Biol Engr 7(6):10713. doi:10.3965/j.ijabe.20140706.013
Kadam DM, Goyal RK, Gupta MK. 2011. Mathematical modeling of Onwude DI, Hashim N, Janius R, Nawi N, Abdan K. 2015a. Computer
convective thin-layer drying of basil leaves. J Med Plants Res 5(19):472130. simulation of convective hot air drying kinetics of pumpkin (Cucurbita


C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists Vol. 15, 2016 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 617
Thin-layer models of fruits and vegetables . . .

moschata). The 8th Asia-Pacific Drying Conference (ADC 2015) Kuala Saxena J, Dash KK. 2015. Drying kinetics and moisture diffusivity study of
Lumpur, Malaysia, 1012 August 2015, p 1229. ripe jackfruit. Intl Food Res J 22(1):41420.
Onwude DI, Hashim N, Janius R, Nawi N, Abdan K. 2015b. Evaluation of Seremet (Ceclu) L, Botez E, Nistor OV, Andronoiu DG, Mocanu GD. 2015.
a suitable thin-layer model for drying of pumpkin under forced air Effect of different drying methods on moisture ratio and rehydration of
convection. Intl Food Res J, Accepted Manuscript. pumpkin slices. Food Chem 195:1049.
Ozdemir M, Devres YO. 2000. The thin-layer drying characteristics of doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.125
hazelnuts during roasting. J Food Engr 42:22533. Shi J, Pan Z, McHugh TH, Wood D, Hirschberg E, Olson D. 2008. Drying
Page GE. 1949. Factors nfluencing the maximum rate of air drying shelled and quality characteristics of fresh and sugar-infused blueberries dried with
corn in thin-layers [MS thesis]. Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Indiana. infrared radiation heating. LWTFood Sci Technol 41(10):196272.
doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2008.01.003
Panchariya PC, Popovic D, Sharma AL. 2002. Thin-layer modeling of black
tea drying process. J Food Engr 52:34957. Simal S, Femenia A, Garau MC, Rossello C. 2005. Use of exponential,
Pages and diffusional models to simulate the drying kinetics of kiwi fruit. J
Pandey H, Sharma HK, Chauhan RC, Sarkar BC, Bera MB. 2010. Food Engr 66(3):3238. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.03.025
Experiments in food process engineering. New Delhi: CBS Publisher and
Distributors PVT. p 13945. Sturm B, Hofacker WC, Hensel O. 2012. Optimizing the drying parameters
for hot-airdried apples. Drying Technol 30(14):157082.
Pardeshi IL, Arora S, Borker PA. 2009. Thin-layer drying of green peas and doi:10.1080/07373937.2012.698439
selection of a suitable thin-layer drying model. Drying Technol
27(2):28895. doi:10.1080/07373930802606451 Tahmasebi M, Hashjin TT, Khoshtaghaza MH, Nikbakht AM. 2011.
Evaluation of thin-layer drying models for simulation of drying kinetics of
Pereira W, Silva CMDPS, Gama FJA. 2014. Mathematical models to describe quercus (Quercus persica and Quercus libani). J Agric Sci Technol 13:15563.
thin-layer drying and to determine drying rate of whole bananas. J Saudi
Soc Agric Sci 13(1):6774. doi:10.1016/j.jssas.2013.01.003 Tzempelikos DA, Vouros AP, Bardakas AV, Filios AE, Margaris DP. 2014.
Case studies on the effect of the air drying conditions on the convective
Perez NE, Schmalko ME. 2009. Convective drying of pumpkin: influence of drying of quinces. Case Stud Thermal Engr 3:7985.
pretreatment and drying temperature. J Food Process Engr 32(1):88103. doi:10.1016/j.csite.2014.05.001
doi:10.1111/j.1745-4530.2007.00200.x
Tzempelikos DA, Vouros AP, Bardakas AV, Filios AE, Margaris DP. 2015.
Ponkham K, Meeso N, Soponronnarit S, Siriamornpun S. 2012. Modeling Experimental study on convective drying of quince slices and evaluation of
of combined far-infrared radiation and air drying of a ring shaped-pineapple thin-layer drying models. Engr Agric Environ Food 8(3):16977.
with/without shrinkage. Food Bioprod Process 90(2):15564. doi:10.1016/j.eaef.2014.12.002
doi:10.1016/j.fbp.2011.02.008
Unal HG, Sacilik K. 2011. Drying characteristics of hawthorn fruits in a
Rasouli M, Seiiedlou S, Ghasemzadeh HR, Nalbandi H. 2011. Convective convective hot-air dryer. J Food Process Preserv 35(2):2729.
drying of garlic (Allium sativum L.): part I: drying kinetics, mathematical doi:10.1111/j.1745-4549.2009.00451.x
modeling and change in color. Austr J Crop Scie 5(13):170714.
Vega A, Uribe E, Lemus R, Miranda M. 2007. Hot-air drying characteristics
Raquel PF, Susana P, Maria JB. 2011. Study of the convective drying of of aloe vera (Aloe barbadensis) and influence of temperature on kinetic
pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima). Food Bioprod Process 89:4228. parameters. LWTFood Sci Technol 40:1698707.
Rayaguru K, Routray W. 2012. Mathematical modeling of thin-layer drying doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2007.01.001
kinetics of stone apple slices. Intl Food Res J 19(4):150310. Vega A, Fito P, Andres A, Lemus R. 2007. Mathematical modeling of
Reyes A, Alvarez PI, Marquardt FH. 2007. Drying of carrots in a fluidized hot-air drying kinetics of red bell pepper (var. Lamuyo). J Food Engr 79:
bed. I. Effects of drying conditions and modeling. Drying Technol 14606.
20(7):146383. doi:10.1081/DRT-120005862 Verma LR, Bucklin RA, Ednan JB, Wratten FT. 1985. Effects of drying air
Ruiz-Lopez II, Garca-Alvarado MA. 2007. Analytical solution for parameters on rice drying models. Transact ASAE 28:296301.
food-drying kinetics considering shrinkage and variable diffusivity. J Food Wang CY, Singh RP. 1978. A single layer drying equation for rough rice.
Engr 79(1):20816. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.01.051 ASAE Paper No: 78-3001: Am Soc Agric Biol Engr, St. Joseph, MI.
Rizvi SSH. 1995. Thermodynamic properties of foods in dehydration. In: Yaldyz O, Ertekyn C. 2007. Thin-layer solar drying of some vegetables.
Rao MA, Rizvi SSH, editors. Engineering properties of foods. New York: Drying Technol 19(34):58397. doi:10.1081/DRT-100103936
Marcel Dekker. p 223309.
Yaldiz O, Ertekin C, Uzun HI. 2001. Mathematical modeling of thin-layer
Sacilik K. 2007. Effect of drying methods on thin-layer drying characteristics solar drying of sultana grapes. Energy 26(5):45765.
of hull-less seed pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.). J Food Engr 79(1):2330.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.01.023 Yang H, Sakai N, Watanabe M. 2001. Drying model with non-isotropic
shrinkage deformation undergoing simultaneous heat and mass transfer.
Sacilik K, Keskin R, Elicin AK. 2006. Mathematical modeling of solar tunnel Drying Technol 19:144160.
drying of thin-layer organic tomato. J Food Engr 73:2318.
doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.01.025 Zarein M, Samadi S, Barat G. 2013. Kinetic drying and mathematical
modeling of apple slices on dehydration process. J Food Process Technol
Sacilik K, Unal G. 2005. Dehydration characteristics of kastamonu garlic 4(7):14. doi:10.4172/2157-7110.1000247
slices. Biosyst Engr 92(2):20715. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.06.
006 Zenoozian MS, Feng H, Shahidi F, Pourreza HR. 2008. Image analysis and
dynamic modeling of thin-layer drying of osmotically dehydrated pumpkin.
Saeed IE, Sopian K, Abidin ZZ. 2008. Drying characteristics of roselle (1): J Food Process Preserv 32:88102.
mathematical modeling and drying experiments. Agric Engr Intl: CIGR J
X(1):125.

618 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 15, 2016 
C 2016 Institute of Food Technologists