4.4 Article

Kinetics of the pulsed vacuum osmotic dehydration of green fig (Ficus carica L.)

期刊

HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER
卷 55, 期 6, 页码 1685-1691

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00231-018-02559-w

关键词

Water loss; Solid gain; Water activity; Mathematical models; Drying; Fruit

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) [001]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)
  4. Department of Agricultural Development of Sao Sebastiao do Paraiso
  5. Tozzi Food Industry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fig (Ficus carica L.) is a fruit native to the Mediterranean region. However, it has spread worldwide. Osmotic dehydration is used to reduce the moisture content in food, preserving its main characteristics. This study aimed to obtain the kinetics of the water loss, solid gain and water activity of green figs that were cut transversely and osmotically dehydrated in different sucrose solutions (40, 50 and 60 degrees Brix). The osmotic dehydration occurred at 40 degrees C, with a vacuum pulse of 74mmHg in the first 5min of the process in a total time of 240min. The ratio of sample:solution was kept constant at 1:10 (weight/weight). Periodically, the samples were weighed to calculate the kinetics of water loss, solid gain, and water activity. The increase in the concentration of the sucrose solution from 40 to 60 degrees Brix promoted a percentage increase of water loss from 8.14 +/- 0.80 to 12.80 +/- 0.50%, of solid gain (0.89 +/- 0.31 to 1.42 +/- 0.70%), and the reduction of water activity (0.93 +/- 0.02 to 0.91 +/- 0.01). The mathematical models of Peleg and Azuara were tested for fitting the kinetics of water loss and solid gain. Both the mathematical models of Peleg and Azuara presented good fitness to the experimental data. However, the latter was more adequate (higher r(2) and lower error), with predicted equilibrium conditions closer to the experimental values.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据