Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/265528039
CITATIONS READS
128 764
2 authors, including:
Zacharias B Maroulis
National Technical University of Athens
140 PUBLICATIONS 7,101 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Zacharias B Maroulis on 04 June 2015.
CONTENTS
Classificationa Material Water Content (kg/kg db) Temperature (8C) Diffusivity (m2/s) Ref.
Food
1 Alfalfa stems <3.70 26 2.6E-12–2.6E-09 23
2 Apple 0.12 60 6.5E-12–1.2E-10 24
0.15–7.00 30–76 1.2E-10–2.6E-10 25
3 Avocado 31–56 1.1E-10–3.3E-10 26
4 Beet 65 1.5E-09 26
5 Biscuit 0.10–0.65 20–100 9.4E-10–9.7E-08 27
6 Bread 0.10–0.70 20–100 2.5E-09–5.5E-07 27
7 Carrot 0.03–11.6 42–80 9.0E-10–3.3E-09 28
8 Corn 0.05–0.23 40 1.0E-12–1.0E-10 29
0.19–0.27 36–62 7.2E-11–3.3E-10 30
9 Fish muscle 0.05–0.30 30 8.1E-11–3.4E-10 31
10 Garlic 0.20–1.60 22–58 1.1E-11–2.0E-10 32
11 Milk foam 0.20 40 1.1E-09 33
Milk skim 0.25–0.80 30–70 1.5E-11–2.5E-10 34
12 Muffin 0.10–0.65 20–100 8.4E-10–1.5E-07 27
13 Onion 0.05–18.7 47–81 7.0E-10–4.9E-09 35
14 Pasta, semolina 0.01–0.25 40–125 3.0E-13–1.5E-10 36
Pasta, corn based 0.10–0.40 40–80 5.0E-11–1.3E-10 37
Pasta, durum wheat 0.16–0.35 50–90 2.5E-12–5.6E-11 38
15 Pepper, green 0.04–16.2 47–81 5.0E-10–9.2E-09 35
16 Pepperoni 0.19 12 4.7E-11–5.7E-11 39
17 Potato 0.60 54 2.6E-10 40
<4.00 65 4.0E-10 41
0.15–3.50 65 1.7E-09 42
0.01–7.20 39–82 5.0E-11–2.7E-09 43
18 Rice 0.18–0.36 60 1.3E-11–2.3E-11 44
0.28–0.64 40–56 1.0E-11–6.9E-11 45
19 Soybeans, defatted 0.05 30 2.0E-12–5.4E-12 46
20 Starch, gel 0.10–0.30 25 1.0E-12–2.3E-11 47
0.20–3.00 30–50 1.0E-10–1.2E-09 48
0.75 25–140 1.0E-10–1.5E-09 49
Starch granular 0.10–0.50 25–140 5.0E-10–3.0E-09 49
21 Sugar beet 2.50–3.60 40–80 4.0E-10–1.3E-09 50, 51
22 Tapioca root 0.16–1.95 97 9.0E-10 52, 53
23 Turkey 0.04 22 8.0E-15 54
24 Wheat 0.12–0.30 21–80 6.9E-12–2.8E-10 55
0.13–0.20 20 3.3E-10–3.7E-09 56
Other materials
1 Asbestos cement 0.10–0.60 20 2.0E-09–5.0E-09 20
2 Avicel (FMC Corp.) 37 5.0E-09–5.0E-08 57
3 Brick powder 0.08–0.16 60 2.5E-08–2.5E-06 58
4 Carbon, activated 25 1.6E-05 59
5 Cellulose acetate 0.05–0.12 25 2.0E-12–3.2E-12 60
6 Clay brick 0.20 25 1.3E-08–1.4E-08 61
7 Concrete 0.10–0.40 20 5.0E-10–1.2E-08 20
Concrete, pumice 0.20 25 1.8E-08 61
8 Diatomite 0.05–0.50 20 3.0E-09–5.0E-09 20
9 Glass wool 0.10–1.80 20 2.0E-09–1.5E-08 20
Glass spheres, 10 mm 0.01–0.22 60 1.84E-8 + 0.94E-8 16
10 Hyde clay 0.10–0.40 5.0E-09–1.0E-08 62
11 Kaolin clay <0.50 45 1.5E-08–1.5E-07 20
12 Model system 68 3.1E-09 63
continued
Classificationa Material Water Content (kg/kg db) Temperature (8C) Diffusivity (m2/s) Ref.
most investigated materials in the literature, and they basis of Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4, it is concluded that
are presented separately. Table 4.2 was prepared for the differences in diffusivity among materials are less
the needs of this chapter, that is, to show the range of than that between temperature or material moisture
variation of diffusivity for various materials and not content of the same material. Diffusivities of other
to present some experimental values. That is why solutes in various materials are also presented in the
most of the data are presented as ranges. literature (e.g., see Ref. [68]).
The data of Table 4.2 are further displayed in
Figure 4.1 through Figure 4.4. The moisture diffusiv- 4.2.4 FACTORS AFFECTING DIFFUSIVITY
ity is plotted versus the number of material for food
and other materials in Figure 4.1. Diffusivities in Moisture diffusivity depends strongly on temperature
foods have values in the range 1013 to 106 m2/s, and, often, very strongly on the moisture content, but
and most of them (82%) are accumulated in the re- there are few reliable figures. In porous materials the
gion 1011 to 108. Diffusivities of other materials void fraction affects diffusivity significantly, and the
have values in the range 1012 to 105, whereas pore structure and distribution do so even more.
most of them (58%) are accumulated in the region The temperature dependence of the diffusivity can
109 to 107. These results are also clarified in the generally be described by the Arrhenius equation,
histograms of Figure 4.2. Diffusivities in foods are which takes the form
less than those in other materials. This is because of
the complicated biopolymer structure of food and, D ¼ DO exp ( E=RT) (4:2)
probably, the stronger binding of water in them.
The influence of material moisture content and where DO (m2/s) is the Arrhenius factor, E (kJ/kmol)
temperature from the statistical point of view is is the activation energy for diffusion, R (kJ/(kmol K))
shown in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4. Figure 4.3 the gas constant, and T (K) the temperature.
shows the diffusivities versus the material moisture The moisture content dependence of the diffusiv-
content for all the materials. The positive effect of ity can be introduced in the Arrhenius equation by
material moisture content on diffusivity is evident. considering either the activation energy or the Arrhe-
The same trend is noted in Figure 4.4 with regard to nius factor as an empirical function of moisture. Both
the temperature. It should be noted that the observed modifications can be considered simultaneously.
trends in the previous figures are the result of exam- Other empirical equations not based on the Arrhenius
ining different materials at various temperatures and equation can be used.
moistures and from various sources. The influence of The moisture diffusivity is an increasing function
material moisture content and temperature for each of the temperature and moisture of the material. Yet,
material is discussed in the next section. in certain categories of polymers, deviation from this
In general, comparison among diffusivities kind of behavior has been observed. For instance, for
reported in the literature is difficult because of the several of the less hydrophilic polymers (e.g., poly-
different methods of estimation and the variation of methacrylates and polycrylates) the moisture diffusiv-
composition, especially for foods. However, on the ity decreases with increasing water content. On the
10−7
Moisture
diffusivity 10−9
(m2/s)
10−11
10−13
0 5 10 15 20 25
Number of material on Table 4.2
Food materials
10−5
10−7
Moisture
diffusivity 10−9
(m2/s)
10−11
10−13
0 5 10 15 25
Number of material on Table 4.2
Other materials
FIGURE 4.1 Moisture diffusivity in various materials (data from Table 4.2).
other hand, the moisture diffusivity appears to be diffusion as a function of material moisture content.
independent of the concentration—and hence con- Equation T3.7 through Equation T3.10 are not based
stant—for some hydrophobic polyolefins. on the Arrhenius form. They are empirical and they use
Table 4.3 gives some relationships that describe complicated functions concerning the discrimination
simultaneous dependence of the diffusivity upon tem- of the moisture and temperature effects (except, of
perature and moisture. Some rearrangement of the course, Equation T3.7). Equation T3.11 is more so-
equations proposed has been done in order to present phisticated as it considers different diffusivities of
them in a uniform format. Table 4.4 lists parameter bound and free water and introduces the functional
values for typical equations of Table 4.3. dependence of material moisture content on the bind-
Equation T3.1 through Equation T3.4 in Table ing energy of desorption. Equation T3.12 introduces
4.3 suggest that the material moisture content can be the effect of porosity on moisture diffusivity.
taken into account by considering the preexponential With regard to the number of parameters involved
factor of the Arrhenius equation as a function of (a significant measure concerning the regression an-
material moisture content. Polynomial functions of alysis), it is concluded that at least three parameters
first order can be considered (Equation T3.1), as are needed (Equation T3.1, Equation T3.5, and Equa-
well as of higher order (Equation T3.2 or Equation tion T3.7).
T3.3). The exponential function can also be used Equation T3.5 and Equation T3.7 in Table 4.3
(Equation T3.4). were applied to potato and clay brick, respectively,
Equation T3.5 and Equation T3.6 in Table 4.3 are and the results are presented in Figure 4.5. Both
obtained by considering the activation energy for materials exhibit typical behavior. Diffusivity at low
20
Number 15
of values
accounted
10
0
−13 −12 −11 −10 −9 −8 −7 −6 −5
log(D)
Food materials
24
12
10
Number 6
of values
accounted 6
0
−13 −12 −11 −10 −9 −8 −7 −6 −5
log(D)
Other materials
FIGURE 4.2 Histograms of diffusivities in various materials (data from Table 4.2).
moisture content shows a steep descent when the moi- some structural models to express the system geom-
sture content decreases. etry. Although a lot of work has been done in
The equations listed in Table 4.3 resulted from the analogous case of thermal conductivity, little
fitting to experimental data. The reason for the success attention has been given to the case of moisture dif-
of this procedure is the apparent simple dependence of fusivity, and even less experimental validation of the
diffusivity upon the material moisture content and structural models has been obtained. The similarity,
temperature, which, as stated above, can be described however, of the relevant transport phenomena (i.e.,
even by three parameters only. The equations of Table heat and mass transfer) permits, under certain restric-
4.3 have been chosen by the respective researchers as tions, the use of conclusions derived from one area in
the most appropriate for the material listed. the other. Thus, the literature correlations for the
A single relation for the dependence of diffusivity estimation of the effective diffusion coefficient, in
upon the material moisture content and temperature many cases, had been initially developed for the ther-
general enough so as to apply to all the materials mal conductivity in porous media [79].
would be especially useful. It is expected that such a
relation will be proposed soon. 4.2.5 THEORETICAL ESTIMATION
The effect of pore structure and distribution on
moisture diffusion can be examined by considering The prediction of the diffusion coefficients of gases
the material as a two-(or multi-) phase (dry material, from basic thermophysical and molecular properties is
water, air in voids, etc.) system and by considering possible with great accuracy using the Chapman–Enskog
10−7
Moisture
diffusivity 10−9
(m2/s)
10−11
10−13
10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101 102
Material moisture content (kg/kg db)
Food materials
10−5
10−7
Moisture
diffusivity 10−9
(m2/s)
10−11
10−13
10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101 102
Material moisture content (kg/kg db)
Other materials
FIGURE 4.3 Moisture diffusivity versus material moisture content (data from Table 4.2).
10−7
Moisture
diffusivity 10−9
(m2/s)
10−11
10−13
0 50 100 150
Temperature (°C)
Food materials
10−5
10−7
Moisture
diffusivity 10−9
(m2/s)
10−11
10−13
0 50 100 150
Temperature (°C)
Other materials
FIGURE 4.4 Moisture diffusivity versus material temperature (data from Table 4.2).
method requires data for composition, binary mo- material (kJ/(kg K)), T is the temperature (K), and t
lecular diffusivities, densities, membrane and cell is the time (s). The quantity (k/@cp) is the thermal
wall permeabilities, molecular weights, and water vis- diffusivity. For heterogeneous materials, the effective
cosity and molar volume [81]. The effect of moisture thermal conductivity is used in conjunction with
upon the effective diffusivity is taken into account via Fourier’s law.
the binding energy of sorption in an equation sug- Equation 4.4 is used in cases in which heat trans-
gested in Ref. [77]. fer during drying takes place through conduction
(internally controlled drying). This, for example, is the
4.3 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY situation when drying large particles, relatively immo-
bile, that are immersed in the heat transfer medium.
4.3.1 DEFINITION As far as heat and mass transfer is concerned, the
drying process is internally controlled whenever the
The thermal conductivity of a material is a measure of respective Biot number (BiH, BiM) is greater than 1 [5].
its ability to conduct heat. It can be defined using
Fourier’s law for homogeneous materials: 4.3.2 METHODS OF EXPERIMENTAL MEASUREMENT
@T =@t ¼ (k=cp )r2 T (4:4) The effective thermal conductivity can be determined
using the methods presented in Table 4.5, which in-
where k is the thermal conductivity (kW/(m K)), r is cludes the relevant references. Measurement tech-
the density (kg/m3), cp is the specific heat of the niques for thermal conductivity can be grouped into
TABLE 4.4
Application Examples
100°C
4 × 10−9
−9
Moisture 3 × 10
60°C
diffusivity
(m2/s)
2 × 10−9
20°C
1 × 10−9
0 × 100
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Water content (kg/kg db)
Potato
10−6
100°C
10−7
Moisture
diffusivity
(m2/s) 60°C
20°C
10−8
10−9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Water content (kg/kg db)
Clay brick
FIGURE 4.5 Effect of material moisture content and temperature on moisture diffusivity. Data for potato are
from Kiranoudis, C.T., Maroulis, Z.B., and Marinos-Kouris, D., Drying Technol., 10(4), 1097, 1992 and data for clay
brick are from Haertling, M., in Drying ’80, Vol. 1, A.S. Mujumdar (Ed.), Hemisphere Publishing, New York, 1980,
pp. 88–98.
Different geometries can be used, those for longitu- 4.3.2.3 Radial Heat Flow
dinal heat flow and radial heat flow.
Whereas the longitudinal heat flow methods are most
suitable for slab specimens, the radial heat flow techni-
4.3.2.2 Longitudinal Heat Flow (Guarded ques are used for loose, unconsolidated powder or granu-
Hot Plate) lar materials. The methods can be classified as follows:
The longitudinal heat flow (guarded hot plate) Cylinder with or without end guards
method is regarded as the most accurate and most Sphere with central heating source
widely used apparatus for the measurement of ther- Concentric cylinder comparative method
mal conductivity of poor conductors of heat. This
method is most suitable for dry homogeneous speci- 4.3.2.4 Unsteady State Methods
mens in slab forms. The details of the technique are
given by the American Society for Testing and Transient-state or unsteady-state methods make use
Materials (ASTM) Standard C-177 [82]. of either a line source of heat or plane sources of heat.
14
12
10
Number
of values 8
accounted
6
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Values of thermal conductivity (W/(m k))
FIGURE 4.6 Distribution of thermal conductivity values (data from Table 4.5).
are used to express the temperature effect. A large is perpendicular to alternate layers of the two phases,
number of empirical equations for the calculation of whereas the parallel model assumes that the two
thermal conductivity as a function of temperature phases are parallel to heat conduction. In the mixed
and humidity are available in the literature [83,92]. model, heat conduction is assumed to take place by a
For heterogeneous materials, the effect of geom- combination of parallel and perpendicular heat flow.
etry must be considered using structural models. Util- In the random model, the two phases are assumed
izing Maxwell’s and Eucken’s work in the field of to be mixed randomly. The Maxwell model assumes
electricity, Luikov et al. [105] initially used the idea that one phase is continuous, whereas the other
of an elementary cell, as representative of the model phase is dispersed as uniform spheres. Several other
structure of materials, to calculate the effective ther- models have been reviewed in Refs. [107,110,111],
mal conductivity of powdered systems and solid por- among others.
ous materials. In the same paper, a method is The use of some of these structural models to
proposed for the estimation of the effective thermal calculate the thermal conductivity of a hypothetical
conductivity of mixtures of powdered and solid porous material is presented in Figure 4.7. The paral-
porous materials. lel model gives the larger value for the effective ther-
Since then, a number of structural models have mal conductivity, whereas the perpendicular model
been proposed, some of which are given in Table 4.7. gives the lower value. All other models predict values
The perpendicular model assumes that heat conduction in between. The use of structural models has been
TABLE 4.7
Structural Models for Thermal Conductivity in Heterogeneous Materials
Perpendicular
Mixed
Maxwell
Random
Parallel
Effective
thermal
conductivity
k2
FIGURE 4.7 Effect of geometry on the thermal conductivity of heterogeneous materials using structural models.
successfully extended to foods [108,112], which ex- formulas of Chapman and Enskog for monoatomic
hibit a more complex structure than that of other gases, of Eucken for polyatomic ones, or of Bridgman
materials, whereas this structure often changes during for pure liquids. The thermal conductivity of solids,
the heat conduction. however, has not yet been predicted using basic ther-
A systematic general procedure for selecting suit- mophysical or molecular properties, just like the
able structural models, even in multiphase systems, analogous diffusion coefficient. Usually, the thermal
has been proposed in Ref. [113]. This method is based conductivities of solids must be established experi-
on a model discrimination procedure. If a component mentally since they depend upon a large number of
has unknown thermal conductivity, the method esti- factors that cannot be easily measured or predicted.
mates the dependence of the temperature on the un- A large number of correlations are listed in the
known thermal conductivity, and the suitable structural literature for the estimation of thermal conductivity
models simultaneously. as a function of characteristic properties of the ma-
An excellent example of applicability of the above terial. Such relations, however, have limited practical
is in the case of starch, a useful material in extrusion. utility since the values of the necessary properties are
The granular starch consists of two phases, the wet not readily available.
granules and the air–vapor mixture in the intergranu- A method has been developed for the prediction
lar space. The starch granule also consists of two of thermal conductivity as a function of temperature,
phases, the dry starch and the water. Consequently, porosity, material skeleton thermal conductivity,
the thermal conductivity of the granular starch de- thermal conductivity of the gas in the porous, mech-
pends on the thermal conductivities of pure materials anical load on the porous material, radiation, and
(i.e., dry pure starch, water, air, and vapor, all func- optical and surface properties of the material’s par-
tions of temperature) and the structures of granular ticles [105]. The method produced satisfactory results
starch and the starch granule. It has been shown that for a wide range of materials (quartz sand, powdered
the parallel model is the best model for both the Plexiglas, perlite, silica gel, etc.).
granular starch and the starch granule [113]. These It has been proposed that the thermal conductiv-
results led to simultaneous experimental determin- ity of wet beads of granular material be estimated as a
ation of the thermal conductivity of dry pure starch function of material content and the thermal conduct-
versus temperature. Dry pure starch is a material that ivity of each of the three phases [114]. The results of
cannot be isolated for direct measurement. the method were validated in a small number of ma-
terials such as crushed marble, slate, glass, and quartz
4.3.5 THEORETICAL ESTIMATION sand.
Empirical equations for estimating the thermal
As in the case of the diffusion coefficient, the thermal conductivity of foods as a function of their com-
conductivity in fluids can be predicted with satisfac- position have been proposed in the literature. In par-
tory accuracy using theoretical expressions, such as the ticular, it has been suggested that the thermal
TABLE 4.9
Equations for Estimating Heat and Mass Transfer Coefficients
T9.11 and Equation T9.12 of Table 4.9 for the 4.4.5 THEORETICAL ESTIMATION
calculation of heat and mass transfer coefficients,
No theory is available for estimating the heat and
respectively. Further information for fluidized bed
mass transfer coefficients using basic thermophysical
drying can be found in Ref. [141].
properties. The analogy of heat and mass transfer
Vibration can intensify heat and mass transfer
can be used to obtain mass transfer data from heat
between the particles and gas. The following correc-
transfer data and vice versa. For this purpose, the
tion has been suggested for the heat and mass transfer
Chilton–Colburn analogies can be used [129]
coefficients when vibration occurs [6]
Packed
Fluidized
Rotary
100 Spray
Heat
Pneumatic
transfer
coefficient
(W/m2 K)
10
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
FIGURE 4.8 Heat transfer coefficients versus air velocity for some dryers (particle size 10 mm; drying conditions TA ¼ 808C,
XA ¼ 10 g/kg db).
1
Packed
Fluidized
Rotary
0.1 Spray
Heat
Pneumatic
transfer
coefficient
(W/(m2 s))
0.01
0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
FIGURE 4.9 Mass transfer coefficients versus air velocity for some dryers (particle size 10 mm; drying conditions TA ¼
808C, XA ¼ 10 g/kg db).
TABLE 4.11
Effect of Various Factors on the Drying Constant
K, Drying constant; TA, temperature; uA, air velocity; aw, water activity; d, particle diameter; b1, parameters.
Source: From Brunauer, S., Deming, L.S., Deming, W.E., and Teller, E., Am. Chem. Soc. J., 62, 1723, 1940. With permission.
empirical constant using theoretical arguments has of moisture diffusivity. For slabs, for example, the
little, if any, meaning. Nevertheless, if we assume following equation is valid:
that for some drying conditions the controlling mech-
anism is the moisture diffusion in the material, then
the drying constant can be expressed as a function K ¼ p2 D=L2 (4:15)
1 cm 100°C
4
1.5 cm
Drying 3
constant 70°C
(1/h)
2
40°C
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Air velocity (m/s)
Green pepper
0.8
0.6
Drying 0.10
constant aw = 0.30
(1/h)
0.60
0.4
0.2
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Temperature (°C)
Shelled corn
FIGURE 4.10 Effect of various factors on the drying constant. Data for green pepper are from Kiranoudis, C.T., Maroulis,
Z.B., and Marinos-Kouris, D., Drying Technol., 10(4), 995, 1992 and data for shelled corn are from Westerman, P.W., White,
G.M., and Ross, I.J., Trans. ASAE, 16, 1136, 1973.
Desorption
Equilibrium
material
Adsorption
moisture
content
Water activity
Water activity
FIGURE 4.12 The five types of isotherms. (From Brunauer, S., Deming, L.S., Deming, W.E., and Teller, E., Am. Chem. Soc.
J., 62, 1723, 1940.)
value. The air may be circulated (dynamic methods) comprises 2200 references, including about 900 pa-
or stagnant (static). The material weight may be regis- pers with information on equilibrium moisture con-
tered continuously (continuous methods) or discon- tent of foods in defined environments. The papers are
tinuously (discontinuous methods). listed alphabetically according to the names of the
first author, but they are also grouped according to
4.6.2.2 Hygrometric Methods product.
Additional bibliographies should also be men-
During the measurement, the material moisture con- tioned. The Handbook of Food Isotherms contains
tent is kept constant until the surrounding air attains more than 1000 isotherms, with a mathematical de-
the constant equilibrium value. The air–water activity scription of over 800 [161]. About 460 isotherms were
is measured via hygrometer or manometer. obtained from the monograph of Ref. [162]. Data on
The working group in the COST 90bis Project has sorption properties of selected pharmaceutical mater-
developed a reference material (microcrystalline cel- ials are presented in Ref. [98].
lulose, MCC) and a reference method for measuring
water sorption isotherms, and conducted a collabora-
tive study to determine the precision (repeatability 4.6.4 FACTORS AFFECTING THE EQUILIBRIUM
and reproducibility) with which the sorption isotherm MOISTURE CONTENT
of the reference material may be determined by
the reference method. A detailed procedure for the Equilibrium material moisture content depends upon
resulting standardized method was presented, and many factors, among which are the chemical compos-
the factors influencing the results of the method ition, the physical structure, and the surrounding air
were discussed [157–159]. conditions. A large number of equations (theoretical,
semiempirical, empirical) have been proposed, none
4.6.3 DATA COMPILATION of which, however, can describe the phenomenon of
hysteresis. Another basic handicap of the equations is
A large volume of data of equilibrium moisture con- that their applicability is not satisfactory over the
tent appears in the literature. Data for more than 35 entire range of water activity (0 # aw # 1).
polymeric materials, such as natural fibers, proteins, Table 4.13 lists the best-known isotherm equa-
plastics, and synthetic fibers, are given in Ref. [8]. tions. The Langmuir equation can be applied in type I
Isotherms for 32 materials (organic and inorganic) isotherm behavior. The Brunauer–Emmet–Tetter
are also given in Ref. [92]. The literature is especially (BET) equation has been successfully applied to al-
rich in sorption isotherms of foods due to the fact that most all kinds of materials, but especially to hydro-
the value of water activity is a critical parameter for philic polymers for aw < 0.5. The Halsey equation
food preservation safety and quality. is suitable for materials of types I, II, and III. The
A bibliography on sorption isotherms of food Henderson equation is less versatile than that of
materials is presented in Ref. [160]. The collection Halsey. For cereal and other field crops, the Chung
Equation Name Equation Ref. Material b0 b10 · 105 b11 b20 b21
60
Equilibrium
material
moisture 40
content 30⬚C
(%db) 45⬚C
60⬚C
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water activity
Potatoes
80
60
Equilibrium
material
moisture 40
content 30°C
(%db) 45°C
60°C
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water activity
Sultana raisins
FIGURE 4.13 Effect of air–water activity and temperature on equilibrium material moisture content for two foods. (Data for
potatoes from Kiranoudis, C.T., Maroulis, Z.B., Tsami, E., and Marinos-Kouris, D., J. Food Eng., 20(1), 55, 1992 and data
for sultana raisins from Maroulis, Z.B., Tsami, E., Marinos-Kouris, D., and Saravacos, G.D., J. Food Eng., 7(1), 63, 1988.)
model that takes into account the controlling properties describing these phenomena describe the
mechanisms of heat and mass transfer is considered. drying process as well.
This model includes the heat and mass transport If, for example, the phenomena considered are
properties as model parameters or, even more, in-
cludes the functional dependence of the relevant fac- The moisture diffusion in the solid toward its
tors on the transport properties. Third, a regression external surface
analysis procedure is used to obtain the transport The vaporization and convective transfer of the
properties as model parameters by fitting the model vapor into the airstream
to experimental data of material moisture content and The conductive heat transfer within the solid mass
temperature. The convective heat transfer from the air to the
Theoretically, all the properties describing the solid’s surface
drying kinetics could be estimated simultaneously.
We can define the drying kinetics (in an analogous then the following properties describe the drying
manner to reaction kinetics) as the dependence of kinetics:
factors affecting the drying on the drying rate. Drying
is not a chemical reaction, but it involves simultaneous Effective moisture diffusivity
heat and mass transfer phenomena. Consequently, the Air boundary mass transfer coefficient
Equilibrium
material
moisture
content
(%db)
20
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Water activity
FIGURE 4.14 Equilibrium material moisture content for some organic and inorganic materials. (Data from Perry, R.H. and
Chilton, C.H., Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 4th and 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, 1973.)
Measuring section
7 1
5 4 3
FIGURE 4.15 Typical experimental drying apparatus: (1) sample; (2) air recirculating duct; (3) heater; (4) humidifier; (5) fan;
(6) valve; (7) straighteners; FCR, airflow control and recording; HCR, air humidity control and recording; TCR, air
temperature control and recording; WR, sample weight recording; TR, sample temperature recording; PC, personal
computer, for on-line measurement and control.
of drying conditions on transport properties form the model of Section 4.7.3, two regression analysis pro-
properties model. cedures can be applied [43]: transport properties esti-
In the process model, each mechanism of heat and mation and transport properties equations estimation.
mass transfer is expressed using a driving force and a
transport property as a coefficient of proportionality 4.7.4.1 Transport Properties Estimation
between the rate and the corresponding driving force.
In the properties model, several formulas can be con- It is assumed that during the drying experiments the
sidered. Some assumptions have been suggested in the drying conditions are not varying very much with
previous sections. time, and the transport properties can be considered
constant (not functions of the drying conditions). The
4.7.4 REGRESSION ANALYSIS transport properties are estimated as parameters of
the process model by fitting it to experimental data.
The parameters of a model can be estimated by fitting Only the properties of the controlling mechanisms
the model to experimental data [181,182]. Using the can be obtained. Consequently, the precision and
Drying conditions
Model results
(air humidity,
Process model (material moisture content
temperature and velocity)
(heat and mass transfer equations) and temperature)
Transport properties
(moisture diffusivity, thermal conductivity,
heat and mass transfer coefficients)
Measured Measured
input output
variables variables
Experimental
apparatus
Material No. of Papers No. of Data Di (m2/s) DO (m2/s) Ei (kJ/mol) E0 (kJ/mol) s.d. (m2/s)
Cereal products
—Corn 4 26 4.40E-09 0.00Eþ00 0.0 10.4 1.48E-10
Dent 3 15 1.19E-08 0.00Eþ00 49.4 73.1 3.30E-10
Grains 3 28 1.15E-09 6.66E-11 10.2 57.8 3.17E-10
Kernel 4 25 5.87E-10 5.32E-10 0.0 33.8 1.88E-11
Pericarp 3 13 1.13E-09 0.00Eþ00 10.0 5.0 2.34E-11
—Pasta 3 21 1.39E-09 0.00Eþ00 16.2 2.0 7.71E-12
Rice
Kernel 3 12 9.75E-09 0.00Eþ00 12.5 2.0 5.52E-11
—Rough rice 7 35 2.27E-09 0.00Eþ00 12.7 0.7 3.66E-11
—Wheat 6 22 1.94E-09 1.30E-09 0.0 46.3 9.53E-11
Fruits
—Apple 8 39 7.97E-10 1.16E-10 16.7 56.6 1.92E-10
—Banana 4 34 2.03E-09 4.66E-10 9.9 4.6 1.77E-10
Grapes
Seedless 3 32 5.35E-09 0.00Eþ00 34.0 10.4 1.45E-10
—Raisins 3 10 8.11E-10 1.05E-10 21.4 50.1 6.88E-11
Model foods
—Amioca 4 49 1.52E-08 1.52E-08 0.0 33.3 1.02E-09
—Hylon-7 5 48 1.96E-08 1.96E-08 0.0 24.2 3.87E-09
Vegetables
—Carrot 9 90 2.47E-09 1.54E-09 13.9 11.3 1.69E-09
—Garlic 4 22 5.33E-10 1.68E-11 15.4 7.1 7.43E-11
—Onion 4 31 1.45E-08 0.00Eþ00 70.2 10.4 1.58E-09
—Potato 16 106 1.57E-09 4.31E-10 44.7 76.9 4.02E-10
of parameter estimation are presented in Table The moisture diffusivity increases, in general, with
4.16. Figure 4.18 through Figure 4.21 present the increasing moisture content. Temperature has a posi-
model-calculated values for selected food materials tive effect, which depends strongly on the food ma-
as a function of moisture content and temperature. terial. The energy of activation for diffusion E of
The regression procedure was applied simultan- water is, in general, higher in the dry food materials.
eously to all the data of each material, regardless of Some observed exceptions may be explained by the
the data sources. Thus, the results are not based on the prevailing type of diffusion. Thus, lower values of
data of only one author and, consequently, they are of activation energy for diffusion are expected for porous
higher accuracy and general applicability. foods, where vapor diffusion is important. In general,
The diffusivity parameters Do and Di of the pro- temperature has a stronger effect on diffusivity in
posed model vary in the range of 1010 to 108 m2/s. liquids and solids than in the gaseous state.
It should be noted that the self-diffusivity of water is
approximately 109 m2/s, and the moisture diffusivity 4.8.2 THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
in bone-dry food material should be lower (in our
analysis, by a factor of 100). A total of 146 papers were retrieved from the litera-
Low moisture diffusivities are found in nonporous ture from which 1210 data were obtained. These data
and sugar-containing foods, whereas higher values of refer to more than 100 food materials classified into
moisture diffusivity characterize porous food mater- 11 food categories. Among the available data only 13
ials. Diffusivities higher than the self-diffusivity of materials have more than 10 data, which come from
water are indicative of vapor diffusion in porous more than three publications. This procedure is ap-
solids. plied to these data and the results of parameter
1.E−08 1.E−08
Diffusivity (m2/s)
Diffusivity (m2/s)
Banana
1.E−09 1.E−09
Apple
Corn grains
Corn
1.E−10
1.E−10
Corn dent
Grapes,seedless
Raisins
Corn kernel
1.E−11
1.E−11
Corn pericarp
1.E−12
0.1 1 10 1.E−12
Moisture (kg/kg db) 0.1 1 10
Moisture (kg/kg db)
1.E−06
Cereal products
1.E−06
Temperature (⬚C) = 25
Vegetables
1.E−07
Temperature (⬚C) = 25
1.E−07
1.E−08
1.E−08
Diffusivity (m2/s)
Diffusivity (m2/s)
Carrot 1.E−09
1.E−09
Rough rice
Onion
1.E−11
1.E−11 Pasta
1.E−12
1.E−12 0.1 1 10
0.1 10
Moisture (kg/kg db) Moisture (kg/kg db)
FIGURE 4.19 Predicted values of moisture diffusivity of FIGURE 4.21 Predicted values of moisture diffusivity of
vegetables at 258C. cereal products at 258C.
TABLE 4.18
Parameter Estimates of the Proposed Mathematical Model
Material No. of Papers No. of Data li (W/(m K)) l0 (W/(m K)) Ei (kJ/mol) E0 (kJ/mol) s.d. (W/(m K))
Cereal products
Corn 3 15 1.580 0.070 7.2 5.0 0.047
Fruits
Apple 12 68 0.589 0.287 2.4 11.7 0.114
Orange 4 13 0.642 0.106 1.3 0.0 0.007
Pear 5 15 0.658 0.270 2.4 1.9 0.016
Model foods
Amioca 5 29 0.718 0.120 3.2 14.4 0.037
Starch 4 24 0.623 0.243 0.3 0.4 0.006
Hylon 3 21 0.800 0.180 9.9 0.072
Vegetables
Potato 12 37 0.611 0.049 0.0 47.0 0.059
Tomato 5 28 0.680 0.220 0.2 5.0 0.047
Dairy
Milk 5 33 0.665 0.212 1.7 1.9 0.005
Meat
Beef 6 37 0.568 0.280 2.2 3.2 0.017
Other
Rapeseed 3 35 0.239 0.088 3.6 0.6 0.023
Baked products
Dough 3 15 0.800 0.273 2.7 0.0 0.183
Fruits Vegetables
25⬚C 25⬚C
Tomato
Pear
Conductivity (W/(m K))
Apple
0.1
0.1 0.1 1 10
0.1 1 10 Moisture (kg/kg db)
Moisture (kg/kg db)
awe equilibrium air–water activity eXi relative deviation between experimental and
bi constants in equations of Table 4.11 and Table calculated values of material moisture content,
4.12 and in Equation 4.21, various units of kg/kg db
measure F constant (Table 4.7)
BiH Biot number for heat transfer (see Table 4.10) f friction factor
BiM Biot number for mass transfer (see Table 4.10) f’ vibration frequency, 1/s
ci constants in Equation 4.19, various units of G mass flow rate of air, kg/(m2 s)
measure Gu Gukhman number (see Table 4.10)
cp specific heat, kJ/(kg K) hH heat transfer coefficient, kW/(m2 K)
DHs latent heat of vaporization, kJ/kg hM mass transfer coefficient, kg/(m2 s)
d particle diameter, m H0 static bed height for spouted beds, m
di constants in Equation 4.23, various units of hs specific enthalpy, kJ/kg
measure hVH volumetric heat transfer coefficient, kW/(m3 K)
D diffusivity in solids, m2/s hVM volumetric mass transfer coefficient kg/(m3 s)
DA vapor diffusivity in air, m2/s J rate of mass transfer, kg/s
D’ diameter of spouted bed, m jH heat transfer factor (see Table 4.10)
db dry base jM mass transfer factor (see Table 4.10)
DO Arrhenius factor in Equation 4.2, m2/s K drying constant, 1/s, 1/h
E activation energy in Arrhenius equation, kJ/ k effective thermal conductivity, kW/(m K)
kmol kA thermal conductivity of air, kW/(m K)
eTi relative deviation between experimental and ki thermal conductivity of phase i, kW/(m2 K)
calculated values of material temperature, 8C L slab thickness, m
Greek Symbols
a specific area, m2/m3
« void fraction (porosity)
d constrictivity
m dynamic viscosity of air, kg/ms
rA density of air, kg/m3
0.1 r density of material, kg/m3
0.1 1.0 10.0 t tortuosity
Moisture (kg/kg db)