4.5 Article

Experimental study on improvement of freeze-drying process for porcine aorta

期刊

DRYING TECHNOLOGY
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 401-415

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07373937.2020.1802744

关键词

Freeze-drying; dehydration rate; sublimation; rehydration capacity; mechanical properties; histological scanning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Freeze-drying is an effective method for preserving aortas, and accurate monitoring of the drying process is crucial to maintain the original properties. This study used a contactless mass measurement device to monitor the drying process and found that real-time weighing was more accurate than measuring temperature in monitoring the sublimation process. The removal ratio of free water during primary drying greatly affected the properties of the lyophilized samples, and thorough sublimation contributed to better product performance.
Freeze-drying is an effective method for preservation of aortas. In order to maintain the original properties of aortas, the sublimation drying process requires accurate monitoring. In this study, we used a contactless mass measurement device to monitor drying process, porcine aortic segments were divided into four series for freeze-drying, then relevant experiments and calculations were carried out to evaluate the quality of lyophilized samples. The study found that the sublimation process could not be accurately monitored by measured temperature, however, the real-time weighing could do it well, and was suitable to judge the endpoint of primary drying. Meanwhile, the change law of sublimation temperature was obtained by quasi-steady heat transfer equations. The removal ratio of free water during the primary drying greatly affected the properties of lyophilized samples, thorough sublimation had contributed to better performance of products, especially in mechanical properties. In addition, compared with annular aortic segments, the flaky samples had better heat transfer and performed better in histological scanning.

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

4.5
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