4.7 Article

Optimization of osmotic dehydration of potato using response surface methodology

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING
卷 79, 期 1, 页码 344-352

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.01.069

关键词

osmotic dehydration; potato; response surface methodology; model fitting; optimization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Response surface methodology was used to determine the optimum processing conditions that yield maximum water loss and weight reduction and minimum solid gain and water activity during osmotic dehydration of potatoes. Temperature (20-60 degrees C), processing time (0.5-8 h), sucrose (40-60% w/w) and salt (0-15% w/w) concentrations were the factors investigated with respect to water loss (WL), solid gain (SG), weight reduction (WR) and water activity (a(w)). Experiments were designed according to Central Composite Rotatable Design with these four factors each at five different levels, including central and axial points. Experiments were conducted in a shaker (Thermoshake-Gerthardt) with constant agitation of 200 rpm and solution to sample ratio of 5/1 (w/w). With respect to water loss, solid gain, weight reduction and water activity, both linear and quadratic effects of four variables were found to be significant. For each response, second order polynomial models were developed using multiple linear regression analysis. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to check the adequacy and accuracy of the fitted models. The response surfaces and contour maps showing the interaction of process variables were constructed. Applying desirability function method, optimum operating conditions were found to be temperature of 22 degrees C, sucrose concentration of 54.5%, salt concentration of 14% and treatment time of 329 min. At this optimum point, water loss, solid gain, weight reduction and water activity were found to be 59.1 (g/100 g initial sample), 6.0 (g/100 g initial sample), 52.9 (g/100 g initial sample) and 0.785, respectively. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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