4.5 Article

Study and comparison of different drying processes for dehydration of raspberries

Journal

DRYING TECHNOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 689-698

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2016.1202958

Keywords

Combined drying; drying rate; quality parameters; raspberries

Funding

  1. Universidad Nacional de La Plata (UNLP)
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET), Argentina

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare different drying methods (microwave, hot air + microwave, and osmotic dehydration + microwave) in raspberries (cv. Heritage). A portion of raspberries was pretreated with osmotic dehydration (60 degrees Brix sucrose solution at 20 degrees C for 360min) and another with hot air drying (HAD) (1.5m/s air speed at 60 degrees C for 300min). Pretreated raspberries were then dried by microwave and at three different intensities (3.5, 7.5, and 11W/g). Physicochemical properties (moisture content, water activity, and drying rate) and quality parameters (optical properties, mechanical properties, antioxidant capacity, and rehydration capacity) of dried raspberries were evaluated. Results showed that the microwave drying (MWD) at 7.5W/g (50min and final temperature of 79 perpendicular to 5.1 degrees C) allowed a high yield of dried raspberries. The combined processes were not efficient to accelerate the decrease of moisture content, due to the low drying rate of the pretreatments. In terms of quality, none of the drying processes allowed a high retention of the antioxidant capacity. However, they allowed an appropriate rehydration performance. The combination of HAD with MWD allowed obtaining a good appearance and desirable texture on the dried product. Thus, this last option seems to be the best among the drying methods tested, but additional studies are required to improve the efficiency of the process and the effect on the antioxidant capacity during drying.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available