4.7 Article

Studying the drying characteristics and quality attributes of chili pepper at different maturity stages: Experimental and mechanistic model

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csite.2021.101052

关键词

Cabinet dryer; Biot-dincer correlation; Chili pepper; Moisture diffusivity; Color value; Mechanistic drying model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that chili peppers dried at 35% relative humidity and 50 degrees Celsius had the best drying quality, and as the drying air temperature increased, the moisture diffusivity and mass transfer coefficient increased. However, these values decreased with an increase in drying air relative humidity.
The drying characteristics of chili pepper at three maturity stages under different drying conditions were studied under a hot air drying cabinet. The drying was performed at a relative humidity of 25%, 35%, and 45% and temperatures of 40 degrees C, 50 degrees C, and 60 degrees C. The response surface methodology was performed to find the optimal drying conditions. A mass transfer model was developed based on mechanistic Biot (Bi)-Dincer (Di) number correlations using those optimal drying conditions. The study showed that the color value of chili pepper was deteriorated with an increase in temperature. The suitable drying condition that produced the highest quality within the shortest drying time was a RH of 35% and a temperature of 50 degrees C for all maturity stages. The values of Bi numbers were affected by the maturity stage of the chili. Effective diffusivity and mass transfer coefficient of moisture increased with an increase in drying air temperature but decreased with an increase in drying air RH. The average value of moisture diffusivity and mass transfer coefficient decreased with chili maturity. The results indicate the capability of the mechanistic mass transfer model in predicting the drying characteristics, moisture diffusivity and mass transfer coefficient during the drying of chili pepper at different maturity stages.

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

4.7
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