4.5 Article

Convective drying of black pepper: Experimental measurements and mathematical modeling of the process

期刊

FOOD AND BIOPRODUCTS PROCESSING
卷 143, 期 -, 页码 102-116

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fbp.2023.10.009

关键词

Activation energy; Equilibrium isotherms; Grains; Heat and mass transfer; Isosteric heat; Moisture diffusivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the drying kinetics of black pepper through experimental and mathematical modeling approaches. The models developed provided valuable insights into the coupling between heat and mass transfers during the drying process, and accurately described the drying behavior of black pepper.
Black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) is an important worldwide agricultural commodity. The post-harvest moisture (65%, wet basis) needs to be reduced to ensure its conservation and commercialization. Nowadays, large-scale drying is conducted in open-air sun-drying or adapted dryers, compromising the product's quality. A systematic and phenomenological analysis of the drying process is a required task. Thin-layer drying experiments and mathematical modeling of the process were conducted towards qualitative and quantitative information on the drying kinetics of black pepper. The experimental data were simulated using two approaches: a model consisting of a set of differential equations that described the coupling between heat and mass transfers, and an isothermal model based on diffusion theory, in which it was possible to estimate the effective diffusivity, whose values were in the range of 1.91 x 10-11 to 1.22 x 10-10 m2 s- 1, and the activation energy, value equal to 54 kJ mol-1. The mass transfer coefficient was in the range of 3.83 x 10-5 to 1.97 x 10-4 kg s- 1 m- 2 and the heat transfer coefficient in the range of 42.39-228.51 W m- 2 degrees C-1. Halsey's equation was selected to estimate the equilibrium moisture of the grains. Overall, the proposed mathematical models satisfactorily described the drying kinetics of black pepper.

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