1. bookVolume 11 (2018): Issue 2 (October 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1339-3065
First Published
10 Dec 2012
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Batch drying of sliced tomatoes at specific ambient conditions

Published Online: 19 Dec 2018
Volume & Issue: Volume 11 (2018) - Issue 2 (October 2018)
Page range: 134 - 140
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
1339-3065
First Published
10 Dec 2012
Publication timeframe
2 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

In this work, drying of tomato slices was studied in a laboratory scale batch dryer working at conditions specific for geographical locations with low ambient pressure and low relative humidity of air. Tomato is a perishable farm product with high moisture content. Despite their high value, tomatoes are subjected to wastage and spoilage during their seasonal period; to last longer after harvested, they need to be treated by drying. Drying is one of the most widely used methods of tomato preserving for a longer period of time. This study involves experimental work on tomatoes drying in a tray laboratory batch dryer with the dimensions of (490 × 330 × 310) mm, a load cell-force sensor (range: 0–5 kg), fan (speed: 0–2500 rpm), air flow sensor (0–150 l/min) and a temperature and humidity monitoring system. This study was aimed at the development of a suitable drying method for the production of dehydrated agricultural products under specific air properties and climate conditions such as low ambient pressure and low relative humidity. During the experiment, the average ambient pressure was 82 kPa, and the average relative humidity of air was 20 %. Drying characteristics of tomato slices were determined at three temperature levels, namely: 50 °C, 60 °C and 70 °C,and three air flow rates: 30 l/s, 40 l/s and 50 l/s, for each temperature level. In this study, the effect of temperature, air flow rate, and ambient conditions on the drying rate of tomato slices were studied. The results indicate that during the experiments, tomatoes were dried to the final moisture content of 32.2 % from 92 %. Drying time at 50 °C, 60 °C and 70°C, and air flow of 30 l/s was 17.80 h, 15.80 h, and 14.08 h, respectively. For the air flow rate of 40 l/s, the drying time was 15.0 h, 12.9 h and 11.7 h and for the air flow rate of 50 l/s, the drying time of tomato slices was 14.0 h, 11.6 h and 10.2 h, respectively.

Keywords

Abano E, HMa, Qu W (2011) Journal of Food Processing and Technology 2: 123. doi: 10.4172/2157-7110.1000123.10.4172/2157-7110.1000123Search in Google Scholar

Akanbi TC, Adeyemi SR, Ojo A (2006) Journal of Food Engineering 73: 157–163.10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.01.015Search in Google Scholar

Belghith A, Azzouz S, ElCafsi A (2016) Heat Mass Transf. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 52: 407–419.Search in Google Scholar

Bennamoun L, Khama R, Léonard A (2015) Food and bioproducts processing 94: 114–123.10.1016/j.fbp.2015.02.006Search in Google Scholar

Ben MS, Ben MS (2014) International Journal of Energy Engineering. 4 (2A): 17–24.Search in Google Scholar

Chkir I, Amine BM, Ayed L, Azzouz S, Kechaou N, Hamdi M (2015) Food and bioproducts processing. 94: 10–19.Search in Google Scholar

Correia AFK, Loro AC, Zanatta S, Spoto MHF, Vieira TMFS (2015) Hindawi Publishing Corporation International Journal of Food Science Volume 2015, Article ID 970724, 7 pages.10.1155/2015/970724474555926904666Search in Google Scholar

Demiray E, Tulek Y, Yilmaz Y (2013) LWT – Food Science and Technology 50: 172–176.10.1016/j.lwt.2012.06.001Search in Google Scholar

Doymaz I, Ozdemir O (2014) International Journal of Food Science and Technology 49: 558–564.10.1111/ijfs.12337Search in Google Scholar

Doymaz B (2007) Journal of Food Engineering 78: 1291–1297.10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.12.047Search in Google Scholar

Durigon A, Gimenez de Souza P, Augusto M, Carciofi B, Borges L, João (2016) Food and bioproducts processing 100: 145–155.10.1016/j.fbp.2016.06.019Search in Google Scholar

Edibon (2014) C/Del Agua, 14. P.I. San Jose de Baleras. 28918 LEGANES (Madrid) SPAIN.Search in Google Scholar

Goula AM, Karapantsios TD, Achilias DS, Adamopoulos KG (2008) Journal of Food Engineering 85: 73–83.10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.07.015Search in Google Scholar

Gómez-Ramírez C, Sosa-Morales ME, Palou E, López-Malo A (2013) International Journal of Food Microbiology 164: 23–25.10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.03.01723587709Search in Google Scholar

Haydary J, Steltenpohl P (2015) Chemical Engineering II, Vol. 1 (pp 180–194). Ministry of higher education of Afghanistan, Bratislava, Slovakia, STU.Search in Google Scholar

Khama R, Aissani F, Alkama R, Bennamoun L, Fraikin L, Salmon T, Plougonven E, Leonard A (2016) Journal of Engineering Science and Technology 3: 443–457.Search in Google Scholar

Kumer S, Akanda MAR, Biswas DK, Roy A, Khatun MA, Goffar SK (2016) Journal of Integrative Agriculture 15: 2380–2392.10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61370-9Search in Google Scholar

Lucini L, Rocchetti G, Kane D, Trevisan M (2017) Food Control 73: 696–703.10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.09.020Search in Google Scholar

Movagharnejad K, Maryam N (2007) Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 59: 78–85.10.1016/j.compag.2007.05.003Search in Google Scholar

Ruiz CA, Cuadros F, López-Rodríguez F (2009) food and bioproducts processing 87: 282–291.10.1016/j.fbp.2008.12.003Search in Google Scholar

Sacilik K, Keskin R, Konuralp EA (2006) Journal of Food Engineering 73: 231–238.10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.01.025Search in Google Scholar

Tzempelikos DA, Mitrakos D, Vouros AP, Bardakas AV, Filios AE, Margaris DP (2015) Journal of Food Engineering 156: 10–21.10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.01.017Search in Google Scholar

Viswanathan R, Jayas DS, Hulasare RB (2003) Biosystems Engineering 86:465–472.10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2003.08.013Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo